broadening the definition of "child rape"

A Canadian cop wants to change the way we talk about child pornography:

Cops who hunt child predators say the term "child pornography" needs to be retired and be given a more apt term, such as "child rape." 

"It's not a child lying on a beach naked, it's a child that is being actively sexually assaulted. It is the rape of a child captured on image or video. It's a crime scene," said Detective Chris Purchas, a lead investigator with the Toronto Police told a news conference in Dartmouth this week.

This is all kinds of silly. 

If we prosecuted only those people who looked at images of child rape, my husband would be home with me now. If this detective means that a photo of a naked child is the same as child rape, he doesn't understand what rape is. 

It is hard to believe someone thought he would be a good spokesman.

He is almost onto something when he says, It's a crime scene. Child pornography sometimes is a photo of a crime scene. Don't get carried away, though. Remember it is a photo of a crime scene. It is not the crime itself. And remember that not all child pornography includes images of small children and not all child pornography images are of crime scenes.

Do not cheapen the horrifying abuse endured by some of these children by equating the photo with the horrifying abuse.

Hunting "child predators" happens in a crazy world.

the many ways of cruelty

I was appalled by something mentioned casually in the article about the judge who refused to follow the sentencing guidelines when sentencing a man for possession of child porn (I blogged about the judge here):

A teenager depicted being raped by her father at the age of 10 in some of the videos [found in the possession  of the defendant] had told the court of the effect the case had on her. 

“Unfortunately, my hurt doesn’t end with my father,” the girl wrote before [the defendant's] first sentencing. “When I was told how many people had viewed these images and videos, I thought my pulse would stop. Thinking of all those sick perverts and viewing my body being ravished and hurt like that makes me feel like I was raped by each and every one of them.”

This girl is a teenager. Whether she is 13 or 19 or somewhere in between, who in their right mind thinks it is a good idea to tell her "how many people had viewed these images and videos"? The images of her will not be--cannot be--eliminated. What good can come of telling her that the images are still out there?

If pornographic images of children are illegal to protect the children, explain how it protects this teenager to tell her that "sick perverts" are viewing her "body being ravished and hurt"? Does that help her to overcome the trauma of being abused?

Law enforcement is required to tell the "victim and/or guardians" when the child in the image is identified.

At the initiation of an investigation, victims and/or guardians are contacted by a Victim Specialist (VS) who, in addition to providing referrals for services, explains the unique circumstances surrounding child pornography investigations, and the possibility that images may appear again in future investigations or court proceedings. At that time, the VS also requests the victim and/or guardian sign a Notification Preference Form.

The victim and/or guardian uses the Notification Preference Form to indicate whether or not they want a notification every time her image is found during an investigation. In order for the victim to say that she does not want the notifications, the Victim Specialist has to tell her that the images are still out there. Once identified, the victim is not allowed not to know. 

Some will say that the children, perhaps now adults, must be notified so they can ask for restitution from the defendants who looked at the images. As you can clearly see in Emily Bazelon's piece about child porn restitution, money does not make the trauma go away. In fact, the continuing notifications can also be traumatizing events.

If the victims need financial help to get necessary therapy (and, yes, that help should be available), that could be accomplished without giving them the information that their images are still in circulation. Private charities or government funding could extend that assistance without the need to further traumatize the victims.

Proclaiming a desire to protect the children from abuse and then needling them with reminders of that abuse...that is perverted.

Awful things happen to children everywhere, all the time. We marvel at child soldiers from war-torn countries who overcome their traumatic childhoods. We praise children who survive life-threatening illness or injury when they go on to live good lives. We admire children who come from troubled families yet go on to be successful businessmen and raise good families of their own. Child sexual abuse may or may not be worse than those traumas but with care and time, children can overcome horrible events. Many, perhaps most, will. 

...if we let them.

another judge gets it

A federal judge in Ohio shows mercy by refusing to sentence a defendant according to the sentencing guidelines. Twice.

Appalled at the harsh sentencing guidelines for child pornography offenses, a federal judge sentenced an ailing, 67-year-old defendant to only one night in jail — and when an appeals court ordered the defendant resentenced, the judge imposed the same punishment. 

“If I have got to send somebody like [this man] to prison, I’m sorry, someone else will have to do it,” said U.S. District Judge James L. Graham of Columbus, Ohio. “I’m not going to do it.” ...

The unusual act of judicial disobedience by Graham — who was appointed to the bench 27 years ago by President Ronald Reagan — is the latest protest of sentencing rules for pornography possession, which other federal judges have described in opinions as “irrational” and “bordering on witch hunts.” 

...Graham declared the guidelines were seriously flawed because, among other things, they require an enhanced sentence if a computer is used — even though, as Graham pointed out, a computer is nearly always used.

As far as I can tell, the defendant is pleading guilty to possession, a charge that does not carry a mandatory minimum. Sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory.

The defendant has already had two strokes and his wife is in poor health. The judge said he worried that the defendant wouldn't get sufficient health care in prison. In another article, the prosecutors blithely brush aside those concerns:

The 6th Circuit pointed out that prisons have doctors and that [the defendant] has four adult children living near him who could help take care of his wife.

The prison where my husband is incarcerated has no doctor on staff. I do not know if that is usual.

“We’re not of a belief that someone should get a senior discount because of their age,” said Fred Alverson, a spokesman with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Well, that's certainly true. Federal prosecutors have been busy putting elderly people in prison and keeping others there until they are elderly--the majority of them for non-violent crimes.

The population of aging and elderly prisoners in U.S. prisons exploded over the past three decades, with nearly 125,000 inmates aged 55 or older now behind bars, according to a report published Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union. This represents an increase of over 1,300 percent since the early 1980s. 

More than $16 billion is spent annually by states and the federal government to incarcerate elderly prisoners, despite ample evidence that most prisoners over age 50 pose little or no threat to public safety, the report said. Due largely to higher health care costs, prisoners aged 50 and older cost around $68,000 a year to incarcerate, compared to $34,000 per year for the average prisoner. 

The feds want to put this man in prison, putting his health and that of his wife at risk, and they want taxpayers to pay the increased cost of incarcerating an elderly man in poor health. Why?

In the article linked above, the prosecutors explain that

...he was participating in a global market with millions of members that “constantly demands that more children be abused in order to create new images.” 

“Child pornography images themselves are their own currency,” prosecutors wrote. “Possessors are the engine of demand that fuels the molestation of children to create more supply.”

Note that prosecutors do not have to prove these assertions. They don't have to prove that this man's online activities demanded new images or that he wanted more children to be molested. They are allowed to make broad accusations about a general practice of looking at child pornography as if it naturally applies to everyone charged with possession. No one challenges them.

Welcome, Judge Graham, to the ranks of those who recognize that sentences for child porn users are not proportionate to the crime. There is probably a large number of judges in that group. If only more of them would stand up and publicly acknowledge the wrongs done to those who look at pictures.

Bordering on witch hunts, indeed.

eradicating child porn, take 2

In one of my favorite comments ever on my blog, gleakk holds my feet to the fire:

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying this is a BAD thing? I disagree with a lot of your opinions but I can usually see the logic behind them, not in this case though. Firstly, the arson analogy doesn't work, looking at pictures of a fire isn't a crime, looking at pictures of child porn is. Also your comment about increasing the value of images seems to fly in the face of your strong assertions the principles of supply and demand don't apply to child porn. This measure isn't a cure all by any means but I can't see how it could possibly hurt the situation.

gleakk is right: I did not write the post well. I wrote it over several days while traveling, editing it in a series of motel rooms. I finally said "enough!" and posted it. 

The arson analogy does work. The "one's legal, one's not" distinction is just silly. Of course child porn images are illegal; this blog questions whether those laws make sense, whether those laws do what they are promoted as doing. It makes as much sense to say that looking at a photo of child abuse IS child abuse as it does to say that looking at a photo of a fire set by arson IS committing arson.

I'm saying that knee-jerk celebrations about eradicating child pornography aren't taking into consideration the fact that we don't really know what the unintended consequences will be. The motivations of those who produce child porn and those who use it are not well understood--probably because each producer and viewer has his/her own motivation. 

I have no objection to Google doing this--the internet corporations can do as they like, within the bounds of the law. The timing of the announcement, though, makes me go...hmm. Google recently came under heavy criticism for cooperating with government spying activities and now Google is offering itself up as the consummate good guy because it is working against child porn. 

People who go ballistic when I defend child porn users (from the excesses of the justice system) say we need to protect children and they also like to use the supply/demand argument. I didn't do it well, but I was trying to point out that their enthusiasm for making child porn just go away ignores those two arguments. 

If someone believes child porn users (the demand in that argument) are responsible for the producers creating child porn (the supply), the elimination of existing child porn should make them wonder if this will increase the value of new images.

If someone believes that we should protect children from abusers, they cannot argue that it is also a good thing to eliminate evidence of that abuse.

The push to "eradicate" child porn ignores what is happening when the images are created. Why would anyone think that is a good thing?

eradicating child porn images

The headline says, Google builds new system to eradicate child porn images from the web, but what does it really mean?

The new database, which is expected to be operational within a year, will allow child porn images which have already been “flagged” by child protection organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) to be wiped from the web in one fell swoop.

Farther down the article, it says something different:

Scott Rubin, Google’s spokesman, said: “We are creating an industry-wide global database of ‘hashed’ images to help all technology companies find these images, wherever they might be. 

“They will then be blocked and reported.”

And at the end,

“Recently, we have started working to incorporate these fingerprints [codes that identify illegal images] into a cross-industry database. This will enable companies, law enforcement, and charities to better collaborate on detecting and removing child abuse images.” 

They won't be eradicating child porn images in "one fell swoop," they will be making it easier for Google and other companies to block access to illegal images. They will also be taking on the task of reporting illegal images to law enforcement.


Eradicating child porn is an interesting idea--knees jerk everywhere in favor of it--but don't forget the law of unintended consequences. What else could happen when child porn is driven further underground?

Seeing the images is the best way to identify the people responsible for the abuse recorded in them. If we can magically make these images disappear, are we eliminating the chance that someone would recognize the people in the images? 

And don't kid yourself--the images wouldn't go away. They may not be easily available anymore, but they will be out there. Google doesn't index every website--many websites are coded so that Google cannot "see" their content. 

Making child porn images harder to find--will that increase the value of new images? There will be new images; that's about the only certainty in this plan.

Destroying pictures of a fire does nothing to stop arson. 

UPDATE: Response to gleakk's comment here.

fathers' day

Here's to all the dads who made mistakes and then did everything possible to make things right. It is agonizing to face the world while exorcising personal demons, especially when the world demonizes those dads.

Here's to the incarcerated dads who stay in touch with their families and set an example of honesty and goodness even behind bars.

Here's to the dads who work hard to make a good life even with the sex offender registry hindering their every effort.

Bless the dads who are succeeding; bless those dads who struggle. Bless the families who stand with those men.

Happy Father's Day.

child porn laws are out of whack

A Nebraska man faces charges of third degree sexual assault of a child and one count of creating child pornography.

 [He] faces one count of third-degree sexual assault of a child, a felony that carries up to five years in prison if he is convicted.  

He is also charged with one count of visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct (involving a child), which carries a possible prison sentence of three to 50 years.

For touching the boy, he will serve--at most--five years in state prison.

For taking the photograph, he could serve up to 50 years in prison.