Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

Child porn viewers share guilt of creators, purveyors

Post by TNT Editorial Board / The News Tribune on May 1, 2012 at 7:26 pm with 1 Comment »
May 1, 2012 3:29 pm

This editorial will appear in Wednesday’s print edition.

What’s worse: raping a child, or paying someone else to do it?

The U.S. Sentencing Commission might not see it that way, but that’s the question it faces as it reviews federal criminal penalties for consumers of child pornography.

Some federal judges and defense attorneys are pushing to lower the recommended minimum sentences for people convicted of downloading or possessing child porn. In 2011, according to The Associated Press, the median sentence was seven years and the mandatory minimum for many such crimes was five years.

Former U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and former federal prosecutor Linda Dale Hoffa recently criticized the current guidelines as too harsh. “The fact that child pornography offenders can be given longer sentences than child abusers or violent offenders reflects a lack of care by Congress,” they wrote in the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Many federal judges seem to agree. More than 40 percent of the time, they give convicted defendants lighter penalties than the guidelines call for.

Guidelines are exactly that: guidelines. Based on the facts of the case and the particular offender, a judge may have reasonable grounds for going below the minimum. That’s why we have human beings sitting on the bench, not computers.

But when it comes to the more vicious varieties of child porn, viewers are hardly less culpable or dangerous than child molesters.

Many in fact are molesters, suggest federal prison studies done in 2008 and 2000. In those studies, researchers found that large majorities of inmates who’d been convicted of “mere” consumption acknowledged they’d also committed physical sex offenses.

Whether they physically rape children or not, child porn consumers perpetuate an industry that preys on innocents, right down to toddler age. If not for these voyeurs, there’d be no market for images of child rape and no profit incentive to stage the rapes in the first place. The guilt spreads seamlessly across the industry and its customer base.

Child pornography is now almost exclusively an Internet phenomenon, which means that every child photographed remains a digital hostage indefinitely.

Testifying to the Sentencing Commission in February, forensic pediatrician Sharon Cooper described their predicament:

“Many children and young adults who were victimized as minors speak of living a ‘double life’ … they struggle to appear well-adjusted, but inside they report remaining always vigilant and fearful that any interaction with a computer might lead to exposure of the images of the sexual abuse that they have endured.”

Anyone complicit in supporting this most despicable of industries deserves to be taken out of the predatory loop for years. Whatever time child porn consumers do, it won’t match the lifetime of violation their victims face on the Internet.

Leave a comment Comments → 1
  1. This opinion is reckless in that it suggests only opinions without supporting evidence. To the author, it would be nice to know not only that you are a bigot, but why you are a bigot. Please reference the 2000 and 2008 studies you use to support your thesis. Why do you believe that consumption of child pornography perpetuates the industry (does money change hands and if not, what is the incentive to further the industry? What is the incentive to create new child pornography without monetary compensation?) How does being a voyeur perpetuate a market(a market being something supported by monetary compensation or trade – voyeurism without compensatory imbursement or barter engages in neither). Therefore, how does voyeurism create a “market for images of child rape” and a “profit incentive to stage the rapes in the first place?”
    How does being a voyeur support the industry and why does Sharon Cooper assume that such a person is a predator?
    This is a very poorly written opinion piece in that it is not persuasive since it does not give supporting evidence; as such, it is reckless because it could cause harm to innocent people by wrongly attributing maliciousness to a non-malicious act.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0