Child Porn

If you like to keep your head in the sand then stop reading now.

I was so upset to read an article in today’s Denver Post:
Child-porn sentences too severe, judges say.

It’s about a group of judges who think the sentencing guidelines are too severe for possessing and viewing child-porn. My guess is that the victims and their families would disagree.

From what I read, the judges must not think child-porn is a big deal. It amazes me that these judges with their many degrees and lofty jobs act like idiots. Morality must be a foreign concept to them.

Here are some of the judge’s quotes and my comments:

"We do not see producers (of child porn) or the parents who sell their children or the stepfathers who attack them," Kane told the commission in October. "What we see are the men on dialysis confined to a wheelchair who spends all of his time confined already and no economic analysis of what it would cost to keep this man in prison."
U.S. District Judge John L. Kane

Is this guy for real? Is that really the only type of person who comes before his bench? What a shame that he would act like the child porn viewer is no threat – just sitting at home not hurting anyone.

Kane testified there is no empirical research referenced in the sentencing schemes to indicate whether long prison sentences will stop defendants from re-offending or help them overcome their compulsions by the time they get out of prison.

At least if they are in prison we know children are safe from them. Part of going to prison is punishment. If we can do something to help them “overcome their compulsions” that is great but a nice long prison sentence may help too.

"It is too often the case that a defendant appears to be a social misfit looking at dirty pictures in the privacy of his own home without any real prospect of touching or otherwise acting out as to any person," U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron of Oklahoma City said in her testimony to the commission. "As foul as child pornography is, I am unpersuaded by the suggestion that a direct link has been proven between viewing child porn and molesting children."
U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron

So all they are is “dirty pictures”? She speaks of “the privacy of his own home” in a way that makes me wonder is she thinks it is acceptable behavior. And how does she know that there isn’t “any real prospect of touching or otherwise acting out as to any person”. She must be a mystic as well. She goes on to say that she is “unpersuaded” that there is a link between viewing child-pornography and molesting children. Well I’m sure that not every viewer goes on to molest but has there ever been a molester who wasn’t a viewer first?

There was a sane voice in the article. Here is what Ernie Allen, president and chief executive of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said:

"There are too many judges who continue to provide token sentences for what we consider to be serious crimes," Allen said. "These are images of prepubescent children, growing numbers of them infants and toddlers, and they trade with each other for purposes of arousal and breaking down the inhibitions of other children."

Allen said educating the judiciary about the impact of child pornography on victims is key.

"We are not in favor of disproportionate sentencing or disparities, but the problem here is too many judges who simply do not recognize how serious these crimes are," he said.

Yes, these judges in their ivory towers don’t recognize how serious child-pornography is and where it leads. I hope God raises up a voice to silence their ignorant ramblings.

Another concern I have is that this liberalized attitude is the same one that preceded the mainstreaming of regular pornography and much of the sex industry.

May God have mercy on our country.

Philip