Reply #114: Hmm

[ismnotwasm]

I think a minimal prison sentence of some sort followed by some extended, useful community service. Mandatory psychological evaluation and mandatory follow up, and also banned from being around children.

Anyone who is of the opinion that "they didn't really hurt or exploit anyone" is full of shit and obviously knows very little about the prevalence of child pornography or structure of the industry. The people who monitor such things, legal or health wise, tell otherwise.

An expert nurse witness, for example who works in the field views thousands of images a month. Her job is to testify whether the child is above or below 18 years of age or above or below 12. She is an expert on child development and anatomy. The images she views are horrible to any reasonable person, and she must testify when, say, a 6 year old is developmentally a 6 year old--- or a 12 years old is not really 18, something, especially in females, not always easy to do. In the case of infants, she must also testify developmental age. The things she uses are not only the child's body, but the relative development and size of any adult participate, hands, genitalia, body hair.

And there are thousands of photo shopped images of children on the web as well. The makers of child pornography go to personal web sites of families, or mind space, what have you, and take what they need for their production. A person viewing these images for sexual pleasure may not be "exploiting" the actual child, but does that matter? In simplest terms, Viewing child pornography (demand) is what keeps exploitation of these babies and children alive (supply) In my view, the harm is to all children, a harm to society itself in fact.