Sweden: 23 women convicted of child pornography – Yahoo! News
“Even though they (the women) … obviously must take full responsibility for their actions, nothing else can be said than that he has abused their weak psychological state and longing for human contact. This has been systematical,” the court said.
This was the court’s statement regarding the conviction of 23 women of possession of child pornography, something that Interpol has even commented on as the largest ring of women ever caught for child porn. The women were convicted of receiving child porn and a man was convicted of sending it to them. So, what does full responsibility entail for the women and the man?
For the women: conditional sentences and fines ranging from 2,500 to 18,000 Swedish kronor ($380 to $2,700).
For the man: one year in prison for aggravated child pornography.
Oh yeah, the man was named (Lars Skoglund). So far, the women have not been named. I’m not protesting the naming of the man, by the way; he’s been tried and convicted. What I am pointing out is that these women are being handled with kid gloves.
and the court also seems to be talking out of both sides of its. . .err, mouth. On one hand, it’s saying that these women were lured into the chat because they had had family tragedies and were mentally exhausted and had been manipulated by Skoglund. But at the same time, the picture the court puts out there seems to be the exact opposite:
The court said the women received scores of sexually explicit video clips and photographs of children from the man and discussed them online with him. Some said they liked the images or shared sexual fantasies about the children, and one woman sent pornographic images of children to the man, the court said.
Now why that one woman isn’t serving a year with Skoglund is beyond me. She may be beyond the reach of the court, in which case I would hope the Swedes would forward the information to the country in which she resides. But even beyond that this indicates a picture far more dynamic than the light sentences would suggest. Basically, the court is saying that they were active participants, and is excusing that behavior based upon misogynist views of women as helpless victims.
I’ve known people go through family tragedies (I’ve gone through a couple myself), and people have done all sorts of things to cope, both positive and negative. Some have gone to therapy, some have taken medications, some have even over-drank or taken illegal drugs. But not one of them has said, “you know what, I’ll go get some child porn to cope”. At what point do we hold people accountable regardless of gender? At what point do we say what is between your legs has nothing to do with your level of responsibility in engaging in a crime that harms innocents?









