Do not jail all paedophiles, says police chief (UK Story)

[yung_dood]

Paedophiles who view indecent images but go no further should not be jailed but rehabilitated, a leading child protection police officer has said.
Police forces "cannot cope" with the "huge" rise in reports, Chief Constable Simon Bailey, of the National Police Chiefs' Council, told the BBC.
Figures show the number of child abuse reports is up by 80% in three years.
The Home Office said "viewing child abuse images is a terrible crime and should be treated as such".
Chief Constable Bailey, the head of Operation Hydrant, which is investigating multiple allegations of historic sexual abuse across the UK, said he knew his view would cause nervousness and draw headlines. But he said the numbers of reports of abuse were at "huge proportions" - an NSPCC study in late 2016 used figures which suggested the number of individuals looking at such images could exceed half a million.

'Contact cases' focus

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme about 400 people were arrested by police in conjunction with the National Crime Agency every month, for looking at indecent images.
"There are undoubtedly tens of thousands of men that are seeking to exploit children online with a view to meeting them, with a view to then raping them and performing the most awful sexual abuse upon them," he said.
"That's where I believe our focus has got to be. They are the individuals that pose the really significant threat."
Offenders who viewed online child abuse images should be placed on the sex offenders register, cautioned and managed in the community undergoing rehabilitation, he said. Referrals to rehabilitation "increasingly are effective", he said and not using the court system would "speed things up".

He added: "Every time an image is viewed, the victim is being victimised again and there is nothing as abhorrent. But we have to be able to manage the totality."
A Home Office spokesperson said the government had committed £20m to the National Crime Agency for specialist teams to tackle online child sexual exploitation.
"Alongside ensuring we have a tough law enforcement response to bring offenders to justice, we are also committed to preventing offending in the first place," they added.The NSPCC agreed that prison sentences served a vital purpose in terms of public protection, justice, and acting as a deterrent.

But a spokesman added: "We cannot arrest our way out of the situation. If we are to protect more children we must make prevention and rehabilitation a priority."
'Not naive' to offenders
Those working in the area are already stretched.
Lisa Thornhill, is a senior practitioner at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, which works with people who have sexually harmed or fear they may harm a child.
It offers "non-judgemental support" to help to change people's behaviour - such as a 10 week group programme, its website and Stop it Now confidential helpline.

Calls to the helpline are over capacity - about 800 people each month call, but about 2,500 calls are unable to be taken due to demand.
While the organisation was "not naive" to the fact that some sex offenders were solely motivated to access children for abuse, she said, there was "a moral responsibility to help those who want it".
Natcen research on the helpline showed the importance of support, she added.

"Most people who commit these offences have some idea what they are doing is wrong," she said. "We appeal to the brave and responsible part of those people to get in touch with us and stop, and stay stopped."

Chief Constable Bailey's comments came as the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales (IICSA) began its full public hearings on Monday with an examination of allegations made by children in care who were sent abroad.
The wide-reaching inquiry will look at child abuse claims against local authorities, religious organisations, the armed forces and public and private institutions - as well as people in the public eye.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39112911

 

[SkyRider]

Very sensitive subject. Personally, I never take photos of stranger little kids (or stranger adults for that matter) in public or private places.

 

[escapefromstress]

Possessing, downloading, sharing or viewing of child sexual abuse images are all federal crimes. 'Not knowing' is not an admissible defense.

I've posted quite a bit on this topic on another board. It's horrifying when you realize how much of this goes on.

 

[rhuarc29]

The Home Office said "viewing child abuse images is a terrible crime and should be treated as such".

If I agreed with that, I'd be a huge hypocrite. There are plenty of people out there who blame Johns for human trafficking. Do you? If not, then how can you blame the viewers of child porn for child abuse?

The real crime is with people who actually abuse children, same as traffickers are the true criminals of human trafficking.

We went over this in another thread, but I don't blame paedophiles for being the way they are. They have some wires crossed and can't help it. What they can help is their actions. I sure as hell say lock them up if they engage in actual child abuse.

 

[SkyRider]

then how can you blame the viewers of child porn for child abuse?

The two counterarguments which may or may not be rational are:

1) Viewers create the market. If these viewers did not exist there would be no child abuse.
2) These videos are the "gateway" to actually committing child abuse.

 

[yung_dood]

If I agreed with that, I'd be a huge hypocrite. There are plenty of people out there who blame Johns for human trafficking. Do you? If not, then how can you blame the viewers of child porn for child abuse?

The real crime is with people who actually abuse children, same as traffickers are the true criminals of human trafficking.

We went over this in another thread, but I don't blame paedophiles for being the way they are. They have some wires crossed and can't help it. What they can help is their actions. I sure as hell say lock them up if they engage in actual child abuse.

Sex with consenting adults is a victimless crime. Johns don't always know an SP is being trafficked.
Everyone knows that children (in our society) cannot consent to abuse, which is how child pornography is created.

 

[mmouse]

We went over this in another thread, but I don't blame paedophiles for being the way they are. They have some wires crossed and can't help it. What they can help is their actions. I sure as hell say lock them up if they engage in actual child abuse.

I don't believe in this "wires crossed" idea. People are responsible for self control. We expect people to exercise self control in their actions - for example, drive drunk and you are severely punished. I wouldn't go so far as to say we should expect people to control what they THINK, but looking at inappropriate images is more than a thought.

 

[escapefromstress]

I don't believe in this "wires crossed" idea. People are responsible for self control. We expect people to exercise self control in their actions - for example, drive drunk and you are severely punished. I wouldn't go so far as to say we should expect people to control what they THINK, but looking at inappropriate images is more than a thought.

+1

What possible 'innocent' excuse could someone have for searching, sharing, downloading or viewing child porn? You usually don't find this stuff by accident, you're looking for it on some conscious or subconscious level.

 

[Perry Mason]

This is a very, very difficult situation...

I have acted in defence of a pedophile...

The psychiatric consensus seems to be that pedophiles are born or that their brains are wired that way and cannot be "cured," though they can be "managed."

And I would much rather have a pedophile watching videos than molesting children!

And the ideas that "If... viewers did not exist there would be no child abuse" and/or that "These videos are the "gateway" to actually committing child abuse" are unadulterated, sheer ignorance!

And, if you "don't believe in this "wires crossed" idea," then your beliefs must be much better informed than the best that science can do at this time!

Perry

 

[SkyRider]

There have been some bizarre enforcement of the law. Here are 3 examples that quickly come to mind.

1) Wal-Mart called the police because they saw a pic of a naked kid. The mother explained that was her kid and the man in the pic is the kid's father. No, we don't know if the kid was abused behind closed doors.

2) Guy returning to Canada had a pic of his naked baby on his cellphone. Was questioned by the border agent.

3) 14 year old girl had a nude selfie on her cellphone. Charged with child porn.

 

[escapefromstress]

This is a very, very difficult situation...

I have acted in defence of a pedophile...

The psychiatric consensus seems to be that pedophiles are born or that their brains are wired that way and cannot be "cured," though they can be "managed."

And I would much rather have a pedophile watching videos than molesting children!

And the ideas that "If... viewers did not exist there would be no child abuse" and/or that "These videos are the "gateway" to actually committing child abuse" are unadulterated, sheer ignorance!

And, if you "don't believe in this "wires crossed" idea," then your beliefs must be much better informed than the best that science can do at this time!

Perry

.

We will have to agree to disagree strongly on that.

And seriously - if you're going to post on terb in defense of pedophiles and tell members that it's ok to view child porn, I think you should be banned.

 

[Perry Mason]

And seriously - if you're going to post on terb in defense of pedophiles and tell members that it's ok to view child porn, I think you should be banned.

That's what I like, an open minded person that understands what he reads! Unfortunately, that is not you!

I am a lawyer and said that I acted for a pedophile [which is how I learned about the issues] not that I was posting in defence of pedophiles!

And if you take from what I wrote that I am advocating for child porn, you must be demented!

Perry

 

[Fred Zed]

I would like to make it VERY CLEAR, that the mods and management of this review board do not condone or support the viewing of child porn or pedophilia in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, if any member has proof that anybody they know is participating in the said activities, we strongly encourage them to contact Law enforcement immediately. The comments of the members in this thread are their opinions only and do not represent the beliefs and values of TERB management or the moderating team. It is for discussion purposes only.

Jess

 

[rhuarc29]

The two counterarguments which may or may not be rational are:

1) Viewers create the market. If these viewers did not exist there would be no child abuse.
2) These videos are the "gateway" to actually committing child abuse.

Johns also create the market for prostitution, and therefore it could be argued they are responsible for exploitation of vulnerable people. I don't agree with that, but plenty do.
As for videos being a gateway to committing child abuse...maybe. Are violent video games a gateway to committing violent acts?

Sex with consenting adults is a victimless crime. Johns don't always know an SP is being trafficked.
Everyone knows that children (in our society) cannot consent to abuse, which is how child pornography is created.

That's an excellent point. With an trafficked SP, you don't know the situation. With an abused child, you know by the very fact that they're in the video.

I don't believe in this "wires crossed" idea. People are responsible for self control. We expect people to exercise self control in their actions - for example, drive drunk and you are severely punished. I wouldn't go so far as to say we should expect people to control what they THINK, but looking at inappropriate images is more than a thought.

I believe both. I think something is screwy with their biology, but that doesn't recuse them from responsibility for their actions.

I would like to make it VERY CLEAR, that the mods and management of this review board do not condone or support the viewing of child porn or pedophilia in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, if any member has proof that anybody they know is participating in the said activities, we strongly encourage them to contact Law enforcement immediately. The comments of the members in this thread is their opinion only and do not represent the beliefs and values of TERB management or the moderating team. It is for discussion purposes only.

Jess

Absolutely.

 

[escapefromstress]

That's what I like, an open minded person that understands what he reads! Unfortunately, that is not you!

I am a lawyer and said that I acted for a pedophile [which is how I learned about the issues] not that I was posting in defence of pedophiles!

And if you take from what I wrote that I am advocating for child porn, you must be demented!

Perry

I understand very well exactly what you wrote. Perhaps you reveal more of yourself in your posts than you realize.

You're so comfortable in your thought processes regarding child porn that you're not even aware of how much you communicate about your core belief system.

You need to stop listening to these pedo's.

You've already crossed over from being totally horrified at the thought of child porn, to finding it acceptable under certain circumstances, for people with 'special' problems.

You said you'd prefer they watch it than abuse a child. Your opinion should be that it is NEVER acceptable, because no matter how 'special' a pedophile might convince you he is, there is still a child that is going to be a victim in the photos he views instead of acting out.

And you're voicing this opinion on a public forum that is viewed by lots of normal people who will give weight to your opinion 1) because you're a lawyer, 2) because you're a senior board member.

You need to check yourself buddy.

You do terb no favours by voicing opinions like this.

 

[huckfinn]

I understand very well exactly what you wrote. Perhaps you reveal more of yourself in your posts than you realize.

You're so comfortable in your thought processes regarding child porn that you're not even aware of how much you communicate about your core belief system.

You need to check yourself buddy.

You do terb no favours by voicing opinions like this.

I don't think you understand exactly what he wrote, or his belief system for that matter. Unless you share his thoughts it can be interpreted many ways.

I believe he doesn't support pedophiles, but he believes in tolerance. You can't paint them all with the same brush.

BTW lawyers and senior board members are 'normal' people too.....they have an opinion like everyone else, and I take them all with the same weight.

 

[escapefromstress]

I don't think you understand exactly what he wrote, or his belief system for that matter. Unless you share his thoughts it can be interpreted many ways.

I believe he doesn't support pedophiles, but he believes in tolerance. You can't paint them all with the same brush.

BTW lawyers and senior board members are 'normal' people too.....they have an opinion like everyone else, and I take them all with the same weight.

How much research have you done on this issue? Enough to recognize the thought patterns and belief systems of child predators?

Pedophiles usually appear normal on the outside. All types of people are pedophiles - doctors, lawyers, teachers, cops, fathers, uncles, brothers and grandfathers who all seem to be fine upstanding respectable citizens.

You better believe I can paint them all with the same brush.

The police chief in the article is more worried about overcrowding in his jails than he is about the VICTIMS of the offenders.

EVERY child sexual abuse image has a VICTIM in it, and every victim deserves justice.

Sending a pedophile for counseling where he's told he's 'not that bad' and that 'it's not his fault' because his brain is wired differently, is bullshit.

The person who takes a child sexual abuse photo commits a crime, adults who appear in the photo with the child are committing a crime, the person who grooms the child and prepares them to be photographed commits a crime, and EVERY person who views, shares, downloads or possesses child sexual abuse images commits a crime.

 

[escapefromstress]

Chilling evidence of organized child sex abuse revealed in survey

Odette and her sisters Rosemary and Lucy are among the victims of what a new survey by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection suggests is a widespread tragedy — child exploitation rings led by parents of the abused.

It would often happen late at night.

A father, respected as a professional and family man, would awaken his two toddler daughters and take them to his back office, away from the bedrooms where their mother and siblings slept.

Groggy and confused, the girls would follow his instructions and pose naked against a studio backdrop or with props such as boas and coconut bras and hula skirts.

As they grew older, strange men would arrive when their mother was away. Under their father’s guidance, the girls would reluctantly agree to do what they were told.

“I would see him over me and we were both naked,” recalls Odette, now 23, one of three sisters speaking publicly for the first time about the abuse their father inflicted. “He would tell me it was a special bond for us.”

The father would post their special bond with parents and abusers across the U.S. and Europe as a central player in an international child exploitation ring involving more than a million images.

Odette and her sisters Rosemary and Lucy (pseudonyms they chose) are among the victims of what a new international survey conducted by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection suggests is a widespread tragedy — child exploitation rings led by parents of the abused.

Responses from 128 child abuse survivors across North America and Europe found 52 per cent were victimized by a network of abusers, overwhelmingly involving their own parents, who shared images and even their children themselves with others. In most cases — nearly 70 per cent — images were then shared with millions more strangers online.

Most survivors are haunted by the online life of the imagery. More than 70 per cent surveyed said that the imagery never ends and makes them feel vulnerable to being recognized. About 90 per cent said their abuse affected both their education and professional success, in part because they know their victimization continues online.

About 30 per cent said they had been recognized by someone who saw their images online. Of those, 64 per cent said they were “targeted” — either blackmailed or propositioned.

“We were definitely most shocked about the extent of organized child sexual abuse in our survey,” says executive director Lianna McDonald. “We learned that often those closest and most trusted by children were responsible for not only abusing their children, but sadly, also orchestrating and facilitating the abuse by many others.”

The survey defines organized sexual abuse as involving multiple offenders, primarily parents and relatives, creating and sharing child sexual abuse images, exchanging children for sexual purposes or engaging in “sadistic, torture-related and ritualistic abuse.”

The story of the three sisters is the story of most child abuse victims. Their abuse, like 60 per cent of survey respondents, involved a parent, most often a father. Like the more than 80 per cent of respondents, they are female.

The exploitation of the sisters began, like nearly 90 per cent of survey respondents, before age 12. Like all respondents in the survey, their abuse was recorded.

Not all respondents answered all questions. The findings reflect the responses of those who answered each question.

The names and locations of the sisters are being withheld to protect their privacy. The Star interviewed them over two days in Seattle, where their lawyer is based. Lucy, the eldest sister, did not suffer the same physical abuse as her sisters but carried the weight of a young child trying to protect her siblings from a father she instinctively knew was evil.

That father, whose name is being withheld to protect the identity of the women, is in prison. He was sentenced more than a decade ago, along with more than 20 others, to 30 years for conspiracies to sexually exploit children and produce and distribute sexually explicit material.

Dozens of children were victimized by the group, court records show.

Several U.S. enforcement officials at the time called it one of the most disturbing cases they’d seen in their careers.

In separate interviews, Rosemary and Odette recalled their father abusing them and bringing men home or taking them to the homes and offices of others.

All three remember a trip to another city where their father took them to the home of one of his friends who had two children of his own.

Odette and Rosemary were separated into different rooms, they recall.

“I remember screaming and her screaming that we didn’t want to be separated,” Odette says through tears.

She was taken into a room with a photographic backdrop where the man’s older daughter was.

“She would comfort me and tell me everything is going to be OK . . . . All we have to do is smile . . . . I remember it being really uncomfortable and scary. And my dad wasn’t there.”

Rosemary, one year younger, also has clear recollections of the day.

“I remember them molesting us, taking pictures, undressing us. I remember always trying to get out, scream or kick.”

Lucy, aged 10 at the time, was on the other side of the locked door, desperately trying to help, but unable.

“I could hear them crying and trying to touch the doorknob to get out. That was just a horrific moment for me . . . . Now I know they were being raped.”

Most often, the abuse would happen at home, on a flowered couch in the father’s office.

“(My father) would wake me up in the middle of the night. He would undress me when I was half asleep and do things,” said 22-year-old Rosemary. “I will always remember the flash of the camera and being woken up from it. Every year, to take a photo ID for school it was really hard because they would have all of those flashes . . . . It would take me back to that.”

Lucy recounts the abuse from a different perspective — that of an uneasy observer of her father’s appetite for taking photographs of his daughters and neighbourhood children.

Even before she had words, she recalls feeling that something was wrong

“I would stay with my sisters all the time to protect them,” says Lucy, who says her father had access to at least 10 children. “His friends who would come to visit were from around the world. I guess they were in some type of club. They would all take pictures all day with the children.”

She recalls trying her best to thwart his plans by breaking his cameras or computer equipment in an act of defiance.

The sisters, who live in the U.S. West, say their mother knew nothing of the abuse. Mourning the death of her own mother, the sisters recall her being depressed and distracted, often travelling to another city and leaving them with their father.

“He had full access to us,” says Lucy.

All three say memories of that betrayal intrude on their lives daily, challenging their current relationships. Rosemary and Odette live with the knowledge that countless images of their exploitation continue to circulate online.

“It’s a constant issue knowing that I can’t take those down and keep them down,” says Odette.

“It’s just so much bigger than me and out of my control so it makes it really hard to live, knowing that someone out there is doing something with those photos at any time of the day.”

None of the women want to be married or have children.

“The thought of having kids scares me,” says Odette, who, like her sisters, has a boyfriend. “You can’t control horrible things from happening . . . I think that plays a big part in marriage, too. I always wanted my dad to walk me down the aisle and have that support and authority in a positive way. I’ll just never have that.”

Carol Hepburn, their Seattle lawyer, says their story is representative of so many others.

“We have three beautiful women who don’t want to get married or have kids who have so much to give but whose ability to give is stunted. I think of the problems that I know Rosemary and Odette have had in school and the problems they have in trying to have a regular job, and you just can’t do it when you’re always looking over your shoulder and triggered by worries that this person in front of me was looking at pictures of me as a little girl on a computer getting raped or molested.”

The U.S. Department of Justice sends notifications to victims alerting them that their images were identified in child pornography investigations. Over the past two years, Hepburn’s law firm has received more than 500 such notices informing them that images of Rosemary and Odette have turned up.

The sisters’ shared nightmare has forged a bond, one that has carried them through depression, severe anxiety, alienation from friends and family and the discovery of their faith.

“(Faith in God) was my relief, my way of finding happiness,” says Odette. “It felt like I did have a dad, it was just a spiritual one. I struggle with that, even to this day. It’s hard to know that I had a dad who didn’t love me like he should have.”

Without that new-found spirituality, “we probably would have killed ourselves,” says Rosemary, who now works as a caregiver after bouts with drugs and alcohol in school. “I think that’s how we all felt.”

During a walk through a Seattle park, a dozen small children wandered past, escorted by a daycare teacher. For Rosemary, the scene triggered a chilling thought.

“I was thinking, there are three or four that might be being molested and we don’t know,” she said through tears. “When I walk down the street or I’m at the mall . . . it’s always on my mind.”

When she was waitressing a few years ago, a male customer approached.

“(He) told me, ‘Hey I know you, you look like someone who’s been on the computer,’ ” she recalls. “He gave me a weird look. I just cried. My mouth fell open. I ran away.”

Lucy, 27, was watching Rocky recently and she had to stop.

“I flashed back to when my dad paid us to wrestle,” she recalls. “It just made me feel gross inside.”

It was a late January evening when the sisters saw their father for the last time. Rosemary and Odette had gone with him to their brother’s hockey game. Their brother’s team won so Dad took them for milkshakes on the way home.

Twelve-year-old Lucy was at home cooking, watching The Brady Bunch on TV and signing Valentine’s Day cards for her classmates.

When she answered a knock at the door, about 10 plain-clothed police officers entered and began asking questions and rooting through the house.

When their father pulled into the driveway, they could see the flashing police lights.

“My mom was crying. My sister was crying. There was like FBI and search dogs. They pulled us separately into different rooms and asked us questions,” Rosemary recalls.

Just remembering the moment brings anxiety for Odette.

“I remember my mom crying and crying saying, ‘I don’t want to lose you, I love you.’ And I remember thinking, this is all my fault . . . I felt like because of me, I didn’t have a family anymore.”

The sisters don’t feel such guilt anymore.

Their father has written to them but rather than being remorseful or contrite, the letters are angry and accusatory.

“He was mad because I didn’t live up to his standards,” says Odette of a letter she received from him at age 18. “I remember reading the letter and screaming, cursing . . . . I just remember reading it and ripping it up.”

The sisters have remained silent so long because they felt humiliated and embarrassed. Now, they wish to have a voice.

“I know something good can come out of this in the end,” says Rosemary. “This is why God put this in our lives. We had to go through it for a reason — so we could help other people.”

Sitting and speaking candidly, says Odette, is about “keeping the fire inside me lit, the fire that tells me I can make a difference and help people like me. I want to be able to do that with sophistication, with grace, with love.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...in-survey.html

 

[rhuarc29]

How much research have you done on this issue? Enough to recognize the thought patterns and belief systems of child predators?

Pedophiles usually appear normal on the outside. All types of people are pedophiles - doctors, lawyers, teachers, cops, fathers, uncles, brothers and grandfathers who all seem to be fine upstanding respectable citizens.

You better believe I can paint them all with the same brush.

The police chief in the article is more worried about overcrowding in his jails than he is about the VICTIMS of the offenders.

EVERY child sexual abuse image has a VICTIM in it, and every victim deserves justice.

Sending a pedophile for counseling where he's told he's 'not that bad' and that 'it's not his fault' because his brain is wired differently, is bullshit.

The person who takes a child sexual abuse photo commits a crime, adults who appear in the photo with the child are committing a crime, the person who grooms the child and prepares them to be photographed commits a crime, and EVERY person who views, shares, downloads or possesses child sexual abuse images commits a crime.

I think you are oblivious to what others are really saying and are just lashing out in anger. No one is saying that paedophiles are "not that bad" or that they are not responsible when they commit child abuse. Some people are making a distinction between watching child porn and creating child porn; I likened it to the distinction between hiring an escort and exploiting an escort. As yung_dood pointed out, that's not a perfect metaphor because most Johns aren't aware that an escort is being exploited, whereas a viewer of child porn is. But unlike you, yung_dood made his point reasonably and not by going off on a rant.

As Perry Mason said, it's a difficult situation. And a highly critical one. Children are incredibly vulnerable and people who take advantage of them deserve to be locked up, whether it's for reasons of greed or that their biology made them attracted to children and they chose to act on it.

 

[escapefromstress]

I think you are oblivious to what others are really saying and are just lashing out in anger. No one is saying that paedophiles are "not that bad" or that they are not responsible when they commit child abuse. Some people are making a distinction between watching child porn and creating child porn; I likened it to the distinction between hiring an escort and exploiting an escort. As yung_dood pointed out, that's not a perfect metaphor because most Johns aren't aware that an escort is being exploited, whereas a viewer of child porn is. But unlike you, yung_dood made his point reasonably and not without going off on a rant.

As Perry Mason said, it's a difficult situation. And a highly critical one. Children are incredibly vulnerable and people who take advantage of them deserve to be locked up, whether it's for reasons of greed or that their biology made them attracted to children and they chose to act on it.

I'm not ranting, I'm educating.

This is the critical flaw in your thinking: Some people are making a distinction between watching child porn and creating child porn; I likened it to the distinction between hiring an escort and exploiting an escort.

It's always abuse and it's always a crime when it's a child.