OUR country 'persecutes' someone, NOT for being a child molester, but for having child pornography on their computer.
Oh my, Elsie, I'm going to be generous here and assume this was just one of your playful postings, because I can't imagine that you are making a serious point here.
And I can scarcely frame in my mind what serious point there could be: some extreme 'libertarian' claim that simple possession of child porn is protected by freedom of speech? Please don't be arguing that, just when we were all starting to really like you!
Possessing child pornography is not a 'victimless crime' of thought alone and not deed, for children were abused by someone to produce it, and as a consumer thereof you have indeed participated in an extremely grave and repugnant crime. That's why you're prosecuted (and can reasonably expect to be persecuted, as you have it, as a resident in prison).
True, we don't execute anyone for this particular offence (tempting though that might be). But before we diverge any further from the topic of this thread, I'll close with the observation that, whatever the punishment for this crime, it should be determined by the authority of the people working through democratic government rather than set by theocrats