Thursday, June 6, 2013

looking at pictures

A note from my husband:

There was a suicide Tuesday. A 75 year old took his cellmates medicine. He had a 15 year sentence and knew he was never going to get out. Same charge.
Fifteen years for looking at pictures! Using that phrase is seen as minimizing the crime and avoiding responsibility and our attorney hammered home the message that we should never say those words. It is impossible to avoid that phrase because looking at pictures was the crime.

Looking at pictures is what this man did and he paid with his very life. That's inhumane. Putting him in prison didn't decrease the supply of child porn images, doesn't stop the production of more. If there were a direct line between his looking and the people who produce the images, prosecutors would show us that connection but they can't. Because that line, that direct connection, is not there.

Someone out there will read this and scream supply and demand! Supply and demand does not work in child porn the way it works for iPods. If it did, prosecutors would be drawing diagrams in courtrooms, showing how this man looking at pictures motivated someone else--years ago!--to produce the pictures he looked at. There is no way to connect this man's Internet habit with someone who--tomorrow, next month--molests a child and makes an image of the molestation.

There are no diagrams. 

He was looking at pictures.


Anonymous said...

I love to submit my opinion on current issues within this God forsaken country. Firstly, I do agree that logically speaking that man was indeed put away for simply having those pictures and looking at them. Those pictures were of something atrocious that took place in the past. Putting that man in jail will in no such way decrease the supply of it that is already out there on P2P applications, TOR/Freenet, or BBS/image boards. I would assume your lawyer told you not to say that because he is either fearful for your life because of the ignorant people that run around assuming things rather than thinking them out clearly for themselves or he just agrees with the prosecutor.

As for the supply and demand argument, it would only apply if it was a commercial enterprise that was accepting payment and therefore producing more to meet the demands of the customers. There are some commercial studios that went out of business and the pictures/videos are floating around on the Internet as remnants all for the taking and free of charge.

The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security have an agenda to follow and that is to send an irrational message to irrational and uneducated folks who will accept whatever is told to them. There are people who believe people who possess child pornography are automatically pedophiles or child pornographers. The three are completely separate terms.

I could compare the war on child pornography to the war on drugs because they are both utter failures, but then I would be scolded on not comprehending the gravity of the situation pertaining to the possession of child pornography...

Tom Joad said...

Wow, utterly amazing. You (both) are amazing!!! I don't care if the image is two days old or twenty years old...that little child was still the victim of a terrible crime and continue to be a victim!!! Do you know anyone who has been the victim of this type of crime as a child? The Catholic church scandal, for example? Do you know (even as adults) the trauma that they still deal with on a day-to-day basis? I can't believe to are trying to minimize someone looking at pictures of children in sex acts. Everything is a gateway, don't you understand? Marijuana (can) leads to other (and more harmful) drugs. Just looking can lead to actively participating or manufacturing child porn. Just because it doesn't happen every time doesn't mean we should wait until that person acts out their peverted fantasies; we stop them before they can victimize anyone else!

I can't believe that our society has individuals defending people that are sick, twisted, and prey on innocent kids. You both make me sick!

Marie said...

Tom Joad, if you think I approve of child porn, you haven't read much of my blog.

Anonymous said...

Tom Chode, thank you for proving my point; "The Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security have an agenda to follow and that is to send an irrational message to irrational and uneducated folks who will accept whatever is told to them"

Let me ask you something, did I say anything about supporting child pornography? I did not. I was merely questioning the witch hunt that is going on in this country due to materials which are deemed "illegal" by federal statutes. I am merely questioning why these people must go to jail for material that was created after the fact that the actual abuse occurred.

As for your statement "everything is a gateway", you should have thought that one over. Now personally I don't like the way people demonize marijuana because unlike pharmaceuticals it come from Mother Nature and no matter how many times you use it you won't end up in a hospital like alcohol, heroin, or cocaine users.

"Just looking can lead to actively participating or manufacturing child porn". That is a pretty weak argument right there. I could say looking at snuff films (which are real) can lead to actively participating or manufacturing of more snuff films. You would be surprised what your own government doesn't want shown on the television. These snuff films are shown openly over the television around the world except the US and it's cheerleaders (UK, Canada, Australia).
Watching and acting out are two completely different things. There are only a few that will do this. Take Ted Bundy for example; killed many women and his explanation was his use of pornography. Not everyone has control over fantasy and reality, some people get mixed up.

People have to start making rational arguments, rather than emotionally fueled ones and on top of that do some research on statistics and read some news articles on those who merely possessed, distributed, and produced. You will see the difference..

Isabella said...

He wasn't looking at just "pictures". He was looking at pictures of children being sexually abused.

Marie said...

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what kind of images this man had. Neither do you. Child porn is a broad category and includes images that were not created in abusive circumstances.

Isabella said...

Of course neither of us know the kind of images that the man had. The pictures, in order to be classified as "child pornography" must depict sexual activity and as a general rule they depict children being abused. I am going to assume that to get a fifteen year sentence, he had a lot of very bad images.

If you went by your argument, there would be no prison or punishment for anything. Steal some bread? Not a huge deal, no one was hurt, he won't do it again. Kill your wife, oh well, she's dead now, so he doesn't have anyone else to kill.