It was just the latest example of guilty plea from a predator caught possessing and trading thousands of photos of children being sexually abused.

The District Attorney, pounding his chest, offered this comment: “It is important to remember that these images are for all intents and purposes crime scenes — they depict real children being cruelly victimized both physically and emotionally.”

If the DA’s “analysis” sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve heard it before, right here:

[C]hild pornography is not “speech” — it is the photograph of a crime, and the trophy of a predator. It cannot be produced without violating a child. It is per se contraband, and not within the orbit of First Amendment protection. If kiddie porn is “speech,” then so is a snuff film.

But this isn’t about press conferences; it’s about net results. And here is the only measurement that matters:

First, we must raise the stakes. With significantly higher penalties — for everything from simple possession to production with intent to distribute — we will immediately accomplish two things:
1) Some purchasers and producers will be deterred, because the risk/reward paradigm will have suddenly shifted.
2) As for those who refuse to be deterred, we will be able to incapacitate them for very long periods via extensive prison sentences.

Let’s watch this case closely. Remember, New York State has one of the most media-genic sentencing schemes in America. The media will report the maximum sentence length, while pointedly ignoring the minimum, often a mere third of the length.

It’s one thing for a DA handed a slam-dunk to talk big at a press conference; it’s another thing for him to deliver on his rhetoric. So let’s see if this so-called non-violent offender receives nothing more than a sweetheart sentence (with “counseling,” of course). Let’s see if this case ends with another plea bargain that’s a “bargain” only for the offender.

We’re at the crossroads, now, depending on which path this District Attorney chooses. This isn’t about a single case — it’s about where prosecutors are going to stand on one of the most pernicious and evil crimes against our society:

Myths such as “just looking at pictures does no harm” should be attacked for what they are: camouflage for predators. Because, in truth, every individual who purchases child pornography is subsidizing the rape of children. If we truly believe that exploitation of children is a human rights issue, how can those who purchase the “product” be “harmless”? How we penalize criminal activity is a cultural message. Any state which allows especially soft penalties for “simple possession” of child pornography has sent a message of its own — a message I personally do not believe reflects the will of its citizens.

An election is coming. And so, the usual tsunami of “tough on crime” rhetoric is being regurgitated. If you want to see our would-be public servants actually deliver on such promises, you have to demand that the journalists running the “debates” actually ask the candidates: “What are you going to do about this?”