Police IT consultan...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Police IT consultant jailed

10 Posts
9 Users
0 Likes
341 Views
mgilhespy
(@mgilhespy)
Posts: 102
Estimable Member
Topic starter
 

Given the recent discussions regarding possession of certain materials which have been happening on various parts of this site, I thought yesterday's item in the BBC news was worth linking to

Police IT consultant jailed

 
Posted : 10/03/2011 2:24 pm
GlosSteveC
(@glosstevec)
Posts: 20
Eminent Member
 

Given the recent discussions regarding possession of certain materials which have been happening on various parts of this site, I thought yesterday's item in the BBC news was worth linking to

Police IT consultant jailed

I note that he was not a forensic analyst, mind!

Steve Clubbe

 
Posted : 10/03/2011 3:38 pm
(@csericks)
Posts: 99
Trusted Member
 

Very sad to see someone in such a position of trust violate that trust. Fourteen months seems pretty light for the quantity and what the Sheriff called "extreme" content of material. In the States, our US Attorneys would rather we find CP on a suspect's machine instead of drug-related evidence. CP offenses come with harsher penalties and are easier to prosecute.

 
Posted : 19/03/2011 1:08 am
(@muirner)
Posts: 65
Trusted Member
 

"33 films and more than 13,000 images"

And all he received was 14 months? I'm not sure that the punishment fits the crime. I believe he needs more time, restrictions on computer/internet access upon release, and lots of psychological evaluation

 
Posted : 21/03/2011 7:06 pm
(@rich2005)
Posts: 535
Honorable Member
 

I'm not surprised at the sentence, seems relatively normal for over here. I am however still surprised the papers don't make a bigger deal of how lenient the CP related sentences are in this country, considering the general furore with anything child related. Perhaps we should solve the problems of our prison overcrowding by outsourcing the sentencing and incarceration of our offenders to the US 😉
To give you an indication of the leniency, the SAP guidelines given to Judges for sentencing say something along the lines of 'possession of a large amount of level 1 images', ie nude children, sentencing range is from a non-custodial sentence to a community order. (no prison time)

 
Posted : 21/03/2011 8:08 pm
(@kovar)
Posts: 805
Prominent Member
 

Greetings,

In the Czech Republic, it is legal to possess child pornography.

'Under Czech law only the production and distribution of child-porn is considered a criminal offense.

Sex therapist Petr Weiss explains why he feels that this is legitimate

"Every civilized country protects children from premature sex and so the production of child porn is, of course, punishable. But on the other hand, child porn can help pedophiles to fulfill their deviant needs on the fantasy level and therefore they do not need to put into practice their pedophile urges. So abuse of children may actually decrease with the use of child porn.'

-David

 
Posted : 22/03/2011 5:15 pm
jhup
 jhup
(@jhup)
Posts: 1442
Noble Member
 

How is "production" defined?

 
Posted : 22/03/2011 7:20 pm
(@pragmatopian)
Posts: 154
Estimable Member
 

How is "production" defined?

Not in the way that it is defined under, for example, US or UK law basically it means the original production. An end user downloading and storing such an image on their own computer is not 'producing' it.

IMHO the arguments for legalisation are fundamentally flawed whether or not legalisation reduces the exploitation of children in the countries where possession is legal it is liable to create a demand for 'production' somewhere. That should be reason enough to ban it.

Regarding the sentencing levels for 'possession' in the UK I'm not sure locking up users for extended periods is the answer. I'd be interested to see research about recidivism among this category of offender, and the extent to which recidivism is correlated with the nature and duration of sentence.

 
Posted : 22/03/2011 8:43 pm
GlosSteveC
(@glosstevec)
Posts: 20
Eminent Member
 

How is "production" defined?

IMHO the arguments for legalisation are fundamentally flawed whether or not legalisation reduces the exploitation of children in the countries where possession is legal it is liable to create a demand for 'production' somewhere. That should be reason enough to ban it.

Quite right - it is a shame Petr Weiss appears to be more concerned with the offenders than the offendees perhaps?

 
Posted : 22/03/2011 9:11 pm
(@dan0841)
Posts: 91
Trusted Member
 

How is "production" defined?

Not in the way that it is defined under, for example, US or UK law basically it means the original production. An end user downloading and storing such an image on their own computer is not 'producing' it.

'Production' sounds comparable to the UK charge of 'Taking' an image. As opposed to 'Making' under the PCA, which is often used to charge for pictures in Temp Internet Files (with relevant supporting evidence), or in areas of a computer where 'possesion' is not satisfied.

 
Posted : 22/03/2011 11:19 pm
Share: