AIBU to think that downloading hundreds of sexual and abusive images of children should mean jail?

[Countdowntowinter]

YABU - there should not be jail time for some who download hundreds of images of child abuse

YANBU - downloading hundreds of images of sexual abuse of children should mean jail

The original post only asked if viewing child sex abuse should be punishable by jail. It is not strange, then, to suggest that even if the answer is yes, that the sheer quantity (over a 1000 a month) of prosecutions is making viewing CSA alone something that's likely not always to be punishable by prison just for sheer logistics (and lots of evidence is backed up and unlooked at as it's so hard to process this quantity of material). It's also related to the 'badness' of the images which is calculated in levels (god help the poor people who have to view it and categorise these).

Going to prison mostly does not cure anyone of anything so it's a good question what will. It also does signal societal disgust, which is positive, but it also then means those individuals are less able to be integrated back into society (e.g. for work or housing), which can make them more dangerous and hang with others on the same disgusting margins.

The trans issue did not come up til later.

Going to prison mostly does not cure anyone of anything so it's a good question what will.

Nothing will cure them, that why they need locked up. To protect our children.

So do you think a man who abuses a child and has depression, is somehow not responsible for his crime?

He has still committed a crime and has responsibility for it. But the risk of reoffending and to the public is substantially lower where a crime is committed when judgement is impaired. Therefore the sentencing usually reflects that.

Should the impact on the child and their mental health be given just as much consideration, or no?

This person was convicted for possession of images, not for abuse of a child. From a legal perspective it is hard to take the impact on the victim into account when the victims are not present in court, unidentified, and of unknown status.

Why do you think women don’t behave in the same way?

Paedophila is a complex disorder which is not very well understood compared to others (understandably, people are reluctant to study it or to take part in such studies). There is no single answer to why men and women present with it at different rates.

He has still committed a crime and has responsibility for it. But the risk of reoffending and to the public is substantially lower where a crime is committed when judgement is impaired. Therefore the sentencing usually reflects that

Nope, sentencing should be based on the crime already committed, not the likelyhood of reoffending.

This person was convicted for possession of images, not for abuse of a child. From a legal perspective it is hard to take the impact on the victim into account when the victims are not present in court, unidentified, and of unknown status

Im very clearly not talking about this specific case but the fact you just typed that as if there’s a chance the children are undamaged by what was done to them, is pretty fucking shocking. Do you have any interest in the impact child abuse has on a victim, is your concern only with the paedos? Maybe try reading some studies on the impact it has on children for the rest of their lives and educate yourself on the other side of this issue.

Paedophila is a complex disorder which is not very well understood compared to others (understandably, people are reluctant to study it or to take part in such studies). There is no single answer to why men and women present with it at different rates

Umm, seems to imply that maybe mental health is just the excuse then, not the cause.

@Flickersy
Paedophila is a complex disorder which is not very well understood compared to others (understandably, people are reluctant to study it or to take part in such studies). There is no single answer to why men and women present with it at different rates

You know this undoes everything you’ve said so far? It’s not understood, but we can let a judge decide their chance of reoffending, we can use mental health (even when undiagnosed because apparently a paedo would never lie) to give a lighter sentence because even though paedophilia is hugely under studied, we can be sure that this undiagnosed mental health issue definitely can make a man suddenly become a paedo? Seems like you just say whatever works best to defend these men - understudied when it suits them, but full of ‘facts’ when it doesn’t.

You write as if you’re some kind of expert on the topic but haven’t discussed the impact on children once and only got your knowledge from reading the news it seems.

A combination of arrogance and ignorance is never good.

Nope, sentencing should be based on the crime already committed, not the likelyhood of reoffending

It is. And then it is adjusted to take into account various factors.

Im very clearly not talking about this specific case but the fact you just typed that as if there’s a chance the children are undamaged by what was done to them, is pretty fucking shocking. Do you have any interest in the impact child abuse has on a victim, is your concern only with the paedos? Maybe try reading some studies on the impact it has on children for the rest of their lives and educate yourself on the other side of this issue.

The key part in my post is "from a legal perspective". We know the horrendous damage sexual abuse causes, that goes without saying. But in court if you don't have a victim or know who the victim is, whether they're still living, where they are, it is very hard to gather victim impact statements. It is often the case with child abuse images that identification of the victims is impossible.

So, "Ian Taylor, chair of the bench of magistrates, said: "These offences would normally attract immediate custody. However, because of the time lag, no reoffending and because probation feel they can rehabilitate you it's going to be an unusual sentence because we're going to suspend the sentence."
Mr Taylor added it did not detract from how serious these matters were with children being "subjected to horrific acts". They also stated "they had decided to suspend a 12 month jail term, something they conceded was "unusual".

The reason there was a time lag was because the person was trans. It clearly states that:
"The case had been adjourned following an application by Norfolk Probation Service for an extension to complete reports, including referring the case to the Transgender Case Board.
This was introduced in 2017 to make decisions about the appropriate location and management of transgender prisoners.
A ban on trans women with male genitalia who are violent or sexual offenders serving sentences in female prisons came into force earlier this year."

Therefore, if the case wasn't delayed then they are saying that they would not have taken this action. The delay was due to it being trans. There you go - different treatment due to being trans which led to the delay which meant no prison which they said was unusual....

The actual offences were:

1. having dozens of indecent images of children has been spared jail after magistrates said they took an "unusual" decision.
2. A separate charge of possessing 100 "grossly offensive" extreme pornographic images and videos on the same date."

However, it was in a dark place at the time (any paedophile could use this one)
Only trans could have the Transgender Case Board have a look at their cases though.

Thanks for the voting.

I ignore the abuse, since not worth engaging with a person who brushes aside concerns and responds with personal abuse. Thanks to others who engaged without abuse.