Idaho passes laws instituting death penalty for child rapists, outlawing AI-generated child porn

The Idaho legislature passed a bill this week to carry out the death penalty for sex crimes against children younger than 12.

Another bill permitting prosecutors to bring sexual exploitation charges against producers of child pornography using artificial intelligence (AI) also passed the assembly in the same session.

HB 515 would amend Idaho's current statute that carries a life sentence for "lewd conduct with a minor" below the age of 16. If the child is under 12, if the act is "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity," then prosecutors would seek the death penalty.

Link here

=======================================================================

Very interesting. Would this law help prevent the act from happening? Or would it be more likely to prevent it from happening twice..... Should the US adopt this federally ?

 

Implementing it would require the SC reversing Kennedy v Louisiana.
"As it relates to crimes against individuals, though, the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim’s life was not taken."
Kennedy v Louisiana

 

1) I'm perfectly fine with the death penalty bill.
2) I don't see a problem with the AI kiddy porn. There are no victims so why would it matter? If it leads to a victim, see #1.

 

No problem with the death penalty.

As far as AI child porn, it makes me wonder the same thing as hand-drawn illustrations of child porn do. For a pedophile, would having access to artificial child porn(because no actual children are involved with illustrations and AI) mitigate the urge to molest actual children, or would it drive the urge even more than not having it would? If there's evidence that it would help mitigate real-life molestation, perhaps it should be considered. But at the same time, if that kind of thing were legal, we'd start seeing it a lot more which would help no one. On this issue it may be better to err on the side of caution and outlaw it altogether, but it wouldn't hurt to have some study on it.

 

My main problem with AI porn is when it super imposes a real minors face onto a body committing a vial act.

 

My main issue with the AI porn is when they impose child actors faces and publish it. It looks like the real thing, is very violating for the person who finds their face on the image and the family of child.

 

That's a very good point. More reason to probably err on the side of caution here.

 

Good freaking job Idaho

Kudos

 

You don't think someone taking a picture of your kid and using ai to generate images and videos of him having sex with a grown man is victimization?

ETA oh I see you were considering only ai generated solely and not using pictures of real children. I think the real concern is that these disgusting perverts take pictures of children off of Facebook pages and the like and then superimpose them having sex with adults using AI

 

Yep, that was the first thing that came to my mind.

 

I can see your point but don't we already have laws against using anyone's image in such a manner? If not, there probably should be.

 

I've long held that rape should be a capital crime. Child rape should warrant burning at the stake or being boiled alive.

 

If rape is a Capitol crime, the rapists will have no incentive to not also murder their victims.

 

I doubt it. Like most offences where death penalty is typically talked about, these are crimes of insanity and compulsion so the deterrence effect is going to be minimal at best. And given that a life sentence already exists for this severity of crime, there is already an effective way to prevent reoffending.

Another issue with this is that it could lead to more cases going to trial and/or appeal, where offenders try to avoid a guilty verdict or at least avoid a judgment that their crime meets to severity criteria for a death sentence. That could lead to more victims being required to give evidence in court, including details about the most severe abuse they suffered.

I've no problem with legislation against AI-generated child porn, where a significant factor could be preventing situations where the authorities need to prove suspect material isn't AI generated (which will only become increasingly more difficult over time).

 

Florida teacher accused of using students' yearbook ...

Fox 59
https://fox59.com › news › national-world › florida-tea...

Mar 20, 2024 — Deputies found that Houser had AI-generated child pornography, which he admitted to creating with three student yearbook photos, according to ...


Florida Middle Schoolers Arrested for Allegedly Creating ...

WIRED
https://www.wired.com › Business › artificial intelligence

Mar 8, 2024 — Two teenage boys from Miami, Florida, were arrested in December for allegedly creating and sharing AI-generated nude images of male and ..

 

WTF?

'Houser had returned this week to the classroom as a part-time teacher after taking a year off from teaching. School staff said all teachers must undergo background checks and that Houser had been cleared to teach'.


Florida teacher accused of using students' yearbook ...

Fox 59
https://fox59.com › news › national-world › florida-tea...

Mar 20, 2024 — Deputies found that Houser had AI-generated child pornography, which he admitted to creating with three student yearbook photos, according to

 

The problem with the death penalty is, and always has been, that it has not been applied equitably.

From an economic standpoint , life without parole and the death penalty cost about the same.
Then there are always those mistakes made where someone actually gets executed but turns out to be innocent after all.

Of course, the death penalty satisfies the lust for revenge in so many...............but it has little practical value as far as deterrence is concerned.

 

It doesn't look like they thought this through. All this did was give sick people an incentive to leave no witnesses.

 

You really don’t see any problem with AI child porn? Seriously?

 

Isn't there some danger perpetrators will be more likely to kill their victims, to conceal any evidence and prevent witness identification?

The death penalty is the ultimate line, beyond which there is no more punishment. If you move that line, sure, it might possibly make some of the offenders less likely to commit that crime (unlikely, I'm thinking), but if an offender does cross that line, then they will have nothing legally to fear from committing murder, or even more heinous unspeakable acts to the victim.

 

That’s a good point.

 

Although some may find it too disgusting, perhaps the law should set some examples to be more clear.

In the legal world, it's usually not considered such a good idea to have laws that could be too ambiguous. And obviously different people are going to have some very different opinions on what type of sexual offenses against children constitute something "especially heinous". Lots of people, for example, would consider any rape that involves penetration to be "especially heinous".

And then (not to get your imagination running), but there could be all sorts of grey zones. Things that could be considered mild torture or cruel, but which still come nowhere close to the cruel depravity that other rapists might commit.
Lots of rapes are brutal, but some are much more cruel and depraved than others, with acts of violence totally unnecessary.

A rapist who does something mildly cruel might realize he is already in danger of the death penalty, so why not go further all the way?

But when it comes to laws like this, most people don't want to put too much thought into the details (understandably), but then you get flawed law, with some problems and unanticipated consequences.

 

So here's the issue with studying it: Looking at said graphics are obviously illegal. And how many people in the 'Pedophile community'(so much as there actually is one), is going to raise their hands and say "I'm willing to answer questions and engage in scientific studies about my perversions?" Yeah, the number is probably going to be pretty low.

If it were up to me, I would write an exclusion that would allow our neurologists and psychiatrists legal access to the materials and tools to find this question out. Especially if it could for example be medically treated, but we don't even know that.

 

What an occupation!

If you think about the type of people who enter these professions and field of research in the first place, you don't have to be a genius to guess what their opinions on the matter are more likely to be.

 

Sometimes I think the laws in conservative states are just as crazy and the laws in progressive states.

In my opinion, usually a 45-60% conservative mix with 40-55% progressives in the legislature helps temper out much of the stupid and emotional impulses of the other side. But in a lot of states it can be difficult to maintain such a narrow balance over time, and things typically begin to slide one way or the other.

I think California in the mid-1990s had a good balance. There was a lot of pressure to eliminate the death penalty, but there were enough conservatives who wanted to keep it that they kept the death penalty but reserved it only for the very worst sorts of murders.
As a result, when the death penalty did end up being used in rare cases, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the person deserved it. And even the people protesting against the death penalty had to admit that person totally deserved the punishment (though they made other arguments against the death penalty).