Sentences for people convicted of having or making images of child sexual abuse.

[AIMD]

I’m not someone that generally has too much of an issue with the types of sentences that the courts hand out but......why are sentences for having/making/distributing images of child sexual abuse so measly? I really don’t understand it?!

Is it unreasonable to think that anyone who has obtained, made or shared those types of images should face a custodial sentence and not ever just have a community sentence. Surely there should be more significant minimum sentence for those sorts of crimes to ensure that children are protected and there is More time to assess the offenders safety in the community?

Having/sharing/making images is abuse of children. The measly sent aces don’t reflect this though?!

There was one police force that said they weren't going to be too fussed as it was so common I think?

The harm caused to children seems to be whitewashed as there's a screen in between.

Firstly, there simply isn’t the prison capacity to imprison everyone convicted of this offence. Secondly, often a Community Sentence will last for a period significantly longer than the average prison sentence would. This allows for programmes to be completed and so forth. For a multitude of reasons, these programmes often aren’t available in custody.

@BananaPop2020

Firstly, there simply isn’t the prison capacity to imprison everyone convicted of this offence. Secondly, often a Community Sentence will last for a period significantly longer than the average prison sentence would. This allows for programmes to be completed and so forth. For a multitude of reasons, these programmes often aren’t available in custody.

I understand that prisons have reduced capacity and in general I believe that more people should be given community sentences rather than custodial.

What I don’t understand is why these types of offences don’t lead to custodial sentences when other types of crime that seem less serious (for want of a better way of phrasing it) do.

I understand there are programmes in the community but I would have thought a period in custody would have been needed to assess if they were safe to be doing a programme a in the community.

The current thinking is that it works better to protect the public in the long run / prevent reoffending to give a really long community order than to put these offenders into prison.

My partner's (estranged) dad was convicted of downloading/possessing such images and given a two year supervision order and some behaviour change programmes to participate in.

But even assuming he completed them, he won't be a changed man, and my partner thinks he abused him as a child. So who knows how many others he's harmed without being caught?

I expect many of those people would commit real life acts if they have the opportunity, so it isn't just about downloading images made by others anyway; it's a potential indicator of more serious activity.

@Stannisbaratheonsboxofmatches

The current thinking is that it works better to protect the public in the long run / prevent reoffending to give a really long community order than to put these offenders into prison.

Ah that’s interesting. Certainly I have heard of organisations like circle of ....( can’t remember the last word of that organisation) that work in the community to reduce risk. Glad to hear it might be based on research, I just can’t help but think there should be some level of custodial first. I maybe need to seek out some research to understand it better.

@bleakesthouse

My partner's (estranged) dad was convicted of downloading/possessing such images and given a two year supervision order and some behaviour change programmes to participate in.

But even assuming he completed them, he won't be a changed man, and my partner thinks he abused him as a child. So who knows how many others he's harmed without being caught?

I expect many of those people would commit real life acts if they have the opportunity, so it isn't just about downloading images made by others anyway; it's a potential indicator of more serious activity.

That’s why I wonder why there isn’t a custodial period to assess their level of risk of perpetrating future abuse before moving to community programmes.

@AIMD it is hard to understand isn’t it, and often seems to make little sense. The decision about programme suitability is made on eligibility grounds, so custody wouldn’t really factor into it in that respect. Additionally, it has to be considered what the impact of custody would be - for example, if it means someone will lose their accommodation and employment, that will create a whole other set of problems and can often cause risk to escalate. It certainly makes people harder to manage.

I know someone who is in his 70s and just before lockdown got a 22 year sentence for images of children, and he was arranging to go abroad to abuse a 3 year old.
I was so pleased at the sentence he received as it seems so rare for such a sentence. It makes me wonder what wasn't reported. He can't have had prior going back years as he was dbs checked for his job where I worked with him. He hadn't worked there about 8 years though.

[quote BananaPop2020]@AIMD it is hard to understand isn’t it, and often seems to make little sense. The decision about programme suitability is made on eligibility grounds, so custody wouldn’t really factor into it in that respect. Additionally, it has to be considered what the impact of custody would be - for example, if it means someone will lose their accommodation and employment, that will create a whole other set of problems and can often cause risk to escalate. It certainly makes people harder to manage.[/quote]
Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I’m was worried I might just get “hang em all” type replies but really was interested to see what people thought the reasons were.

@Norma27

I know someone who is in his 70s and just before lockdown got a 22 year sentence for images of children, and he was arranging to go abroad to abuse a 3 year old. I was so pleased at the sentence he received as it seems so rare for such a sentence. It makes me wonder what wasn't reported. He can't have had prior going back years as he was dbs checked for his job where I worked with him. He hadn't worked there about 8 years though.

I think maybe it was the planning to travel to abuse a child that meant the longer sentence.

It’s scary. I’ve been reading recently about the fact that online sexual abuse has increased massively globally since the lockdown period. The scale of it is scary and I guess part of what makes me question the sentences is that there seems to be a good amount of repeat offenders.

I’d be interested to see that statistics for reoffending, outcomes of various programmes etc. No idea where to look for that though.

@Norma27 I would imagine the image offences were part of a whole litany of other convictions, hence why the sentence was so weighty. That is a great result though.

DBS checks do worry me a bit though as people afford them far too much value. They represent information relevant to a snapshot in time, and don’t give any indication as to someone’s proclivities.

@AIMD I meant to say, you spoke about Circles of Support and Accountability earlier. I volunteer for them as well as working in the field. They are a great example of work being undertaken in a Community setting. Also, thank you for your last response. I can’t tell you how much time I spend in debate with the “hang ‘em all” bunch and I have taken a right battering on here before for doing so. There seems to be a presumption that if you don’t want someone burnt at the stake, you are somehow collusive or an enabler, which is grossly untrue.

I definitely agree about dbs checks. They just mean someone has not been caught at that point in time.
The case I know of is horrific and I think he was involved in some network but I'm not sure.
The scary thing is I would have totally trusted him. When I saw his face in the media I didn't even recognise him until I saw his name too.

@Norma27 your point is very true, as the public persist in holding onto the stereotypical sex offender cliche type image and just won’t let it go.

I remember a few months ago there was a post on MN about DBS checks - one poster could not believe someone had been recently convicted of a sexual offence because they had previously been DBS checked......

In the last twelve months where I live four people who have been charged and found guilty have been given zero sentences, I suspect there are others. They're expected to go the mental health team twice a week for "treatment" for the depression which was deemed the cause.

Seriously that's it. Including for the worst category.

The relevance of mentioning the mental health team is their dismissive attitude towards anyone who has been abused or assaulted. I've been told my abuser wasn't put in prison so it didn't matter. I've been told to stop being selfish and get over it. I wasn't abused in front of staff so I'm a liar. When I was assaulted in front of staff I was told to forgive him because he's too ill to know better - not so ill he knew not to assault the staff or other (non physically disabled) patients who were there.

I've sat in a room with a flow chart on the wall showing how a random child abuser was getting access to children e.g. Befriending single mums of children they fancy, with the word no! And things crossed out to "educate them". Whilst next door I could hear a man discussing why abusing children helps his depression because nothing else does. These men are referred to the group mindfulness every week in the department.

I've been discharged as the service isn't there for "just" depression, in particular that caused by "circumstances" (physical disability and having been abused being cited as the circumstances).

I know someone who goes to her appointments with her young children and attends these mindfulness groups. I spoke to her and she told the staff and I got told off for being a gossip and she was told I'm a liar. She's now in a relationship with one of those men.

When I mentioned this the justification was these men had made a "little" mistake and just needed to understand and I need to be much more forgiving and accepting of others issues.

I've heard people joking how easy it is to "get away with it, you just say it helps your depression".

So basically if you're the abuser you can have support. Your victims? They need to get over themselves.

banana I was supposed to be sheilding. The man who sexually assaulted me cleared DBS and was allowed to work as a volunteer which has meant despite being told to do so I couldn't sheild and have been forced to put myself at risk by going out. I got a lot of trouble on MN for saying that, by MNHQ and posters. Not everyone there were some lovely people who supported me.

Social services view it as my choice.

My specialist was furious when he found out. I'm supposed to sheild until November as I'm so high risk I've been told I don't stand a chance (not as bluntly as that).

I think there is a real problem with sex offenders for the authorities.

With having images loads and loads of men have them. They can't and don't want to go after all of them.

In prison an initiative around sex offenders found it made them more likely to reoffend (I think this was suppressed for a while).

They are often manipulative, good and making the right noises. Often 'upstanding people' with families etc and this seems to tend to leniency.

I don't think the authorities know what to do.

Remember warboys was nearly released recently (until an outcry) and that other man who was released even though red flags all over him and went on to rape 11 people or so on a 'spree'.

Whole thing is a mess.

This man had contact offences.

Oh sorry if we talking about the man in the news, there are a few threads and I got confused!

@Becca19962014 really sorry to hear you have had such an awful experience. It is nowhere near good enough. Anyone who suggests your victimisation doesn't matter because the perpetrator wasn’t imprisoned should consider a career change, as they are lacking basic human decency. Have you taken this further or through formal channels?

@ShinyFootball you are referring to the old style Sex Offender Treatment Programme. The results of the research about that were indeed shoved under the rug, so I hope that real lessons have been learnt from that. There is rigorous scrutiny about all of this style of intervention now.

banana such as? Complaints and safeguarding told me the justification is a prison sentence gives proof of abuse claims. Not just one person, the ENTIRE department. The therapist I was sent to told me I must have done something to make me be abused, because men don't just abuse women for no reason.

I didn't even consider myself responsible until I sought support for PTSD (which incidentally isn't considered a real issue, they prefer the term borderline for those choosing not to cope).

It's VERY well known their attitude towards those who have been abused and it's not just one person. I've never met anyone in that department who didn't dismiss any abuse that didn't result in a prison sentence.

It's only been in the last eighteen months I've realised their attitude towards excusing abuse.

@ShinyFootball

I think there is a real problem with sex offenders for the authorities.

With having images loads and loads of men have them. They can't and don't want to go after all of them.

In prison an initiative around sex offenders found it made them more likely to reoffend (I think this was suppressed for a while).

They are often manipulative, good and making the right noises. Often 'upstanding people' with families etc and this seems to tend to leniency.

I don't think the authorities know what to do.

Remember warboys was nearly released recently (until an outcry) and that other man who was released even though red flags all over him and went on to rape 11 people or so on a 'spree'.

Whole thing is a mess.

This man had contact offences.

I’ve heard other people (who work in related areas) say that they didn’t think programmes were very effective. I’ve never seen the evidence or research around it personally though.

I do believe that there is so much of it that they can’t keep on top of it. I remember seeing the head of CEOPS on TV saying that the authorities could be doing more to trace people but that the truth was it would require significantly more funding.

I actually have worked in children’s social care and work now in an area related to the criminal justice system. Just never worked with child sex offenders in the criminal justice system so it’s interesting to hear from people who do.

Sorry that comes across as me being rude to you. Not my intention. This is a very upsetting subject for me. Apologies.

@Becca19962014 please don’t apologise, I just don’t know what to say about your last post because I have honestly never heard anything like that before.