|
|
| Child Porn Bill Passes Unanimously |
| By Illinois Attorney General's Office |
| Published: 04/15/2011 |
|
SENATE UNANIMOUSLY PASSES CHILD PORN BILL TO STRENGTHEN SENTENCING AND SPEED ARRESTS Springfield – Attorney General Lisa Madigan joined state Senator Toi Hutchinson (D-Chicago Heights) in celebrating the passage of Senate Bill 1035, which enables law enforcement to more quickly apprehend child porn offenders and gives courts stronger sentencing options. The legislation, which Madigan’s office helped craft, authorizes prosecutors to issue administrative subpoenas for evidence in Internet-related child exploitation offenses – a move that will greatly accelerate the time it takes to identify and arrest offenders. The bill also extends prison time for offenders charged with multiple child porn offenses. “This bill gives law enforcement the ability to quickly identify and apprehend offenders, and it empowers judges and prosecutors to put them behind bars for as long as possible,” Attorney General Madigan said. “As technology advances and criminals find new ways to exploit children online, the law enforcement community must adapt and improve how they pursue child porn traffickers.” “Trafficking and possessing child porn creates real victims – innocent infants and children are subjected to the most disturbing acts of violence,” said Sen. Hutchinson. “As a mother, as well as a legislator, I am committed to doing all I can to see that those who commit crimes against children are quickly identified and pay a high price.” Approved in the Senate by a vote of 58-0, the measure now moves to the House where Rep. Emily McAsey (D- Romeoville) will sponsor the legislation. “I look forward to working on this important piece of legislation in the House,” said Rep. McAsey. “We cannot pass up this opportunity to assist law enforcement in getting these predators off the Internet and away from our children.” In August 2010, Attorney General Madigan’s office determined that there were approximately 8,000 Internet protocol (IP) addresses downloading or trading child pornography in Illinois. Recognizing that the Internet has allowed child pornography to reach virtually epidemic levels, she launched Operation Glass House at that time to find and arrest the worst child pornographers in Illinois. To date, the office has worked with local law enforcement to track down and arrest 20 of the top traders of child pornography in the state – several of whom were in the process of victimizing children. Attorney General Madigan’s investigators are able to track the trading of child pornography over the Internet by using the IP address, which is a unique identifier that each computer is assigned when it accesses the Internet. Presented with a subpoena and an IP address by law enforcement, Internet service providers are required to turn over the names and addresses of account holders matched to the IP addresses. But under current law, obtaining a subpoena through a grand jury can take an inordinate amount of time due to an often infrequent grand jury meeting schedule. In most Illinois counties, it can take as many as 60 days for investigators to learn the name and address of child pornographers and predators. The bill also subjects child porn traffickers to more time behind bars when convicted of trafficking or possessing multiple pornographic images of children. Under current Illinois law, an offender can possess thousands of images and videos of child pornography and be sentenced equally to an individual who possesses one image.Madigan said she crafted SB 1035 together with Sen. Hutchinson to address this issue, giving judges authority to impose consecutive instead of concurrent sentencing for multiple traffickers. There is a direct correlation between individuals who possess, download and trade graphic images of child pornography and those who molest children. Forty percent of arrested child porn possessors were “dual offenders,” who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the same investigation. |
Comments:
Login to let us know what you think
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
...you would rather kill the bill than catch the producers you can?
The bill is not aimed at catching child porn producers. It is aimed at catching child porn possessors. Producers constitute the smallest fraction of child porn offenders. The majority of child porn arrests are consumers. Even the example you gave was a child porn consumer, not a producer.
I do not support tougher legislation on child porn consumers or producers, because the U.S. currently defines "child porn" so broadly that even clothed children can be considered child porn if the child's poses are interpreted to be erotic. In its attempt to stop truly perverted people from consuming pornographic material of children, the government is simply going to destroy the lives of people who are no danger to society or children--like A.J. and Lisa Demaree, Marian Rubin, the father who went to jail for photographing his kids mooning him, and the parents who photographed their naked daughter in the garden: PopPhoto.com. How a Photo Can Ruin Your Life.
Under this new law that Illinois has passed, there could be a family who takes 20 or 30 pictures of their children playing in the bath tub, and when police call the pictures child porn, the family will face such a long imprisonment that their kids would be grown and married with kids of their own by the time their parents are released. I believe the imprisonment of their parents will have a far more devastating affect on the kids' lives than the pictures would have.
I am all for ANY measure that penalizes ANYONE producing, possessing, or trading kiddie porn.
I'm not, because I don't trust the government to define "kiddie porn". If the government can take away someone's kids for simply photographing them naked during bath time, then I'm not giving it any more power. If it can arrest a 62 year old grandmother for photographing her nude kids, then I don't want the government's "protection."
And nobody stops at the IP address.
At least you see the mistake in the article. The author labeled the people whose IP addresses were seen downloading child porn "predators and child molesters."
Obviously they would look for evidence on the computers pointed to by that IP address.
Yes. They first check to see if the person's internet connection is secured with a password. If the internet connection that is seen downloading child porn is unsecured, they try to locate the computer that is logged on and downloading the child porn. But child porn arrests also happen when someone takes their family photos to be developed at a store. Photographers can also be arrested for child porn, even though the kids in the pictures are not being touched by an adult. See, that's another problem with this subject. Everyone wants to stop "kiddie porn" but most people do not realize how broadly that term is defined by their government. Kiddie porn isn't just pictures of adults raping babies. It's naked kids playing in the bathtub if their legs happen to be spread, exposing their genitals.
...opposing laws that try to address real problems while not offering any solutions doesn't MAKE you a pedophile...
My solution is for the government to first acknowledge that it can't completely eliminate this problem. Just like countries that give the death penalty to drug dealers cannot stop drug dealing, harsher laws cannot stop people from consuming or producing child pornography. Secondly, I think the government should establish a grading scale for child porn like the UK does, and offer different levels of punishment for each category. See the Protection of Children Act
BUT -- It may cause a lot of people to wonder if you are one!
Perhaps that is because you are reacting on emotion rather than logic.
...you would rather kill the bill than catch the producers you can?
The bill is not aimed at catching child porn producers. It is aimed at catching child porn possessors. Producers constitute the smallest fraction of child porn offenders. The majority of child porn arrests are consumers. Even the example you gave was a child porn consumer, not a producer.
I do not support tougher legislation on child porn consumers or producers, because the U.S. currently defines "child porn" so broadly that even clothed children can be considered child porn if the child's poses are interpreted to be erotic. In its attempt to stop truly perverted people from consuming pornographic material of children, the government is simply going to destroy the lives of people who are no danger to society or children--people like A.J. and Lisa Demaree, Marian Rubin, the father who went to jail for photographing his kids mooning him, and the parents who photographed their naked daughter in the garden. (see http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2008/12/how-photo-can-ruin-your-life)
Under this new law that Illinois has passed, there could be a family who takes 20 or 30 pictures of their children playing in the bath tub, and when police call the pictures child porn, the family will face such a long imprisonment that their kids would be grown and married with kids of their own by the time their parents are released. I believe the imprisonment of their parents will have a far more devastating affect on the kids' lives than the pictures would have.
I am all for ANY measure that penalizes ANYONE producing, possessing, or trading kiddie porn.
I'm not, because I don't trust the government to define kiddie porn. If the government can take away someone's kids for simply photographing them naked during bath time, then I'm not trusting it. If it can arrest a 62 year old grandmother for photographing her nude kids, then I don't want the government's "protection."
And nobody stops at the IP address.
At least you see the mistake in the article. The author labeled the people whose IP addresses were seen downloading child porn "predators and child molesters."
Obviously they would look for evidence on the computers pointed to by that IP address.
Yes. They first check to see if the person's internet connection is secured with a password. If the internet connection that is seen downloading child porn is unsecured, they try to locate the computer that is logged on and downloading the child porn. But child porn arrests also happen when someone takes their family photos to be developed at a store. Photographers can also be arrested for child porn, even though the kids in the pictures are not being touched by an adult. See, that's another problem with this subject. Everyone wants to stop "kiddie porn" but most people do not realize how broadly that term is defined by their government. Kiddie porn isn't just pictures of adults raping babies. It's naked kids playing in the bathtub if their legs happen to be spread, exposing their genitals.
opposing laws that try to address real problems while not offering any solutions doesn't MAKE you a pedophile...
My solution is for the government to first acknowledge that it can't completely eliminate this problem. Just like countries that give the death penalty to drug dealers cannot stop drug dealing, harsher laws cannot stop people from consuming or producing child pornography. I think the goverment should establish a grading system for child porn like the UK does, and offer different levels of punishment for each category. See the guidelines for punishment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978
BUT -- It may cause a lot of people to wonder if you are one!
If someone isn't intelligent enough to mount a cogent defense they will likely resort to name-calling.
The continuous negligence of parents towards childcare would only let a child open the gates of darkness. Child abuse is a serious problem faced all over the world. The documentary "Speak Up! It's Not Your Fault! " shares the story of two who lived through the ordeal and have chosen to be vocal about it. To watch this documentary online visit.http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/4694
Ah, it does. A more readable reply is coming soon.
This comment software needs to be changed to allow spaces, and maybe even html (does it already?) to make it more readable. test
>...you would rather kill the bill than catch the producers you can? The bill is not aimed at catching child porn producers. It is aimed at catching child porn possessors. Producers constitute the smallest fraction of child porn offenders. The majority of child porn arrests are consumers. Even the example you gave was a child porn consumer, not a producer. I do not support tougher legislation on child porn consumers or producers, because the U.S. currently defines "child porn" so broadly that even clothed children can be considered child porn if the child's poses are interpreted to be erotic. In its attempt to stop truly perverted people from consuming pornographic material of children, the government is simply going to destroy the lives of people who are no danger to society--people like A.J. and Lisa Demaree, Marian Rubin, the father who went to jail for photographing his kids mooning him, and the parents who photographed their naked daughter in the garden. (see http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2008/12/how-photo-can-ruin-your-life) Under this new law that Illinois has passed, there could be a family who takes 20 or 30 pictures of their children playing in the bath tub, and when police call the pictures child porn, they will be facing such a long imprisonment that their kids would be grown and married with kids of their own by the time they are released. I believe the imprisonment of their parents will have a far more devastating affect on their lives than any "lewd" pictures would have. >I am all for ANY measure that penalizes ANYONE producing, possessing, or trading kiddie porn. I'm not, because I don't trust the government to define kiddie porn. If the government can take away a family's kids for simply photographing them naked during bath time, then I'm not trusting it. If it can arrest a 62 year old grandmother for photographing her nude kids, then I don't want the government's "protection." >And nobody stops at the IP address. At least you see the mistake in the article. The author labeled the people whose IP addresses were seen downloading child porn "predators and child molesters." >Obviously they would look for evidence on the computers pointed to by that IP address. Yes. They first check to see if the person's internet connection is secured with a password. If the internet connection that is seen downloading child porn is unsecured, they try to locate the computer that is logged on and downloading the child porn. But child porn arrests also happen when someone takes their family photos to be developed at a store. Photographers can also be arrested for child porn, even though the kids in the pictures are not being touched by an adult. See, that's another problem with this subject. Everyone wants to stop "kiddie porn" but most people do not realize how broadly that term is defined by their government. Kiddie porn isn't just pictures of adults raping babies. >opposing laws that try to address real problems while not offering any solutions doesn't MAKE you a pedophile... My solution is for the government to first acknowledge that it can't completely eliminate this problem. Just like countries that give the death penalty to drug dealers cannot stop drug dealing, harsher laws cannot stop people from consuming or producing child pornography. The government put indecent images of children into categories like the UK does, and offer different levels of punishment for each category, depending on the severity of the picture. See the guidelines for punishment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978 >BUT -- It may cause a lot of people to wonder if you are one! If someone isn't intelligent enough to mount a cogent defense they will likely resort to name-calling.
Ryan, Let me get this straight, you would rather kill the bill than catch the producers you can? They caught a guy in the UK with **thousands** of kiddie porn images on his phone just cause he left his phone on a bus. I am all for ANY measure that penalizes ANYONE producing, possessing, or trading kiddie porn. And nobody stops at the IP address. Obviously they would look for evidence on the computers pointed to by that IP address. and to answer your other question, opposing laws that try to address real problems while not offering any solutions doesn't MAKE you a pedophile... BUT -- It may cause a lot of people to wonder if you are one!
Sgt_CO, does disagreeing with a law and the language of this article make me a child molester?
RyanColeman- wow, your comment sounds almost exactly the same as all the child molesters locked up at my prison.
This is not a good idea at all. Fist, the U.S. definition of child porn is too broad. In the United States, child porn can be a picture of a naked child sitting in her garden with her legs spread. It can also be a picture of kids mooning the camera, and it can even be a child in her underwear, depending on her position. -An 82 year old grandmother, social worker and photographer named Marian Rubin was accused of producing child porn for photos she took of her naked children. -A.J. and Lisa Demaree were arrested and had their children taken away from them because the police felt the bath time photos of their children fit the U.S. definition of child porn. -Two men in the UK have been arrested for possessing David Hamilton pictures. David Hamilton photobooks are being sold on Amazon.com right now. -A man in Australia was arrested for possessing child porn for having cartoons of the Simpsons characters having sex. The state of Illinois is trying to stop a social problem with tougher penalties. But these tougher penalties aren't going to stop the REAL traders of child pornography, who are computer savvy enough to employ counter forensics techniques to avoid detection. These tougher penalties are going to destroy the lives of the parents and photographers who do not realize their pictures will be labeled child porn by aggressive law enforcement and prosecutors. And just look at the language in this article: "In most Illinois counties, it can take as many as 60 days for investigators to learn the name and address of child pornographers and predators." When an IP address is seen downloading child pornography, the person at that home is automatically a child pornographer and predator? That's a huge jump to make! You do know there have been cases where a child porn trader simply logged on to his neighbor's unsecured wireless networks and started downloading child pornography, don't you? So when investigators are learning the identities of the residents at a house where child porn is being downloaded (not produced, silly) they are not necessarily learning the identities of "child pornographers and predators." But I guess when you are employed by the system that punishes people, you will find such distinctions trivial.