Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
This whole situation sounds bizarre, but I was just reading in the strip-search constitutionality stories about the 'expectation' that a person would understand the constitutionality of their actions.
As we start seeing more of these strange cases that have been made possible by the advancement of technology I wonder if the expectation of understanding defense will be employed.
After all - what legal precedence addressing a situation of this nature has reached a level of widespread understanding that a given individual could be expected to be familiar with the society's legal expectations.
...three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females.
I guess he should have done it the other way around then. Right?
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that "virtual child pornography," in which no children were actually harmed, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime.
"We see it all the time," Allen said. "It makes it harder for law enforcement. It makes it tougher for prosecutors."
Well yeah, prosecuting someone for something that isn't a crime would be "tougher".
How we know is more important than what we know.
Ehm, *Cough* Thought Crime *Cough*
Pastes it on the nude body of Nancy Pelosi.......
Wait a sec. I don't think I should go any further with this.......
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Literally of course. He will return as a pop dancing Zombie.
\u262D = \u5350
If you are a purveyor of stick-man pornography, please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD make your stick men big! Drawing a little stick-man might get you into trouble.
Oh! And be sure to include scale objects in your drawing so that everybody knows that you're drawing a big stick man. Ummm . . . I mean scale objects extrinsic to the stick man.
Now, go on and enjoy your stick-man / stick-woman pornography!
It's not child porn, but I think the article said "exploitation of a minor". This makes sense... it's kind of like slander, I think. A photographer can't publish your photo without your written consent. How much worse is this? Publishing an image of my face on someone else's naked body certainly seems like exploitation to me.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
RIP Michael Jackson!
[Bender] He's defiling young angels now. [/Bender]
Well, the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested), then it is protected speech. I would think that a child's face pasted on an adult's body would fall into that category. But IANAL, and it is pretty close to the line.
Exploitation: Check, probably.
Minor: Check.
Yep, seems like a tautology to me - he's guilty. Note they didn't convict him of sexual abuse of a minor, or making child pornography, or anything like that.
Does this mean I think he should be convicted of a crime - maybe. The problem is the use (I assume) of the word "exploitation" in a crime. It can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It's like being convicted of being "too douchy". How douchy is too douchy?
When you prosecute thought crime the same as if the person had actually committed the crime why would someone who engages in this type of behavior not commit the actual crime in the future?
FTA:
For instance, Tennessee's laws state that in prosecuting the offense of sexual exploitation of a minor, "the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor."
How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you can't figure out their age? For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school? Summer Glau, 27, played a 15 year old in Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. There's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture.
There is certainly a mens rea of harm to a minor involved when someone has the faces of children pasted on adult bodies such as in this case. So, the actual reason we have child pornography laws in the first place (to protect minors) is served by this case. In fact, using the child's face even fits the actual crime of "exploitation" of a minor. It's even aggravated
However, this really is a crime. Can we really imprison someone for likely intending to rape a child?
Well...
(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly promote, employ, use, assist, transport or permit a minor to participate in the performance of, or in the production of, acts or material that includes the minor engaging in:
(1) Sexual activity; or
(2) Simulated sexual activity that is patently offensive.
(b) A person violating subsection (a) may be charged in a separate count for each individual performance, image, picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture film, videocassette tape, or other pictorial representation.
(c) In a prosecution under this section, the trier of fact may consider the title, text, visual representation, Internet history, physical development of the person depicted, expert medical testimony, expert computer forensic testimony, and any other relevant evidence, in determining whether a person knowingly promoted, employed, used, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to participate in the performance of or in the production of acts or material for these purposes, or in determining whether the material or image otherwise represents or depicts that a participant is a minor.
(d) A violation of this section is a Class B felony. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting prosecution for any other sexual offense under this chapter, nor shall a joint conviction under this section and any other related sexual offense, even if arising out of the same conduct, be construed as limiting any applicable punishment, including consecutive sentencing under  40-35-115, or the enhancement of sentence under  40-35-114.
(e) In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove the actual identity or age of the minor.
(f) A person is subject to prosecution in this state under this section for any conduct that originates in this state, or for any conduct that originates by a person located outside this state, where the person promoted, employed, assisted, transported or permitted a minor to engage in the performance of, or production of, acts or material within this state.
[Acts 1990, ch. 1092, Â 7; 2005, ch. 496, Â 4.]
Well, looks like we can!
The CNN video on the subject: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/25/jvm.miley.scare.cnn shows not only the sensationalism of television, but people's willingness to ignore ideas of free speech to "protect the children".
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
There was a similar case in Australia earlier this year:
http://www.areanews.com.au/news/local/news/general/griffith-man-guilty-on-child-porn-charges/1403310.aspx
Different laws obviously but this bloke was found guilty.
Hey everyone, I just heard the sad news on talk radio today. Michael Jackson, the talented pop star, was found dead in his Santa Monica hospital this afternoon.
It's the best news Gov Mark Sanford could have.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Did he publish? I can't see that in the article - even if he did, I think child porn would be the wrong law to use, because it's a different thing, nowhere near as serious as sexual abuse, and it would also set the precedent for simple possession being illegal.
Reading the article though, the mentality of people in positions of authority is worrying:
"when you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity,"
Slashdotters rejoice! Can't get laid? Well just "affix" a picture of a woman next to you, and you can take part in "simulated" sexual activity. (Will he go to a simulated prison? Thought not.)
"It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association. "People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence."
Generally, what is seen is the "Photoshop effect," in which people use the face of a child on an adult body or vice versa in an effort to get around the law, he said.
Yes, just think of all these poor photographs being abused!
I love the way they talk of it like it's a loophole. It's as much of a loophole, as me paying for items in a shop is a "creative" way round being done for shoplifting...
I'm reminded of the UK's Brass Eye - the thing is there's an amusing part where they actually overlay a child's face onto a adult's body! It's done rather unrealistically, with the photos of different proportions, but it's not like these bad photoshop jobs that people are being done for sound realistic either. Whilst I've never heard the legality of Brass Eye being questioned, I honestly wonder that if an individual was found with the same images in their private possession, they'd be done for child porn.
Still, the UK is already moving on - now we're criminalising adult porn (even if consensual and simulated).
Next, the maker of Photoshop is indicted for aiding and abetting DIY kiddie porn. This is just stupid.
I would be content with just having the psych treatment. Why this person decided to do this is kind of important. If they did it specifically to push the limits of the law, they need to be given a sentence of having to clean parking meters or something else tedious and annoying that makes the point that this isn't a good thing. If they did it for sexual purposes, they need to be ordered to treatment, and if treatment determines that they are a true danger then that needs to be referred back to the court, who should probably commit them rather than jail them.
Make the punishment fit the crime.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
These laws are meant to be there to protect children. No children were harmed in the making of these images. This is essentially thought-crime.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Satan
The article doesn't even say how they found them in the first place, but why the hell do people get so bent out of shape what others look at? Its none of mine, or your fucking business.
Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?
It's a _picture_. It's such threat to society that it threatens the heart of civilization! I mean look at all the killing, and raping it does!!! Oh wait, _people_ do those things...
--
"One man's fetish is another man's turnoff."
Originally, laws against child porn were passed under the assumption that a child was involved in a sex act "without their consent".
In other words, right up until back in the 70's, you could buy porn where "children" were "raped"
(note the use of quotations... both of those terms have changed since back then, a lot) in regular porn shops.
It was assumed, that spreading "child porn" meant that you had been involved in it's creation.
That's spurious to begin with, even 40 years ago.
The purpose of child porn laws was to prevent "sexual damage to children".
Soooo....
Now children aren't even needed... so there's no real crime (rape) being effected.
STOP!!!
I know that you're thinking.
"People who like to watch 'underage' porn can't be stopped from acting on what they've seen"...
Really?
How much porn have you watched?
How much of it have you gone out and re-enacted?
Truth of it all, you've jerked off tons of times, then looked at the screen (or even live pussy), and said "Nah... I'm done".
.
.
.
I'm hearing crickets here.
"It makes it harder for law enforcement."...
Yeah, that's the constitution smacking you in the face with it's dick.
It's SUPPOSED to be harder for "law enforcement"; distrust of government is encoded into the constitution.
If they did it specifically to push the limits of the law, they need to be given a sentence of having to clean parking meters or something else tedious and annoying that makes the point that this isn't a good thing.
Testing the law is not illegal and if the acts to test it are not deemed illegal, then no punishment is necessary, IMO.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
What I don't understand is why this guy is being prosecuted for pasting together a picture of Miley Cyrus on a nude body, when there is (was) an actual 20 year old adult HAVING SEX with her. Isn't that statuary rape? Oh... but they are rich and famous so it's ok?!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
and kiddie fondling, you have to admit...
Well HE certainly never admitted to it.... only doled out a lot of cash, twice, but that's not an admission of guilt.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This is like that hentai guy. I think material like this may be grounds for investigating someone to see if they have actual illegal porn. But I don't see how this is a crime. I don't want thought police, but there should be no gray area when actual children are involved.
Is seeing a man with a bunch of gold chains walking around in a slum grounds for investigating him to see if he's got stolen goods? Rich guy in poor area? Maybe follow him home and search his house. Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?
Wrong. Teach your children that when someone says or does something sexual, they tell you. Go from there. That's really all that needs be done. Stop inventing opportunity thought TV shows. Stop freaking out about Internet predators when the vast majority of sexual abusers are relatives and close family friends.
When you've got evidence of a crime, investigate. When you've got evidence of what you think might possibly suggest a mind-set of criminal nature... relax. Paranoia State does more harm than good.
"Oh no... he found the
I have to seriously disagree. That is like saying "killing someone is never acceptable and making images of someone being killed even though they aren't really being killed is likewise unacceptable."
Is the issue here just the "sexuality"? Is that the fierce demon we are all trying to keep away from our children? If that's true, then Disney needs to be completely dismantled for what it has been doing lately. (Interestingly enough, one of the faces being used was Miley Cyrus...)
I think what is needed is some serious exploration of what we are *really* targeting and punishing and *why*. And seriously, if it is the act of creating what some might consider to be art, then what is next? Punishment for merely imagining sexual situations with a child and admitting it to someone in some way? Is that ALSO worthy of punishment?
The lines and the causes are in some SERIOUS need of clear definition. It's easy for people to get outraged and upset over nothing or very little.
Keep in mind -- NO ONE HAS BEEN HARMED. NO ONE. Whether or not something should be done and if so, what? That's yet another question, but I think the lines should be defined.
How can you prove that the person in a picture is a minor if you can't figure out their age? For a toddler, it's obvious, but what about someone in high school? Summer Glau, 27, played a 15 year old in Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Nathalie Portman was 18 when she played a 13 year old in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Sarah Michelle Geller was 21 when she played a 15 year old Buffy Summers in Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. There's a pretty wide margin of error if all you have to go by is a picture.
Which is probably why the bit you quoted says the law doesn't require them to either prove identity or age. They can just claim they're underage and go after you. Feeling worried yet? This is a horrid law, it basically allows the cops to charge you with child porn/child sexual exploitation based on their whims, not actual evidence.
As a parent of a three-year old, I largely agree with your sentiment. However, should we demand psych treatment for people who enjoy BDSM? What about furries?
Where exactly do you intend to draw the line with acceptable fetishes that demand medical treatment, and ones that don't?
I'm not sure humans control the fetishes they enjoy, but almost rather they simply discover them.
I don't think we have a very good understanding of how the brain operates in this capacity, so I'm not sure we even have the capability to treat pedophiles aside from chemical castration.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
And the crime is what again? It's not illegal to be aroused by children. (It's not something I condone but as long as it's in check and not harming people it's not an issue.) As for the picture issue, well that's going to be tested but there was no instance of harm. Take your thought crime and shove it.
Letting people who haven't committed a crime walk freely is 'too lenient'?
Good grief.
This is bullshit. What a waste of time.
The supreme court has already ruled that this is protected free speech. Why the hell is anybody wasting time harrassing this man? You can't charge people with a crime because you don't like their taste in art.
You can't say "Oh, this means that he's a pedophile, and even though he hasn't done anything to anyone, we think he's thinking about it."
It makes me want to create children faces (or maybe use famous child actors) with their faces affixed to nude bodies (maybe generated ones) in politcal parody cartoons about this and mail it to these backwards asshole prosecutors. See what they do with two controversial activities already ruled as protected.
People who say things like "the guy is clearly a pedophile and should be removed from society" have it totally wrong, you can't charge someone based on a personal assumption - for good reason...That kind of shit would make it easier for all of us to lose our rights and people who say such things have a very limited understanding of freedom and the law.
It's fucking irrelevant what you or I think of how tasteful or disgusting his "art" is - the fact is that he should have the right to create it. Maybe he is a pedophile, maybe he isn't - but you can't brand him that because of "art."
Well, the SCOTUS ruling stated essentially that if it appears to be child pornography, but really isn't (i.e., no children were actually abused or molested), then it is protected speech. I would think that a child's face pasted on an adult's body would fall into that category. But IANAL, and it is pretty close to the line.
Why is that "pretty close to the line"? You said yourself, if it doesn't involve children who were actually abused or molested than it is protected speech. So why, pray tell, would this fall anywhere near the line?
should we demand psych treatment for people who enjoy ... furries?
Yes.
The problem is, lawmakers and the public are trying to make photoshops into a crime equivalent to actual child pornography. Yes, that is thought crime, and yes, it is here. Welcome to the brave new world.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So if I photoshopped a picture of a minor and smeared virtual poop on his/her face that would also be emotional abuse? Or if I photoshopped the photo of a skinny girl's head on a fat girl's body? I suppose that would qualify as harm as well.
Do you support outlawing any visual image which may possibly cause emotional harm? Including editorial cartoons of course, as well as any altered picture on the internet which could conceivably be construed as insulting.
The reality is that this stuff is not harmful unless you consider that a bunch of small-minded control-freaks like yourself want to imprison people for creating derivative artistic works. SCOTUS did not make a mess of this, and people like you scare the hell out of me.
A man was charged with "aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor" even though
- no minors were sexually exploited
- no minors were aggravated
- there was no sex portrayed in the pictures
- one of the girls whose face is in a picture is not even a child
- the person did not even know these girls and had no contact with them
- And, "... Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said Wednesday." And for some bizarre reason a person who is involved with "missing and exploited children" feels the need to comment about this matter, as if what he has to say is even relevant to the case.
The real stinger is in this comment:
"We see it all the time," Allen said. "It makes it harder for law enforcement. It makes it tougher for prosecutors."
, from the same fanatic of the NCMEC mentioned above. It's obvious that he just wants to see innocent people put in jail. No Logic, no Rationale; just mindless and hateful punishment. He is an obvious advocate for the penal colonies operated in the US. It's sick.
If these pictures ever get in the wild and someone recognizes the child and tells the child or parents, or worse, doesn't tell them but starts calling the kid a slut without explaination, then someone will get hurt.
So what you're saying is that it's OK to punish someone for something that someone else might do?
Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense at all.
Slashdot: celebrity death news for nerds. News that you wouldn't hear any other place. Nice job reporting there, Gizzmonic.
Guys, if you happen to have a facebook or twitter account, PLEASE let everyone know. We really need to get this news out there. There's a lot of chatter about some protests in Iran, but we really need to show them what the web is actually for: trivial celeb gossip.~
(Not to be insensitive to MJ or his family, but in all honesty, this is fake news, not real news.)
we have a few judges that are either too lenient (let them go until they actually molest children)
I know it bothers you, but in this country we have the notion that you can't lock someone up unless they actually harm/try to harm someone else.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
There's images of real children (their faces). They were too young to give informed consent for those images being combined with the other images (adult women's bodies). (That last point technically assumes the faces weren't very old footage and in the interm the children hadn't grown up enough to give legal consent of course, and there could be other factors, such as whether anyone actually recognized a face and thought the photos were actually all of the person that went with the face, not composites.).
I.E. means 'id est', and the usual English translation of that is to hold it to mean 'that is'. I.e. is properly used when you intend to restate an idea, or expand upon it.
E.g. is an abbreviation for the Latin 'exempli gratia'. The normal English equivalent is 'for example'. If you mean to clairify by an example, and that example doesn't limit what other cases might also exist, e.g is correct.
While Jane Q Public used i.e., the original supreme court ruling didn't. Instead, it talked about possible harm to real minors, and used actual abuse or molestation as two examples of such harm, not as a limiting definition enumerating all possible harm connected to the production of material. Jane probably should have used 'e.g.'
Here's a bit from the SCOTUS decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
" Section 2256(8)(C) prohibits a more common and lower tech means of creating virtual images, known as computer morphing. Rather than creating original images, pornographers can alter innocent pictures of real children so that the children appear to be engaged in sexual activity. Although morphed images may fall within the definition of virtual child pornography, they implicate the interests of real children and are in that sense closer to the images in Ferber."
(Ferber refers to a still standing older state child pornography law Ferber v. New York. The Supreme court is holding in this paragraph that morped images that start with some innocent image of a real child are not the same situation as the 'higher tech' virtual images that are implied to exist by the first sentence and already mentioned in other parts of the decision).
Note that the court said "implicate the interests of real children", which could include many other situations than actual abuse or molestation. Presumably, the effects on the child's interests would have to be negative, although that's not really spelled out, and presumably the normal legal principles about proportionality and gravity apply, so if casting Brooke Shields in Blue Lagoon had been a dumb career move, it wouldn't be enough to trigger a charge against her mother.
Here's the whole thing:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html
I am not a Lawyer either, but if you read this, it looks like Ferber v. new York, and the Miller standard that is referenced in this decision, are defining lines, and this new Tennessee case really does get pretty close to those lines if not over one or both.
Who is John Cabal?
Who else has bad thoughts?
You get the point. Why should someone be punished for imagining something? As long as nobody is actually harmed in the making of fiction, it's just fiction. As soon as we make fiction illegalh, we will definitely have come into the age of the Thought Police.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
While "the state is not required to prove the [...] age of the minor", it does not say "the state is not required to prove that the person is a minor". The difference is that if the picture is of a six-year-old, it is pretty clear the person is a minor. An apparent 15-year-old, however, will need something more to prove that the person is a minor. If the law said that minority did not need to be proved, then the law would be saying that any pornography is child pornography, on the word of the state.
Investigators do not believe Campbell had any contact with the three girls, but "when you have the face of a small child affixed to a nude body of a mature woman, it's going to be the state's position that this is for sexual gratification and that this is simulated sexual activity," Assistant District Attorney Dave Denny said
"It's definitely on the increase," said Justin Fitzsimmons, a former prosecutor and senior attorney with the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, part of the National District Attorneys' Association. "People are trying to come up with creative ways to continue to sexually exploit children using digital evidence."
Great story, but I'm confused about what he did and what he's being charged with. Has the DA described the victim and explained how they're negatively affected in this case? Was this man trying to distribute the mashed-up pictures? Was this man found with the pictures on a personal computer? What happened here?
The whole reason we have laws prohibiting sex with children or erotic photography of children is that we believe that they are immature and are unable to make clear, well-thought-out, rational decisions about their actions. Well, that and the fact that we're a country descended from Puritans and a bunch of churchgoing folk. When considering similar cases in the past, SCOTUS took the eminently reasonable stance that depictions of child pornography that did not involve actual children were legal. This case is very interesting, as it does involve photos of underage children, but as long as the man did not try to distribute the pictures and took reasonable steps to do so, then what persons were harmed?
This case is also very interesting as it seems to hinge on taking two completely legal, distributable components -- a picture of a child and a picture of pornography -- and making something illegal by blending the two. This distinction has an important legal distinction with physical objects all the time, as it is illegal to distribute large quantities of explosives such as ANFO, but legal to distribute fuel oil and fertilizer unblended and separate. With pictures and print, aside from possible slander/libel charges due to misrepresentation, I can't think of any situation in which the mashup of two legally distributable documents would be found to be illegal.
It will be very interesting to see how the court deals with this case.
coding is life
Even worse, we sell lingerie aimed at tweens, and market teenagers as sex symbols while watching "To Catch a Predator" and decrying men sleeping with teenages are vile scum. There is a weird double-standard here.
When Kevin Smith wrote a column saying he wasn't interested in the then 16-year old Brittany Spears, and how he felt it was wrong to market teenagers as sex symbols, he got hate mail saying every healthy man on the planet wants to sleep with young teenagers.
I think society doesn't want to make this a bigger issue because they can't deal with it consistently or coherently. Instead they pass laws forbidding sex offenders from living in their towns, adding additional punishment for crimes already punished. The Supreme Court actually ruled that neither ex posto facto nor double jeopardy apply. So apparently pedophiles don't get Constitutional rights.
Statistically they are the most likely to repeat offend. So clearly, we're not dealing with the issue in any successful or meaningful way.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
These laws were designed to prevent stirring the flames of child molesters. It wouldn't matter if the faces were photographed thirty years ago and the women gave consent to use their childhood pictures.
Frankly I am at the point of thinking that even if some of this type of art actually could be proven to cause the death of children at times perhaps it should still be allowed. After all, the food served at fast food joints or allowing people to use cars also cause deaths to kids and neither fast food nor automobiles are essential elements of life.
Social engineering is a slippery beast and logic is not behind the desired consequences that people feel must occur.
You're thinking of 1984
I'd like to see your source for that allegation.
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.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
So what? He didn't publish or distribute these pictures. The cops found them when they were doing a search of his home. Basically he was fantasising, privately. Only pixels were harmed. So no harm to the children's feelings or reputations (until the cops and prosecutors made them public, they did mention some teen star's name).
The process seems to be "This is disgusting, what can we charge him with?" Because the real offence, being creepy, is not actually a crime.