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?!

Good, and, no I'm not being sarcastic.

I know on a thread about rape I posted on it was very common for people to be told that when seeking support.

Surely images of abuse are a gateway to physically causing abuse. Or do the authorities think in some twisted way that images are preventing people taking the next step?

I know sometimes people are banned from social media etc for a certain amount of time. I think as a minimum they should be on the sex offenders register for life and have lifelong restrictions regarding social media/owning smart phones etc and access to the internet.

I can understand why custodial sentences for any crime are avoided due to capacity, but I do think we need a rethink on that.

I wonder if any other countries have a better success rate.

@Becca19962014

Good, and, no I'm not being sarcastic.

I know on a thread about rape I posted on it was very common for people to be told that when seeking support.

Sorry to hear about your experiences. It’s really shocking. Thank you for sharing your perspective on it.

@SimonJT one of the issues with this is predicting which of those engaged in this behaviour will be more likely to go onto commit contact offences, and conversely, who won’t. Plus we always acknowledge that putting that aside, those viewing/downloading etc are still participating (indirectly) in the abuse of children. A couple of years ago there was some very progressive work being done in Germany regarding pre-emptive intervention.

I work in the Criminal Justice System and it is true that the sentencing of sex offenders is often woefully inadequate.

Images are categorised according to the Copine Scale, and the sentence is calculated based on the seriousness. Currently it’s Category A - penentrative sexual activity
Category B- non penetrative sexual activity
Category C - anything else.

Until a few years ago it was a bit more specific with Levels 1-5. Level 1 was “erotic posing” and Level 5 was “penetrative sexual activity featuring sadism or animals.”

Basically it works like this- if the defendant plead a guilty and admits to their probation officer they have a problem, then it is often recommended that they receive a Community Order with all sorts of courses designed to stop reoffending.

This doesn’t always happen- even if the offender admits they have a problem they will often go to prison if the abuse images are of Category A or feature younger children. Category C images featuring, for example, naked teenagers posing, would most likely get that community order.

Anyone found guilty or pleading guilty but claiming that they were “just curious” or “researching” or “had been hacked” or remain in denial tend to go straight to prison but not for long enough IMHO.

The fact is this is not a victimless crime as a real child has been abused to make the image and the abuse is magnified by the fact that the image will forever be out there on the internet.

I was amazed to discover that possessing child abuse images was not a specific offence in the UK until 1978 and that you could openly buy “naturist” magazines featuring families including children and teenagers before then. Thankfully times have changed!

I think it's awful that sentences are so lenient.

Yanbu. It's like some people dissociate from the fact it's child abuse and rape. They minimise it.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-40460637

Op here's the thing I mentioned about the prison program not working.

'A couple of years ago there was some very progressive work being done in Germany regarding pre-emptive intervention.'

This ties in with the 'virtuous paedophile' movement doesn't it?

While I agree that people should be able to seek help,

The seemingly linked aim of destigmatising paedophiles who don't (say they don't) act on it is very worrying.

There is a drive to see this as the most stigmatised sexuality and people should feel sorry for them etc

Thing is most men who attack children are opportunists, do it because it's easier to get away with etc, than because it's their sexual orientation.

Also, there's nothing virtuous about not sexually assaulting a child.

Remember PIE? Those sorts of ideas are being pushed again.

As for images of child sexual abuse.
The problem seems to be that
There are so many people viewing them
And so many of them are otherwise 'good' people with good jobs, wives, kids etc (or at least they haven't been caught doing anything yet)
That the easy thing to do is say, well it's not really that bad, is it.
Easier for the police, courts, prisons, and for society because they can pretend that what the local solicitor did it whatever isn't so bad

But this should be a serious crime, surely? At least for the images where sexual abuse and rape is happening. This is children being raped they are wanking off to. If that isn't a hard no from our society, why not?

I am concerned that this thread is about to take a worrying turn now which would be a shame as it has been very civil so far. The entire ‘‘virtuous paedophile’ concept is one that I am very uncomfortable with, as I do feel it normalises what is actually a major societal/legal/moral/ damaging and abusive problem, with terrible consequences and too many victims to count.

I want to be clear though that there is still a huge difference between people seeking help for all the right reasons and those using it as a platform to push a horrendous and terrible agenda.

This is a very timely moment for this discussion - you speak about the “hard no”, but just look at the current closing of ranks about Prince Andrew. There was a post on MN earlier this evening where someone actually said words to the effect of “well times were different then” and justified his actions by highlighting his nickname “Randy Andy”. As a society, we are not doing enough to tackle this and it needs to be across the board. I see countless threads on here where people are reluctant to challenge dubious behaviour by relatives and the like, or people who give their kids completely unrestricted access to smartphones, social media etc. We all need to step up here and send out a consistent message.

Well exactly.

There isn't a hard no because there's so many men viewing these images and so many of them are 'good' and it's easier for society to make excuses than face up to it.

And that is the case with sex offences in general, sadly. Everyone says rape is bad but when one is reported people focus on the victim and desperately seek a reason what he did was not that bad/ her fault.

I think this applies with gay men as well.

Straight men/ boys who are attacked seem to get more sympathy.

I note you mention Prince Andrew. He's not accused of looking at images but of rape. So that's a whole different thing.

Out of interest is there anything in UK law or codes of conduct for psychologists etc, which say if a man goes to a therapist and says he is attracted to children but has not acted on it and wants help, that he has to be reported?

My guess is not.

I know he has not been accused of accessing images, I was referring to the fact he makes a great example relevant to your “hard no” comment.

As for your second post, there is no legal requirement to do so because no offence has actually been committed and this would likely constitute a serious ethical breach. This is a tremendously thorny area but in my experience, if an individual consented to a disclosure other relevant people could be informed. I am not a lawyer though so I am quite prepared to be corrected.

Thing is, and I understand why you are uncomfy with the turn I have taken

I doubt there is any rule or whatever to say a therapist has to report someone for thoughts that are troubling them and they have no intention of acting on.

Which makes the point that men can't access help, a bit incorrect, doesn't it?

A main virtuous paedophile guy got accused of sexual abuse...

My point is, they can't be trusted.

@ShinyFootball I would imagine the biggest barrier for men accessing help is the difficulty in admitting who they really are and what they are thinking.

I agree.

I also wonder how many actually want help in the context of today's society.

Hence I think the idea that there are loads of men who offend because they couldn't get help is rubbish.

I am going to have to get off MN now as my husband has finally got back from work, but I have really enjoyed talking with you and would be happy to pick this up again later. Thank you 😀

Have a good night

" 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. "

If more custodial sentences were given, maybe it would act as a deterrent to some people. Paltry/lack of sentencing also sends a message that it is kind of ok, as does the message "loads of people do it".

With regard to the study, the percentage differences were quite minor. I read that as there's not much that can be done about reoffending (let's face it, real number of reoffenders will also be higher, they just haven't been caught). I see it as a case for custodial sentences. From what I understand, child pornography is a gateway that a lot of people will go through before committing further acts. A lot of people who view child porn know how to keep that side hidden - it's not that they haven't admitted to themselves there's a problem, it's that they know it's a problem so hide it. It's disgusting how victims of sexual assault/offences/rape are treated by the judiciary system and puts many off going to court. Stronger sentencing may help them feel reporting it and the following trauma that ensues is more worth it.

"The fact is this is not a victimless crime as a real child has been abused to make the image and the abuse is magnified by the fact that the image will forever be out there on the internet."

I am completely pro rehabilitation instead of prison. But not for this. If you are in possession of child sexual abuse, or watch streaming of it (harder to catch...), you have fuelled the need for more. This should be counted as as serious as ordering someone to do it. Rather like paying a hitman to kill someone. It's viewed as "in possession of pictures" rather than buying child sexual abuse.

"And so many of them are otherwise 'good' people with good jobs, wives, kids etc (or at least they haven't been caught doing anything yet) That the easy thing to do is say, well it's not really that bad, is it. Easier for the police, courts, prisons, and for society because they can pretend that what the local solicitor did it whatever isn't so bad"
Exactly how rape used to be seen. And isn't entirely rid of. It's not a horrible bogey man. It's your bus driver, dentist, policeman, friendly neighbour. The profile is basically "male". So it can't be true, it's not so widespread. It's a horrendous implicitly victim blaming too.

"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."
If this should be a major consideration for people (men overwhelmingly) who encourage the sexual abuse of children, then there should basically be nobody in prison. There are few crimes worse. I actually agree with this statement, but I don't agree to it being applied to this crime more than many, many others. There NEEDS to be a threat of a serious custodial sentence for this crime. One that reflects what it is to sexually abuse a child and the eternal ramifications on the individual child of that, as well as of that being put online.

I'm pretty sure there's no legal obligation for a therapist to report a man having thoughts of perpetration of child abuse. As well there shouldn't. Therapy is confidential UNLESS someone will be harmed, or there is suspicion someone might be. Therefore these people ALL have the possibility of getting help prior to committing a crime. They choose to wank to child abuse though (or make/distribute it). It's a choice - even for those who say attraction to minors is a sexual orientation. Being attracted to someone doesn't mean you have to click on a not easily accessible link.

I’d happily castrate those who view images of child rape, frankly.

It’s not as if you can just stumble upon this sort of material either or accidentally click on it as so many people think.

You can’t just Google it either as Google now filters such material.

Offenders have to go trawling through the murky parts of the internet for it and it involves a lot of effort to find it now.

They know what they’re doing.

Sexual abuse of children is sickening, even more so when people think ' well it's just photos of naked children posing ' No! Just NO.
It's not just naked children posing, these poor kids are often being abused in the worse way, leaving them physically, emotionally and mentally scarred for the rest of their lives.
Sentencing needs to reflect that and sadly at the moment, it doesn't.
How the hell anyone can view an image of say, a tiny baby being sexually abused as harmless is one hell of a dangerous thinking individual.
Frankly I'd like to chop their fucking dicks off with a pair of rusty scissors.
These victims are human beings, they feel physical, mental and emotional pain just the same as any adult, but unlike an adult they can't rationalise it in their young minds. They are defenceless and until the courts speak for them and do defend them in the way that they deserve, then the paedophiles will continue in their sick ways.
Most people seem to have the idea that a paedophile is a scruffy fat bloke sat in front of a PC in his grubby bedsit, sexually excited over some photographs of naked children, sadly the very opposite is true.
Not will they seek it out on the dark web, but they will actively seek it in the real world. Most are cunning which is why they get away with it for so long, forever in some cases.
It's sick and the law should do everything in their power to keep these sick individuals away from children, while giving those children the justice they deserve, and if that means locking the paedophiles away forever then so be it.

@TheVoiceOfReasonableness I seem to remember you posting a few weeks ago on a similar thread, where it was put to you by the majority of people that your views were wholly unreasonable. In fact, you were advocating for the death penalty at one point. Castrating sex offenders is utterly pointless as the drivers and motivators for those behaviours come from the brain, not the genitals. Additionally, there are many other ways to access child abuse images other than trawling the Internet. It does NOT require a lot of effort at all.

Because there's too many of them (hundreds a month are arrested in the UK). It's unbelievably common and does not necessarily correlate with them being contact offenders or assessed as likely to commit contact offences.

A senior Police Officer in child protection (I think in Norfolk) a few years ago called for many cases to be dealt with out of court due to overwhelming numbers. That I disagree with entirely.