Is Peter Townshend Really a Criminal?

self | 1-13-03 | WL-law

[WL-law]

Before we embrace the news coverage of Peter Townshend's "bust", I'd like to pose a few questions that trouble me here:

1) Aren't crimes in this area of law typically defined as requiring and/or involving "distribution" and "creation" as the core elements?

2) Townsend PURCHASED via a credit card -- he didn't sell or otherwise distribute. He wasn't in any chain of distribution or any "stream of commerce".

3)Yes he was an 'end-user' (pardon the pun), but is that, or should that be, the proper focus of the authorities? Yes, I know that purchases "fund" the criminal enterprise, but remember -- someone is trying to make you out to be a criminal because you drive an SUV based on the same logic -- so there are limits to that form of argument.

4) Are the end-users the more- or the less-culpable parties in this enterprise? Why is the focus on the end-user, then, with no mention (no intellectual curiousity,even) in the coverage of the supplier?

5)And did Peter Townshend "seek out" though surruptitious means to get this info, or did it pop up on his system unsolicited? Do statutes that criminalize "possession" presume the older days of dark alley meetings, physical swaps of material, secret "buying clubs", without an understanding of the changed circumstance of every-day, in-your-face and in-you-house solicitation through your e-mail and pop-ups? There are programs that actually TAKE OVER your computer, for God's sake, and re-rewrite your Home page so that you can't turn on your system without an avalanche of this stuff taking over. Could the drafters of the law ever have contemplated this?

6) If they have a credit card transaction then they have the seller -- although they probably have a jurisdiction problem with that party (i.e., Russia).

Having said all that, considering the scales of justice and the mens rea required for criminal conduct, how does somebody know what's legal-to-buy-but-awfully-crude-and-pornographic (i.e., S&M material, whatever else you-name-it) versus the illegal stuff? I'm sure there's no warning label at the site he visited, for instance. And one might assume, since the local ISP isn't being prosecuted for broadcasting this stuff into your home, that it IS legal.

Am I the only one wondering if the goal here is to embarrass some high-profile public figure?

[Fred Mertz]

How did he get caught? Did the Thought Police strike again?

I must have a fading memory, because when I saw this hit the Internet news last night, I kept thinking it was Peter Tork of the Monkees.

[Lance Romance]

Just another non-link between homosexuality and pedophilia. (/sarcasm)

[dirtboy]

Three points. First, if no one bought the stuff, there would be no market for it on the internet, so IMO the end user has a high level of culpability here. Second, Pete from his statements seems well aware that what he was doing was illegal. And third, he's in Britain, and they have different laws altogether - for example, in a libel trial, the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the plaintiff - so I have no idea what Pete is facing here.

[Registered]

I say let's make an example out of him!

String him up in the public square for a good flogging and castration!

[dirtboy]

How did he get caught? Did the Thought Police strike again?

They raided a child porn site in the states, and found Pete's credit card number among the paid, registered users of the site.

[SunStar]

Pete Townshend, and ALL other users of such child porn sites, are ENABLERS of child porn. Without a customer base, the sickos who molest and abuse children for profit would have no reason to.

[Fred Mertz]

Thanks for those details.

[11th Earl of Mar]

If you need more arguments to support your point of view, just go back to the impeachment days... "It's only about sex... and everybody does it."

In other words you sound like James Carville.

[okkev68]

If they found it on his personal computer then he was in possession of it and that is against the law (and extremely sick). If he was arrested because they found his credit card number then his lawyers should have an easy time presenting a "defense".

[Clint N. Suhks]

Just another non-link between homosexuality and pedophilia. (/sarcasm)

You’re right! < /sarcasm>

• Gay advocates correctly state that most child molesters are heterosexual males. But this is a misleading statement. In proportion to their numbers (about 1 out of 36 men), homosexual males are more likely to engage in sex with minors: in fact, they appear to be three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homo sexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
• While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual. K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.
• Homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.
• It is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males Schmidt, Thomas (1995). Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, p. 114.
• Kurt Freund, et al., "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 10 (1984): 197. "The proportional prevalence of offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent." See also, Kurt Freund, et al., "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," "Approximately one-third of these individuals had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls. This finding is consistent with the proportions reported in two earlier studies," p. 107.

[Revolting cat!]

Why not ask Guvnor Ryan? I bet the answer would tell us a lot!

[WL-law]

Pete Townshend, and ALL other users of such child porn sites, are ENABLERS of child porn. Without a customer base, the sickos who molest and abuse children for profit would have no reason to.

Seems like there's a whole lot of 'stuff' on the intenet that nobody ever pays for and it still gets produced.

So although I appreciate the argument (yes, it's why we arrest johns as well as hookers), the merits of the argument are somewhat less strong here. And, as I said in my post, that form of argument can be applied ad absurdum, as in the case of SUVs and terrorism, IMHO.

[WL-law]

If you need more arguments to support your point of view, just go back to the impeachment days... "It's only about sex... and everybody does it."

In other words you sound like James Carville.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice, NOT for having sex -- or did you forget that already?

[WL-law]

If he was arrested because they found his credit card number then his lawyers should have an easy time presenting a "defense".

I don't follow your point --please expound.

[sharktrager]

Well, lets look at the facts as outlined by Pete himself.

This information did not just "pop-up" on his system. He has admitted that he sought out the information. While he states that it was for "research" because he believes he may have been abused as a child, it would easily be able to determine if he had also been doing research in to abused children. If that is not the case, his claim begins to sound hollow. It is important to realize that his reason is a variation on the standard claim, which is that the images were purchased as part of research in to child pornography.

Secondly, he has admitted purchasing the images. While you are focusing on the clear evils of the distributors, it is important to realize that the commercial distribution channels exist solely because there is a market. While child pornography is abundant outside the commercial realm, any and all images created with the intention of selling them are not the responsibility of only their creators, but of those who purchase them. Were there no market commercial pornography would not be created.

I don't know the truth behind Pete's story. I am familiar enough with abuse to know that it can affect behaviors for long after the abuse has stopped. As such, it is entirely possible that Pete is telling the truth. Abuse victims often do not act in ways that seem logical to those who are not themselves victims.

I also know that those who are abused are also more likely to become abusers themselves. Those who engage in the purchase of images of abused children are abusers of a different ilk.

Ultimately, regardless of motive, Pete has essentially confessed that he has personal responsibility for the creation of child pornography by those who's motives are profit.

[Billthedrill]

Well, possession itself is illegal in Great Britain - whether the possession of his credit card number constitutes proof that he actually downloaded anything is questionable, but Pete seems to have admitted at least to wanting to find out what was there, so my guess would be that he did. If so, and it's still on his HD, then Pete's in a spot of bother with the constabulary...

[wtc911]

Townsend acknowledged paying for e-delivery of child porn. You are trying to make an argument that absolves him of guilt. I wonder about your morality.

[11th Earl of Mar]

I said that YOUR ARGUMENTS sound awfully similiar to James Carville's... "It only about sex. And everybody does it."

[You Dirty Rats]

Your point 3 attempts to draw a moral equivalence between buying child porn and buying an SUV.

You can't be serious!