to think this is bullshit?

[Disenchanted3]

article here

A professor accused of having over 200 indecent images of childre on his computer, 22 of which were grade 4, 5 being the highest/worst.

They say he was 'vague in the reasons for down loading them'

But his mother was ill at the tinme and so was his brother, who later died.

So the judge ruled he 'acted out of character' because of these things.

Ermmm, people loose family members all the time, people loose loved ones in horrible circumstances, they have to deal with sick and dying relatives for year, but they don't logg onto a computer and download images of children being abused!!

He down loaded them because he is a sick pervert. Not because his mother was ill.

Why do these judges make excuses for people?

Why mention his sick mum and brother, are we supposed to feel sorry for him??

Siorry but the whole article just pissed me off.

[Disenchanted3]

But he must have had the desire to do it before?!

You don't just wake up one day and think 'up until now I have had no inkling to do so bt seeing as though my mum is ill today I shall download some child porn' whatevers going on in your life!

[LynetteScavo]

I agree with Riven.

[Disenchanted3]

randomly come across it ??!

Yeah Ok.

If a normal person randomly come across something like that they would be horrified and probably be scarred for life.

Not repetedly search the stuff out and keep images.

[ShowOfHands]

I am quite willing to accept that the people involved in this case, the judges, police, magistrates, prosecuters etc know far better than I the right course of action for this man.

What do you think putting him in prison would achieve exactly? I'm not being inflammatory, I'm genuinely curious.

Assuming he has never done any of this before, terrible things have happened in his life that we do not know the details of, just as we do not know his mental health because of this, I would say it is out of character.

And he has been treated as a "perv", he's on the sex offender's register, he has been tried in a court of law. I would like to know the relevance of a prison sentence here.

[ShowOfHands]

If he has not been jailed then it's fair to say that he is not believed to be a threat. Our system is rehabilitative. He has not been sent away with a pat on the head. He's on the sex offender's register, he will be watched, everybody he knows and loves knows this about him, his address, place of work, personal details and life history are in the press.

It is simply not possible, nor is it good sense to put everybody on the register in prison as a matter of course. That's a massive number of people, we don't have the resources for a start (whole other debate really) and it would serve no purpose. If the aim of our justice system is to help people back to normality through rehabilitation and remorse and it has been achieved then there's no need for a prison sentence in this instance.

[SoupDragon]

"The leading professor in microbiology was given a three-year community order at Newcastle Crown Court earlier.

The 56-year old was also placed on the sex offenders register for five years."

He wasn't let off.

[porcamiseria]

agree with riven, same old boys network

200 images, hmm that must have taken some time to download

stupid fucking judge

UGH

[Disenchanted3]

I didn't say he got away with it or that his setance wasn't enough or that he should be in prision.

I simply said that I don't unerstand why an ill mother, in the judges eyes, is a valid reason to look at children going through hell at the hands of abusers.

I don't think looking at this stuff can be 'out of character' if you do then it IS your charcter.

Its not something you just accidently 'get into'.

You make a descision to click on those images.

Maybe he did stumble acroiss the first image.

But he chose to search and go back again and again over 14 months.

[ShowOfHands]

It isn't a valid reason. It is a mitigating circumstance.

You make many statements and sound very sure of your reasoning. But character is more than the sum total of actions, certainly the sum total of a single behaviour. Your reductive assertions do not account for the subtleties, complexities and idiosyncracies of human nature. The peculiar sets of circumstances and events, the psychology and pressures that lead to certain behaviours and decisions. To reduce all paedophiles and all offences that come under the umbrella to a homogeneous mass of conscienceless, single-minded abusers doesn't just do a disservice to a complex group of people, but it does a disservice to your own intelligence.

[tethersend]

Can anybody link to a case of grief-induced paedophilia?

It's just that my understanding is that paedophilia tends not to occur in people who have spent 56 years being repulsed by it and then suffer the loss of a loved one.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

[ShowOfHands]

As I said above, it's not a reason, it's a mitigating circumstance that does complicate the way people think and more importantly, how they behave.

Nobody is saying there is a direct causal link between grief and paedophilia.

And yes I do know of a case where grief and paedophilia were linked and the grief was a mitigating circumstance. And this was absolutely right imo.

[tethersend]

Could you give some details please ShowOfHands? Genuinely interested...

[ShowOfHands]

I'm not really comfortable with sharing the details of it because although it's all out there and accessible, it affects very dear friends of mine. Similar case to the one in the op.

[1footinfront]

"The court heard that he is one of the world's leading experts in his field and his work has saved countless lives"

How is this relevant exactly??

[confused emoticon]

Viewing child pornography is abuse of children because without a market, there isnt a demand.

You'd have thought someone "clearly" as intelligent as this might have considered to see a therapist of counsellor to deal with his grief. University of Newcastle has a counselling service, on site.

Very strange, from 1foot.

[ImSoNotTelling]

This business about our prison system

"If he has not been jailed then it's fair to say that he is not believed to be a threat. Our system is rehabilitative."

i was under the impression that prison was there for more reasons than that

To act as a deterrant
To protect society from people who are a danger to the public
For rehabilitation

There is an idea in our system as well that "justice is seen to be done" I think?

Anyway, that aside, on anotehr thread I said

"Yes it is entirely obvious that having some stress can mean that you start downloading pornographic images of children. And he only acted "out of character" over a brief 14 month period, stopping when he was caught by police

The statements of these judges seem bizarre sometimes. "

[ShowOfHands]

Because he is a useful member of society. The prison system in this country attempts to rehabilitate people in order that they can live a life as no threat to themselves or others and perhaps offer something to a society that is trying to help them. It is relevant because locking him up in prison would not only take away somebody who is a very important figure in his field, but would perhaps be detrimental to his ability to continue working in this field. Of course it's relevant.

[ImSoNotTelling]

It's like roman polanski, 1foot. if people deem you to be a merit to society in some ways, it excuses behaving illegally and like a total bastard, apparently.

[ImSoNotTelling]

So if there is grief induced paedophilia

Then that can be a mitigating circumstance for the defendant

Where does that leave the victims?