I think there is something rather unsettling about
this case. In particular, there is no mention of any actual physical sexual abuse of children. Rather, the conviction was based on images of children. I am not claiming that this is not wrong, but that I don't believe that it is as bad as actual physical sexual abuse of children. It is voyeurism. Perhaps, the most disturbing aspect of the case is "Timothy David Martin Cox, the man behind the website, was jailed for an indeterminate length of time after admitting possessing and distributing indecent images of children". And that "Judge Peter Thompson at Ipswich Crown Court today ordered that Cox stay in prison until experts decide it is safe to release him". My objection is that the sentence is indeterminate, and I feel that the sentence should have been a determinate one. The other aspect I find worrying is leaving it up to a panel of so-called experts to decide when he is safe to be released. Nowhere in the report has it been shown that he is a risk to the public. I feel that it should be up to a judge to determine the length of sentence, and that it should be done in open court. In effect, this so-called panel of experts are re-sentencing behind closed doors and in secret away from public scrutiny. I don't feel that justice is being served. Justice has to be seen to be done.
I watched the media reports on this case, the main theme here is that these PDF files are viewing images in which the making of them involved actual torture and rape of children, some as young as just a few months old. A weak similarity can be drawn by the government hitting smokers instead of of the cigarette manufacturers.
ReplyDeleteThe disturbing aspect of this is that as you so rightly say, the police have hit out at the voyeuers rather than at the source of their so called "entertainment".
Also, IMHO justice has to be SEEN to be done.