. . . please call the number on the poster.
(This girl is not believed to be a victim of a crime, but is considered a material witness in a child pornography case involving over 200 photos of abuse of another preteen girl).
Now let’s ask a few follow up questions. When should police release photos like this onto the internet? Some of the problems with this kind of tactic are discussed in this grim LA Times article, where police note that the perpetrators may be willing to kill the victims in some cases. Disclosure of victim identity thus requires resources in place for “immediate rescue.”
Ugliness all around. I’m quite glad that someone tracks down the evil men who abuse children and photograph it. And I’m also quite glad that that job is not mine.
Posted by Kaimi Wenger on April 28, 2005 at 05:26 PM
Comments
“I do not think at the lofty policy level you describe.”
Clearly.
Posted by: Nate Oman | Apr 29, 2005 2:18:26 PM
The problem you are having, Claus, is that you are not thinking on policy levels on on longitudinal impact. You make a broud characterization about the results of cases that I do not subsrcibe to, but I am going to make one point here about simulated images or depictions of underage sexual acts:
Romeo & Juliet.
As the law was worded, Shakespeare would have been outlawed. `Nuff said, as the man would say.
Posted by: Joel | Apr 29, 2005 9:47:41 AM
Do you really think that child pornography is illegal because it depicts child abuse? Even if this is the legal reasoning behind the actual child pornography laws, somehow, I think that child pornography is illegal because everyone thinks that it is deeply wrong, whereas popular sentiment is more ambivalent about adult pornography…
Posted by: Jeff V. | Apr 28, 2005 10:07:58 PM