Abstract
There is a range of topics concerning human function and the laws to control or bar that function. Child pornography is one of them. There are, and should be, strict boundaries as to what adults may do to children or involve them in. Direct action of a sexual nature involving children is child abuse and over the last four to five decades there have been a great many enquiries and investigations as to what people have or have not been doing. The pendulum has swung from ‘where there is smoke there is fire’ to ‘most children do that anyway’. Since the Cleveland enquiry there has been somewhat more effort for clarity and distinct boundaries but the swings still continue. Writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, George Philip Jenkins comments ‘Because the very definition of pornography is subjective, a history of pornography is nearly impossible to conceive: imagery that might be considered erotic or even religious in one society may be condemned as pornographic in another’.
Child pornography is an even more complex subject. It is somewhat easier to say that sexual portrayal below the age of 18 is banned and below the age of 13 is a criminal offence. But it is still difficult to determine where the boundaries are from portraying children below the age of 13 involved in clear sexual activities to sculptures including naked angels. Other possible child pornography might include naked children, children in positions that were not intended to be sexual but that are stimulating to people with certain problems, to photography of children in normal activities. Where and how to put the firm boundaries remains a serious problem that in any case will differ from culture to culture. What to do with the offenders is also a difficult problem between punishment on one hand, and attempts to change the sexually related behaviour of some on the other.
Paintings for centuries have been able to contain images that might be considered either erotic or pornographic. Early printing from the 15th century, and subsequently photography, first still and then movie, would have increased the distribution of child pornographic images. The Internet, though there was some control over what can be distributed, has certainly spread illegal distribution much more widely.
One major difficulty is the concern of serious professionals about speaking more openly on the subject for fear of being perceived as being sexually deviant themselves. However, if we are to bring advance to the handling of this unpleasant subject, we need to build a framework that facilitates looking at it as systematically and scientifically as possible. The article published today attempts to be systematic, but more importantly it addresses aspects of child pornography after having studied many other articles on the topic. One would hope that it would help enable professionals to see this subject as one to be treated like other problem areas within mental health and within the law. Even if the paper produces argument on the best means of handling paedophiles we would still consider it to be facilitating development of a useful approach. We welcome any (appropriate) contribution to the topic.
Harry Zeitlin, Medical Legal Journal, London UK