to think this is bullshit?

[Disenchanted3]

article here

A professor accused of having over 200 indecent images of childre on his computer, 22 of which were grade 4, 5 being the highest/worst.

They say he was 'vague in the reasons for down loading them'

But his mother was ill at the tinme and so was his brother, who later died.

So the judge ruled he 'acted out of character' because of these things.

Ermmm, people loose family members all the time, people loose loved ones in horrible circumstances, they have to deal with sick and dying relatives for year, but they don't logg onto a computer and download images of children being abused!!

He down loaded them because he is a sick pervert. Not because his mother was ill.

Why do these judges make excuses for people?

Why mention his sick mum and brother, are we supposed to feel sorry for him??

Siorry but the whole article just pissed me off.

FFS either its a crime or it isnt. Theres not grey area here. Regardless of grief or other excuses, its a crime and should be punished.

A custodial sentence would, if nothing else, teach him that child pornography is wrong and should be reported if "stumbled across" (which, by the way, I dont believe is easily possible).

Sorry Showofhands but, well - the tendency towards paedophilia far cancels out any so called 'usefulness' they might have IMO. Being a potential sex offender and child rapist makes someone pretty dangerous and therefore not socially useful. Would you agree with this? or was your friend a Pete Townshend type who was free to carry on with a mere caution?

People download category five images of children being sexually abused in the most vile manner because they are stressed?

As someone that works in children's services and has to deal with the fallout from sexual abuse cases, I would like to state my opinion: THIS IS UTTER BULLSHIT.

I am very uncomfortable with all this

So if you have 2 men charged with the same offence

One is in a "reputable/important" occupation
The other is unemployed or works as a binman or something

Then it is perfectly valid that for the same crime, one will go to prison and one will not?

So not only is our police / legal / judiciary system

Racist
Sexist
Disabilist etc

They are also classist? Snobs? And this is understandable/acceptable?
Where are the victims in all of this? Where is the idea that justice must be seen to be done? Where is the deterrant?

NanKid, I am with you 100%.

'grief induced paedophilia' Rather like that thread the other day where a man beat the shit out of his GF and tried to suffocate her but claimed it was his anti-nicotine patches wot dun it. Or Ian Huntley's defence that one of the girls 'fell into the bath and drowned' and the other one miraculously suffocated when he tried to comfort her.

well, quite. Seems you can get away with anything these days as long as you are well educated and know the right terminology.

No. That is not what I am saying at all. He was tried. He didn't get away with it. See SoupDragon's post. It doesn't matter if you're a binman or an academic, a road sweeper or a journalist, it's just pointing out his situation, his circumstances and how he is a useful member of society. Which is what a rehabilitative justice system attempts to produce. It's telling you his situation.

And I repeat, the grief did not cause the paedophilia but it informed the way he acted and how far he went. It is a mitigating circumstance because had he not been grieving, he may not have behaved the way he did.

And the job you do, the remorse you show etc does not excuse the crime. I did not say that. It does inform the punishment meted out though.

He received a community order, he is on the register, he didn't get a pat on the head and sent on his merry way. He was tried fairly.

There would be no point putting him in the care of an over-stretched prison service to 'show him it was wrong'.

And the other case I refer to, the person convicted is nothing to do with me, the friends I don't wish to expose are the people related to him, the people that actually live in the house that was given as his address at the time of the crime. That is their home, not his. I am not linking to something that exposes them to any sort of abuse.

I understand you not wanting to give details, SoH.

There have been plenty of 'respectable' professional members of society who have been jailed for similar crimes - doctors, priests, teachers, other University lecturers...... So its nonsense to suggest that if it's a binman they go to prison and if they are a professional they are 'let off'. Leave it to the people who actually heard the details of the case to make the decision.

SOH you show a more intelligent understanding of psychology than many other people.

So you agree with the admonishment given to the man who assaulted that baby, and the terms given to the men who gang raped that girl and poured caustic soda all over her.

Yes let's all agree with all things said by judges, and let them get on with it, without questioning or challenging. They know best after all. When they talk about young sexual abuse victims beign no angels and so on. Because judges never ever talk bollocks

In fact shall we contact the attonry general and tell them that we can set aside the mechanism for people to complain about lenient sentencing, and for their powers to review cases, on teh bases that judges always make the right decisions in teh first place.

What a load of old shit.

Nobody has said judges are always right, sentencing is always right. I am not talking about other cases, I am talking about this case which I do not know the full details of. There is nothing in the details I do know to suggest that there has been a miscarriage of justice and the information given adequately explains the outcome of the case as far as I am interested in and knowledgable about it.

I have no idea what 'that man who assaulted that baby' is about. Which perhaps sums up the level of this debate for some.

Of course judges make incorrect decisions sometimes. That doesn't mean one must always assume they are wrong.

What a load of shite....he commited a serious and quite frankly repulsive crime.

No excuses and no free passes....people like him make me sick, protect the kids not low life like him

X posts there with SOH.I agree with you entirely. The problem is with the kind of tabloid hysteria which an OP like this always provokes.

I'll say it once more and then I'm going to eat some gingerbread and have some earl grey. All hyperbole aside, all personal revulsion and reaction to the subject matter aside. He was tried. He was punished. There were no excuses given. Reasons were explored, no doubt to aid the prevention of a reccurance. He is not being protected from anything apart from trial by vigilante.

violethill, it is very hard to have a rational debate about this isn't it? I could discuss it with you I suppose, but I suspect we already understand each other's pov!

My scepticism at the occurrence of grief-induced paedophilia precludes me from having a rational debate?

How arrogant.

violethill I didn't want to post details as it is upsetting but there is a thread about the baby case here

There are contact details on the thread that people are going to write and complain, maybe you could use the contacts to write in support of the sentence? It is always good to have balance.

"Leave it to the people who actually heard the details of the case to make the decision."

Sounds pretty much to me as if the judge is always right. And that no-one should presume to comment otherwise. And yet apparently "Nobody has said judges are always right, sentencing is always right. "

So now people, when they hear of something that the law enforcement agencies in this country have done, which disturbs them, have to keep their mouths shut? If they do say anything, they are described as incapable of rational debate by dint of the fact that they have been disturbed in the first place? Blimey.

No tethersend not at all. I was very interested in discussing it with you. I was responding to the 'protect the kids', 'no excuses', 'bullshit', 'shite', 'bollocks' tabloid reasoning. It's emotive, hyperbolic and isn't a discussion is it? I'm happy to talk about the subject but it's very difficult, understandably so, that people cannot separate revulsion at the general area of child pornography from the facts of an individual case without levelling accusations of racism, classism etc and comparing to very different cases indeed. There's no discussion, no challenging of opposing views but a lot of anger and sweeping generalisations.

OFGS

Smug much?

"Leave it to the people who actually heard the details of the case to make the decision."

Does that not translate as "the judge will have made the right decision, judges always make the right decision, it is not for us to question them".

There is no otehr logical interpretation of that statement.

Of course there are SoH, but it is worth hearing those views in order to have a balanced debate- it is a highly emotive subject, and always will be. This does not mean that it cannot be discussed without being completely objective.

It is still worth discussing it.

Ah no ISNT, you are very welcome to challenge a case if you believe the judge/sentence to be wrong. Absolutely you should. But the point stands that you do it whilst fully informed of the facts. Again, I'm talking about this case and no other. If you take the time and effort to find out the full details then by all means pursue the correct channels in challenging the outcome with the facts at your disposal.

tethersend, I agree. You do need to hear both sides and I am interested. And you were asking interested questions about how grief can affect such behaviour and why it might be relevant. It's a point of discussion. But dismissing it as shite and bollocks (not you) leaves no room for discussion. A key factor of the behaviour and the case in general isn't up for discussion at all seemingly.