The downloading and possession of child pornography should not be a criminal offence

I understand that this is a highly emotive topic and I just want to start off by saying that I find child abuse completely abhorrent Nothing about my argument is in defence of child abuse and this debate is not an attempt to normalise the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, either in the case of contact offences or in the re-victimisation of children as a consequence of the circulation of child abuse images.My intention in starting this debate is to examine the misconceptions that people have about possession and making of indecent images, and to argue that it is a victimless act and so therefore should not be an offence.My argument is based on the assertion that no harm is caused as a consequence of the actions mentioned below, and a belief that an act should only be prohibited by law if engaging in said act results in harm, loss, or injury to a person, in according with common law principles. I do not believe it is right to create offences just to target an unsavoury population (people who are sexually attracted to children). For this debate I am going to refer to Section 1(1) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 which relates to photographs involving children, and Section 62(1)(2)(3)(6)(7) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which relates to artificial depictions of children. Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 states that, 1. It is an offence for a person—(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or(b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or(c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or(d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, or intends to do so.Section 62 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 states that,1. It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited images of a child.2. A prohibited images is an image which—(a) is pornographic,(b) falls within subsection (6), and(c) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.3. An image is "pornographic" if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal....6. An image falls within this subsection if it—(a) is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or(b) portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).7. Those acts are—(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;(c) an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person's body or with anything else;(d) an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, or the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person's body or with anything else;(e) the performance by a child or an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);(f) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child. In relation to the offence caused by Section 62(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 I will simply say that no harm is caused in the creation, distribution, promotion, or possession of the images as no real children are involved at any point and so there are no victims.For the alleviation of doubt, I would like to emphasise at this point that the conduct I am specifically referring to in the Protection of Children Act 1978 is the possession and making of indecent images of children. The scope of my assertion DOES NOT include the act of taking, distributing, or publishing promotion of indecent images. N.B. 'Making' as it appears in the act refers to the process of images being created by copying (such as downloading on a computer or photocopying a printed images).I do not mean to suggest that harm is not caused in the production or distribution of indecent images of children, but I do not believe that this harm is exacerbated by download / copying and possession.To make this point I will go through the process from production to possession. For the creation (or 'taking') of indecent images, a child is either sexually abused by a pornographer by being forced to engage in a sexual act or exploited by the pornographer by being forced to pose nude or in a sexual manner. Either way, this is child abuse.The pornographer is then committing the offence of distributing these images if they are ever shared with another person. In cases where images are shared on a peer to peer computer network, each image is distributed each time another person initiates a download and copies the image from the pornographers computer.If, as a consequence of participating in a peer to peer network, a person who has previously downloaded (made) an image from another person allows for images to be copied from their computer, then they are also guilty of distributing these images as soon as somebody downloads the image from their computer.In the case of a person who downloads an image from a peer on the network, but who does not allow sharing of images from their computer, they are guilty of making and possession, but cannot be said to be guilty of distributing.I believe that harm is caused in the production of indecent images of children as child abuse has to have been committed for the images to exist. I believe that harm is also caused in the distribution of these images as a person who allows an image to be shared is making it more likely that a victim will be re-victimised in the future by learning or being reminded that images of their abuse still exist.Although distribution of these images in and of itself does not directly result in the victim becoming re-victimised (as they are not automatically aware each time an image of them is shared), it does contribute to the likelihood of them becoming aware of these images' existence through notification by the police each time images of them are found in investigating a crime (as with the Child Pornography Victim Assistance Program in America [http://www.fbi.gov...]) or, if, in the event of lawful possession, the wider availability of images results in the victim being recognised and approached about their abuse.I acknowledge that for a victim, the reality of being reminded that images of their abuse are in existence will make it hard for them to overcome their abuse and move on with their lives. It can be said that a person who distributes an image is culpable for the harm caused in re-victimisation, but I do not see how a person who makes and possesses an image, without being guilty of distribution, can be said to be culpable for this harm.In justifying the continued classification of the making and possession of indecent images as an offence, I have heard it be said that possession makes it possible for distribution to occur in the future, for the images to be used to groom children, or that the use of such images in masturbation makes it more likely for a person will progress onto a contact offence. As these consequences demand a level of intent in the mind of the person making or possessing the images, I believe that it would not be justified maintaining this prohibition solely for the reason of preventing these outcomes as it cannot be assumed that every person who makes or posseses indecent images has this intent. In relation to the belief that use of images in masturbation makes a person more likely to commit contact offences, the reverse has been found to be true [http://goo.gl...].If challenged in this debate I will go into more depth about the state of research and the damaging consequences of not decriminalising these acts.