Morality and reasoned justification are incompatable

[ThinkAnarchy]

My particular philosophy is that of anarcho-capitalism.

I'd be interested to know more about this. Can you please create a thread?

Will do, although it may not be tonight as my wife is getting annoyed I'm paying more attention to y'all instead of her.

[Sandra Craft]

How can you be an accessory to a crime after that crime has already been committed and the individual convicted? By this line of reasoning, it seems to me viewing child porn would no longer be wrong if the individuals who committed the act have already been prosecuted. You can't conceal evidence after the trial is completed.

I'm assuming that the material itself is illegal, so if it's still up on the internet someone is putting or keeping it there.  If it's not the person who was already punished for making it in the first place, he or she is in the clear -- at least as far as that bit of porn goes -- but the person who is maintaining the site it appears on is not.

Regardless, that act was deemed illegal, but the viewing of that video and failing to report it does not equate to withholding evidence. The trial is over and he is in jail, so there is no more evidence to withhold in regards to that crime.

Based on that, I think this is not a good example.  If the porn itself is not considered illegal, there's no problem with it continuing to be available.

I also see no reason why those who did not take part in it, should be punished, for failing to report it. They should have, but I don't think they should be required to.

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps of depraved indifference, but not of committing the crime you witnessed. The witnesses are not guilty of facilitating the rape in my opinion either though, seeing is it would have occurred regardless of if they watched it or not.

Of course they're not guilty of the rape, but to my way of thinking they did facilitiate it by seeing it and doing nothing to stop it, even if that was doing no more than calling the cops.

[ThinkAnarchy]

How can you be an accessory to a crime after that crime has already been committed and the individual convicted? By this line of reasoning, it seems to me viewing child porn would no longer be wrong if the individuals who committed the act have already been prosecuted. You can't conceal evidence after the trial is completed.

I'm assuming that the material itself is illegal, so if it's still up on the internet someone is putting or keeping it there.  If it's not the person who was already punished for making it in the first place, he or she is in the clear -- at least as far as that bit of porn goes -- but the person who is maintaining the site it appears on is not.

In the case of child porn the material is always illegal, at least in most countries. I'm not sure of the legality of hosting, downloading, or viewing that particular Max Hardcore video though. It's worth noting he was convicted on obscenity charges and not rape. But, I still don't follow how possessing something should be a crime.

I simply don't understand how possession of a video of a criminal act is justified as being a criminal act itself.

Regardless, that act was deemed illegal, but the viewing of that video and failing to report it does not equate to withholding evidence. The trial is over and he is in jail, so there is no more evidence to withhold in regards to that crime.

Based on that, I think this is not a good example.  If the porn itself is not considered illegal, there's no problem with it continuing to be available.

That was in response to the conter-argument a few people made justifying the criminality of possessing illegal porn on the basis of "withholding evidence."

I also see no reason why those who did not take part in it, should be punished, for failing to report it. They should have, but I don't think they should be required to.

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. 

Perhaps of depraved indifference, but not of committing the crime you witnessed. The witnesses are not guilty of facilitating the rape in my opinion either though, seeing is it would have occurred regardless of if they watched it or not.

Of course they're not guilty of the rape, but to my way of thinking they did facilitiate it by seeing it and doing nothing to stop it, even if that was doing no more than calling the cops.

I understand that, but from my way of thinking is if they did not commit the rape, they committed no crime.

[ThinkAnarchy]

My particular philosophy is that of anarcho-capitalism.

I'd be interested to know more about this. Can you please create a thread?

If you're curious, you can look at this thread to read a bit more on it. But, I can't remember what points I make or how articulately I defend or explain my ideas.

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9297.0

I will post a thread explaining the basic principles of the philosophy though and some explanations about my reasoning behind certain beliefs. I will PM you with the link when I do.  

[Sandra Craft]

That was in response to the conter-argument a few people made justifying the criminality of possessing illegal porn on the basis of "withholding evidence."

I think you're still missing the issue of distributing illegal porn being the crime and that's where finding it, and not reporting it, can turn into withheld evidence.  

(edited to add:  I wasn't sure about the legality or illegality of merely possessing child porn, so I went looking and found this: Laws concerning child pornography.  It's not just a legal offense, it's a Federal offense and it's the FBI that gets involved.)

I understand that, but from my way of thinking is if they did not commit the rape, they committed no crime.

Another area in which we'll have to agree to disagree, since I don't think it's a matter of only one guilty action or inaction.  I believe that depraved indifference should be criminal.  I don't think it should be treated as equal to the crime witnessed, but it's worth some legal consequences.  And frankly, I also disagree with your point that such laws target good, innocent people -- if they witnessed a crime and did nothing to help, not even call the police, they're neither that good nor that innocent.  I'm not saying they're evil, but in some circumstances just being weak is enough bad.

[ThinkAnarchy]

That was in response to the conter-argument a few people made justifying the criminality of possessing illegal porn on the basis of "withholding evidence."

I think you're still missing the issue of distributing illegal porn being the crime and that's where finding it, and not reporting it, can turn into withheld evidence.  

Yes the possession and distribution of child porn is currently illegal in the U.S. I already know that. I'm simply saying possession alone should not be a criminal offense.

(edited to add:  I wasn't sure about the legality or illegality of merely possessing child porn, so I went looking and found this: Laws concerning child pornography.  It's not just a legal offense, it's a Federal offense and it's the FBI that gets involved.)

I'm not arguing it isn't currently a criminal offense in our current system.

I understand that, but from my way of thinking is if they did not commit the rape, they committed no crime.

Another area in which we'll have to agree to disagree, since I don't think it's a matter of only one guilty action or inaction.  I believe that depraved indifference should be criminal.  I don't think it should be treated as equal to the crime witnessed, but it's worth some legal consequences.  And frankly, I also disagree with your point that such laws target good, innocent people -- if they witnessed a crime and did nothing to help, not even call the police, they're neither that good nor that innocent.  I'm not saying they're evil, but in some circumstances just being weak is enough bad.

But should being weak be a criminal offense? I don't think so. I am not saying not reporting a crime is a "good" action, but I don't believe it should be a criminal offense. There are also many examples of statutory law being abused at the expense of otherwise innocent people, like this kid and the others who received the picture.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Indiana-Teen-Arrested-For-Nude-Cell-Pics-of-Friends-119787169.html

Edited after post: I could see a civil suit by the victim against those who possess such material. The only reason I really even care about these particular laws is due to how they get abused by the state, like in the story linked above. I don't oppose these laws because I want to protect pedophiles, but oppose them because innocent children are charged with crimes as a result of them.

[Firebird]

I don't oppose these laws because I want to protect pedophiles, but oppose them because innocent children are charged with crimes as a result of them.

Yeah, this is a good point. Child pornography is one of those issues that's so new that the law hasn't been able to figure out where to draw the line. While it existed before the internet and cell phones with cameras, it was much more out of sight, and you didn't have teens sending naked pictures to each other the way they do now.

However, while it may not be a money-making enterprise necessarily, the possession of child pornography does encourage more abuse of children. Case-in-point, many of the child porn websites out there require that each member submit a certain number of their own pictures to the site before they can get access to more, which often implies that they create their own pictures. Thus more abuse. Now, perhaps a line can be drawn between possession and distribution, but I admit that a mere slap on the wrist for someone possessing that stuff still makes me queasy. Unless they legitimately downloaded it by accident, which has happened to some people.

[Sandra Craft]

But should being weak be a criminal offense?

In some circumstances, I'd say yes.

There are also many examples of statutory law being abused at the expense of otherwise innocent people, like this kid and the others who received the picture.

Granted it's not perfect, but nothing is and we can work on the flaws in the system.  Unless it's found that the abuses outnumber the benefits, I'm willing to play the odds of making taking action vs. doing nothing a legal requirement when you're aware of a crime.

[ThinkAnarchy]

EDIT: Links Removed. If the sites do give access to potentially products then links here are inappropriate here. - Tank

It wasn't a link to the site that has illegal products, it was simply a link to a site that had screen shots of the site, as well as his experiences using it. No one could buy anything from the site I linked to, but it does explain how to access the underground site. So I apologize for that.

Damnit, I accidentally edited the entire post instead of simply adding that part.

[DeterminedJuliet]

According to this report one in three individuals caught with child pornography are also child molesters. It's very hard to study this sort of thing scientifically (when you consider the ethical and legal hurdles), but that seems like a correlation that's too big to ignore, to me.

[ThinkAnarchy]

According to this report one in three individuals caught with child pornography are also child molesters. It's very hard to study this sort of thing scientifically (when you consider the ethical and legal hurdles), but that seems like a correlation that's too big to ignore, to me.

And those 1 in 3 are criminals who deserve incarceration. But I agree it is difficult to study the problem scientifically.

[DeterminedJuliet]

According to this report one in three individuals caught with child pornography are also child molesters. It's very hard to study this sort of thing scientifically (when you consider the ethical and legal hurdles), but that seems like a correlation that's too big to ignore, to me.

And those 1 in 3 are criminals who deserve incarceration. But I agree it is difficult to study the problem scientifically.

So, if the other two admit "I'm addicted to child porn, I want to have sex with a child and I really feel like I might commit child abuse down the road", you wouldn't consider that a problem worth investigating? Just wait for the child abuse to actually happen and address it then?

If you had a friend who was drunk, heading home, and had their car keys in their hands, would you let them walk out of your party because A) they haven't done anything "wrong" (yet) and B) you don't know for certain that they will drive drunk? I don't like persecuting people unjustly as much as the next person, but I think there's a reasonable limit where the pros of prevention outweigh the cons of limiting freedom.

Not to mention the fact that sexualized images of children are often used TO commit child abuse. Child molesters frequently use them in the process of "grooming" kids by de-sensitizing them to sexually explicit material. Which is completely different from how most adult rapes occur (you drew a parallel to adult pornography and rapists in a similar fashion). I'd argue that adult rape has very little to do with actual sexuality, where child molestation usually does.

Besides, (adult) porn is legal and available everywhere. I'd find it believable that someone could get "into" adult porn pretty accidently on the internet (we've all had "surprising" Google image search results), but you don't "accidently" collect a hard drive of child pornography. It's dangerous and risky behaviour which means that the people who are willing to take those risks must REALLY want that material.

[ThinkAnarchy]

So, if the other two admit "I'm addicted to child porn, I want to have sex with a child and I really feel like I might commit child abuse down the road", you wouldn't consider that a problem worth investigating? Just wait for the child abuse to actually happen and address it then?

It would be a potential problem and most individuals would rightly deny access to their children by individuals like that, assuming they new it. Arresting people due to a "potential" danger an individual posses is a slippery slope into tyranny. Although the argument is valid in regards to this argument, how to you apply it to other potentially dangerous criminals? I don't think people should be punished for inclinations they may have. When it's discovered someone may have a propensity to commit a crime, it may warrant monitoring but not arrest. It also warrants parents keeping such individuals away from their children who they believe might have a high likelihood of abusing children.

If you had a friend who was drunk, heading home, and had their car keys in their hands, would you let them walk out of your party because A) they haven't done anything "wrong" (yet) and B) you don't know for certain that they will drive drunk? I don't like persecuting people unjustly as much as the next person, but I think there's a reasonable limit where the pros of prevention outweigh the cons of limiting freedom.

I don't think it is exactly a fair comparison. It would depend on the individual situation, but I would offer the friend a ride and attempt to "force" them into my car, or call them a taxi. If they posed an obvious threat to other drivers due to their level of intoxication, I may even report them to the police. There is a difference in that their is an obvious risk of the immediate consequences. Just as if I were to think I were about to see a violent crime committed, I may interfere before it's determined it would actually lead to a crime. I would probably make sure the person knew they weren't alone, and maybe give the police a heads up that something violent is likely to occur. That does not logically follow that people should be punished though based on the possibility of the crime they may have committed though.

It is admittedly an issue of contention because I would technically be left with the decision of preventing a potential crime, meaning the possible criminal would still be free to commit a similar later. Or I could watch and wait to see if the individual commits the crime, in which case I'm now indirectly guilty for the victims being attacked, while also doing good by helping get the person off the streets.

Neither theory is ideal, and in this situation, it would be better to prevent the crime and punish the individual, but I can't morally justify such an action.

Not to mention the fact that sexualized images of children are often used TO commit child abuse. Child molesters frequently use them in the process of "grooming" kids by de-sensitizing them to sexually explicit material. Which is completely different from how most adult rapes occur (you drew a parallel to adult pornography and rapists in a similar fashion). I'd argue that adult rape has very little to do with actual sexuality, where child molestation usually does.

You are probably right about that, I'm not 100% sure. Those who use the images in such a way are aggressing upon the child though. I'm not against punishing those who do such things. The penalties for child abuse should be strict enough that other, less justified charges, don't need to be brought to achieve justice, however.

I could speculate, but this is purely speculation, that some never abuse children "because" of child porn. I don't know if there is any evidence to support it, but the fantasizing aspect of porn could be a much safer outlet for a dangerous sexual propensity or violence. It seems like a reasonable possibility the fantasizing of a sexual taboo would prevent the outward manifestation of the fetish. It is also reasonable to assume that the viewing of such things makes the desire stronger leading to a greater probability of children being abused.

I'm unsure, but would imagine it's a mixture of the two depending on the individual.

Besides, (adult) porn is legal and available everywhere. I'd find it believable that someone could get "into" adult porn pretty accidently on the internet (we've all had "surprising" Google image search results), but you don't "accidently" collect a hard drive of child pornography. It's dangerous and risky behaviour which means that the people who are willing to take those risks must REALLY want that material.

I agree with this.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I could speculate, but this is purely speculation, that some never abuse children "because" of child porn. I don't know if there is any evidence to support it, but the fantasizing aspect of porn could be a much safer outlet for a dangerous sexual propensity or violence. It seems like a reasonable possibility the fantasizing of a sexual taboo would prevent the outward manifestation of the fetish. It is also reasonable to assume that the viewing of such things makes the desire stronger leading to a greater probability of children being abused.

I'm unsure, but would imagine it's a mixture of the two depending on the individual.

I understand what you mean with your other explanations, and they all seem reasonable enough, so I'll just respond to this part.

I think the context/source of the image is still important. For example, I don't know that someone should be arrested if they have "cartoon" child pornography. I don't like it, personally, but since there is no actual child in the picture, the argument for child exploitation in that particular case is shakier (you could still argue that the image legitimizes and normalizes child pornography, but definitely not so much as an actual image).

When it comes to distributing images without consent of the person in it, though, I think it should be taken into consideration. Origin matters.

Hell, that's a concern for all images these days. You hear about bloggers get sued for using pretty innocuous images without permission - let alone something portraying an illegal activity. So really, I guess it just depends on, philosophically, you think an image can/should be divorced from its origin.

[Sandra Craft]

Yes the possession and distribution of child porn is currently illegal in the U.S. I already know that. I'm simply saying possession alone should not be a criminal offense.

Then I misunderstood that, and I don't necessarily disagree.  In fact, reading over the law from the site I found I was surprised at how broad the scope is, including things I would not have considered necessary to make illegal, such as depiction of young-looking adults acting as children, or sexual depictions of children in art or animation -- instances where no actual child is harmed. 

The problem seems to be in the issue of whether just looking at something suggestive of sex with children can or at least might encourage actual sexual abuse of children.  To be honest, I don't have a strong enough stomach for the kind of research I'd have to do to have an informed opinion on this so I'm going to have to default to erring on the side of caution. 

There are also many examples of statutory law being abused at the expense of otherwise innocent people, like this kid and the others who received the picture.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Indiana-Teen-Arrested-For-Nude-Cell-Pics-of-Friends-119787169.html

Edited after post: I could see a civil suit by the victim against those who possess such material. The only reason I really even care about these particular laws is due to how they get abused by the state, like in the story linked above. I don't oppose these laws because I want to protect pedophiles, but oppose them because innocent children are charged with crimes as a result of them.

I've been thinking about this, and similar instances of over-reach: the 6-yr old boy who got accused of sexual harassment for kissing a 6-yr old girl during recess, the high school student arrested for carrying a weapon at school (it was an x-acto knife from art class), and it seems to me that all these cases are instances of zero tolerance policies.  I will be the first person to say that zero tolerance policies are both asinine and lazy, and the authorities should just gut up and make a judgement call. 

However, that doesn't mean laws against sexual harassment or carrying a weapon are not valuable and necessary.  And altho I'm on the fence about how dangerous it is to possess nude pictures of minors (no more baby in the bath or on a bear skin rug in daddy's wallet), considering the level of damage done when sexual abuse does happen to children I just can't bring myself to take as much risk as I otherwise would and say the illegality of possession should be dropped.  More common sense needs to be used in making charges, but that's as far as I can go.