Paedophiles who view child pornography should not be prosecuted?

O

Oscurito

The issue is in the title. A leading UK police officer says that the police can no longer cope with the volume of cases and hence prosecutions should be focused on those paedophiles who pose a risk to children as opposed to those who "only" view images online.

Going by the article below, Simon Bailey seems very confident that his forces are able to distinguish those who aren't likely to abuse. “We’re able to assess whether a paedophile viewing indecent images of children is posing a threat of contact abuse and in circumstances where that individual does not pose a threat of contact abuse they should still be arrested, but we can then look at different disposal orders than going through the formal criminal justice system”, he says.

The UK police force is reportedly overwhelmed by the volume of cases, receiving on average 112 reports every day - hence the expressed desire to prioritze more serious cases.

Bailey's reaction is understandable but viewing (and perhaps paying for) images and footage of child abuse is not a victimless crime. An actual child is being abused.

If the worst that those doing it is to face "counselling and rehabilitation", then where's the deterrent? They can happily continue with their behaviour (and perhaps financing these vile activities) knowing that there's little to fear. At the end of it all, a child is being abused.

Police chief calls for paedophiles who view child abuse images to be spared prosecution as officers "can't cope" with volume of reports
 


Felixness

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
4,397
I don't really know what the answer is. It's almost a taboo subject and a conversation does need to be had on it. The laws don't allow for pedophiles to be locked up for life, the Police don't have the resources to monitor every pedophile. Realistically, the only way I can think of to stop pedophiles abusing children is to lock them up for life, and by life I mean until they are carried out in a coffin. I think it's the safest option, but human rights laws mean it's unlikely to ever happen.
 

Henry94.

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,925
Could some form of civil penalty be used. An automatic fine and a ban from the internet which could be contested in open court if the accused person disputed the charge. I'd advocate name and shame but the danger of lynch mobs would be too great.
 

razorblade

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Messages
8,090
The only cure for a paedophile is castration, no amount of time in prison can cure them of their sick fantasies.
 
O

Oscurito

Could some form of civil penalty be used. An automatic fine and a ban from the internet which could be contested in open court if the accused person disputed the charge. I'd advocate name and shame but the danger of lynch mobs would be too great.
I think some sort of harsh and effective penalty is needed. OTOH, an amnesty for paedophiles who want help could be looked into.

Policing a ban from the internet would be difficult. I wonder would it be possible to affix an internet blocking device to a person (like with electronic tagging) so that they could never freely access the internet unless it's supervised.
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
There was an Eton scumbag viewing abhorrent images of bestiality with small children, he got a slap on the wrist.

Him and his ilk provide the market he should have been complicit.
 
O

Oscurito

The only cure for a paedophile is castration, no amount of time in prison can cure them of their sick fantasies.
That won't stop paedophiles from paying for images and footage of abuse which means a child in some distant country is abused.

And honestly, there are many ways to engage in sexual abuse.
 

Black Swan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
5,467
It should not be a criminal offence to simply view images.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
11,859
Anybody hosting,sharing or viewing pictures or videos of children being abused should be prosecuted as active pedophiles.
 

Felixness

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
4,397
The only cure for a paedophile is castration, no amount of time in prison can cure them of their sick fantasies.
That won't stop them having the urge and they will still seek out children, either in the real world or the child pornography online.
 

Felixness

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
4,397
That won't stop paedophiles from paying for images and footage of abuse which means a child in some distant country is abused.

And honestly, there are many ways to engage in sexual abuse.
Places like Thailand are notorious destinations of choice for pedophiles. Some parents are willing to sell their children's bodies to them and have done for a long time. By allowing it to be acceptable to view pornographic material without risk of imprisonment it makes it appear legitimate. The end result is that somewhere a child will be sexually abused.
 
O

Oscurito

It should not be a criminal offence to simply view images.
If the viewer pays for them, it absolutely should be a criminal offence because they're paying for the next child to be abused or even another bout of abuse with the same one.

If there's no payment involved, I don't know. There's still the whole pay-per-click thing....
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,060
The only cure for a paedophile is castration, no amount of time in prison can cure them of their sick fantasies.
Even if castrated they could still physically harm a child.

How about castration plus removing their hands?
 

Black Swan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
5,467
If the viewer pays for them, it absolutely should be a criminal offence because they're paying for the next child to be abused or even another bout of abuse with the same one.

If there's no payment involved, I don't know. There's still the whole pay-per-click thing....
Paying for, soliciting or sharing images is an entirely different matter. One isn't involved in any transaction by viewing ads or clicking links. I should be able to access any information that's available on any subject, it's nobody elses business.
 

Felixness

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
4,397
Paying for, soliciting or sharing images is an entirely different matter. One isn't involved in any transaction by viewing ads or clicking links. I should be able to access any information that's available on any subject, it's nobody elses business.
I'm scratching my head at this, truly, I am. You appear to be saying that it's OK to view images of child pornography, so long as you don't pay for it. The result is the same, a child will be raped and their images shared to other pedophiles to jerk off to. I'm starting to get suspicious of you.
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
If they don't have the resources then only prosecute those who contribute their own or who pay to access it. It's funny that the UK police have the resources to chase after anyone who says something deemed 'racist' or 'inflammatory' but not enough resources to pursue paedophiles.

I guess the safety of kids is less important than the power agenda of some pushy multiculturalists and powerful minorities.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,528
If they don't have the resources then only prosecute those who contribute their own or who pay to access it. It's funny that the UK police have the resources to chase after anyone who says something deemed 'racist' or 'inflammatory' but not enough resources to pursue paedophiles.

I guess the safety of kids is less important than the power agenda of some pushy multiculturalists and powerful minorities.
say means things about refugees can get you a police visit but funding child abuse meh.....
 

Black Swan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
5,467
I'm scratching my head at this, truly, I am. You appear to be saying that it's OK to view images of child pornography, so long as you don't pay for it. The result is the same, a child will be raped and their images shared to other pedophiles to jerk off to. I'm starting to get suspicious of you.
I didn't say that and couldn't care less what you think.

I said that viewing images, or in fact accessing and possessing any kind of information at all, should not be a criminal offence. In the case of child pornography, those images are evidence of a crime that a pedophile committed.

You deliberately misinterpreted what I said.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top