October 20, 2007 Unlawful images of crimes against children Images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are serious crimes. Misguided apologists for child pornographers marginalize innocent children by attempting to rationalize child pornography with the explanation; "it's only a picture."
When a child's innocence is stolen by a preferential offender who derives gratification from memorializing a sexual assault, it is more than "just a picture." Those who trade and traffic such images tacitly encourage and facilitate such unlawful activity. Some argue that each time the picture is viewed, the child depicted is re-victimized.
In March 2003, Morton Berger, of Phoenix, Arizona was convicted of possessing 20 images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. The Arizona mandatory minimum sentence for his crimes was 200 years in prison. At sentencing his supporters argued that the sentence was too harsh for someone who only possessed and looked at pictures.
Why are the images crimes?
Beyond self-gratification, child pornographers use the unlawful images for other reasons including (Child pornography, 1986):
1. To blackmail children into keeping silent about the abuse.
2. To preserve a child's youthful image at the age preferred by the pedophile.
3. To establish trust and camaraderie with other pedophiles.
4. To gain access to other markets and children by exchanging material with other pedophiles.
5. To duplicate, produce and sell for profit.
6. To reassure themselves that their deviant behavior is shared by others and therefore not abnormal.
7. To seduce children and lower the child's inhibitions as part of the grooming process intended to modeldeviant sexual behavior.
Are the possessors of child pornography dangerous?
Recent research (Hernandez, 2006) suggests that there may be a correlation between those who possess child pornography and those who are also “hands-on” contact offenders. One study of federal prisoners indicated that 85% of those in custody for possession of child pornography were also “hands-on” offenders whose contact offenses had never been discovered.
Other professional concur with the opinion that there may be a danger of possessors of child pornography eventually offending against a real child. Dr. Chris Hatcher, (1997) Professor of Psychology at the University of California said, "It begins with fantasy, moves to gratification through pornography, then voyeurism, and finally, to contact."
Former FBI profiler John Douglas (Mindhunter, 1995, p. 108) described the relationship between pornographic images and sex offenders. He said, "With most sexually based killers, it is a several-step escalation from the fantasy to the reality, often fueled by pornography, morbid experimentation on animals, and cruelty to peers."
The Victims
What about the effect of child pornography on the victims? Are there any lingering problems for children who are the subject of abuse?
Researchers found that the effects of child pornography on child victims is often devastating. According to Klain, Davies and Hicks (Child pornography, March 2001, p.10) child sex abuse victims suffer a multitude of physical and psychological problems.
A Case Study
In 2003, former Arizona high school teacher Morton Berger was convicted on 20 counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 200 years prison. He appealed the sentence based on arguments of equal protection under the law and cruel and unusual punishment.
In December 2004, the conviction was affirmed by two of the three judges of the Arizona Court of Appeals (State of Arizona, 2004, December 14). Judges Susan Ehrlich and Philip Hall dismissed Berger's appeal with well-reasoned and researched arguments including (citations omitted):
1. It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in safeguarding the physical andpsychological well-being of a minor is compelling.
2. …the victimization of a child continues when that act is memorialized in an image. The materialsproduced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbatedby their circulation. Unfortunately, the victimization of the children involved does not end when thepornographer's camera is put away.
3. The legislative judgment…is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful tothe physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child.
4. …the possession of child pornography drives that industry and…the production of child pornography willdecrease if those who possess the product are punished equally with those who produce it.
5. …it (the law) will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess andview the product, thereby decreasing demand.
6. …the possession of child pornography inflames the desires of child molesters, pedophiles and childpornographers. The State has more than a passing interest in forestalling the damage caused by childpornography: preventing harm to children is, without cavil, one of its most important interests.
7. …we cannot fault the State for attempting to stamp out this vice at all levels in the distribution chain.
8. Berger downloaded images from the Internet, and every time he visited a website, he demonstrated to the producers and sellers of child pornography that there was a demand for their product. Berger's demand served to drive the industry; there need not have been a direct monetary exchange. Berger maintains also that, because his possession of the pornographic images was passive and because he did not use threats or violence in the commission of his crimes, his sentence is grossly disproportionate. This logic is abstruse. As was described by this court in Hazlett, 205 Ariz. at 527 p 11, 73 P. 3d at 1262, and as is evident from the violent pornographic images in this case, child pornography is a form of child abuse.
The materials produced are a permanent record of the children's participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.
The U.S. Supreme court turned down Morton Bergers next request for an appeal. His 200 year prison sentence was upheld. Berger is scheduled for release from the Arizona Department of Corrections in 2157.
Conclusion
The innocent victims of child pornography sometimes suffer a lifetime of psychological anguish and torment wondering when where and how their tortured images will surface. Those who traffic in, possess and derive gratification from child pornography perpetuate the anguish. The typical child pornographer possessor arrested by the Arizona ICAC Task Force has dozens and often hundreds of unlawful images and videos.
Many people argue that each image tacitly re-victimizes the child whenever the image is viewed. Many victims of child pornography will never disclose their victimization to anyone. They suffer in silent, haunted purgatory. As adults, most victims do not wish to relive past abuse.
Determining the scope of the Internet child pornography is difficult to do. It can safely be said that the problem is increasing at a disturbing rate. Efforts to eradicate images that depict the sexual exploitation of minors must continue and offenders must be brought to justice.
References
Child pornography and pedophilia: Report made by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. (1986). 99th Congress, Second session.Washington: U.S. G.P.O.1986. iii. 54: 24 cm.
Douglas, J. and Olshaker, M. (1995). Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's elite serial crime unit, New York: PocketBooks. Hatcher, C. (1997, October). Cited in: Armagh, D. A. Safety net for the Internet: Protecting our children.Juvenile Justice Journal (on-line) Volume V, Number 1, May 1998. Retrieved March 15, 2003. from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjjournal/jjjournal598/net.html
Hernandez, A. E. (2006, September 26). Statement of Andres E. Hernandez before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce. U.S. House of Representatives.Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/HernandezTestimonyCongress.pdf
Klain, E.J., Davies, H.J., & Hicks, M.A., (2001, March). Child Pornography: The criminal justice system response, American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law for the National Center for Missingand Exploited Children. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC81.pdf
State of Arizona Division One Court of Appeals. (2004, December 14). Appeal from the Superior Court inMaricopa County. 1 CA-CR 03-0243. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.cofad1.state.az.us//opinionfiles/CR/CR030243.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.