Tennesee Man Charged In "Virtual Pornography" Case

mcgrew writes "CNN reports that 'A Tennessee man is facing charges of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for what authorities say are three pictures — none of them featuring an actual child's body. Instead, according to testimony presented at Michael Wayne Campbell's preliminary hearing in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Wednesday, the photos feature the faces of three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females, CNN affiliate WDEF reported.'"

Comments

As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS

[Jane Q. Public]

ruled that in order for something to be "child pornography", it had to be depictions of (1) real children, and (2) real pornography.

This is interesting, though, if the faces were of real children. Which side of the line does that land on?

Re:As I recall, about 2 years ago. SCOTUS

[Jane Q. Public]

Interesting you should say that. I just recently finished reading "Witch Hunt", which is about the "Child Sex Ring" debacle that happened in Wenatchee, WA, in the '90s.

All it took was one overzealous police officer, in conjunction with some overprotective "Child Services" employees of the state, to ruin something on the order of 23 families. The book is out of print, but it is still available on Amazon. It was written by an attorney. I highly recommend it to people who think "it can't happen here", or "if they were arrested, they must be guilty of something." What happened in Wenatchee seems almost unbelievable... but you better believe it.

IMO, a bigger travesty of justice has seldom if ever occurred in the United States.

Re:real children + real pornongraphy = ???

[Fluffeh]

Okay Mr know it all. Here are some stats:

Sourced from NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES, INC.
Sex Offenders Report

There is a widespread misperception that people who commit sexual crimes do it again and again. The research, however, directly contradicts this. Recidivism rates for sex offenses are relatively low, typically running in the 3-13% range, and among the lowest of all types of crimes.

In contrast, the general rearrest rate for people released from prison was 68%. The highest rates were stealing motor vehicles (79%) and possessing or selling stolen property (77%)

The chance that a person convicted of a sex crime will someday commit some other crime greatly exceeds the chance that he or she will commit another sex crime. The second offense may be possession of marijuana, driving drunk or shoplifting â" but it increases the reoffense rate. Such subsequent misconduct carries its own concerns, but it is not the repeat incurable pedophile of myth. Indeed reoffense rates for all crimes among sex offenders is still lower than reoffense rates for all crimes among non-sex offenders. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found:

Child molester rearrest rate for new sex crime against a child: 3.3%
All sex offender rearrest rate for new sex crime against a child: 2.2%16
All sex offenders rearrest rate for any kind of offense: 43%
All offenders rearrest rate for any kind of offense: 68%

Oh, as for rehabilitation of these people? Lets have a look at some more stats.

Margaret Alexanderâ(TM)s 1999 meta-analysis of nearly 11,000 sex offenders from 79 separate studies found that people who participated in treatment programs had a combined rearrest rate of 7.2% compared to 17.6% among untreated individuals (a reduction of 59%).

Karl Hansonâ(TM)s 2000 comprehensive metaanalysis found 10% of treatment subjects reoffended, compared to 17% of untreated subjects (a reduction of 41%).

The Campbell Collaboration meta-analysis of 69 studies of 22,000 individuals found that treatment reduced recidivism by 37%.

Guess that makes you post a bit of a swing and a miss?

If someone is physically handicapped, we go out of our way to help them. If they are blind, we give them guide dogs and sound driven information. If someone is clinically depressed, we try to treat them. Why can you not understand that trying to help and educate sex offenders is so much better than just locking them up and throwing away the key - not even looking at the slippery slope I put up in my original post.