I've never attempted to defend the abuse shown in the images, or to deny the existence of a victim. I only question the role that a viewer of images played in that abuse. If it were my child in those images, I would reserve most of my anger for the person who committed the abuse, probably 90%, with the rest aimed at the person who created the images of that abuse, who is probably the abuser, and the person who initially uploaded the images of that abuse onto the internet. That person might well be the abuser too.

Without those 3 actions, there would be no images out there for others to possess/view/demand/trade/supply/swap. It is correct to say that a child is harmed in the creation of those images. That child is harmed by the person who created the image. That person must bear the full responsibility for that harm.

If it were possible to show a joint enterprise between the producers of these images and the people who view them, often years later, then why has the law not done that already? Why has some clever lawyer not tried to tie the two together? I suspect it's because they know full well they could never prove such a thing in court.

Of course, I wouldn't want the images to be out there at all, but given that they are out there, I wouldn't waste too much of my outrage on worrying who might, or might not, be looking at them, or what those people might, or might not, be feeling. The damage done to the child has happened by this point. By constantly reminding the child that the images are out there, it probably harms their recovery.

In some ways, those of us who have had our offences published in the papers or online, already deal with the knowledge that people, somewhere in the world, who we don't know, and will probably never meet, are reading about us and making all sorts of judgements about us, saying terrible things about us etc, but I cannot control that, so I do my best not to worry about it, nor do I try to imagine what they might be saying, in order to torment myself even more.

As for the focus on supply. I concentrate on that because, without a supply, a demand cannot go anywhere. It is just a want. If there were a million people demanding these images and nobody was willing or able to supply them, what harm could be done? The fact that demand exists doesn't prove that harm has been caused. It's only when demand is communicated to a supplier and that supplier then agrees to meet the demand, that harm occurs. Demand without supply = no harm. On the other hand, supply without demand does still create harm, as in the case of an abuser who produces images for their own private use.

It strikes me as odd, to say the least, that so much attention is paid to the possessors of images nowadays, while the actions of the abuser, depicted in those images, are hardly even mentioned. It's probably because possession offences are very common and easy to prosecute, that they are in the public mind, while contact offences are hard to prosecute and so get less attention (prosecution rates for rape are at record lows).

As luck would have it, Carissa Byrne Hessick has written an article titled "Questioning the modern focus on possession", which is available here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt1gk08jr.9.pdf

I've learned how to use quotes.

I say respectfully, blaming the internet for everything that is wrong is not the answer 

Of course, but my point was that "the internet" is not one thing to its users. I mean it in the sense of we eat food but there isn't anything called 'food' it's doughnuts, apples and bread etc. Different aspects are involved in different parts of one's life. And there are many ways that the 'internet' happens to be the common ground of what leads to ending up in the same bin as the rest of us but with all sorts of different crimes with infinite different reasons/issues. Couple loneliness/feeling of disconnect/unresolved issues with increasing chances of falling down rabbit holes, virtually mixing with like-minded and normalising behaviour through others' actions - I say again, the punishment is absurd. So, for me, an answer of tackling the problem is through prevention and that, at this moment in time, is huge changes to 'the internet'. Now. 

Your (b) point included "education and therapy" which I fully agree is a worthwhile but unfortunately it is an "unsexy" and costly approach.

If you prove it works and can shout about its benefits it becomes very sexy and will pay for itself by taking the pressure off so many 'systems'. There will be so many cases of rehabilitation that could be shouted about more, but they don't make news, only failures do. "Society" won't pay that close attention to something like that at the ballot box anyway, it's not a top 3 priority, a few positively spun numbers and a vague guise of 'Rehabilitation For All' on page 36 of the manifesto would do the trick. It'll be like HS2, that's unsexy and costly but that's going ahead and we'll all reap the benefits one day - You have to start somewhere.

Not to jump but one downside to therapy stated by those who wish a "bullet" on sex offenders, is that any sort of therapy only informs the individual on what to say to appease the interviewer. Also the SOTP course circa 2010 - 2014 where found to increase reoffending by the courts last year.

I can't speak for therapy inside as my sentence was suspended but that sounds a shame that people would use therapy just as a means of getting out quicker. I was lucky mine was a friend of a friend and affordable. It cost me money so I was going for me, not because I 'had to'. I grew in confidence through setting goals and I set up meetings with business advisors to help me set up my own business, I was approaching clients, I was helping others with their ideas and said she was really pleased with what I'd done so soon after conviction. I've changed locations and my ppu has undone all that, but I've ranted about that elsewhere. SOTP courses lack that feeling of achievement and have no real accountability afterward. I enjoyed meeting and getting to know the people but that wasn't the point of being there.

Why is a 15 year period on the SOR required before you can apply to have the requirement removed

I know very little about this, excuse my distant memory waffle, but I heard ages ago about it is believed to take up to 15 years for a characteristic to change...? Something to do with maturity, perhaps? So it's easier for courts to say 15 years and be vague rather than saying it takes 5 years for ABC to change and 13 years for XYZ to change. Don't quote me on that, I have nothing to back that up with. Apologies if that's hogwash.

 

 e) "Humans need to be recognised and/or admired",- what's being described is a need for status - but how is that status enhanced by someone else acquiring what they share and is that the same as creating demand?

Sharing creates a false sense of purpose and one is probably in too deep if you're at this level. It's not uncommon for offenders to ask to see something they've heard about, for example, then for a sharer to then make it available. So I would say that 'service' helps create demand, whether the material is new or not.


I'd be interested to hear more about this, I was initially told I would get a caution, but no, ended up a hair's width from being jailed which was not only a huge shock but obviously lead to a much more negative outcome than a caution would have.


=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

Hi
Therapy:
I am a great believer in therapy but it has to be done / managed by independent organisations. At present the Government do not believe in the success of it else psychological assessments supporting rehabilitation would be used to support removing SOR requirements prior to the 15 year point. This would help support your point about costs.

Also what would you suggest in my case were independent pre-sentence, HMP Whatton, post release Probation Service and finally independent psychological assessments undertaken after coming off licence, have all shown I am low risk and was/are not suitable to undertake ANY type of therapy or treatment courses. As I mentioned before; even the Lucy Faithful organisation did not have a suitable course for me!
Supply / Demand:
You seemed to be solely focused on the "supply" element of images as if to suggest only those found to be "supplying" should be convicted? A point you know I disagree with. I have demonstrated my thoughts that supply can create demand but to repeat myself for the final time, in my opinion - any illegal image has a victim or can / does assist in the of creating one.
Again no offence or trying to upset you but in the end I ask you - "what would you do if you found someone with an illegal image of your child? No matter how they gained it".
No offence but your logic also suggests "entrepreneurs" do not and have never existed and the marketing strategy of the business world does not exist.
Existing laws:
In the end I feel we have to accept that the success of the law is only as good as the barrister using it.
I once read that:

 many good laws have been created in Parliament, it is only the manipulation of a law by a barrister in a Court to win their own case that makes it a controversial law. 

The Government will always do what is best for them under the guise of "Public Protection". It takes something of greater power to gain support for us and our rights against them: hence why I am sad about leaving the EU and European Human Rights Court.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Well, point (a) might be covered by joint enterprise. In theory, you could always walk away or ask the stewards to take action instead of staying there.
Point (b) touches on Outcome 21, but inciting a child to commit a sexual act is an offence. Using coercion rather than persuasion would be a major aggravating factor in sentencing.
Point (d) doesn't take into account demand that is already there but unknown to the supplier.
In point (e), status would be enhanced by being the supplier of what people want. It's more a case of the supplier's ego believing there is a demand.
Point (f) relates back to points (d) and (e), where the supplier might not know there is a demand but hopes there is.
In point (g), I saw people in prison who were keen to appease OBP facilitators even without the incentive of earlier release. They just saw it as easier in the long run, as far as I could tell.
Point (h) is an interesting one, as the much-heralded extra police recruits can be thrown at this once they're battle-hardened. As for not being able to arrest our way out of the problem, I dare say the Home Office would say, "...but we can't be sure until we've tried."

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Lots to take in there. A few thoughts:

a) Guilt by association. This already happens, especially in the minds of politicians and the media, although that couldn't be the basis for a criminal prosecution, e.g. charging someone with sexual assault because they were caught in possession of images of that assault. If only some of the supporters in a football stand are singing an offensive song, would you still prosecute everyone in the stand?

b) Self generated images; kids in their bedrooms, with a webcam, and not a clue who is on the other end of that webcam. They account for 36% of the total number of images out there. It's true that a lot of them were coerced into doing things for the benefit of the person watching, but it is another part of the problem that can't be explained by the traditional demand/supply model.
Then there is sexting and teenagers putting images of friends or themselves out there via social media, that get picked up by others and then traded or handed on. Those images were not 'demanded' just because somebody acquired them later on.

c) Prevention/rehab etc - Lucy Faithful has outlined their own strategy for treating this as a public health issue, not a crime problem. - see link https://ecsa.lucyfaithfull.org/theory

d) "Someone may want what another made for themselves in isolation" - true, but it only becomes a demand, if and when that want is communicated to the supplier

e) "Humans need to be recognised and/or admired",- what's being described is a need for status - which is acknowledged as a motive for people who share files online, eg. music and movies, but how is that status enhanced by someone else acquiring what they share and is that the same as creating demand?

f) "the viewer may not recognise that fact and overtime adjust their personal controls to accept it as normal and commit an offence." yes, normalisation and desensitisation could increase a want or need for more images but it doesn't create demand unless that want is communicated to a supplier.

g) therapy - it's true that if someone is receiving therapy in prison and is told their release date will be delayed, if they don't co-operate with the therapy, it will incentivise them to try and appease the interviewer. That doesn't mean all therapy is a waste of time. Some will gain insight and understanding of their behaviour from it and will change. Some won't and will appease.

h) As to the costs of addressing the issues. I've mentioned elsewhere that the numbers being prosecuted for possession goes up every year. There are 58k on the SOR now, compared to just 32k in 2010, with a projected increase of around 7% per year. So, by 2030, it will be above 100k. The courts are overwhelmed already, which is why the NCA and CPS came to an agreement in 2018, to issue more conditional cautions for these offences. That still hasn't happened though. Nevertheless, plenty of people inside the justice system recognise that things have to change. As Chief Constable Simon Bailey, head of child protection in England & Wales said: "we cannot arrest our way out of this problem".

As is often the case in social policy, and especially in government, they are more interested in policy-based evidence than in evidence-based policy.  

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Hi AB2014,
Thank you for the info, which my post didn't make clear I was aware of, so sorry but I am sure it will be useful in making others aware of the history.
I suppose and is my manner, I am raising the point that it is the authorities habit to use evidence that supports them but not when supports others. To me it is illogical - being politie. 
Again thanks and always willing to read your words.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

I'm not looking to get involved in the wider debate, but I can offer some information about the 15 years minimum notification period. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that notification for life was a human rights breach and directed the UK government to change the law. Good old David 'Man of the People' Cameron then said he would do the minimum possible to comply with the ruling. I'm surprised he didn't try for 20 years as an opening position.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Hi Mr W,
I understand and agree with a lot you are saying and would welcome any discussion on the categorization of sex offences and the associated punishments. I say this as my offence did not include grooming, predatory actions, violence etc - stated by the Judge and CPS - but I am being treated the same as those you quoted. I am aware that sexual offending elsewhere in the country and the PR statement wished to be delivered by the "system" influenced the manner of my sentence as the barrister raised this point with the Judge - though ignored - on sentencing day.

I say respectfully, blaming the internet for everything that is wrong is not the answer - if I have misunderstood your words I am sorry. It is only a tool that is misused, misunderstood by the majority of its users and misinterpreted as the answer to everything.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, "imagery" has been available since humans became intelligent enough to make a mark. It is the interpretation of the image by society as a whole and desires by individuals that causes numerous issues. Example, a naked cherub in an art masterpiece is revered by society as a whole. However to certain individuals it is unfortunately something else. Therefore it is and will always be impossible to stop the production of "imagery" that can be used by some for sexual purposes; be that on the internet or not. However I stress the importance of making humans more knowledgeable of a humans own inherited psychological weaknesses. I have referred to this in other posts as the "old brain": the psychological behaviour remnants still in our psychological behaviour civilised "new brain".

Your (b) point included "education and therapy" which I fully agree is a worthwhile but unfortunately it is an "unsexy" and costly approach. You only have to look at the issues surrounding sex education and religious beliefs over the last year, to show not all society will accept it. In my opinion what is correct - at the earliest stage, is the psychologically development of humans towards human sexual behaviour and what is acceptable in today's society. 

Not to jump but one downside to therapy stated by those who wish a "bullet" on sex offenders, is that any sort of therapy only informs the individual on what to say to appease the interviewer. Also the SOTP course circa 2010 - 2014 where found to increase reoffending by the courts last year.

I say "unsexy" as it is not an instant one Government timeframe solution, also Government would be implying everyone is/could be a Sex Offender so everyone needs preventative treatment.
I say "costly" because financially it would cost a lot whatever you did. Also it would lose votes for any Government for various reasons. A simple matter of a parent having to help their child with their homework on the matter when they do not really understand the subject, would cause them embarrassment, anger and issues for being put in that position. This is how it was/has been with computers in ways you referred to.

I think we both agree that in the modern forensic world of today, psychology is a vital tool used by the authorities to not only gain a conviction but to enhance the dangerous behaviour of the offender to impose a harsher sentence etc.  It is however strange; and I would enjoy a debate - on why is a 15 year period on the SOR required before you can apply to have the requirement removed, and yet not the evidence from the same psychology experts that state someone is of low risk and it is safe at an earlier date.

 

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Having read this thread I wanted to throw my 2p in because I think it's important to challenge the "orthodox view" with meaningful conversation, while also understanding, as punter99 says, my view could also be dismissed because I'm an (ex) offender.

Re: Harmless' post about 'acquiring creates demand' - Imagine being in a football stadium. There’s a group of loud people in a stand over the other side of the stadium. You don’t know who exactly is doing what but *that group* are responsible for making the noise, yes? By viewing images you’ve chosen to stand with that group. While there, you may not be making a noise, you may not agree with the song they’re singing, but you’ve chosen to sit in that stand which, as JASB says, makes you guilty by association. Crucially, that group is also visible for others to join simply by existing. You’ve been caught in that stand and are now paying the price, for whatever reason, that’s just how it is. I get it but as this thread is showing, there needs to be a serious conversation about this type of offending.

As with most subjects you have to delve much deeper than the headline to try to understand what's going on. So, where might the creation of offending material start? Well, thanks to the internet it’s now easier than ever for anyone to, even accidentally, get a ticket for a seat in that football stand, let's say, largely thanks to social media and camera phones (both are GIGANTIC changes in everyday life in such a short space of time when you think about it) enabling photos, videos, live streams, the sharing of online spaces and even followings (followings is a new level of scariness that is probably on the horizon as Belle Delphine (adult) has already proven - putting her bath water for sale to her millions of viewers). Then you have Generation Instagram/TikTok/ (Premium) Snapchat/‘Dating’ apps/Instant gratification growing and growing all over the world and those involved are getting younger and are using them in ways that they weren't meant to be used (including for money! They're that savvy). So what do you think attitudes towards sex/porn will be over the next few decades? Especially in areas of poverty (which also creates supply as shown in Eastern Europe, Russia and the far East). And then don’t even get me started on parents (usually mothers and girls) wanting their children to be famous…! These are only the things I dare mention here. Absolutely any involvement on any of those things which are used en masse will no doubt increase the lure(?) of that football stand.  In addition, this is without even mentioning those with existing mental health problems. Oh and by the way, have you heard the new thing that more sexual beings are doing more of now?... Being lonely. So where will they turn long term for instant sexual gratification?... Where’s that ticket office? All of this doesn't come anywhere near scratching the surface of all of the so many different ways questionable material can appear online.

Many of these are very new 21st Century problems and there are so. many. issues. that come with each and every one of those things I've mentioned. So not meaning to sound glib, but punishing - to the extent that we do in the UK - for looking at images online and nothing else meaning the offender will be forevermore branded a sex offender (a label mostly associated with Epstein/Savile), potentially ripping families apart, putting pressure on all sorts of public services, a lack of rehabilitation (because let’s face it the only opinion for SOs rehabilitation is a bullet) etc etc etc is all “absurd” (Carissa Byrne Hassock, 2011).

While there’s plenty of noises about ‘this needs to be stopped’ because it is 'so serious’ - of course it does - but it doesn’t seem to be anyone’s priority from those with the power to make real change on a global scale. Especially when you look at the immediate call to arms with coronavirus or Jeff Bezos donating $10,000,000,000 to... climate change! Oh but that’s different, right?

For serious discussion, hysteria and emotion needs to be removed and practical processes need to be talked about. The real answer is to switch off the internet, but that's not going to happen, so here are two options: A) Continue spending so much money on a daily basis and dangerously branding people an SO after costly raids/arrest/LONG investigations/charges/court time/probation time/ppu time/welfare (unable to get work)/social housing (no job, no house ownership)/the problem of more loneliness because of countless labels and isolation/poor pension/homelessness/mental health/suicide  or... B) How about spend half of that money solving the problem of: “The internet is here!’ and half on prevention/ education/ rehabilitation/ therapy/ opportunities etc.


=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.