Shifting Expectations
Irradiated by Stingray
So yesterday Jay brings us a story about two keystone cops who plugged each other, rather than the guy they were trying to catch. Supposedly the dude is a child pornographer, a phrase usually inserted into news stories in order to make sure everybody knows This Guy Is Skeevy And Bad. For some oddball reason most of us, myself included, are in the vein that would have a grand old time introducing people who sexually exploit and/or abuse children to Mr. Blowtorch and Mr. Sandpaper.
The part that made me do a doubletake, though, is that that wasn’t my first reaction to reading the quote from the article Jay put up. My very first take was more along the lines “I wonder what trumped up bullshit they’re throwing at this schlub. Probably some dipshit 17 year old sent a picture of her boobs to his phone,” and it doesn’t take more than a few seconds with google to turn up copious examples of such trivial things ruining lives.
Further along, it turns out the suspect was 45 years old and at a Harry Potter premier, which still isn’t damning by itself, but does tend to raise the eyebrows a skosh. Either way, evil sleazster or maligned dumbass, the fact that we have managed to fuck up our laws regarding sex so spectacularly that the previously visceral label “child pornographer” has not only lost all immediate impact, but swung all the way around to bring up an initial impression of sympathy (or perhaps more accurately severe doubt of the charges and sympathy for being on the receiving end of high-impact bullshit), probably means I need a much bigger and much stiffer drink. With breakfast. From now on.
July 20th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
For all we know, he was downloading pics of teen girls from euro porn sites.
Or he was trading actual child porn.
I agree. You used to be able to trust the police when they said something.
July 20th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
And why, whenever I see news of an officer shooting at someone, does it make me think that the only range time Georgy and Dim get is the annual 50 round qualification- their guns sitting quietly in their holsters the rest of the year.
July 21st, 2011 at 2:59 am
I feel the exact same way about the accusation.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:52 am
A year or so ago a friend’s son went out and got liquored up, and on the way home stopped to urinate on someone’s front lawn. He was arrested and charged with indecent exposure, which is a sex crime, which puts him on the sex offender list. Now this isn’t some perv in a raincoat on the subway flashing women, it’s a drunk who had to go and lacked the mental capacity to go behind a bush.
Yesterday there was a story on the radio about a 17 year old kid who sat on another kids head, sans garments, in a locker room. Also a sex crime, also on the registry.
So yeah, I get the same thought when I hear about a “registered sex offender”. Let’s save that label for REAL crimes, not BS “crimes” used to inflate the numbers to show that the registry works. The worse the signal-to-noise ratio on the list, the LESS useful it actually IS.
July 21st, 2011 at 8:38 am
Yeah, my first thought was that maybe they found the guy had some faked Hermione Granger nude pics from back before Emma Watson turned 18. Or maybe it is legit. It’s a shame that you can’t be sure anymore.
July 21st, 2011 at 11:12 am
Indeed.
Now, when I hear “Sex Offender”, I wonder “so, is he a real sex offender, or just some idiot who was pissing behind a bar and got caught by a cop?”
(Just like Mark D said.)
Do the people making these laws realize that they’re being actively counter-productive?
July 21st, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Sigivald: Counterproductive to what?
The laws are intended to advance the careers of politicians, judges, and prosecutors. They have worked precisely as designed. Any relationship to real people is incidental.
July 24th, 2011 at 7:07 am
Let us not forget a couple of cases of some state ‘child protective’ idiot charging someone for having a picture of their grandkid/neice/godchild bare-bottom on a fake bearskin, or other such harmless thing. Not that long ago the idiot who brought such charges would’ve seen them thrown out, possibly followed by his own dumb ass from the job, now they get clowns defending them because ‘they care!’ and “You can’t be too careful!”
July 24th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
The police have made their own reputation.
July 26th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
There is a difference between children and jail bait. The idea and the law about jail bait was promulgated by the Older Womens’ Sexual Trade Union.
I mind the owners of a Web forum I used to frequent, Aspies for Freedom. Amy, the female half of the ownership, grabbed a guy who was 16 at the time, when she was thirty-something, so as to bear his heirs. I have seen an eight-year-old girl as a moderator there. What are these “age-appropriate relationships” of which you people speak?
July 27th, 2011 at 8:14 am
Uuuuuhhhh. You’re going to have provide an argument, with some kind of basis other than raw assertion, for “age of consent laws were invented by a conspiracy of older women!!!!”.
Not every older-younger relationship is exploitative, but for a situation without clear bright lines, it’s a decent enough rule of thumb.