I understand, Independent, and even I, who has no use for law enforcement, would report a child being abused. But I would do it for the CHILD and NOT for the government.

I would never sit by doing nothing if I knew an older person or a child was abused. Never. I have a tremendous amount of empathy for the weaker people in our society. They cannot take care of themselves so they have to rely on others to "do the right thing."

My reference to the citizens snitching against other citizens were for less serious situations than child abuse.

rewdiazepam

Do you like children in ways you shouldn't?

https://www.dont-offend.org/
(https://www.kein-taeter-werden.de/) - don't become and offender

Excellent program. Protects children. Prevents abuse. But only works because

*There is no mandatory report law in Germany

Yeah I agree rew. I don't know what the answer is. I definitely understand the analogies to nazi Germany but I don't know if it applies to child sexual abuse. If not having mandatory reporting though led to less crimes than I would understand doing it. I don't understand why you would need to get rid of mandatory reporting for this German program to work. If they haven't committed a crime there is nothing to report right?

It is my understanding that in the US a treatment provider has to report the mere mention of someone's sexual attraction to children. That alone triggers the reporting requirement, and the rest is history. Crime or not. The potential of a crime is there, and it protects children (that is sarcasm).

Looks like that disclaimer is not present on the German version of the site, so it would seem German logic agrees with you.

I think they also agree that either a person is a child or an adult, based on age and not on whatever the government is in the mood for today.

I understand that the age of criminal culpability is 14, which is also the age of consent. A person under 14 cannot consent to willingly engage in sexual relations while at the same time does not have the capacity to form criminal intent. Such sense.

A minor over 14 is a youth (NOT a child) and criminally culpable exclusively in Juvenile Court. A minor 14 and over can freely engage in sexual activity with two exceptions - 1. in a setting of authority or 2. at 14 / 15 where it is proven that a person over 18 clearly exploits the minor's situation (like a run-away or similar, not sexual naivety). Also prostitution with a minor under is always criminal.

I am feeling very teutonic today....

REW said: "The Police State will divide people against each other and use the citizenry as a type of "civilian law enforcement" to control the masses."

Does it ever. An excellent example is the former East Germany. It's only been 25 years. Thousands of civilians were recruited to report on their fellow citizens. Of course every one who witnesses a crime or abuse must report it. However, these people were exclusively recruited to snitch (there is no other word) on their neighbors not for 'real' crimes but only for things the government classified as such. Like planning to leave the GDR. Like listening to Western Radio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_collaborators_%28East_Germany%29

This is no different than recruiting the public to turn in RSOs for things like not living in the residence reported. Like being on Facebook. Like setting foot in a public park. Hey, at least the Stasi paid their snitches. The US gets their citizens to do the same for free. Sheeple!

I guess I still don't understand your point Dixon,

"It is my understanding that in the US a treatment provider has to report the mere mention of someone's sexual attraction to children. That alone triggers the reporting requirement, and the rest is history. Crime or not. The potential of a crime is there, and it protects children (that is sarcasm)."

So if you are a health provider what do you report? That someone said they had a fantasy about a child? As long as they haven't acted on it by either touching a child or looked at CP, there is nothing criminally to be done. I've never heard of someone being out in a state mental hospital for admitting this without a crime. What am I missing?

"So if you are a health provider what do you report? That someone said they had a fantasy about a child? "

That is my understanding. Am I wrong? Someone please correct me.

If a treatment provider feels like a child is in danger, then they are obligated to report, even if no law had been broken.

So they report it and what can the police do? Absolutely nothing. Thinking about doing a crime isn't illegal. Now if you are already on probation or parole that's a different story, but people in the general population, I don't see what they could possibly do.

Actually there are many laws in the US that carry a criminal prosecution for "thinking" about a crime - proving it is always a different matter but in sexual crimes no proof is needed - look at civil commitment - true that in order to be held by CC there has to have been a prior crime but in essence they are being punished for the mere fact that they MIGHT commit another crime based on absolute nonsense

I agree advocate it's way too much like the movie minority report and it's an end run around the constitution.

But still, in that scenario I cannot see what the government will do with the knowledge that this person in question is attracted to children. No laws were broken, I've never heard of civil commitment for this without a crime. Maybe it's possible? But I question that, because if that's true why not chase down all the people on virtuous pedophiles and lock them up civilly to. It's not like they don't have the power to figure that out.

Independent, if a mandated reporter even suspects that someone has viewed child porn or talked to a minor online they are required to report it. I do agree with you that the mere attraction or thoughts are not enough to report. However, if the mandated reporter suspects that there is more they must report. Most mandated reporters will err on the side of caution, mostly to cover their own butts. The German program is open to anyone who has committed a crime but hasn't been caught. In America that's not possible. And even if the case doesn't stick, the investigation and/or publicity of the arrest are enough to ruin someone's life here in the US.

What do the police arrest someone for though? What statute is broken by thinking?

Thinking, by itself, is not a legal issue. But if a mandated reporter SUSPECTS that a law may have been broken and reports it, CPS and/or the police will investigate. So, say someone tells a therapist that they fantasize about young girls and then in a different session the therapist asks if this person ever goes online for fantasy material and the person says yes. That right there could be enough to report. Then as part of the police investigation the person is called in to "clear things up" and admits to both of those conversations with his therapist, that's probably enough to arrest.

I've never heard of a CP case coming to fruition that way. I don't think an admission to a therapist of just an attraction is probable cause for an arrest. Even in your scenario I don't think admitting to watching CP sometime in the past is probable cause for an arrest until the police find evidence of that CP.

I think it's a lot more likely it gets reported and now you are on police radar. They will look to make sure you aren't doing CP or around children.