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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

Whether you are reported in the media is not a function of the justice system. Even just a decade ago, local papers would sent reporters to their local courts and report everything down to fines for littering. In some areas, they still do, but it's the decimation of the local press that has led to the unevenness of reporting, not a function of the legal process. In many cases, even in serious cases, unless Court News syndicates a story it will quite often not be reported. 

I was reported in the media. The story was incorrect, but used words said in open court were protected by qualified privileged i.e. the local papers had not misreported or libelled me. I could have asserted a right to correct the record, but I thought the Streisand Effect would be worse. I still think I was right in that respect.

I don't think it's down to the justice system to take it into account whether one case will get more publicity than another. Part of the sentencing remarks mentioned my loss of good character. Whether I liked it or not, this was a fair comment. Yes, it would be fairer if all cases were reported, but verdicts are given in open court. Anyone can publish the details. It's how open justice works. 

"I don't think it's down to the justice system to take it into account whether one case will get more publicity than another."

But it is a function of the justice system, to determine the punishment for an offence and to take into account various factors, when setting the punishment. That's why sentencing varies so much, even when the offence is the same. It is down to the aggravating and mitigating factors, in each case.

When it comes to trial by media exposure though, there is no accounting for any mitigation, it is just a case of good or bad luck, as to whether your particular case gets picked up and publicised, or not. But because the media publicity has an indirect effect on the level of punishment, where SO are concerned, far more than for any other crime, then it really, really matters, if your case gets covered in the media, because it can determine if your life is ruined or not. 

My argument is that the ruination of somebody's life, should not be left to pure luck. It would be like the judge tossing a coin and saying "Heads I send you to prison, tails, I let you go". That's not justice.

also the case getting publicity is part of the justice system on the basis that the justice system allows journalists in court and also passes info to local papers.

That was similar to my experience. Some quotes were read out about me in court which were factually untrue and/or were taken completely out of context which were then corrected in court by my solicitor. The local paper decided to omit the corrections and just ran with the initial quotes, one of which made the headline of their report. I guess I should be flattered that someone went to all that trouble of twisting stuff about me in order to make a quick buck..?

Like you though, I could've went to them and gotten them to correct it but the Streisand Effect jumped in my mind immediately and thought it'd likely be a lot worse than if I just left it.

I think one of the biggest issues these days relating to media reporting compared to what it was say 20+ years ago is the longevity of it .By that I mean, if my case was reported on in say 1991, good lucky finding information about that easily in 1992. You'd have to put in a bit of effort to actively seek out. Nowadays I can just punch my name into Google and boom, there it is. "Today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip papers" I believe the quote is...

I agree it's less about the press reporting the case, it's more about the after-effects of doing so.
Not only is the reporting a lottery, but the sentencing can be a lottery too (although granted we don't know every detail of every case) so there's a huge spectrum of consequences for, as to what the original post is about, the exact same offence. For some that's just insurmountable, especially those aren't here to tell the tale, and there needs to be accountability there - it can be a death by a thousand cuts but when others are having much, much different experiences, that goes further than being "just unfair".

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