By punter99 - 22 May 24 3:47 PM
This is a strange concept for the police chiefs council to invent and no one really knows what it means. But I note that the politicians were quick to deny that any arrests are going to be delayed.
So I wondered how it might apply to non contact image offences, as this was one of the things mentioned by Yvette Cooper in Parliament today. Are these non priority or not?
The police receive thousands of notifications/allegations about these offences every year. They already prioritise certain types of people. Those tend to be people working with children, such as teachers. After that though it's less clear who is considered a priority. Logically they ought to go after fathers who live with children, rather than single men, but in terms of risk assessments, men who have never married are actually considered a higher risk to children, than those with partners. So that doesn't help.
If you take risk of harm to children as your guide, then that is also confusing. The children in the images are most likely not known to the men viewing the images and they have already been harmed, so for the most part they are not in any danger of imminent future harm from the person viewing the images. That would suggest treating these viewers as non priority arrests.
Then we have the prison issue. Again, if you look at the sentencing guidelines, image offences are regarded as very serious and they should attract an automatic custodial sentence. However, if we look at what happens in practice, only about a quarter of these men will receive a prison sentence.
If you want to keep the prison population as low as possible, then according to the sentencing guidelines, you should not arrest these men, because then you would have to lock them up and you don't want that. But if you look at the reality of sentencing behaviour, then you should arrest these offenders, because you know they probably won't get sent to prison by the courts, meaning it won't fill up the jails.
So, on the one hand, these offences are seen as a priority, but on the other hand they are not.
|
By JASB - 24 May 24 1:59 PM
+x+x...men who have never married are actually considered a higher risk to children, than those with partners...
This part is also weird. Obviously I'm not doubting you on this at all but isn't it also common knowledge that child abusers are overwhelming someone known to the child such as a parent? So shouldn't that be flipped..?
You would think so, but if someone has an adult partner, then that usually means they are attracted to adults. If they don't have a partner, it could mean they are only attracted to children. Although there could be many other reasons for them being single too.
You know my stance on image offences; that there is always a victim or in the case of A.I., it "could" lead to a victim being created, but I strongly believe that at times there is too heavy a focus on "the act of the offence" and not "why did the offence occur".
I know at times I myself have focused on the "act" in the points I raise but I have, and still do, also focus on the "why".
"Flipped"
Remember the "stats" behind the accusations are supposed to be only from "known" facts i.e. where someone has been arrested, and researched in a certain manner. However if you change the question being asked by the researcher of the data, you could get a completely different output. Especially if you remove the escalating method of using selected "data" that is bias to the agenda of the researcher, who then takes that sample percentage against a larger number, say the population figure of the country.
"Status"
In ways the argument about whether an individual is "married or single" could / should create more questions revolving around my point on "why". Could it be the answer to that question does not provide an answer that those in or wish to be in "authority" are comfortable with i.e. vote winning? For example, can you show me any politically ambitious individual that will voice a fact based negative comment on the NHS staff i.e. they waste money, many are not "healthy" in their personal care or working practices. I say that from my own personal experiences of being cared for and not data, and agree I was cared for by "X" amount who do not fall into this view. However just think how someone could manipulate that comment against me!
Also this point is too convenient for the "agenda" of many of its users. Example what does it mean when a couple do not want / have children? Do we say they "hate" children and so any child in their presence is at danger? Or are they "selfish" because they wish to have the freedom to do what and when they want? The same goes for a non-married human being.
How many offenders know children that they protect AND do not commit offences them? Why is this possible and will that not change the "why" of the risk? Surely the words used by the authorities suggest that every single child is at risk to that offender, or at least until they become 18, then a switch happens in the offender to stop their desire for that individual because they are no longer classed as a child.
As shown in the Parliament debates, MP's do and will promote the stats that someone who is viewing images is statistically more likely to progress to a contact offence. Therefore it must follow a lot of the suppositions mentioned are/will be ignored.
I know some will come and reply with stats arguing the above, but to be honest, we have to remember "stats show what the person wants them to show, as we do not see the data that they are created from!" Also we do not have a voice loud enough to challenge the figures or change those in power perceptions, but that should not stop us trying.
The SOR is not supposed to be a "punishment" but rather a "monitoring" tool. In ways we seem to focus on the individual aspects of it that affects us personally; human nature. But should we not be also be focusing on "why" and the end agenda that is being pushed by those with the means to change it from a "monitoring to an actual punishment" tool, very discretely over time. For instance your home is not supposed to be a prison, but just consider how words and requirements are being changed that in ways, can persuade an ex SO offender, that life is easier just to stay at home.
I once heard the following quote:
A good law is created by a few well intentioned individuals, however its interpretation and so manipulation, is by a greater amount of individuals for their own agenda!
|
|