Polling my flist

[mrs_sweetpeach]

As y'all know, I'm addicted to true crime tv shows and news articles. Today I was reading about a case about a mentally ill man who was caught with a stash of child porn. In the article, a U.S. attorney was quoted as saying "Every time someone looks at these pictures, a real child is re-victimized." Without any doubt a real child was victimized when the photos were taken, but I honestly wonder if it is correct to say the person is re-victimized when the images are viewed. If the victim doesn't know who saw the photos or when they were seen, is that person re-hurt?

Poll #16349 Anonymous Re-victimization Poll

This poll is anonymous.
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: Just the Poll Creator, participants: 5

Is the victim re-victimized every time the photos are viewed?

Yes
3 (60.0%)

No
2 (40.0%)

p.s. Even though the poll claims I can see the detailed results, I won't know who voted what unless the poll-taker tells me how they voted in a comment (and I am the only one who can see the comments).

Comments

[wpadmirer.livejournal.com]

I don't mind you knowing that I am the yes vote. Each exposure of the child is victimization. As someone who was abused as a child, and who knows others who were, I can testify to the damage done each time that individual is viewed again. The horror of knowing that someone else knows is victimization in the legal and moral sense.