Some people who watch it justify themselves thus:

1. I'm not harming any child. I'm just sitting at my computer, accessing the internet.

2. It's out there. I didn't create it. If I don't watch it, it won't go away.

That is just rationalization.

Children are the victims. The subjects of the pornographic films and videos are the victims.

Sites earn money from what they provide. They are totally uncensored. So they respond very sensitively to demand. As people's tastes become jaded, they want more and more escalation.

Now there are child-snuff sites available.

I'm posting this because of an e-mail I got as a result of my fiery statements in another thread. This woman says she caught her husband watching child porn, and he was furious, actually she'd never seen him in such a rage before, at her accusation that watching that stuff is a sex crime against children just as much as producing it is.

I say it is a sex-crime against children. It feeds the machine.

What do you say?
******************************************************************
05-26-06, 03:14 PM
juanruiz

quote:
This woman says she caught her husband watching child porn, and he was furious, actually she'd never seen him in such a rage before, at her accusation that watching that stuff is a sex crime against children just as much as producing it is.


The best defense is a good offense. He essentially snookered her. Child porn has no adjective strong enough to condemn it.
******************************************************************
05-26-06, 03:29 PM
Sarai
I'm with both of you on this one. It does "feed the machine", as you say. I think I would leave a man who watched child porn, personally.
******************************************************************
05-26-06, 04:19 PM
babthrower
She has given him two weeks to see a counsellor - she wants to go, too, for 'family counselling' where you do it together. She said if he doesn't she will tell him to move out. Meantime she trashed the cable box so he can't get internet. They are retired, so she told him if he moves out he can move to their vacation home. Sad, but she has to do it, otherwise she's condoning.
******************************************************************
05-26-06, 05:23 PM
FredPuli
That sounds like two weeks wasted. Counselling isn't going to help him. Someone who gets their kicks out of child porn has a paedophile's mind and that is permanent.

Time and time again we hear the argument from such defendants that using the porn site is a victimless crime. It is, in theory, if the images are not of real children but are entirely computer generated. If counsel took cases personally and with an eye to the public good rather than their professional duty to the clients they'd put that argument in mitigation in the certain knowledge that they had just guaranteed their clients a much longer jail term (and quite right too). It must be a temptation sometimes Smile

Someone out there puts real children through these experiences which are recorded.If anyone needs counselling it is the officers who have to watch the downloaded material. (In fact in a recent case here counselling is exactly what the officers were offered )

(The claim is a gross version of that other oft-heard claim in cases of handling stolen goods viz. " I did not steal them so I'm not responsible for the loss " If there were no handlers then there'd be no or very few thieves. Goods are rarely stolen by a thief who wants them as goods to use. No handlers = no market= no thieves.)
******************************************************************
05-26-06, 05:58 PM
DorianGreyed
Since there is a crime being committed with the filming/photographing of child porn, anyone who purchases it is an accessory.
******************************************************************
05-26-06, 06:06 PM
juanruiz

quote:
If counsel took cases personally and with an eye to the public good rather than their professional duty to the clients



I think this is what puts lawyers, especially defense lawyers, in such a bad light: their view that their responsibility is to get their client off. In the past, some of the big names on this side of the pond (F. Lee Bailey, Cochrane, et al) have admitted that they don't want to know if their client did it or not; in fact, they insisted that they not be told. Why? To salve their conscience, or to offer a better case?
******************************************************************
05-26-06, 07:05 PM
frankvan

quote:
In the past, some of the big names on this side of the pond (F. Lee Bailey, Cochrane, et al) have admitted that they don't want to know if their client did it or not; in fact, they insisted that they not be told. Why? To salve their conscience, or to offer a better case?



That seems reasonable enough to me. Whatever the client may be charged with, he is entitled, guaranteed ?, legal representation. If he can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed by the court. Even if the lawyer knows, or suspects, that the scoundrel he must defend in court is guilty, doesn't he have an obligation to see that the prosecution doesn't convict him of something over and above what he did.

My granddaughter's husband was appointed by the court in California to represent a man accused of espionage. He has to listen to hours of evidence in a secure room because all of the tapes are classified secret and not to be taken outside. Almost everything is in Chinese and must be translated. I don't think John could know what his client is guilty of at this point, if anything.
******************************************************************
05-26-06, 11:04 PM
Sarai

quote:
Originally posted by FredPuli:
That sounds like two weeks wasted. Counselling isn't going to help him. Someone who gets their kicks out of child porn has a paedophile's mind and that is permanent.



I think that's true, but I still don't think it would be a waste. There are pedophiles in the world who never act on their impulses and who learn to control them. Counseling will not change her husband's pedophilia but could help both learn about his illness and hopefully start dealing with it. But I admit that I would be terrified, wondering what he has done or wants to do, and filled with insecurities and fears about his past - if she's like me, counseling with a psychologist could probably help her as well. He absolutely should not be watching child porn though - I think this is sort of the equivalent of putting a recovering alcoholic in a bar and continually offering him drinks. I'm very sorry for her and hope it isn't what it looks like. What a terrible nightmare to discover. I wish I could give that woman a hug.
******************************************************************
05-27-06, 09:54 AM
babthrower
Yes, in spite of leaving the door open, I have not heard from her since the first 2 e-mails. (Mind you, her computer's down, and she has to e-mail from the library.)

I don't know her AP nickname, which is a 'good thing'. But it was clear she was in shock, and at that time felt her marriage was over, whether they continue to live together or not. Of course his rage was part of that. It must have been terrible.

But it does show the depth of his denial. Sounds as if he was both outraged and full of righteous indignation that she had classed him as a sex offender against children.

I almost feel sorry for him. But not as sorry as I feel for the victims.

To the woman who e-mailed: if you are reading this, maybe it would help him understand your judgement of his behavior if he reads these threads. At least enough to get him into counselling, and then, that is what they do, they will overcome his denial.

Then although he will still have the propensity, he can choose not to watch it. I don't know if they have grandchildren, but one of the conditions I would impose, if I were the woman in question, is that he not be alone with them (or other children) in fear that something much worse might happen.

People in denial are very dangerous. They lie to themselves, and do things that they do not perceive as harmful. Ask any drunk driver.

And don't hesitate to e-mail again if it would help. You are really in a dreadful situation. This is not something you can talk to friends and family about. You shouldn't feel alone right now. Or e-mail Sarai. I'm sure you can trust her judgement.
******************************************************************
05-27-06, 02:33 PM
clarebear
The possession or distribution of child pornography is illegal under federal laws and laws in all 50 states.
More on Child pornography- interesting read

In Michigan you can get 7-20 years in prison having child porn on your computer. The crime is called: Child Sexually Abusive Material or Activity.

quote:
Originally quoted by Dorian: Since there is a crime being committed with the filming/photographing of child porn, anyone who purchases it is an accessory.



You are right and you can also take this a bit further. If the police tracked pornography to the man's computer (that's usually how they get you), he would be committing a crime. If his wife knew about it and didn't report it to the authorities, SHE too would be guilty of committing a crime. If there are small children in the home, they could be taken by the state. Actually they probably would initially be taken away until the courts evaluated them and deemed it safe for them to return home.

I know one guy in jail for trying to meet a teenager at the mall. When they searched his home, the police found child pornography on his computer. His online record states:

Computers-Internet-Communicating to Commit Crime-15 Years>
Minimum Sentence:
7 years 1 month 0 days
MCL#:
750.145D2F
Maximum Sentence:
20 years 0 months

Date of Offense:
10/22/2004
County:
Oakland
Date of Sentence:
02/04/2005
Conviction Type:
Plea

Sentence 2
Offense:
Child Sexually Abusive Material or Activity
Minimum Sentence:
7 years 1 month 0 days
MCL#:
750.145C2
Maximum Sentence:
20 years 0 months
Date of Offense:
10/22/2004
County:
Oakland
Date of Sentence:
02/04/2005

Earliest Release Date:
11/26/2011
Maximum Discharge Date:
10/26/2024

While this lady's husband did not commit the crime of Computers-Internet-Communicating to Commit Crime-15 Years>, he DID have Child Sexually Abusive Material or Activity on his computer. This is a crime.



The missing kids site states there are different types of child pornography. Specifically 92% had images of minors focusing on genitals or showing explicit sexual activity; 80% had pictures showing the sexual penetration of a child, including oral sex; 71% possessed images showing sexual contact between an adult and a minor, defined as an adult touching the genitals or breasts of a minor or vice-versa; 21% had child pornography depicting violence such as bondage, rape, or torture and most of those involved images of children who were gagged, bound, blindfolded, or otherwise enduring sadistic sex; and 79% also had what might be termed “softcore” images of nude or semi-nude minors, but only 1% possesses such images alone.

The man's defensiveness over watching child porn is troubling. I hope he can get the help he needs.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,