4 ms·

This is sad to read. :/ Can people convicted of this be around their own children?

by spraak 10y ago

mgkimsal 10y ago
i would think it would depend on the state, and the feeling of the other parent/family. Had a friend who was convicted of possession of child porn. I've no idea what the specific content was, but it was a mandatory 5 years in prison, and his ex-wife petitioned for sole custody of their child, and I think she'd tried to get all parental rights removed 100%. not sure if that succeeded. he had another teenage daughter at the time who just... didn't get to see him when he was in prison (michigan, but he was in prison in mass most of the time). She's... mid 20s now? They have an OK relationship now, from what I can tell.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  Someone who engages in the exploitation of children probably shouldn't be around teenagers. Painting him as a sympathetic character is just wrong. The things that he watched, and as a consumer encouraged to be produced have harmed children in irreversible ways.
  - Oletros 10y ago
    If you're a 16 old girl with a picture of your boyfriend naked you can be guilty of child pornography. How is she engaging in the exploitation of children? This is the problem, that a percentage of sex offenders are people like this hypothetic girl (or boy). When a 18 years person can be guilty of sex offending by having ex with his/her 17 old partner we have a problem
    - nostrebored 10y ago
      Your comment is orthogonal to the situation posed by the GP. And I would say that if you're an 18yo who's looking at child pornography you should not be around children, especially those to whom you have unfettered access to as a parent/guardian. >When a 18 years person can be guilty of sex offending by having ex with his/her 17 old partner we have a problem I'm not arguing that Romeo and Juliet laws are a bad thing (even though I think that some state's implementations are too generous -- Georgia's laws effectively mean you can be a college freshman sleeping with high school freshmen). But when you're in the position that you're an 18yo with nude pictures of a minor, you do effectively have child porn. You should know well enough by that point to delete it. You are an adult. A non trivial number of these pictures do end up on the internet. Do you think that you should be a sex offender if as an 18yo you disseminate a picture of your 16yo partner? Do you think we should have a separate tier of images that are by definition child porn, but because of who possesses them they are not considered to be child porn? This will assuredly help actual offenders avoid the consequences of their actions.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        Actual offenders have large collections of images of child sexual abuse. They don't have a few images of someone close to their age that they're in a relationship with. Sexting is a serious problem, and there are elements of abuse around it (some children coerce others into providing these images, for example). But treating all children who have nude images as sex offenders doesn't help the victims; it doesn't help the other children; and crucially it diverts law enforcement attention away from more serious offenders.
        nostrebored 10y ago
        How do you define 'close to your age'? Does not being in a relationship suddenly make it child porn in your eyes? Also 'actual offenders' seems to imply that those who don't have large collections aren't actual offenders? I don't care if you dabble in child porn, the fact is that by viewing and spreading this videos you do create a demand for more to be created. You are complicit in the exploitation and abuse of children. Also, repeat exposure has been shown to dispose you to be more likely to abuse children yourself. And sure, the legal system should have some ability to use discretion. But the age of consent is there for a reason. We as a society have agreed that non-adults are incapable of consenting to a sexual relationship. As an aside, you don't have to look very hard to find examples of people sharing sexts with their friends. It even came up in the Brock Turner case not too long ago. When these pictures are of children/people under 18, that is by definition dissemination of child pornography. The ages of the other parties being shown a picture does not matter.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        unclenoriega 10y ago
        Your comments point out a lot of issues with how to handle nude images of minors. I think the problem a lot of people have is that the legal system _does_ have some ability to use discretion but for whatever reason does not in many instances.
      - 10y ago

This is sad to read. :/ Can people convicted of this be around their own children?

by spraak 10y ago

This is sad to read. :/ Can people convicted of this be around their own children?

i would think it would depend on the state, and the feeling of the other parent/family. Had a friend who was convicted of possession of child porn. I've no idea what the specific content was, but it was a mandatory 5 years in prison, and his ex-wife petitioned for sole custody of their child, and I think she'd tried to get all parental rights removed 100%. not sure if that succeeded. he had another teenage daughter at the time who just... didn't get to see him when he was in prison (michigan, but he was in prison in mass most of the time). She's... mid 20s now? They have an OK relationship now, from what I can tell.

nostrebored 10y ago
Someone who engages in the exploitation of children probably shouldn't be around teenagers. Painting him as a sympathetic character is just wrong. The things that he watched, and as a consumer encouraged to be produced have harmed children in irreversible ways.
- Oletros 10y ago
  If you're a 16 old girl with a picture of your boyfriend naked you can be guilty of child pornography. How is she engaging in the exploitation of children? This is the problem, that a percentage of sex offenders are people like this hypothetic girl (or boy). When a 18 years person can be guilty of sex offending by having ex with his/her 17 old partner we have a problem
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    Your comment is orthogonal to the situation posed by the GP. And I would say that if you're an 18yo who's looking at child pornography you should not be around children, especially those to whom you have unfettered access to as a parent/guardian. >When a 18 years person can be guilty of sex offending by having ex with his/her 17 old partner we have a problem I'm not arguing that Romeo and Juliet laws are a bad thing (even though I think that some state's implementations are too generous -- Georgia's laws effectively mean you can be a college freshman sleeping with high school freshmen). But when you're in the position that you're an 18yo with nude pictures of a minor, you do effectively have child porn. You should know well enough by that point to delete it. You are an adult. A non trivial number of these pictures do end up on the internet. Do you think that you should be a sex offender if as an 18yo you disseminate a picture of your 16yo partner? Do you think we should have a separate tier of images that are by definition child porn, but because of who possesses them they are not considered to be child porn? This will assuredly help actual offenders avoid the consequences of their actions.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      Actual offenders have large collections of images of child sexual abuse. They don't have a few images of someone close to their age that they're in a relationship with. Sexting is a serious problem, and there are elements of abuse around it (some children coerce others into providing these images, for example). But treating all children who have nude images as sex offenders doesn't help the victims; it doesn't help the other children; and crucially it diverts law enforcement attention away from more serious offenders.
      - nostrebored 10y ago
        How do you define 'close to your age'? Does not being in a relationship suddenly make it child porn in your eyes? Also 'actual offenders' seems to imply that those who don't have large collections aren't actual offenders? I don't care if you dabble in child porn, the fact is that by viewing and spreading this videos you do create a demand for more to be created. You are complicit in the exploitation and abuse of children. Also, repeat exposure has been shown to dispose you to be more likely to abuse children yourself. And sure, the legal system should have some ability to use discretion. But the age of consent is there for a reason. We as a society have agreed that non-adults are incapable of consenting to a sexual relationship. As an aside, you don't have to look very hard to find examples of people sharing sexts with their friends. It even came up in the Brock Turner case not too long ago. When these pictures are of children/people under 18, that is by definition dissemination of child pornography. The ages of the other parties being shown a picture does not matter.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        unclenoriega 10y ago
        Your comments point out a lot of issues with how to handle nude images of minors. I think the problem a lot of people have is that the legal system _does_ have some ability to use discretion but for whatever reason does not in many instances.
    - 10y ago