Judges Comments
Notifications OFF
I've seen a delightful article in the news with the usual awful headline but what really got me was the judges comments: 'You are not guilty of any contact abuse of children, but if it was not for people like you who consume these images, the abuse in question would most likely not take place.'
What planet is the judge on and do they not realise CSO existed way before the Internet did? This just adds to the public hysteria.
What planet is the judge on and do they not realise CSO existed way before the Internet did? This just adds to the public hysteria.
This is something that judges and politicians like to believe, but it's based on a false assumption, that originated in the American courts before the internet existed, which is that it is a commercially driven industry, where 100% of iioc is produced to order and all the images are sold for money.
That doesn't capture the many different ways in which men access these images nowadays. Some are indeed purchased and money does change hands, but mostly the images are freely shared around, through chat forums and file sharing apps. No money is exchanged.
The actual producers of the images do often share images that they have taken, with other people on certain forums, but the motivation for them doing this is not financial. It's almost a way of gaining status amongst that 'community' of people. If there was no community, then you could argue they would not create the images, but that doesn't mean they would not carry out the abuse.
The abuse is mainly something they do for themselves, for their own gratification. The images are a by-product of that abuse. Even if there were no demand for images at all, it does not mean that the abuse would not happen. So it's a flawed argument.
This is a controversial subject. It really depends how the person in question obtained their particular images. Did they request them from a producer, or did they pay money for them? If they did, then they have created a demand. But if they didn't do either of these things, then it's debateable as to whether they did create a demand or not.
Rather than focus on if it creates a demand, a better argument to use, is that viewing the images causes distress to the person in the images and that sharing the images increases that harm.
That doesn't capture the many different ways in which men access these images nowadays. Some are indeed purchased and money does change hands, but mostly the images are freely shared around, through chat forums and file sharing apps. No money is exchanged.
The actual producers of the images do often share images that they have taken, with other people on certain forums, but the motivation for them doing this is not financial. It's almost a way of gaining status amongst that 'community' of people. If there was no community, then you could argue they would not create the images, but that doesn't mean they would not carry out the abuse.
The abuse is mainly something they do for themselves, for their own gratification. The images are a by-product of that abuse. Even if there were no demand for images at all, it does not mean that the abuse would not happen. So it's a flawed argument.
This is a controversial subject. It really depends how the person in question obtained their particular images. Did they request them from a producer, or did they pay money for them? If they did, then they have created a demand. But if they didn't do either of these things, then it's debateable as to whether they did create a demand or not.
Rather than focus on if it creates a demand, a better argument to use, is that viewing the images causes distress to the person in the images and that sharing the images increases that harm.
The judge in my person's case stated that you think you aren't causing harm but you are just by viewing the images and I agree with those sentiments.
There was no context in today's article about how the images had been procured, just the judges sentiments which won't help anyone reading the article.
There was no context in today's article about how the images had been procured, just the judges sentiments which won't help anyone reading the article.
Hi,
I'm sure I've read an article that gave an extremely low percentage of people that commit iioc or online offences rarely go on to commit contact offences.
Vindication of people who get caught in this type of offence needs to stop and help given rather than sentences, not in every case but I'd say in most cases :( xxx
I'm sure I've read an article that gave an extremely low percentage of people that commit iioc or online offences rarely go on to commit contact offences.
Vindication of people who get caught in this type of offence needs to stop and help given rather than sentences, not in every case but I'd say in most cases :( xxx
Post deleted