Now let me address those articles you've linked more. Article 1
The last part doesn't have any clear proof that all of them will go out and hurt children in the future likely. Meanwhile, there was an old article suggesting that legalizing possession alone has actually led to less child sexual abuse in the future (something about urges).
Though I do not want to suggest "legalizing possession" (but punishment should be separate and/or easily forgiven), I think it's best to leave fictional harmless and non-threatening pictures alone. Though some governments think that fiction will "lead to abuse" which is stupid.
In the end, a risk does not equal will.
Even if such risk is true, it should still be a lowered penalty if not because it's possible (maybe) that someone who merely possess it isn't intending to promote it and when it comes to fear of asking, responsibility does exist. Again not sure exactly what the law of aiding is.
Article 2
Not concrete likely. Hell, this is found in the article:
"There is not much research about the motivations of people who possess child pornography."
Article 3
"haunting" in future can also be from mere free speech that reminds a victim of past abuse. Even if it "hurts", it's probably not the same as starting it in the first place. Plus what about governments who possessed it legally (if legal) for say, a court purpose? Also there is no evidence that someone possessing it is gonna cause the victim to be reminded by default miles away. That may depend.
Now let me address those articles you've linked more.
Article 1
The last part doesn't have any clear proof that all of them will go out and hurt children in the future likely. Meanwhile, there was an old article suggesting that legalizing possession alone has actually led to less child sexual abuse in the future (something about urges).
Though I do not want to suggest "legalizing possession" (but punishment should be separate and/or easily forgiven), I think it's best to leave fictional harmless and non-threatening pictures alone. Though some governments think that fiction will "lead to abuse" which is stupid.
In the end, a risk does not equal will.
Even if such risk is true, it should still be a lowered penalty if not because it's possible (maybe) that someone who merely possess it isn't intending to promote it and when it comes to fear of asking, responsibility does exist. Again not sure exactly what the law of aiding is.
Article 2
Not concrete likely. Hell, this is found in the article:
"There is not much research about the motivations of people who possess child pornography."
Article 3
"haunting" in future can also be from mere free speech that reminds a victim of past abuse. Even if it "hurts", it's probably not the same as starting it in the first place. Plus what about governments who possessed it legally (if legal) for say, a court purpose? Also there is no evidence that someone possessing it is gonna cause the victim to be reminded by default miles away. That may depend.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.