It's getting harder and harder to find "experts" to testify for the prosecution in obscenity trials, but Redondo Beach City Prosecutor Alan Honecutt found a high-profile one: Dr. Park Dietz, former Meese Commission member and past president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and organization of "forensic psychiatrists" which, among other duties, testify about mental conditions of parties involved in legal proceedings.
Honecutt called Dr. Dietz to the witness stand on Friday in an attempt to convince the jury in the case of People v. Shoemaker and McDonald that the allegedly obscene and child porn photos on the defendants' Websites beachbaby.com and blowout.com were beyond the community standard of Los Angeles County. Whether he succeeded will only be known at the conclusion of the trial, which is expected sometime later this week.
Dr. Dietz was called as an expert on "paraphilias," which is a psychiatric term that the witness described as a "persistent pattern of sexual arousal to unusual stimuli," including a wide variety of sexual interests such as sexual sadism and masochism, pedophilia (attraction to child porn), zoophilia (bestiality), urophilia (urination), copraphilia (excrement), exhibitionism and several others. Dr. Dietz said that someone suffering from one of the paraphilias would have to exhibit their particular attraction for more than six months in order to be considered to be suffering from the condition.
Honecutt then showed Dr. Dietz several photos which had been marked as exhibits in the case, and which were projected on a large screen for the jury to simultaneously see, the first of which apparently depicted a woman giving a blowjob to a dog. (The defense has stated that many of the photos entered as exhibits in the case have been altered either by computer or other artistic means.) Dr. Dietz said that the photo would be attractive to two types of individuals: Zoophiles, which he said comprised a very small percentage of the population, and the curious, which he said was a much larger group. The witness said that the curious could be of any age, but that the photo would likely confuse youngsters, that teenagers would find it funny, but that adults would find it offensive.
Honecutt then tried to draw the doctor out about the point at which curiosity about such a photo would become pathological, but the doctor was of little help. He said he could not tell if looking at such photos continually for less than six months was a sign that the viewer was a zoophile, but he did not that, "We believe these conditions are formed in childhood," suggesting that if only adults looked at the photos, no psychological changes would be likely.
Honecutt than asked similar questions about photos apparently depicting someone urinating into a woman's open mouth, a woman defecation above a male's mouth, and someone apparently inserting their entire hand up to the wrist into a woman's vagina, and he elicited responses from the witness similar to those given about the bestiality photo and its admirers. One interesting point of testimony about the fisting photo, however, was that Dr. Dietz felt that that photo would appeal most to those interested in sadism and masochism, since he said the act of fisting resulted in "stretching of tissue [that] is painful," and the activity "has the appearance of gross humiliation" for the recipient. He noted, though, that sadists and masochists comprised "quite a sizeable percentage of the population, and that possibly as much as 5% of Californians "suffer from" those paraphilias, but that more than half of the population had tried it — though he defined something as simple as giving someone a hickey could be considered a sadistic act.
On cross examination, defense attorney Jeffrey Douglas attempted to draw out the doctor's opinions as to what effects looking at the various photos would have on the average California citizen. Dr. Dietz responded that being curious about paraphilias was unhealthy, and would lead the average person to become desensitized to the imagery. He also said that though looking briefly at such photos as were at issue in the trial would not be a problem for most people, for some, it could affect their sex lives if they became fixated on the imagery while they were attempting to have sex.
Douglas then asked what could have been a key question in the trial. He noted that the jury would probably see the exhibit photos approximately 10 times before the trial was over, and was it the doctor's opinion that the jury members would be harmed by such observation? The question was objected to, and after a long sidebar conference, the objection was sustained.
When questioning resumed, Dr. Dietz stated that continued looking at the photos at issue would desensitize a normal person to the shock that would be caused by seeing the imagery for the first time, and that it would also "erode" their respect for other humans, which he described as a "subtle process."
The doctor also admitted that the concept of paraphilias in psychiatry had changed over the years, and that for instance, homosexuality, which had been considered a paraphilia until about a decade ago, was now not considered pathological behavior. After a further series of questions, Dr. Dietz also agreed that paraphilias are essentially a "social/political judgment among psychiatrists" without objective basis.
Douglas then asked if a behavior were found to be stimulating to a substantial portion of the population, would that not change its status from being a paraphilia to being a non-deviant behavior? The doctor responded that, in his opinion, it wouldn't.
It became clear, as testimony progressed, that Dr. Dietz finds pornography abhorrent — at one point, he asked to have one of the projected photos taken off the screen — and that he feels that the major difference between pornography (protected speech) and (illegal) obscenity is the zeal of prosecutors.
Dr. Dietz also admitted that he is not familiar with the past decade's content of such magazines as Penthouse and Hustler, both of which frequently contain photos of women urinating, or of recent gay videos, many of which depict men being fisted. However, the doctor testified, even if such were the case — in fact, even if 25% of California adults sought out such material — that would not change his opinion as to public acceptance of those acts.
Douglas continued his questioning into such areas as the distinction, if any, between inserting a fist in a woman's pussy versus inserting a large dildo; whether there is a paraphilia related to viewing photos of young women between the ages of 12 and 17 (Dr. Dietz felt there was, though the concept is not recognized by the psychiatric community); whether people can also become desensitized to violence through looking at mainstream movies, and whether such desensitization would automatically lead such persons to commit violence.
"I'm not worried about the effects [of violent imagery] on normal people," the doctor responded.
Finally, Douglas asked Dr. Dietz if he himself, who has seen a large quantity of "deviant material," had been affected by the sight, and whether the viewing had harmed him personally. The doctor responded that he hoped he had not.
Trial was scheduled to resume Monday morning, with the prosecution expected to rest its case either Monday afternoon or early Tuesday.
