In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Judges Justifying Rape and Child Pornography

First, a Nevada man pleaded guilty to ten counts of child pornography for possessing more than 800 pornographic images of children — and in his sentencing, the judge asserted that men are attracted to female children. Female children as young as one:

“These kinds of offenses are problems with impulse control,” said Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox prior to sentencing. “When I say that, it’s my understanding that most men are sexually attracted to young women. When I say young women I don’t just mean women that … you should be attracted to. I mean women from the time they’re 1 all the way up until they’re 100.”

And wanting to have sex with little girls is perfectly normal:

Maddox noted the legal terms malum in se, a Latin phrase meaning an act that is “inherently evil,” and malum prohibitum, which means acts that are not necessarily inherently immoral or hurtful, only wrong by statute.

He said child pornography could be considered malum prohibitum because in some countries and cultures it is acceptable to engage in sexual conduct with young girls.

“As an example, having sex with a girl between 12 and 16 is prohibited because we say it’s prohibited. It’s because we decided as a civilized society you do not want adults engaging in sexual conduct with children below 16 years of age, which flies in the face of our, I guess for lack of a better description, our normal impulses,” he said.

“I guess we could just ignore them, say it’s just like a traffic ticket, it’s malum prohibitum, it’s only against the law because it’s prohibited. Or we could say that because we’re trying to control what’s an otherwise natural impulse there has to be consequences.

“The bottom line on it all is the way we’re going to control it in my opinion is to ensure that everybody understands what the consequences are if you engage in … a lack of impulse control. It’s likely that most people would find young girls sexually attractive. But we’re civilized to the point that we’re taught to control our impulses. When you don’t, there has to be consequences.”

And if that isn’t enough to make you vomit in your own mouth, check out this story about a man who got no jail time for raping a 10-year-old girl — because he thought she was 16, and she had already had some sexual experience, so what’s the harm? And naturally, she was asking for it:

Mr Justice Roderick Evans, at Swansea Crown Court, said the girl “was looking for a man and got what she wanted”.


41 thoughts on Judges Justifying Rape and Child Pornography

  1. *blink* These guys are still judges?!

    I suppose them one year olds need to make sure they are modest dresser, so as not to send us men into fits of lust? *gag*

    Honest to God? Who fed that first judge such a load of crap?!

  2. He said child pornography could be considered malum prohibitum because in some countries and cultures it is acceptable to engage in sexual conduct with young girls.

    Yeah, and in some cultures it’s acceptable to eat people.

  3. Are you discriminating against the undead, Alex? Zombies were people, too!

    And, yeah, I have to joke about this because the alternative is just… eww.

  4. Yeah, and in some cultures it’s acceptable to eat people.

    But who could blame them? It’s just a natural human impulse — frowned on by our society, of course, but does that make it go away? No. We just learn proper impulse control.

    It’s my understanding that most people feel the odd flash of hunger for humans, but know enough to decorously hide those desires…for juicy, succulent man-flesh, fresh-caught and roasted, maybe rubbed with a seasoning of — sorry, where was I?

  5. In the English case, I find the judge’s “She was looking for a man and she got one” comment to be crass, but I actually agree with the ruling.

    -The girl was outside a pub, late at night.

    -While there have been no pictures, even the prosecution agreed the girl looked mature for her age.

    -The guy asked her about her age.*

    *While her answer wasn’t the most confidence-inspiring, I sincerely doubt the man in question thought he was pulling a 10 year old girl.

    A friend of mine in middle school passed herself off as 19 when she was 12. She dated a 21 year old guy over the summer between 7th and 8th grades (and slept with him), and he never knew the truth.

    It *can* happen. In some instances, ignorance *can* be an excuse.

  6. According to the story, this girl looked 16, not 19. 16, as in, not yet legal. Underage. Jailbait. And for a 10 year old to be “looking for a man”, well there’s almost certainly a history of sexual abuse.

  7. “And for a 10 year old to be “looking for a man”, well there’s almost certainly a history of sexual abuse.”

    Yeah, but that’s not known by, or the fault of, the 20 year old. I agree with Red Stapler -If you’re 20, I can see sleeping with a 16 year old. Regardless of if it’s technically legal, it doesn’t automatically make you evil. But the judge’s contempt for the girl is sickening.

  8. Except the age of consent in the United Kingdom is 16. However, just because having sex with a 16-year-old is legal doesn’t make it right or conscionable. Plus, everyone knows that kids lie and upwardly adjust their age… why would you risk sleeping with a 16-year-old? Maybe I’m just biased by the 18-year-old age of consent here, though… I don’t know if I’d say “why would you risk sleeping with a 18-year-old,” but on the other hand that age of consent just makes more sense to me, adulthood and living away from home and all that.

    The judge in the first case is deranged on so many levels that it’s hard to even keep track. First, he thinks it’s a “natural impulse” for men to want to have sex with 1-year-olds. This is so insane I have to wonder what the hell he was thinking, or not thinking, when he wrote that sentence. Even if that single sentence was some sort of horrifying brain fart, he definitely believes it’s a “natural impulse” to want to have sex with children as young as 12. Twelve!? He didn’t say anything about children that look older, either; just twelve, in genral. There are other discussions that you could have about teenagers, statutory rape laws and age of consent, but those aren’t really applicable in the first case, because the guy had pictures of kids obviously under 10!

    Second, he somehow thinks there’s a contradiction between “malum in se” — society’s ideas of what is inherently wrong, as enshrined in law — and “controlling natural urges.” I can only suppose that he’s operating on a sadly far-too-common assumption that “natural” somehow is equal to a moral good. There are so many “natural urges” that we obviously condemn as harmful and bad. For instance, if someone gets extremely jealous at seeing their partner or spouse having sex with someone else, the “natural urge” for many people is to fly into a rage and possibly harm someone — assault, or even murder. Obviously this kind of thing has happened as long as human society has been around. But we don’t just say “oh that’s a natural urge, we just frown on it by statute, malum prohibitum.” We do call it a crime of passion, but we don’t flinch from saying that assault and murder are bad, bad things. I don’t know how people like this get to be judges!!

    P.S. I suggested this story a few days ago! But I don’t know if anyone saw it. Where d’you guys keep your suggestion box anyway?

  9. According to the story, this girl looked 16, not 19. 16, as in, not yet legal. Underage. Jailbait.

    Well, that depends on the local laws. 16 may very well be the age of consent there.

  10. According to the story, this girl looked 16, not 19. 16, as in, not yet legal. Underage. Jailbait.
    Well, that depends on the local laws. 16 may very well be the age of consent there.

    It was in the UK, where the AOC is 16. Moreover, given that she was outside a pub, the man in question had reasonable doubt that even if she wasn’t 18 (UK drinking age), she was probably 16.

    I was 17 on my first trip to the UK, and was rarely carded at bars/pubs/clubs, if ever.

    The only thing that should or could have made this guy hesitate was her hedging around the age question. The rest of the scenario makes his assumption perfectly reasonable.

  11. Except the age of consent in the United Kingdom is 16. However, just because having sex with a 16-year-old is legal doesn’t make it right or conscionable. Plus, everyone knows that kids lie and upwardly adjust their age… why would you risk sleeping with a 16-year-old? Maybe I’m just biased by the 18-year-old age of consent here, though… I don’t know if I’d say “why would you risk sleeping with a 18-year-old,” but on the other hand that age of consent just makes more sense to me, adulthood and living away from home and all that.

    But that’s exactly the point the first judge is making. I was 17 the first time I had sex, and you’d have had a hard time convincing me it was “inherently evil” for me to have consensual sex because in your state 18 is the cutoff for icky-sex. New York State has a “four year rule,” where even if one person is under the age of consent, if the other is within four years, it’s not statutory rape.

    Besides, my asshole stepfather used to tell me that I made the longest, most rambling, most embarassing defenses of my actions when I was least secure in the truth/justness of those actions. Looking at his rambling commentary, I’m sure he was (pardon pun) groping for words, and the phrase “from 1 to 100” is the kind of psuedo tongue-in-cheek thing grown-ups say when they’re trying to be hip or funny. I seem to remember my childhood Raffi sing-along books said “Ages 4 to 400” on them.

    Beyond that, I would like to believe/hope that the English judge’s crass … contempt? for the 10-year-old girl was less sexist and more ageist. I don’t think, before I turned 18, I ever broke anything or hurt myself without one of my older relatives telling me that I got what I deserved for being so clumsy/careless/stupid etc.

    Do these judges have a history of things like this? If so, I’d say someone should probably just contact a local media outlet or women’s shelter or something and start a petition to get them impeached and removed from office.

  12. I guess I wonder if England has repealed its statutory rape laws… in the US mistake is not a defense to statutory rape because it is a strict liability crime (meaning it doesn’t have intent as an element of the crime).

    Though many people regard statutory rape laws as paternalistic, such a law would have made this guy liable for the simple reason that a 10-year-old is deemed incapable of granting consent by virtue of her age.

    I don’t even know where to begin with the judge in the child porn case, other than he is trying to make a social construction argument that more and more people are making about “intergenerational sex”, which is just creepy to me.

  13. I believe this is the same judge who let another accused rapist off the hook because the woman was blacked out at the time he assaulted her and “couldn’t remember if she had consented or not”; although the accused rapist was actually a security guard her friends had recruited to get her home safely because she was extremely drunk.

    Plus, people, this guy fucked a TEN YEAR OLD GIRL. Ignorance does not equal innocence. I cannot fathom why so many people are being so forgiving of this man. A ten year old cannot legally consent to sex. Period.

  14. Maybe it’s me but I hope they’re not wasting any time getting a look at that first judge’s hard drive. I bet there’s all sorts of nasty on there! YUCK!

  15. Sorry for the double post, I forgot to touch on this part:

    For instance, if someone gets extremely jealous at seeing their partner or spouse having sex with someone else, the “natural urge” for many people is to fly into a rage and possibly harm someone — assault, or even murder. Obviously this kind of thing has happened as long as human society has been around. But we don’t just say “oh that’s a natural urge, we just frown on it by statute, malum prohibitum.” We do call it a crime of passion, but we don’t flinch from saying that assault and murder are bad, bad things. I don’t know how people like this get to be judges!!

    We don’t flinch, but we invent categories of crimes like manslaughter, to accurately punish crimes based on intent. We have legal defenses for states like temporary insanity because the legal system acknowledges that the requisite criminal intent that would validate a first-degree murder charge may be replaced by animalistic urges. Those animal urges are still malum in se, but successfully establishing an insanity defense invalidates the application of the most severe punishments. Basically, penal law should give penalties scaled to both outcome AND intent. If the intent isn’t there, the criminal shouldn’t be punished as if it was.

    If you read the original article at Nevada Appeal, it’s clear the judge was in no way going soft on child pornography or child predators. The state probate/parole sentencing guidlines suggested 2-12 years; the judge sentenced him to 18, “so that if he were paroled, he’d be under state supervision longer.”

    After the offending passages quoted, the judge goes on to ask, rhetorically for the record, about enforcement of these laws:

    “So what’s the answer to that? What’s the answer? How do we enforce those laws? I guess we could just ignore them, say it’s just like a traffic ticket, it’s malum prohibitum, it’s only against the law because it’s prohibited. Or we could say that because we’re trying to control what’s otherwise a natural [ed: I would have said animal] impulse there has to be consequences. There has to be consequences. And in the overall scheme of things you’re not even close to being the worst offender of our sexual morass that I have seen. I have prosecuted fathers who force their 14-year old daughter to perform fellatio on them or 20-, 30-year-old guy performing sexual acts on a seven-year-old girl. … I don’t think you’re someone that society needs to isolate. I don’t — you can argue about retribution. I don’t know who I would be obtaining that for. Rehabilitation. You’ll be on parole and you’ll be able to get counseling which I absolutely suggest that you do.”

    I guess … I just don’t see the problem with this judge. He is concerned about everything a judge needs to be concerned about, except making sure that none of his comments, taken out of context, don’t sound stupid. But that’s why judges serve for life.

  16. I don’t even know where to begin with the judge in the child porn case, other than he is trying to make a social construction argument that more and more people are making about “intergenerational sex”, which is just creepy to me.

    They’ve always made that arguement actually, in fact Lolita is all about that view point, even though it’s not really pretending that that’s a healthy or normal point of view.

  17. He declared that he finds girls from the age of 1 to a hundred sexuall attractive.

    He needs help, before his “natural” urges overwhelm his self control. If someone is mentally ill to a degree that could affect their ability to serve as a judge or similar public official, they do not get to serve in a position where their illness could affect their ability to do their job.

    In this instance, the judge gave this guy parole after a year or two because of his illness datashade – him suffering from derbyshire syndrome affected how he sentenced that guy.

  18. He declared that he finds girls from the age of 1 to a hundred sexuall attractive.

    Actually, that might not have been him, I swear someone said something about how it’s natural to find women, whether they’re 1 or 100, sexually attractive… meh, I need help…

  19. …I cannot fathom why so many people are being so forgiving of this man. A ten year old cannot legally consent to sex. Period.

    It does seem a pretty exceptional case. From what I can tell she may have been asking for it in the literal sense of going out and looking for sex. He committed the crime by mistake, thinking she was 16+. Was horrified when he was informed he had committed the crime. And the only reason they got a conviction was because he admitted to the crime and fully cooperated with the police (the girl wouldn’t have given evidence).

    For any crime, if the defendant wasn’t predatory, accidently committed the crime, deeply regretted it, and took full responsibility, then that’s about as strong a case for leniency as you can get. Obviously, I’ve only read a short news report, but it is hard to see a strong reason for jailing him in retribution, public protection or deterance.

  20. …I cannot fathom why so many people are being so forgiving of this man. A ten year old cannot legally consent to sex. Period.

    It does seem a pretty exceptional case. From what I can tell she may have been asking for it in the literal sense of going out and looking for sex. He committed the crime by mistake, thinking she was 16+. Was horrified when he was informed he had committed the crime. And the only reason they got a conviction was because he admitted to the crime and fully cooperated with the police (the girl wouldn’t have given evidence).

    For any crime, if the defendant wasn’t predatory, accidently committed the crime, deeply regretted it, and took full responsibility, then that’s about as strong a case for leniency as you can get. Obviously, I’ve only read a short news report, but it is hard to see a strong reason for jailing him in retribution, public protection or deterance.

  21. I can feel some understanding for the man in the statutory rape case, given that 16 is the UK age of consent and the circumstances which would make it somewhat reasonable for him to believe that she was of age.

    That having been said, he was suspicious enough to ask her age and then intent enough on having sex that he chose to disregard the extremely suspect answer he was given. If there was ever a time to say “Sorry, you didn’t try hard enough to make sure you weren’t having sex with an underage person,” those actions resulting in sex with a ten-year-old is it.

    I mean, it’s a statutory rape case. This is what the laws were meant to keep from happening. If you start handing out passes to people who have sex with children because they’re upset and distraught that the child misled them, you might as well not bother.

  22. “It’s only illegal because we prohibit it.”

    Yes. It’s actually that simple. As a judge, your job is to interpret the law, not change it to fit your morals. So yes, it’s illegal because the law says so (and for other reasons that you might not like). NOW DO YOUR EFFIN JOB!

    Jeeeez. How long before THAT guy gets caught with kiddie porn?

  23. So what’s the answer to that? What’s the answer? How do we enforce those laws? I guess we could just ignore them, say it’s just like a traffic ticket, it’s malum prohibitum, it’s only against the law because it’s prohibited. Or we could say that because we’re trying to control what’s otherwise a natural [ed: I would have said animal] impulse there has to be consequences. There has to be consequences. And in the overall scheme of things you’re not even close to being the worst offender of our sexual morass that I have seen. I have prosecuted fathers who force their 14-year old daughter to perform fellatio on them or 20-, 30-year-old guy performing sexual acts on a seven-year-old girl. … I don’t think you’re someone that society needs to isolate. I don’t — you can argue about retribution. I don’t know who I would be obtaining that for.

    The problem with that though, DataShade is, well, there’s a reason why posessing child pornography is punished so harshly. Yes, this guy isn’t raping the kids, he’s essentially paying someone else to rape kids and pass along the images of the crimes for his entertainment and stimulation. Basically, he’s helping to create and sustain a market for child abuse. The fact that the judge doesn’t seem to understand what all the fuss is about and seems to think this is a victimless crime doesn’t give me a whole lot of confidence in him.

  24. Basically, he’s helping to create and sustain a market for child abuse. The fact that the judge doesn’t seem to understand what all the fuss is about and seems to think this is a victimless crime doesn’t give me a whole lot of confidence in him.

    I don’t disagree with this exactly, but I do think that people get all grossed out by child porn and then penalize possession of it overly harshly. The reasoning that it in fact supports the sexual exploitation of children is a somewhat post hoc justification for the punishment.

    After all, a lot of the things that we consume are produced through the exploitation of children (and adults), but I don’t see a lot of call for jailing people who knowingly buy from sweatshops.

    In addition, I believe the crime of possession of child pornography is the same whether you paid for it or not, so even if you didn’t financially support someone exploiting children, you face the same punishment.

    I don’t know if I think it should be legalized, I just think we need to approach the whole issue with less “Eew! Throw that pervert in prison!” and more “who’s being harmed?”

  25. I agree with preying mantis
    I don’t understand why hanging around outside the pub made him think she was of age, I mean didn’t he think there was a reason she wasn’t inside maybe because she wasn’t legally allowed in there? He obviously had some doubt about her age because he asked her about it, she gave a dubious response of ‘Does it matter?’ well he obviously didn’t think so.
    I’m not saying hang him from the highest yard arm but he shouldn’t be let off with just a slap on the wrist.

  26. I think what may have influenced the UK judge’s actions was that if the 19 year old had been convicted of a sexual offence, however leniently he’d been sentenced he’d’ve still been put on the sex offenders’ register, with all that that entails in terms of restrictions, monitoring and harm to job prospects. That would indeed have been overly harsh given the circumstances.

    The judge was caught by New Labour’s paradoxical sentencing polcies and couldn’t do much else, in my opinion..

  27. The only thing that should or could have made this guy hesitate was her hedging around the age question.

    Well, that and the fact that it’s hardly unknown for post-pubescent girls to look older. There’s a reason he asked her twice for her age. I’m sure he considered the possibility she was younger than 16. I’m not saying he considered it possible that she was 10, but it might have occurred to him that she could be, say, 14. And he just didn’t care enough to forego his own pleasure.

  28. He was put on the sexual offender’s register. Says so in the article. And rightly so. Maybe jailing wouldn’t have been appropriate but… eh, he must have guessed she wasn’t 16 when she wouldn’t tell him her age. No sympathy.

  29. Also, that “harm to job prospects” is a GOOD thing. However forgiving you are of this man you can’t think he should be allowed to work in a school!

  30. Wait, wasn’t this rape, therefore, against her will (the 10 year-old)? I don’t care if the girl was legal (though how could she look legal when she hasn’t even hit puberty is difficult to imagine) it should still be against the law to force yourself on someone. Rape is not simply “forced sex,” but the enjoyment of another’s psychological and physical torture–sheer cruel punishment that should be classified as a hate crime, regardless of gender. Why is anyone, let alone someone on this site, excusing a damn paedophile?! Don’t you think paedophiles will use the “I thought she was legal” excuse, especially if the child has been raped before (No one should distort past rapes w/ “sexual” experience let alone use it as an excuse)? I am so sickened by comments here regarding paedophilia, whether in action or online. Comparing the commercialization of the documentation of child rape w/ sweatshops to diminish the atrocity is unbelievable to me. Ask any victim of child rape what they think of paedophilia and I doubt their answer will simply be “Eww.”

  31. I don’t disagree with this exactly, but I do think that people get all grossed out by child porn and then penalize possession of it overly harshly. The reasoning that it in fact supports the sexual exploitation of children is a somewhat post hoc justification for the punishment.

    I don’t think it just supports post hoc the sexual exploitation of children. That’s an ex ante condition of the production of child pornography. It’s effectively outsourcing the exploitation of children. I’m not sure why the fact that you didn’t contract specifically for person X to commit a crime against person Y should mitigate your responsibility for a crime that was a precondition of whatever materials you consume. [General “you,” not specific.]

    After all, a lot of the things that we consume are produced through the exploitation of children (and adults), but I don’t see a lot of call for jailing people who knowingly buy from sweatshops.

    True, but that’s tu quoque. It doesn’t mitigate the wrong done in the child pornography scenario and mean it shouldn’t be punished.

  32. Wait, wasn’t this rape, therefore, against her will (the 10 year-old)?

    It doesn’t seem that way from the case. It appears only to be statutory rape.

  33. Actually, let me clarify my last comment. This still doesn’t answer the question of whether or not a 10-year-old can meaningfully consent. I don’t think she (or he) can, and I think the decision is wrong. I just don’t think this guy physically forced her from what I’ve read about the case.

  34. I mean, it’s a statutory rape case. This is what the laws were meant to keep from happening. If you start handing out passes to people who have sex with children because they’re upset and distraught that the child misled them, you might as well not bother.

    Dear god, exactly.

    Yes, the law should take both intent and effect into account – but it already does through the way statutory rape is defined and the fact that there are all kinds of other things you can be charged with with regards to sex with a minor. (molestation, solicitation, abduction, assault, just plain rape, etc.)

    All this “well, he didn’t mean to…” is just another variation of “only monsters are capable of rape, (blank) is a normal guy, not a monster, therefore (blank) coulnd’t have raped anyone.”

    Bullshit.

    As far as the issue of him now being registered as a sexual offender, the major problems with the way we register sex offenders are mostly a result of the false “only monsters rape” mentality. For this reason, most feminists I know disagree with the way sex offender registries are currently done and would be more than willing to join forces to reform them.

  35. I don’t know if I think it should be legalized, I just think we need to approach the whole issue with less “Eew! Throw that pervert in prison!” and more “who’s being harmed?”

    And I agree. My problem is not just that the guy has an unnatural attraction to underage kids, because the judge is right, if he gets therapy and doesn’t act on his urges that harm can be contained. My problem is that he’s consuming images that are produced under conditions of exploitation and abuse. The sweatshop analogy isn’t correct, because clothes can be produced under other conditions and when you buy an item of clothing the manner in which it’s produced isn’t automatically obvious. But unless this man is stealing people’s innocent “baby’s first bath” or similar photos from the lab and using those to wank off on, or creating computer generated images of children who don’t exist in reality, it’s pretty much inescapable and undeniable that they were produced under criminal conditions, making him some degree of an accessory.

    It’s effectively outsourcing the exploitation of children. I’m not sure why the fact that you didn’t contract specifically for person X to commit a crime against person Y should mitigate your responsibility for a crime that was a precondition of whatever materials you consume. [General “you,” not specific.]

    Exactly.

Comments are currently closed.