I can’t help thinking that there is something very disproportionate in the way these cases have been handled.
1) Sad git tinkers with Photoshop at home and harms no-one. Gets six years.
2) Sex attacker gets eight months (out in four).
Maybe I am missing something, but this makes as much sense to me as having a higher penalty for thinking about committing armed robbery than for actually doing it.
Internet porn witch-hunt? Or what?
Complete and utter madness!!!
“Harms no-one”!!!!!!!
Are you mad?????
The guy was downloading child porn from the internet. What about the children abused in the porn? What about the children in the school who were also abused by having their images used in this way, albeit to a lesser degree than the direct abuse the other children would have suffered? This man got an appropriate sentence for his crime imo because we have to make it very clear that ‘looking’ at images of children being abused on the internet contributes to the original abuse.
The other guy’s sentence was clearly a joke and gives that poor girl such a sad message about how society values her.
Also in that second case we are actually given no details as to the case. Whilst I would in no way defend the man, whatever the circumstances I can’t see how it’s helpful to compare the two cases.
It’s dangerous to imagine that the first guy was just an old chap tinkering with school pics. He was a persistent user of child porn and went quite far in his creation of images. It’s quite plausable that this man is far more of a danger to society than the second man, whose situation and circumstances surrounding the abuse we know nothing of. Although I’m in no way condoning a four month sentence and then back home again to the street of the child victim for the second man. That is wrong.
But I cannot agree with your presentation of the first man as ‘harmless’ or having only committed ‘thought crime’.
Define child porn. We have no indication as to what kind of images he was downloading.
My quibble here is the disparity between the sentences in the two cases. Do you really believe that looking at pictures is nine times worse than sexual assault? Honestly? Your hypothesising that this guy is more dangerous than someone who has actively engaged in sexual assault is without any basis whatsoever in reason or in the facts as presented.
I don’t need to define child porn- He WAS downloading ‘child porn’.
“paste the heads of students on to child porn pictures downloaded from the internet.”
Child porn is abuse.
You’re right that we have no indication as to the ‘kind’ of images he was downloading, but that was *my* point, was it not- that we can’t really compare the two cases!
Did I say that looking at child porn was nine times worse than sexual assault- NO WAY! But I did point out that you have linked to the first article using the phrase ‘harms no-one’. That’s just not true Tim. As for the second guy, I said I wasn’t going to defend or condone his actions and I’ve still no intention of. I maintain that on the face of it his sentence appears totally wrong and moving back to the street is most definetly so.
But *your* hypothesising that the first guy is less harmless than the second is entirely without facts- as the articles don’t offer enough to make that judgement. But looking at the first article alone, we find that the man repeatedly offended- that is dangerous. We don’t know about the man in the second, which is why I said we can’t really compare them- we aren’t given enough information. I just objected to the man in the first article being presented as some ‘sad git’ engaging in activities that harm no-one. I maintain that on the information given, it is plausable that the first man *could* be more dangerous than the second, but we don’t know.
I think that sounds quite reasonable.
Tim, I don’t think the examples you’ve chosen demonstrate a bias agaist the internet. The cases are not comparible. Arguments about the relative punishments that should/are applyed for looking at abuse physical abuse are not demonstrated by these stories because there is simply not enough information in them to make a clear comparison.
I think comparing crimes and sentences is rather difficuly, ultimately pointless and rather ‘Daily Mail’, especially when you don’t know the full circumstances. I think the sentence for offender 1) is appropriate and for 2) not (on a very general view of what they have done.
It might have been this was your view Tim, but you have given the impression that you think that six years for a teacher abusing his pupils is too harsh, I wouldn’t agree.
Your “harms no-one” phrase was “interesting”. So he didn’t personally “harm” anyone in this instance. The article states that he has previous convictions for making indecent images of children (so it would be a fair inference that he was downloading these types of images). This is a criminal offence and it has also been shown that peodophiles (which he must be if he enjoys making these images) are quite likely to go on to offend against children in future.
I think that your hyperlink titles, in your attempt to make a point about demonising the internet (a point I think you haven’t made BTW), are at best over simplistic.
All laws are not just, nor are they all moral. Frankly, I see no reason why looking at a picture or reading a book or watching a play should be a crime. It may not be “nice”, but that doesn’t mean there should be a law against it.
I recall very well the look of stunned surprise on the librarian’s face when I collected the copy of “Mein Kampf” I had ordered when I was fourteen. Next on my list was “Capital”. I have also read half of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” (I bore easily and never liked D.H.Lawrence that much), I managed two chapters of Lolita before boredom set in. I really don’t feel the need to have some self-righteous jerk telling me what is and what is not good for me.
Try this picture Phan Thi Kim Phuc. (If you clicked the link you are guilty of “downloading” a full frontal picture of a naked nine year old girl which is now stored on your hard drive, so you are a criminal. You, the BBC and pretty much every major newspaper on the planet who all have copies of it stored somewhere.) Now there was most definitely a strong desire among people in power to ban that picture.
Inciting or commissioning maltreatment or abuse of people or animals for the purpose of selling photographs of the event depicted is a very different thing. But it is a far stretch to say that someone who looks at a picture is responsible for acts committed in producing it. For example, I don’t feel at all responsible for the napalm attacks during the Vietnam war.
As far as can be seen from the the reports (as trivialised by the BBC) the teacher in the first article has shown no inclination over many years to go and act out his fantasies. Many, many people have sexual fantasies which they never act out.
Simon, if you clicked the link “it has also been shown that” you are likely to go on to download more pictures from the Internet. Saying that if someone is a paedophile they are going to continue being a paedophile is true. But banning pictures is not going to change that, it is possible to argue (I don’t happen to believe it) that by banning pictures you are driving people to act out their fantasies by removing their only alternative outlet.
Chris, the BBC report says “there had been no hint of any criticism about his behaviour in school or as a teacher” while I don’t think it is appropriate or professional for him to be behaving as he was, he was not sentenced for abusing his pupils, he was sentenced for having pictures of them. Which is not the same thing at all.
Nothing said makes me think that it is a measured and reasonable tariff to jail someone who looks at pictures for six years and someone who sexually assaults a child for four months.
Depends what you mean by abuse, doesn’t it? I suspect his punishment was harsher because he was a teacher and the use of the kids’ images….
“Simon, if you clicked the link “…it has also been shown that…†you must recognise that you are likely to go on to download more pictures from the Internet. :-)”
No a very intelligent comparison really Tim :). Psycological tendancies towards paedophilia can be traced from patterns of behaviour. Collecting images of children performing sexual acts (manipulated or otherwise) suggests that the person has paedophilic tendancies. In recognition of this there is a specific criminal offence to prevent the storage of indecent images of children. There ARE Legitimit reasons for having this material (criminal/psycological research etc or even the Pete Townsend defence) but when each case is judged on it’s merits then the further evidence in this case of the person creating fantasies for his own gratification involving himself and children in his own care is (arguably) evidence enough to suggest that this person is a dangerous individual.
Your articles do not suggest an “Internet porn witch hunt”. You insist on comparing the sentances – you “appear” to be more pissed of about the guy getting a long sentance for “harming no-one” than you are about the sexual assult.
BTW I’m not suggesting banning pictures. Nor are your articles. They do not suggest an “Internet porn witch hunt”. As for your other point – on face value the the second case seems undully lenient.
I will reply direct to you Simon. But no, the thing which really disturbed me was the contrast between the two sentences and the leniency of four months for sexual assault on a child.
Lolita wasn’t real Tim!
Vietnam wasn’t Napalmed for you to enjoy the pictures of.
You may not want laws against the production and supply of this type of material but I do. It’s quite wrong to suggest that using pictures of abused children for sexual pleasure is purely ‘fantasy’ because it’s not. Children were harmed to create the porn.
Now I’m done because I think we’re just going to disagree whatever here as you seem determined to view the first man’s actions as harmless.
I am quite aware that ‘Lolita’ was a work of fiction, I really didn’t need to be told that.
“Vietnam wasn’t Napalmed for you to enjoy the pictures of.” Funnily enough, I knew that too. There were people there who enjoyed doing it and there certainly will be people who enjoy looking at pictures of it. Pornography is in the eye of the beholder.
“You may not want laws against the production and supply of this type of material but I do.” Why do you think I don’t? That it not what I said. It is nothing like what I said. I want laws which deal with anyone who abuses children for whatever purpose.
There is a difference between fantasising about something and doing it. There is a difference between looking at a picture and doing what it depicts.
Locking this guy up has done NOTHING to stop the production of abusive images. It will not stop one child being abused.
My preference, as it happens, would be that the (finite) resources which were consumed in this case had been used to pursue the real abusers involved in the child porn industry, the people who abuse children to produce pictures. YMMV.
I think that Tim was actually saying that the looking at the pictures should not be against the law, but that the production should. How can the act of looking at anything actually be evil? On this point of isolated principle I kind of agree. *If* you could prove that the pictures being looked at not involved the abuse of anyone (physical or otherwise) then I don’t believe the act of looking at the pictures is evil.
Where I disagree with Tim is that I don’t think you can create such images without someone being abused, therefore you can’t decouple the ‘demander’ of the porn from the actual ‘supplier’ of the porn in terms of the responsibility for the abuse. The flaw, to me, in Tim’s argument is he has stripped out the demand issue from the act of ‘looking’, I don’t think that’s possible.
Crossed comments Tim.
I totally agree with you that the resources used to convict this man and subsequently detain him could have been used better if the only purpose was protection of the most children possible from harm.
If these were just cartoon pictures drawn solely from the man’s imagination then we could consider him a sad old man and wonder at his sentence.
I see your point about ‘looking’ not being evil as it would be impossible to draw the line. But locking that guy up *may* well have stopped one child being abused, for all we know.
I think my emphasis was lost in the typing- I was in no way intimating that you didn’t know that Lolita was fiction, I was just surprised that you could compare you reading a piece of fiction about child abuse with that guy downloading internet child porn as one is fictitious and one involved child abuse to produce.
I think I rather meant the ‘use’ of this material, rather than production and supply alone- apologies for being unclear. Maybe this is where we differ? I’m comfortable with having laws that prohibit even ‘looking’ at this sort of material because I beleive it perpetuates the abuse. I apologise if you felt I implied that I thought you were in any way anti child-abuse protection legislation.
Really my initial annoyance was just at the implication that the first guy was ‘harmless’ and comparable to the second guy’s case, which we really have no information about as the article is more concerned with his choice of location to reside in after his sentence. Although I entirely agree that 8 months, out in 4 is appallingly short for committing child abuse.
I’m afraid I’ve no idea what YMMV stands for 🙂
Your Mileage May Vary. 🙂
I think Chris has summed it all up quite nicely.
I would certainly argue that you can create pornographic images of any type without anyone being abused. If CGI techniques are used you can do it without any real person (whole or in part) appearing in the picture at all. It would not make the pictures intrinsically any “nicer” though.
As to looking at pictures “perpetuat(ing) the abuse”. There is a point here. Quite an important one, but it isn’t intrinsic to the content of the pictures.
The law in Britain is that it is legal to take pictures in public places, there are only very limited restrictions on this, so for example, you can quite legally take pictures of scantily clad runners in the London Marathon, or people on the beach and so on.
But if you have someone whose photo has been taken, without consent, in a place or situation where their consent should be required, then I believe they should be entitled to to block the sale, publication and circulation of any such photo. Regardless of content. So for example, revealing paparazzi shots taken on the street should be legal, but less revealing, less intimate shots taken by trespassers should not. Since you cannot legally consent to a criminal act, that would mean that any picture taken in an illegal context would be covered. Under present law, as I would understand it, you might find that of say fifty shots taken in a session, only five were pornographic and liable to be banned.
For a child who has been abused, the circulation of any photo of them from that session will perpetuate the abuse, not just the “pornographic” ones.
But nevertheless, it is circulation and publication which I would want banned, not possession.
Tim,
I haven’t got round to checking my email yet but before I do I just want to review my comments on this thread and say a couple of things.
1. I was extremely belligerent on this occasion which was unnecessary and really quite unpleasant. It doesn’t make for nice reading especially as this is meant to be a discussion between friends.
2. “you “appear†to be more pissed of about the guy getting a long sentence for “harming no-one†than you are about the sexual assault” This quote from my good self could look very much like I am accusing you of excusing paedophilia. I am not BTW but it has quite a nasty tone to it so I withdraw it entirely.
So for both 1 and 2 I apologise Tim.
As for the discussion it appears to be have run it’s course but I get the impression that you have serious concerns (quite legitimately) concerning freedom of expression and the puplic perception of the internet and the state desire to control it. I have lots to say about both these things and I think we may agree about a lot of it – but some things are much better discussed face to face. I look forward to some civilised and friendly chats and discussion at Kessingland like we had last year.
Simon
I do not take offence at anyone arguing a view forcefully. I had taken no offence at anything said here.
This is an issue which people feel strongly about. It really would alarm me if people didn’t.
But thank you and I look forward to seeing you too.
Thanks Tim, I wan’t sure if I’d stepped oven the line or not. Anyway, I’ve sent you a long email to get your teeth into!