tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post7404728203093952318..comments2024-03-20T19:17:02.285-07:00Comments on IN THE NEWS: Sex offender roundupKaren Franklin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-42246623360472119762012-02-20T09:42:19.248-08:002012-02-20T09:42:19.248-08:00Karen,
I posted this comment to a related article...Karen,<br /><br />I posted this comment to a related article of yours, but I felt it would be appropriate here as well . . .<br /><br /><br /><i>The Department of Justice has also pointed to a study at a federal prison that found that 85 percent of inmates convicted of child pornography possession who took part in therapy sessions later admitted to having sexual contact with children. Before they were sentenced, 74 percent of the 155 men who took part in the study indicated they had no history of contact with children . . . “I’m very cautious when I hear people use the term child pornography offender with this underlying assumption that they haven’t done anything else," said Michael Bourke, a psychologist who conducted the study and published its findings in 2009.</i><br /><br />First, is this study correct, that most inmates sentenced for possession of pornography have a history, or is this a media twist to make it sound like something more extreme than fact?<br /><br />Second, should it be automatically assumed that possession of child pornography equates to or is associated with child abuse as defined according to SVP standards for those who have actually engaged in illegal sexual activity?<br /><br /><br /><i>Gertner, who now teaches law at Harvard University, said the Sentencing Commission has long sought to strike a balance between sentences that are both tough but also appropriate . . . But the involvement of policymakers inflamed by public opinion has only swayed the guidelines to the point they are out of proportion with the underlying crime, said Gertner, who has issued sentences ranging from 48 months in prison to 60 months. She also sentenced two men convicted of trafficking children to 300 months in prison.</i><br /><br />How can an appropriate balance come about regarding an emotional issue such as possession of child pornography or an SVP crime? The reason such punishments and/or sentences are extreme is due to emotional stances instead of rational ones. I am not saying that people shouldn't be upset--crimes of this nature can be and are quite serious--but allowing emotions to reign will only create a bigger mess. This proves it. Luckily, many judges are now speaking up about it.<br /><br />Here is the entire article for those interested in reading it:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/02/12/federal-judges-straying-from-sentencing-guidelines-for-child-porn-convictions/Db2aMqGqpNT39cymSu4T9M/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw" rel="nofollow">Judges Straying from Sentencing Guidelines for Child Pornography</a><br /><br />By the way, does science support the assertion that viewing pornography actually leads to correlative behavior and/or SV crimes? The fact that many inmates guilty of porn possession have no criminal history would suggest this is not the case.researcheronehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576084808353132904noreply@blogger.com