Child Pornography Offenses in Law

Child Pornography Offenses in Law Enforcement

How serious is the problem of child pornography among law enforcement officers?

In terms of the philosophical seriousness of the problem of law enforcement officers consuming child pornography, it is extremely serious; it is analogous to the seriousness of police officers and government agents and officials simultaneously perpetrating violent crimes and financial crimes. It demonstrates a fundamental absence of personal and professional integrity and it directly violates both the letter and spirit of the oath of public service. In many cases, the consumption of child pornography by law enforcement personnel also involves the exploitation of some of the privileges, training, and public resources available by virtue of positional authority.

In terms of the seriousness as relates to the extent of this problem in law enforcement, it is likely significantly lower than the same problem within the larger community. In general, members of the law enforcement community are more law abiding than their civilian counterparts. They are vetted carefully during the candidate selection and background investigation phases of public service employment. By the time the individuals who succeed in that process swear their oaths of service, they represent a subgroup of society that is less likely to offend criminally and even less likely to violate the most serious types of offenses that denigrate the most vulnerable victims in society.

2) Are the laws different for police officers engaging in child pornography? Should they be?

In terms of different criminal penalties for police personnel strictly as a function of their public employment position, it is probably not constitutionally permitted. However, in terms of specific penalties for any nexus between professional position, authority, or access to resources, that would be perfectly appropriate. However, those penal laws would be useful only where the connection exists; they would not be helpful in a situation such as that of Richard Lee Lewis, whose illicit activities involving the consumption of child pornography occurred privately from his personal computer at home.

Certainly, it is appropriate to enforce laws specifically imposing stricter penalties on any professional or public servant in positions of public trust whose crimes violate that trust in connection with actually victimizing a specific person. Many states do have such statutes and they apply to teachers and healthcare workers just as they do to law enforcement personnel. That is, apparently, the case with Joshua Carrier, because he exploited the public trust of his community that is inherent in his position (even when he is off-duty) and actually perpetrated a sexual crime against a specific victim.

3) Should police departments take special steps to reduce the likelihood of their officers engaging in producing, selling or purchasing child pornography? Why or why not?