EU DIRECTIVE PROPOSAL 2010Child pornography (iii) any material that visually depicts any person appearing to be a child -- (iv) realistic images of a child -- regardless of the actual existence of such child –child = under 18 years
TIGHTENING UPExpanding the scope of child pornmore convictionscollecting political goodwillNo proof of effectiveness in preventionResearch and therapy experiences suggestthe opposite!
CHALLENGES: criminologyUse of pornography exploded in westerncountries no increase in sex crimes (Diamond 2009-2010)Child pornography legal in Chech, Denmarkand Japan for a period of timesex crimes against children decrease (Jozifkova, Weiss, Diamond 2010)
CHALLENGES: forensic psychiatry Internet child porn offenders and actual child molesters have usually different paths to the crimes Use of child pornography doesn’t predict actual sex crimes, antisocial behavior does (Fedoroff/IALMH 2011) IALMH = International Academy for Law and Mental Health
CHALLENGES: preventive therapy Permission and acceptance are the basic elements of sexual counselling (PLISSIT-model) Sexual preferences cannot be erased, controlling them requires positive ways of realisation (Nissinen/Sexpo Foundation) Child pornography can be a substitute for actualising pedophilic fantasies (Jozifkova 2010; Neutze/IALMH 2011)
CONCLUSIONSProposed EU-directive seeks to criminalisefantasies draconian and confusing violates sexual rights hampers crime preventionSofter approach could work better preventive therapy instead ofpunishment seeking help made easier frees resources
QUESTIONSCan non-harmful realisation methods(i.e. fictional child porn) be tools for crimeprevention?Should we loosen up child porn legislation ifit helps in crime prevention?