Amazon.com Widgets

Japan only sentences possessors of child pornography to a year in prison. Is the sentence too light?

  • Children need to be Protected

    Japan should have stiffer penalties for the possession of child pornography. It is much too light of a prison sentence for this kind of offence. Child pornography hurts children. It is horrible abuse which ramifications last into adulthood. Anyone involved in the distribution or possession of child pornography should be imprisioned for life.

  • A 1 year sentence for possession of child porn is much too light

    Those in possession of child pornography should be harshly sentenced because they are demonstrating that they are and likely to in the future take advantage of a vulnerable population, children. However, I think that this needs to be a case by case decision because an 18 yr old dating a 17 year old who has a sexual picture of his 17 yr old girlfriend on his phone would also be considered as a possessor of child porn.

  • Prison will not do anything to stop them in the future.

    The fact is that we're talking about a sick fetish. So something that does harm only indirectly by producing demand for more child pornography.
    So I fail to see how jail is an appropriate punishment. No one will just stop their sick cravings because they're in jail, all they'll do is be more careful not to get caught.
    Also child pornography laws are ridiculous. If a 13 year old girl sends a guy a nude pic, it's child pornography. And there have been may cases in which people are punished for things like this.
    We all have to realize that this is a type of crime which isn't controllable, all we can possibly try to do is to stop those making and distributing child pornography, because punishing the guys who are the end recipient is just pointless

  • Japans Pornograhy Charges

    Japan sentences child pornography holders to a year in prison yet the United States allows them to go free. Prison may not be the right sentence for these people. It will not solve the problem and allows them out to just start all over again. I believe that some reeducation or help is needed instead of just prison sentences.

  • No, I think this sentence is not to light.

    In my opinion, the sentence of a year in prison for people who possess child pornography in Japan is not too light, because the violators will have enough time to rethink their behavior and choose not to violate the law again. On the other hand, I do think that the second violation of this kind should be more rough.

  • It is fair

    While I do see the problem with the crime, it is not like murder,rape, drug abuse, grand theft and a one year sentence would be fine. Just watching such content does not make one a certain child molester. A sentence of 1 year is neccesary for making sure people dont abuse the content, though.

  • Pointless and Not Part of Justice

    For a law to be legitimate it must serve a legitimate purpose and be fair it its administration. We may find a particular image disturbing, But it's clear that laws don't meet either criteria.

    The laws were made at a time when having this stuff would have required purchasing it or otherwise going to greater ends to get it. It was actually only recently that this stuff was outlawed, But even 20 years ago there wasn't an internet connection at every table. There's something to be said even then that simply possessing a picture of something cannot be considered a criminal act, But sense seems to go out the window when people are grossed out by the content (or want to use it as a political tool). In any case, It was rare for someone to have and rarer for someone to be convicted back then. Even so, It was considered more of an infraction then. But now that this stuff is so readily available that it can be found even unintentionally, We have people calling for hellfire. It makes no sense. Even if there is legitimacy in criminalizing looking at something, Then at what level? We don't execute people that swear or banish drug users.

    It's particularly messed up when kids with pictures of themselves or people that are mentally ill have their lives destroyed despite not harming anyone. If they haven't harmed anyone and aren't dangerous, Why should they be revictimized by us through the law?

    It's absurd for people like that in particular. A year in jail is already pretty bad, But having a conviction like this on your record basically means your life is ruined. No chance at a career, Or even finding decent housing. And good luck having to explain to every potential friend or partner what happened or why people calling you a monster isn't accurate. People also use sex offender registries to harass or attack those listed on it.

    Maybe the real question here should be why are we ruining the lives of people over something that harms no one simply because it grosses most of us out?

  • Most child porn is posed

    Most child pornography is low level i.e. posed semi nude or nude.
    It has been around for thousands of years.
    As ever various factions wish to suggest that it is all sexually abusive which it isn't.
    While looking at child pornography is inappropriate it is usually not as serious a situation as people make it out to be

  • Viewing doesn't hurt anyone

    Because the police cannot catch the producers of child pornography they are punishing the consumers hard
    in a futile attempt to reduce consumption.
    Therefore poor guys who get caught have their lives ruined by suspended or actual prison sentences, sex offence register unspent offence time, and barred entry to USA ,and Canada and Australia forever. Their partner often has to leave them or lose the kids.
    It is a disgrace.
    These are not molesters, they are good people. Looking at pictures never hurt anyone.

  • Sentencing is too harsh for child porn offences

    Looking at pictures no matter the content does not hurt anyone. Criminal justice system is deliberately confusing looking with doing to justify harsh sentences for looking at child pornography as it is the only way they can hope to reduce the amount of child pornography on the net and this is unfair to offenders


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
emmhuis says2018-10-28T01:31:42.920
It's a strange path I suppose that lead me to this page I suppose, But here I am nonetheless, Trying to make heads and tails first of the matter in question, And now of society as well. It's an unsurprising cliche at this point, And I'm getting annoyed enough to actually pick my hand up to the keyboard here. I'm not going to posit my own answer one way or the other to the question, But I will comment on the responses. The pro-penalty responses parrot predictable falsehoods that will continue to be repeated, Which is not without consequence.

Before commenting on facts, I would like to think we all realize that looking at a picture of something is not in fact the same as doing the thing pictured, But I know better than to make that assumption. In any case, Empirically speaking, It has been repeatedly shown over and over (and as more and more people have regular access to the internet, More vigorously, The usual inference being that that ease of access is a driving factor) that not only are sex offenders as a class extremely unlikely to re-offend (having the lowest recidivism rates of all classes except murder, Treason, And espionage, Contrary to congress's assertions), But that there are distinct classes caught under umbrella sex offence laws. Passive viewers of child pornography re-offend only very rarely, And it is extremely rare for them to commit actual hands-on child abuse, To the point where it is little different than the general population. Some research, Perplexing as it may be, Indicates that they are actually less likely than the general population, For whatever reasons. It should also be common sense at this point (again, Common sense is a myth), But more importantly empirically supported, That the overwhelming majority of child pornography is not purchased or even traded, But only viewed. It's the classic variant of the "large audience, Few speakers" aspect to social situations. It seems even this is changing as the internet matures. 20 years ago when people were using a smaller and more inconvenient internet, There appears to have been both less pornography and where it did exist, More direct, Intentional distribution of it. Now everyone can access everything for free, Be it porn, Movies, Music or whatever else. There no reason this should surprise us. It should be even more obvious, Frankly, Given the nature of the material that no one would want to pay for it.

Basically, There is very little market at all and possession alone (most cases, Despite many being charged with "receipt" for having "received" it) plays no part in it, And the people that are convicted of possession are generally not predatory. It is becoming apparent that many are not even actually pedophiles (likely another consequence of the ease of access) and an increasingly large minority are themselves children who are victimized not (just, Or at all, Depending on the case) by their pictures of themselves, But by law enforcement and malicious prosecutors.

The human costs of these convictions are unlike that of any other kind. Registration and even the mere stigma puts people convicted of these offences in constant physical danger, Drives them to homelessness and unemployment and brands them as moral lepers based solely on their conviction and not their actions or characteristics. This suffering is not just limited to them, But their families and communities as well (and given the ever growing number of indigent ex-offenders, The whole of society). Another bit of irony is that the lifetime out-casting of offenders, Especially their inability to gain housing, Employment, And a sense of dignity (and for actual pedophiles, Release) may drive those few that are actual predators so far down the toilet that they give up and re-offend. That is, While most will not re-offend, The few that may be inclined are made more likely to do so, Not less likely, By these vindictive attitudes, Putting children at greater risk, Not less. This has also been suggested by recent research, Though a conclusive study on the matter has not been done.

Given the costs and consequences, We have a civic responsibility to discuss this and to discuss it honestly and to conform our practices to be in line with real justice, Not mob mentality. The law is, After all, Enacted in our name. This is not a defence of child abuse but an indictment of mindless and malicious intellectual and emotional laziness that both inflicts enormous human suffering and may indeed put children in harms way. It has to stop and we need to hold ourselves accountable if we are going to talk about how we should go about holding others accountable.
>