DOCSLIB.ORG

Sexting Or Self-Produced Child Pornography – the Dialogue Continues – Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a Multidisciplinary Response

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sexting Or Self-Produced Child Pornography – the Dialogue Continues – Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a Multidisciplinary Response The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2010 Sexting or Self-Produced Child Pornography – The Dialogue Continues – Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a Multidisciplinary Response Mary Graw Leary The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Mary Graw Leary, Sexting or Self-Produced Child Pornography – The Dialogue Continues – Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a Multidisciplinary Response, 17 VA. J. SOC. POL’Y & L. 486 (2010). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SEXTING OR SELF-PRODUCED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY? THE DIALOG CONTINUES - STRUCTURED PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION WITHIN A MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESPONSE Mary Graw Leary* CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................... 4 87 I. Clarifying Definitions: "Sexting" vs. Self-Produced Child Pornography ................................................................................ 491 A. Self-Produced Child Pornography ............................................. 491 B . "Sexting" .............................................. ...................................... 492 C. Self-produced Child Pornography and "Sexting": The Intersection ................................................................................ 495 II. The Original Proposal: Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a M ultidisciplinary Approach ...................................................... 496 A . The Thesis Proposed ................................................................... 496 B. Prosecution is Not the Solution to this Problem ......................... 497 III. New Information: The Frequency and Character of the Problem..499 A . Frequency ................................................................................... 500 B . N ature of the Behavior ................................................................ 501 IV. How the Issue Is Misunderstood: The Sensationalism of the D eb ate .......................................................................................... 505 A . O vergeneralization ...................................................................... 505 B . Structuring the Problem .............................................................. 506 1. Factually Distinguishing the Problem ..................................... 506 2. Legally Distinguishing the Problem ........................................ 509 C. Conceptualizing the Solution ...................................................... 510 1. Confusing a Rejection of Decriminalization with an A dvocacy for Punishm ent ...................................................... 510 2. The Misunderstanding of Juvenile Court ................................ 514 a. Sex Offender Registration .................................................... 515 b. Mandatory Minimum Sentences .......................................... 518 V. The Future: Alternative Proposals ................................................... 520 A. Threshold Issue: What's the Harm? ........................ .. .. .. .. 520 1. That the Pictures Themselves are Harmful is Consistent with Child Pornography Jurisprudence .......................................... 523 a. Ferber ' Factual Basis Supports This Concept of Harm ...... 523 b. Ferbers Legal Analysis Supports This Concept of Harm...524 c. Ashcroft Does Not Alter This ............................................... 526 * Associate Professor, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. With great thanks to so many who contributed their thoughts and insight- Susan Broderick, Tom Clancy, Howard Davidson, Susan Duncan, Christine Feller, Angel Flores, Roger Hartley, Amanda Cohen Leiter, Orin Kerr, Rev. Raymond C. O'Brien, John Rabun, and most especially Lisa Schiltz, and Cliff Fishman. For their research a special thanks to Jennifer Siegel, Kristen Kelley, and Steve Young and for the challenge of countless drafts to Julie Kendrick and the entire staff of the journal. Spring 2010] Structured Discretion d. Williams Reasserts This as Well .......................................... 529 e. Additional Harms Caused by the Images According to F erber.................................................................................. 532 2. That the Pictures Themselves are Harmful is Consistent with Contemporary Case Law Conceptualizing the Harm of C hild Pornography .................................................................. 535 3. That the Pictures are Harmful in and of Themselves is Consistent with Practical Observations Regarding Self- Produced Child Pornography .................................................. 539 B . Spectrum of Solutions ................................................................. 542 1. Formal Decriminalization ........................................................ 543 2. De Facto Decriminalization ..................................................... 547 3. Neither Form of Decriminalization is Adequate ...................... 550 4. Diversion and Prosecutorial Discretion ................................... 551 a. Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a Multidisciplinary Approach ................................................. 551 b. Concepts of Prosecutorial Discretion .................................. 551 5. N ew Statu tes ............................................................................ 555 a. Balancing Concerns About Adjudication with Concerns A bout Exploitation .............................................................. 555 b. Focus on M ens Rea .............................................................. 557 c. N ew C rimes ......................................................................... 558 6. Multidisciplinary Responses ................................................... 558 a. N ew Jersey ........................................................................... 560 b. N ew York ............................................................................. 562 c. AWARE Act and SAFE Internet Act .................................... 562 7. Expansion of Current Laws ..................................................... 563 a. Nebraska's Affirmative Defense .......................................... 563 b. Other Jurisdictions Recognizing the Issues ......................... 565 VI. C onclusion ..................................................................................... 566 The teenage practices of "sexting" andposting sexual images online are nationwideproblems that have perplexedparents, school administrators, and law enforcement officials.1 INTRODUCTION Any social problem that exists at the intersection of adolescence, sex, technology, and criminal law compels strong reactions from all sides. This in many ways is a positive development, because it speaks to a passionate concern for the well being of young people. However, it often results in sensationalism and oversimplification of complex and multifaceted issues making it more difficult to discuss the problem rationally and productively. ' A.B. 4069, 213th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (N.J. 2008). Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law [Vol. 17:3 Such is the case with self-produced child pornography ("SPCP") and "sexting." In 2007, I identified and wrote about a small but growing problem, largely unnoticed on a national scale, of youths producing pornographic images of themselves or peers and the distribution of those images by these producers as well as others.2 The article addressed the dilemma facing prosecutors of how to respond to the production and distribution of this material labeled "self-produced child pornography" now sometimes referred to (often inaccurately) as "sexting." 3 This article identified that the production and distribution of self-produced child pornography brought into conflict two lines of jurisprudence. The first line was child pornography law, specifically its recognition that child pornography images are harmful to children both within and outside the images. The second line was juvenile law's recognition that juveniles are often less aware of the social harms their illegal behavior can cause and are less culpable. At the time of that writing the only laws seemingly available to prosecutors were child pornography laws. The reality that the production and dissemination of self-produced child pornography, is, under the law, the production and dissemination of illegal child pornography, forced the prosecutor to resolve this conflict. Society, including prosecutors, can respond to self-produced child pornography in a variety of ways. One is to insist on a "zero tolerance" policy and to prosecute every case. Such an inflexible approach will in many cases, perhaps most cases, do far more harm than good. A second approach is to decriminalize self-produced child pornography all together. This would prevent a prosecutor from ever abusing his or her discretion to prosecute. The difficulty is that it would preclude a juvenile court adjudication even where the conduct is particularly egregious, and would deprive authorities of a useful ability
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Criminalizing "Virtual" Child Pornography Under the Child Pornography Prevention Act: Is It Really What It "Appears to Be?" Wade T
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 35 | Issue 2 Article 6 2001 Criminalizing "Virtual" Child Pornography Under the Child Pornography Prevention Act: Is it Really What it "Appears to Be?" Wade T. Anderson University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation Wade T. Anderson, Criminalizing "Virtual" Child Pornography Under the Child Pornography Prevention Act: Is it Really What it "Appears to Be?", 35 U. Rich. L. Rev. 393 (2001). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol35/iss2/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS CRIMINALIZING "VIRTUAL" CHILD PORNOGRAPHY UNDER THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT: IS IT REALLY WHAT IT "APPEARS TO BE?" David is 11 years old. He weighs 60 pounds. He is 4 feet, 6 inches tall. He has brown hair. His love is real. But he is not. -Advertisement for Steven Spielberg's June 2001 film, Artificial Intelligence.' Years after his death, John Wayne sells beer in television commercials. 2 Eons after their extinction, lifelike dinosaurs con- tinue to terrorize actors and thrill moviegoers.3 The highest- grossing film of all time4 employs "virtual" passengers aboard the 1. AL. Artificial Intelligence, at http:/aimovie.warnerbros.com (last visited Apr. 3, 2001). 2. Robert Lemos, Virtual Actors: Cheaper, Better, Faster Than Humans?, ZDNET NEWS, June 15, available at 1998, 1998 WL 28812578 ("John Wayne and Fred Astaire, or at least the computer-enhanced images of the deceased stars, are starring in commer- cials.").
    [Show full text]
  • Child Pornography Is Sex Trafficking
    Child Pornography is Sex Trafficking January 31, 2017 By Human Trafficking Collaborative Network (HTCN) 1 On December 30, 2011, Former President Obama declared January to be National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. The general public’s awareness of human trafficking has improved considerably over the past years. At the time of this writing, the last day of the 2017 Human Trafficking Awareness Month, we are grateful that many community activities have been held in St. Louis and surrounding areas. Some activists participated in a series of anti- human trafficking campaigns at the Missouri Capital; some held a vigil for survivors and victims who lost their lives; some held resource dissemination events to better inform service providers, concerned citizens and students. In light of a very recent high-profile indictment of a St. Louis County child pornography case, we are compelled to providing regional information on child pornography in the context of human trafficking. As defined by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TPVA, 2000), [i] human trafficking includes recruitment, harboring, provision, receipt, transportation and/or obtaining of individuals by using force or threats, coercion, fraud and/or using systems of indebtedness or debt bondage for purposes of sexual or other forms of economic exploitation. Coercion includes threats of physical or psychological harm to the 1. The Human Trafficking Collaborative Network (HTCN) core members include: Rumi Kato Price (WU School of Medicine); Andrea Nichols (WU Brown School of Social Work & Women Gender and Sexuality Studies; St. Louis Community College Forest Park); Kathleen Thimsen (Goldfarb School of Nursing at BJC); Tonya Edmond (WU Brown School of Social Work); Richelle Clark & Matthew Brown (IPH Center for Community Health Partnership & Research; Sundari Balan (WU School of Medicine); Natalie Palmer (Goldfarb School of Nursing at BJC); and Porpong (Paul) Boonmak (McDonnell International Scholars Academy, Master of Population Health Sciences; WU School of Medicine).
    [Show full text]
  • Self Produced Child Pornography: the Appropriate Societal Response to Juvenile Self-Sexual Exploitation
    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA COLUMBUS SCHOOL OF LAW Legal Studies Series Accepted Paper No. 2008-26 Date: 2008 Self Produced Child Pornography: The Appropriate Societal Response to Juvenile Self-Sexual Exploitation Mary G. Leary Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, Vol 15, No. 1, 2008 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network electronic library at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1147183 Legal Studies Series Editor – Elizabeth Edinger: [email protected] The Columbus School of Law – http://law.cua.edu/ Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1147183 SELF-PRODUCED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY: THE APPROPRIATE SOCIETAL RESPONSE TO JUVENILE SELF- SEXUAL EXPLOITATION Mary Graw Leary∗ “I am here to speak about a danger facing this nation’s children. I speak from experience. For five years, beginning when I was 13 years old, I operated a pornographic web site featuring images of myself fluttered on the Internet by webcams.” - Justin Berry, age 19 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................2 I. THE PROBLEM OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY: ITS GROWTH IS UNIMAGINABLE IN BOTH VOLUME AND SEVERITY ...........................7 A. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY – DEFINED.............................................7 B. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY – VOLUME..............................................8 C. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY: THE SOCIAL HARMS CAUSED ................9 1. Harm to Children in the Images ........................................9 2. Harm to Children Not in the Images
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Th 445 12 St., S.W
    PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 th 445 12 St., S.W. Internet: http://www.fcc.gov Washington, D.C. 20554 TTY: 1-888-835-5322 DA 19-341 Released: April 26, 2019 MEDIA BUREAU ACCEPTS FOR FILING DIVESTITURE APPLICATIONS IN PROCEEDING TO TRANSFER CONTROL OF TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY TO NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC., AND ESTABLISHES CONSOLIDATED PLEADING CYCLE MB Docket No. 19-30 Petition to Deny Date: May 27, 2019 Opposition Date: June 11, 2019 Reply Date: June 18, 2019 Tribune Media Company (Tribune) and Nexstar Media Group, Inc. (Nexstar and, jointly with Tribune, Applicants), in connection with their previously filed applications seeking consent to the transfer of control of subsidiaries of Tribune holding the licenses of full-power broadcast television stations (and related broadcast auxiliary facilities), low-power television stations, TV translator stations, and radio stations to Nexstar (Merger),1 have filed a new set of applications (Divestiture Applications) with the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) to divest certain stations to Scripps Media, Inc. (Scripps), Tegna, Inc. (Tegna), and Circle City Broadcasting I, Inc. (CCB).2 Because this proceeding involves multiple transactions in multiple markets, and requires coordinated timing to effectuate divestures of certain stations that are necessary for approval of the overall transaction, we find that consolidated processing of the Divestiture Applications, and their incorporation into this docket, will result in administrative efficiency and ensure a comprehensive record in this proceeding.3 1 See Media Bureau Establishes Pleading Cycle for Applications to Transfer Control of Tribune Media Company to Nexstar Media Group, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • From Promise to Proof Promise From
    POWER TO DECIDE HIGHLIGHTS OF POP PARTNERSHIPS CULTURE From Promise to Proof HOW THE MEDIA HAS HELPED REDUCE TEEN AND UNPLANNED PREGNANCY TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT US ...................................................................................................4 WHY IT MATTERS .......................................................................................5 SPOTLIGHT ON KEY PARTNERSHIPS ...........................................................7 FREEFORM ..................................................................................................8 COSMOPOLITAN ......................................................................................12 TLC ..............................................................................................................16 SNAPSHOTS OF KEY MEDIA PARTNERSHIPS ...........................................21 SEX EDUCATION ..................................................................................... 22 BLACK-ISH ............................................................................................... 23 ANDI MACK .............................................................................................. 24 MTV ........................................................................................................... 26 AP BIO ....................................................................................................... 28 BUZZFEED—BC ....................................................................................... 29 HULU ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Quick Facts on Child Pornography Offenses
    Quick Facts — Child Pornography Offenders — Fiscal Year 2018 Offender and Offense Characteristics2 • 45.5% of child pornography offenders were sentenced for IN FY 2018, 69,425 CASES WERE REPORTED TO trafficking child pornography; 43.3% were sentenced for THE U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION. possessing child pornography; and 11.2% were sentenced for receiving child pornography. 1,414 OF THESE INVOLVED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.1 • 99.3% of child pornography offenders were men. CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENDERS HAVE DECREASED • 83.3% were White, 9.5% were Hispanic, 4.2 % were Black, and 3.0% 12.4% SINCE FY 2014. were Other races. Number of • Their average age was 41 years. Child Pornography Offenders • 97.8% were United States citizens. 2,000 • 76.5% had little or no prior criminal history (Criminal History 1,613 1,557 1,591 1,403 1,414 Category I). 1,500 ♦ 9.5% were CHC II; ♦ 8.0% were CHC III; ♦ 3.2% were CHC IV; 1,000 ♦ 1.8% were CHC V; ♦ 1.0% were CHC VI. 500 • The top six districts for child pornography offenders were: ♦ Southern District of Texas (54); ♦ Eastern District of Virginia (51); 0 ♦ Western District of Missouri (50); FY FY FY FY FY ♦ 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Eastern District of Missouri (38); ♦ Middle District of Florida (38); ♦ Western District of Texas (35). Length of Mandatory Minimum Penalties for Punishment Child Pornography Offenders FY 2018 • 99.1% of child pornography offenders were sentenced to prison; More than their average sentence was 104 months. 15 Years 20 Years 7.4% 0.2% • The average sentence for offenders convicted of trafficking in child pornography was 136 months3: 10 Years ♦ 86.6% of these offenders were convicted of an offense 8.2% carrying a five-year mandatory minimum penalty; their average sentence was 116 months.
    [Show full text]
  • Teen Sexting THINK TWICE Before You Hit "Send"
    Teen Sexting THINK TWICE before you hit "send" ? Male and female teens IN WHAT IS sext at the 7 10 SEXTING? same rate. Sending or getting sexually explicit photos, videos, or Roughly 7 in 10 youth But females are messages through have felt some ? more pressured pressure to sext for your cellphone to sext. or online. reasons like making their romantic partner happy or getting someone's attention. HOW MANY TEENS SEXT? 15% I've sent a sext. 27% 12% I've received a sext. I've sent a sext from someone else without asking permission. WHY IS IT RISKY? Sexting can have legal Online photos Sexts can be used consequences like child live forever and to hurt you and pornography charges or can get into the be shared without having to register as a wrong hands. your consent. sex offender. HOW CAN I PREVENT IT ? "I don't think that would be good for us." Protect yourself and others by not taking sexually explicit pictures or videos. "I'd rather do other things with you." Speak up when someone makes you uncomfortable with their "I'm not ready texts or what they send you. for that yet." Respect others by not pressuring them to sext you. I RECEIVED OR SENT A SEXT. NOW WHAT? Delete the picture or video. Share your concerns with a Report a sext that was sent parent or trusted adult. to you or shared without your consent to the Cyber Tip Line. To report an explicit image or video: Call the Cyber Tip Line (800) 843-5678 or visit https://report.cybertip.org/ To remove sexual pictures and videos from the internet: Visit http://www.missingkids.com/gethelpnow/is-your-explicit-image-out-there- Visit https://cdn.netsmartz.org/tipsheets/You_Sent_A_Sext_Now_What.pdf To learn more about your safety and how to deal with sexting: Visit https://cyberbullying.org/sexting-advice-for-teens.pdf Click to Visit https://cdn.netsmartz.org/tipsheets/sexting.pdf learn more SOURCES Connect Safely.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminalization Downloads Evil: Reexamining the Approach to Electronic Possession When Child Pornography Goes International
    \\jciprod01\productn\B\BIN\34-2\BIN203.txt unknown Seq: 1 2-JUN-16 14:19 CRIMINALIZATION DOWNLOADS EVIL: REEXAMINING THE APPROACH TO ELECTRONIC POSSESSION WHEN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY GOES INTERNATIONAL Asaf Harduf* INTRODUCTION ................................................... 280 R I. THE LADDER OF CRIMINALIZATION ....................... 281 R A. The Matter of Criminalization ......................... 282 R B. The Rungs of the Ladder of Criminalization ........... 284 R 1. First Rung: Identifying the Conduct, Causation, and Harm ......................................... 285 R 2. Second Rung: Examining the Ability to Achieve Goals ............................................. 286 R 3. Third Rung: Examining Alternatives to Criminalization .................................... 287 R 4. Fourth Rung: Assessing the Social Costs of Solutions and Striking a Balance .................. 288 R C. Towards an Analysis of Child Pornography Possession ............................................. 288 R II. APPLICATION TO THE ELECTRONIC POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ............................................ 289 R A. First Rung: The Offensive Conduct of Electronic Possession ............................................. 292 R 1. Conduct of Electronic Possession .................. 292 R 2. Harms to Children ................................ 294 R 3. Causation: Four Possible Links .................... 295 R 4. Offensiveness: Summation ......................... 302 R B. Second Rung: Criminal Law’s Ability to Reduce Harm to Children ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Precedential United States Court Of
    Case: 19-2424 Document: 79 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2020 PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ Nos. 19-2424 & 19-2932 _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DYLAN HEATHERLY, also known as Daniel Sotherland, also known as John Doe-9, Appellant in No. 19-2424 _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM STAPLES, also known as Bill Simpson, also known as John Doe-7, Appellant in No. 19-2932 _______________ On Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Nos. 1:16-cr-00082-010 & 1:16-cr-00082-008) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane _______________ Case: 19-2424 Document: 79 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2020 Argued: July 8, 2020 Before: McKEE, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Filed: December 11, 2020) _______________ Robert J. Daniels [ARGUED] Richard H. Katsifis Killian & Gephart 218 Pine Street P.O. Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Appellant Dylan Heatherly M. Jason Asbell [ARGUED] Gibbel, Kraybill & Hess 2933 Lititz Pike P.O. Box 5349 Lancaster, PA 17606 Counsel for Appellant William Staples Stephen R. Cerutti, II Office of United States Attorney Middle District of Pennsylvania 228 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11754 220 Federal Building and Courthouse Harrisburg, PA 17108 2 Case: 19-2424 Document: 79 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/11/2020 Austin M. Berry [ARGUED] United States Department of Justice Criminal Division Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 1400 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Counsel for Appellee _______________ OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
    [Show full text]
  • Harm Being Done to Australian Children Through Access to Pornography on the Internet
    Harm being done to Australian children through access to pornography on the Internet That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in December 2016: Harm being done to Australian children through access to pornography on the Internet, with particular reference to: trends of online consumption of pornography by children and their impact on the development of healthy and respectful relationships; current methods taken towards harm minimisation in other jurisdictions, and the effectiveness of those methods; the identification of any measures with the potential for implementation in Australia; and any other related matters Who we are The South Eastern Centre Against Sexual Assault (SECASA) provides sexual assault and family violence services in Victoria within the Mornington Peninsula, Frankston, Bayside, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Glen Eira and Kingston local government areas. We also work in the Greater Dandenong, Casey and Cardinia growth corridor. South Eastern Center Against Sexual Assault and Family Violence PO Box 72 East Bentleigh Victoria 3165 Prepared by: Carolyn Worth, Manager 10 March 2016 Phone: 03 99288741 Fax: 03 99288749 Introduction “Before the invention of the Internet, children and young people curious about sexual terms, phrases or the act itself were likely to talk to each other, or older siblings about it; these days they ‘Google it’. Even phrases which seem, on the face of it, innocent can lead children towards websites hosting adult content. Research also shows that young people are prone to seeking out sexual material, to discuss with friends or for their own sexual gratification.” (The Lucy Faithfull Foundation) “Exposure to pornography is routine among children and young people, with a range of notable and often troubling effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Jail for Juvenile Child Pornographers?: a Reply to Professor Leary Stephen F
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2008 Jail for Juvenile Child Pornographers?: A Reply to Professor Leary Stephen F. Smith Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen F. Smith, Jail for Juvenile Child Pornographers?: A Reply to Professor Leary, 15 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 505 (2007-2008). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/362 This Response or Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JAIL FOR JUVENILE CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS?: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR LEARY Stephen F. Smith* IN TRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 505 I. THE PROBLEM OF "SELF-PRODUCED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" AND POTENTIAL CRIMINAL LAW RESPONSES .............................................. 507 A. WHO DOES IT (AND WHYDO THEYDO IT)? ................................... 508 B. THE LEGAL STA TUS OF SELF-PRODUCEDCHILD PORNOGRAPHY ... 512 II. MORAL DESERT AND PROPORTIONALITY OF PUNISHMENT ............. 515 A. A DISTINCTION WITH A DIFFERENCE: "SELF-PRODUCED" VERSUS CONVENTIONAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY .............................................. 516 B. THE PROPORTIONALITY QUESTION, PROPERLYFRAMED ................ 521 1. To
    [Show full text]
  • Child Pornography, Pedophilia, and Contact Offending: the Empirical Research
    In the Thames Magistrates Court Case No: 011700940001 --------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS (Applicant) and LEO GARETH ADAMSON (Respondent) ---------------------------------------------------- Child pornography, pedophilia, and contact offending: the empirical research. Expert report by Dr. William Thompson PhD. Introduction I have been asked to give an opinion regarding the scientific basis, for or against, the prohibition of private possession of 'virtual child pornography' such as drawings, as opposed to photographs of children. In particular, I was asked to address two issues: (a) is there any evidence of a correlation, positive or negative, between the levels of availability of pornography and rates of contact offending; (b) is there any evidence, for or against, the use of pornography to facilitate contact offending. Given the original question, I have concentrated on the evidence concerning child pornography, and I have included other forms of evidence concerning the behavior of child pornography offenders (CPOs) that are relevant to the question. I am capable and qualified to offer an opinion having undertaken similar commissions in the past. Between 1990 and 2006, while resident in the UK, I was a practicing associate of the British Academy of Experts, and a forensic criminologist. My main areas of expertise were: child sexual assault allegations and investigative methods; the history of pornography, pornography effects studies, and related paraphilia––homosexuality, pedophilia, and sadomasochism. I supervised postgraduate research and taught courses on these subjects to undergraduates at Reading University. I was a guest lecturer on the post qualifying courses for social workers at Portsmouth University; and was frequently engaged as a lecture and/or seminar leader on these subjects at conferences for police and probation officers.
    [Show full text]