Subscription 790/year or 190/quarter

Abuse – not porn





(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

The documentary program at NRK Brennpunkt on Tuesday this week shook everyone, although the information that came out should not surprise. In retrospect, most people who depend on public confidence to condemn abuse and child pornography are cut without making concrete proposals for action. It is striking that the Save the Children has previously been denied their desire to require a limited police certificate from people applying for positions in the organization and who may come into contact with children. In the debate that followed the documentary, Secretary of State Jørn Holme in the Justice Department opened to amend a refusal that was recently granted. It seems strange to us, but we hope that the authorities turn around.

It is a major problem in relation to child pornography that the penalties are set as low as they are. This means, among other things, that it is useless to ask for custody while the investigation is ongoing, because the length of the custody may exceed the final penalty. Experience shows that a higher sentence, possibly with a minimum penalty, will have little effect: The judges will, however, discriminate against former judges when they decide on sentencing, and a minimum penalty could result in some of those currently sentenced being released.

In our opinion is en cause that child pornography is punished so mildly, precisely that it is considered pornography, and is treated under this in the Penal Code. However, child porn is not about what is decent and what is offensive, but about abuse. The fact that child porn networks require participants to provide new material themselves to provide access provides an endless series of abuses. Actively participating in the networks, and buying, swapping or otherwise acquiring child pornography, are contributing to these abuses.

If we are to be able to obtain sentencing measures that are in proportion to the seriousness of the abuse, the provisions on child pornography should thus be removed from the pornography section and given a place in the Penal Code as a separate provision. Furthermore, it should be made clear that complicity in the production and dissemination of child pornography – including participation in the networks and, for example, downloading child pornography from the Internet – shall be punished as complicity in the abuse. Thus, possession of child pornography can be given a punishment that is in proportion to the nature of the abuse: As complicity in sexual abuse – not as pornography.

You may also like