|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+xAs an ex-offender I have had the opportunity to help the community by paying back through volunteering for charity, retail outlets. These as we know are non-profit making organisations, however they seem to have a varied approach to the recruitment policy and risk assessment of ex-offenders (if they even bother!). What I think needs discussing is that for certain individuals volunteering in this field is, for some, the best way to re-integrate and overcome the usual post-release depression and anxiety. I would like to collate people's experiences and write a piece for theRecord. For an example I have an ex-offender acquaintance who had been volunteering for a charity retail outlet; risen to the dizzy heights of key holder/relief manager; completed 18 months of said same blemish free and then was black balled as the charity suddenly altered their recruitment & retention policy making the unblemished record worthless even with the support of their ex-offender manager (who wrote to the CEO!)and their explanation of the word 'rehabilitation'. It destroyed my acquaintance and their belief of the existence of an understanding society. I have two experiences in this regard. The first was in applying for a paid position with that poppy dependant organisation, the Royal British Legion. Having seen the hundreds of thousands of poppies produced and assembled at HMP Ford, I thought the organisation would have an open minded policy on hiring ex-offenders - not so. When I disclosed, they turned me down flat because of the criminal record - nice. The second was with the British Heart Foundation, the local outlet were looking for volunteers to handle the phone and book collections and other admin type stuff. The chap was interested until I told him that I was an ex-offender. He had no hesitation in saying that I could not volunteer there, even in a behind-the-scenes capacity. Everyone is 'understanding' until it comes time for them to step up and put their money where their mouth is - then you see their true colours. Hi I liked you post as fully agree with the comments. I may of said earlier but on my - once a year - last PPU visit I was asked why I did not do voluntary work? They then insinuated I was wrong when I said " I do not wish to argue BUT in my experience, organisations will not take on ex-offenders and especially those of a sex offence. I am still wondering if the Heart foundation will still my heart donation when that time comes around! lol
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
Dean91
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 51,
Visits: 961
|
It sounds very much so the British Legion are happy for prisoners to undertake the labour to assemble but not allow an ex-offender an opportunity otherwise. Nothing screams hypocrisy as much as that.
|
|
|
|
|
Derek Arnold
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19,
Visits: 49
|
+xAs an ex-offender I have had the opportunity to help the community by paying back through volunteering for charity, retail outlets. These as we know are non-profit making organisations, however they seem to have a varied approach to the recruitment policy and risk assessment of ex-offenders (if they even bother!). What I think needs discussing is that for certain individuals volunteering in this field is, for some, the best way to re-integrate and overcome the usual post-release depression and anxiety. I would like to collate people's experiences and write a piece for theRecord. For an example I have an ex-offender acquaintance who had been volunteering for a charity retail outlet; risen to the dizzy heights of key holder/relief manager; completed 18 months of said same blemish free and then was black balled as the charity suddenly altered their recruitment & retention policy making the unblemished record worthless even with the support of their ex-offender manager (who wrote to the CEO!)and their explanation of the word 'rehabilitation'. It destroyed my acquaintance and their belief of the existence of an understanding society. I have two experiences in this regard. The first was in applying for a paid position with that poppy dependant organisation, the Royal British Legion. Having seen the hundreds of thousands of poppies produced and assembled at HMP Ford, I thought the organisation would have an open minded policy on hiring ex-offenders - not so. When I disclosed, they turned me down flat because of the criminal record - nice. The second was with the British Heart Foundation, the local outlet were looking for volunteers to handle the phone and book collections and other admin type stuff. The chap was interested until I told him that I was an ex-offender. He had no hesitation in saying that I could not volunteer there, even in a behind-the-scenes capacity. Everyone is 'understanding' until it comes time for them to step up and put their money where their mouth is - then you see their true colours.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+xLots 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/theoryd) "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". 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. 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 Hi In ways the following supports your thoughts. The female I paid for sex with also blackmailed me jointly with the female who persuaded her to work the street. However even though I provided the evidence to the blackmail and they knew the ID of the pimp no charges were brought against them or be used to mitigate any sentencing? On the other hand I and some of her other clients where charged and punished. they even used "joint enterprise" to have nearly all her clients presented to the Court as one. This is even though the CPS and Judge stated no individual actually knew any other!! However it had the effect they desired in the media and allowed the subsequent punishment levels to be imposed. The knock on effect is that PPU's do not read all the offenders file so creates the possibility of my being seen as part of a gang in their eyes and creates constant emotional stress with having to produce legal documents to show I was not.
You may ask how this links with our previous discussion on the creator and viewer of images. Simple in the eye of those viewing me I am seen as committing the same offences as the others presented to the court. As others used/created videos, used drugs, drink etc and I did not, why is it correct for me to be punished the same as the others. I know that sounds selfish but I am afraid we could spend a life time discussing why no law is in place now, did the chicken come before the egg etc and still not all agree. Those in power and those desiring power will always want results over substance so until there is a quick way of linking the creator to the viewer there will be no change. That does not remove the fact there is victims and at all levels individuals have to take the responsibility for there creation. Forgive me for asking, but were you actually convicted of a joint enterprise offence? It wasn't clear from what you said, if that related to the offence itself, or if it were assumed by the media, or both. As for PPU not reading all the info, I was surprised by what the police wrote and the baseless assumptions they made about my character, in their charge sheet. All part of the game. It's about presenting the strongest case possible when you go to court and if that requires distortion of the facts and character assassination, so be it. Hi I agree our conversation on this topic has been worthwhile and varied - just the way I like my discussions to go as it keeps the grey cells active during it. PO and PPU do not seem to like that sort of discussion unless they lead and there is 2 of them. No offence to any of those individuals reading this just being truthful. Joint enterprise (JE). First I will repeat that I was on bail for 2 years and of that, for 1 year I was waiting sentencing as I pleaded guilty at the Plea Management hearing. Reason why are for another day. However from my arrest I asked when I was to be sentenced. Then some 6 months later when I found out there were other offenders, I constantly asked why I was not being processed singly but could not get any answer. From their perspective, the authorities managed the whole process with one aim - according to the barristers of all the defendants. They held a trial with 2 defendants first then on that's conclusion persuaded the Courts to have all the rest of the defendants processed together to save money. So in theory JE. This caused issues: (a) with the perception of the offenders - appearing to be a gang - (b) and also by financial charges by the various solicitor firms. (a) the press reported it this way and as these offenders were "white" and at the time you had the various " other ethnic gangs" hitting the headlines, politically this was made into a Justice System's PR dream come true. Again confusion over JE. (b) It was not until some 4 years later and after 3 years of complaining about my Legal Aid (LA) bill and other aspects, I discovered my solicitors had billed me as JE which meant I was actually paying some of the costs for those that went to trial even though I didn't. I might write a topic on this to warn others. The CPS actually assisted me brilliantly by confirming in writing that I was not charged under JE and that created a LA review and subsequent refund. There is a lot more that could be written especially on the way the Solicitors handled my complaints and ignored me once I proved they had made a mistake over JE but that is for another topic. I hope this answers your last question and look forward to discussing topics over time.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 771,
Visits: 5.8K
|
+x+x+x+xLots 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/theoryd) "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". 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. 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 Hi In ways the following supports your thoughts. The female I paid for sex with also blackmailed me jointly with the female who persuaded her to work the street. However even though I provided the evidence to the blackmail and they knew the ID of the pimp no charges were brought against them or be used to mitigate any sentencing? On the other hand I and some of her other clients where charged and punished. they even used "joint enterprise" to have nearly all her clients presented to the Court as one. This is even though the CPS and Judge stated no individual actually knew any other!! However it had the effect they desired in the media and allowed the subsequent punishment levels to be imposed. The knock on effect is that PPU's do not read all the offenders file so creates the possibility of my being seen as part of a gang in their eyes and creates constant emotional stress with having to produce legal documents to show I was not.
You may ask how this links with our previous discussion on the creator and viewer of images. Simple in the eye of those viewing me I am seen as committing the same offences as the others presented to the court. As others used/created videos, used drugs, drink etc and I did not, why is it correct for me to be punished the same as the others. I know that sounds selfish but I am afraid we could spend a life time discussing why no law is in place now, did the chicken come before the egg etc and still not all agree. Those in power and those desiring power will always want results over substance so until there is a quick way of linking the creator to the viewer there will be no change. That does not remove the fact there is victims and at all levels individuals have to take the responsibility for there creation. Forgive me for asking, but were you actually convicted of a joint enterprise offence? It wasn't clear from what you said, if that related to the offence itself, or if it were assumed by the media, or both. As for PPU not reading all the info, I was surprised by what the police wrote and the baseless assumptions they made about my character, in their charge sheet. All part of the game. It's about presenting the strongest case possible when you go to court and if that requires distortion of the facts and character assassination, so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 467,
Visits: 5.6K
|
+x+xI've learned how to use quotes.
[quote] 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. 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. 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. Hi I do understand your points and what you are trying to say but would offer considerations to think on and therefore expand your view: I believe you are using the word "internet" to encapsulate the various means of communication open to modern day humans and that most do not really understand its dangers - hence scams are always happening.
an answer of tackling the problem is through prevention To be pedantic this should be "education" as that hopefully will allow knowledge to remind an individual the reasons not to do something. The suggestion of prevention has to many dangers: people dislike being told what to do i.e. the "nanny state", you cannot close the internet down and to redesign it; certain countries are attempting to do this already causing concerns. There are many designs to the internet in existence already that the authorities are attempting to monitor, manage with little success - in relation to the scale of it.
Again I suggest "education" is the best approach: proof is to look at yourself before and after your therapy sessions. Prevention has not been used, you have been educated in the manner you are best to use those genetically inherited human instincts. You are not being prevented from using them. we'll all reap the benefits one day - You have to start somewhere
After my arrest and interview I asked the interviewer "where I could help others understand the dangers of paying for sex". Expecting to be guided to some form of prevention organization I was astonished for the reply to be "talk to your solicitor". Even today; with supported reports from both inside prison and outside organisations recognising my commitment to work with offenders, my PPU says I must prove I will not offend again and cannot say how I can do that. I fully support all efforts to change the perception of ex-offenders - especially sex offenders - by society so I am not dismissive of anyone's manner of thought or process. However the "communication" facilities available now allow "headlines" rather than "substance" to influence the masses, who believe things like "Coronation Street / Love Island" is real life or how we should present ourselves. Sharing creates a false sense of purpose and one is probably in too deep if you're at this level.......
I am sorry but I am unsure what you mean here as "sharing" is an important emotion with humans. We all have a need to share with others be that love, support etc. Unfortunately some i.e. Donald Trump, cannot control his "sharing" as it is an important means of showing to others how important he feels he is for example. In the use of the word in various parts of my posts I am trying to demonstrate that their is various methods for creating an unsolicited "demand" by using humans basic instincts / desires. 15 year .......
Your "guess" possibly shows some thoughts that drove the decision to be 15 years but again in the same manner we spoke about "rehabilitation / SOTP courses" everyone is different. My Probation officer actually wrote in his pre-sentence report that his analysis conclusion is I do not fit what is regarded as a "sex-offender" profile. You also have to remember I have had numerous supportive psychological reports which have been disregarded by the authorities as they do not support their aims or the punishment that was given to me. Therefore my question in ways supports other questions concerning sex offenders and the lack of true understanding on offences, punishments and belief; just as there are different classes of "murder" convictions there should also be for what is classed as a sex offence. In the end all the readers and contributors here have the same aim, to be recognised as a human being who made a mistake, been punished and wish to re-join society. To be pedantic this should be "education" Absolutely, I'm not saying this is an 'and/or' situation and why I said 'an answer' as opposed to 'the answer'. If I had all the answers and how to implement them I probably wouldn’t be sat here, haha. But that’s why my option B in my other post talked about prevention/ education/ rehabilitation/ therapy/ opportunities etc. I’d say all are important and much better ways than wretched life-destroying punishment in an unforgiving society. With my therapy, it wasn't so much educational, for me was tackling 'why' and understanding more about myself, it sounds cliche, but it's true. I'd recommend to anyone but I understand it's tricky to find someone to trust, I was lucky with who I found as it was a friend of a friend. My PPU says I must prove I will not offend again and cannot say how I can do that. As we've spoken about before, I empathise completely with ppus being impossible and mind games they play. Their role seems to switch from probation-esque (being helpful) to police-esque (not being helpful at all) when they see fit, it's bizarre and frustrating. I don't know if I'm being tested or it's just poor service - I'm on week five of waiting for a response about something. Sharing ... Apologies, that was in reply to punter99 and the act of sharing material with the argument of creating a demand, I probably wasn't clear enough in my quoting.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+xLots 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/theoryd) "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". 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. 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 Hi In ways the following supports your thoughts. The female I paid for sex with also blackmailed me jointly with the female who persuaded her to work the street. However even though I provided the evidence to the blackmail and they knew the ID of the pimp no charges were brought against them or be used to mitigate any sentencing? On the other hand I and some of her other clients where charged and punished. they even used "joint enterprise" to have nearly all her clients presented to the Court as one. This is even though the CPS and Judge stated no individual actually knew any other!! However it had the effect they desired in the media and allowed the subsequent punishment levels to be imposed. The knock on effect is that PPU's do not read all the offenders file so creates the possibility of my being seen as part of a gang in their eyes and creates constant emotional stress with having to produce legal documents to show I was not.
You may ask how this links with our previous discussion on the creator and viewer of images. Simple in the eye of those viewing me I am seen as committing the same offences as the others presented to the court. As others used/created videos, used drugs, drink etc and I did not, why is it correct for me to be punished the same as the others. I know that sounds selfish but I am afraid we could spend a life time discussing why no law is in place now, did the chicken come before the egg etc and still not all agree. Those in power and those desiring power will always want results over substance so until there is a quick way of linking the creator to the viewer there will be no change. That does not remove the fact there is victims and at all levels individuals have to take the responsibility for there creation.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+xI'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. 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. 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. Hi I do understand your points and what you are trying to say but would offer considerations to think on and therefore expand your view: I believe you are using the word "internet" to encapsulate the various means of communication open to modern day humans and that most do not really understand its dangers - hence scams are always happening.
an answer of tackling the problem is through prevention To be pedantic this should be "education" as that hopefully will allow knowledge to remind an individual the reasons not to do something. The suggestion of prevention has to many dangers: people dislike being told what to do i.e. the "nanny state", you cannot close the internet down and to redesign it; certain countries are attempting to do this already causing concerns. There are many designs to the internet in existence already that the authorities are attempting to monitor, manage with little success - in relation to the scale of it.
Again I suggest "education" is the best approach: proof is to look at yourself before and after your therapy sessions. Prevention has not been used, you have been educated in the manner you are best to use those genetically inherited human instincts. You are not being prevented from using them. we'll all reap the benefits one day - You have to start somewhere
After my arrest and interview I asked the interviewer "where I could help others understand the dangers of paying for sex". Expecting to be guided to some form of prevention organization I was astonished for the reply to be "talk to your solicitor". Even today; with supported reports from both inside prison and outside organisations recognising my commitment to work with offenders, my PPU says I must prove I will not offend again and cannot say how I can do that. I fully support all efforts to change the perception of ex-offenders - especially sex offenders - by society so I am not dismissive of anyone's manner of thought or process. However the "communication" facilities available now allow "headlines" rather than "substance" to influence the masses, who believe things like "Coronation Street / Love Island" is real life or how we should present ourselves. Sharing creates a false sense of purpose and one is probably in too deep if you're at this level.......
I am sorry but I am unsure what you mean here as "sharing" is an important emotion with humans. We all have a need to share with others be that love, support etc. Unfortunately some i.e. Donald Trump, cannot control his "sharing" as it is an important means of showing to others how important he feels he is for example. In the use of the word in various parts of my posts I am trying to demonstrate that their is various methods for creating an unsolicited "demand" by using humans basic instincts / desires. 15 year .......
Your "guess" possibly shows some thoughts that drove the decision to be 15 years but again in the same manner we spoke about "rehabilitation / SOTP courses" everyone is different. My Probation officer actually wrote in his pre-sentence report that his analysis conclusion is I do not fit what is regarded as a "sex-offender" profile. You also have to remember I have had numerous supportive psychological reports which have been disregarded by the authorities as they do not support their aims or the punishment that was given to me. Therefore my question in ways supports other questions concerning sex offenders and the lack of true understanding on offences, punishments and belief; just as there are different classes of "murder" convictions there should also be for what is classed as a sex offence. In the end all the readers and contributors here have the same aim, to be recognised as a human being who made a mistake, been punished and wish to re-join society.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 467,
Visits: 5.6K
|
+x+xI'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. 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. 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. 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. BSQ Briefing - Conditional Cautions for Indecent Image Offences – One Year On — Criminal Defence Lawyers - Berkeley Square SolicitorsAs the article says, it still hasn't happened. Probably because possession cases are a quick and easy win for the CPS. They usually get a guilty plea straight away, without much effort/cost, so it makes their numbers look good and reassures the public that they are 'succeeding' in stopping abuse, when in fact they are achieving very little. Makes sense to me, a proverbial slap on the wrist with the additional responsibility of "staying out of trouble" without the life-destroying public humiliation and none of this 'unspent' nonsense. I would have jumped at the chance.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 771,
Visits: 5.8K
|
+xI'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. 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. 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. 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. BSQ Briefing - Conditional Cautions for Indecent Image Offences – One Year On — Criminal Defence Lawyers - Berkeley Square SolicitorsAs the article says, it still hasn't happened. Probably because possession cases are a quick and easy win for the CPS. They usually get a guilty plea straight away, without much effort/cost, so it makes their numbers look good and reassures the public that they are 'succeeding' in stopping abuse, when in fact they are acheiving very little.
|
|
|
|