Is child porn the new Salem witch hunt?

All I know about child porn comes from the term itself. I assume it is pornography that involves children. Just what parameters of decency it violates that make it such an egregious crime are matters that I cannot imagine. Furthermore, I have no idea where one would go to find it. And I don't plan to search. Having a search record on one's computer is extremely dangerous. People are convicted to prison constantly for having child pornography on their computers.

That circumstance is what sets off my alarm. The statute on child pornography is quite broad. It defines child pornography as the depiction of any prohibited sexual act with a child. It also has a number of mandates requiring people who might deal with photography films, videos, and computers to report any instances where they find child pornography on media they handle in the course of their businesses. I am confounded by how possession of some depiction of a pornographic act with a child can be conflated into a major crime. If the person who is alleged to have such a depiction but has not acted out any such acts, I ask how the absence of an anti-social act but mere possession can result in a harsh prison sentence and a record of sexual offense.

What brings this to mind is a story in the Rapid City Journal about a 19-year-old who was sentenced to180 days in prison and put on probation for seven years for having child pornography on his computer. He plead guilty to one count which prosecutors said was very disturbing, and his defense lawyer said he acknowledged he was wrong to download the depiction. He was 18 when arrested. No information was contained in the story about who found the depiction and turned him in. So, we readers of this report are given no indication of why he underwent such a harsh prosecution and sentence. What seems to be a mental health issue is regarded as a crime that puts a teenager in prison for six months and puts him on probation for seven years. Any chance he has to build a constructive life is pretty well destroyed by a prison record and being on probation until he is 26. I don't grasp the magnitude of the offense or why he is sentenced to severe punishment rather than a program of rehabilitation. Nor do I understand the quality of justice demonstrated by the prosecution and the defense.

There are many compelling reasons why I have become suspicious and skeptical about child pornography charges. One of them regards a Sioux Falls attorney who was charged with possession and distribution of child pornography but was acquitted by a jury because he was looking at the pornography in preparation for advising clients. South Dakota law protects police officers and lawyers who gaze on child pornography in the course of their work. Federal law does not.

The question that comes to my mind is how this case got to court. If the police and prosecutors had investigated with due diligence, it seems the case could have been resolved without charges being filed. The stories did not indicate just who informed on the lawyer or why such an aggressive prosecution was mounted. Anyone who has witnessed some of the vindictive and prejudicial motives that operate in our justice system must wonder who was out to get this lawyer.

And that gets to some other experiences. I have supported and worked with organizations that investigate wrongful convictions. In one case a local man gave a neighbor woman permission to use his computer while he was out of town on business. She found child porn on it and turned him in to the police. Although convicted of the charge, he denied ever looking at or downloading child porn, and said he did not even know it was on his computer. An investigation revealed that he was very generous about letting other people use his computer, but we could not, of course, identify someone among the many people who had used his computer with evidence that one or more of them had downloaded pornography. The one interesting fact provided by the computer expert in the case was that the woman who found the child porn had to make a concerted and aggressive effort to search the files on the computer.

Another case involved a government official on whose work computer technicians found some pornography. He was forced to resign, but filed a report with an agency that looks into instances of wrongful accusation. We found that a young man in his office had often been seen using the computer when the official was out of the office. However, the official got a better job and willingly departed, but the investigating organization sent the officials who asked for his resignation a letter detailing the information produced by the investigation, along with a severe reprimand for prosecuting a careless and easily disproved accusation.

There were other cases of the sort that have shown the need to rewrite some laws to make officials, law enforcement officers, and prosecutors liable for wrongful accusations and prosecutions that stem from slovenly investigations and malicious prosecutions.


There are people who feel that they have power and consequence only when they can destroy the lives of other people.  There are others who harbor malicious hatred of individuals.  They do not seem to hesitate to use the law and the justice system to realize malevolent self-esteem and pleasure.

It appears that child pornography laws and the justice system is put in service of those motives.  Just as the State of Illinois has engaged in a stringent critical review of its justice system when it pardoned 13 men from death row because of wrongful convictions.

The stench of malice pervades the matter of child pornography prosecutions and convictions.