To think judges are too lenient?

[ambereeree]

There's an article on the BBC today about a man who viewed pics of children being abused and has not been jailed. What kind of message does this send out? It really frightens me.

Judges can't just decide on sentences arbitrarily. They have to go by guidelines. I imagine he will have a community disposal and probably be subject to probation officer meetings and stringent conditions. What do you think jail would do for him? Our jails are overcrowded and being jailed does not appear to help with reoffending. I am not in anyway condoning what this man has done, but I don't know that jail would be appropriate.

Judges have to abide by sentencing guidelines - they don't make personal choices each time they sentence someone.

Also, and depressingly, offences of viewing images of child abuse are common. If all these people were locked up on a first offence, there would not be the room plus they would then be exposed to worse offenders. Community sentences, probation, being on the sex offenders register is a more appropriate response given the aim is both punishment and rehabilitation.

Judges and magistrates follow the sentencing guidelines. There is a standard range for each offence and they have to justify why they would go outside the guidelines.
(Guidelines available on the sentencing council website).

I haven’t read this case but sometimes people are given a community order or suspended sentence order with conditions instead of immediate custody when the public may expect a prison sentence. This is because with a CO or SSO you can direct a particular rehabilitation course, such as those targeted at domestic violence offenders or sexual offenders. If someone goes directly to prison for a sentence less than six months it is likely they will have no rehabilitation input at all.

Whilst punishment is a large part of sentencing, rehabilitation and prevention of further offences as well as protection of the public are also sentencing aims.

So while it seems not to make sense to the outsider sometimes, the sentence is always carefully considered with full information available.

Which article, I can't see the front page. Does it mention the judges sentencing remarks or have you looked to see if they're available. The headline story details won't give the full picture.

While I understand the above I would prefer to see people locked up and away from children

For how long? All offenders are released.

A crime of viewing images is not going to get the same sentence as a crime of personally offending against a child.

We don't have the resources for all those prison places and we know short sentences don't work. Preventing further crimes is going to keep children safer.

I agree. When we are putting pregnant shoplifters, benefit fraudsters and other non violent offenders in prison, why are pedophiles being spared prison?

There was a spate of a few judges being really lenient towards child rapists in the 80's, they were later exposed as paedophiles.

I'm glad the judge is under review, who said that a woman wasn't raped because she didn't fight back.

Likewise people who kill with their cars, there's just been a policeman speed and kill someone, eight months he got.

I think judges are too lenient with some cases and too strict with others - but then I don't hear the evidence and only read what's in the newspapers so not sure my opinion counts for much. But I think some driving-related cases are treated far too leniently and while short sentences are not very effective, some drivers could do with a week or two in prison to think about their crap driving.

However, I do think that non-violent crime should be dealt with in more creative ways than prison. Prison should be for those who are a danger to society - like rapists, murderers and arsonists - but should be about rehabilitation. It's not a weakness if someone is released - if they then contribute to society. The "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality does not work.

While I understand the above I would prefer to see people locked up and away from children

For ever? That would be both inhumane and totally impractical. If not for ever, for how long?

@amberee could you at least post a link to the story so we can read what the news report said?

JudyCoolibar agree with the impractical (unfortunate we have so many delinquents in this country) but certainly not inhumane. think you give up the right to identify as a human the second you think it's okay to look at a child being abused

@ambereeree

YANBU at all.

Someone commits a crime in the UK, and in most circumstances, if they plead guilty, they get their sentence halved, and if they are a good boy/girl in prison, they get released early. So a potential sentence of 16 years, can be reduced to 4 or 5 years! Should be like in America, where life means life, and sentences are rarely reduced.

I was incensed by THIS news I heard today. A man punched another man in the face/head and the victim died from his injuries, and the fucker got seven poxy fucking years.

www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/guildford-manslaughter-jamie-smith-killing-17519391

It was classed as manslaughter. Personally I would say it was MURDER, but the law disagrees with me apparently.

This cunt will be out in 3 to 3 and a half years.

Mr Bumble from Oliver Twist was right; the law IS an ass.

If you want harsher penalties for viewing images, than automatically there should be harsher sentences for actual abuse.

I am a judge, but not in the UK. I agree there are problems with the UK system (as in my country), but basically judges apply guidelines, as PP have said. No matter what you feel personally, it's not an arbitrary decision.
People need to campaign for changes in the law, if they are not happy with how it is applied.

As PPs have said there's sentencing guidelines and a judge also has to take into account if, and when, they pled guilty as well as whether they are a first offender.

Those shoplifters you see getting jailed are usually on their 50th offence!

Additionally community service isn't a cushy number. They have to don awful high-viz vests and carry out take like painting fences and removing chewing gum from pavements - basically all the jobs Daily Mail readers think prisoners and benefit claimants should be doing. 🙄

Someone commits a crime in the UK, and in most circumstances, if they plead guilty, they get their sentence halved

Not so. If they plead guilty at the first opportunity, they are entitled to a third off their sentence. It then goes on a sliding scale down to a discount of one tenth if they plead guilty for the first time on the first day of the trial. It makes sense to encourage early guilty pleas as it saves the victim and witnesses all the stress of worrying about giving evidence and gives them some peace of mind, and also of course saves a lot of money.

The tabloids are there to sell papers.

The judges get the full facts and sentencing guidelines. You never get the full facts in news reports.

The prisons are already horribly underfunded, you can't just stuff them full of abusive people and expect the problem to go away.

certainly not inhumane. think you give up the right to identify as a human the second you think it's okay to look at a child being abused

So if you are going to lock someone up indefinitely for looking at pictures, what incentive is there to the perpetrators not to put their fantasies into action and start abusing children themselves?

The justice system in this country is a fucking joke.
I watched the evil bastard who took my dd's life walk free from court.
Although that was down to the jury and the outdated legal system in Scotland.

A crime of viewing images is not going to get the same sentence as a crime of personally offending against a child.

it should

if people didn't view them, kids wouldn't be tortured and made to pose for them. These people are just as guilty.

I agree that tabloids only report the most salacious details. Most of a judge's work is mired in detail and passes unseen, until a high profile case hits the news.

Honestly, if people really feel things need to change, then they need to start campaigning. That's really hard work though, whereas knee jerk reactions are easier.

I have met several campaigners - often normal, working class parents who have worked tirelessly to change the law. That means that I have new tools to work with when sentencing. That's how things change.

So if you are going to lock someone up indefinitely for looking at pictures, what incentive is there to the perpetrators not to put their fantasies into action and start abusing children themselves?

do you think the pictures are computer-generated or something?

Now that would be a possible improvement - or worth discussing with experts.

@ParkheadParadise
I have heard your story on MN, and it always makes me sad. I am glad you see that is an outdated legal system at fault. The law needs to change, not the judge.

On a personal note, it is cases like your daughter's that keep me awake at night. I am very sorry, and I can't imagine.

I do agree though that judges in the UK can seem remote, always white and upper class. In my country their reputation is even worse, but for different reasons.

It is changing though, and I am an example of that in some ways.

I wouldn't like to say what I think should happen to those people