@JTT,
Quote:His concern, like mine, is that there is a pack mentality surrounding these people and they are sometimes dealt unreasonable sentences. Actually, in a better world, those with mental illnesses wouldn't get prison sentences.
The law does not generally take into account mental illness, beyond competency to stand trial, or whether the person was legally insane at the time of the criminal act.
Being a sociopath (a mental illness) does not excuse burglary. Being an alcoholic (an addictive mental illness) does not excuse vehicular homicide while alcohol impaired. Being a pedophile (a mental illness) does not excuse child molestation or child sexual abuse. Most people in prisons would probably qualify for, or meet the criteria for, some psychiatric diagnosis. That does not mean that prisons are unnecessary.
What has happened, at least in the public mind, is some confusion of actual sexual contact crimes against children with the possession of child pornography. Because it is assumed that those who view child pornography would be more likely to actually engage in sexual contact with a child, some of the pornography possession laws were meant to serve as deterrents to further criminal actions toward children. Additionally, the punishments for possession of child pornography were meant to deter the production and distribution of such material, by limiting the demand.
It is certainly generally accepted that child pornography harms both the children depicted in the material, and poses some threat of potential actual harm to children in general--but we really don't know the magnitude of such a potential threat. Some people who view child pornography may never actually act on their fantasies or urges. Some people who actually sexually abuse children have never viewed child pornography. But most people do want to stop the production and distribution of child pornography, and, for that reason, they want the possession laws maintained, but with better sentencing guidelines.
What has happened, is that the sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography have allowed too much leeway for multiple charges against the offender. I believe there was one case (possibly in Arizona) in which a man was found in possession of 20 pictures of children, and he was sentenced to 10 years for each of them, to run consecutively, for a total of 200 years. Clearly that is absurd. But that is the way that sentencing has been going, with separate charges for each photo, and the sentences have consequently been disproportionately long--often much longer than sentences given to those who actually sexually abuse children.
So, some revision of the sentencing guidelines for possession of child pornography certainly seems to be in order. I do believe that it should remain a criminal offense. Unlike Hawkeye, I do not see such material as being harmless or innocuous. The criminal laws against possession do reflect the prevailing sentiment and will of the community. This is not the government acting as thought police or the Gestapo or invading people's privacy. This reflects prevailing public opinion and the will of the people. Most people do view child pornography as one link in a chain which poses an actual harm or risk to children, and punishing possession may help to decrease the production and distribution of child pornography. In that regard, stiff prison sentences can be a powerful deterrent to possession, but sentences must also be reasonable and in line with the actual nature of the crime. They certainly should not exceed sentences which would be given to those who actually commit sexual offenses against children.
What also tends to get lost in discussions of topics like this is the fact that most children who are sexually abused are not abused by strangers. They are abused by a parent, a step parent, a sibling, a relative, a neighbor, a friend of the family--someone who is known to them. Child pornography may play little or no role in much of this, particularly when this goes on within a family. By focusing so much public attention, and our laws, on preventing strangers from harming our children, we may lose sight of the very real dangers to children which are much closer to home.
