So at first this seems like an outrageous ruling, but it is quite complex. People who are abused often end up abusers themselves. It sounds like therapy is what she needed from the beginning.

I think the bigger issue is that families don't talk about child abuse and sexual abuse when it happens. The more we avoid these issues, the more we allow it to take place.

I agree in a lot of respects. MANY abusers have similar backgrounds and deserve treatment.

What worries me about this though is that i don't think think gender should play a part - the adage "abused women continue to be abused, abused men become abusers" clearly doesn't apply in this case.

Many abusers rightly invite sympathy, but they also remain very dangerous. If we are to change how we treat them as a society it should be a deliberated, funded system with appropriate safeguards, not a single case without clear reasoning.

Just pointing out that the charge here is possession of child pornography. And while the argument can be made that this offense enables and encourages abuse, it is not abuse in and of itself.

Accessories are generally considered no less culpable.

While true, I really doubt there'd be any of that nuance considered if she had a penis.

That's why we need to talk about it more

I've made the argument here before- that simple possession of pornographic material alone shouldn't necessitate jail time for anyone. Intervention, interdiction, treatment, yes. But what does imprisonment accomplish here?

Punitive revenge, aka American justice.

It removes them from society.

Only temporarily.
But then I seem to recall you considered pedophilia to be on par with a sexual orientation.

Not necessarily.

Is that at all controversial?

Among the religious right it's not controversial at all.

I'm kind of confused. They say she's the first woman in Alaska to be charged with possession of child pornography, but the article refers to her as a former Alaska woman, but she was arrested in Anchorage, so...

Is she an Alaskan or not?