The case of former ambassador Gábor Kaleta, who had 19 thousand pedophile pictures on his computer but only got a suspended sentence and a 540,000 HUF (about 1,500 Euros), caused general outrage in Hungary (as we have already reported: https://dontlookaway.blog.hu/2020/07/01/suspended_sentence_in_the_child_porn_case_of_former_peruvian_ambassador). However, lawyers point out that this sentence is unique: hardly anyone actually gets to serve a prison sentence for such crimes in Hungary – in contrast to the US, where similar offenders have recently spent 5 years in prison. Hintalovon Child Rights Foundation says the problem is not with the sentence alone, but with the whole system, which needs to be reformed from the names of crimes through the potential forms of punishment to the actual court practices. Dr. Szilvia Gyurkó, head of the Foundation, formerly the children’s rights director of Unicef and and a researcher in the National Criminological Institute, spoke to news website 444.

444: Why is it a crime if somebody looks at disgusting pics on the net?

SzGy: Because these photos have been taken of cases of sexual violence against children. In 90% of the cases porn does not mean a child posing in a way that arouses the viewer but being actually forced to do a sex act.

444: Do you think possessing child porn must be punished because consumers create the market demand, so they are the reason the children in the pictures are sexually violated?

SzGy: Yes, that is part of the reason. But legal regulations approach the issue from the victim’s, not the perpetrator’s perspective. Looking at such photos in itself harms the minor’s right to privacy, their personal rights. And the Internet stores everything: if a child was 4 when an erotic video was taken of them, they might come across the same video when they are 40. This is why the Interpol puts much effort into identifying these children: this makes it easier to catch the perpetrator, but also to offer help, support and even compensation to the victims. We cannot delete their past, but we may help them live with it. But knowing that hundreds of people masturbate to your picture makes it very hard to get over the trauma.

444: The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) has examined the legal system of 196 countries and has found that 118 countries have “adequate” measures. This is an improvement (in 2006 only 27, in 2016 82 countries passed the test) but still 1/3 of all these countries do not regulate the issue properly.

SzGy: Legal measures against child sexual abuse date back to the 1990s. Hungary ratified the relevant Additional Protocol of the Children’s Rights Convention. The Council of Europe tried to create a united framework in 2007, and this already includes the issue of child porn on the internet. The UN mandates that all children under the age of 8 must be treated the same way in this respect, they must be protected against all activities related to child porn and all such contents must be criminalized.

It is important to state that only 1-2% of child sex abusers are really pedophiles. Most sex abusers are people the child has a close relationship with: family members, relatives, teachers, coaches, priests, adult friends. Many of these are not pedophiles, they also feel sexual attraction for adults, but they take advantage of the opportunity.

444: Also, there are many types of pedophiles.

SzGy: The child porn these people download varies in terms of the children’s age and gender. Most of them are interested in children under the age of 6: 60% of pictures that have been found depict such children. Some are more interested in girls, others in boys. For some, the photo of the child is arousing in itself, others need something more – Interpol data shows that videos made of boys show more explicit violence and force. Some users are not really pedophiles, just “curious”, and consume these materials as a subcategory of porn. Some consume child porn regularly, others occasionally; for some, watching videos is enough, others fantasize about how to do it in practice. There are so many interests and levels of risk that the term “pedophile” is now more of an umbrella term. But the offer also shapes the demand, this is the reason why strict measures are necessary against child porn.

444: The connection between consuming child porn and actual sexual harassment has been long debated.

SzGy: To simplify it: all child abusers consume child porn but not all child porn consumers commit physical child abuse. The claim that pedophiles watch these videos as a substitute for seducing children is definitely false. Intensive consumers attempt at least once to contact children. Most commonly this occurs on the internet; there is demonstrable connection between grooming and child porn.

444: The abovementioned ICMEC database claims that Hungary has all the necessary regulations. Why do you then say that the whole system needs to be reformed?

SzGy: The basic question is: what is the purpose of punishment? If we say that possessing, selling, and making child porn is illegal, we should aim preventing perpetrators from repeating their activities after release, and at deterring others from trying them. But what message does it send if the perpetrator gets a suspended sentence? Or what happens if offenders get in jail but there nothing is done to them, apart from physical and sexual violence from other inmates? Neither solution changes anything in the perpetrator or in society. We do not make offenders understand their actions and then try to avoid them, neither do we prevent them from getting in contact with children after their release – although there are many solutions existing in other countries that are more efficient than suspended sentences or fines, such as registering offenders, banning them from certain professions or mandatory therapy.

444: If therapy is efficient in keeping child porn consumers away from actually abusing children in at least some cases, why is it not mandatory for perpetrators, whether or not alongside a suspended sentence?

SzGy: The problem is that there is no attention, no money and the whole system does not acknowledge that sexual violence against children is a special type of crime. Even the victims themselves do not get efficient help in the state system; sometimes the experts who examine them are not even qualified in this field.

444: But if the law were modified and some money allocated to mandatory therapy, could that give more protection to the children?

SzGy: Certainly. The Hungarian criminal justice system would take an important step forward by considering that money should be spent on perpetrators, including their mental health. At the same time, victims are considered rather the objects than the subjects of criminal procedures in Hungary. There were major changes in criminal law in 2018, this is when the term “children’s rights” was first mentioned in it expressis verbis. However, court practices and public opinion have a long way to go, and legislators and the state should be dedicated to developing a system that focuses more on the victims.  

444: At the proposal of the Prosecutor’s Office, Kaleta has been placed under supervision. Do you think that is efficient?

SzGy: The supervisor checks whether the person on probation complies with the behavioral rules set out for them. However, it is rather difficult to check whether somebody has watched child porn, apart from asking how they spend their free time. This measure could have an effect, but our experience is that supervisors are overburdened, they hardly have time for each perpetrator, and it is questionable whether they receive special training to deal with sexual offenders.

444: You mentioned that registering sex offenders may be more efficient than suspended or even served sentences. Does it have any drawbacks?

SzGy: A prison sentence gives a feeling of satisfaction to society but does not automatically restrain the perpetrator. The common argument against a registry is that the majority of these offenders are not pedophiles, so they are not overall dangerous for children. Also, only about 10% of the cases come to light, only in 1% is there a lawsuit, 0.7% of offenders get sentenced, and they would be the only ones who get registered. I would however say that 0.7% is still better than nothing. We could work out a system which is not so much based on stigmatization but on preventing sex offenders from working with children, including banning them from certain jobs. This is not always mandatory in Hungary; with the right professional background, Gábor Kaleta could work at a children’s welfare agency.

444: In several Western countries chemical castration is also an option.

SzGy: In some countries this has been introduced for pedophiles as mandatory or as an elective way of shortening the prison sentence. However, there are serious adverse effects and human rights problems, and there are very few cases when it has been proven to work. The other problem is that sex abuse is about violence, abusing one’s position of power, aggression, humiliation, seduction, and exploitation – a reduced testosterone level does not solve these. A person with a lower level of sexual desire may still be violent with children and consume child porn.

444: Earlier you have written about how the term ‘child pornography’, though widely used in the law and public discourse, is itself harmful.

SzGy: This term was OK in 2007, based on the level of internet penetration and the knowledge we had then. Now we do not think this should be called ‘porn’. Interpol has issued a terminology guideline, which proposes the term ‘child sexual abuse material’ (https://www.interpol.int/Crimes/Crimes-against-children/Appropriate-terminology) The term ’child pornography’ suggests the same misinterpretation as ’child prostitution’ (which has recently been reframed in Hungary and now included under child trafficking). In the case of child victims, these activities are never voluntary but a result of abuse and exploitation. Therefore, we should reframe ‘child porn’ as well, because words have power.