Recently, a Chicago newspaper printed an editorial titled, "Sex-offender limits sometimes go too far," that amazingly sought sympathy not for the thousands of children who fall victim to sex crimes each year in Illinois, but rather for a convicted child pornographer.
The assertion was that this man, "Scott," deserves to be pitied because his life is more difficult thanks to his placement on the Sex Offender Registry. What nonsense. I find this argument both misleading and insensitive to the true victims of these heinous crimes.
Scott gets no compassion from me. I reserve my sympathy for those children among the 15,000 pornographic images discovered on his computer. These are the real victims of criminals like Scott who traffic in child pornography. Scott made a choice to ruin his life. My concern is that his horrid choice destroys the lives of many innocents who get no choice.
Thanks to people like Scott, child pornography is a multibillion industry. More than 100,000 Web sites offer illegal child pornography. But those numbers do not depict the true horror of the abuse involved in child pornography. Young children are sexually penetrated with various objects; many images depict bestiality involving children; rape of children by adults is a common theme.
More than half the children depicted have yet to reach puberty. Even more perverted, 6 percent of child pornography victims appear to literally be babies -- infants and toddlers -- according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
In just the past year, more than 750 complaints have been filed with my office concerning online enticement, child prostitution or obscenity directed at minors.
The Illinois Internet Crimes Against Children task force has issued almost 1,400 subpoenas and more than 400 search warrants to track down predators on the Internet. These efforts have resulted in more than 300 arrests.
Recently, my office went after sex offenders on MySpace.com -- requiring the social networking site to provide information on any sex offenders maintaining MySpace profiles. This led to a federal investigation, conviction and life sentence last year for a Granite City man who was not only procuring child pornography but was forcing a local child to engage in sexual activity so he could produce his own.
Unfortunately, such cases are not rare. One national study indicated 40 percent of those arrested were dual offenders, possessing child pornography and sexually victimizing children. Don't tell me pornography is a victimless crime.
A total of 24,494 sex offenders are registered in Illinois. More than 81 percent of those are child sex offenders.
The subject of the recent newspaper editorial, Scott, admits he installed special software on his computer, which each night would go trolling for pornography from the Internet -- including child pornography. Scott admits he knew that possessing child pornography is a crime. Yet now Scott is perplexed he would suffer the consequences of his crimes.
These consequences are exactly what the public demands. The sex offender registry was designed to protect victims, especially children, from these unspeakable crimes. I have no tolerance for those who wish to turn logic upside down and suggest that people like Scott are somehow worthy of our sympathy.
Such twisted judgment seeks a less stringent enforcement of sex offender laws. Too many children already suffer at the hands of sex offenders. The last thing our children need is less protection.
I realize no matter how severe the potential punishment, sex offenders will continue to be a threat. We also need to educate people on how not to fall prey. My office has provided Internet safety training and education to more than 128,000 students, parents and teachers and more than 10,000 law enforcement officers over the past four years.
We will continue these efforts. Such training is vital in a world that so easily and so often brings young children in contact with the Internet -- an amazing resource with equally amazing dangers.
However, we must also be vigilant in battling those who seek to minimize the threat posed by these online predators. In this case, misplaced sympathy is a very dangerous emotion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodil_Joensen
Is it still the guys fault and not theirs? And what about if they need an older love or an animal (like she did in that case) to cope with the rape but it isnt forced or anything like that? What do you guys say about those cases?
or what about girls like this? SHould they be punished or the older partners they find and hunt for?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHh9tKGTf0
Should they be tracking down her avery (over-18) partner akin to this porn chase or what?
Far too many 'liberals' out there think that because it's only pictures it doesn't do any harm. The reality as you have pointed out is exactly the opposite and every image represents at least one child being abused. In fact one image means that child has been subjected to horrendous acts at least once and probably many more times.
I have lost count of the number of times I have been told that these people should be treated and not incarcerated - what rubbish! Yes there needs to be fairness in treating anyone accused of child porn offences just as in every other accusation. No-one wants innocent people being tainted and there are always going to be grey areas where careful consideration of all the facts such as age and relationships are necessary but that must not detract from the need to protect children.
I also agree that education is vital for both children and their parents. Children need to be taught internet safety in exactly the same way that they are taught road safety, from an early age and with frequent reinforcing messages. Parents and carers need to be shown what the dangers are for their children so they can monitor and protect. This is something they cannot do if they are unaware of the dangers.
Please don't listen to the liberal brigadeand keep doing what you're doing just as we will continue to do the same.
Weak.
What about the people like my (then) 14 year old daughter's (then) 16 year old boyfriend? When DCFS investigated my family, I was informed that they were considering calling him a sex offender, and charging US as well since we knew about their relationship and did nothing to stop it.
MANY (and very possibly most) of the people on the sex offender registry belong there and thus it serves a valid purpose. But too many are on there for no reason!
Many states have different levels of sex offenders and the situation you described with your daughter would be at the lowest level (if at all). BTW, DCFS cannot list someone as a sex offender, that is up to the judge. They can elect to charge you, but since both participants were minors I doubt it will go anywhere.