Crimes against children have changed in the digital age. Doctors Richard B. Krueger and Meg Kaplan, psychologists at Columbia University who specialize in sexual behavior, believe the legal system has not moved forward in this regard.
In the past, sexual abuse involved physical contact. Today, people may never touch a child, yet they can cause that child pain, degradation, and even loss of life.
Everyone agrees that child pornography is not a victimless crime. The child being filmed is real and the individuals responsible for causing this kind of suffering are undoubtedly criminals and should be removed.
The thing becomes more complex to those who watch these videos
Should they be sentenced to prison because they are enabling an industry that causes almost unthinkable pain and degradation?
• Is it justifiable to imprison viewers, both as a deterrent to others and as a means of giving up the demand for child pornography?
• Even if an individual viewer has never touched a child, is he or she on the path to being a child abuser, a pedophile?
Different countries and different researchers have different answers. In some lands, viewing pornography is a death sentence. In others, such as the UK, viewers receive a warning.
Kaplan says that during a visit to colleagues in Scandinavia, "when they learned that we imprison people for five or ten years even when they have never touched a child, Scandinavians look at us as if we were from space."
An evidence-based response
"Our number one goal," Kaplan points out, "is to protect children. However, evidence shows that some of our approaches are making things worse."
Here are two examples of individuals with very different probabilities of harming a child in the future:
- Një individ i kapur duke parë pornografinë e fëmijëve është 65 vjeç dhe kurrë nuk ka pasur ndonjë shkelje paraprake. Ai është në rrezik shumë të ulët për ngacmim të fëmijëve.
- Një individ i kapur duke parë pornografinë e fëmijëve është 25 vjeç dhe është dënuar për disa shkelje seksuale të mëparshme, si dhe për dhunë jo-seksuale. Ai person ka më shumë të ngjarë të dëmtojë një fëmijë.
Krueger dhe Kaplan përdorin Instrumentin e Rrezikut për Pornografinë e Fëmijëve (CPORT) për ta bërë këtë dallim. Si Krueger ashtu edhe Kaplan dëshirojnë që ligjvënësit të bëjnë dallimin midis atyre që nuk kanë gjasa të dëmtojnë një fëmijë në të ardhmen dhe atyre që kanë. Shoqëria tani ka mjetet e provuara për ta bërë këtë.
Pse të mos futen të dy grupet në burg?
Putting this low-risk person in jail means that when he gets out, stigmatization will make it difficult to find a job or find a place to live. After all, notification laws that tell people he is a sexual predator will make it difficult for him to function in society.
A person who does not find a job or a place to live can become a danger to society. So it is unnecessary and unproductive for an “low risk” individual to be put in this situation.
However, this remains only the opinion of two scholars and is not necessarily the "absolute truth".
Source: Psychology Today
