> ... as well including the fact that it isn't a victimless crime
I feel like it still is. No child is directly harmed. There are indubitably indirect consequences, but those are unknown and irrelevant. If you search far enough, no crime is victimless.
For a less offensive metaphor, consider drug use. I have no doubt that if marijuana is legalized, people will die because of the actions of inebriated persons. However, because this is only indirect and no other aspects are taken into account, it would be unfair to not call the usage of marijuana a victimless crime.
So I don't deny some children might be molested that wouldn't have been molested without the legalisation of child pornography. However, some children might also be saved from harm (by paedophiles being able to "vent" perhaps). I don't think anybody can know whether the count of children saved minus children harmed would be netto positive (and I don't think it matters, because this is starting to sound like utilitarianism).
In short, some children might be saved, some might be harmed, we don't and can't know. However, because no child would be directly harmed, viewing and distributing is still a victimless crime and some people are of the principle that no victimless crime should be punishable by law.
> Arousal and sexuality is quite a complex thing. It's not as clear cut as we would like to believe. I've tried to find case papers and references for this and failed, but I recall reading a fascinating account by a neuro-psychiatrist on how sex offenders often get aroused while reciting their tales. In some cases documentation and distribution of the act was a part of their ritual and it aroused them as well, so it's not as far fetched as you think.
Granted. However, this also seems true (even more so) for murderers. Anders Breivik no doubt enjoyed the media attention and I didn't hear voices calling for his manifesto to become illegal to spread.
I think you're right. My original argument was that when you step inside the mind of someone who does something like this and examine their motives, then you come up with a series of whys. Why are they doing it? Why not just rape/molest the child in private behind closed doors? Clearly there won't be any photographic evidence lying around of their acts in that particular case making the prosecution's case weaker. A part of the reason why they do it because they have a need to perform and every performer needs an audience.
Given how controversial the subject matter is it might seem that I'm making a blanket statement to further my own objectives, but this is more of an observation rather than a conclusion. Why they do it is unclear and up for debate, but the fact that they are doing it isn't. The scenarios you have mentioned did not have this component in them. In those cases the harm is a probabilistic function requiring several requisite conditions to be completed. (someone has to be driving, the speed must be high and so on) A series of things must go wrong and the probability of occurrence isn't 1. On the other hand over here someone must be hurt and I assumed that there must be a psychological feedback mechanism which kicked in for the rapist when people consumed the said matter. That's why I thought it was more reasonable to assert that there is a function of the viewer in the crime itself and that it was a part of the motivations behind the crime.
However what I had forgotten was that correlation does not imply causation and all of this is orthogonal to the actual crime itself. Therefore, I was wrong and you were right. Possession is indeed a victimless crime.
Now we have that fact settled it is indeed an open question where there will be net good or net harm given legalisation or ban. That's a rather difficult question to answer and I do not have the skills or the understanding to broach upon it. However, I think that over here the answer isn't as simple complete legalisation or ban, but rather some X thing in combination with more sophisticated enforcement to catch the perpetrators.
>>> Anders Breivik no doubt enjoyed the media attention and I didn't hear voices calling for his manifesto to become illegal to spread.<<<
Again that's a completely orthogonal incident to what is being discussed. The two cases are radically different and have no common ground.
I feel like it still is. No child is directly harmed. There are indubitably indirect consequences, but those are unknown and irrelevant. If you search far enough, no crime is victimless.
For a less offensive metaphor, consider drug use. I have no doubt that if marijuana is legalized, people will die because of the actions of inebriated persons. However, because this is only indirect and no other aspects are taken into account, it would be unfair to not call the usage of marijuana a victimless crime.
So I don't deny some children might be molested that wouldn't have been molested without the legalisation of child pornography. However, some children might also be saved from harm (by paedophiles being able to "vent" perhaps). I don't think anybody can know whether the count of children saved minus children harmed would be netto positive (and I don't think it matters, because this is starting to sound like utilitarianism).
In short, some children might be saved, some might be harmed, we don't and can't know. However, because no child would be directly harmed, viewing and distributing is still a victimless crime and some people are of the principle that no victimless crime should be punishable by law.
> Arousal and sexuality is quite a complex thing. It's not as clear cut as we would like to believe. I've tried to find case papers and references for this and failed, but I recall reading a fascinating account by a neuro-psychiatrist on how sex offenders often get aroused while reciting their tales. In some cases documentation and distribution of the act was a part of their ritual and it aroused them as well, so it's not as far fetched as you think.
Granted. However, this also seems true (even more so) for murderers. Anders Breivik no doubt enjoyed the media attention and I didn't hear voices calling for his manifesto to become illegal to spread.