Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think paedophilia is not treated seriously enough by courts?

79 replies

SunshineBearHug · 20/08/2017 22:56

Just read a sickening news story where a child protection social worker has been found to be a paedophile including making indecent child abuse images as well as storing lots of others in a host of paedophile activity.

So why wasn't he sent to jail? For a long time? What deterrent is there for other paedophiles? Whenever I read these news stories I feel sick, where is the punishment? So what if he loses his job, children have been abused scarring them for life Sad

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/child-protection-officer-exposed-paedophile-11016767

OP posts:
RochelleGoyle · 20/08/2017 23:26

Lots of offenders go to prison for indecent image offences but usually not if it's a first offence. And no, indecent images are never considered to be 'porn'. They are child abuse images.

TracyBeakerSoYeah · 20/08/2017 23:26

Can a paedophile really be rehabilitated?
Personally I would hang the bastards.
Maybe the sensible solution is castration.
And before I get pilloried I've seen the mental damage these sickos cause.

SunnySkiesSleepsintheMorning · 20/08/2017 23:31

YANBU and I think the sentencing guidelines are disgustingly lenient.

A local piece of scum got a suspended sentence and was quoted as saying he was young and wanted a family one day, so he was glad this wouldn't "ruin his life" and this bastard did make photos of a 9 year old girl. His parents were quoted as saying they were pleased he could continue his education and turn his life around. Obviously the family moved away as it was well known in a smallish town.

Incitatis · 20/08/2017 23:34

The poster who said that only perpetrators of physical abuse/making the images are jailed. The people viewing them aren't due to lack of jail spaces. This means that the images are being regarded, in practical terms, as merely pornography.

Manclife · 20/08/2017 23:34

So why not complain about the sentence? Anyone can do it about any case and it has to be looked into.

www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review

Incitatis · 20/08/2017 23:38

Trying to rehabilitate a paedophile is as fruitless as trying to force a regular person to change their sexual preferences. All they can do is try to persuade them not to ever approach or have contact with children. This does not represent rehabilitation. It's no better than keeping your fingers crossed or uttering a prayer.

RochelleGoyle · 20/08/2017 23:39

Gretchen denial is extremely common but in itself is not indicative of risk. It's very often linked to shame and guilt - as is denial in many types of offending - and many offenders (not all) come to take greater responsibility throughout the course of their sentence. Denial doesn't necessarily mean a higher level of risk though, I mean the professionals involved in offender supervision accept the Court's verdict, not the offenders claims of innocence. They are treated as though they are a risk, even if they argue they aren't. Hope that makes sense, quite tired!

MimsyFluff · 20/08/2017 23:44

My mum lives next door to one and there's one 3 doors down they are convicted paedophiles who should be executed because they'll always be a threat to children.

RochelleGoyle · 20/08/2017 23:46

Incitatis, you seem to have a very authoritative view on the possibility of rehabilitation. I'll keep trying do my job though. Imo, better that people attempt rehabilitation than not.

Anaiis · 20/08/2017 23:47

It's nonsense to say rehabilitation isn't possible. Organisations like Lucy Faithfull would strongly disagree.

I have read stats saying approx 1 in 100 men has accessed these images of child abuse, but that the true numbers are higher. There is no space in prisons to house that many offenders.

Also let's be clear we are talking about non contact where there is no perceived risk of contact. Generally there will also have been an early admission of guilt.

Those who commit this type of offence often have myriad problems (previous victims of childhood abuse, socially isolated, etc). Sending a person to prison is likely to exacerbate this. Treatment is a better option for those who have not committed contact offences, are assessed as not being at risk of doing so, and who admit their guilt and engage with rehab.

Most who commit this type of offence are very damaged individuals who want to stop but have no means of seeking help. Any HCP who is consulted would have to make a report to the police. So you can't simply go to a Dr or counsellor and ask for help without the very strong possibility of arrest.

The reality is given the numbers involved most police forces are struggling to keep up with investigations. Some (Sussex is one) are now giving offenders a chance to get treatment rather than going straight to seizing equipment. It's likely if this proves successful that other forces will follow.

Again this is purely for those who have viewed images. Not those who have shared as that's more serious, ditto the offender referred to upthread giving sweets to children.

Winebomb · 20/08/2017 23:51

Do you what I feel sorry for, apart from the nameless and faceless children (usually overseas) that this happens to, but the police force, and the people who have to watch what these sick fuckers have watched to be able to prosecute them. Imagine that's your job.

I am all for hanging the bastards. They can't be rehabilitated. Nasty people

Incitatis · 20/08/2017 23:54

Any attempt at treatment is pointless and merely places children at risk.

The perpetrators just learn to become more devious and end up off the radar, particularly with the numbers involved.

Anaiis · 20/08/2017 23:57

1 in 100 men.

So it's very likely you know someone who's viewed these images. A neighbour, a parent at your DCs school, someone you work with, the guy who serves you in the supermarket. Could even be a friend or relative. It might even be your husband or partner. And in almost every case you'd never know.

Anaiis · 21/08/2017 00:04

Do you have any empirical evidence to support that questionable theory?

I think you may be conflating risk of reoffending for the more serious offences with those for the viewing of images only. There is a difference - as clearly demonstrated by both sentencing guidelines and the police approach.

The reasons for committing the viewing offences are often not that the offender has an attraction to children, in contrast to other child abuse offences.

BlurryFace · 21/08/2017 00:06

TracyBeaker, thank you, all paedos are scum. The only good paedo is a dead paedo. Don't care whose dear son/husband/father it is who made one or two or ten little mistakes.

Courts don't take paedophilia seriously, neither does society. There was a paedo taxi driver I know of who went decades without investigation despite other cabbies calling him "Paedo Cabs".Hmm Whenever there's a news article about someone raping a kid and the details are vague to protect the victims identity you get 100s of comments saying it must have been a tarted up 15 year old in a night club.

Mothers who may be concerned when a male stranger is near her children or won't let them out by themselves get derided for "thinking there's a paedo round every corner" well I'm sorry, but a)there are loads of paedos and other sex offenders out there and b)if the mother wasn't so vigilant and something happened those same people would blame her for it as much as the paedo.

RochelleGoyle · 21/08/2017 00:13

Some excellent points Anaiis. Sadly, I think many posters don't want to listen to facts. It's an incredibly emotive topic but these threads inevitably bring out the lynch mob.

Incitatis · 21/08/2017 00:19

'Viewing of images only'......so this is seen as a lesser offence and reduces it to the level of common or garden pornography? The children in these images are real people and they exist. They're not just photographs. They're being subjected to vile acts of violence. What sort of person would wish to view such images?

Is there a difference between the person making the images and the person viewing them? What is the risk of a viewer going on to abuse children directly?

Images? Just a few harmless photos then? The viewer doesn't go on to search for more and more extreme images, just as people do with regular pornography? Of course they do.

Original poster
SunshineBearHug · 21/08/2017 00:19

To the poster who said he 'only ' viewed images, he also 'admitted six counts of making indecent images of children'.

I can't see how he can be allowed to roam free. Thanks for the link to complain about the sentence. As he worked in child protection he would have been more aware than most of the lifelong suffering of victims of paedophiles Sad

OP posts:
Incitatis · 21/08/2017 00:27

Oh and just a thought.

If there were no viewers for this sickening market, then presumably less children would end up being abused and having pictures of them taken. It wouldn't stop child sexual abuse, but it would be less. Viewers demand more and more so more children are targeted and abused.

coco2303 · 21/08/2017 00:27

I dont believe paedophiles can be rehabilitated at all and they should be kept away. May sound very simple and ignorant of me. But if you are heterosexual you are attracted to the opposite sex, homosexual you are attracted to the same sex. Now paedophiles are attracted to children.
How can you change that???

Incitatis · 21/08/2017 00:30

Indeed coco

'Treatment' for homosexuality is, quite rightly, regarded as abusive as well as completely ineffective.

So why is paedophilia regarded as treatable? Sexuality isn't something you can just change.

Anaiis · 21/08/2017 00:32

It's facile to suggest it is reduced to the level of pornography. Viewing pornography is not an offence. Viewing images of child abuse IS an offence. The fact it is an offence which does not always result in a custodial sentence does not 'stop' it being an offence.

The risk of someone viewing images going on to commit contact offences is considered to be low, in most cases.

Viewing images of child abuse is no more a gateway for all offenders to commit child abuse than smoking cannabis is an automatic gateway to shooting up heroin. One can lead to the other, but mostly does not.

The images are not harmless. That's why it's an offence to view them. Many offenders will have viewed them as the result of an addiction to pornography. The importance of rehab and therapy is to ensure they don't seek out these images or worse, and often it will also involve stopping viewing any type of pornography as well (even though pornography is not illegal).

Incitatis · 21/08/2017 00:37

An offence to view them, but with no real punishment if they are viewed. No prison places, no resources for 'rehabilitation' or proper monitoring, just a slap on the wrist.

Anaiis · 21/08/2017 00:37

Viewing images of child abuse is rarely driven by sexual attraction to children.

Arguably greater manpower should be spent on apprehending those filming and distributing these images. Or even ensuring that these images are not openly available, for free, on the Internet, to be viewed.