Abstract:
Sex crime is an umbrella term encompassing a broad variety of behaviours. What is
considered a sex crime is ambiguous, inconsistent, expansive, and continually widening. The
outcome for those convicted of a sex crime is they become sex offenders, a highly
problematic and stigmatised label. Most recently, child sex dolls (CSDs) have become subject
to criminalisation as a sex crime. Globally, many jurisdictions have either criminalised them,
typically under existing child pornography or obscenity laws, or are contemplating this
course of action. While there is mass support for criminalisation, there is also pushback,
particularly as there is no empirical research in this area. To determine the rationale for
criminalising CSDs and whether this is justified or impulsive legislation, this thesis aims to
explore this in more detail, specifically addressing the arguments made for criminalising
child sex dolls and whether these arguments are valid; whether CSDs meet the threshold for
criminalisation; whether CSD legislation is the result of a moral panic; and whether CSDs
should be criminalised. To do this, two theoretical models were employed for analysis:
criminalisation theory, and a moral panic framework. Other avenues of analysis were also
explored including whether CSDs could be classified as child pornography, obscenity, or sex
toys, in addition to critiquing the arguments supporting the criminalisation of CSDs and those
opposing. It was determined from these analyses that CSDs do not meet the threshold for
criminalisation. It was further determined that CSDs do meet the threshold for a moral panic,
which often result in the implementation of ineffective and detrimental legislation. No
evidence was found to support the arguments for criminalising CSDs; however, this was not
conclusive for the arguments opposing criminalisation. There is preventative and therapeutic
potential in CSD use which should be explored further. It was established CSDs scarcely
meet the criteria for child pornography or obscenity, but rather, align more closely with sex
toys. It was concluded that the criminalisation of CSDs, while underpinned by the intention to
protect children, was rash, made in an absence of evidence, and may result in more harm than
good.