200 Years in Prison for Possessing Child Pornography?

[Leofric]

Morton Berger, a high school history teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, was recently convicted for possession of child pornography. He possessed photographs — both digital and print — depicting sexual acts between adults and children, sexual acts between children, and sexual acts between children and animals.

He was sentenced to the state-mandated minimum of 10 years in prison for his crime with no chance for parole, early release, or pardon, all in accordance with state law. But, he was given one sentence for each of 20 images, the sentences to be served consecutively.

Morton Berger has therefore been sentenced to 200 years in prison — with no chance for parole, early release, or pardon — for possessing photographs.

In his last chance for defense, he has recently appealed his case to the United States' Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated the 8th Amendment and (because of the doctrine of incorporation) the 14th Amendment. The court has refused to hear his case without giving any reason why, and will let stand the ruling of the Arizona Supreme Court to uphold the 200-year sentence.

It looks like he's in for a long prison run.

So what do you think? Though we can all agree that his sentence is kind of long (probably long enough that he won't be able to serve it), do you think his sentence was justified?

Vote and comment! http://www.beyeone.net/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

For more info and commentary:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6399471.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6399471.stm)
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1949 (http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1949)
http://sentencing.typepad.com/senten...ver_happe.html (http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/05/what_ever_happe.html)
http://stoptheaclu.com/tag/aclu/ (http://stoptheaclu.com/tag/aclu/)

[ladybright]

I think that for the type and quantity of images he deserved more than ten years. Two hundred seems more than sufficient but the judge ruled within the law in my opinion. Even if Berger did not purchase the images I still consider him to be an accessory after the fact to child rape, sodomy and bestiality. This was not one night of downloading abusive porn this went on for several years according to the articles. Teachers, priests and medical profesionals are held to a higher standard in my eyes so when they do something i react even more strongly than I otherwise might.I would rather that child sex offenders get draconian (http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Story_of_the_Greatest_Nations_and_th e_Worlds_Famous_Events_Vol_1/whatisd_bei.html) penalties than probation or counseling/family reunification for adult offenders.

[Todesritter]

A teacher - he should be glad none of the parents of his pupils got hold of him; doubtless the system will take pity on him after maybe a few decades at most, and he will be let out for some reason the powers that be can articulate and save face for having had done so.

You folks know my stance on this kind of thing...
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/axe2.jpg
... a kindness to both society and ultimately the sick individual in my opinion.

[SuuT]

I love this "200 year" and "7 consecutive life sentances" (etc.) babble - always good for a laugh.

Although I doubt any of us here will live to see it, I look forward (and backward, not so incidentally) to the time when such acts, after due process, leads - with no ifs ands or buts - right to death.

When people act in a way that contradistincts the idea that all life has inherent value, they rob themselves of their own - as far as I am concerned.

Society continues to suffer so long as this man draws breath.

[Wicked]

I think it's a great idea to lock in pedofiles and throw away the keys.

In Sweden possession of child pornography got illegal first 1999. It took some serious changes in the swedish constitution to make that happen becuse of how the laws about freedom of the press and freedom of speech was formulated. Still the maximum sentence for possesion of child pornografy in Sweden is one year in prison. I think that's a joke.

[Leofric]

doubtless the system will take pity on him after maybe a few decades at most, and he will be let out for some reason the powers that be can articulate and save face for having had done so.
Only time will tell, I suppose, but the state law is written so that at least ten years must be served for conviction of possession of child pornography with absolutely no chance for parole, early release, or pardon.

At most, he could have his sentences shifted from consecutive to concurrent and be out after ten years. But I don't even know whether that's allowed.

It's always possible though that the law could be changed and then applied retrospectively to him to grant him some clemency.

[a.squiggles]

on one hand i think it's too long, he would have gotten less if he had murdered one of the children...or two...
but on the other hand, he was a teacher - in a position of trust which he betrayed...those aggravating circumstances might make it appropriate...

to go off somewhat on a tangent, is it just me or are child porn/abuse/etc cases getting a lot more media attention in recent years? is there an epidemic of paedophilia and, if so, what might have caused it?

[ladybright]

I think that the internet has made it easier to get to child pornography. But I really do believe that pedophiles are not more common than they were forty or fifty years ago. They get publicly shamed instead of hushed up or sent to institutions. Having spoken to people who grew up in the 50's there were a lot of 'weird uncles' and 'funny priests' or teachers who liked their female students too much.

I think that violent crimes should have longer minimum sentences. I think that the ‘war on drugs’ has wasted resources that could have been used for better things. Not that I approve of drug use or addiction. I just consider it less dangerous than child abuse.

[fonze]

I hear prison is really nice from someone who was there. With Playstations and Xbox video game consoles, tv's, and 3 hot meals a day. This guy is gonna be living the life for 200 years.

Not really a good punishment for child porn.

We should be able to feed these low lives to Islamists so they can saw his head off. That way the Islamists will be satisfied of their blood lust and we can rid our society of scummy scum.

[Weg]

200 years seems a little long. Surely 100 would have been enough.


Hmm... What's the difference between 100 and 200 years? The only chance he'll get to leave jail will be in a coffin, anyway.

[SuuT]

I hear prison is really nice from someone who was there. With Playstations and Xbox video game consoles, tv's, and 3 hot meals a day. This guy is gonna be living the life for 200 years.

Not really a good punishment for child porn.



Paedophiles don't fare so well in prison. After he's renamed Annie and can no longer control his anal sphincter he'll wish he was dead anyway.

I think that that is cruel and unusual.

I think it is equally cruel and unusual for society to have to foot the 150K per year for the remainder of his natural life (no one escapes "200 year" sentances, or is granted parole in such instances) just to house and feed and 'entertain' an individual who is aroused by sex between 4-year-olds and llamas (or whatever the case was here).

[ladybright]

Although 'prison justice' seems like a nice idea (for those of us not on the receiving end) it is not a dependable form of punishment. If someone can get 'ganged up' or prove a vicious enough 'rep' they can avoid being raped. I do not think this guy has the resources to do either but we should not assume that the bad guys will actually 'get what they deserve' they might but they might not.

What do people think of this case (http://forums.skadi.net/ex_judge_kline_gets_prison_child_pornogr aphy-t90694.html?t=90694). There were many fewer images but he is getting only a few months.:mad He was accused of actually molesting at least one boy as well but the case was too old.

[Patrioten]

I am disgusted at the idea of prison "justice", prisoners being raped by other inmates. Pedophiles, rapists and murderers alike should face the ultimate punishment, death in my opinion. No one however, should have to face society-approved rape while in prison. These disgusting sodomites who seem to plague american prisons in particular would be put to death if i had anything to say about it.

[Leofric]

Well, I think I definitely might be the lone man on this issue, but I think possession of child pornography shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

I think pedophilia is as sick and as evil as the next man, of course. I even think that men who go ga-ga over pedomorphic adult women have a bit of a screw loose.

But possessing some images that aren't doing any real damage to anyone but the possessor is no crime and shouldn't be illegal. Who's harmed by the images themselves? No one but the idiot who's looking at them, and he's doing it with full consent. I don't think we should prohibit activities that only hurt consensual participants — if folks want to mess up their own lives, they're more than welcome to. They own their lives, after all.

I understand what the law is trying to do here, of course. We all know that the production of child pornography (if we're talking about actual children and not, say, 17-year-olds) inherently involves abusive treatment of children who can't really give informed consent. And we know that it's produced only because there's a demand for it. And so we come up with laws like these to try to reduce demand for a product whose production is so inherently evil.

But it seems to me that the right way to go about punishing crime is to punish the actual criminals, not those who merely like what the criminals have done. The production of child pornography is criminal, since it actually hurts innocent people.

I think it's comparable to photographs of murder. I have photographs of murders being committed (like, say, the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald) or the effect of their having been committed. They come in the news with some frequency. Murder is more heinous a crime than child abuse (since an abused child can, albeit with great difficulty at times, actually recover). But no one says it's criminal for me to have images of murder. No one accuses me of being an accessory to the crime after the fact because I have the images. No one even thinks I'm a sicko for having the images (it's not like I collect them — like I say, they come in the news).

Possession of child pornography is no more criminal than possession of photographs of murder. If a person seeks out and collects either, he's probably pretty sick and pretty evil. But criminal? No.

Here's an interesting twist: what if the images had been paintings? I don't think the law distinguishes between paintings and photographs in this — but clearly no one has to abuse any child to paint a pornographic picture involving child subjects. It could just be one sicko catering to the twisted fantasies of another.



@Weg: I think the key difference between 200 and 100 years, from my perspective, is that there's no way a person could serve 200 years but a person might, if he's young enough (18, say), actually serve a full 100 years and then be released. The one is kind of melodramatically draconian; the other is simply draconian. :D Of course, in Berger's case, it would make no substantive difference.

[OneEnglishNorman]

Personally all I am concerned about is paedophiles actually touching children, for all I care governments can legalise all types of porn.

Why should I pay out of my taxes to imprison a paedophile who is just looking at images?

[sheriff skullface]

A teacher - he should be glad none of the parents of his pupils got hold of him; doubtless the system will take pity on him after maybe a few decades at most, and he will be let out for some reason the powers that be can articulate and save face for having had done so.

You folks know my stance on this kind of thing...
http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/axe2.jpg
... a kindness to both society and ultimately the sick individual in my opinion.


absoultely! I was just gonna say instead of wasting money having him in the system at all, that it would just be more logical to just award that kind of thing with the death penalty

[Thusnelda]

Leofric, I´ve read your posting, and by all the respect I have for you as an important Skadian, Ive to say "No No No!" to it.

Child-porn is absolutely disgusting. The people who produce child-porn are among the scum of the planet. It doesn´t matter if they force children by brutality to make such pictures or movies or if the children do it in their naivity by free will - it is and will always by a very severe, injuring crime. The producers of such kind of "media" must face ultimate consequences.

Children are so vulnerable, sensitive and yet unformed in their later character and personality. They get traumas by such rude acts of violence for sure.

And now to the possessors of child pornography. Okay, it may be true that they do no harm to the children directly since they only consume things other people have made. But alone the fact that they find it fascinating and "stimulating" to look at such pictures (and actively searching for them on the net) is a kind of crime. They abuse the children in an other way. They spread these disgusting pictures in the net. The picture of naked children. Pictures who should have never been made at all! With every more single individual who gets in contact with such picture, the harm done to the children is growing. These pictures are stealing the innocence of children. Maybe not physically, but psychically.

So it is my definitive opinion that both child-porn producers and child-porn consumers should be sentenced "guilty" by justice. Maybe the consumers not so harsh than producers, but also severe!

[Leofric]

Leofric, I´ve read your posting, and by all the respect I have for you as an important Skadian, Ive to say "No No No!" to it.
Well, Valkyrie, I must say that the respect goes both ways here. I'm grateful to you for expressing your opinion and for disagreeing with mine in such a way as to encourage our mutual respect. I hope I can follow your example.



Child-porn is absolutely disgusting.
Agreed.

The people who produce child-porn are among the scum of the planet.
Also agreed. As Jesus (the Prince of Peace) put it, "it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

It doesn´t matter if they force children by brutality to make such pictures or movies or if the children do it in their naivity by free will - it is and will always by a very severe, injuring crime.
I agree with this as well. Naive "consent" is not real consent, I think. It's being duped. Fraudulent behavior is just another form of violent behavior and just as criminal. A producer of child pornography who takes advantage of children's innocence to produce his wares is just as criminal as one who forces the children against their young will. And they should be equally punished for their crimes, and that sternly.

The producers of such kind of "media" must face ultimate consequences.
So long as it involves actual children (instead of being just paintings or something like it), I agree completely.

Children are so vulnerable, sensitive and yet unformed in their later character and personality. They get traumas by such rude acts of violence for sure.
Absolutely. That's why the punishment for such violence done to them should be so severe.

And now to the possessors of child pornography. Okay, it may be true that they do no harm to the children directly since they only consume things other people have made.
Now you see, that seems like a material difference to me. A man who harms a child should be punished. A man who harms himself should be pitied. If he's not harming a child, then there's no need to punish him for damage done to a child.

But alone the fact that they find it fascinating and "stimulating" to look at such pictures (and actively searching for them on the net) is a kind of crime.
I would say it's a sickness. I think such a person needs help, not punishment. Anyone (other than children) who finds children erotic in any way is sick. He needs medical care, not a prison sentence.

They abuse the children in an other way. They spread these disgusting pictures in the net. The picture of naked children. Pictures who should have never been made at all! With every more single individual who gets in contact with such picture, the harm done to the children is growing. These pictures are stealing the innocence of children. Maybe not physically, but psychically.
Good point. Though I hadn't considered it before, I can see distribution of compromising photographs of innocent victims as definitely criminal. Even here at Skadi, we forbid the posting of images of private individuals without their consent. Since a young child isn't really informed enough about the world to give such consent, anyone involved in distribution of any images of children is approaching the edge of criminality. When those images are so inherently compromising as pornographic images, the criminality of the behavior is beyond doubt.

So I agree that both production and distribution of child pornography (involving live subjects) is criminal and should be punished.

But Morton Berger was not charged with production or distribution. Only possession.

So it is my definitive opinion that both child-porn producers and child-porn consumers should be sentenced "guilty" by justice. Maybe the consumers not so harsh than producers, but also severe!
Earlier, you shifted from discussion of possession to discussion of distribution pretty quick, so I'm not wholly clear on why you find possession without distribution criminal. Could you explain that specifically in more detail?

[Glynd Eastŵd]

Granted child pornography is despicable, but isn't 200 years in prison a little bit heavy-handed? And for possession? Anyone can be unfortunate enough to stumble upon such images. I think a life sentence is ridiculous for having child porn images. It should be 10 or 20 years tops.

I don't know about America, but in Britain there is a lot of media coverage about this pedophilia issue. The self-righteous asshole tabloids have made it their mission to hunt down pedophiles all over the country. It's gone mad. I know a lot fathers who afraid to give other children lifts home for fear of being seen alone with a child. When this sort of trial happens, it just encourages people to point fingers, and I can't help but feel there are a lot of innocent men (good fathers, even) in jail cells because of wrongful accusations. It's a two edged blade. It occurs to me that this guy may have been made an example of...

[Patrioten]

Granted child pornography is despicable, but isn't 200 years in prison a little bit heavy-handed? And for possession?Well i guess it depends on whether or not you view it as a problem. I view child pornography as a major problem and thus think it needs to be dealt with with an iron fist.

Anyone can be unfortunate enough to stumble upon such images.They don't give out 200 year sentences for one or two pictures. If you have hundreds, thousands, even in some cases millions of child pornographic pictures on your computer or in your possession, you haven't stumbled upon them.

I think a life sentence is ridiculous for having child porn images. It should be 10 or 20 years tops.As far as i'm concerned, individuals who display this abnormality need to be permanently removed from society.

I don't know about America, but in Britain there is a lot of media coverage about this pedophilia issue. The self-righteous asshole tabloids have made it their mission to hunt down pedophiles all over the country.I salute them for it.

It's gone mad. I know a lot fathers who afraid to give other children lifts home for fear of being seen alone with a child. When this sort of trial happens, it just encourages people to point fingers, and I can't help but feel there are a lot of innocent men (good fathers, even) in jail cells because of wrongful accusations. It's a two edged blade. It occurs to me that this guy may have been made an example of...To get wrongfully convicted of such a serious crime as child molestation has to be an extreme exception. That goes for most serious crimes too. I don't buy into the argument that lots of people are convicted for serious crimes for no reason. If that's the price we have to pay to ensure that rapists, pedophiles and murderers are convicted for their crimes, that one or two might potentially get wrongfully convicted, then i am willing to accept that risk (just as we have done up until now).

[SuuT]

...I think possession of child pornography shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

Got kids?

I think pedophilia is as sick and as evil as the next man, of course...

Clearly you do not. Indeed you make a hard and fast distinction/qualification that the suplpy side of child pornography is the side of the spectrum, and the only side of the spectrum, worth punishing. I, for one, recognise that they are each responsible - in the manner that each is responsible - for abusing children. In short, you do not believe the demand side is as negligent as the supply side, which is absurd: were there no demand, there would be no supply; were there no supply, demand would remain. It follows that it is the demand side that must take ultimate responsibility for production. - Demand is the constant in this equation.

But possessing ... images that aren't doing any real damage to anyone but the possessor is no crime and shouldn't be illegal.

Eh? Was there, or was there not, a child harmed in the production of the images, regardless of who posesses them after their production?

I think that that is very "real" damage.

Furthermore, it is a crime and is illegal for these (amongst other) reasons.

Who's harmed by the images themselves? No one but the idiot who's looking at them

Scores of people beyond the individual in possession of the images. Not the least of which, the little boy or girl that had their Soul ripped away in their production.

and he's doing it with full consent.

The child he is looking at did not/could not consent to the production of the images, which would not have taken place did he not demand them. And it doesn't matter: thank the gods, the law does not recognise the demand side of child pornography to be 'consentual'. For something to be legally consentual, it must involve the carrying out of an action, that is legal, by mutually agreeable parties - moreover, parties that are legally endowed with the capacity to be mutually agreeable.

The only mutually agreeable parties in instances of child pornography are those involved in production, and those involved in distribution and reciept. And it doesn't matter, because they are not legally endowed to come to such an agreement, as such an agreement hinges upon the victimisation of a child and/or children in order to take place.

I don't think we should prohibit activities that only hurt consensual participants — if folks want to mess up their own lives, they're more than welcome to. They own their lives, after all.

Please provide an example of any kind of child pornography that has not harmed a child.

I understand what the law is trying to do here, of course. We all know that the production of child pornography (if we're talking about actual children and not, say, 17-year-olds) inherently involves abusive treatment of children who can't really give informed consent. And we know that it's produced only because there's a demand for it. And so we come up with laws like these to try to reduce demand for a product whose production is so inherently evil.

It doesn't seem that you do, Leofric. The law radiates from the idea that children are precious and innocent: it radiates from the idea that harm to a child in the instance of child pornography is particularly hateful, odious, abominable, and reprehensible: it radiates from the idea that such acts by anyone involved in any way, in any child abuse as wretched as child pornography, are deserving of a people's sublimated vengeance - we call this retribution.

That it might deter, is icing on the cake.

I think it's comparable to photographs of murder. I have photographs of murders being committed (like, say, the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald) or the effect of their having been committed. They come in the news with some frequency. Murder is more heinous a crime than child abuse (since an abused child can, albeit with great difficulty at times, actually recover). But no one says it's criminal for me to have images of murder. No one accuses me of being an accessory to the crime after the fact because I have the images. No one even thinks I'm a sicko for having the images...

This is a poor analogue, as well as a straw-man: one would be hard pressed to find two more mutually exclusive things as murder and child pornography, unless it were a case in which one involved the other. Otherwise, the link isn't even tenuous. Further, you have changed your wording from "child pornography" (the thread topic) to "child abuse". All child pornography is child abuse; not all child abuse is child pornorgaphy.

Possession of child pornography is no more criminal than possession of photographs of murder.

Per se, yes it is. Indeed, we would not be having this discussion were it not. One is not necessarily participating in the production of a murder for having photographs of one. Whereas the individual in possession of child pornography is an integral link in the chain of abuse that that child has undergone, for all the reasons already stated. It is, therefore, and beyond per se, "more criminal" to possess child pornography - in theory, and application of law.

[ladybright]

^ That was excellent post SuuT.

Unfortunately child pornography is not something that occurs in a vacuum. They are often businesses not just something produced for the criminal’s personal enjoyment.

Here are some excerpts from articles dealing with child pornography/erotica/modeling as business.

Starting with Andrew Vachss
Child pornography has become a business so profitable that it is no longer limited to pedophiles. Demand exceeds supply and always will. (Some pedophiles, if they had the resources, would acquire a copy of every single piece of child pornography ever produced.) The risk/gain ratio is extremely favorable. And the return on investment is extraordinary. What crime syndicate would pass up such an opportunity?
Source (http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_02-19-2006/Andrew_Vachss)
The testimony was stark and dark yesterday as Congress took one of its periodic looks at child pornography on the Internet.

Specifics replaced the usual generalities with the focus on pay-for-view live webcams of underage children -- including infants and toddlers -- engaging in sexual acts. In some cases, the parents of the children shot and produced the videos.

Congressional estimates put the online child pornography business at $20 billion a year and growing. Online or offline, child pornography is illegal in the United States and most other countries. Source (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3596661)

The international internet child porn business. (http://forums.skadi.net/vienna_busts_huge_child_porn_ring-t89867.html?&highlight=child+porn+ring) That has already beeen posted on skadi

For $25 a month, "Lil' Amber" fans can ogle pictures of the little girl coyly hiking up her miniskirt or posing in a bikini on a faux bearskin rug. For $50, they can purchase a video of Amber "dancing and running around" in outfits that leave little to the imagination.

The money goes to her college fund, the site says.Lil' Amber is one of several websites featuring "models" as young as 9 owned by Webe Web Corporation, an Internet hosting company in Florida. A list of the sites is available at Child Super Models. Source (http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,45346,00.html)

In online conversations observed by The Times over four months, pedophiles portrayed model sites as the last of a shrinking number of Internet locations for sexual images of minors.

”I considered the authors of those sites as leaders of a rebellion movement for child porn,” a man calling himself Heartfallen wrote in an online site for pedophiles, discussing the decline in the number of sites featuring images of naked minors. “They’ve vanished. There is much less freedom on the Internet now. We still have a rebellion made up of nonnude child modeling sites. But are they going to suffer the same fate as their predecessors?” Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/business/20model.html?ex=1313726400&en=b74fff8ea3582b86&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
The photograph captures two boys, about 6 or 7 years old, cavorting naked on a beach. One of the boys looks coyly over his shoulder. The other has an erection.

Child pornography or art?

Definitely art, according to a growing number of websites charging up to $40 a month for subscribers to gain access to images of naked children as young as 4 years old. Source (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,52345,00.html)
A group of 18 corporate giants intends to share information, issue cease-and-desist orders to offenders, and try to expand its reach to almost every financial institution that matters. The aim: to snuff out the commercial spread of the smut by 2008.

By many estimates, child pornography has mushroomed into a giant business, attracting organized crime. At least 200,000 websites sell such images, according to Mr. Allen, and rake in from $20 billion to $30 billion a year. "Its use is absolutely exploding," says Allen, whose organization each week fields as many as 1,500 tips on illicit sites.

"We have no illusions we will make the problem go away," he says. "But if we can get the focus back on hard-core pedophiles, [the problem] will be a much smaller magnitude, and we'll be able to use more traditional means to track [pedophiles] and bring [them] to justice."http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0316/p01s03-ussc.html

[Theudiskaz]

To me the answer is simple. If a person is found to be in posession of child pornography or to have ingaged in sex with a child they should be executed, preferably hanged. But Glynd Eastwd may have a point about fathers being scared to be seen with children other than their own, if they choose to give them a ride home from school. If people are becoming suspicious of a simple act like that, there's something wrong with our society. And maybe that's simply the fact that there seem to be so many pedophiles today, and people have a reason to be suspicious. Once again, as with any sort of serious crime, execution would act as an effective deterrent to pedophilia, nipping the whole problem in the bud.

[Leofric]

Clearly you do not. Indeed you make a hard and fast distinction/qualification that the suplpy side of child pornography is the side of the spectrum, and the only side of the spectrum, worth punishing. I, for one, recognise that they are each responsible - in the manner that each is responsible - for abusing children. In short, you do not believe the demand side is as negligent as the supply side, which is absurd: were there no demand, there would be no supply; were there no supply, demand would remain. It follows that it is the demand side that must take ultimate responsibility for production. - Demand is the constant in this equation.

Eh? Was there, or was there not, a child harmed in the production of the images, regardless of who posesses them after their production?
I think the response to the first of these paragraphs is in the second.

We can distinguish between the production of child pornography and the consumption of child pornography because its production (assuming the use of live subjects who are actual children) inherently involves harming a child. Its consumption does not.

Can you make explicit how consumption of child pornography (and notproduction) inherently harms a child? I think we all know its production harms children. There's no need to rehash that. How about its actual consumption?



Scores of people beyond the individual in possession of the images. Not the least of which, the little boy or girl that had their Soul ripped away in their production.

The child he is looking at did not/could not consent to the production of the images, which would not have taken place did he not demand them. And it doesn't matter: thank the gods, the law does not recognise the demand side of child pornography to be 'consentual'. For something to be legally consentual, it must involve the carrying out of an action, that is legal, by mutually agreeable parties - moreover, parties that are legally endowed with the capacity to be mutually agreeable.

The only mutually agreeable parties in instances of child pornography are those involved in production, and those involved in distribution and reciept. And it doesn't matter, because they are not legally endowed to come to such an agreement, as such an agreement hinges upon the victimisation of a child and/or children in order to take place.
If you can't discern between production of a commodity and consumption of a commodity, then we may not be able to have a reasonable discussion about this. You're trying to say that I'm wrong because I don't see the harm in the production. But I already said I find its production criminal. I'm talking about the consumption. You don't want to address what I'm saying, and instead are attacking what I'm not saying.



Please provide an example of any kind of child pornography that has not harmed a child.
I thought I did. A pornographic painting depicting children subjects would be an example of child pornography in which no child has been harmed in its production. It's just one sicko sharing his fantasy with another.



It doesn't seem that you do, Leofric. The law radiates from the idea that children are precious and innocent: it radiates from the idea that harm to a child in the instance of child pornography is particularly hateful, odious, abominable, and reprehensible: it radiates from the idea that such acts by anyone involved in any way, in any child abuse as wretched as child pornography, are deserving of a people's sublimated vengeance - we call this retribution.

That it might deter, is icing on the cake.
Not true. If retribution were really the goal, then the law would spend more time hunting down the dogs who produce the garbage. After all, they are the ones actually engaged in the hateful, odious, abominable, reprehensible act of harming precious and innocent children.

Cases like Berger's are just cheap scapegoating so that we can assuage our consciences, which ache because deep down we think it's just too much work to go after the real criminals.



This is a poor analogue, as well as a straw-man: one would be hard pressed to find two more mutually exclusive things as murder and child pornography, unless it were a case in which one involved the other. Otherwise, the link isn't even tenuous. Further, you have changed your wording from "child pornography" (the thread topic) to "child abuse". All child pornography is child abuse; not all child abuse is child pornorgaphy.
Murder is criminal. Forcing or coercing children into sexual activity is criminal. Both are criminal acts. And if they are not equally criminal, then it seems that murder is the worse crime, since the victim of the other can recover.

Possessing an image of a murder taking place, even if the murder was performed primarily to allow for production of the image, is not only not criminal, it's not illegal.

Possessing an image of sexual child abuse taking place, even if the abuse was performed primarily to allow for production of the image, is illegal.

I see an inconsistency here. It seems to me that possession of either image is not criminal and therefore should not be illegal, regardless of the fact that the acts depicted in the images are horrible crimes.

I have tried to spell out this analogy as clearly as I can. You have claimed that this analogy is poor. Why don't you spell out in full clarity why you think so? If you can't do that, I'll have little choice but to conclude that you're calling the analogy poor simply because you don't like its implications.



the individual in possession of child pornography is an integral link in the chain of abuse that that child has undergone
No. He's not. The only way you could even make that argument plausible is if the possessor of child pornography has actually purchased it from its producer or the producer's licensed distributor.

A great deal of digital child pornography is distributed person to person. Person to person distribution of media and its beneficiaries are not only not an integral link in the chain that produces that media, but are in fact counterproductive to that chain. Were it not so, Jon Johansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen) wouldn't have had so much legal hassle in his young life. A person who possesses child pornography acquired through person to person distribution is not the person whom the pornographer is abusing the children for.

Furthermore, since pedophilia is pretty old in the world's history, and since pornography is pretty in the world's history (both have existed since ancient times), it is not at all impossible that child pornography exists in the public domain. If a person possesses pornographic daguerrotypes of children who died of old age before the person possessing them was born, how on earth could that person be an integral link in the chain of abuse?

Granted, old pornography of any type is almost certainly a miniscule percentage of extant pornography — the vast majority of child pornography available today that involves live subjects probably depicts people who are still walking the earth and younger than 25.

But the law doesn't care about that. The law is set down to be applied universally. And with juries who have been stripped of their rightful powers, anyone who runs afoul of the laws because of possessing 19th-century child pornography is likely to get the same treatment as someone who specifically commissions the production of particular images — if the state decides it needs another handy scapegoat.



One thing that hasn't even begun to be addressed here is the production of child pornography by children for children. I know for a fact that it happens — back in elementary school I had classmates who would do it, and it was a lot tougher back then. With the proliferation of digital cameras capable both of shooting stills and capturing footage, I can only imagine that the prevalence of such pornography has increased dramatically. It can be made with a camera phone and text-messaged to friends, all without any grown-ups even knowing it's going on.

As our society becomes more and more pornographic and sex-crazed generally, the children want more and more involvement in it. They want to feel like grown-ups. It's really perfectly natural. The only thing that's unnatural is that the adults are modelling behavior that's sicker and sicker all the time.

The children who do this clearly don't understand the full ramifications of their actions. They can't make fully informed decisions about what they're doing. But at the same time, it's not like anyone is taking advantage of them. They're doing it on their own. It's a different kind of thing than child pornography produced by adults or even by teenagers, even if it ends up getting leaked into adult circles. Its production and distribution cannot be treated in quite the same way as the production and distribution of adult-produced child pornography.

[ladybright]

This is not ment as an insult to you Leofric but there were several things that you had apparently not considered. I hope that someone more knowladgeable and erudite can help fill in the answers that I did not give.
We can distinguish between the production of child pornography and the consumption of child pornography because its production (assuming the use of live subjects who are actual children) inherently involves harming a child. Its consumption does not.

Can you make explicit how consumption of child pornography (and notproduction) inherently harms a child? I think we all know its production harms children. There's no need to rehash that. How about its actual consumption?

I thought I did. A pornographic painting depicting children subjects would be an example of child pornography in which no child has been harmed in its production. It's just one sicko sharing his fantasy with another.
Or one sicko using it to groom a potential victim. Or using it as trade for 'real' porn. To me it is by far the lesser evil but still evil.
An image that is created without a child and is not shared is better than one that is shared.
Cases like Berger's are just cheap scapegoating so that we can assuage our consciences, which ache because deep down we think it's just too much work to go after the real criminals.

I agree that he is getting a scapegoat sentence. He deserves more than ten years but 200 is more than he can serve. I think the makers and distributors should be a much higher priority.



Murder is criminal. Forcing or coercing children into sexual activity is criminal. Both are criminal acts. And if they are not equally criminal, then it seems that murder is the worse crime, since the victim of the other can recover.
I agree but they boty deserve severe punishment. You cannot me a murder survivour, you can be a rape/mostetation survivour.

Possessing an image of a murder taking place, even if the murder was performed primarily to allow for production of the image, is not only not criminal, it's not illegal.
I am under the impression that snuff films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_movie)and images are generally illegal but it is not well defined.

No. He's not. The only way you could even make that argument plausible is if the possessor of child pornography has actually purchased it from its producer or the producer's licensed distributor.

A great deal of digital child pornography is distributed person to person. Person to person distribution of media and its beneficiaries are not only not an integral link in the chain that produces that media, but are in fact counterproductive to that chain. Were it not so, Jon Johansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen) wouldn't have had so much legal hassle in his young life. A person who possesses child pornography acquired through person to person distribution is not the person whom the pornographer is abusing the children for.
Licenced distributor?!?The demand encourages criminal sindcates to create it. I would assume that they to not go running to the RAA about copyright violations.
File sharing (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0930/p02s01-usju.html?s=widep)is not a new way of distributing child porn. The need barter new images to join some of these groups increases the market.
If a person possesses pornographic daguerrotypes of children who died of old age before the person possessing them was born, how on earth could that person be an integral link in the chain of abuse?
Already produced child porn is frequently used to 'groom' a new child. Internet technology has helped the child pornography underground evolve from the clandestine physical exchange of grainy Polaroid photos to virtual, anonymous transmission of millions of high-quality images of children as young as 2. For predatory pedophiles who use Internet "chat rooms" to meet potential victims, the pictures are useful tools in a psychologically manipulative "grooming" process that lowers kids' inhibitions and makes them easy prey.Source (http://www.crime-research.org/news/13.03.2005/1039/)

But the law doesn't care about that. The law is set down to be applied universally. And with juries who have been stripped of their rightful powers, anyone who runs afoul of the laws because of possessing 19th-century child pornography is likely to get the same treatment as someone who specifically commissions the production of particular images — if the state decides it needs another handy scapegoat.
That is a valid concern but does not change my opinion that it should be illegal. I do not know what should be done with images from 100's of years ago. They still have potential to be traded or used in the production of more porn.

One thing that hasn't even begun to be addressed here is the production of child pornography by children for children. I know for a fact that it happens — back in elementary school I had classmates who would do it, and it was a lot tougher back then. With the proliferation of digital cameras capable both of shooting stills and capturing footage, I can only imagine that the prevalence of such pornography has increased dramatically. It can be made with a camera phone and text-messaged to friends, all without any grown-ups even knowing it's going on.

The children who do this clearly don't understand the full ramifications of their actions. They can't make fully informed decisions about what they're doing. But at the same time, it's not like anyone is taking advantage of them. They're doing it on their own. It's a different kind of thing than child pornography produced by adults or even by teenagers, even if it ends up getting leaked into adult circles. Its production and distribution cannot be treated in quite the same way as the production and distribution of adult-produced child pornography.
Not a subject that I have found much on. If anyone can help with that I would appreciate it. Teenagers who take pictures to share should be counciled and have their homes looked over by childrens services.

It is past my bedtime so if there are any errors in this post I will have to correct them tomorrow.

[Leofric]

Or one sicko using it to groom a potential victim. Or using it as trade for 'real' porn. To me it is by far the lesser evil but still evil.
Okay, sure, pornographic paintings can be used for criminal purposes, too (like using them to corrupt children). But that doesn't mean they have to be so used. When we're discussing laws with universal application, it seems to me to be worthwhile to consider whether the law can be abused to harm people who shouldn't really be harmed. Why should we punish people who are not harming anyone against his will? A painter of pornographic images involving children who exhibits his work to other (consenting) adults is not hurting anyone who doesn't want to be hurt.



I agree but they both deserve severe punishment. You cannot be a murder survivour, you can be a rape/mostetation survivour.
Sure, punish them both severely. No question.

But we're talking about people possessing pictures of rape (forced or coerced) or molestation of children — not people actually raping or molesting children. Those two just can't be conflated with any degree of honesty.



I am under the impression that snuff films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_movie)and images are generally illegal but it is not well defined.
The link you direct me to seems to suggest that such films don't even exist. I really don't know about that, though.

I had been thinking of stills, actually, rather than motion pictures. I got the impression that the images in Berger's possession were stills (some of them print photographs rather than digital files, even, if I remember correctly).

Do you know of any legal code prohibiting the mere possession of such images (whether moving or still)?



Licenced distributor?!?The demand encourages criminal sindcates to create it. I would assume that they to not go running to the RAA about copyright violations.
No, silly! :D I'm not talking about mainstream film distributors. I'm talking about people that the producers grant license for distribution to. Such license could be granted like, "Hey, Vinny! (Yeah, Moishe?) I got some new pics for you to put on the site. (Sounds great!)"

Of course they're not going to pursue legal action against copyright violators. They might well pursue illegal action against significant copyright violators. But whether they do anything about it or not, if they're trying to sell their product, they won't like anyone but their own middlemen (i.e. licensed distributors) distributing the product very widely. That's the just the way it goes when you're dealing with intellectual property for sale.



File sharing (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0930/p02s01-usju.html?s=widep)is not a new way of distributing child porn. The need barter new images to join some of these groups increases the market.
I'm not quite sure I follow you here. File sharing is definitely a new way to distribute child pornography, since the technology has not been available for more than about three decades at the most (and not widely available for more than about one). The article you linked to, for example, was from 2003. That's pretty new. I guess I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. But you did say it was a bit past your bedtime when you wrote this.



Already produced child porn is frequently used to 'groom' a new child. Source (http://www.crime-research.org/news/13.03.2005/1039/)
But still, it needn't be. Exposing a child to pornography is different from merely possessing pornography. When we write laws to punish crimes, we should target the actual crimes — not people who put themselves into a position to be capable of committing a crime. If someone possess child pornography, he could use it to corrupt a child in the way you're describing, but that doesn't mean that he does or even that he will. He might just practice self-abuse and go to bed.

There are enough people behaving monstrously in the world without our dreaming up monstrous intentions in the minds of the average vice-ridden individual. Most vice-ridden folks damage only themselves with their vices. Most vice-ridden people I've met seem pretty disgusted by their own vices and would never want to instill their vices in other people. I've rarely met an addict of any vicious shade who hasn't urged me never to go down his path.

Most folks, even those who are drowning in vice, are pretty decent folks. They don't want to hurt anyone. They wish they knew how to stop hurting themselves. That kind of person doesn't need to be punished.

The ones who need to be punished are those few folks who are deliberately trying to hurt others for their own twisted ends. But they're the needle in the haystack. It's a lot easier just to burn some hay to divert the public's attention from the real problem.



I do not know what should be done with images from 100's of years ago. They still have potential to be traded or used in the production of more porn.
Potential crime and actual crime are two different things. Let's target actual crime and actual criminals, I say, and leave the potential criminals (who, by definition, are also potential non-criminals) alone, to see how they finally decide to live.



That is a valid concern
Yes! It is!

Scattergun legislature that hopes to ensure hitting the targeted criminal by hitting everyone around the target as well is immoral. I mean, if we really want to ensure that no crimes be committed and that every criminal face justice, then the surest way to do that is to execute everyone.

Instead, we should craft laws that target criminals as precisely as we possibly can. We want to get every criminal and not a single non-criminal.

Once we get lazy and start using targeting folks we are almost criminal but not quite, then we're just pouring Quaker State on the slope to tyranny.



but does not change my opinion that it should be illegal.
That's all right. I didn't figure I'd change many minds on this matter, since the way folks were talking in this thread, it seemed like they had their minds well made up.

I honestly more people would see things my way on it when I posted the thread. I've seen the topic discussed on other fora where the vote was just about unanimously opposed to Berger's sentence.

I'm mostly just glad that you're willing to see that my point of view is based in "a valid concern," as you put it.



Not a subject that I have found much on. If anyone can help with that I would appreciate it. Teenagers who take pictures to share should be counciled and have their homes looked over by childrens services.
First let me say that I'm not talking about teenagers when I talk about children producing porn for other children.

I think it's better not to think about teenagers as subjects of child pornography at all when we discuss child pornography. Technically, pornography involving a girl who is 17, produced on the day before her 18th birthday, is (in the United States at least) child pornography and illegal, while pornography involving the very same girl on the very next day is just hunky-dory porn involving consenting adults. It's a totally arbitrary line and it's too easy to make arguments going either way when we get close to it.

I think it's better to limit discussion of child pornography to pornography involving pre-teen children. They are clearly unable to give proper consent to any sexual behavior they might be coerced into doing for the photographer and, as you have pointed out, unable to give proper consent to being exposed to pornographic images. A 17-year-old might not be a victim of the pornographer. But no one can question whether a 7-year-old is.

Also, the children I knew when I was a child who were involved in the production of child pornography solely with other children and solely for the consumption of other children were all pre-teens.

Now, it's possible that there was child abuse going on behind the scenes that I didn't know about and that these kids were already sick because of criminal adults. I'll never know.

But it's also possible that they were just affected by the increasingly erotic media and decadent culture of our times. Everywhere, pornography of various shades is becoming more and more acceptable in our society. The kids I knew didn't have to be abused to be interested in sex at that early age and fascinated by images of sex like those found on television, in the movies, and so forth.

These days, twenty years later, I can't but imagine that such behavior has only boomed among pre-teen children, and without any help from child abuse. Poor parenting may be present in every situation, but maybe not. Growing urbanization almost necessarily puts children into the path of erotic media pretty early on. And improvements in technology have made the production of pornography a thousand times easier than it ever was before.

But you're right. Cases like these should be treated as sicknesses rather than crimes. It's a different scenario. If adults possess child pornography produced under such circumstances, then which crime are they participating in, since there would have been no crime in the production of the pornography, which is the stage that everyone seems to agree is the most criminal?

It's my contention that such adults, like the children, need counselling rather than incarceration. Furthermore, it's my contention that a law that fails to see this difference and the others we have discussed is an inappropriate law; instead we should take the time and the effort to write and enforce laws that will target the actual criminals, and leave the sickos to the psychologists and the ministers.

[SuuT]

All three opinion in Arizona v. Berger, No. CR-05-0101-PR (Ariz. May 10, 2006) (available here (http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2006/CR050101PR.pdf))

[Leofric]

All three opinion in Arizona v. Berger, No. CR-05-0101-PR (Ariz. May 10, 2006) (available here (http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2006/CR050101PR.pdf))


That certainly clears up a lot of the facts in the case.

We can learn from this that there is no evidence whatsoever that Berger ever touched a child improperly. Furthermore, we learn that there's no evidence that Berger ever paid anyone for the images in his possession — as Justice Berch put it, "Although purchase of such items undoubtedly drives the market for their production, it is unclear that mere possession does so." And we learn that this is his first offense.

I also think some of the points brought up in these opinions are rather telling.

First, the court, in its majority opinion, seems to think that writing a bad check is a more passive felony than possessing (without purchase) a pornographic image depicting a child. It seems to me that actively defrauding a person in order to steal his property is just a wee bit less "passive" than looking at dirty pictures. Berger in no way assisted in the production of these images — not even by giving money to the people who produced them. I'd say that's more passive. But the court disagrees. They think that getting a life sentence for habitually stealing through fraudulent means by writing bad checks and, after repeated convictions, showing no intent to reform is just absurdly rotten, while passing a mandatory minimum sentence of 200 years for possessing twenty images is just to be expected. Their idea of passive seems a little off — maybe even a little politically motivated.

Second, they are basing their decision in part on the precedent of a sentence of life without parole for a first-time offender caught with 672 grams of cocaine. That defendant was not involved in any activity other than a very non-violent possession of the material. But because cocaine is involved in such a great deal of criminal behavior in our society — that is, because of the crimes of people who were not the defendant — the court had upheld the life sentence of the defendant caught with the cocaine. That is to say, the court believes it acceptable to punish a particular defendant more severely because of crimes committed by people who are not that particular defendant. If that's not scapegoating, then I really don't know what is. The precedent on which the majority opinion in this case is based explicitly condones penological scapegoating. Personally, I don't like that a bit.

Third, the court defers way too much to the legislature. Two of the justices actually wrote that the sentence seems really quite too long. The rest all agreed that it was at least "lengthy." But almost all of them sort of felt like they had to march to the tune set down by the legislature. This, I think, is where the take-home message lies. If we had real juries — juries like we used to have, juries that have the full power over trying the case, juries like our ancestors always had going back to Anglo-Saxon times — they wouldn't feel like they needed to bow to the legislature. They would feel like they could examine the case for themselves and judge for themselves how Berger should be treated. And one thing is almost certain — such a jury would never give a sentence of 200 years for this crime: they might sentence him to death; they might sentence him to exile; they might sentence him to ten years in prison; they might sentence him to one year in prison; they might even acquit him; they might even, if they really felt like they wanted the drain on their coffers, sentence him to life in prison; but they would never invent such an absurd sentence as 200 years in prison so that he could be sustained at the state's expense for a crime like this.

[fms panzerfaust]

Hmm, let me see: a hacker invade your computer using a trojan and put some child pornography in a directory that you dont use for some months and are, by all means, forgotten. Then he manage to call the police and show evidence you have child pornography. You go to the jail and get 200 years, at the same time that a serial killer gets 100, or a politician gets none for driving wars that causes the death of thousand youngs. Hmm, very interesting, welcome to the world of morality. Of course, he is a paedophile, have sick ideas, but if he dont raped a child or dont shoted these pics, he should not be sentenced to 200 years, maybe one week but not more. How many rapists get much less than this? How many rapists are released just in some weeks?
Morality can get absurd tones when it comes to the release and exchange of information, but not when it comes to a physical, real attack. Seems the censors are eager to take a first example to open the doors to more censorship in other areas. Their main enemy is the internet, the mp3, the p2p, not the rapist in the streets. So they want a excuse, and use these perverted paedophiles as first-hand examples.

[SuuT]

The case is, in multiple ways, precedent setting.

The law evolves in theory and application.

[ladybright]

I have read some about post jail civil confinement for sex offenders. I saw this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/04civil.html) in the top of my news file today. I consider it occasionally appropriate but think that the money could be better spent.

Re: snuff. There do not seem to be any statutes about killing people for the express propose of creating saleable images. True snuff films and images age exceedingly rare but seem to occasionally be created. Here (http://www.csicop.org/si/9905/snuff.html) is a site about how the idea became popularized. Here (http://www.filmireland.net/exclusives/private_worlds.htm#note6) is a more recent article that mentions a real case and several that are terrorist/propaganda not true 'snuff'.

Re file sharing. Vachss was talking about it in 1987. I am sure he did not come up with it on his own. Twenty years is a long time as far as I am concerned. This is not a long time in most senses but for a crime and laws it does not seem that long. Look at the changes in other laws in the past twenty years.

[Evolved]

It isn't just possession of pictures. Without demand, there wouldn't be a supply of these materials. Since it is difficult to catch these child porn operations in the manufacturing stage, they have to go after the little fish. The ones who produce these materials and especially the parents who sell their children for it should absolutely be executed. This guy is facing the rest of his life in a country club prison living off public money, with cable tv in his cell. That's bullshit. These non-violent criminals should be used as slave labor, the prisons are overloaded with people these days and puting them to work in industries currently dominated by illegal migrant laborers.

[Leofric]

It isn't just possession of pictures. Without demand, there wouldn't be a supply of these materials.
Keep in mind, though, that in Berger's case, it is just possession of pictures. He paid nothing for the pictures, and so far as we know, the producers of the pictures had no idea he even had them. As one of the Arizona Supreme Court justices who heard the case rather conservatively said, it's unclear whether Berger's demand did anything at all to drive the market for child pornography.

Of course, that's kind of like saying it was unclear whether Napster had any effect on the music industry: clearly Napster had an effect on the music industry — a negative effect. Berger's effect on the child pornography market would have been similar in kind (though clearly not in degree).

So in this case, it is possession and nothing more that's at stake.

[Tryggvi]

Well, I think I definitely might be the lone man on this issue, but I think possession of child pornography shouldn't be illegal in the first place. I think you made some very good points. I, too, think that possession of child pornography should not be illegal, but for different reasons.

I consider any criminal statute that hooks itself on the "possession" of things (be they pornography or drugs) facially unconstitutional. The reason is that possession is not an act, but a fact. If someone manages to upload child pornography onto your computer (with the help of a trojan, because you have a file server running, or because you have enabled the auto-reception of files in your IM's settings), then you possess it, even if you don't know that it's there, as long as you sustain the will to possess your computer (which includes the hard disk and everything that's stored on it).

They could base such laws on dissemination, buying, selling, donating, swapping, downloading, or any other premeditated act that causes possession to change or to come into existence, but not possession itself.

I think it's comparable to photographs of murder. I have photographs of murders being committed (like, say, the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald) or the effect of their having been committed. Good comparison, but not entirely hitting the point. What you say would be true if murders would be committed and captured on film for the specific purpose that people buy or watch the tapes in order to drool over them (snuff). And that's not true for most murders.

Only in this case, punishing the purchase or premeditated watching of these tapes will affect the murder rate. Punishing the "possession" of the videos will decrease demand. Decreasing demand will decrease the number of murder videos that are produced and so the number of murders that are committed. That's the idea behind outlawing the "possession" of child pornography. There has never been a real snuff video been discovered, but I'm sure that snuff would be treated the same way.

Possession of child pornography is no more criminal than possession of photographs of murder. If a person seeks out and collects either, he's probably pretty sick and pretty evil. But criminal? No. There are basically two different schools. One of them argues that the availability of child porn would increase real child abuse (people get stimulated and tempted), while the other argues it would decrease real child abuse (people get their satisfaction from the videos and thus don't have to molest real children).

Whatever might be true, the mere fact that these videos are the result of committing and filming real child abuse for the purpose of sexual stimulation, suffices to outlaw the premeditated dissemination and watching of this material in my view. Every piece of child pornography caused a child to be harmed. There should be no legal market for this material, and there should be a strong and clear message to stay away.

Here's an interesting twist: what if the images had been paintings? I don't think the law distinguishes between paintings and photographs in this — but clearly no one has to abuse any child to paint a pornographic picture involving child subjects. It could just be one sicko catering to the twisted fantasies of another. It depends on the jurisdiction, but most seem to treat fictional child pornography (e. g. a computer animation that looks totally real, but no child was ever harmed or involved) like real child pornography. Reason is that people shall not develop a taste for this kind of material and abuse.

Needless to say, this strongly collides with the freedom of expression and art, as nobody gets ever harmed. However, I believe that the welfare of our children should be of such significant value in our society, that such material should remain illegal, as long as it wasn't established beyond reasonable doubt that its presence would lead to less rather than more child abuse.