Child Pornography

Oh, how the topics of this blog have varied, dear reader! I find myself on the brink of supporting free speech in defence of child pornography. But wait, keep the phone on the hook for now. I simply wish to draw your attention to this piece. In May 2005 an Arizona man, aged 57 with no previous criminal record, was sentenced to 200 years in jail. Why? Did he rape a baby? Did he hack away at the genitals of a newborn boy with a sharp stone without the divine permission of God? No. He downloaded 20 images of child pornography. Vulgar, yes, but without context. A single case of possessing inappropriate images results in a ten year prison term, without the chance of early release. And, in these instances, it is not eligible to be served concurrently. In other words, jail terms have to be served consecutively for each conviction. Hence, 200 years. Now...call me a paedophile...but surely, downloading several pictures of a little boy/girl, is not quite as bad as killing someone (an act, which under Arizona law, often procures a 22 year jail sentence). There seems to be some imbalance here. Not only that, but convictions of second degree murder can be served concurrent with other convictions. So, if I killed someone whilst drunk-driving I would be charged with second degree murder and DWI (driving while intoxicated), but then serve the jail time concurrently and be freed after 22 years. However, if i was to download two pictures of a stranger having sex with a twelve-year-old, I would go down for forty years. Say what you want, dear reader, but one is not as bad as the other; any glowing essence of human solidarity would tell you which. Lest we forget that this man did not perpetrate any act against a child, but merely stood by. In a removed sense, this equates to remanding a man for funding the 9/11 attacks through buying heroin off a shady crackpot on a street corner.