Thursday, May 16, 2013

there's looking, and then there's looking

A 74-year-old pediatrician in Washington DC was arrested earlier this month for downloading fourteen images of child pornography. There is no evidence that this man produced the images.

The doctor practiced in a poor area of the city for decades, with no allegations of improper behavior toward anyone, let alone children. He had no criminal record.
“If the allegations are true, it just sickens me,” said D.C. Council member Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 7). Alexander lives near the doctor and said many friends and associates, and their children, had been Dickey’s patients.
“He practiced in the neighborhood,” Alexander said. “He’s been there for years. He’s had generations of children. He was very quiet, very professional, it seemed. . . . Just to think that someone you entrust your children to might have that mind-set. No one in their right mind would entrust their child to a child pornographer.”
Watching child porn makes you a child pornographer? Only if watching The Little Mermaid makes you an animator. 

People in their right minds have been trusting their children to the doctor in DC for decades and no one reported anything fishy going on with their children. So now we're all scared of him? That makes no sense.

This doctor had a long history of treating the poor, charging them on a sliding scale so that the very poor paid much less for medical treatment than those who had a better income. How quick the DC Council member was to make assumptions about the doctor's "mindset." How do we know what the man's mindset was? Mind-reading hasn't come too far as a science, the last I checked.

I know of a doctor who looked at the same images my husband looked at, and yet he is not in prison. This doctor looked at the images because law enforcement asked him to estimate the ages of the young people in the images. Doctors are asked to consult in child porn cases to provide age estimates.

Law enforcement officers can be drawn in by child porn, just as many citizens have been. I make no excuses for those who use child porn. I am saying that those who look at child porn because they are paid to do so are also susceptible to whatever illicit allure child porn may carry. Law enforcement officers (and their medical consultants) are only human. (I am not suggesting the DC doctor was a consultant for law enforcement; I have no idea if he ever did that.)

Ah, you say. But the age-estimating doctors and cops are not aroused by the images! I ask, how could you possibly know? 

Just for kicks, perhaps we could hire a penile plethysmographer to see who is turned on by child porn and who is not. Penile plethysmography (PPG) is a controversial test that measures penile engorgement while the subject is viewing child porn to decide if the subect is aroused by the images or not. 

Did I say viewing child porn? Isn't that illegal? Well, yes, but it is legal for a plethysmographer to keep a supply of child porn images for this purpose and I'll bet he or she has more than fourteen images, too.

Perhaps the prosecution in the case of the DC doctor will be reasonable and let him serve probation. Elderly people in prison have it particularly hard. Medical care is iffy. Not all facilities even have a doctor on staff. Health care--physical and mental--is hit or miss.

For someone who dedicated a great part of his life to caring for children--and evidently did so without abusing them--this would be poor payback, indeed.

16 comments:

Anoni Tihnker said...

I think you should take a look at this. It just goes to show how obtuse our legal system is. This is an official and legitimate article.

http://m.ice.gov/news/releases/1206/120611newark.htm?f=m

Did you catch that part?
"An HSI special agent, acting in an undercover capacity, purchased a 20-day subscription to the "Illegal.CP" website in October 2005, and the next day, received an e-mail that provided a login and a password – indicating that the credit card charges would appear on the subscriber's credit card bill as "ADSOFT" and would include a charge for $79.99. Upon accessing the "Illegal.CP" website, the initial page warned subscribers as follows."

This makes me really angry because these law enforcement agents can look at these illicit materials, get a paycheck, and go home and feed their families, while the opposite is happening to those who are caught with some pictures. I'm not supporting any of this I'm merely stating the obscurity in our country's justice system. The funny thing is the law does not state what you do with the videos/images it only states that it is illegal to access with intent to view, produce, or distribute, but in this case our very own government PAID a commercial child pornography producing enterprise in order to gather evidence? I can think of other ways this could have been handled. I hope you see how ridiculous this country really is now....

Cori said...

Are you serious? Undercover police officers also buy drugs and do other illegal activities in an effort to procure evidence, and it's often the only way to actually catch a criminal.

As for the "illicit allure" child pornography offers, if you find ANY allure in child pornography you are a danger to children. Normal people aren't aroused by those materials, they are disgusted by even the idea of a child being sexualized.

Anoni Tihnker said...

It does not matter whether they were undercover or not. They paid $79.99 to access the website and this case in particular is where a Ukranian national was arrested in Thailand and extradited to New Jersey for operating those websites. He had bank accounts in Latvia and Ukraine and his co-conspirators were not caught. By paying $79.99 that money probably went to his co-conspirators who are now in the works on making another bunch of websites that advertise child pornography.

What I found awkward about this case is that after paying to access the website, federal authorities were able to acquire web server access logs that showed who the website's subscribers were. So in this case it was quite necessary to pay if you could have gotten hold of the logs in the first place with a subpoena...

As for your second argument perhaps you haven't read about Anthony Mangione who was supervisor for a Homeland Security Investigations in Southern Florida. This guy was caught sending and receiving child pornography and he was working for the government. The point that Marie is trying to make is law enforcement agents are no better than your average joe. They break the laws in an effort to enforce it, thereby counteracting its legality. A negative and a positive make a negative. There are some stories of police officers and federal agents that were caught with this material. All those federal agents working on child pornography cases now come from all walks of life and most likely have families too, just like those who were arrested with child pornography and do not work in federal law enforcement. They are just as guilty as average joes for possessing/downloading/viewing child pornography. In fact I hear the FBI has one of the world's largest collections of child pornography next to INTERPOL....

Cori said...

You're suggesting that law enforcement officials who do what is necessary to apprehend repulsive criminals is the same as just some disgusting pedophile who downloads the same material for sexual arousal? That's completely erroneous and nonsensical. The FBI and INTERPOL have a collection of child pornography for law enforcement purposes, not as a spank bank. That's like saying a soldier who drives a tank is just as guilty as a civilian who drives a tank. No, law enforcement at times must supersede the laws in order to uphold them and bring criminals to justice. I don't see cop cars chasing behind the cop in a high speed pursuit to arrest the police officer driving after he's arrested the criminal in the speeding vehicle.

Stop trying to make excuses for worthless scum like these people. Pedophiles are sick, there is no excuse for them and there is no fixing them. They're not victims, they victimize children. They need to be killed or locked away for life to protect the innocence of any child they would come near. That simple.

Marie said...

There, there, Cori. Let it out, dear. From the very start, we knew reason was probably too much for you.

Marie said...

...because compassion is obviously beyond your ken.

Anoni Tihnker said...

@Cori May
Law enforcement officials are just legal gangs that can do whatever they please. It is that same reason that they can look at child pornography without incurring the same consequences as Joe Pervert sitting in his home. No one knows whether or not a particular law enforcement official has created a tolerance to child pornography over the years.

I have heard arguments stating that merely viewing child pornography harms the victim. If that is the case then law enforcement officials should be just as guilty as anyone who as looked at them. This is a modern day witch hunt that the government is publicizing in order to gain support from ignorant folks like you who do not know anything on the matter.

The fact is a majority of the available child pornography out there is completely free of charge. The only reason it is illegal to possess, download, and access is because the Department of Justice believes correlation implies causation, meaning because Joe Pervert HAS these images he will subsequently molest a child sometime in the future.

Regardless of any laws that prohibit the download, possession, or access of these images, people around the world will continue to engage in this behavior because they are either not afraid of the law and have several tricks up their sleeves or they are letting their desires overrule their judgement making.

I'm surprised that no law enforcement officials have gone on to molest any children as far as the Department of Justice' statements go.

I can't believe what this country is coming to. Throwing people in jail and ruining their lives for possessing pictures and videos of an act that has already occurred yet the government argues that every time is download, accessed, and viewed that child is "re-victimized" it just makes me question what puritanical fools impose their opinions while making laws. I can go to BestGore.com and watch real beheadings and it isn't against the law...

Anoni Tihnker said...

@Cori
Soldiers protect our country, they don't enforce the law. As far as civilians driving a tank watch "Sons of Guns" on Discovery Channel. As far as legality I don't know of any laws that prohibit civilians from driving tanks. So your argument is flawed unless you can prove me otherwise

As far as your emotional rant at the end. I am simply trying to impose a sense of rationality to others, instead of having their emotions cloud their judgement, which in your case is clearly evident. Secondly, why do you bring pedophiles into the argument? Child pornography although may have some correlation with pedophiles, it does not mean that all who look at child pornography are in fact pedophiles. Pedophiles are technically victims of prison violence/murder and society because they are deemed a pariah...

Cori said...

"because the Department of Justice believes correlation implies causation, meaning because Joe Pervert HAS these images he will subsequently molest a child sometime in the future."

Actually, it's not just the DOJ "thinking" a disgusting pervert will act out their fantasies, it's because that's what happens. Even if it doesn't, viewing child pornography for the purpose of sexual gratification is victimizing that child. It IS the same as physical abuse, it IS disgusting and reprehensible. Let's see you raped and abused and have it all filmed and disseminated for people's viewing pleasure and see if you can just shrug off the people who view it and masturbate to your pain and suffering.

Marie, where's your compassion for those children your husband victimized? Where's you compassion for the children whose innocence was stolen, whose lives are forever and irrevocably altered, just so perverts like your husband can rub one out.

If you are capable of deriving any pleasure from the image or video of a child being harmed in any way you are sick and a danger to society. There is no solution for pedophiles, there is no rehabilitating them. They are damaged in a way we can't fix and there is no point in putting our future generations at risk for oxygen thieves who are too selfish and despicable to put the livelihood of a child ahead of their sexual pleasure.

Anoni Tihnker said...

Lady I really do believe you are spewing nonsense out of your anus...

"...because that's what happens". So anyone that watches any form of media that contains violence or sexual assault will go out and commit the same acts because "that's what happens"? You're arguments are corroding Cori. Like I said correlation does not imply causation.

"..viewing child pornography for the purpose of sexual gratification is victimizing that chid. It IS the same as physical abuse..". I did not know that extra-sensory perception or voodoo existed. Please do explain how these supernatural phenomenons work. The law does not state what you do with the images and videos, it only states that it is illegal to have in one's possession not possession with intent to masturbate. On the other hand how is the child aware that John Doe is masturbating to her image? How is any person whose picture is plastered to the Internet aware that anyone is masturbating to their images?

If something like that happened to me I wouldn't know who was looking at my pictures. I would have a general idea that my pictures are out there and people are doing whatever they want with it. I would not be physically harmed in the same instance that someone is masturbating to my picture in another location as you imply. The physical harm has already been done when producing the pictures. I would have to suffer that my innocence was stolen by someone I knew. The only problem I would suffer later is emotional distress from knowing the pictures of me are circulating and people COULD look at them. Again although those images are floating around on the Internet and people are able to view them, does not mean I will fall to the ground, curl into a fetal position, and start mumbling to myself "someone...someone..is looking at my sexual...abuse...oh my God I can't breath.." every time someone looks at them. Trying to correlate viewing and physical harm is not logical and defies science. The whole viewing leading to victimization argument is used a whole lot by child protection groups and law enforcement, but they never explain HOW. People just absorb that information without any proof, just like the majority of the United States...

I'm sure Marie has compassion for those victims, but saying that her husband is directly involved in the victimization of the child is disproportionate. You stated "...whose innocence was stolen, whose lives are forever and irrevocably altered". The moment that child was physically abused that innocence was stolen and lives altered. Something which is stolen cannot be "re-stolen" by looking at pictures or videos and lives cannot be "re-altered" because the initial abuse was caused by someone the child knew...

From your last paragraph I see you are still emotionally frustrated, which makes your entire argument nothing more than an utter failure in terms of a logical argument. I guess you don't read very thoroughly, which is a shame because I already explained to you that not all pedophiles hurt children or watch child pornography and not all children are hurt by only pedophiles or not all child pornography is viewed by only pedophiles. Time for you to do some research Cori...

Source:
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt/watching-child-pornography-victimizes-child-voodoo-science

Morrghan's Witch said...

you are just one sick bitch! you defend the bastards that rape little babies splitting their vaginas and anus's into. that doctor and any one else that downloads child porn does it to masturbate to. why in hell else would any sane decent person download child porn. the cops HAVE to look at it to deem it child porn or not.much like they have to look at a crime scene,murder victim etc. etc. to be able to classify them as whatever crime category they fall into. i hope you come to understand just how much of a demented piece of shit you and you husband really are.

Morrghan's Witch said...

i agree cori,but unfortunately the idiotic cunt is censoring the replies! i guess she only wants people that approve of child molesters to have comments that show up.

Marie said...

It would be helpful, Morrghan's Witch, if you would quote me where I defend child abuse. Thanks. In the meantime, perhaps you shouldn't spend so much time fantasizing about what happens in the really vile child porn images. I've never seen them. You have? And what if you DID look at child porn and recognized the child or the adult in the image? Wouldn't you be able to help the child? Or would you stay silent, because telling the police that you looked at CP is too risky?

sd said...

This is all too funny. You got law enforcement whose day jobs include looking at child pr0n and then they go home and beat off to the images in their head. Having the images at work gives them a reason not to have it in their possession at home. What a piece of shit country this is where people go to jail for possessing some rapey pictures. I hear that the agency that is suppose to protect people from terrorism now handles child pr0n can anyone guess what this agency is? (Hint: not FBI)

Jill Smith said...

Cory - the problem with all of this with child sex abuse is that the offenders are always told that every time an image is viewed that they are re-victimizing the child. That's why they have to lock these guys up because they are just as terrible as the abusers/producers themselves. That is not the case with drugs. No one else is "being victimized." So, if law enforcement can pay to have these images and look at these images, how is this not re-victimizing the child?

Many people are sitting in federal prison for long amounts of time because they got images from a file sharing site. Many of these sites have keywords attached to legal images/files. You can select all without reading and hit download and have 1000 files in a few hours time without knowing that you just downloaded child porn. Is it irresponsible, you bet it is, but does it mean that person that had 1000 files downloaded before he knew he had just clicked on one of the biggest cp keywords is a monster, absolutely not. But even if when you go look at those files and realize that what you have is the illegal files and not what you thought you would get, it's too late. Hussyfan is a huge cp keyword, but it's literal meaning is a "fan of a slutty housewife," not "I like little kids."

Isabella said...

It depends on the Phallo lab in question, but as far as I am aware the images are not of children being sexually abused in the way that you are likely assuming but rather are either drawings or very old photos taken from medical text books of children in their various stages of growth. That seems to be one of the criticisms of the test - the fact that the photos are so old and not as "hardcore" as to illicit results from some people.

Additionally, one is not "labelled" unless it is overwhelmingly in favour of that label. The test is inconclusive otherwise.

Regardless of personal feelings on the test, there is value when used as a form of targeting for treatment.