Prohibited images vs voyeurism

[Fragment]

So, a lot of "child porn" is probably exploitative because it exists on the internet without the consent of the child featured. Even if it's a self generated image, there's a reasonable chance that it was leaked. There are bound to be some cases where a minor voluntarily shares their image with the whole internet, but there are also cases of unethical distribution.

But put aside the distributor and focus on the person downloading and viewing the image. Isn’t viewing such images ethically equivalent to voyeurism? Peeping inside a child’s bedroom to watch them masturbate without their consent. You might be watching something that the subject doesn't want you watching, but is there any thing different to the voyeur?

Looking at sentencing, in Ohio, for example, the higher level charge, fifth degree voyeurism, occurs when invading the privacy of a minor for sexual gratification. The maximum penalty is a year. Meanwhile a state child porn charge carries a maximum of eight years (even more if it's a federal charge). Not to mention that each image counts as a new charge, with videos counting as multiple images.

What is the rational basis for such a gap? Even if we concede that a lot of child porn is exploitation the average sentence in the US of 8 years seems far in excess of sentences for "looking at naked children for sexual gratification" when it's not pixel based.

[Red Rodent]

What is the rational basis for such a gap? Even if we concede that a lot of child porn is exploitation the average sentence in the US of 8 years seems far in excess of sentences for "looking at naked children for sexual gratification" when it's not pixel based.

If you creep around peeking into kids' bedrooms, the chances are you're gonna get caught. The shame and utter humiliation of such detection means that few folk risk it, so the sentences don't have to be particularly severe.

If you view prohibited material online then, provided you don't pay for it or share it with others, the chances of getting caught are minuscule. The only way you'll get busted is if you have your storage devices seized for some reason. So the authorities have to bump up the sentences to ridiculous levels in order to create some sort of deterrent effect.

That's my theory, anyway.

[terminally_unique]

What is the rational basis for such a gap? Even if we concede that a lot of child porn is exploitation the average sentence in the US of 8 years seems far in excess of sentences for "looking at naked children for sexual gratification" when it's not pixel based.

If you creep around peeking into kids' bedrooms, the chances are you're gonna get caught. The shame and utter humiliation of such detection means that few folk risk it, so the sentences don't have to be particularly severe.

If you view prohibited material online then, provided you don't pay for it or share it with others, the chances of getting caught are minuscule. The only way you'll get busted is if you have your storage devices seized for some reason. So the authorities have to bump up the sentences to ridiculous levels in order to create some sort of deterrent effect.

That's my theory, anyway.

I think that makes a lot of sense statistically. The probability of getting caught for simple possession nowadays is very low with proper operational security, and even with disproportionately harsh sentences at the federal level, the expected punishment is still very low.

Contrast that with voyeurism or some hands-on offenses where the probability of getting caught is much higher, but even with more lenient sentences at the state level, the expected punishment is still not worth the risk for more rational people. For less rational people, the sentencing disparity creates a perverse incentive to offend against children in real life.

[Fragment]

So the authorities have to bump up the sentences to ridiculous levels in order to create some sort of deterrent effect.

You may be right, but that seems like such a horrible, disgusting, morally bankrupt reason for life destroying sentences.

"There's lot of other people not getting caught for this, so we're going to punish you for that fact in addition to the harm you caused yourself."

Nor does it seem to apply to a lot of other crimes that people often get away with.

[Harlan]

Over the past 15 years, everyone has a phone with a camera and a significant portion of prohibited content was produced by minors at their own sexual desires and on their own camera, which just leaked onto the Internet. Watching these videos is quite comparable to voyeurism.

There are also so called caps videos which many consider to be more unethical, due to the fact that partner pretends to be a girl or a peer, which is why many consider it to be unfair. However, provided that it is NOT used for blackmail and intimidation, IMO it can also be compared to voyeurism, and the pretense in this case is forced in view of the existing laws, which do not allow one to be open, but at the same time the minor expresses their own sexual desires and they would express its in exactly the same way without the pretense of their partner if society had not criminalized inter-age relationships

[Red Rodent]

You may be right, but that seems like such a horrible, disgusting, morally bankrupt reason for life destroying sentences.

But obviously, Fragment, those convicted aren't being punished for the prohibited images: they are being punished for being paedophiles. Why else would pseudo-images and AI-generated material (even, in some jurisdictions, artwork and literature) be prohibited, when there is clearly no victim of them?

And that's because society regards people who find children sexually attractive as horrible, disgusting and morally bankrupt.