Yes, but I am stating it's near guaranteed that criminalizing consumption in this case has no effect on the production of it. The "good" being child rape, do you actually believe there are people who have raped children purely to take pictures and videos, and distribute (not sell) them? Absent people doing that, criminalizing child pornography possession protects no children.

Note that child rape is not a required part of the definition of child porn.

It could be a teen, posing provocatively, taking a selfie. Maybe they are 17. Maybe they feel the photo will promote a pop star career, or that it could be sold to pay for college. Maybe they just want it for personal reasons, to have 40 years later.

>do you actually believe there are people who have raped children purely to take pictures and videos, and distribute (not sell) them?

We know that people do this. It's not something that anybody disputes.

It is something that many people dispute. I for once have not seen any evidence for such a claim.

That's because you've never bothered looking.

There's also some nice secondary effects of criminalizing possession of child pornography. What little evidence we have about pedophiles suggests that the majority of consumers of child porn have also sexually abused children personally. And, while child sexual abuse tends to go un-reported and can be difficult to prove in court (usually the child is the only witness, limited physical evidence, etc.) possession of child porn is much easier to get a conviction on. So not only is criminalization stemming the production of child porn, it is helping to find and convict sexual abusers.

I would argue that this is a bias introduced by the legal and societal regime surround child pornography. We only have statistics for those that have been caught and the prosecution also has an incentive to make the charges as extreme as possible.

Also, hopefully, the police are going heavily after producers and achieving high conviction rates which would give that statistical trend.

> What little evidence we have about pedophiles suggests that the majority of consumers of child porn have also sexually abused children personally.

That's not true at all.

I over-stated the evidence. I was thinking of a study claiming 85% of felons convicted of child porn possession also admitted to also committing child sexual abuse in anonymous reporting. But it seems there's a lot of controversy around that study: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html .

That said, my understanding is the evidence does seem to indicate a correlation between the two, though in the 30-40% range. See https://web.archive.org/web/20080111204617/http://www.ndaa.o... for example. Not a majority, but still significant. And, of course, this sample is just people who were convicted of possession, not all people who ever viewed such material, so I'd have to qualify my statement to "convicted consumers of child porn"

I agree with this post. Lots of people viewing images of child sexual abuse will go on to commit a contact offence (or already have committed a contact offence).

But there are plenty of people who won't go on to commit a contact offence.

This is a problem for law enforcement because they need to monitor all people who've viewed images of child sexual abuse in order to stop them committing contact offences, and this second group inflates the numbers. Maybe it's only 20% more, but maybe it more than doubles the numbers.

> Criminalizing the consumption of a good is aimed at stemming the production of a good.

That works only if you pay for said good.