Judge Claims Child Pornography Is Symptom Of Men’s Natual Impulses
Hipster Tipster and all around great guy Zack Sheppard sent me this gem of a story from the Nevada Appeal. Jason Excell, recently pleaded guilty to 10 counts of possession of more than 800 images of child pornography and was sentenced to 18 years in prison by Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox who made the following statement (emphasis added):
“These kinds of offenses are problems with impulse control,” said Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox prior to sentencing. “When I say that, it’s my understanding that most men are sexually attracted to young women. When I say young women I don’t just mean women that … you should be attracted to. I mean women from the time they’re 1 all the way up until they’re 100.”
Yes, that’s right, judge Maddox said that most men are sexually attracted to women as young as 1 year old. Oh, and its only a problem with impulse control. Permit me to be disgusted. A problem with impulse control is when I drink 8 martinis instead of 2, it is not collecting several hundred images of children “easily under the age of 10,” being sexually violated by adults or engaging in sex with other children as Deputy District Attorney Kristin Luis described the images in the article.
Maddox noted the legal terms malum in se, a Latin phrase meaning an act that is “inherently evil,” and malum prohibitum, which means acts that are not necessarily inherently immoral or hurtful, only wrong by statute.
He said child pornography could be considered malum prohibitum because in some countries and cultures it is acceptable to engage in sexual conduct with young girls.
“As an example, having sex with a girl between 12 and 16 is prohibited because we say it’s prohibited. It’s because we decided as a civilized society you do not want adults engaging in sexual conduct with children below 16 years of age, which flies in the face of our, I guess for lack of a better description, our normal impulses,” he said.
“I guess we could just ignore them, say it’s just like a traffic ticket, it’s malum prohibitum, it’s only against the law because it’s prohibited. Or we could say that because we’re trying to control what’s an otherwise natural impulse there has to be consequences.
“The bottom line on it all is the way we’re going to control it in my opinion is to ensure that everybody understands what the consequences are if you engage in … a lack of impulse control. It’s likely that most people would find young girls sexually attractive. But we’re civilized to the point that we’re taught to control our impulses. When you don’t, there has to be consequences.”
In sentencing Excell, Maddox said he wanted to send a message to others in the community who might possess images of child porn.
While Maddox said the message he was trying to convey with the verdict was that people possessing images of child pornography will go to jail, the actual message his verdict and accompanying statements really sent was that its hard out there for men to fight against the natural impulse that causes them to be sexually attracted to young female children. After all, he compared it to a traffic ticket, because in other cultures, it is perfectly acceptable for adult men to find children sexually attractive (and to act on that attraction one presumes). I mean, if the U.S. wasn’t so darn civilized, it wouldn’t even be a crime.
A few more interesting questions we can draw from Maddox’s remarks? Do only civilized cultures try to regulate the normal impulse of adult male sexual attraction to female children? And what happens when adult men are sexually attracted to young boys rather than young girls? Is being attracted to young boys also a natural impulse that is subverted by inconvenient social norms? I mean, that wouldn’t be very fair would it? Do women have as much trouble controlling the same natural impulse? Would Maddox have made a different ruling if he was a judge in another country where “impulse control” is not so important? It seems so to me.
More than anything, Maddox reinforces the idea that men have no control over who or what they are sexually attracted to (otherwise known as the “spread their seed” defense). Its an argument that resurfaces in the strangest places and completely contradicts the bogus notion and oft repeated cultural stereotype that men are the more rational sex. Its always amazing to me when a man will offer the “spread their seed defense” for sexual behavior and then expect me to accept the idea that they are the more rational and logical sex. Duh. You don’t get it both ways Maddox—if men can’t control their sexual impulses, then they are anything but rational.
Sometimes you have to wonder if all of us are living in the same century.
Similar Posts:
- The Power of Music
- Winner Of The Most Disingenuous Letter To The RGJ Editor Is:
- McCain’s Dishonorable Bridge to Nowhere
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[...] Okay, you can draw your own conclusions. The original story about Carson City District Judge Maddox’s bizarre notions about the natural impulse of men to be sexually attracted to children appeared on March 28th in the Nevada Appeal. Several days later on April 2nd, I wrote a post about Judge Maddox. Two days later, the RGJ staff and wire reporters cover the story–almost a week later. Hmmmm, why the delay? Why the late interest? [...]
[...] First, a Nevada man pleaded guilty to ten counts of child pornography for possessing more than 800 pornographic images of children — and in his sentencing, the judge asserted that men are attracted to female children. Female children as young as one: “These kinds of offenses are problems with impulse control,” said Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox prior to sentencing. “When I say that, it’s my understanding that most men are sexually attracted to young women. When I say young women I don’t just mean women that … you should be attracted to. I mean women from the time they’re 1 all the way up until they’re 100.” [...]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Does this kook have a big red R behind his name? (No, I haven’t peeked)
Perhaps he was just be introspectual (or having envy about the size of the crum’s collection).
The first time I saw that story online after it came out, I couldn’t believe my eyes.
When is this slimeball next up for election? We need a candidate to run and a PAC to mail his quotes out to the voters there.
This dude owns a day care.
Right you are. I’m always amazed at the dichotomy of Poor Widdle Menz Can’t Control Their Pee Pees vs. Men Should Run Everything Due To Their Steely Eyed Rationality. WTF?!?! Seems to me the former is the perfect argument why men shouldn’t be in charge of ANYTHING.
“I mean, if the U.S. wasn’t so darn civilized, it wouldn’t even be a crime.”
I think if we were more civilized it _wouldn’t_ be a crime. Or more to the point, it would be a specific crime. I think the focus on the morality of sex from a fairly conservative christian standpoint tends to create a lot of strange notions by Americans including the “its just natural to not be able to control it” kinds of things. Other areas of the world don’t have the scope of problems we have and don’t have the concept of an age of consent also. The rule should be that people who take advantage of others based on a position of power are breaking a basic principle of our society. Having to focus specificially on sex is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
OTOH this judge is very sick.