What should the penalty be for child porn found on someone's computer?

On the news yesterday, there was a story about a man who was arrested after images of child porn were found on his home computer. He had multiple counts; each worth four years in prison.

What kind of penalty do you think someone who has child porn in their possession should receive? Particularly someone who didn't produce it themselves and isn't a child molester. Do you think it's worthy of a stiff prison sentence?

Have their eye lids sewn shut.

Yeah. And I'm still baffled as to how they even get it.

Yup. Most of the time they buy the shit underground, so really they're supporting it being produced even if they're not making it themselves.

Like Atown said, they are supporting the production of it, so I think they should get a harsh punishment. It will be terrible if that shit is ever easy to get. Which it probably is already, but we don't need it any easier or for people to feel more at ease taking a chance on possessing it.

RedBedroom wrote:Like Atown said, they are supporting the production of it, so I think they should get a harsh punishment. It will be terrible if that shit is ever easy to get. Which it probably is already, but we don't need it any easier or for people to feel more at ease taking a chance on possessing it.

Yeah. I really don't get HOW people can figure how much time something gets. It's like you kill one person one way, and that's 21 years, kill another another way and it's 155 years, where is the...you know how do you measure that?

Yes they do deserve stiff punishments.

Chris wrote:On the news yesterday, there was a story about a man who was arrested after images of child porn were found on his home computer. He had multiple counts; each worth four years in prison.

What kind of penalty do you think someone who has child porn in their possession should receive? Particularly someone who didn't produce it themselves and isn't a child molester. Do you think it's worthy of a stiff prison sentence?

This is another very conditional situation with a conditional answer. It reminds me of those "sex offender" questions in how general it is, lol.

Okay, first of all for me it would depend on what kind of "child pornography" we are talking about here. Depending on who you ask (and what jurisdiction you are in), child pornography can be anything from simple nude pictures of anyone under the age of 18, or children being portrayed in graphic sex acts. People take nude pictures of their young children sometimes and keep them in photo albums. What about a non-sexual, artistic depictions of nudity on a person under 18? What about pictures of nude children playing in nudist camps? What about educational (health or medical texts) that portray the private areas of children? What about PG rated films that depict nude children? Are any of these things "child pornography"? They are all legal to possess, viewable on the internet and and available to purchase legally. Yet, some people would call ALL of that child pornography. And in some jurisdictions an image can be legal in one medium, yet possibly considered illegal in another. In the film Superman, baby Kal-El arrives on earth naked. Superman is a PG rated film. Yet, if I took a still image of that scene and had that as my desktop wallpaper, the police could probably bust me for possession of child porn. What's the difference? It's the same goddamn image!

If images of nudity are "innocent" and not intended to be sexual in nature, then I personally don't consider them to be "pornographic". I think we've taken this whole concept of nudity and pornography to another level in our country and now people are just being ridiculous with it. The original intent (to protect children from predators) has been lost.

Now, on the other hand, if we are talking about an image of a child being forced into a sex act (especially with an adult), then that is clearly child porn. As far as the penalty goes, I think I would take that on a case-by-case basis. The more graphic the images were, the stiffer the penalty should be and the less graphic the lighter the sentence should. Also, the person's legal background and history should be a factor as well. If this person has no history of actual sex abuse on minors and has demonstrated no predatory behavior, then I don't think this should be a felony, only a misdemeanor. I've never understood why "possession" of something without "intent" should be a felony. If the guy doesn't appear to be a threat to children, then why should he get the same sentence as a convicted "sex offender"? So that doesn't really make any sense to me. I think the people who produce child porn (of the type that I mention) should be convicted of felony charges. Those are the real predators because they are a major instrument into child abuse. But if a 16 year old girl snaps a photo of her breasts on her cell phone and sends it to her 16 year old boyfriend, the boyfriend could be charged with posession of child porn. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

AtownPeep wrote:Yup. Most of the time they buy the shit underground, so really they're supporting it being produced even if they're not making it themselves.

Child porn is illegal. Period. Break the law and you should be held accountable for it.

Jason B. wrote:
Child porn is illegal. Period. Break the law and you should be held accountable for it.

I think the question was "what should the penalty be", not whether or not child porn was legal. Just sayin...

I'll leave it up to the judge to determine how much prison time its worth....but I would say added to that a very stiff fine, plus not being around any children and a permanent revoking of Internet access.