The Bane of Child Pornography

nathan2940 wrote:

Legally speaking, that's the wrong comparison.  It has to be castration vs everything else deemed "cruel and unusual," right?  And by any metric I can imagine, castration comes in as worse.

I'm all for harsher punishment, if the situation warrants it.  For example, the rape of a child under 5 years old for example, is worthy of the death penalty IMO. 

What methods are available that have even been tried ?  Imprisonment doesn't work.  It's unfeasible to repeatedly register and isolate them after incarceration.  Corporal punishment is off the table because any pain & suffering on the part of a pedophile is deemed just as bad (or worse) than the pain & suffering inflicted upon his/her victim(s) ?  I don't buy it.

I hope so as well, but I'm not willing to bet my balls on it...

Well wait a moment.  Possession of child pornography is obviously not as damning as manufacturing or distributing it.  Punishment would be correspondingly lower, also. 

My suspicion is that it's so widespread that it would be a non-stop ball-chopping bonanza if that were the punishment governments approved.  Hell, New York doesn't even want to prosecute some types of possession of kiddie porn anymore.

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuter
s.com/Legal/News/2012/05_-_May/View
ing_child_pornography_is_not_necess
arily_possession-NY_top_court/

http://www.raytaylorlaw.com/CM/Arti
cles/New-York-Case-Clarifies-Meanin
g-of-Possession-of-Child-Pornograph
y.asp

I don't know if I'd say "all for," so much as "out of sight, out of mind," but you are using a reason for opposing the DP that isn't mine.

But surely you can see the logical disconnect with being opposed to the DP, while thinking it's "a good punishment" to be in general pop in a prison after having been convicted of pedo crimes.  Refusing to allow the state to exact such measures of justice while ostensibly hoping that incarcerated criminals will do such dirty work for you is a wee bit hypocritical.

I'm not against the DP for moral reasons.  I'm not opposed to people being killed on principle, or anything of the sort.  For example, usually when I say I'm against the death penalty, people will respond with "what about _________ who was raping and killing people right and left," to which I retort "sure, kill him, any time."

My issues with the death penalty are as follows (in no particular order): error rates, lack of any deterrant effect, arbitrary nature of application, failure to use on "worst of the worst," failure to provide closure to families, and essentially failing on every single level, as a policy.  Literally the only victory it can claim is the old "eye for an eye," and even that less than 1% of the time.

Fair enough.  I would just say, "kill him faster".  The DP has its problems.  The burden of proof should be extremely high.  The Constitutionality of seemingly endless appeals needs to be curtailed somewhat too, as prisoners on death row can be incarcerated for 30 years, making it an expensive and seemingly ineffective punishment.

An "eye for an eye" 1% of the time is still better than 0%.  In exchange, the baddie gets to live in an air-conditioned cell for decades, watching cable TV and writing appeals.  Meanwhile, the victim and his/her family get nothing.

The studies I saw were regarding the chemical variety, and I'm not sure that any were from the US.  I shouldn't have said that no studies suggest that there is success to be had here - there are definitely some.  But usually (again, just what I have seen) the results were not definitive, and there were many more studies indicating that recidivism was not impacted.

But I certainly cannot take the body of work on the matter, and use it as a justification for castration as a punishment.

I agree.  But chemical castration doesn't work, because taking the medication is ultimately voluntary.  You stop taking it, the urges recur.

At one time in the United States, surgical castration was practiced.  Look it up.  It makes my balls feel a bit chilly even reading about it...

First off - yes, definitely a big difference.  But the issue with child molesters is that often their attraction is psychological, not necessarily just physical.  As they say, the most powerful sex organ is the brain.  So even if the castration reduces the hormonal aspect is removed, the risk is still present.

Your testicles have glands that produce hormones.  The hormones influence behavior.  Get rid of the glands, no more behavior.  I'm sure you've witnessed the phenomenon in the neutering of cats and dogs.

BTW - the other day, you were saying I trusted the govt too much with drone strikes - but you would trust them to get it right... with your balls???

Doing due diligence on checking target accuracy before a drone strike is quite a bit different than slicing off the testicles of a known child sex predator.  Other than missing the balls and nicking the wang ever once in a great while, I don't think there's much margin for error.

I can write more than you.


No!  I can write more than you!


Nuh uh.


Uh huh.


Prove it.


I WILL! You just wait and see.

I'm all for harsher punishment, if the situation warrants it.  For example, the rape of a child under 5 years old for example, is worthy of the death penalty IMO.

Worthy, as in fitting?  Sure, I have no real qualms with that.  Hypothetically speaking.  But put into practice, under the current-day US justice system, and the clusterf*** in which it operates... I can't get behind it.

The death penalty as a concept is one thing, the death penalty in practice is another altogether (imo, of course).

What methods are available that have even been tried ?  Imprisonment doesn't work.  It's unfeasible to repeatedly register and isolate them after incarceration. 

I'm not entirely opposed to the concept of civil committment.  But it has constitutional concerns of its own.  If you're looking for something that will cure sex offenders who molest kids, I think you will be sorely disappointed.  I am of the opinion that no cure exists, including surgical castration.

Corporal punishment is off the table because any pain & suffering on the part of a pedophile is deemed just as bad (or worse) than the pain & suffering inflicted upon his/her victim(s) ?  I don't buy it.

1) You are, again, making the wrong comparison.  This isn't a comparison of harm to victim vs harm to offender, it is punishments deemed unconstitutional as cruel and unusual vs mandatory castration.

2) You are suggesting the US government be given the power to castrate citizens.  Just want to point that out again.  You almost always advocate for smaller govt - but in matters of criminal justice, you seem to go the opposite route, especially when it comes to punishment.

You are a fan of the slippery slope arguments, and pulled them out during the drone conversation - well, what about this?  The govt should be able to kill and maim its citizens, based on a label the govt applies, in a court of law governed by the govt?   Especially when most cases don't even make it to trial - most being in the 95-97% range, through plea bargains.  Especially if the death penalty is on the table, people will be coerced into castration (classic, you don't take the slice and dice, I'm gunning for your life - do it all the time with murder now, pleaing to 2nd degree).

Well wait a moment.  Possession of child pornography is obviously not as damning as manufacturing or distributing it.  Punishment would be correspondingly lower, also. 

Who is to say where the line get's drawn, if castration is put on the table? 

I'm sure no politicians would go overboard in advocating it be applied to crimes you and I would disagree are appropriate... lol

But surely you can see the logical disconnect with being opposed to the DP, while thinking it's "a good punishment" to be in general pop in a prison after having been convicted of pedo crimes. 

Not at all, and I'm surprised you don't see the difference I'm trying to illustrate.  One (castration) is granting the govt the power to apply a label, then remove balls because of that label.  The other is not a govt power.

And what I'm suggesting is the same treatment we give simple drug dealers and burglars...

Refusing to allow the state to exact such measures of justice while ostensibly hoping that incarcerated criminals will do such dirty work for you is a wee bit hypocritical.

Hardly - not wanting to grant the govt a power is something I'd think you'd normally support.

Fair enough.  I would just say, "kill him faster". 

Except we can't.  The DP must operate within the box that the SCOTUS has set - and this box has been reaffirmed again and again, by conservative and liberal courts, since the 1970's.

The Constitutionality of seemingly endless appeals needs to be curtailed somewhat too, as prisoners on death row can be incarcerated for 30 years, making it an expensive and seemingly ineffective punishment.

Except the right to so many appeals has, again, but upheld over and over by the SCOTUS, with sweeping support amongst the liberals and conservatives, over 40 years now.

An "eye for an eye" 1% of the time is still better than 0%. 

We'll have to agree to disagree.  If I commit a death eligible offense, I have a better chance of being struck by lightening than actually getting executed.  This arbitrary, nearly nonexistant application is 1) due to the SCOTUS rules on the DP, 2) in part due to the way it is applied by juries (they rarely are willing to give it out), and 3) renders any deterrant effect moot.

In exchange, the baddie gets to live in an air-conditioned cell for decades, watching cable TV and writing appeals.  Meanwhile, the victim and his/her family get nothing.

First and foremost, we have to get this out of the way - the victim and family will NEVER get anything out of this.  The action happened, and the effects of it will remain no matter what happens to the offender.

But the death penalty actually gives families LESS closure, imo.   Rather than a guy getting LWPOP, and the case being done, they have to live through the ordeal of appeal after appeal, occurring in a public forum, for 10-20 years, and then an even more public execution.  If it were my kid that was murdered, I'd want the whole thing to be done as quickly as possible - and the DP simply does not, and cannot, offer that.

I agree.  But chemical castration doesn't work, because taking the medication is ultimately voluntary.  You stop taking it, the urges recur.

Realistically though, the idea of surgical castration is a non-starter when it comes to govt. 

Your testicles have glands that produce hormones.  The hormones influence behavior.  Get rid of the glands, no more behavior.  I'm sure you've witnessed the phenomenon in the neutering of cats and dogs.

I don't see how comparing human psycho-sexual problems to purely biological issues in cats and dogs makes sense.  Child molesters are a different classification of sex offenders for a reason - they don't operate by the same standards as others.  One of the biggest differences is that child molesters never seem to age out of crime, and that they can, and have (and will), go many years, even decades, between offenses.

This difference poses a number of odd problems.  For one, it makes measuring re-offense and recidivism rates difficult, as most studies only follow up for a period of 5-10 years (understandably).  I think I've only seen a handful that approached 20 years.  So what may show up in a study as an offender that has not reoffended may just be a dormant offender, or one who is just keeping it under wraps well (children, being their victims, are usually far more easily coerced into keeping the offense secret).

One of the more lengthy studies on castration noted that even in surgically castrated offenders, there were instances of recidivism even 20 years after the surgery.  That is bannanas, imo.

This is why, psychologically speaking, this form of sexual deviance is considered by many to be a life-long problem.  There is lots of debate on whether or not child molesters are even motivated by a sex drive, or if it is a psychological issue.  When old, castrated men are STILL raping kids... what else can it be?

So when I add all that up, I see offenders that 1) are highly likely to re-offend, 2) who are difficult to measure due to time between offenses and secretive nature of offense, 3) are seemingly highly resistant to any and all treatments.... I just see a clusterf***. But it is one that doesn't necessitate giving the govt the power to lop off balls.  IMO, it is a highly unfortunate aspect of living in a free country. 

We are going to have to deal with these people, in a way that will be insufficient, until such a time where we can somehow isolate all factors of the motivation to offend, and right now, we just can't.

Doing due diligence on checking target accuracy before a drone strike is quite a bit different than slicing off the testicles of a known child sex predator. 

It's the exact same thing - known terrorist vs known child sex predator...  With the govt being the primary party to create that label -the whole thing can happen without a jury of peers, and usually does.

  Other than missing the balls and nicking the wang ever once in a great while, I don't think there's much margin for error.

I could say the same thing about drones.  Or the death penalty.  And you could prove me wrong on both counts, easily...

^^^ Not reading that novel

Yet amazingly there are those that will say that this represents cruel and unusual punishment.  Study after study shows that recidivism for most sex offenders is unaffected by imprisonment, and still there are those who think that chemical castration or mandatory registration of sex offenders is too much of an infringing on others' rights.

Okay, but don't bitch about gun control.  Your right to bear arms is not as important as other's right to live.  

nathan2940 wrote:

Worthy, as in fitting?  Sure, I have no real qualms with that.  Hypothetically speaking.  But put into practice, under the current-day US justice system, and the clusterf*** in which it operates... I can't get behind it.

The death penalty as a concept is one thing, the death penalty in practice is another altogether (imo, of course).

I'm sure we'd both trust each other as judge, jury and executioner more than the idiots who currently have the mission.

I'm not entirely opposed to the concept of civil committment.

Neither am I.  But it's a slippery slope to claim serious crimes are merely the product of mental illness.

If you're looking for something that will cure sex offenders who molest kids, I think you will be sorely disappointed.  I am of the opinion that no cure exists, including surgical castration.

I see you didn't research it.  Surgical castration is practiced as a punishment in other countries.  I knew it had been done briefly in the United States (and in small numbers), but no one tracked the recidivism rates then.

There was a Danish study of 900 castrated sex offenders performed in the 1960s that suggested the rate of repeat offenses dropped after surgical castration from 80 percent to 2.3 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/w
orld/europe/11castrate.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&

Surgical castration is still offered as punishment in some European countries.  And they have concerns there about the right of the pedophile being castrated.

1) You are, again, making the wrong comparison.  This isn't a comparison of harm to victim vs harm to offender, it is punishments deemed unconstitutional as cruel and unusual vs mandatory castration.

That's a bogus argument because it simultaneously (A) rejects the concept of "justice" for the victim, and (B) rejects any punishment that can be called cruel and unusual.  Find a punishment- any punishment, and there has been someone advocating that it is cruel and unusual.  Issuing a fine to the poor is cruel.  Housing prisoners in a 10 x 10 cell with only a small window is cruel.

2) You are suggesting the US government be given the power to castrate citizens.  Just want to point that out again.  You almost always advocate for smaller govt - but in matters of criminal justice, you seem to go the opposite route, especially when it comes to punishment.

When did I say the U.S. government ?  Administration of prison and prosecution for sex crimes is almost wholly a state affair.

You are a fan of the slippery slope arguments, and pulled them out during the drone conversation - well, what about this?  The govt should be able to kill and maim its citizens, based on a label the govt applies, in a court of law governed by the govt?   Especially when most cases don't even make it to trial - most being in the 95-97% range, through plea bargains.  Especially if the death penalty is on the table, people will be coerced into castration (classic, you don't take the slice and dice, I'm gunning for your life - do it all the time with murder now, pleaing to 2nd degree).

You make a good point.  I might say castration of people convicted of awful sex crimes today, and someone (maybe you) will suggest that the government is playing eugenics through forced sterilization tomorrow.

I'm for the death penalty, but I'm also for establishing that such a penalty only be used when there's overwhelming and incontrovertable evidence of guilt.  Joe Bob who is cross-eyed and saw me from 2 blocks away going into that liquor store with a gun isn't good enough.  It's neither fair nor plausible to suggest that we can't have adequate punishments to fit the severity of a crime.  You commit a horrible enough crime and get caught with enough evidence, it's not insane to think you have to sacrifice your freedom, your balls or your life.

I won't debate the plea bargain portion of your argument, though I will say that that's done largely as a cost-savings measure, since we'd otherwise need to have a vastly larger court system, much more severe sentencing, or both.

Who is to say where the line get's drawn, if castration is put on the table? 

I'm sure no politicians would go overboard in advocating it be applied to crimes you and I would disagree are appropriate... lol

Exactly.  The New York thing was actually kind of counterintuitive, because usually politicans get elected on the promise of harsher punishments (especially for those convicted of child sex crimes), not less so.  It really wouldn't be so hard, and could go something like this:

(1) Guilty of sexual contact with a minor, involving <your definition here> , demonstration of repeated abuse where previous punishment has failed -- 15 years imprisonment, surgical castration, mounting of removed balls on little tiny pikes outside the courthouse, etc.

(2) Guilty of sexual contact with a minor, involving <your definition here> , first offense -- 10 years imprisonment, chemical castration, psychological counseling, forced registration as a sex offender

(3) Guilty of knowingly employing, using, or permitting the employment or use of a child in an exhibition of sexual conduct, actual or simulated -- 30 years imprisonment, forced registration as a sex offender

(4) Guilty of knowingly, by any means of communication, including electronic communication, persuading, enticing, counseling, or procuring a child under 16 years of age or a person the offender believes to be a child under 16 years of age to engage in sexual conduct, actual or simulated -- 25 years imprisonment, forced registration as a sex offender

(5) Guilty of knowingly processing, developing, printing, publishing, transporting, distributing, selling, exhibiting, or advertising any visual or print medium, including a medium by use of electronic communication in which a child is engaged in sexual conduct, actual or simulated -- 15 years imprisonment, forced registration as a sex offender

(6) Guilty of knowingly possessing any visual or print medium, including a medium by use of electronic communication in which a child is engaged in sexual conduct, actual or simulated -- 5 years imprisonment, forced registration as a sex offender

(7) Guilty of knowingly viewing any visual or print medium in which a child is engaged in sexual conduct, actual or simulated -- $5000 fine

See ?  Easy. 

Not at all, and I'm surprised you don't see the difference I'm trying to illustrate.  One (castration) is granting the govt the power to apply a label, then remove balls because of that label.  The other is not a govt power.

Huh ?  Try again.  You had expressed a desire that such a convict would be placed in the general population of a prison, ostensibly because they would dispense vigilante justice.  If you're truly worried about protecting the rights of the convict, you'd protect him at all points and not hope for some extra-judicial punishment to be meted out by a bunch of prison thugs.

And what I'm suggesting is the same treatment we give simple drug dealers and burglars...

Except you acknowledge that pedophiles are given a certain amount of prison-yard abuse, up to and including murder, as a result of their crime.  Knowingly placing them in that state increases the danger that something bad will happen to them.  Sounds pretty cruel and unusual.

Hardly - not wanting to grant the govt a power is something I'd think you'd normally support.

It's actually worse than contracting it out to a non-gov't entity.  Under government auspices, certain standards might be adhered to.  Instead, you're being purposely reckless with prisoners' well-being by hoping that they get the tihs kicked out of them via street justice.

Except we can't.  The DP must operate within the box that the SCOTUS has set - and this box has been reaffirmed again and again, by conservative and liberal courts, since the 1970's.

Doesn't make it right.

Except the right to so many appeals has, again, but upheld over and over by the SCOTUS, with sweeping support amongst the liberals and conservatives, over 40 years now.

Doesn't make it right.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  If I commit a death eligible offense, I have a better chance of being struck by lightening than actually getting executed.  This arbitrary, nearly nonexistant application is 1) due to the SCOTUS rules on the DP, 2) in part due to the way it is applied by juries (they rarely are willing to give it out), and 3) renders any deterrant effect moot.

No argument there.  I expect that even you, if faced with the cold-blooded killer of your entire family, two cops, and a nearby 3-legged puppy, would demand the bastard's execution, not advocate for leniency to imprison / release him.

First and foremost, we have to get this out of the way - the victim and family will NEVER get anything out of this.  The action happened, and the effects of it will remain no matter what happens to the offender.

Not so.  A murderer gets to live in relative luxury, with all kinds of amenities at the cost to the taxpayers.  The victim's family has lost a productive member of their family, whose death now casts them further towards poverty.  In some countries, the victim's family is compensated directly by the convict.  We don't do that here because we still have the insane liberal idea that prison should be rehabilitating, not punitive.

But the death penalty actually gives families LESS closure, imo.   Rather than a guy getting LWPOP, and the case being done, they have to live through the ordeal of appeal after appeal, occurring in a public forum, for 10-20 years, and then an even more public execution.  If it were my kid that was murdered, I'd want the whole thing to be done as quickly as possible - and the DP simply does not, and cannot, offer that.

Not in its present form, no.

Realistically though, the idea of surgical castration is a non-starter when it comes to govt.

Research what they do in other countries.  Perhaps you'll change your mind.  Remember, these aren't people like you or me who would receive these punishments.  They're people who have repetitively preyed upon small children, and for whom other punishments have failed. 

I don't see how comparing human psycho-sexual problems to purely biological issues in cats and dogs makes sense.  Child molesters are a different classification of sex offenders for a reason - they don't operate by the same standards as others.  One of the biggest differences is that child molesters never seem to age out of crime, and that they can, and have (and will), go many years, even decades, between offenses.

You don't see how... really ?  Arguments from those like MasterAgain to the contrary, human beings are animals, similar to numerous other mammals.  You chop off the balls, the drive to commit such acts largely goes away.

One of the more lengthy studies on castration noted that even in surgically castrated offenders, there were instances of recidivism even 20 years after the surgery.  That is bannanas, imo.

I'm not aware of such a study.  Can you provide a link or article title ?

We are going to have to deal with these people, in a way that will be insufficient, until such a time where we can somehow isolate all factors of the motivation to offend, and right now, we just can't.

And until then we just suffer their existence and hope that someone else chops off their balls and/or kills them ?

Admit it, you just find the idea of chopping off balls too severe to contemplate.  Yes, it is absolutely treating them like animals.  But how is that any different from locking them in a cage ?

It's the exact same thing - known terrorist vs known child sex predator...  With the govt being the primary party to create that label -the whole thing can happen without a jury of peers, and usually does.

One guy, with a documented history by police, social workers and court systems who has been caught red-handed VERSUS an apartment building and/or vehicle suspected of carrying a guy strongly implicated in an attack that some government agency has labeled "terrorist".  C'mon, that's not even in the same universe...!

I could say the same thing about drones.  Or the death penalty.  And you could prove me wrong on both counts, easily...

Still not the same thing.