The problem is that the Treasury won't want to fund that amount of extra spending. That then leads into the Home Office preferring to stick with the hate figures they already have, as they don't need any more.... They will always condemn domestic violence, but they will only bring in harsher penalties - they want the police to concentrate on their current priorities.


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

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

Why does it matter? Because it shows the way that things are going, in terms of more people being criminalised. Bear in mind, that sharing deepfake images of celebs online, is a very common behaviour and if everybody who is doing it was prosecuted and placed on the SOR, the numbers would explode. (And that is without prosecuting the millions who only make, or possess, these images.) The police will then have to monitor all these individuals, many of whom pose little or no risk to society. In the public mind, all of them will be considered as 'dangerous predators' and excluded from employment, etc. They will all be given SHPOs too, of which one solicitors firm, in the report, says'

"SHPOs have a significant and life-changing impact on offenders, who are essentially unable to rehabilitate themselves properly into society, once one is imposed.” - Corker Binning Solicitors.

Tell me about it!

The govt recently backed away, from creating a domestic violence register, because so many people, would then have to be monitored by the police and the Law Commission also acknowledges the impact on police resources, of criminalising so many people. Although politicians like to talk tough in public and give the impression that they are mainly influenced by the Daily Mail, I think that behind the scenes, they will pay a lot more attention, to what the Law Commission recommends.

There are different types of non contact offence. Taking, or distributing/sharing might be more harmful, than making or possession. The Law Commission also considered whether harm was caused by making (rather than taking), an intimate image of a non consenting adult and there was some disagreement. (see page 166-170).

For example, on page 168, the Law Society says; "If the individual is not aware of the taking of the image, then there is question as to whether they are personally harmed. However, the act of taking such images is arguably harmful as a whole, as it encourages a belief that the taking of such images is permissible, which in turn will lead to greater harm in the aggregate."

This is very similar to the creating demand argument, which is, that by taking an image, you somehow encourage other people to take images too.

But there was an alternative opinion:

On page 168. Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) Goldspring suggested there is “minimal” harm and drew a parallel to using one’s imagination. Professor Keren-Paz also considered the similarity with imagination and private fantasy, saying:

"I do not consider that the making of an image harms the subject, or at least harms at a level justifying criminal prohibition (or for that matter, civil remedy). I think the
making of an image for self-consumption is too close to fantasy to be regulated and the harm seems to me speculative."

A number of consultees expressed their view that the harm only arises, when a made image is shared. For example, one argued that “no harm is done until the images are
made accessible to others”.

The Law Commission concluded;

" We agree with the arguments that a made intimate image is more tangible than imagination or fantasy, but conclude that the tangibility in itself is insufficiently harmful to warrant criminalisation. There is also an argument that criminalising “making” interferes with the right to freedom of expression.

(This is an odd argument, because it suggests that somebody's right to freedom of expression, matters more than the harm done to their victim.)

"The evidence we have heard throughout consultation, is that the harms associated with intimate image abuse manifest most significantly, at the point at which an intimate  image is taken or shared without consent. Therefore, we consider that these behaviours should be the primary focus of the criminal law. Evidence from consultees suggests that the more significant harm is caused when a made image is shared – or a threat to share it is made – rather than when it is simply made."

So the harm caused, by making or possessing an image, is not enough to justify criminalising those two behaviours, while sharing an image is the most harmful thing and so the Law Commission recommended, that sharing should be made an offence.

I remember the course I did on licence. In one session, one group was asked to consider the effect of a contact offence, while the other group considered the effect of a non-contact offence. The outcomes were broadly the same, in psychological terms, and once you know that stuff is out there, you have no idea who knows - people in the street, your neighbours, your friends at work or school, maybe even your new partner. It has been said that the revenue from the sites in question goes to organised crime, which is why they keep popping up so soon after being shut down. I don't know whether that is true, but it is plausible. On the other hand, as deepfakes don't involve the person or an approved image of them, I can't see how there would be any harm unless and until they know about it.


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

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

Whilst I understand what you are saying, arguing the point is not very productive. It won't get you sympathy in the Daily Mail which appears to be writing much of the laws at the moment.

The "worst" image I had in my possession was really poor fake of (at time of arrest) a 24 year old actress. However it used a "headshot" from when she was 16. Illegal. That's the current law. Couldn't argue with it.

And as for causing "harm" that's just a sop to justify why possession is treated as harshly as actual contact offences. The NSPCC got in a lot of trouble for suggesting that there should be a graduated approach to possession charges. You can see the whole modus operandii with the "gateway" drug argument around cannabis. I don't take drugs. Never have, but many of my friends have smoked it for decades. They've not progressed to injecting heroin, but because a minority do it justifies the "war on drugs". I suspect at least half the House of Commons are hypocrites on this matter (that is the cannabis bit, although I have my own list of those I think are mainlining heroin!)

But back to the topic. It is currently illegal to possess drawings of fictitious underage persons engaged in sexual activity. Lisa Simpson porn will get you a prison sentence, despite the character being created in 1998. Clearly in those cases no actual harm has been caused, other than infringement of copyright which is a civil offence, but it is still illegal in the UK. The requirement for harm is not a prerequisite for things to be law.

The law commission recently published its proposals, for a new set of intimate image offences. They looked at a variety of issues, including revenge porn, deepfakes and upskirting.

The report is lengthy, but I want to focus on one area, which is the possession of an intimate image, of a non consenting adult. The law commission carefully considered, if a possession offence should be created for these types of images and it decided against making possession an offence. (see pages 176-184)

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/taking-making-and-sharing-intimate-images-without-consent/

The reasons why the law commission decided against criminalising possession were very interesting. They acknowledged that there is huge demand for deepfake porn, but they did not even mention the possibility that viewing a deepfake image, could create demand for more deepfake images to be produced.

This is hugely significant, because the 'creating demand' argument is one of the most common justifications for making possession of iioc an offence. The fact that the law commission decided it was not even worthy of considering as a possibility, where other intimate images are possessed, shows that the law commission do not believe that possession creates demand. It is a deeply flawed argument, with no evidential basis.

On the second, most common reason given, for criminalising possession, which is that possession causes harm, to the person depicted in the image, the law commission was much clearer. They were adamant that possession does cause harm, although they were unable to say precisely how that harm is caused. But they also made it clear, that harm should not have to be proved in court, by the prosecution, because it was too "difficult" to prove.

Again, I find this remarkable. If possession causes so much harm, as they claim, then it should at least be possible for them to demonstrate that in a courtroom. Some of the people consulted by the report, claimed it was just "obvious" that harm is caused, and they used that as their justification, for it not having to be proven.

But the most remarkable part of the report, was the justification given for not making possession an offence, which is that it would be "unenforceable" due to a lack of "police resources". (page 182, para 4.276)

They say; "It is very finely balanced, but ultimately we conclude that even such a limited possession offence risks overcriminalisation and would be unwieldly to enforce."

They also noted: "when the enormous scale of intimate image abuse is considered, a further offence of mere possession of such images is likely to render these laws almost unenforceable in practice. Possession offences would require vast resources to police given the potential scale of the offending. We are concerned in particular that police who have to provide a proportionate response would ultimately be limited in practice (due to limited resources) to telling the person to delete the image they possess. The police would not reasonably be able to follow up to check whether the image was in fact deleted from every device and cloud account."

So what the law commission concluded, is that the police would not even bother to prosecute somebody, who was caught in possession. They would just say to the person; "delete the image and we will say no more about it".

Well, if that was the case, why do they do not do that with iioc?? The police obviously believe they do have the resources, not just to prosecute everybody in possession of iioc, but also to check the devices and cloud accounts of all of those individuals, for the next 10 or 15 years.

The law commission's conclusion is completely divorced from reality, in my view, but it does point the way for how possession of iioc ought to be dealt with in future. Instead of prosecuting for possession and destroying people's lives, they should just tell the person to delete the images and leave it there.