I read a newspaper article(1) about how people who view, access, or store child pornography are punished. Sentences can get up to 20 years in prison. Based on the merits of the case, each federal sentence has a recommended minimum, with the absolute minimum being 5 years. The prosecution of these crimes is based on the presumption that a 'voyeur' of this ilk will one day take the initiative to abuse children, possibly recording their actions for distribution.
Some see the punishments as excessive. "The fact that a person was stimulated by digital depictions of child pornography does not mean that he has or will in the future seek to assault a child," declared one judge. "You shouldn't punish someone for something they haven't done," said a public defender.
Yet is seems that the standard – the potential to harm – is the wrong one to use. Children are abused solely for the benefit of child pornography consumers. Harm has already been done.
Methamphetamine is illegal in the US. Not only is it illegal to produce and transport, it is illegal to consume. Thus one who is caught in possession of methamphetamine is sentenced based on their possession. Not on the future harm they may do to others, but on the fact that they posses an illegal substance.
Shouldn't the possession of child pornography work the same way?
1. Efrati A. Making Punishments Fit the Most Offensive Crimes. The Wall Street Journal. October 23, 2008:A14.
No comments:
Post a Comment