The problem isn't really with the criminal justice system itself, although it does seem to be still in the early 20th century. Before the late 1990s, when the internet became A Thing, only the most notorious cases were reported, and even if it was in a local or national newspaper, it probably didn't get digitised. Now, it's up to whoever controls the content of whichever website is reporting on something. Or whoever posts it on social media. That, in turn, is probably going to be driven by clickbait, from the biggest audience down to the smallest. So, if your story is overshadowed by a local dignitary being embarrassed by something, or a local tragedy or controversy, you probably won't be reported. If there is anything clickbait-worthy about your case, then you have a problem, and that problem won't be going away quickly.

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

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)

my offence was for fraud for the grand total of five pounds, so not image or sexually related.

my life is ok, still have the same bank accounts, same house, same relationships etc etc. I coud even lie on eTA applications to enter other countries for a holiday.
I know it would have been very different had I been reported in the media, probably lost all of the above.
I was lucky, where i live trivial cases like mine still get reported, mine wasn't.

So the difference is not the sentence and  / or offence, but whether your case is reported in the media....
is this a justice system?

I do understand what you are saying, but the world is unfair. It's how an individual deals with that fact that's important.

Until he blotted his copybook by moving to Vietnam and committing further offences, Gary Glitter was not really that much different in his offences to (1) Pete Townsend, who also downloaded illegal material of the most serious categories and (2) John Peel who, when 26, married a 15 year old in Dallas. However, Glitter is beyond the pale in the court of public opinion whilst the other two are still relatively unscathed.

I learned early on that trying to compare outcomes was detrimental to my mental health. I do not think I am better than others because my offences were category C. Everyone has their own path to how they got where they are. That society is judgemental and consequences often disproportionate is how it is. It's how you try to be a better person that's the real end game.

Wow, it's the breeziness of her explanation too - "thousands in all categories" "Horizon twice a week" it almost feels like she is/they are laughing at the broken system that's destroyed our lives. Fascinating that he has been offending and they're not married yet...

I'm going to assume he wasn't in the press and thus able to keep his job and that also means they've probably been very selective on who they've told, which as you say are pretty much the factors that affect one's life long term. 


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

On another forum, I found this, written by the partner of a man, convicted of image offences. It describes one experience, but sounds very different from most of those we hear on this forum.

"He got a suspended sentence and thousands of images in all categories. We're still in a mortgaged house, he still works in the same field, still comfortable financially. We're planning our wedding and life is very much normal! He has horizon twice a week and a 5 minute chat to the probation officer once every 2 weeks (goes into the office once a month on his way to work and the other meeting is a quick telephone call in his break). Other than that, life is no different!"

The two most obvious things to note, are that he didn't lose his job and that his partner stood by him. There is no mention of whether it was reported in the media, but if it was, then seems unlikely that he would still have the same job. But so many of the consequences of these offences, are not the restrictions imposed by the courts, but the 'collateral damage' created by the media and the fallout from that, as well as the reactions of friends and family. It is not a level playing field, in that respect, because the outcomes can be very different, depending on the person's circumstances.