Posted on 03/19/2006 9:35:54 AM PST by Clive
Hunting monsters
We're great at catching child-porn criminals -- and terrible at punishing them
By Linda Williamson
Child pornography is, by definition, a world of dirty little secrets. The vilest of worlds, the most horrifying of secrets.
Most of us will never have to glimpse this world, unlike the iron-willed police officers we dispatch to plumb its depths.
But every one of us is in on the most distasteful secret of all -- the open secret of a Canadian justice system that treats the pornmongers' crime like, pardon the expression, child's play.
Last week's astonishing announcement of the breakup of an international child porn ring -- some 40 people arrested in Canada, the U.S., Australia and England -- came like a bolt of bright light out of a dark cloud; some hopeful news in the face of a very bad situation. A little like Prime Minister Stephen Harper's surprise visit to Afghanistan, if you ask me.
In both cases, we can feel proud that Canadians are making a difference on the front lines in a battle against a monstrous evil, and that our official resources are behind them. In both cases, too, those resources have long been lacking, and still are.
Last week's porn bust is just the latest example of the brilliant work our police -- and by "our," I mean big kudos to the Toronto Police child exploitation branch -- have made in this field. Armed with the very latest in technology, they're constantly figuring out ways to trap those who hide in the shadows of cyberspace.
This particular bust showcased the finest in police work, from the quick action of Edmonton cops who acted on a tip that led them to catch a man in the act of distributing child porn on his computer -- to the wizardry of the Toronto crew, who pioneered a way to track child porn consumers through the webs they weave on the World Wide Web.
Police were able to pose as child-porn traders themselves in chat rooms that specialized in the unthinkable -- including live videos of men sexually abusing their own children, a.k.a., "molestation on demand." I'll spare you further details. Suffice it to say these creeps weren't chatting about the artistic merits of Nabokov's Lolita.
The point is, time and time again, with innovations like the Toronto squad's partnership with Microsoft in creating software to track pedophilic pornographers, our police beat the bad guys. They're not only battling hard on the front lines, they've infiltrated behind enemy lines in a high-tech war.
Our courts and legal instruments, by comparison, are stuck in the past. For years, our child porn laws were in limbo due to esoteric arguments about freedom of artistic expression and whether "works of the imagination" can be illegal.
Meanwhile, the twisted multitudes who crave real, hardcore images of real children -- including babies -- being raped were building an empire online: Some 20,000 new child porn websites pop up each month, the CBC reported last week.
We have figured out how to catch these monsters. Where we fail is in figuring out what to do with them after they're convicted.
Canada's maximum penalty for trafficking in child porn is 10 years. It has never been used. Jail terms are rare -- the usual sentence in a child porn case is house arrest. (By contrast, in 1999, a U.S. child porn distributor was sentenced to 1,335 years in prison.)
On Friday, Edmonton's Carl Treleaven, who pleaded guilty to helping run the chat rooms at the centre of this worldwide child-sex-video ring, was sentenced to just three and a half years in jail -- even though the judge called him a "danger to society" and the volume and depravity of the images he traded "unprecedented."
Pathetic. Yet this was the toughest sentence ever imposed in Canada for distributing child porn! One Edmonton cop called it a step forward.
Treleaven, a self-described child porn "addict," will be free again in a matter of months. Some step forward.
If we're so good at catching these vermin, why are we so bad at putting them away?
Prime Minister Harper, I hope you're listening.
In this case the excess meaning includes the sexual abuse of children and babies, including torture.
At common law anyone who aids and abets a crime is every bit as culpable as the principle offender and the common law prescribes that the punishment be the same. This seems to be a point that the courts continue to ignore.
We should be calling these acts child exploitation, perhaps child torture, and thereby emphasize the gravity of the offense.
I was talking with my wife the other night about these arrests. She mentioned how hard it must be for the police officers to have to watch this type of thing. Necessary, because of their job and the investigation, but it must be extremely hard on the person doing the investigation.
Yes it is. Burn-out is a real occupational hazard for coppers and child protection officers.
Ther is only one known cure for child wierdos.A burial.
Personally I think that whenever we discover a pedophile we should offer him the option of voluntary castration, (and prison time too of course if crimes have been committed). My hunch is that there are probably more than a few of them that would want it. I know that if I was sexually oriented towards children that I would rather live as a celibate eunuch than as an evil predator.
I would prefer shooting them a few dozen times first. ;-)
The perpetrator will still be a predator. He will just use a different implement to work his harm.
Little wonder no records are kept..
Don't let guys like this near children . . . http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060316/capt.ardj10403161955.heifer_headquarters_ardj104.jpg?x=270&y=345&sig=w7DYITJjqNNm88A8pSv_eQ--
Personally, I wouldn't waste the ammunition or the time. One .44 to the back of the skull and instant zero percent recidivism. As far as burying them? Scavengers have to eat too.
The perpetrator will still be a predator. He will just use a different implement to work his harm.
No doubt the hardcore offenders are irredeemable, but these are still crimes that are driven by sexual desire and if you remove 90% of that desire it stands to reason that you would reduce the number of their crimes as well. It's pretty obvious the effect it has on animals behaviour.
The problem with physical or chemical castration is that the act is one of power, not sex. If you castrate the offender, then you only remove one tool that he can use - he still has a myraid of tools at his disposal with which to carry out the crime. Ultimately, the only way to prevent them from performing the act is to separate the brain from the body. That guarantees that they'll never be able to commit that crime again.
Humans tend to norm to those around them. It's our greatest strength and weakness.
damn....I thought someone had finally caught my ex-wife
No, it's an act of power AND sex. I guarantee you that pedophiles are getting off sexually from the crimes that they commit.
After watching an interview with a child molester last week on CTV's WFive, I'm inclined to disagree with your assessment. Many of these predators have convinced themselves that there is nothing wrong with their behaviour and any harm they do is rationalized as a product of society's values and not their own actions. The only certain way to protect kids from them is execution or a lifetime of incarceration.
I think those are appropriate punishments for a great many pedophiles. I couldn't bring myself to condemn someone to life in prison or death whose only known crime was viewing kiddie porn though, ie. Pete Townsend.
I'm guessing that a significant percentage of pedophiles really hate their orientation and would do just about anything to be normal, but find it impossible. If I were in that position I would voluntarily choose castration just in order to live with myself and have a clean conscience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
