On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:53:07 -0000, "Joe Lee"
wrote:
>> No, Sue. People who purchase child .ography are not going to start
>> bragging about it just because one of the images contains a child they
>> recognise, nor will they want to invite a child protection
>> investigation of a local child by letting it out that the child is
>> being used to create .ography. There *is* a danger - that the
>> paedophile will be prompted to approach the child he has seen in the
>> .ography and get in on the act.
>
>Yes I agree. I also think there is a real danger that some of those who
>possess & collect images of child .ual abuse will want to "get in on the
>act" as you put it. Another excellent reason for why the possession of such
>images is criminalised.
That was a reply to the highly unlikely scenario where a person who
collects the images actually recognises a child in an image as being a
local child he knows quite well. In that situation he may well be
tempted by having a subject that he knows has been willing. It has
less liklihood of happening than discovering that you happen to be
well acquainted with the woman in some adult .ography you just
downloaded.
Your idea that a person who downloads kp is significantly likely to
abuse a child is pure speculation that is *contradicted* by the scant
facts that we know (i.e. the fact that only one of the many Ore
convictees was a child abuser). If the authorities want to rely on
the fact that it is a significant danger (which they do), then they
should at least do some basic research in order to verify whether
their prejudice is justified.
>> And one case I saw that I thought was stupid of the authorities was
>> where a suitably pixillated image of a child involved in .ography
>> was shown on national (US) TV, with an appeal for anyone who
>> recognised the child to contact the authorities so that she could be
>> rescued from her abuser. Sounds OK on the surface - but if the child
>> saw the broadcast, she would have known that all her friends and
>> neighbours would now know what she had done. It could very well have
>> resulted in a suicide rather than the rescue of an abused child.
>Yes that does sound like a high-risk strategy & points up the difficulty
>that law enforcement must face in trying to infiltrate those who share the
>images & eventually prevent further acts of abuse.
To prevent abuse it is necessary to catch those who *create* the
.ography. If they are not caught, then locking up every non-abuser
who has ever looked at such images will not decrease the amount of
child abuse to any significant extent. The same abuse will continue,
with or without a camera, because in all but an extremely tiny
percentage of cases, the abuse was not carried out merely for the
purpose of taking photographs.
--
Cynic
|