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

As it has been pointed out to me that you cannot edit your post, and it is unlikely that you will be removed from this debate by moderators, I guess I should continue, and hope that you debate with me based on the merits of my argument.Even though the points you make do not refute mine, I will respond to what you have said. To start, I can only deduce that by "no child should be put through something of that circumstance", that you are referring to sexual abuse, or the re-victimisation caused as a consequence of the distribution child abuse images. For the reasons mentioned previously, I do not believe that the act of copying or being in possession of indecent images contributes to this suffering, so I do not believe your statement is relevant for the purpose of this debate.I find it peculiar that you make a point of referring to parental consent, as if to suggest that there could be a defence. A child, no matter their age, should have complete autonomy over their own body. You go on to suggest that children are not capable of comprehending the notion of sex. This is an incredibly broad statement, and, even though it is not directly relevant to this debate, I will still attempt to address it. A child, in the context of this debate, is a person under the age of eighteen. As the average age of consent around the world, being the age at which governments deem a person capable of understanding the concept of sex, is just sixteen, I believe I can deduce that you mean to suggest that 'young children' cannot comprehend the notion of sex. Understanding the age of consent, or the age at which the state deems a person should not be photographed in a sexual context, does not go far in helping us to understand the capacity of children to comprehend sex. The ages that are set for prohibitions of sex and pornography are considered within not only the context of a child's capacity to process sex, but also in consideration of religious and cultural sensibilities. I will try to briefly explain what the study of child development has taught us about children's capacity to process sex. The body of scientific literature which has considered the specific issue of when a child develops the capacity to understand the emotional and physiological aspects of sexuality and arousal, identifies this as a pubertal process which typically starts at about the age of six, which becomes stable by the age of ten. A 2000 paper called 'The Magical Age of 10' in the peer reviewed journal 'Archives of Sexual Behaviour' describes the significance of a developmental process known as adrenal puberty.To quote the introduction of the paper: A major stream of research now posits two sequential but distinct forms of“pubertal” processes: adrenal puberty and gonadal puberty. Adrenal puberty is theprocess that occurs in middle childhood, between 6 and 10 years of age. It is hypothesized to be a critical source of developmental subjectivity, including feelingsof attraction and sexual awareness, becoming stable and memorable around theage of 10. By contrast, gonadal puberty begins later, normatively around the agesof 11 and 12 for girls and boys, respectively, and continues into the late teens. It iscoincident with adolescent maturation and morphological developmental changes,which are commonly referred to as “secondary sex traits,” as well as fertility. Theevidence reviewed later, though anecdotal and incomplete, nevertheless suggeststhat the creation of sexual subjectivity begins well before the onset of adolescence.It is intrinsically driven by hormonal forces but, nevertheless, is informed by cultural meanings and social roles. Furthermore, it is sufficiently marked by the age of 10 or so that even in cultures where age variation in developmental transitions is common, a variety of cultures in ancient and modern times have sensed the age of 10 to be of critical importance in defining this age as the sexual juncture between “childhood” and “adulthood.” Thus, the strong inference is that in society “sexual attraction” emerges as a significant developmental subjectivity during adrenarche, but before “gonadarche” and “adolescence.” The full paper can be found here: http://www.scribd.com...So, in response to your assertion that children cannot comprehend the thought of sex, I would suggest that your belief is influenced primarily on cultural mores rather than any statement of fact. This point is, however, far departed from the issues under debate. The research mentioned above might be better placed in a debate about age of consent reform, but, is not relevant here.Lastly, you express that you do not understand why a grown man would be sexually interested in a young child. While this is a valid expression, it does not add any point for debate.At the end of my earlier post I refer to the damaging consequences of not decriminalising these acts. A 2010 paper called 'Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic', also from the 'Archives of Sexual Behaviour' journal, highlights a trend, which has been previous seen in studies conducted in Denmark and Japan, that the decriminalisation of child pornography in these cultures, resulted in a markably significant reduction in sex crimes against children. The abstract of the paper can be found here: http://link.springer.com...The authors of the paper hypothesise that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. Given the victimless nature of making and possession of indecent images, and the fact that potential sex offenders seem to resort to images if given a choice, I would suggest that any reasonable person who is concerned with the welfare of future potential victims of sexual abuse, would advocate for reform of the law. Unfortunately, to replicate the level of reduction in sexual offences against children seen in Denmark, Japan and the Czech Republic, it might be necessary to also decriminalise distribution, as, this might be necessary for the level of access to child pornography needed for it to available as a viable substitute. This, of course, would bring the very real harm caused by re-victimisation in conflict with the potential for mitigating further harm to potential future victims. I, for one, do not think this is a judgement that the state has the right to make. I think that the criminalisation of distribution is perfectly reasonable and that ignoring the harm of re-victimisation in favour of mitigating future harm, would be sending the wrong message out to victims.This is why I feel so strongly about decriminalising making and possession, as harm is not caused, and, it would likely yield the desired consequences in reducing instances of sexual abuse against children.Alternatively, the authors of the study has recommended, at the very least, the decriminalisation of prohibited images of children, as prohibited by Section 1 of the Section 62 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I would agree with this recommendation and would consider anybody who, knowing the facts in this debate, still denounced this reform, to be guilty of putting the welfare of children at risk, to appease their own feelings of disgust against sexual offenders. Further to the harm in not decriminalising making and possession, it is also worth considering that in American there have been notable cases of children being convicted for child porn crimes after experimenting with same age peers. The prohibition imposed on young children from being able to explore their sexuality with age appropriate peers is likely to result in negative consequences for the development of a child's sense of self and their more general self esteem. This would be particularly true for children who develop minority sexual interests, such as for members of their own sex.I hope that you can engage in this debate on the points I have made. I look forward to reading your response.