Pedocriminality is an addiction like drug addiction, for example.

Society regards the drug addict as a sick person and the paedophile as a criminal. The fact is, the latter commits a crime, but as a mentally ill person.

As far as multimedia content is concerned, we often hear that there would be no paedophile productions (images, videos, etc.) if there were no amateurs to view them. Conversely, the same people say that there would be no drug addicts if there were no drug producers.

The same reasoning could be applied to child pornography as to drug addicts: if no one produced images or videos, there would be no one to watch them.

In my opinion, the problem with prevention stems mainly from the incest aspect of paedophile crime.

If I refer to the RTS survey on the subject (and I quote)&nbsp;: "&nbsp;In almost 60% of cases, the aggressor is a relative of the victim. In the remaining 40% of cases, it is another relative (brother, sister, uncle, aunt, cousin, etc.).... These data also show that almost a third of sexual acts against children are committed within the family.

How can prevention be effective if the problem comes mainly from those close to the child, not only in the family, but also in education and sport (Le Monde, 10.11.2022) "&nbsp;Un scandale de pédocriminalité secoue le monde du soccer en République démocratique du Congo&nbsp;"&nbsp;.

Finally, let's be clear: pedocriminality has been particularly in the spotlight since the democratization of the Internet. The uncontrolled development of pseudo-social networks represents a real scourge when it comes to this type of crime. Revenge-porn and nudes, which teenagers are particularly fond of, are just two examples.

Several questions arise right at the beginning:

- What is meant by "pedocriminals"? Are we talking about pedophiles who have made themselves liable to prosecution by not being able to control their inclination and getting involved with or seducing minors? Or are they producers and distributors of child pornography? Furthermore, qualifications in the severity of the offense are necessary: For example, does a pedophile pursue their inclination by exploiting a power imbalance (kindergarten teachers, teachers, etc.)? That would then be an aggravating circumstance. I believe that these different groups should not be lumped together. This is where the limits of harsher punishments may become apparent. Although I am certainly in favor of draconian penalties for the production and/or distribution of child pornography. Offenders do not deserve any leniency here.

- What should prevention look like? A paedophile does not choose their sexual orientation, any more than heterosexuality or homosexuality is consciously chosen. I therefore believe that there can be no prevention in the ultimate sexual orientation. However, a form of prevention would be conceivable that would make it more difficult for a pedophile, for example, to pursue their inclination. Educational work (without falling into paranoid hysteria) would probably be one possibility, but also offers of help and advice for people with a pedophilic disposition. Prevention of child pornography presumably also depends on changing the social, economic, legal, etc. conditions in the countries of origin. and depriving the anonymity of the Internet of its basis.

What is needed, therefore, is both prevention and, if necessary, tougher penalties.

Finally, it is only a matter of time before generative AI is able to produce child pornography! We can only hope that the investigating authorities around the world are prepared for this...