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.

Many people feel a level of disgust and upset when they see certain judgements/statement made by judges. I do not feel that it is appropriate to bar people from discussing their upset/disbelief on MN.

Many people complain abut sentencing decisions without applying for full transcripts of the court proceedings/judgements and whatever else is available. Maybe you should go over to the thread that I have linked to and tell people that they should not be complaining as they are not in full possesion of the facts. My understanding was that people could approach the appropriate authority, who would then consider the issues, and decide whether to look at the sentencing. I presume that they will be in full possession of the facts, when they make their decision. It does not mention on their website that they expect people to investigate cases further than what is reported in the generally available press, and that their comments would be disregarded if they had not done so.

I also am also interested as to how the statement "Leave it to the people who actually heard the details of the case to make the decision." translates to "Nobody has said judges are always right, sentencing is always right."

ISNT, are you saying the two statements contradict each other (I didn't say both of them btw, one is from violethill, one from me)? They don't. You can complain, you can approach the authorities, you can ask for a review and then they make the decision. In this case, the people who know the details have made the decision. Should people approach them with pertinent points that affect their decision in retrospect then accordingly, those people will make the decision again.

And I'm not barring people from discussing their upset and disbelief. I'm not barring anybody from saying anything. I'm trying to discuss this case as a stand alone case. I've asked a genuine question. Why is the sentencing wrong here? What have you read to lead you to think that? And what do you suggest should have been done instead. Not in another case with a different crime. Here. This case.

"not acting on it"

I don't buy that for a second

people "acted" on chidren to produce the images demand for the images leads other people to "act" on children his involvement is not passive

From the BBC article, "At an earlier hearing at Newcastle Crown Court, Kehoe admitted four specimen charges of making indecent images of children."

So he not only downloaded images but also made them?

Sorry, no sure what you're talking about backtotalkaboutthis. Who said his involvement was passive?

I think this is an utter disgrace

I do agree that there are hundreds of people in prison who do not belong there and would be better serving penalties in the community

this bastard is NOT one of them

I haven;t said the sentencing is wrong.

This is what I said.

"Yes it is entirely obvious that having some stress can mean that you start downloading pornographic images of children. And he only acted "out of character" over a brief 14 month period, stopping when he was caught by police

The statements of these judges seem bizarre sometimes. "

That is how I feel. That is how others feel. Your approach was:

"I am quite willing to accept that the people involved in this case, the judges, police, magistrates, prosecuters etc know far better than I the right course of action for this man."

ie stop talking about it, none of you know anything, leave it in the hands of the professionals. Everything is fine.

And yes I do say that those two statements contradict each other.

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

"Nobody has said judges are always right, sentencing is always right."

=

contradictory.

One cannot defend the indefensible.

Aren't paedophiles supposed to be the worst recidivists?

To be spared jail in this case is being let off. Only if you are being awfully technical can you say he was not let off.

SoH, someone said "at least he hasn't acted on it" or words to that effect.

It says in the article that he made indecent images, so he has acted on it.

Muffin, I saw that you wrote that, and I don't understand how one can make such images without being accused of child abuse, which he hasn't been.

I don't know what that means. Does it mean that he made copies of images and distributed them? I simply don't know.

I think it is very dangerous here (legally) to say that he has committed child abuse when he has not been convicted of that, even if he is a bastard.

In this particular case, I believe that the judge was wrong to accept the reasoning that the grief he was experiencing caused him to download grade 5 pornographic images of children.

"I am quite satisfied that you acted out of character because of the pressure you came under at the time."

This is a very poor judgement IMO. How 'out of character' would you have to be in order to watch and download

-Grossly obscene pictures of sexual assault, involving penetrative sex, masturbation or oral sex, involving an adult
-Pictures showing a child being tied, bound, beaten, whipped or otherwise subject to something that implies pain.
-Pictures where an animal is involved in some form of sexual behaviour with a child.

This is what grade 5 images consist of.

A tolerance to those sort of images is unlikely to develop over a 14 month period, even leaving aside the spurious notion that downloading them at all was an act which was out of character.

Who said at least he hasn't acted on it bactotalkaboutthis?

ISNT, I said 'I am quite willing etc'. I said that I was happy with the decision made. I didn't say stop talking about it at all.

Again, the two sentences do not contradict each other. violethill said in this case leave it to them to make the decisions. I said nobody said that judges are always right. You keep extrapolating out from a discussion about a specific case to assume we mean the same of all cases.

It says 22 were grade 4, not grade 5. Again, don't know what grade 4 is.

I mean, I think he's a cunt but we can't say he did things he didn't.

-Grossly obscene pictures of sexual assault, involving penetrative sex, masturbation or oral sex, involving an adult

That is grade 4, backtotalk. I should have made that clear, apologies.

Also thought that there were grade 5 images- I now see there weren't.

I stand by my post.

I stand by my lamppost

sorry, no idea what possessed me to say that

Blame the football Greensleeves. It's to blame for everything else atm.

Now I am singing that George Formby song which may be just about the most inappropriate song to be humming... Ooops.