Criminalising thoughts

Owners of such images would face up to three years in prison under the plans.

Under the Obscene Publications Act it is illegal to possess photos of child abuse but it is legal to own drawings and computer-generated images.

I'm happy to be shown that I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this moves us into the realms of legislating against thought crimes.

I have written before that I think there should indeed be zero tolerance shown to those who download images of children being abused. The likes of Chris Langham deserve, in my view, everything they get. But that's based on protecting children. The images downloaded by paedophiles are taken from a child being abused, and the law should do everything possible to stop that.

But on the face it, I can't see how - sick as we may find it - made up images, which are computer generated, should be illegal. Who is the victim if the image isn't real?

Clearly there's one aspect to this which is indeed a 'loophole':

The government has acknowledged that paedophiles may be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said the authorities had "noticed an increase in the existing availability of these images on the internet".

If the proposed change in the law is concerned solely with doctored images which originate from real images of abuse, then it's quite right to legislate. But the reports of what is propsed are ambiguous and seem to be much more sweeping. Concocting a computer generated image is effectively the same thing as imagining such an image in one's mind. As I say, that might be sick, but the law does not legislate - ought not to, anyway - against thoughts which have no bearing on actions. (Hate crimes are a - sort of - exception to that - and I have my reservations about that elevated category of crime anyway.)

If there is evidence that such thoughs lead directly to child abuse by the person thinking such thoughts, then I'd see how it might indeed be right to criminalise a thought. But I've yet to see such evidence.

Please do comment on this. I want to know why I might be wrong on this.