The horrible job of being a child-pr0n prosecutor.
Our criminal justice system is FUBAR, particularly in the area of sex and drug crimes, and the bad thing is that this is a federal problem, so that we can’t even leave it up to the laboratories of the states. Another reason to reinstitute federalism, and nuke the existing federal criminal code.
As an aside, it seems the best job for a genuine pedophile would be working in whatever law enforcement office that handles the child pr0n evidence — you could look at child pr0n whenever you wanted instead of getting 10 – 20 for even glancing at a hand-drawn sketch of kiddie pr0n like us “little people.”
This gives me the creeps. I have a 15-year-old son. Suppose he goes looking at “underage pr0n” online, because he’s thrilled with the idea of seeing naked 15-year-old girls — which is, you know, absolutely normal and healthy for him, and then the prosecutor comes calling because the way those 15-year-old girls got on the ‘net in the altogether is grotesque and ugly. (And I agree it is, because I have a 17-year-old daughter, and I would be awfully angry at any of the ways I can imagine her turning up in such a situation.)
This seems to be the problem with all attempts at “demand side” elimination of activites we find ugly. We hate the way drug traffickers wreck civil society, from Columbia to Los Angeles — and start busting high-school seniors who buy a joint, utterly ruining their lives to “send a message” or try to cut off demand. Here, too, we hate and despise the way the pornographers exploit their young prey, and try to hit the demand side by burning the users. But as McCarthy says in his Corner note, all too often the users are not the creepy 45-year-old raincoat-wearing bicycle-seat-sniffing pedophiles we imagine, but some doofus teen boy.
I dunno about this whole thing of criminalizing just looking at something, either. It’s one thing if you actually fork over cash money for the product; I suppose you can argue that’s a conscious subsidy of evil, but criminalizing a mouse click is alarmingly close to the Thought Police to me. What a strange, brave new world we now live in. Who saw it coming? Not me. I thought it would be the Jetsons and Star Trek all the way. Never dreamed it would be the Middle Ages II, with a whole new Church to save your soul.
I’m imagining a cross between “The Jetsons” and Minority Report. Didn’t Adult Swim riff on that in an episode of “Harvey Birdman”?
I have to wonder how much actual logical space there is between Minority Report and stings. I mean, when you’re burned by a sting you are, really, being burned for the mere intention or proclivity to commit a crime, because, actually, no crime is ever committed. You just think you’re commiting a crime, but the authorities have faked reality for you. I don’t like this.
Even more FUBAR than when a teenager gets arrested for looking at other teenagers, is when a teenager gets busted for “distribution” by posting pictures of themselves online. That’s happened, and it’s madness.
Carl: What’s even worse is that some pictures of 15-17 year old girls get on the internet because they took them themselves for a boyfriend or the like, without anyone else being involved except eventually publishing it online. (Or, heck, they might do it themselves if it’s just topless).
Then they’re guilty of creating “child pornography” and can go to prison for a decade – and nobody particularly exploited or abused anyone.
The laws in question really ought to be re-written with an age cap of 14 or 15 for harsh sentences, rather than 18 – and ideally no mandatory sentences at all. I do trust judges to punish people more aptly than legislators. 16 and 17 year olds simply are not “children”, and actual pedophiles don’t want pictures of them anyway – they’re biologically adults, and pedophiles want pre-pubescents, by definition.
(And then there’s the whole “virtual child pornography” thing – evidently one can go to prison for possessing text that would be legal if not for the worlds “Oh, and she was 16.” at the end [to use the most egregious example].
This doesn’t resemble sane law, especially given that in many states it would be legal for an adult to actually have real sex with a person that age.
Moral panics make for bad laws, in all cases.)
In my administration, 16-year-old girls sexting their naked boobs will not only be legal, it will be mandatory.
Titus, if you had a daughter, you wouldn’t write that. If I caught you trying to look at my daughter when she was 16, very bad things would happen. Attempts at humor about this aren’t funny to fathers.
Then the terrorists have already won.
The terrorists have not won if a father would make any adult sorry for deliberately looking at his naked daughter or pictures of the same.
The terrorists have won if said father would be condemned by a jury for doing his duty as a father to protect her for scummy adults.