|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
"So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?" Hi JASB. Forgive me, but I think you are falling into the same trap as PPU officers do, in presuming that anyone who looks at images will commit a contact offence, any time they are given the chance to do so. Clearly it will depend on the individual and their level of anti social thinking. The most recent stats show that only 1.5% of image offenders go on to commit a contact offence, and 3% commit another image offence. But this widely held belief, that all image offenders want to commit contact offences and therefore will go on to commit contact offences is what makes (some) people treat them as the worst of the worst. I actually think that most, not all, image offenders are simply looking for an escapist fantasy and will never progress to contact offending. But then again, a very small number will. Hi punter69, Hope your safe. I understand and agree with your points, in fact I raised them with various PPU officers with the question, "just because another sex offender labeled individual reoffends what make you decide I will?" Maybe I could of rephrased it better but I started the sentence with " So what stops someone " in other words I was raising the question to the person for consideration. In ways I want to expand the thinking of an individual of the possible consequences of their initial acceptance to something being ok. Another comparison would be the weed smoker who says they are in control but then drifts onto stronger drugs. They did not start off with the intention but then something initiates a scenario and the rest is history. In ways the percentages do not matter as they prove the point of the presenter but more importantly because another victim has been created.
I have raised this point in previous posts because in my humble opinion - there are some individuals who do not accept the full impact of the offence in that images do have victims!
I am not - and have no right to judge them or anyone else. I'm am just hoping to give them the confidence to view their offence from another individual's perspective and not their own, which unfortunately will be defensive; if only partially. This may hopefully allow them to fully understand the impact of an offence in the same manner I believe you and I accept victims are not limited to those present at the event, because there is a ripple effect we cannot control.
Take care
Two things there. Some people escalate from cannabis from harder drugs, some don't. Likewise, many people who started out viewing legal porn found their use escalating to illegal images, but those things don't prove they will then escalate to contact offending. It's like saying all shoplifters will escalate to robbing banks. The psychological profiles of contact offenders are different to image offenders. Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do. That's how they are able to commit those types of offences. In answer to the point about some image offenders thinking their actions are harmless. They may well think that way and yet at the same time they are still able to appreciate that contact offences against a child are not harmless. As a result, they will never cross that particular line. Hi I am pleased to stress that I did not say "image offenders see their offence as harmless", I said many, by the way they write and contest punishments do not see their responsibility to the victim - the individual(s) in the image - and try to lower the seriousness of their offence. I do feel your words are proving my basic point in that there is a possibility and that has to be taken into account.
As a result, they will never cross that particular line. I can debate its misuse of the word "never", as I did not wake up one morning and decide to act in a way that was an offence, it was the events of a scenario, lack of knowledge to legal matters and the weakness in my emotions at that time. Anti social attitudes
I have written and deleted many responses to your use of this wording as I can see both the supportive and dismissive points to your use. My offence was anti social to some, but compared to many other acts by individuals within society, who can say what is less or more. It is similar to asking which is the worse offence, a drug dealer or a murderer?
I obviously know there is slightly more psychologically to it but to try and remain on topic .
Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do
Again you are grouping individuals classified with the same "label" as identical! Whilst spending time at her Majesty's pleasure, the majority of fellow inmates at Whatton did not have these characteristics. I am not being offensive as I have previously said I read your words with interest on many subjects but surely you see that these sort of assumptions are the same as offenders of others crimes and society making assumptions due to the perception they have formed from whatever source. As you know I do accept my responsibility towards the legality of the offence. However you cannot say that every contact offender has the attributes of the profile you describe. If I had not deemed it acceptable to pay for sexual services within a uncontrolled environment i.e. street walker and not a brothel, the offence would not of happened. If the female had not lied to me; and her other clients about her age, the offence would not of happened. Those elements are not being assertive they are being submissive to a desire for sexual relief and ignorance to every other "self protection" instinct. Every human is an individual, they have their own weaknesses and possible similarities which mathematicians create links to try and show information that suits their objective. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.If re-offending etc statistics were accurate then why am I not deemed appropriate to be removed automatically from the SOR after 10 years? Why do the PPU; on their annual visit, still question in the same manner as when I was arrested i.e. not on actual facts but assumptions on a genetic profile! keep safe and enjoy the weekend. I take your point about the dangers of generalising. So let's look at some real life examples.I've already mentioned Joseph McCann, whose anti social thinking and high levels of assertiveness were clearly in evidence, although he wasn't considered by probation to pose any risk of sexual harm. In the R vs Smith case (link above) there were 4 defendants involved. All were convicted of image offences, but each one posed a different level of risk, when it came to contact offending. 1. WC - had a history of determined disobedience to orders, a disorganised lifestyle, drug-taking and the commission of further sexual offences while under his first SHPO. Other evidence of his risk of contact offending was sending an indecent image to a woman he met online, who had a 4 year old child. 2. BH - no previous convictions, had been on holiday to Thailand, which Probation said was to abuse kids, despite there being absolutely no evidence to support this (a classic example of imaginary risk, based on it being Thailand and not France or Germany!). 3. SS - psychiatric reports concluded that he was manipulative, potentially predatory and feigned compliance. Indications of depression and personality maladjustment influenced and perpetuated his risk of offending. 4. JD - this is perhaps the most fascinating of the 4. He was aware of the problems created by his sexuality and the indications were that he would not translate his fantasies, about sexual activity with minors, into contact offending. Taken together, these 4 people give a good indication of the different kinds of risk that internet offenders pose. Because clearly, their offences are all the same, but their risks are totally different. I think I would classify them as follows: WC - high risk, BH - medium, SS - very high, JD - low. I would suggest that most internet offenders are closer to JD and BH, rather than WC and SS. I say this, because the many, many studies into the risks of internet offenders, conducted over the last 10 years, have demonstrated it to be the case. You ask why the PPU don't take the extremely low reoffending rates of SO into account and I suggest it's because most people still belief in the myth that all image offenders secretly harbour a desire to commit contact offences. It is a very common assumption, but I believe, a mistaken one. Now consider this example. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897a72c94e06b9e197fc0In this case - (Parsons vs Regina - 2017) the court did agree to restrictions on contacting children, in spite of him being an internet only offender, because of his browsing or searching for websites which could be used for online chats with young children. Here there is actual evidence of intent to commit a contact offence, not merely assumptions and unfounded beliefs. Hi Punter99 Thanks for the interesting reply. I do see elements were we agree - an individual's risk is not defined solely by their offence and that an individual's past and present circumstances can affect any offence. However though reactions from looking at a picture, naked statue, impression or whatever has always been controversial, as some class them as porn whilst others as art. If we expand this subjectiveness and visit my initial comments in this and other posts, hopefully you will see they were aimed at hopefully getting what society calls "image" offenders to consider their words on the severity of their offence, and that there are victims which they do have a responsibility for. We discussed the self acceptance of some to go from non-contact to contact. We agree that not all do BUT, you seem to disagree that this is possible. I believe that unpredictable scenarios can affect the emotion decision making of an individual and that is hard to predict. I suppose that is why Risk comes into play but the methods and challenges to get this correct are still in their infancy. Society though in the last few decades does not accept the learning curve required so errors are made but not admitted. Example listen to the demands about a cure for Corvid19. In regard to sex offenders "Risk" I feel the system does not look/assess as the individual but is based on the "group label." (1) Why does a SO get labeled as a risk to many none direct dangers yet an individual caught speeding past a "school" who loves games of violence, not seen as a danger / or risk to the lives of children? Think of the drivers cognitive understanding of their acceptance of the risks involved and lack of social attitude (2) Back in '98 I made my first visit to see my father who lived in Thailand with a Thai wife. Before I left he "jokingly" said that if I ever got into trouble and they found I had been to Thailand, accusations would go upwards. One day I will tell you what my PO and the Met Police said when I returned from a 3 months tour of South East Asia whilst on bail. Suffice to say I became a victim of the conflict between them. In fact the Met took me to Court to have me placed on remand as a flight risk. The Judge stated he was confused as if I was a flight risk why did I come back from the trip? Also he praised me for my honesty in all replies to their questions. (3) as you will of read in previous posts I have been classed as unsuitable for any and all SO courses by both independent and Justice Service authorities. Only classed as medium Risk when going from Court to HMP Nottingham. If Whatton had processed my application for assessment more promptly, at my first 6 month (after being sentenced) classification assessment, I would of been move to a D Cat establishment with 7 months of being sentenced. because I was caught during a Police operation along with other individuals, I was processed with these strangers and seen / portrayed by the media to society and sentenced as a group. I was not on a joint indictment hence why I am now trying to understand if the manner they process me; kept on bail awaiting sentence for 2 years whilst the others went to trial, was incorrect (4) One no one has answered, why is a drug dealer who uses children to assist them and (possibly) take advantage of in various ways, not classed as a danger to children and monitored in the same way as a offender who pays for consensual sex service? The facts you mention only go to prove the fact that I keep stressing, in that we are all labelled as a group but all are individuals. It is just unfortunate that; as you have shown, it is not until we - as an individual - are focused on, the reality of us becomes apparent. Be that good or bad. As ever I enjoy our constructive conversations and it is a pleasure to politely disagree with each other over our views on certain aspects. I agree with you that SO are assessed as a group, based on the imaginary risk, posed by an imaginary offender, who is the worst of the worst. I did not say it was not possible for an image offender to progress to contact offending. I said that most, but not all, will not progress to that type of offending. That of course leaves open the possibility, for the PPU, that they might be dealing with one of the ones who will. But crucially, the possibility of an offence being committed is not the same as probability. When risk assessing an individual the authorities should take into account both probability and possibility, using the evidence they have, not merely their assumptions or their beliefs about what might happen. That is what the R vs Smith judgement was all about. It was saying that SHPO must be based on evidence, not assumptions. Take the BH example. He went to Thailand, that much is true, but there was no evidence that he went there to abuse kids. That was a risk that probation imagined. It was not based on any evidence, it was all in the Probation Officers head. I think you already know, from your own experiences, that PPU look at the possibility of us reoffending all the time, but they rarely ever look at the probability. My original point to you, was that you should do the same when you are looking at image or other non contact offenders. Hi As I mentioned from the start I do not or am entitled to judge others so I do not class "image" or any other type of offence linked individual as worse or better than me. Whether it was misread or miswrote by me for you to come to your last sentence conclusion I am not sure. I will repeat again to clarify, my words are meant for those that think image offences have no victims and therefore have no responsibility for to rethink.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 716,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
"So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?" Hi JASB. Forgive me, but I think you are falling into the same trap as PPU officers do, in presuming that anyone who looks at images will commit a contact offence, any time they are given the chance to do so. Clearly it will depend on the individual and their level of anti social thinking. The most recent stats show that only 1.5% of image offenders go on to commit a contact offence, and 3% commit another image offence. But this widely held belief, that all image offenders want to commit contact offences and therefore will go on to commit contact offences is what makes (some) people treat them as the worst of the worst. I actually think that most, not all, image offenders are simply looking for an escapist fantasy and will never progress to contact offending. But then again, a very small number will. Hi punter69, Hope your safe. I understand and agree with your points, in fact I raised them with various PPU officers with the question, "just because another sex offender labeled individual reoffends what make you decide I will?" Maybe I could of rephrased it better but I started the sentence with " So what stops someone " in other words I was raising the question to the person for consideration. In ways I want to expand the thinking of an individual of the possible consequences of their initial acceptance to something being ok. Another comparison would be the weed smoker who says they are in control but then drifts onto stronger drugs. They did not start off with the intention but then something initiates a scenario and the rest is history. In ways the percentages do not matter as they prove the point of the presenter but more importantly because another victim has been created.
I have raised this point in previous posts because in my humble opinion - there are some individuals who do not accept the full impact of the offence in that images do have victims!
I am not - and have no right to judge them or anyone else. I'm am just hoping to give them the confidence to view their offence from another individual's perspective and not their own, which unfortunately will be defensive; if only partially. This may hopefully allow them to fully understand the impact of an offence in the same manner I believe you and I accept victims are not limited to those present at the event, because there is a ripple effect we cannot control.
Take care
Two things there. Some people escalate from cannabis from harder drugs, some don't. Likewise, many people who started out viewing legal porn found their use escalating to illegal images, but those things don't prove they will then escalate to contact offending. It's like saying all shoplifters will escalate to robbing banks. The psychological profiles of contact offenders are different to image offenders. Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do. That's how they are able to commit those types of offences. In answer to the point about some image offenders thinking their actions are harmless. They may well think that way and yet at the same time they are still able to appreciate that contact offences against a child are not harmless. As a result, they will never cross that particular line. Hi I am pleased to stress that I did not say "image offenders see their offence as harmless", I said many, by the way they write and contest punishments do not see their responsibility to the victim - the individual(s) in the image - and try to lower the seriousness of their offence. I do feel your words are proving my basic point in that there is a possibility and that has to be taken into account.
As a result, they will never cross that particular line. I can debate its misuse of the word "never", as I did not wake up one morning and decide to act in a way that was an offence, it was the events of a scenario, lack of knowledge to legal matters and the weakness in my emotions at that time. Anti social attitudes
I have written and deleted many responses to your use of this wording as I can see both the supportive and dismissive points to your use. My offence was anti social to some, but compared to many other acts by individuals within society, who can say what is less or more. It is similar to asking which is the worse offence, a drug dealer or a murderer?
I obviously know there is slightly more psychologically to it but to try and remain on topic .
Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do
Again you are grouping individuals classified with the same "label" as identical! Whilst spending time at her Majesty's pleasure, the majority of fellow inmates at Whatton did not have these characteristics. I am not being offensive as I have previously said I read your words with interest on many subjects but surely you see that these sort of assumptions are the same as offenders of others crimes and society making assumptions due to the perception they have formed from whatever source. As you know I do accept my responsibility towards the legality of the offence. However you cannot say that every contact offender has the attributes of the profile you describe. If I had not deemed it acceptable to pay for sexual services within a uncontrolled environment i.e. street walker and not a brothel, the offence would not of happened. If the female had not lied to me; and her other clients about her age, the offence would not of happened. Those elements are not being assertive they are being submissive to a desire for sexual relief and ignorance to every other "self protection" instinct. Every human is an individual, they have their own weaknesses and possible similarities which mathematicians create links to try and show information that suits their objective. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.If re-offending etc statistics were accurate then why am I not deemed appropriate to be removed automatically from the SOR after 10 years? Why do the PPU; on their annual visit, still question in the same manner as when I was arrested i.e. not on actual facts but assumptions on a genetic profile! keep safe and enjoy the weekend. I take your point about the dangers of generalising. So let's look at some real life examples.I've already mentioned Joseph McCann, whose anti social thinking and high levels of assertiveness were clearly in evidence, although he wasn't considered by probation to pose any risk of sexual harm. In the R vs Smith case (link above) there were 4 defendants involved. All were convicted of image offences, but each one posed a different level of risk, when it came to contact offending. 1. WC - had a history of determined disobedience to orders, a disorganised lifestyle, drug-taking and the commission of further sexual offences while under his first SHPO. Other evidence of his risk of contact offending was sending an indecent image to a woman he met online, who had a 4 year old child. 2. BH - no previous convictions, had been on holiday to Thailand, which Probation said was to abuse kids, despite there being absolutely no evidence to support this (a classic example of imaginary risk, based on it being Thailand and not France or Germany!). 3. SS - psychiatric reports concluded that he was manipulative, potentially predatory and feigned compliance. Indications of depression and personality maladjustment influenced and perpetuated his risk of offending. 4. JD - this is perhaps the most fascinating of the 4. He was aware of the problems created by his sexuality and the indications were that he would not translate his fantasies, about sexual activity with minors, into contact offending. Taken together, these 4 people give a good indication of the different kinds of risk that internet offenders pose. Because clearly, their offences are all the same, but their risks are totally different. I think I would classify them as follows: WC - high risk, BH - medium, SS - very high, JD - low. I would suggest that most internet offenders are closer to JD and BH, rather than WC and SS. I say this, because the many, many studies into the risks of internet offenders, conducted over the last 10 years, have demonstrated it to be the case. You ask why the PPU don't take the extremely low reoffending rates of SO into account and I suggest it's because most people still belief in the myth that all image offenders secretly harbour a desire to commit contact offences. It is a very common assumption, but I believe, a mistaken one. Now consider this example. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897a72c94e06b9e197fc0In this case - (Parsons vs Regina - 2017) the court did agree to restrictions on contacting children, in spite of him being an internet only offender, because of his browsing or searching for websites which could be used for online chats with young children. Here there is actual evidence of intent to commit a contact offence, not merely assumptions and unfounded beliefs. Hi Punter99 Thanks for the interesting reply. I do see elements were we agree - an individual's risk is not defined solely by their offence and that an individual's past and present circumstances can affect any offence. However though reactions from looking at a picture, naked statue, impression or whatever has always been controversial, as some class them as porn whilst others as art. If we expand this subjectiveness and visit my initial comments in this and other posts, hopefully you will see they were aimed at hopefully getting what society calls "image" offenders to consider their words on the severity of their offence, and that there are victims which they do have a responsibility for. We discussed the self acceptance of some to go from non-contact to contact. We agree that not all do BUT, you seem to disagree that this is possible. I believe that unpredictable scenarios can affect the emotion decision making of an individual and that is hard to predict. I suppose that is why Risk comes into play but the methods and challenges to get this correct are still in their infancy. Society though in the last few decades does not accept the learning curve required so errors are made but not admitted. Example listen to the demands about a cure for Corvid19. In regard to sex offenders "Risk" I feel the system does not look/assess as the individual but is based on the "group label." (1) Why does a SO get labeled as a risk to many none direct dangers yet an individual caught speeding past a "school" who loves games of violence, not seen as a danger / or risk to the lives of children? Think of the drivers cognitive understanding of their acceptance of the risks involved and lack of social attitude (2) Back in '98 I made my first visit to see my father who lived in Thailand with a Thai wife. Before I left he "jokingly" said that if I ever got into trouble and they found I had been to Thailand, accusations would go upwards. One day I will tell you what my PO and the Met Police said when I returned from a 3 months tour of South East Asia whilst on bail. Suffice to say I became a victim of the conflict between them. In fact the Met took me to Court to have me placed on remand as a flight risk. The Judge stated he was confused as if I was a flight risk why did I come back from the trip? Also he praised me for my honesty in all replies to their questions. (3) as you will of read in previous posts I have been classed as unsuitable for any and all SO courses by both independent and Justice Service authorities. Only classed as medium Risk when going from Court to HMP Nottingham. If Whatton had processed my application for assessment more promptly, at my first 6 month (after being sentenced) classification assessment, I would of been move to a D Cat establishment with 7 months of being sentenced. because I was caught during a Police operation along with other individuals, I was processed with these strangers and seen / portrayed by the media to society and sentenced as a group. I was not on a joint indictment hence why I am now trying to understand if the manner they process me; kept on bail awaiting sentence for 2 years whilst the others went to trial, was incorrect (4) One no one has answered, why is a drug dealer who uses children to assist them and (possibly) take advantage of in various ways, not classed as a danger to children and monitored in the same way as a offender who pays for consensual sex service? The facts you mention only go to prove the fact that I keep stressing, in that we are all labelled as a group but all are individuals. It is just unfortunate that; as you have shown, it is not until we - as an individual - are focused on, the reality of us becomes apparent. Be that good or bad. As ever I enjoy our constructive conversations and it is a pleasure to politely disagree with each other over our views on certain aspects. I agree with you that SO are assessed as a group, based on the imaginary risk, posed by an imaginary offender, who is the worst of the worst. I did not say it was not possible for an image offender to progress to contact offending. I said that most, but not all, will not progress to that type of offending. That of course leaves open the possibility, for the PPU, that they might be dealing with one of the ones who will. But crucially, the possibility of an offence being committed is not the same as probability. When risk assessing an individual the authorities should take into account both probability and possibility, using the evidence they have, not merely their assumptions or their beliefs about what might happen. That is what the R vs Smith judgement was all about. It was saying that SHPO must be based on evidence, not assumptions. Take the BH example. He went to Thailand, that much is true, but there was no evidence that he went there to abuse kids. That was a risk that probation imagined. It was not based on any evidence, it was all in the Probation Officers head. I think you already know, from your own experiences, that PPU look at the possibility of us reoffending all the time, but they rarely ever look at the probability. My original point to you, was that you should do the same when you are looking at image or other non contact offenders.
|
|
|
|
|
lotsofquer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 119,
Visits: 3.4K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
"So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?" Hi JASB. Forgive me, but I think you are falling into the same trap as PPU officers do, in presuming that anyone who looks at images will commit a contact offence, any time they are given the chance to do so. Clearly it will depend on the individual and their level of anti social thinking. The most recent stats show that only 1.5% of image offenders go on to commit a contact offence, and 3% commit another image offence. But this widely held belief, that all image offenders want to commit contact offences and therefore will go on to commit contact offences is what makes (some) people treat them as the worst of the worst. I actually think that most, not all, image offenders are simply looking for an escapist fantasy and will never progress to contact offending. But then again, a very small number will. Hi punter69, Hope your safe. I understand and agree with your points, in fact I raised them with various PPU officers with the question, "just because another sex offender labeled individual reoffends what make you decide I will?" Maybe I could of rephrased it better but I started the sentence with " So what stops someone " in other words I was raising the question to the person for consideration. In ways I want to expand the thinking of an individual of the possible consequences of their initial acceptance to something being ok. Another comparison would be the weed smoker who says they are in control but then drifts onto stronger drugs. They did not start off with the intention but then something initiates a scenario and the rest is history. In ways the percentages do not matter as they prove the point of the presenter but more importantly because another victim has been created.
I have raised this point in previous posts because in my humble opinion - there are some individuals who do not accept the full impact of the offence in that images do have victims!
I am not - and have no right to judge them or anyone else. I'm am just hoping to give them the confidence to view their offence from another individual's perspective and not their own, which unfortunately will be defensive; if only partially. This may hopefully allow them to fully understand the impact of an offence in the same manner I believe you and I accept victims are not limited to those present at the event, because there is a ripple effect we cannot control.
Take care
Two things there. Some people escalate from cannabis from harder drugs, some don't. Likewise, many people who started out viewing legal porn found their use escalating to illegal images, but those things don't prove they will then escalate to contact offending. It's like saying all shoplifters will escalate to robbing banks. The psychological profiles of contact offenders are different to image offenders. Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do. That's how they are able to commit those types of offences. In answer to the point about some image offenders thinking their actions are harmless. They may well think that way and yet at the same time they are still able to appreciate that contact offences against a child are not harmless. As a result, they will never cross that particular line. Hi I am pleased to stress that I did not say "image offenders see their offence as harmless", I said many, by the way they write and contest punishments do not see their responsibility to the victim - the individual(s) in the image - and try to lower the seriousness of their offence. I do feel your words are proving my basic point in that there is a possibility and that has to be taken into account.
As a result, they will never cross that particular line. I can debate its misuse of the word "never", as I did not wake up one morning and decide to act in a way that was an offence, it was the events of a scenario, lack of knowledge to legal matters and the weakness in my emotions at that time. Anti social attitudes
I have written and deleted many responses to your use of this wording as I can see both the supportive and dismissive points to your use. My offence was anti social to some, but compared to many other acts by individuals within society, who can say what is less or more. It is similar to asking which is the worse offence, a drug dealer or a murderer?
I obviously know there is slightly more psychologically to it but to try and remain on topic .
Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do
Again you are grouping individuals classified with the same "label" as identical! Whilst spending time at her Majesty's pleasure, the majority of fellow inmates at Whatton did not have these characteristics. I am not being offensive as I have previously said I read your words with interest on many subjects but surely you see that these sort of assumptions are the same as offenders of others crimes and society making assumptions due to the perception they have formed from whatever source. As you know I do accept my responsibility towards the legality of the offence. However you cannot say that every contact offender has the attributes of the profile you describe. If I had not deemed it acceptable to pay for sexual services within a uncontrolled environment i.e. street walker and not a brothel, the offence would not of happened. If the female had not lied to me; and her other clients about her age, the offence would not of happened. Those elements are not being assertive they are being submissive to a desire for sexual relief and ignorance to every other "self protection" instinct. Every human is an individual, they have their own weaknesses and possible similarities which mathematicians create links to try and show information that suits their objective. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.If re-offending etc statistics were accurate then why am I not deemed appropriate to be removed automatically from the SOR after 10 years? Why do the PPU; on their annual visit, still question in the same manner as when I was arrested i.e. not on actual facts but assumptions on a genetic profile! keep safe and enjoy the weekend. I take your point about the dangers of generalising. So let's look at some real life examples.I've already mentioned Joseph McCann, whose anti social thinking and high levels of assertiveness were clearly in evidence, although he wasn't considered by probation to pose any risk of sexual harm. In the R vs Smith case (link above) there were 4 defendants involved. All were convicted of image offences, but each one posed a different level of risk, when it came to contact offending. 1. WC - had a history of determined disobedience to orders, a disorganised lifestyle, drug-taking and the commission of further sexual offences while under his first SHPO. Other evidence of his risk of contact offending was sending an indecent image to a woman he met online, who had a 4 year old child. 2. BH - no previous convictions, had been on holiday to Thailand, which Probation said was to abuse kids, despite there being absolutely no evidence to support this (a classic example of imaginary risk, based on it being Thailand and not France or Germany!). 3. SS - psychiatric reports concluded that he was manipulative, potentially predatory and feigned compliance. Indications of depression and personality maladjustment influenced and perpetuated his risk of offending. 4. JD - this is perhaps the most fascinating of the 4. He was aware of the problems created by his sexuality and the indications were that he would not translate his fantasies, about sexual activity with minors, into contact offending. Taken together, these 4 people give a good indication of the different kinds of risk that internet offenders pose. Because clearly, their offences are all the same, but their risks are totally different. I think I would classify them as follows: WC - high risk, BH - medium, SS - very high, JD - low. I would suggest that most internet offenders are closer to JD and BH, rather than WC and SS. I say this, because the many, many studies into the risks of internet offenders, conducted over the last 10 years, have demonstrated it to be the case. You ask why the PPU don't take the extremely low reoffending rates of SO into account and I suggest it's because most people still belief in the myth that all image offenders secretly harbour a desire to commit contact offences. It is a very common assumption, but I believe, a mistaken one. Now consider this example. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897a72c94e06b9e197fc0In this case - (Parsons vs Regina - 2017) the court did agree to restrictions on contacting children, in spite of him being an internet only offender, because of his browsing or searching for websites which could be used for online chats with young children. Here there is actual evidence of intent to commit a contact offence, not merely assumptions and unfounded beliefs. Hi Punter99 Thanks for the interesting reply. I do see elements were we agree - an individual's risk is not defined solely by their offence and that an individual's past and present circumstances can affect any offence. However though reactions from looking at a picture, naked statue, impression or whatever has always been controversial, as some class them as porn whilst others as art. If we expand this subjectiveness and visit my initial comments in this and other posts, hopefully you will see they were aimed at hopefully getting what society calls "image" offenders to consider their words on the severity of their offence, and that there are victims which they do have a responsibility for. We discussed the self acceptance of some to go from non-contact to contact. We agree that not all do BUT, you seem to disagree that this is possible. I believe that unpredictable scenarios can affect the emotion decision making of an individual and that is hard to predict. I suppose that is why Risk comes into play but the methods and challenges to get this correct are still in their infancy. Society though in the last few decades does not accept the learning curve required so errors are made but not admitted. Example listen to the demands about a cure for Corvid19. In regard to sex offenders "Risk" I feel the system does not look/assess as the individual but is based on the "group label." (1) Why does a SO get labeled as a risk to many none direct dangers yet an individual caught speeding past a "school" who loves games of violence, not seen as a danger / or risk to the lives of children? Think of the drivers cognitive understanding of their acceptance of the risks involved and lack of social attitude (2) Back in '98 I made my first visit to see my father who lived in Thailand with a Thai wife. Before I left he "jokingly" said that if I ever got into trouble and they found I had been to Thailand, accusations would go upwards. One day I will tell you what my PO and the Met Police said when I returned from a 3 months tour of South East Asia whilst on bail. Suffice to say I became a victim of the conflict between them. In fact the Met took me to Court to have me placed on remand as a flight risk. The Judge stated he was confused as if I was a flight risk why did I come back from the trip? Also he praised me for my honesty in all replies to their questions. (3) as you will of read in previous posts I have been classed as unsuitable for any and all SO courses by both independent and Justice Service authorities. Only classed as medium Risk when going from Court to HMP Nottingham. If Whatton had processed my application for assessment more promptly, at my first 6 month (after being sentenced) classification assessment, I would of been move to a D Cat establishment with 7 months of being sentenced. because I was caught during a Police operation along with other individuals, I was processed with these strangers and seen / portrayed by the media to society and sentenced as a group. I was not on a joint indictment hence why I am now trying to understand if the manner they process me; kept on bail awaiting sentence for 2 years whilst the others went to trial, was incorrect (4) One no one has answered, why is a drug dealer who uses children to assist them and (possibly) take advantage of in various ways, not classed as a danger to children and monitored in the same way as a offender who pays for consensual sex service? The facts you mention only go to prove the fact that I keep stressing, in that we are all labelled as a group but all are individuals. It is just unfortunate that; as you have shown, it is not until we - as an individual - are focused on, the reality of us becomes apparent. Be that good or bad. As ever I enjoy our constructive conversations and it is a pleasure to politely disagree with each other over our views on certain aspects. <quote>(4) One no one has answered, why is a drug dealer who uses children to assist them and (possibly) take advantage of in various ways, not classed as a danger to children and monitored in the same way as a offender who pays for consensual sex service?</quote> I'd go a step further and say why is a drug dealer who uses children to assist them and (possibly) take advantage of in various ways, not classed as a danger to children and monitored in the same way as any offender on the SOR given that they've directly exploited children for their own benefit. How have the tabloids or politicians not picked up on this and made a thing of it already??
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
"So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?" Hi JASB. Forgive me, but I think you are falling into the same trap as PPU officers do, in presuming that anyone who looks at images will commit a contact offence, any time they are given the chance to do so. Clearly it will depend on the individual and their level of anti social thinking. The most recent stats show that only 1.5% of image offenders go on to commit a contact offence, and 3% commit another image offence. But this widely held belief, that all image offenders want to commit contact offences and therefore will go on to commit contact offences is what makes (some) people treat them as the worst of the worst. I actually think that most, not all, image offenders are simply looking for an escapist fantasy and will never progress to contact offending. But then again, a very small number will. Hi punter69, Hope your safe. I understand and agree with your points, in fact I raised them with various PPU officers with the question, "just because another sex offender labeled individual reoffends what make you decide I will?" Maybe I could of rephrased it better but I started the sentence with " So what stops someone " in other words I was raising the question to the person for consideration. In ways I want to expand the thinking of an individual of the possible consequences of their initial acceptance to something being ok. Another comparison would be the weed smoker who says they are in control but then drifts onto stronger drugs. They did not start off with the intention but then something initiates a scenario and the rest is history. In ways the percentages do not matter as they prove the point of the presenter but more importantly because another victim has been created.
I have raised this point in previous posts because in my humble opinion - there are some individuals who do not accept the full impact of the offence in that images do have victims!
I am not - and have no right to judge them or anyone else. I'm am just hoping to give them the confidence to view their offence from another individual's perspective and not their own, which unfortunately will be defensive; if only partially. This may hopefully allow them to fully understand the impact of an offence in the same manner I believe you and I accept victims are not limited to those present at the event, because there is a ripple effect we cannot control.
Take care
Two things there. Some people escalate from cannabis from harder drugs, some don't. Likewise, many people who started out viewing legal porn found their use escalating to illegal images, but those things don't prove they will then escalate to contact offending. It's like saying all shoplifters will escalate to robbing banks. The psychological profiles of contact offenders are different to image offenders. Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do. That's how they are able to commit those types of offences. In answer to the point about some image offenders thinking their actions are harmless. They may well think that way and yet at the same time they are still able to appreciate that contact offences against a child are not harmless. As a result, they will never cross that particular line. Hi I am pleased to stress that I did not say "image offenders see their offence as harmless", I said many, by the way they write and contest punishments do not see their responsibility to the victim - the individual(s) in the image - and try to lower the seriousness of their offence. I do feel your words are proving my basic point in that there is a possibility and that has to be taken into account.
As a result, they will never cross that particular line. I can debate its misuse of the word "never", as I did not wake up one morning and decide to act in a way that was an offence, it was the events of a scenario, lack of knowledge to legal matters and the weakness in my emotions at that time. Anti social attitudes
I have written and deleted many responses to your use of this wording as I can see both the supportive and dismissive points to your use. My offence was anti social to some, but compared to many other acts by individuals within society, who can say what is less or more. It is similar to asking which is the worse offence, a drug dealer or a murderer?
I obviously know there is slightly more psychologically to it but to try and remain on topic .
Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do
Again you are grouping individuals classified with the same "label" as identical! Whilst spending time at her Majesty's pleasure, the majority of fellow inmates at Whatton did not have these characteristics. I am not being offensive as I have previously said I read your words with interest on many subjects but surely you see that these sort of assumptions are the same as offenders of others crimes and society making assumptions due to the perception they have formed from whatever source. As you know I do accept my responsibility towards the legality of the offence. However you cannot say that every contact offender has the attributes of the profile you describe. If I had not deemed it acceptable to pay for sexual services within a uncontrolled environment i.e. street walker and not a brothel, the offence would not of happened. If the female had not lied to me; and her other clients about her age, the offence would not of happened. Those elements are not being assertive they are being submissive to a desire for sexual relief and ignorance to every other "self protection" instinct. Every human is an individual, they have their own weaknesses and possible similarities which mathematicians create links to try and show information that suits their objective. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.If re-offending etc statistics were accurate then why am I not deemed appropriate to be removed automatically from the SOR after 10 years? Why do the PPU; on their annual visit, still question in the same manner as when I was arrested i.e. not on actual facts but assumptions on a genetic profile! keep safe and enjoy the weekend. I take your point about the dangers of generalising. So let's look at some real life examples.I've already mentioned Joseph McCann, whose anti social thinking and high levels of assertiveness were clearly in evidence, although he wasn't considered by probation to pose any risk of sexual harm. In the R vs Smith case (link above) there were 4 defendants involved. All were convicted of image offences, but each one posed a different level of risk, when it came to contact offending. 1. WC - had a history of determined disobedience to orders, a disorganised lifestyle, drug-taking and the commission of further sexual offences while under his first SHPO. Other evidence of his risk of contact offending was sending an indecent image to a woman he met online, who had a 4 year old child. 2. BH - no previous convictions, had been on holiday to Thailand, which Probation said was to abuse kids, despite there being absolutely no evidence to support this (a classic example of imaginary risk, based on it being Thailand and not France or Germany!). 3. SS - psychiatric reports concluded that he was manipulative, potentially predatory and feigned compliance. Indications of depression and personality maladjustment influenced and perpetuated his risk of offending. 4. JD - this is perhaps the most fascinating of the 4. He was aware of the problems created by his sexuality and the indications were that he would not translate his fantasies, about sexual activity with minors, into contact offending. Taken together, these 4 people give a good indication of the different kinds of risk that internet offenders pose. Because clearly, their offences are all the same, but their risks are totally different. I think I would classify them as follows: WC - high risk, BH - medium, SS - very high, JD - low. I would suggest that most internet offenders are closer to JD and BH, rather than WC and SS. I say this, because the many, many studies into the risks of internet offenders, conducted over the last 10 years, have demonstrated it to be the case. You ask why the PPU don't take the extremely low reoffending rates of SO into account and I suggest it's because most people still belief in the myth that all image offenders secretly harbour a desire to commit contact offences. It is a very common assumption, but I believe, a mistaken one. Now consider this example. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897a72c94e06b9e197fc0In this case - (Parsons vs Regina - 2017) the court did agree to restrictions on contacting children, in spite of him being an internet only offender, because of his browsing or searching for websites which could be used for online chats with young children. Here there is actual evidence of intent to commit a contact offence, not merely assumptions and unfounded beliefs. Hi Punter99 Thanks for the interesting reply. I do see elements were we agree - an individual's risk is not defined solely by their offence and that an individual's past and present circumstances can affect any offence. However though reactions from looking at a picture, naked statue, impression or whatever has always been controversial, as some class them as porn whilst others as art. If we expand this subjectiveness and visit my initial comments in this and other posts, hopefully you will see they were aimed at hopefully getting what society calls "image" offenders to consider their words on the severity of their offence, and that there are victims which they do have a responsibility for. We discussed the self acceptance of some to go from non-contact to contact. We agree that not all do BUT, you seem to disagree that this is possible. I believe that unpredictable scenarios can affect the emotion decision making of an individual and that is hard to predict. I suppose that is why Risk comes into play but the methods and challenges to get this correct are still in their infancy. Society though in the last few decades does not accept the learning curve required so errors are made but not admitted. Example listen to the demands about a cure for Corvid19. In regard to sex offenders "Risk" I feel the system does not look/assess as the individual but is based on the "group label." (1) Why does a SO get labeled as a risk to many none direct dangers yet an individual caught speeding past a "school" who loves games of violence, not seen as a danger / or risk to the lives of children? Think of the drivers cognitive understanding of their acceptance of the risks involved and lack of social attitude (2) Back in '98 I made my first visit to see my father who lived in Thailand with a Thai wife. Before I left he "jokingly" said that if I ever got into trouble and they found I had been to Thailand, accusations would go upwards. One day I will tell you what my PO and the Met Police said when I returned from a 3 months tour of South East Asia whilst on bail. Suffice to say I became a victim of the conflict between them. In fact the Met took me to Court to have me placed on remand as a flight risk. The Judge stated he was confused as if I was a flight risk why did I come back from the trip? Also he praised me for my honesty in all replies to their questions. (3) as you will of read in previous posts I have been classed as unsuitable for any and all SO courses by both independent and Justice Service authorities. Only classed as medium Risk when going from Court to HMP Nottingham. If Whatton had processed my application for assessment more promptly, at my first 6 month (after being sentenced) classification assessment, I would of been move to a D Cat establishment with 7 months of being sentenced. because I was caught during a Police operation along with other individuals, I was processed with these strangers and seen / portrayed by the media to society and sentenced as a group. I was not on a joint indictment hence why I am now trying to understand if the manner they process me; kept on bail awaiting sentence for 2 years whilst the others went to trial, was incorrect (4) One no one has answered, why is a drug dealer who uses children to assist them and (possibly) take advantage of in various ways, not classed as a danger to children and monitored in the same way as a offender who pays for consensual sex service? The facts you mention only go to prove the fact that I keep stressing, in that we are all labelled as a group but all are individuals. It is just unfortunate that; as you have shown, it is not until we - as an individual - are focused on, the reality of us becomes apparent. Be that good or bad. As ever I enjoy our constructive conversations and it is a pleasure to politely disagree with each other over our views on certain aspects.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 716,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
"So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?" Hi JASB. Forgive me, but I think you are falling into the same trap as PPU officers do, in presuming that anyone who looks at images will commit a contact offence, any time they are given the chance to do so. Clearly it will depend on the individual and their level of anti social thinking. The most recent stats show that only 1.5% of image offenders go on to commit a contact offence, and 3% commit another image offence. But this widely held belief, that all image offenders want to commit contact offences and therefore will go on to commit contact offences is what makes (some) people treat them as the worst of the worst. I actually think that most, not all, image offenders are simply looking for an escapist fantasy and will never progress to contact offending. But then again, a very small number will. Hi punter69, Hope your safe. I understand and agree with your points, in fact I raised them with various PPU officers with the question, "just because another sex offender labeled individual reoffends what make you decide I will?" Maybe I could of rephrased it better but I started the sentence with " So what stops someone " in other words I was raising the question to the person for consideration. In ways I want to expand the thinking of an individual of the possible consequences of their initial acceptance to something being ok. Another comparison would be the weed smoker who says they are in control but then drifts onto stronger drugs. They did not start off with the intention but then something initiates a scenario and the rest is history. In ways the percentages do not matter as they prove the point of the presenter but more importantly because another victim has been created.
I have raised this point in previous posts because in my humble opinion - there are some individuals who do not accept the full impact of the offence in that images do have victims!
I am not - and have no right to judge them or anyone else. I'm am just hoping to give them the confidence to view their offence from another individual's perspective and not their own, which unfortunately will be defensive; if only partially. This may hopefully allow them to fully understand the impact of an offence in the same manner I believe you and I accept victims are not limited to those present at the event, because there is a ripple effect we cannot control.
Take care
Two things there. Some people escalate from cannabis from harder drugs, some don't. Likewise, many people who started out viewing legal porn found their use escalating to illegal images, but those things don't prove they will then escalate to contact offending. It's like saying all shoplifters will escalate to robbing banks. The psychological profiles of contact offenders are different to image offenders. Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do. That's how they are able to commit those types of offences. In answer to the point about some image offenders thinking their actions are harmless. They may well think that way and yet at the same time they are still able to appreciate that contact offences against a child are not harmless. As a result, they will never cross that particular line. Hi I am pleased to stress that I did not say "image offenders see their offence as harmless", I said many, by the way they write and contest punishments do not see their responsibility to the victim - the individual(s) in the image - and try to lower the seriousness of their offence. I do feel your words are proving my basic point in that there is a possibility and that has to be taken into account.
As a result, they will never cross that particular line. I can debate its misuse of the word "never", as I did not wake up one morning and decide to act in a way that was an offence, it was the events of a scenario, lack of knowledge to legal matters and the weakness in my emotions at that time. Anti social attitudes
I have written and deleted many responses to your use of this wording as I can see both the supportive and dismissive points to your use. My offence was anti social to some, but compared to many other acts by individuals within society, who can say what is less or more. It is similar to asking which is the worse offence, a drug dealer or a murderer?
I obviously know there is slightly more psychologically to it but to try and remain on topic .
Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do
Again you are grouping individuals classified with the same "label" as identical! Whilst spending time at her Majesty's pleasure, the majority of fellow inmates at Whatton did not have these characteristics. I am not being offensive as I have previously said I read your words with interest on many subjects but surely you see that these sort of assumptions are the same as offenders of others crimes and society making assumptions due to the perception they have formed from whatever source. As you know I do accept my responsibility towards the legality of the offence. However you cannot say that every contact offender has the attributes of the profile you describe. If I had not deemed it acceptable to pay for sexual services within a uncontrolled environment i.e. street walker and not a brothel, the offence would not of happened. If the female had not lied to me; and her other clients about her age, the offence would not of happened. Those elements are not being assertive they are being submissive to a desire for sexual relief and ignorance to every other "self protection" instinct. Every human is an individual, they have their own weaknesses and possible similarities which mathematicians create links to try and show information that suits their objective. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.If re-offending etc statistics were accurate then why am I not deemed appropriate to be removed automatically from the SOR after 10 years? Why do the PPU; on their annual visit, still question in the same manner as when I was arrested i.e. not on actual facts but assumptions on a genetic profile! keep safe and enjoy the weekend. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1772.htmlI take your point about the dangers of generalising. So let's look at some real life examples.I've already mentioned Joseph McCann, whose anti social thinking and high levels of assertiveness were clearly in evidence, although he wasn't considered by probation to pose any risk of sexual harm. In the R vs Smith case (link above) there were 4 defendants involved. All were convicted of image offences, but each one posed a different level of risk, when it came to contact offending. 1. WC - had a history of determined disobedience to orders, a disorganised lifestyle, drug-taking and the commission of further sexual offences while under his first SHPO. Other evidence of his risk of contact offending was sending an indecent image to a woman he met online, who had a 4 year old child. 2. BH - no previous convictions, had been on holiday to Thailand, which Probation said was to abuse kids, despite there being absolutely no evidence to support this (a classic example of imaginary risk, based on it being Thailand and not France or Germany!). 3. SS - psychiatric reports concluded that he was manipulative, potentially predatory and feigned compliance. Indications of depression and personality maladjustment influenced and perpetuated his risk of offending. 4. JD - this is perhaps the most fascinating of the 4. He was aware of the problems created by his sexuality and the indications were that he would not translate his fantasies, about sexual activity with minors, into contact offending. Taken together, these 4 people give a good indication of the different kinds of risk that internet offenders pose. Because clearly, their offences are all the same, but their risks are totally different. I think I would classify them as follows: WC - high risk, BH - medium, SS - very high, JD - low. I would suggest that most internet offenders are closer to JD and BH, rather than WC and SS. I say this, because the many, many studies into the risks of internet offenders, conducted over the last 10 years, have demonstrated it to be the case. You ask why the PPU don't take the extremely low reoffending rates of SO into account and I suggest it's because most people still belief in the myth that all image offenders secretly harbour a desire to commit contact offences. It is a very common assumption, but I believe, a mistaken one. Now consider this example. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b2897a72c94e06b9e197fc0In this case - (Parsons vs Regina - 2017) the court did agree to restrictions on contacting children, in spite of him being an internet only offender, because of his browsing or searching for websites which could be used for online chats with young children. Here there is actual evidence of intent to commit a contact offence, not merely assumptions and unfounded beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
"So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?" Hi JASB. Forgive me, but I think you are falling into the same trap as PPU officers do, in presuming that anyone who looks at images will commit a contact offence, any time they are given the chance to do so. Clearly it will depend on the individual and their level of anti social thinking. The most recent stats show that only 1.5% of image offenders go on to commit a contact offence, and 3% commit another image offence. But this widely held belief, that all image offenders want to commit contact offences and therefore will go on to commit contact offences is what makes (some) people treat them as the worst of the worst. I actually think that most, not all, image offenders are simply looking for an escapist fantasy and will never progress to contact offending. But then again, a very small number will. Hi punter69, Hope your safe. I understand and agree with your points, in fact I raised them with various PPU officers with the question, "just because another sex offender labeled individual reoffends what make you decide I will?" Maybe I could of rephrased it better but I started the sentence with " So what stops someone " in other words I was raising the question to the person for consideration. In ways I want to expand the thinking of an individual of the possible consequences of their initial acceptance to something being ok. Another comparison would be the weed smoker who says they are in control but then drifts onto stronger drugs. They did not start off with the intention but then something initiates a scenario and the rest is history. In ways the percentages do not matter as they prove the point of the presenter but more importantly because another victim has been created.
I have raised this point in previous posts because in my humble opinion - there are some individuals who do not accept the full impact of the offence in that images do have victims!
I am not - and have no right to judge them or anyone else. I'm am just hoping to give them the confidence to view their offence from another individual's perspective and not their own, which unfortunately will be defensive; if only partially. This may hopefully allow them to fully understand the impact of an offence in the same manner I believe you and I accept victims are not limited to those present at the event, because there is a ripple effect we cannot control.
Take care
Two things there. Some people escalate from cannabis from harder drugs, some don't. Likewise, many people who started out viewing legal porn found their use escalating to illegal images, but those things don't prove they will then escalate to contact offending. It's like saying all shoplifters will escalate to robbing banks. The psychological profiles of contact offenders are different to image offenders. Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do. That's how they are able to commit those types of offences. In answer to the point about some image offenders thinking their actions are harmless. They may well think that way and yet at the same time they are still able to appreciate that contact offences against a child are not harmless. As a result, they will never cross that particular line. Hi I am pleased to stress that I did not say "image offenders see their offence as harmless", I said many, by the way they write and contest punishments do not see their responsibility to the victim - the individual(s) in the image - and try to lower the seriousness of their offence. I do feel your words are proving my basic point in that there is a possibility and that has to be taken into account.
As a result, they will never cross that particular line. I can debate its misuse of the word "never", as I did not wake up one morning and decide to act in a way that was an offence, it was the events of a scenario, lack of knowledge to legal matters and the weakness in my emotions at that time. Anti social attitudes
I have written and deleted many responses to your use of this wording as I can see both the supportive and dismissive points to your use. My offence was anti social to some, but compared to many other acts by individuals within society, who can say what is less or more. It is similar to asking which is the worse offence, a drug dealer or a murderer?
I obviously know there is slightly more psychologically to it but to try and remain on topic .
Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do
Again you are grouping individuals classified with the same "label" as identical! Whilst spending time at her Majesty's pleasure, the majority of fellow inmates at Whatton did not have these characteristics. I am not being offensive as I have previously said I read your words with interest on many subjects but surely you see that these sort of assumptions are the same as offenders of others crimes and society making assumptions due to the perception they have formed from whatever source. As you know I do accept my responsibility towards the legality of the offence. However you cannot say that every contact offender has the attributes of the profile you describe. If I had not deemed it acceptable to pay for sexual services within a uncontrolled environment i.e. street walker and not a brothel, the offence would not of happened. If the female had not lied to me; and her other clients about her age, the offence would not of happened. Those elements are not being assertive they are being submissive to a desire for sexual relief and ignorance to every other "self protection" instinct. Every human is an individual, they have their own weaknesses and possible similarities which mathematicians create links to try and show information that suits their objective. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.[/quote]
If re-offending etc statistics were accurate then why am I not deemed appropriate to be removed automatically from the SOR after 10 years? Why do the PPU; on their annual visit, still question in the same manner as when I was arrested i.e. not on actual facts but assumptions on a genetic profile! keep safe and enjoy the weekend.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 716,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
"So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?" Hi JASB. Forgive me, but I think you are falling into the same trap as PPU officers do, in presuming that anyone who looks at images will commit a contact offence, any time they are given the chance to do so. Clearly it will depend on the individual and their level of anti social thinking. The most recent stats show that only 1.5% of image offenders go on to commit a contact offence, and 3% commit another image offence. But this widely held belief, that all image offenders want to commit contact offences and therefore will go on to commit contact offences is what makes (some) people treat them as the worst of the worst. I actually think that most, not all, image offenders are simply looking for an escapist fantasy and will never progress to contact offending. But then again, a very small number will. Hi punter69, Hope your safe. I understand and agree with your points, in fact I raised them with various PPU officers with the question, "just because another sex offender labeled individual reoffends what make you decide I will?" Maybe I could of rephrased it better but I started the sentence with " So what stops someone " in other words I was raising the question to the person for consideration. In ways I want to expand the thinking of an individual of the possible consequences of their initial acceptance to something being ok. Another comparison would be the weed smoker who says they are in control but then drifts onto stronger drugs. They did not start off with the intention but then something initiates a scenario and the rest is history. In ways the percentages do not matter as they prove the point of the presenter but more importantly because another victim has been created.
I have raised this point in previous posts because in my humble opinion - there are some individuals who do not accept the full impact of the offence in that images do have victims!
I am not - and have no right to judge them or anyone else. I'm am just hoping to give them the confidence to view their offence from another individual's perspective and not their own, which unfortunately will be defensive; if only partially. This may hopefully allow them to fully understand the impact of an offence in the same manner I believe you and I accept victims are not limited to those present at the event, because there is a ripple effect we cannot control.
Take care
Two things there. Some people escalate from cannabis from harder drugs, some don't. Likewise, many people who started out viewing legal porn found their use escalating to illegal images, but those things don't prove they will then escalate to contact offending. It's like saying all shoplifters will escalate to robbing banks. The psychological profiles of contact offenders are different to image offenders. Contact offenders have higher levels of both assertiveness and anti social attitudes than image offenders do. That's how they are able to commit those types of offences. In answer to the point about some image offenders thinking their actions are harmless. They may well think that way and yet at the same time they are still able to appreciate that contact offences against a child are not harmless. As a result, they will never cross that particular line.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
"So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?" Hi JASB. Forgive me, but I think you are falling into the same trap as PPU officers do, in presuming that anyone who looks at images will commit a contact offence, any time they are given the chance to do so. Clearly it will depend on the individual and their level of anti social thinking. The most recent stats show that only 1.5% of image offenders go on to commit a contact offence, and 3% commit another image offence. But this widely held belief, that all image offenders want to commit contact offences and therefore will go on to commit contact offences is what makes (some) people treat them as the worst of the worst. I actually think that most, not all, image offenders are simply looking for an escapist fantasy and will never progress to contact offending. But then again, a very small number will. Hi punter69, Hope your safe. I understand and agree with your points, in fact I raised them with various PPU officers with the question, "just because another sex offender labeled individual reoffends what make you decide I will?" Maybe I could of rephrased it better but I started the sentence with " So what stops someone " in other words I was raising the question to the person for consideration. In ways I want to expand the thinking of an individual of the possible consequences of their initial acceptance to something being ok. Another comparison would be the weed smoker who says they are in control but then drifts onto stronger drugs. They did not start off with the intention but then something initiates a scenario and the rest is history. In ways the percentages do not matter as they prove the point of the presenter but more importantly because another victim has been created.
I have raised this point in previous posts because in my humble opinion - there are some individuals who do not accept the full impact of the offence in that images do have victims!
I am not - and have no right to judge them or anyone else. I'm am just hoping to give them the confidence to view their offence from another individual's perspective and not their own, which unfortunately will be defensive; if only partially. This may hopefully allow them to fully understand the impact of an offence in the same manner I believe you and I accept victims are not limited to those present at the event, because there is a ripple effect we cannot control.
Take care
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 716,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
"So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?" Hi JASB. Forgive me, but I think you are falling into the same trap as PPU officers do, in presuming that anyone who looks at images will commit a contact offence, any time they are given the chance to do so. Clearly it will depend on the individual and their level of anti social thinking. The most recent stats show that only 1.5% of image offenders go on to commit a contact offence, and 3% commit another image offence. But this widely held belief, that all image offenders want to commit contact offences and therefore will go on to commit contact offences is what makes (some) people treat them as the worst of the worst. I actually think that most, not all, image offenders are simply looking for an escapist fantasy and will never progress to contact offending. But then again, a very small number will.
|
|
|
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
I believe you are right in saying my words were inaccurate and I feel is insensitive to those with other offences unrelated to images. I should have said that it does not matter what the actual offence is. Some one, some where no matter the offence will be treated unfairly and treated as the worst of the worst, because society will always look down on those with a conviction.
I am also in agreement that any image shared creates a victim, but we have to recognize that some out there do not get told of the dangers of the internet until its to late. I have strong opinions about this, but with social media expanding the way it is and more and more coming out each year, very little is being done to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place. It has in a sense become its own "market" which is being exploited in my opinion. But that is all I will say on that matter for now.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
+xI hope in the future, humankind can find a way to obliterate indecent images of children from the internet. I think one of the battles that needs to be won is the fight against the pornography culture, many people assume that because someone is over 18 and it's on a mainstream website, that it is a consensual act they are viewing, but as with the stories regarding revenge porn etc this is not always true. I know for myself and many other people in the same boat as me, online pornography was the gateway to desensitisation and risk taking behaviour. Through the normalisation of hardcore pornography it paves the way to open the doors to other taboo and more damaging subject matter. some people can take it or leave it, and others end up having an obsessive compulsion over pornography. It's all just a couple of clicks away, and that's the scary thing. like getting water from a tap. I'm just really grateful that there is a lot more support out there now that there used to be. Stopping the demand is really important and also trying to prevent escalation from occurring in the first place is also important, but that can only be done through education. You'll never be able to remove indecent images from the internet. Ever. You could take some very extreme and Orwellian procedures to slow down and make access a lot harder such as every device in the UK/world must have a keylogger than logs your words and searches an alerts the police whenever something questionable comes up but it'd never be granted for obvious security and privacy reasons. Which is good. Remember people still traded and viewed this stuff prior to the internet. They'll just find another method of distribution. One thing that is totally possible if people actually cared was to address the stigma surrounding it so people feel safe seeking help and addressing their behaviour before they actually do anything. Address the cause, not the symptoms.
|
|
|
|
|
Thorswrath
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 92,
Visits: 1.4K
|
I hope in the future, humankind can find a way to obliterate indecent images of children from the internet. I think one of the battles that needs to be won is the fight against the pornography culture, many people assume that because someone is over 18 and it's on a mainstream website, that it is a consensual act they are viewing, but as with the stories regarding revenge porn etc this is not always true.
I know for myself and many other people in the same boat as me, online pornography was the gateway to desensitisation and risk taking behaviour. Through the normalisation of hardcore pornography it paves the way to open the doors to other taboo and more damaging subject matter. some people can take it or leave it, and others end up having an obsessive compulsion over pornography. It's all just a couple of clicks away, and that's the scary thing. like getting water from a tap.
I'm just really grateful that there is a lot more support out there now that there used to be. Stopping the demand is really important and also trying to prevent escalation from occurring in the first place is also important, but that can only be done through education.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
A victim is within the image. They are still abuse victims. Think of the trauma, they will go through for the creation of said image. I agree with this point that has been made. Think how the victim must feel, if the image is on the internet, and will be past around constantly. I have an image based offence also, and I recognise this. without a person viewing the image, it doesn't create a 'market' for it to be created in. I use the word market very loosely. No matter how we think of it, even if you have an image-based offence, you have contributed to the abuse of the child within that photo/video by viewing it. Hi In essence I would say we are agreeing that THERE IS A VICTIM which is the main point i always attempt to highlight to others. I am confused over your sentence - without a person viewing the image, it doesn't create a 'market' for it to be created in. I use the word market very loosely. _ I am saying the viewing not only supports the existing market but also creates a market for new image makers and so victims. I was trying to think of the best way of wording it. You have worded it slightly better. thank you
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Dean91
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 51,
Visits: 938
|
+x+x+x
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
A victim is within the image. They are still abuse victims. Think of the trauma, they will go through for the creation of said image. I agree with this point that has been made. Think how the victim must feel, if the image is on the internet, and will be past around constantly. I have an image based offence also, and I recognise this. without a person viewing the image, it doesn't create a 'market' for it to be created in. I use the word market very loosely. No matter how we think of it, even if you have an image-based offence, you have contributed to the abuse of the child within that photo/video by viewing it. Hi In essence I would say we are agreeing that THERE IS A VICTIM which is the main point i always attempt to highlight to others. I am confused over your sentence - without a person viewing the image, it doesn't create a 'market' for it to be created in. I use the word market very loosely. _ I am saying the viewing not only supports the existing market but also creates a market for new image makers and so victims. I was trying to think of the best way of wording it. You have worded it slightly better.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
A victim is within the image. They are still abuse victims. Think of the trauma, they will go through for the creation of said image. I agree with this point that has been made. Think how the victim must feel, if the image is on the internet, and will be past around constantly. I have an image based offence also, and I recognise this. without a person viewing the image, it doesn't create a 'market' for it to be created in. I use the word market very loosely. No matter how we think of it, even if you have an image-based offence, you have contributed to the abuse of the child within that photo/video by viewing it. Hi In essence I would say we are agreeing that THERE IS A VICTIM which is the main point i always attempt to highlight to others. I am confused over your sentence - without a person viewing the image, it doesn't create a 'market' for it to be created in. I use the word market very loosely. _ I am saying the viewing not only supports the existing market but also creates a market for new image makers and so victims.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Dean91
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 51,
Visits: 938
|
+x
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
A victim is within the image. They are still abuse victims. Think of the trauma, they will go through for the creation of said image. I agree with this point that has been made. Think how the victim must feel, if the image is on the internet, and will be past around constantly. I have an image based offence also, and I recognise this. without a person viewing the image, it doesn't create a 'market' for it to be created in. I use the word market very loosely. No matter how we think of it, even if you have an image-based offence, you have contributed to the abuse of the child within that photo/video by viewing it.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. Hi Not to be argumentative and I have discussed this point in previous posts, but your remark "those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst " I am sorry to say is inaccurate.
I am on the SOR for life; or until I can appeal, my offence was paying for sex with a "known" prostitute. Unfortunately I did not know her true age but even that does not dilute my quilt. I know I only thought about my own "relief" and not the "circumstances" of the female concerned but that does not support the sentencing, the conditions surrounding the sentencing which were caused by a political agenda at the time.
You will say that mine was a contact offence. I will say that I subsequently was informed that the victim - who I had never met before - was recognised as a willing contisapent, no grooming, violence etc who was known to the authorities who did nothing to stop her working in this manner.
Most individuals whose offence involves "images" do not recognise the fact that there is a victim in the image! It does not matter the "viewer" was not in the physical location with the subject or when the image was made. They contributed to the creation of the victim by allowing themselves to view the image. This "allowance" maintains the demand in the same manner marketing people create a desirable image of food, clothes etc.
Know I viewed images of naked females in magazines and newspapers long before I first slept with a female, it was a natural progression. So what stops someone who allows themself to view these images taking the step towards contact if the opportunity arrived?
I do not wish to be judgmental of any other ex-offender as I have no right to do so. However I do have a right to try and promote a fully understanding by individuals towards offences and allow them to wider their approach when considering their offence.
The father of the daughter in the picture sees a victim created by silent eyes he cannot ask why to!
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 716,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+xIndependent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdfI thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders. McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report. Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did. If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly. Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later. Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent. Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children. I think what some of these instances reveal is that the police are extremely suspicious people, which is hardly surprising, and that they overestimate risk. They particularly overestimate risk, in the case of SO, because of negative stereotypes the police hold, about all SO being compulsive liars. In the Joseph McCann case, the police were not doing home visits, and probation were just taking McCann's word for it, when he said he was behaving. When McCann's behaviour became suspicious, for example when he missed an appointment with probation and said he was away, caring for an elderly relative, no concerns were raised. If McCann had been a convicted SO, I think his PPU officer would have immediately been suspicious about his behaviour, at that stage and would have raised the alarm. But, because he was viewed as only being a burglar, not an SO, the clear warning signs were not regarded with the same degree of seriousness by probation, so his real risk was underestimated.
|
|
|
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
+x+x+xWhat does a high risk offender really look like?
That is the million pound question and I think the answer is "Nobody knows" which is what makes it very difficult to police so they tend to essentially tar everyone with a similar brush until you prove yourself otherwise. I agree with you and feel in the vast majority of cases images-based offence sentences are wildly disproportional to the crime committed when you compare it to other crimes. A lot of this has to do with the guides and laws being out of date and not keeping up with the ever changing technology. You just have to look at the wording of the law you've broken to see that. A few things I'd be interested in seeing and it is not something I'm sure the public would be able to have proper access to aside from random hit pieces on questionable websites. - What is the criteria that defines if someone is Low, Medium, High risk
- What is the average sentence for Low, Medium, High risk males
- What is the average sentence for Low, Medium, High risk females
- What is the percentage of re-offending for Low, Medium, High risk males
- What is the percentage of re-offending for Low, Medium, High risk females
I know for the first question there will be a variety of factors at play to define placing someone in that category but I imagine there will still be certain criteria and "check boxes" that need to be hit in order to assign a category to them.
I've said it before but ultimately the biggest change needs to come from public perception. Without that then the rest is borderline irrelevant. You've done your community payback order, you've abode by the PPU check ups etc., you've done your sex offender rehab course, you're now free of all restrictions and notifications. You're still buggered though as those 10 images you downloaded 10 years ago will still label you as a child-snatching monster who should be castrated and hanged from a lamppost. If society sees you as a beast and gives you zero chance to prove you're a reformed character then where do you go from there? Everything breaks down from the keyboard warrior's own hubris.
Aristotle said it quite well, I think: Naive men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater.
As an aside - Why isn't more actually done about social media comments? My PPU does mention they monitor our local Guy Fawkes enthusiast group and would notify me if anything comes up that might be of concern to me. People have been arrested and some charged for posting racist comments online. Why isn't anyone getting arrested for what essentially counts as a threat on someone's life? In regards to my case some commenters were wanting to "be locked in a room for an hour with me and he'll be begging to get out", "evict him from his home. He doesn't deserve to live in this community. Drag him out if we have to", "wont stop hitting him until he barely has a pulse". There are tonnes more and I'm sure most, if not all of you have had similar.
Have you considered submitting those questions under freedom of information? Considering its only the statistics your requesting and no personal information will be given I don't see any reason why this information could not be given. Unless it costs them £450 - £600 in work hours to retrieve the information. I would be quite interested in seeing the results too. I agree 100% the public perception needs to change but we live in an age now where spreading bad news is good news. I was actually offered some training at a local hub near by, can not remember what the course was now but around 1-2 weeks before the course was due to start. some guy got spotted entering the building and a group of people had waited out side for him because they recognized him from the media. He got beaten up quite badly and from that day, anyone with a conviction is no longer allowed to take part in what ever courses they run at that building. But ultimately who are they protecting? Those with convictions? or protecting themselves from public scrutiny? Sarahs Law allows any individual to check if someone they name is on the SOR, they are given in private this individuals real name if it was changed, what convictions are ect ect. The condition is that they are legally not allowed to disclose this information with anyone else not even their partners and is an arrest-able offence under data protection. But lets say an individual googles a name instead, finds all the same information police would give under Sarah's Law, yet this time there is no condition and they are free to share information with out consequence because it was made public and social media makes it easier than ever. Where is the logic? So instead of addressing the route cause of the violence against that guy they just scrapped the whole thing which might have been of benefit? Sound logic there... They'll be protecting themselves. The social backlash of being labelled as "paedo protectors" would almost certainly ruin them. I've nearly finished my community order but its been put on hold due to COVID. All the work I do is exclusively indoors. They don't allow anyone with a child-based sex offence to be out in the open for fear or someone recognising them and causing trouble. One thing I am glad about though in the UK we don't have the open public register that America has where anyone can just put in an address and see your details, picture, offence(s). Also we don't have to go knocking on our neighbours door to let them know. It's almost like they want people to get killed... I will be honest though on some general forums I also frequent I've witnessed a slight change in public perception where people see it more as a mental health issue that needs to be addressed as opposed to chastised. It seems to be mostly with the under 30 crowd. To be honest the fact that the media can report various convictions that include names, addresses and pictures realistically is an open public register. And search engines retain that information which you have to jump through hoops to get removed. But that only removes it from being searchable. If other websites retain the information they are under no liberty to remove it unless ordered by the courts. And what court would really be willing to do that?
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
+x+xWhat does a high risk offender really look like?
That is the million pound question and I think the answer is "Nobody knows" which is what makes it very difficult to police so they tend to essentially tar everyone with a similar brush until you prove yourself otherwise. I agree with you and feel in the vast majority of cases images-based offence sentences are wildly disproportional to the crime committed when you compare it to other crimes. A lot of this has to do with the guides and laws being out of date and not keeping up with the ever changing technology. You just have to look at the wording of the law you've broken to see that. A few things I'd be interested in seeing and it is not something I'm sure the public would be able to have proper access to aside from random hit pieces on questionable websites. - What is the criteria that defines if someone is Low, Medium, High risk
- What is the average sentence for Low, Medium, High risk males
- What is the average sentence for Low, Medium, High risk females
- What is the percentage of re-offending for Low, Medium, High risk males
- What is the percentage of re-offending for Low, Medium, High risk females
I know for the first question there will be a variety of factors at play to define placing someone in that category but I imagine there will still be certain criteria and "check boxes" that need to be hit in order to assign a category to them.
I've said it before but ultimately the biggest change needs to come from public perception. Without that then the rest is borderline irrelevant. You've done your community payback order, you've abode by the PPU check ups etc., you've done your sex offender rehab course, you're now free of all restrictions and notifications. You're still buggered though as those 10 images you downloaded 10 years ago will still label you as a child-snatching monster who should be castrated and hanged from a lamppost. If society sees you as a beast and gives you zero chance to prove you're a reformed character then where do you go from there? Everything breaks down from the keyboard warrior's own hubris.
Aristotle said it quite well, I think: Naive men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater.
As an aside - Why isn't more actually done about social media comments? My PPU does mention they monitor our local Guy Fawkes enthusiast group and would notify me if anything comes up that might be of concern to me. People have been arrested and some charged for posting racist comments online. Why isn't anyone getting arrested for what essentially counts as a threat on someone's life? In regards to my case some commenters were wanting to "be locked in a room for an hour with me and he'll be begging to get out", "evict him from his home. He doesn't deserve to live in this community. Drag him out if we have to", "wont stop hitting him until he barely has a pulse". There are tonnes more and I'm sure most, if not all of you have had similar.
Have you considered submitting those questions under freedom of information? Considering its only the statistics your requesting and no personal information will be given I don't see any reason why this information could not be given. Unless it costs them £450 - £600 in work hours to retrieve the information. I would be quite interested in seeing the results too. I agree 100% the public perception needs to change but we live in an age now where spreading bad news is good news. I was actually offered some training at a local hub near by, can not remember what the course was now but around 1-2 weeks before the course was due to start. some guy got spotted entering the building and a group of people had waited out side for him because they recognized him from the media. He got beaten up quite badly and from that day, anyone with a conviction is no longer allowed to take part in what ever courses they run at that building. But ultimately who are they protecting? Those with convictions? or protecting themselves from public scrutiny? Sarahs Law allows any individual to check if someone they name is on the SOR, they are given in private this individuals real name if it was changed, what convictions are ect ect. The condition is that they are legally not allowed to disclose this information with anyone else not even their partners and is an arrest-able offence under data protection. But lets say an individual googles a name instead, finds all the same information police would give under Sarah's Law, yet this time there is no condition and they are free to share information with out consequence because it was made public and social media makes it easier than ever. Where is the logic? So instead of addressing the route cause of the violence against that guy they just scrapped the whole thing which might have been of benefit? Sound logic there... They'll be protecting themselves. The social backlash of being labelled as "paedo protectors" would almost certainly ruin them. I've nearly finished my community order but its been put on hold due to COVID. All the work I do is exclusively indoors. They don't allow anyone with a child-based sex offence to be out in the open for fear or someone recognising them and causing trouble. One thing I am glad about though in the UK we don't have the open public register that America has where anyone can just put in an address and see your details, picture, offence(s). Also we don't have to go knocking on our neighbours door to let them know. It's almost like they want people to get killed... I will be honest though on some general forums I also frequent I've witnessed a slight change in public perception where people see it more as a mental health issue that needs to be addressed as opposed to chastised. It seems to be mostly with the under 30 crowd.
|
|
|
|