Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!news-out.sonic-news.com!iad.highwinds-media.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.alt.net!fictitious-path
From: Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Jury convicts man in child pornography case
Date: 20 Sep 2008 12:16:02 -0500
Organization: Dreamland
Lines: 161
Approved: abc
Message-ID: <0001HW.C4FA7D520016CD58B01AD9AF@news.newscene.com>
References: <ut24d49lqph8r1t2d046ulkjv0d2p34d17@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-No-Archive: yes
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:3539
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:08:59 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright wrote
(in article <ut24d49lqph8r1t2d046ulkjv0d2p34d17@4ax.com>):
>
> Jury convicts man in child pornography case
>
Snipped
>
> Police have said more than 1 million images were found on Worman's
> computer, including thousands of videos that Worman produced of
> himself raping children.
>
> Defense attorney Mark Cedrone challenged some of the evidence and said
> he disagreed with the jury instructions on some counts. But he said
> the jury did its job, deliberating for several hours over the course
> of two days.
>
> "I don't think the jury just succumbed to the ugliness of the case,"
> Cedrone said.
>
--
> There are those who maintain that there is a distinction between viewing
> child pornography and molesting a child.
>
> This is another fallacy. Viewing these images is often the first step in
> the timeline that eventually leads to the sexual victimization of a child.
> Dr. Andres Hernandez, Director of the Sex Offender Treatment Program at the
> Federal Correctional Institution at Butner, North Carolina, has treated
> several hundred inmates who were convicted of child pornography crimes.
>
> He conducted a study which found that 85% of child pornography offenders
> had, in fact, committed contact sexual crimes which were unknown to law
> enforcement. Dr. Hernandez asserts, that, while there needs to be further
>
> This is supported by another study, published in the Journal of Abnormal
> Psychology, which suggests that child pornography offending is a stronger
> diagnostic indicator of pedophilia than is sexually offending against child
> victims.[2]
>
> It is also known that images of child pornography are used in the
> victimization of children to desensitize them to sexual exploitation. They
> natural inhibitions and defense mechanisms.
>
If the man was indeed setting up children to be photographed without their
knowledge and/or against their will, then that is (I believe) tantamount to a
rape (they are underage) and he should be punished. That behavior is not
acceptable any more than it is ok to photograph adults in bathrooms without
their knowledge and consent. Whether it ought to be more than a misdemeanor
is questionable.
The dramatization of charges ("more than 1 million images) sounds to me like
the police grossly exagerated the charges by counting each frame of a video
as an individual image. The police will always charge the maximum possible,
and often exaggerate charges shamelessly.
Do the math. The pictures were taken over a 3 year period (2003 - 2006) or
roughly 1000 days. That would be 1000 images a day to total to a million
images. If these were stills, it would seem that taking pictures is all this
person ever did. (given 8 hours of sleep a day and 1 hour for
eating/bathroom, etc. - the picture rate would be more than one a minute
every minute of every day for three years....seems unlikely). So the police
counted each frame of a video as "an image"...that gives us that impressive
"Over a Mllion images"...sort of a Mac Donalds trick - over one million
sold!!
Regarding sexual assault charges, one has to be careful again with Police
exaggeration. Patting a baby on the rear end while giving it a bath could
either be seen as a harmless expression of affection in one context or, as it
was in this case, a sexual assualt. On the other hand the defendent may
have been trying to force them to have sex with him. That, again is rape and
already against the law and he should be punished.
We have no data on what the man actually did in this press account. To
report simply that he was sexually abusing the children tells us essentially
nothing.
The punishment for his crime ought (as our system is supposed to work) to be
linked to the degree of harm. Since we don't know what he did, we cannot
debate his punishment or what it ought to be.
Even if the crimes were serious, it is not known (in any scientific sense)
what the effect of these acts may be on children. Assertions based on
"expert opinion" have no scientific merit without accompanying evidence.
Case studies don't do it because there are a myriad of cases that can be
found that will make the opposite point. If it's harmless (physically)
sexual play, there is some evidence to support a contention that there is no
harm.
I would point out that perpetrators of so-called sex crimes (which can be as
innocent as taking a picture - any picture - of a nude child) are routinely
given extremely harsh punishments. The punishments for even the relatively
harmless crime of possessing images of nude children can often be harsher
than the punishment for actually physically abusing the child. You can beat
a child with impunity, but don't be caught taking a picture of him in his
underwear!
Finally as to the "studies" that purport to show a linkage between the
viewing of pornography and eventual molestation, there are at least two big
problems.
The first problem is obvious to anyone even slightly knowledgeable about
scientific methods. It is called a "Post Hoc" fallacy which is short for
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After this, therefore because of this). Just
because one event precedes another event in time does not mean that the first
caused the second. Obvious examples abound. The "Mashed Potato Fallacy" -
all axe murderers ate mashed potatoes as a child. Therefore, axe murder is
caused by children eating mashed potatoes....and so on. This is sometimes
called the "Mother's Milk" fallacy.
So even if the case is accurately presented, the fact that a person guilty of
molesting a child once viewed child pornography establishes no causal link
between the two. Not in the eyes of rational discourse at least. You may
assert it as a proposition but it has no defense in science.
The second problem with these studies is they are most often done on
prisoners who are asked to report retrospectively on their pornography
viewing habits.
A. The prisoners in question are trying to better their condition and will
report whatever they think the questioner wants to hear and they also would
like to find some external reason (it was that pornography that did me in)
rather than face the consequences of their own action.
and,
B. Never included in such studies is an estimate of how many people view
pornography and do not go on to commit crimes of any sort. This number
(which is substantial) is not included because these people are not available
to be sampled. Most people will not readily admit to viewing pornography
(although it is obvious that millions do so) and they are particularly
reluctant if what they view involves children.
So we have not idea as the linkage of pornography viewing and subsequent
sexual activity with children. Period.
So applying a little (not a lot) of intellectual rigor to your post renders
it rather useless. It certainly doesn't make the point you are trying to
make.
So Mr. B. Cartwright, why don't you stick that lot up your bottom?
|
|