Here's something that the Dersh wrote for Penthouse mag around 20 years ago or so.
"
Child Pornography Sting
by Alan M. Dershowitz
Ó2002
What are we to make of the fact that child pornography is popular not only among pedophiles, but also among thousands of people who would never dream of molesting a child. The FBI’s most recent sting, provocatively named Candyman, has turned up much more than what these zealous law enforcers bargained for. It turned up many perfectly law abiding people (including “law enforcement professionals”) who apparently get their jollies from watching kids fornicate. Echhhhh!
There is an enormous difference between ordinary people who have disgusting viewing habits and criminals who are willing to act on these habits. Although there may be a far greater connection between habitual viewers of child pornography and child molesters than there is between habitual viewers of adult pornography and rapists, still the former connection has yet to be proved convincingly. The vast majority of people who watch child pornography never act on it, and a considerable number of people who are child molesters do not watch child pornography. Some people, of course, do both; and 27 of those picked up in the sting have admitted to having molested children.
The Justice Department has apparently decided to prioritize its arrest policy by focusing on kiddie porn viewers and chat room participants who hold positions of authority over children or have easy access to them - - school bus drivers, camp counselors, priests, elementary school teachers, and the like. But even that kind of sensible prioritizing may include many who would never touch a child.
Perhaps we cannot take the chance and wait until a child is touched, but we would be sliding a slippery slope if we started to arrest people preventively on the assumption that viewing will inevitably lead to touching. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said that viewing child pornography cannot be considered “a harmless diversion”, because “investigations into child pornography often led to evidence of actual molestation”. But how often? We need far better information than we currently have, and the information should not come from zealous advocates, but rather from scientists who can conduct double blind experiments. The Supreme Court has warned against the abuses of junk science, and assuming a close relationship between viewing and doing is junk science at its worst.
The very viewing of child pornography is, under the Justice Department’s current interpretation of the law, a punishable offense. But should it be so for someone who has never and would never molest a child? Because the Justice Department can arrest and prosecute on the basis of vaguely worded possession and access statutes, zealous prosecutors can pick and choose among the viewers and decide who to prosecute on the basis of unarticulated criteria. This is dangerous to the values of a democracy.
Now we have the story of a sitting judge who has been charged with possession of child pornography. He has pleaded not guilty to charges that he possessed dozens of images of nude boys on his home computer. Federal authorities claim that they also found evidence that he downloaded illegal pornography on his computer in his judge’s chambers, and that he kept an electronic diary in which he describes his desire for young boys. But desire and action are different, and there is no evidence that the judge acted on his desires while serving in his judicial capacity. He has, however, been charged by state authorities with molesting a 12 year old boy 25 years ago. For a while it looked like the voters might have a chance to express their feelings toward a sitting judge with these charges pending against them, but after garnering only 33% of the vote in a primary, he is now dropping out of the race.
It will be interesting to see what the Justice Department does with its extensive list of kiddie porn viewers and chat room participants garnered during its sting operation. Will it publicly disclose the names of those it has decided not to prosecute? Will it threaten disclosure unless those on the list cooperate? Will it conduct further investigations? Will it notify employers? Spouses? Schools? Neighbors?
There is the potential here for a real witchhunt. Child molestation is a serious problem. The creation of child pornography is also a serious problem. We don’t know whether the viewing of child pornography is or is not a serious problem, but many people think it is. Being on a list of people who like kiddie porn smacks of a blacklist. When the government has in its possession this kind of explosive information about so many people, the potential for abuse is simply too great. "
abcnews.go.com
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/HNW5AVPKMJCK3CEHZ6ZS5ZRGQY.jpg)
