‘Go soft’ on paedophiles, top judge tells Guernsey
Monday 25th July 2011, 2:30PM BST.
Jonathan Sumption, QC, cut a 15-month sentence imposed on former hotel manager Mark Gunter to three months.
PAEDOPHILES convicted of taking, making or possessing indecent images of children will get shorter sentences in the future after a recent court judgement, an advocate has confirmed.
Guernsey Court of Appeal judge Jonathan Sumption, QC, slashed a 15-month sentence imposed on former hotel manager Mark Gunter to just three months.
Gunter, who was sentenced by the Royal Court in March, had admitted seven charges of possessing a total of 505 indecent images of children.
In his judgement Mr Sumption, who recently became the first QC to be appointed to the Supreme Court since 1949, said the time had come for Guernsey formally to adopt the sentencing practice England used for such offences.
AFR advocate Rachel Eeles said: ‘This will undoubtedly lead to shorter sentences for these offences from now on in Guernsey.’
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Disgusting!
Report abuse
Most commented article on TIG in 3… 2… 1…
I really don’t need to say why I disagree with this, it should be pretty obvious. Anyone who commits a paedophilic offense should be treated with enough harshness to ensure that they never do it again, or never have the capacity to – not give them shorter sentences and send them on their way to do it again. They need to be punished, and severely.
Report abuse
Is there no Guardian in law who protects small children,
If his advise is used I can foresee a bit of Home justice.
Any acts against innocent little children should be doubled-not lessened
Report abuse
Unacceptable.
I do not care what the UK do, in fact I think we should be even tougher on paedophiles. Why would we be soft on them?
South Korea has just enacted chemical castration, I would much prefer something on those lines.
I hope the Frigate will not be re-employing him, he’s probably near enough done his sentance or he is out already.
Report abuse
The Law should first of all’be there to protect the innocent,’ Then, ‘punish’ the offender.to prevent anyone from re-offending.This man seems unable to carry out either task.
Report abuse
This is quite disgusting, as I see it the public already believe that sentences are too low for these types of offences, and he’s proposing lowering them considerably further? This once again shows how out of touch judges are with the people, I really do find it hard to believe.
I wonder if he’ll propose doing the same for drug offences? At least if he did that we could shut down half of Les Nicolles and save a few quid……..
Report abuse
this has got to be the worst thing to come out of the island court, the judge must have strange way of thinking to do that. sad sad sad. if i go after someone who ever touches my kids, and i do serious harm, can i have my sentence cut to 1 night, or even A SLAP ON THE WRIST, WHILE BEING TOLD DO NOT DO IT AGAIN!!
Report abuse
Pardon Sir?
Something not right here!
So its a bit risky for all to download those sort of pics
Get caught, pay consequences whatever!
The only defence can be ppl who visit misleading nasty websites without realising what they are doing! So computer clean up else get caught
Sumpton’s is obviously squeaky clean
505 is way over the top! And how many times did he view them?
Pooh to Porn!
Report abuse
This is horrific, what kind of message does it send out across the world. I think we already have an awful lot of these sick b***rds in the island and this is just like advertising for more
I am disgusted and ashamed
Report abuse
This is absolutely disgusting news! Committing a paedophilic offense should place the offender in the same bracket as rapists and murders as both of these horrible crimes have repercussions which will reverberate for years if not decades afterwards.
What is the point of having our own government if we still follow what the UK is suggesting we do?
It’s time someone, somewhere grows a pair and puts their neck out on the line to stand up for what’s the right thing to do, not what will win favours with the mainland
Report abuse
Isn’t about time the courts start look at things that matter ie increasing sentences for the more serious crime rather than reducing sentences for some of the most disgusting of crimes.
If we want to be so backwards why don’t we lower the sentences for all our drug dealers too! Hold on, before you actually do reduce everyones sentence, please note the hint of sarcasm….
Report abuse
typical Guernsey justice system, geared up to protect the guilty and punish the innocent.
These children who’s lives are severely damaged by PAEDOPHILES, who’s childhood has been taken away by PAEDOPHILES deserve better justice, proper justice and PAEDOPHILES should be properly punished….shame on the Guernsey Law System again!!!
Report abuse
OK, so they know they won’t get as long a sentance over here, so Guernsey will become a haven for them, ok they get their name on a regisder, but at least they can get their jollies off. Not the sort of thing you want for a quait little island. in my opinion they should bring back capital punishment. i know that is not viable – so lets Castrate them
Report abuse
Words fail me.
Report abuse
I wouldn’t be surprised if within a few years every single offence can be put down to the offender suffering from ‘stress’, an ‘illness’ or some form of under-privileged upbringing. Perhaps that’s a good thing, as we can close the courts down and save millions, rather than pay others to slowly destroy our island for us.
There truly is no deterrent against criminal behaviour these days, because society doesn’t believe that anyone is responsible for their own actions any more. Tragic.
Report abuse
Here in jersey we’re trying to encourage the wealthy to come on a promise of 1% tax. Over in Guernsey you’re trying to encourage???????????
I think I know which I prefer.
Report abuse
So a perverts prison sentence is slashed by a fifth and the Guernsey judicial system told that we will have to be softer on nonces.
His opinion is not needed.We are not the UK.
As a prison officer it makes me ashamed to be part of the justice system. The nonces have no empathy or regret towards their victims.
Report abuse
This man’s comments are beyond belief and, make a total mockery out of our hard working and dedicated child welfare system.
Perves the length and breadth of UK and beyond will be queuing up to to come here, illegally or otherwise.
Another thought, is that this decision would undoubtedly lead to those rather unpleasant vigilangte types amongst us, just waiting for an excuse to spout off, and take the law into their own hands.
Report abuse
This is not good enough.
Report abuse
This is disgusting..and needs to be looked at NOW
Report abuse
judges would not look smug if their children were involved. they should bring back hanging.
at least you would know they would not reoffend
Report abuse
The headline is unfortunate but, looking at the guidelines, it does appear that Mr Sumption was not wrong in reducing the sentence from 15 months to 3 months.
In short, it was a case of possessing (not making or distributing) a very small quantity of the higher level photographs, and a large quantity of low level photographs.
That is not to minimalise the nastiness of the path taken by Mr Gunter, and the dangers of going further down that path. But Mr Gunter had not, so far as is known, gone that further distance. Hopefully he never will.
Report abuse
This will open up the island to more sick twisted people bring back corporal punishment!
Report abuse
Time for the Islands to appoint their own Appeal Court and Privy Council methinks, are not the West Indies looking at the possibility.
Report abuse
Go Indepenedent – UK can then jump in the proverbial lake and take their disgusting law makers and shakers with them.
Report abuse
Page 1 Paedo sentence cut to three months
Page 13 £816 compensation and four months (OK suspended)for kicking a car!
Watch out for the Advocates lining up to demand lower sentences for everything if this Sumption
debacle is to form the basis of a new softly softly approach to sentencing
Report abuse
How the laws change by the tides, its appalling how justice favours those who commit the crime, being a paedophile might not be murder but it does take away a life of joy and innocence from every child it casts its shadow over, As far as I’m concerned the people that wish to give them softer punishments have destroyed the childs life as much as the paedophile
Report abuse
they want to show examples to people who take drugs in the island but want to let of perverts this island is a joke
Report abuse
Shame about the fact I wrote something earlier which has not made this page. I thought we had freedom of speech. Not in Guernsey it seems.
Report abuse
Who sets the sentencing practice? Surely they are not a reflection of the community at large who mostly see paedophilia as a more serious crime than murder and should be treated as such.
Report abuse
I hope he was joking !!!!
Report abuse
They say Guernsey is 10 years behind the times and judging by the hysterical reaction on this thread I think that’s right, so here is a link to the hard hitting documentary of 2001 that showed up the paedophile menace for what it is – or rather it showed up the baying mob for what it is. If you have a spare half hour sit back and enjoy. This little gem is hysterical in a slightly different sense!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9031532194656768989
PS Well said David Cranch
Report abuse
@david, WHAT IF IT WAS A PICTURE OF YOUR CHILD? WOULD YOU STILL THINK THE SAME! I DONT THINK SO. even just having the pictures encourages the sick twisted minds that took those pics into doing more!!
Report abuse
Guernsey are 10 times harsher on drug convictions than the UK so why should we follow them on this one.
paeodophiles have no place in society they should be lucked up or our childrens safety and their own
Report abuse
and here i was thinking we were already too soft on peadophiles and then it turns out we are being to harsh!! this has to be some sort of joke, the reality of what these people do to vunerable young people, who carry around a life sentance of torment while the one who is in the wrong gets to go on with there day to day life! welcome to guernsey where you can download as many indecent images of children as you want and we will give you a week or so in prison……..wrong on soo many levels
Report abuse
@ David Cranch does it really matter what level the pics are, the man should not have had 505 pictures of children on his laptop!
Report abuse
An absoulte disgrace !!! How can such a crime not being worthy of a seriously tough sentance ?
These sick criminals should be executed let alone let out of prison after a short time so they can pursue their favourite pastime.
Guernsey should NEVER follow the UK in their sentencing policies – UK are far far too soft on most crimes and Guernsey will be on a slippery slope if they get any softer.
Toughen up Guernsey and stay tough !!!
Report abuse
J.Jones me too.
Report abuse
Guernsey takes one step forward (with the sex offenders register) and twenty steps back my reducing this sick individuals sentence.
It is clear from this story that the guidelines need to be tightened, and furthermore MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR CHILD RELATED SEX OFFENCES MUST BE INCREASED.
This is not the area in which to be reducing sentences
Report abuse
He’s not right in the head!!!
Anyone who has child porn of whatever level on their computers or in their homes should be castrated. There is no excuse for possessing it, and the people who do are sick twisted individuals that should not be allowed to roam free in society or think they can get away with it!
Report abuse
If they lower the sentances there will be some kind of serious psychological assesments going on right? They aren’t just going to let him walk free? This man obviously needs help, the only way he will get it is to be admited to a mental health institution? Not only for the children on this island but surely for himself too?
Report abuse
It’s not right in the first place he was given a sentence then he should serve it. For it to be lowered not good. Does anyone know if he is out yet Mr Gunter?
Report abuse
Surely this isnt going to be allowed to happen! Guernsey is meant to be a safe place to bring up our children, i thought the conveyer belt surgestion was a bizarre idea but this just takes the biscuit…
Report abuse
505 indecent images of children on his PC? Sounds like he’s got more disgusting CP saved, than I’ve got regular ‘legal’, over-18 stuff… And I look at a fair whack of ‘prawn’. This guy shouldn’t be let off so easy, when I compare his usage to mine with regular above legal age stuff, it’s clear not only his he a paedophile, but it’s not just the 1 picture and him thinking “I shouldn’t have done that”, but his main sexual gratification of choice. THAT is wrong, and his support of the CP industry, whether indirect by getting those images in the first place, or direct by other, more horrible means, is inexcusable. Like I say, I can understand going easy on the guys who have accidently clicked a dodgy link or whatever (you never know what you’re gonna get until it’s open), but the fact is that this guy possessed hundreds of indecent images of pictures for his sexual pleasure. And that is not justifiable to be taken easy on.
Report abuse
They may as well stick a damn sign at the airport and ferry terminal: “Come to Guernsey and abuse our children”. Maybe even put an advert in the national papers.
Sick. The guernsey court should be ashamed of it self. It might be time to leave this sick island.
Report abuse
I would like to ask Mr Sumption whether he would feel the same if the images were of his children. Maybe the Press will ask him?
Report abuse
Martino and Cranch shame on you both – insinuating that paedophiles should be protected.
Anyone with a griefance about what the smirking Sumption has done should address it to the law society and here is the link:
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/redressscheme.law
Report abuse
I have a friend who was targeted as a young girl and this news today has upset her terribly. What is wrong with these people. Anyone who goes near a child or has any sort of picture should be dealt with the same as someone who has committed rape. No infact, they should be punished more. This is disgusting
Report abuse
Mark Gunter’s Linkedin and Friends Reunited pages show him as employed as Front of House Manager at St Pierre Park
Perhaps they should issue a short statement if that is not still the case?
Report abuse
Why the hell should we be even MORE lenient on these scum bags!!!
This change will just encourage more people to do it and know that they wont get as bigger sentence!
Are the children involved supposed to forgive and forget or “just get over it”?!
Well I can tell you first hand as having been one of the abusee’s that you do suffer, for the rest of your life for what these people do to you! Noting you do can get those things out of your head no matter how hard you try…
JUSTIFY THAT ONE…
Report abuse
Makes the St Martin’s baby factory seem like good value in comparison.
As for slavishly following the UK, which in turn slavishly follows the muppets from Brussels, who believe that only perpetrators have human rights, [not victims] I reckon that his honour needs to check the boat timetables.
And don’t come back.
Report abuse
Lets looks at this calmy for a moment.
First, Sumption is no fool. He is the brightest lawyer of his generation.
Second, all he is saying is there is no reason that Guernsey should be any tougher than the UK.
Third, that does not mean Guernsey will be flooded by paedophiles, it means it will be on parity with the UK.
Fourth, I have children myself and still hold those views so please avoid the “what if it was your children” type responses.
Report abuse
Well if thats the case maybe they could let us know beforehand when they will be released and have the public waiting for them outside the prison gates!
Report abuse
No one for this kind of behaviour should have their sentence reduced.
Guernsey law has gone mad.
The public should start to question the mentality of this decision or the people put in charge of reducing/ giving out sentencing.
Report abuse
Is this some sort of sick joke?
How is it even possible that someone would suggest such a ridiculous and disgusting thing?
Report abuse
CONGRATULATIONS MR SUMPTION !!!!!
You are now solely responsible for opening the flood gates which could lead to Guernsey sinking to join the UK in the pit of miscarried justice and lawlessness. You have chosen to reveal the tip of a very big and very unnecessary iceberg.
Guernsey takes a tougher stance on all crime compared to the UK ESPECIALLY Peadophilia and Drugs for one very good reason. That’s what keeps Guernsey the way it is. Do we now adopt UK levels on everything? With the state of the UK what makes you think you have got it right? Maybe Guernsey had it right and you didn’t, ever think about that?
I can see the drug couriers contacting their defence briefs already. This will in turn lead to a lesser deterent and more and more drugs coming to the island and all the increased crime that this brings with it. All down to you. I hope you’re proud of yourself. (Sadly you probably are).
What I think of you could not be printed here.
Report abuse
A few months ago I read a UK news article about a man who had been given a suspended prison sentence despite being caught with thousands of child porn pictures and videos, including those showing young children being raped.
And now we’re bringing this kind of sentencing here?
With the Channel Islands’ shocking history of child abuse cover ups, you would think our judiciary would be very keen to be seen clamping down harshly on anything of this nature.
Report abuse
I am shocked that someone of his callibre condones peudos. Guernsey law disgusts me how arrested peudos are allowed to walk our streets before sentencing and the time it takes to put them away. They are everywhere, this sort of short punishment will bring even more here Guernsey is no longer a safe place for our children. Also why keep non local peudos in our prison deport them!
Report abuse
Welcome to Guernsey!!, scenic views, all tastes catered for in the main town and a legal penal system aimed at encouraging the truly sick amongst you. Do you have an unhealthy interest in abused children? wish to download the photographic evidence of sick abuse dished out to children who will suffer a life sentence as a result of their victimisation and abuse? Then Guernsey is the place for you. You too can hold in excess of 500 sick images for personal sexual gratification and at worst only get a 3 month custodial sentence. So what are you waiting for- the Island of Cover Up awaits you…..
Report abuse
I am amazed that certain names keep coming up in these forums, whenever there is debate on abuse of different kinds. Of course its possible that someone is using another individuals name. One contributer has campaigned for legalising sodomy with 16 year olds and has had full backing from the States of Guernsey, now supporting this latest threat to family life and minors.
Possibly you both just do wind ups for a laugh but it is not the subject to joke about, there are people hurting because of this filth and even to see two people joking that it is acceptable is very insensitive.
If you are actually serious, then you have serious problems and need to seek help.
Recently a very brave woman called Elizabeth, did an article on the Guernsey Press about her experience at the hands of one of these individuals, why not ask for a backdated copy , if it does not leave you feeling disgusted that you back this mans suggestions then you are in a very dark place. These are not JUST pictures, these are childrens lives.
Please stop the jokes or seek help.
Report abuse
I quite agree with most of the comments, however,looking at it calmly as someone above has intimated it does raise a couple of points. Firstly, our drug sentencing policy is much more severe than the UK (quite rightly so I believe)and I believe part of the UK’s softer stance is down to prison occupancy… how long will it be before a convicted drug trafficker appeals on similar grounds. And secondly, something which irks me considerably, the oft quoted political statement “well Jersey/England/France/Tahiti/Outer Mongolia” etc do it like that so we should too. For heavens sake, we have minds of our own and should be proud of it, we don’t have to follow whoever conveniently fits the bill !
Report abuse
Sometime I wonder if the Muslims have got it almost right.
Report abuse
To the people who want to know,yes Gunter has been released from prison. He would have been released from the Appeal Court.This type of criminal will never be rehabilited. The various agencies will monitor them and try to control their twisted urges on release. Don’t be fooled by Martino and the other people telling us to be calm and rational, these are the most dangerous and cleaver criminals I have ever worked with. Trust me we should be afraid for the children.
Report abuse
I find it very strange that a man could want to reduce prison terms of these sickos. If Mark Gunter was caught carrying a few grams of weed his sentance would have been longer than the one he got for having the images of abused kids.
Report abuse
This is one sick judge , as well as the person who has this sort of pictures on his laptop , i can not understand how this judge is thinking this kind of sentencing can be the one to give such sick people ,
when someone takes drugs it only harms them yet they get a lot longer then the sick people that this is about !
mrs meat has hit the naie on the head … i dont think any normal person on the island would think this is the way to go for the island unless there is a hidden agender somewhere ? do you ……………
ps : there is now a page on facebook that you can join on this matter
Report abuse
Could someone who knows the ignorant homophobe posting on this thread that the issue of equalising the age of consent for young people above the age of 16 has nothing whatsoever to do with sentencing policy for child sex offenders?
Could someone also point out to said ignorant homophobe that many paedophiles (probably the large majority) are heterosexual in nature?
On second thoughts don’t bother. For idiots like this ignorance truly is bliss.
Report abuse
Deputies and locals mouthing off about this should decide. Do you want to be like a mini-UK or do you want Guernsey to be different?
We import so much legislation, customary ways to act, TV and radio, UK consultants employed etc etc. It seems obvious, we all secretly yearn to be like the UK. SO, we have to do things the same, for example sentencing. On the other hand, if we want to be different and have our own sentences and be different to the UK in other ways then we need to break away and be different and not copy the UK on absolutely anything, don’t nod through UK statutory Instruments and UK inspired regulations. The answer is with the States.
You can’t have it both ways.
Sadly there are so many people here from the UK, civil servants, and yes, Deputies that we are faster and faster beccoming like a small town in the UK. We lost our individuality a long time ago.
Report abuse
Ray
You are correct,I have just Googled Gunter and it show he is working at St, Pierre Park Hotel, as a manager.
Having read comments of Screwed above you really have to wonder what is going on.
Report abuse
Is there any justice in Guernsey for children? In all walks of life, not just in this matter, there seems to be no one that will sit down and listen to our children and defend our children’s needs, the law is too weak, judges too soft and in most cases prison too much like a butlins holiday camp.
If I was a child I would like to feel safe, at home, at school, and outside playing with friends, but how could I knowing that adults could abuse me and not get properly punished, and, after a very short time it could happen again and again to me. I could trust no adult and trust no one in authority too, as they could not stop it neither. Is it not right that a child should feel safe in Guernsey Mr high and mighty judge???
We want for our children safe, not for them to keep looking over their shoulders, not trusting anyone all the time?
The justice system is weak, and so so weak now, criminals of all kinds know they can virtually do what they want, break any law and serve little in punishment when caught.
Prison, that is a holiday camp. Tv’s etc, they’d be gone if i was in charge….
Troubled past excuses for crimes commited, yea well, get over yourselves, does not give you any rights to hurt anyone, children especially.
I hear one inside, a convicted PAEDOPHILE is going to try and get out early with an appeal for a reduced sentence……knowing the courts now, he’ll get out with extra cash bonus for keeping him too long.
Pathetic!! You in the courts, your soft in the head, soft, soft, soft. Why not for once, STOP BOWING DOWN TO OUTSIDE INFLUENCES AND BE TOUGH. Get a grip!! Always the same, keep the English happy….Stop it!! We should be showing the English how it’s done. Birch!! Bring it on and start using it.
Report abuse
Those who think that the sentencing should be more severe might reflect that apparently Guernsey has, up to now, had a more severe sentencing policy even though we were nominally following the UK guidelines. More severe, yet it obviously did not have a deterrent effect.
Personally, I am not against harsher sentencing but I do think it should be argued for coherently, taking the whole range of offences into consideration.
I blame the local judges, as much as anyone, for giving the impression that their sentencing decisions are arrived at independently of any tariff or guidelines. That defect just opens the door to public confusion and largely destroys the deterrent effect of sentences.
Report abuse
im still sickend by this! i think people power is the only way to deal with this, in my oppinion 15 months for possesing 505 images of children was not long enough, let alon reducing the sentance! i personnaly know people that have been affected by this sort of disgusting crime and it affects not only the victim but the whole family. im actually pretty horrified that people are prepaired to defend this. so Guernsey what exactly are we going to do to show that tis is not somethig we are prepaired to just sit back and let happen??
Report abuse
we should hold a march to show what we think on this!!!!!!!!! as it still makes me sick
Report abuse
Obviously this Q C has never been involved personaly with such a person? If one of his family had been abused he might think differently? I think its disgusting that a man is his position should make such a statement, without more research into how it affects the children , and the family.Where is justice?
Report abuse
I agree, the issue of paedophiles should not be confused with sex between consenting adults, heterosexual or homosexual, i.e. people aged 16 or older.
I do not think we have to slavishly follow the UK on everything – indeed I think it is a mistake to do so – the UK is hardly utopia.
And the UK’s prisons are stuffed to the gunwales – maybe that is why they don’t want longer custodial sentences.
Report abuse
WHAT Mighty Sumtion needs is a G instead of an S. in front of his name…
As for David Cranch, well for years I admired your letters as I did you father’s now I waver a little.
If a paedophile is proven guilty, then the law and more important the PEOPLE should demand a sentence of such proportion that it will never again be possible to harm small children.
If my children had been molested, I wouldn’t be writing this today.
One should not take the law into ones hands,but when the law does not follow the laws of civility (never mind written laws) then parents are doing what has always been the way, even animals protect their young,
David you are wrong on your first letter.
Report abuse
David Cranch
I don’t know how you can truthfully say that our more severe sentencing policy has not had a deterrent effect.My guess that it has is probably as good as your guess that it hasn’t. Even hanging did not prove to be 100% effective as a deterrent to others
I would think that most people,with the exception of the Norwegian shooter,commit planned crime,as opposed to spur of the moment crime, hoping not to be caught in the first place,and then have in reserve the back up of legal aid paid for in part by their victims, assisted in no small measure by the Probation Service whose sole aim at times also appears to be to get the miscreant as soft a sentence as possible
As for tariffs and guidelines I would think that they are a must have for our Magistrates if they are to avoid constant bleating that X was hit harder than Y for a similar offence whether that be traffic or crime
If we are to follow Sumption on future sentencing the deterrent (or not)guesswork will be resolved in a couple of years or so
Report abuse
Absolutely disgusting – and for those of you questioning, it was St Pierre Park that this vile creature was employed at, no idea if he still is though, doubt it.
It is equally as vile that he had the audacity to appeal for a lesser sentance as it was having the images in the first place, clearly no remorse and I’d guess an almost guarantee he’ll be straight back to looking at these things.
As for lesser punishment for paedophiles? Are they crazy? Should be ten times harsher. To those of you saying it’ll see us flooded with these creatures, unfortunately I think we already are. I’ve seen many comments on more than just this forum discussing how evil this island is with the number of local paedophiles, remember one comment on here I think back with another news articles where a woman knew a social worker who left the island calling it the most evil place she’d ever been in that respect.
Children need protecting, as parents we look at our children wondering how anyone could ever lay a finger on them inappopriately, it’s beyond all comprehension, our laws need to be stricter and that idiot suggesting otherwise needs to go and meet a few child rape victims
Report abuse
Is this the type of sentencing guideline Sumption wants us to follow?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-14304596
Report abuse
Islander
It doesn’t happen often but I fully agree with you. If anybody interfered with a child of mine the last thing they should worry about is the law. Castration with an axe and no anesthetic would be the order of the day, and that’s if they were lucky!!
Report abuse
If anyone so much as looked at my child in that kind of way I would cut their bits off then kill them and I dont care if I had to go to court. Go softer on them, no way, come on Guernsey dont be stupid
Report abuse
if anyone would like the name of the group on facebook it is ….its our island , join and lets talk about how we can sort this mess out as it is not going to be sorted unless the people that care about there island and ALL the islands children make a stand and say we are NOT going to put up with this sort of thing going on …………….
Report abuse
Martino
Your original post stated that most of the people on this thread were getting hysterical. This was correct, all but I think three people are disgusted and repulsed. We see things very differently to what you do and want to make it known.
With reference to your campaign to see anal sex legalised providing the children involved were in their latter years at school was – 1) Not equalising anything at all, it was making it legal to do buggery to older children. What you wanted legalised was a thing not even 25 year olds can do legally, but if it was done to 16 year old kids it was acceptable.
2) It is not surprising that a person in favour of the above, can see nothing wrong with children filmed and the pictures passed around.
As I mentioned earlier, you seriously need some help, please contact the lady in the press and ask her how her life was affected by this type of behaviour, just maybe, if your mind is slightly open, you might pick up something of the problems caused by this type of behaviour.
Child abuse is wrong whoever its committed by, your attempt to divide offenders (and that is what they are, whether they are caught or not) into gay/straight is futile. Children are precious, amazing little beings that don’t need to be exposed to this horrid pastime enjoyed by certain adults.
Report abuse
Surely he didn’t mean that and he meant to say Castrate paedophiles!
Report abuse
only dave cranch has used any reason about this matter and i agree with him. the judge has essentially recognised how emotional this issue is, especially to people in the affected community, yet has cautioned that community to use reason, and not emotion, in dealing with it. and despite the abhorrent nature of paedophelia, the judge is proved correct – simply look at the violent reaction of the people on this thread. the judge is essentially saving you would be vigilantes from yourselves. jenni, phil, marion and others – you are not alone in not liking paedophiles but would you truly join me in kicking one to death? if sentences are too lenient (and there will be very many different opinions on exactly what would be reasonable sentences), then lobby the politicians not the judges, as it is the former that make the law – the latter only implement that law, within its set limits. and, if you want to take action and you believe that only the individual criminals are ever responsible for social problems such as paedophelia, then follow the guernsey press lead and release the hounds. just for a minute consider that maybe this problem is also part of something bigger, for just one example – the internet. how about you angry people campaign for the internet providers or computer software companies, all making a tidy profit, to be forced far harder, by law, to prevent the availability of any indecent child images – full stop.
Report abuse
In Russia those images are legal.
Why is the population not in the streets manifesting?
Rapes, murders and wars are horrible things, but seeing is not doing.
I am not responsible for the violence I see in the news, nor should people seeing indecent images of children pay for the crimes that other people did. What about books depicting abuses? Should we burn them?
Why condone violence and suppress its opposite? The world seems crazy at times. All of you child advocates should wonder what can be the consequences of forcing a child to play the role of victim and declaring them life-long bearers of sexual trauma. Guess you are right, their is a shadow cast over their sex life after the act… the one performed in court and broadcasted in the medias as entertainment and brainwashing calling itself news.
Report abuse
Glad to see Guernsey has bowed to pressure from outside to conform with the UK. I’m also glad that those that are responsible for running this Island are able to sit back and allow this to happen.
Lets face it, Guernsey is no longer Guernsey, and if this sort of things continues, we may have to wrest power from those that are happy to allow these sorts of thing to continue. We forget that what may start as the accumulation of photos and pictures can develop, and a traumatised child remains traumatised for life, despite whatever happens to the offender. You want a suitable deterrent for paedophiles, “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY” I say!!!!
Report abuse
So gunter is free was he deported I bet not
I agree with stiff sentences however I courts need to be consistant foreigners regularly get higher fines for the same offences and no time to pay even though have job and local address. however lazy unemployed local gets time
Not right
Report abuse
Adam
You are obviously a twisted individual if you consider that a child that has been abused is “forced to play the role of victim”. They ARE a victim, pure and simple, and any trauma that they go through is the direct result of the abuser’s actions against them. You seem to be advocating that these abuses should go unpunished, is that right?
Report abuse
@blah – thank you for your support and your measured posting.
Looking at the majority of horrifying postings here, one is nevertheless aware that they are fundamentally honest gut reactions. However, unlike first impressions, gut reactions are usually wrong. In time and in awareness of the facts, gut reactions often abate.
Full-blown paedophilia is an abhorrent crime, all the worse for being a poorly understood psychiatric disorder. In other words, the perpetrators are largely unable to control their activities in that area. A few respond to treatment of various kinds: many can only be controlled by indefinite prison sentences.
At the lower end there are offenders who may not develop into full-blown paedophiles and it is these that require some proportionate punishment and deterrence.
Report abuse
Come off it David.
That’s exactly what they want to hear.
There is no half way in that loathsome business.
They choose small children to abuse.
That leaves no measure of forgiveness.
We adult of mind, not only stature David deplore any attempt at molesting children.
Perhaps I’m alone in my thoughts, but take them out of this world is the only real solution.
Report abuse
David, you overlook the fact that children were abused in the making of these images. Its not CGI, you know.
Report abuse
These sick paedophiles like Gunter are a social cancer. They deserve nothing less than corporal punishment plus chemical castration. Enough is enough. Guernsey has the right to be different in its sentencing policy. It need not follow England’s guidelines so slavishly at all. Lets set a clear new policy that will actually deter future offending, rather than encouraging it.
Report abuse
Quote mr sumption
” the time had come for Guernsey formally to adopt the sentencing practice England used for such offences.”
why should they? Sentancing it the uk has time and again proved not to be a detterant, why on earth would he say such a thing?
Its so called educated people like him that has ruined the world we live in. Completelt out of touch with the times.
Grunter or what ever his name is had his time slashed to 3 months, how could this be any amount of time in which to rehabilitate an offender? Surely if they to be rehabilitated then this is surely not long enough? The reason people go to prison is to be ‘rehabilitated’ and protect the innocent public – what a joke!
Report abuse
@Jeffers
You are the one who seriously needs some help. You have shown yourself to be an ignorant, homophobic bigot, incapable of distinguishing between the reprehensible crimes of child abuse and the loving sexual relationships enjoyed by consenting ADULTS of the same gender.
Others on this thread, although they disagree with me about sentencing policy for paedophile offenders, can see quite evidently that I DO see child abuse as a crime that DOES warrant punishment. However, like David Cranch and blah, I am calling for this punishment to be measured and considered and dictated by unemotional judgement rather than by the anger of the baying mob.
This is the last time I will enter into debate with you Jeffers. Clearly you are a seriously disturbed individual with frightening homophobic views and if you were living in another country (Saudi Arabia, Uganda) I have no doubt that you would relish the opportunity to stone gay people to death. Bigots like you really do give me the shivers.
Report abuse
I see Home Minister Geoff Mahy has assured the States Sentancing policy will be reviewed, Can I make my opinion plain to Minister Mahy that I am not assured at all,the previous performance and sentancing on this matter was woefully inadequate and any solution proposed that does not involve permanent removal of this risk to childen will be the same. How long before a rapist of adults appeals his life sentance on the grounds that serial rapists of children get lesser sentances.
Report abuse
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2011/03/30/hotel-manager-is-jailed-for-fifteen-months-for-505-child-porn-images/
Reading the press report on Gunter show how mis-guided and ludicrous most of the posts in this thread have been. The few voices attempting reason are shouted down by the vocal majority who see one word and start to froth at the mouth.
Jonathan Sumption did not say ‘go soft on paedophiles’, he said that Guernsey should base it’s sentancing on the guidelines laid down by the ‘Oliver’ case, which gives clear guidance on dealing with people who have downloaded or obtained indecent images of children. This guidance makes a clear distinction between real paedophiles like Eugene Hughes and Kenneth Holberry who rightly should recieve considerable time away and the illegal downloaders.
There is nothing in Sumpton’s summing up that indicates the island should ‘go soft’ where actual physical abuse has taken place.
If you want to brand everyone labelled ‘Paedophile’ in the same way then what would you do with the 14 year-old girl involved in the Sexting incident?
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2011/03/04/police-investigate-sexting-incident/
The twisted logic of many of you would brand her both a victim and a paedophile maker of indecent images of children.
Report abuse
Zab, i’d be interested if you could point out where a serial child rapist received a sentence less than life?
It’s good to see that Martino, David Cranch and Blah are capable of posting intelligent points, amongst the hysteria from the Daily Mail brigade. Maybe some of you should research some facts before posting?
Report abuse
@Martino
I second your comments about Jeffers, ignorant, homophobic bigot just about sums him up.
@Zab
He has already done so:
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2011/06/02/rapist-burton-is-to-appeal-against-life/
Report abuse
Phil
Concerning the second paragraph (safe the first two sentences which should belong to the first), I’m basically saying the solution might do more harm than the so called abuses(not possession of images). No doubt there are true victims of molesters, but I think there are also false victims of decent people, or rather real victims of the child protection mob.
Report abuse
Healthy debate on a totally unhealthy cancer within our society. More worrying than a 3 month sentence for such filth is the fact that this case merely highlights the tip of the cancerous iceberg. Many cases fail to reach court and subsequent media release. Which sadly means more predators evade our judicial system-however weak- and more victims are not located and helped- and yes they are victims of a manipulative crime-how they choose to survive after the fact determines whether they remain victims. Looking at the judges CV- see wikipedia- reportedly having earned in excess of GBP1m per annum, ex Etonian- I would like to think his bought for education would have enabled him to see the severity in the case and come to a more acceptable conclusion. Abhoring these crimes does not make me a vigilante- but a concerned parent, neighbour and member of the community.
Report abuse
Martino
Your last ball was returned with a huge amount of spin, so much that you gained a supporter. Unlike you, I have nothing to fear from remaining in the debate. I will not use spin, just very basic short facts to pop the ball neatly over the net.
1) You like to divide people who abuse into categories, ie baying mobs, homosexuals, bigots and I presume you mean Islamic when you give two countries and describe certain punishments. (I can see why you stopped short of naming Islam, although shariah does not exist here)
1a) I have never mentioned Africans, Homosexuals, mobs or bigots, these are all in your mind Martino. I am appalled at child abuse and those that would seek to make it any less serious than it is.
2) You then switch to a new subject about “consenting adults”
2a) Which debate is this from? The subject that 95 people are getting angry about is the possibility of young people not being protected by the courts in cases of child abuse. It is hard to understand where you are going with that comment, but if by using the word “consenting” you mean that the kids were happy to be photographed or tampered with, then,you are beyond help in this arena.
3)You then talk about “adults” which debate is this meant to be in?
3a) I have recalled how you and others, not too long ago wanted to see the law changed to permit people to legally be able to sodomise sixteen year old children. Providing the boy (maybe girls as well, I don’t know) did not object. Now bearing in mind that just previous to this, a man did the same thing to a horse and was placed in prison, understanding that if a man and woman did this, they would be breaking the law, what does this say about caring for sixteen year old kids. You can wrap it up, all you like Martino, this is fact. I note you spin the word “equality”, there was none, the horse and the wife/girlfriend were too precious, but the sixteen year old student was fair game.
Returning back to Elizabeth in the Guernsey Press, note how it was a trusted person that took her in, we know of other coaches in other disciplines that have done the same. Trips away pursuing sport etc should be able to be carefree for parents allowing their children to go. They should not have to be concerned that whilst away, an adult might groom them to accept “friendship”
When you were at school, if a teacher said “Can I push your stool in for you” would you have known what it was, he/she wanted to do? of course not, you were thinking about buying a scooter or football. To kids, a stool is a thing you sit on.
Consider the ball smashed over the net, if you hadn’t left the court, it would have floored you.
Report abuse
Martino
Please don’t shiver, I am just a family guy who likes all people to be able to live in peace and safety. I detest bullying and I view children and old people as easy targets for the unscrupulous.
I wouldn’t stone anyone, wherever I travelled. However, I can’t honestly say how I would react if I witnessed a child or infirm person being abused. Fortunately I haven’t been put in that position, but if I was, I think I would very probably end up in court.
And this is the sad thing, you can see by 95% of the posts, that if the law will not protect the innocent in our society, then it is very possible that family members of affected victims would attempt to give a punishment out themselves.
Me, I’m just a normal calm bloke, so don’t shiver, I’m no threat to anybody.
Report abuse
As far as I,m concerned they should take them as farout to sea and leave them there to think about the horrors they create.GOD SAVE LITTLE CHILDREN.
Report abuse
Adam – theres a difference between books manifesting abuse and images – one is real and the other is imagination and there is a big difference between the two. Often these “images” are paid for and thus downloading them fuels a market for the crime- similar to paying for porn however instead of the victims being paid and consenting adults they are innocent children being raped and molested… and the worse the crime the greater the profit. Why in this age is rape of a grown adult seen as a greater crime than rape of children? Any sane person can see that their priorities and standards are not in line with the community at large who they say they serve and protect. What kind of legal system do we have if we fail to protect the most important people in it – our children. It is a hate crime against the most innocent and defenceless. Paedophiles should be treated harsher than murderers – the maximum penalty should be imposed. Anyone who downloads images is aiding and abetting paedophilia and should be penalised as such.
Report abuse
@ JJ Lehto,
A Cheap shot, I do not recall one instance in the last 30 years on this island of a rapist or sodomiser of children being permanently removed from our society.
I can only assume that in your view this is because there are none or that they are instantly caught at the first offence!
Personally I think they are predators beyond redemption and that if our society lacks the guts to extiguish their existance it should at least lock them away and throw away the key.
I dare say I am not alone in questioning the motives of those that offer them succor, maybe you can enlightent us Mail readers?
Report abuse
I worked with Mark Gunter for over 20 years and although we’ve never really seen eye to eye, I can categorically state that to my knowledge he has never actually sexually interfered with any minor, nor is he likely to now or indeed in the foreseeable future. He was stupid enough to download images from the internet, most of which were probably sexually provocotive nudes of teenage girls just under the age of 16 (which technically makes them minors). He is being made out to be the most vilified person ever to live in Guernsey by some readers, putting him in the same league as Gary Glitter. He is not the sexual predator many of the above contibutors are making him out to be.
These people have very short memories as there have been far worse incidents reported in the Press in recent years. Some of these offenders are currently in prison or indeed have been released, also with reduced sentences and they are now back in the local community. These are the people who have sexually abused either their own children or in the recent case of the Judo instructor, young children placed in their care by trusting parents. These are the true monsters not Mark Gunter. For God’s sake give the guy a break and venge your anger on the true paedophiles. He has had his fifteen minutes (or ironically in his case 15 months reduced to 3 months) of fame all for the wrong reasons. The public naming and shaming of this individual has had it’s desired effect, let’s concentrate on getting the sentencing right in general without dwelling any further on this individual case.
Report abuse
Zab, it’s not a cheap shot. I was just questioning your statement of “How long before a rapist of adults appeals his life sentance on the grounds that serial rapists of children get lesser sentances.”
Your statement makes no sense, because I don’t think any court would ever give a child rapist a lesser sentance than any other rapist.
I totally agree that anyone who rapes a child should be handed a life sentance with no chance of parole and that perhaps even the death penalty should be considered for such an offence. But such sentencing should only be reserved for this types of crime, and not for someone such as Mark Gunter. There has to be a scale of punishments to fit the gravity of the crime.
Report abuse
Wil
Obviously an industry that would trade in abused children should be stopped, but the goal has not ended there: it has included people entirely unrelated with the making of these images. Paying nothing and doing nothing, they just imagine, like when reading a book. Going after them is an Orwellian oppression. Sending people to prison because they have digitalized photographs of formerly legal magazines from the 70′s is harsh. Is it worth destroying untold number of lives and families?
“Why in this age is rape of a grown adult seen as a greater crime than rape of children?”
Because most of what we call rape of children would be considered consensual sex if it was between adults,
but because children don’t have the right to consent, they can only be “rape victims”.
Adult rapes are only non-consensual sex, that’s why they are greater crimes.
Report abuse
You will never get a reasoned debate on a public forum with people who cannot, or do not want to, remove the emotion and take part in the discussion in a pragmatic fashion. The baying of blood is really all they know and when we mention the ‘p’ word they cannot distinguish the varying degree’s of guilt. In their eyes downloading a picture of a topless girl (who is 14/15) but yet looks older is the same level of crime as those who would actually harm and sexually assault a child of the same age (or younger) knowingly.
Of course there needs to be some rationalisation when it comes to custodial sentences (after all it is the tax payer, a group of people the Daily Mail seem equally concerned about, who are fitting the bill). A three month custodial sentence for the former crime and a much longer sentence for the latter seems perfectly reasonable.
Well done to those posters who have tried to bring a reasoned approach to the discussion. I can assure you that your posts are being read by likeminded folk.
Report abuse
Pierre
I think most people are commenting on “getting the sentencing right”, it just so happens that the title of the thread referred to going soft on paedophiles in general.
I do not know the man concerned and it is possible that other than this misdemeanour, he is a nice guy.
It is as you say, the message that the courts give out that I and others are concerned about.
When the community study the priorities given by the court for various crimes, there are some rather odd conclusions to be drawn.
Report abuse
I have been following this column for a number of months and now find myself so angry that I have to send a response!
I can not believe how some people seem to think that a crime against a child can be considered a misdemeanour. A misdemeanour is normally considered a less serious type of crime than one that carries a felony charge but is still punishable. Maybe if it was a member of your family your opinion of a ‘nice’ guy would be slightly different. Having had to experience the pain and suffering child abuse causes whole families I am glad to see the press headlines that Home minister Geoff Mahy said yesterday that the department was committed to pursuing tough sentencing for those found guilty of possessing indecent images of children.
I think for all these very brave people who have the courage to come forward and expose these sick perverts they need the reassurance that the perpertrator(s) will be suitably punished and humiliated. I think death would be too kind…..they need to suffer and feel the pain and suffering that they have caused these poor innocent children…..they need to be branded for all to see.
Pierre – you state ‘I can categorically state that to my knowledge he has never actually sexually interfered with any minor, nor is he likely to now or indeed in the foreseeable future. He was stupid enough to download images from the internet,’
Do you not realise these people ‘groom’ not only the victim but the WHOLE environment and he certainly appears to have done so with you!
You can not accidentally down load these images….he must have been at least searching them.
Also lets not forget about all the work the police and other agencies have to do in the hope of getting a conviction…..they must feel so demoralised when the court dictates how we, the people of Guernsey, should punish these sick individuals.
At the end of the day we have an election next year and maybe we should vote with our feet…..only support deputies that will respect that our children are our future and they MUST be protected.
Report abuse
@Concerned Guern
Your post illustrates perfectly why Judge Sumption is correct in his ruling.
Report abuse
Adam? You sound like a confused individual. I agree with you that the age of 15 is not much different than 16 – the lines are greyed. But certainly you can see that the younger they are the less they have any idea of what they are consenting to. You have to agree that if someone says to a child – “if you let me do this one thing then we can go shopping ….and just hold steady there so I can take pictures for all my friends and I will buy you an icecream” – Is NOT consent. It is NOT consent. By any stretch of the imagination it is NOT. The main thing to consider is that the paedophile knows exactly what they are doing and they know it is wrong – thats why they get such a kick out of it.
Report abuse
The problem is there is no grey zone: it’s all darkness, ignorance and fear. Things are not or don’t have to be this way. What will we choose?
Report abuse
Adam
It is not all darkness, there is hope. If you look at 95% of the people commenting, they want children protected and are seeking the backing of the courts to assist in this objective. The politically correct brigade are a problem however reading todays Guernsey press, I feel that many will take more notice of the front page than the article/letter on page 14 (not Tony Holland, his comment was in line with many other peoples) Elizabeth has shown true courage, in sharing what a trusted adult did to her at a young age.
A few of the other contributers to the debate are friends of the man released from prison and they are commenting on his case in particular and are not representative of the general population.
Chin up Adam, even if the deputies cave in, the true men and women of Guernsey will not stoop to those standards.
You ask what we will choose? Child protection is what I see from this thread. Even prisoners from Les Nicolles are writing to the Guernsey Press, it is only the Judge and his mates suggesting change.
Report abuse
Jeffers – I think you’ll find that 100% of posters on here want children protected.
Just because I do not share your view on how long sentences should be for viewing indecent child images does not mean that I do not care about the ongoing safety of my children.
As I said before, this is a very emotive subject and there are a fair few people on here who cannot see past that.
Your opinion or point of view is not the only one.
Report abuse
I wonder what all the readers think about a romour that has been circulating that Mr Gunter is in line for quite a large payout?
Report abuse
A number of responders seem to have missed the point that Adam is a paedophile apologist.
His posts attempt to imply that, not only are there countries where ‘these sort of images’ are not illegal, giving him the opportunity to allege a harmless ‘cultural’ difference, because, of course, if it’s legal in Russia, the land of the well-balanced and the psychologically healthy, who are we to question it? But also that it is society’s fault for demonising an act which, in his opinion, might be considered ‘consensual’ between and adult and a child and that, if only society would stop labelling these ‘consenting’ children as victims, then they wouldn’t be traumatised by the act of ‘love’ being performed on them by the adult.
Various apologist groups have been and are in existence that utilise the same sort of tactics. NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) is but one example of an organisation that tries to ‘normalise’ paedophilia through the use of such asinine and disingenuous arguments. The FMSF (False Memory Syndrome Foundation) is a group of, supposed, experts in the field of false, suppressed memories of abuse, appearing as ‘expert witnesses’ in a number of child abuse cases, for the defence, attempting to claim the existence of a ‘false memory syndrome’ that is not even recognised as a valid condition by the scientific medical community. This is try and discredit adult victims of child abuse who spontaneously recover memories of being abused as a child. One of the founders even gave an apologist interview in a NAMBLA publication, also decrying society for being responsible for the trauma experienced by child victims who, as long as it was, in his words, ‘a loving experience’ would ‘benefit’ from it.
These people, like Adam, refuse to accept the fact that sex with a child is coerced sex, therefore rape.
The more they get to spread their vile claim to it being an ‘act of love’, the greater the chance that they may convince an, otherwise inactive, paedophile to give in to their warped fantasies.
Report abuse
Charlotte Lucy: I wonder how emotive your thoughts would be if it was photographs of your children performing vile acts with adults being plastered all over the Internet?
I’m afraid the children who end up being photographed do not come from the sort of families where parents philosophise over a glass of red wine about the pros and cons of long sentences for viewing indecent photographs.
This why they need protection from the Law. unless the Courts hand out long sentences exactly who will care for these anonymous children?
Report abuse
Charlotte Lucy
My opinion is purely that – an opinion, however, I am commenting on the title of the thread which is and I quote – “Go soft” on paedophiles.
As you say, my opinion is not the only one however, there are only single figures commenting that they feel we should “Go soft” on paedophiles. The old chestnut of “its an emotive subject” is trotted out as some sort of reason to “Go soft” How can ruining the lives of children be seen as anything less than emotional.
It is interesting to note that your average family person is disgusted by “going soft on paedophiles” and the odd half dozen who wish to trivialise this crime by lessening sentences, tend to be either academically switched on or holding very high positions in society.
I would advise you as I did Martino, to read Zibby Yates account on the Guernsey Press, leave your mind open even a fraction and tell me that you are not repulsed.
Out of the single figures in favour of “going soft” most have poured scorn on the 100, that are disgusted by the suggestion. Has it not occurred to you, that many of these people might have either endured such an experience first hand or possibly been close to a victim. I can only presume that you come from a lovely family that have never experienced such a trauma. I fail to see that anyone with understanding of child abuse could see things any differently.
I hope you never have to experience such devastation and that your children enjoy a happy and carefree childhood, but please spare a thought for children all over the world who are used to satisfy the cravings of the unscrupulous. Because almost everybody in Guernsey is horrified by child abuse, we do not see the open abuse in our island as we do in other parts of the world. Lets keep it that way.
Report abuse
Bill Yeager
Informative post, I never realised that there were organised outfits like this, I thought it was just a few maladjusted individuals.
Report abuse
@ Bill Yeager
It is a little difficult to understand some of Adam’s posts, but I read them differently to you.
I think, just to take up one point, that just as Ken Clarke in the UK was trying to make the point that there is more than one type of offence collected under the umbrella term ‘rape’, so Adam was saying that there is more than one type of offence under the umbrella term ‘paedophilia’.
It’s a reasonable argument, recognised in the sentencing guidelines. If you think the offences are the all same I think you should justify why we, who perceive the difference, are wrong.
Report abuse
Charlotte Lucy – despite your name, I do not for one minute believe you are a woman.
David Cranch. Sorry, rape is rape. There may be aggravating factors to a rape in which case additional charges can be brought as well as the rape charge, but to try and suggest that it is otherwise suggests you are a rape apologist who thinks that rape is only about a stranger jumping out of the bushes in a dark alley.
This view does no favours to women and explains the shockingly low rape conviction rate.
You are in no position to know what a child went through in order to appear on an image posted on the internet and anyone viewing these images is complicit in the abuse, as without the audience it would not happen.
Adam – you are a sick individual in my opinion.
Report abuse
When you look around you see young adults 14/15 walking around even out on a Saturday evening around town drinking you would not think/beleive they are only 14/15. But when you see these young girls walking around you see men turning there heads to look at them. I would hate to be a young lad just think a night out with your friends you see this pretty girl looking at you you start talking and at the end of the night she goes back to his house but before they do anything what should he do ask her for her ID? come on Im sure she would lie anyway. This place is a hard place to live you step one foot out of line. Even if you see a child crying because they have lost there mummy or daddy you go up and help her then the mother comes running over and gives you a funny look because no one trust anyone anymore it’s so sad.
I don’t think they should go soft on P but just look at what this person has done and make judgement then.
Report abuse
@ j jones “Sorry, rape is rape.”
I’m sorry too: unlawful sexual intercourse is not rape. And it matters whether a girl is over 13 or not. In the latter case it is a felony.
Simplification is fine; except that some of us are discussing details and it does not help for you to imply that the details do not exist. It wastes everybody’s time.
Report abuse
j jones, I can assure you I am a woman. Grasping at straws to ensure that your opinion is the only one that should be taken into consideration perhaps? I really have no reason to lie. However as I have no way to prove it just continue to believe what you want to. It really doesn’t bother me. My opinion still stands.
Report abuse
@ J.Jones
“Sorry, rape is rape.”
So a blanket one-fits-all sentence should be applied to all rapists?
How about a 17 year-old girl sleeping with her 15 year-old boyfriend, that should be treated the same way as some evil bloke lurking in bushes?
Nothing is as black and white as is being painted here.
Sumption has not suggested we backtrack on convictions or sentencing for Paedophiles like Eugene Hughes. If he was, then I’d be amongst the baying mob!
Report abuse
Well said David Cranch, Charlotte (every inch a woman) Lucy and Palace of Justice in the face of more simplistic nonsense from the “one size fits all” sentencing brigade.
Another interesting fact for those who see things in such black and white terms and who refuse to look at the detail is that Mr Sumption did NOT act alone in formulating the revised sentencing policy.
This was made clear by our former Bailiff Sir de Vic Carey in a letter to the press last Saturday.
Sir de Vic made a number of salient points including this one: -
“it is wrong to infer that this was the decision of Mr Sumption alone. As always there were three judges – on this occasion he sat with Sir Hugh Bennett and me and the judgment represented the views of all three.”
I wonder what those who were so eager to slate the “interfering UK judge” have to say about that little nugget of information?
Report abuse
I am appalled by the Opinion column in the Press today.
For a start, it equates the postings of the lynch mob here with public opinion. If anyone thinks the description ‘lynch mob’ is a trifle fanciful, consider the following – from a letter published in the Press today and therefore probably more considered than the postings here – “… some of the law-abiding citizens in the island will most likely take the law into their own hands and seek their own form of justice”.
The Opinion column ends as follows: “How can the same court throw the book at a drug user caught with a few ecstasy tablets then go softer on a paedophile?”
How confused is the writer?
The paedophilia under discussion is the possession of a large amount of low level photographs – probably of naked children, unabused, unmolested, unkilled. It’s a crime, it’s reprehensible, and it’s punishable. And it was punished.
At the higher levels of paedophilia, which the lynch mob are clearly (?) thinking about when they write about the above offence, convictions are punishable by prison sentences of up to 10 years, I believe.
Now I would say that is comparable to the sentences handed out for serious drug offences which are, to a large extent a cultural crime: the sentences are high in the misguided belief that drug usage can so be controlled.
Anyone who is abreast of what is happening in the wee wide world outside Guernsey will be aware that the criminality of drugs usage is increasingly under review.
Insofar as it exists, the dichotomy at the end of the Opinion column may thus disappear in time and in a manner different to that suggested by the writer of that column.
Report abuse
Thank you Martino. It really is quite surprising what mud someone feels they must sling to discredit someone else’s post.
David Cranch you have summed up perfectly my thoughts. Much better written than I could have hoped to have done myself.
Report abuse
David Cranch
You write in response to the opinion column on The Guernsey Press – “How confused is the writer?”
I feel that s/he is spot on. I know that I have pointed it out many times on this thread but it is absolutely obvious that the vast majority disagree with you and the five or six people that agree with you.
If for some reason, sentencing was altered to trivialise the crime of child abuse (I know that you don’t see it as such from your comment “probably of naked children, unabused, unmolested, ” then I believe that the writer is absolutely correct, people will take the law into their own hands.
I think, like others in this debate, you forget the cost to the victim and their families. It is not just a snapshot and then its all over. Your comments above – “unabused,unmolested,unkilled” are just so incredibly hurtful to readers whose lives have been completely ruined by this type of behaviour.
You invite us to look around “the wee wide world” well when we do, we see that countries with a few dictators at the top, trampling the feelings of the oppressed and disempowered underfoot, often end up the cause of anarchy.
I’m not agreeing with such actions and I’m sure the columnist wasn’t either, it is just perception I guess.
Whilst the public can obtain justice through the law, the cases of vendettas will be few and far between, put the law on the side of the perpetrator at the expense of the victims and just watch the opinion column unfold before your eyes.
I notice that the little team mutually admiring one another seem to be blissfully unaware of what is really being debated here. It is not about your friend in particular, it is about influential people seeking to alter the way that we attempt to deter those that would abuse children.
Any chance of an apology for your “naked” but “unabused, unmolested and unkilled” comments David?
Report abuse
I assure you I am not part of any lynch mob, and furthermore I am fully aware of the difference in law and in fact between consensual sex between persons where one is between 13 and 16 and rape. Nowhere in my post did I conflate the two.
Neither did I say that all rapes should receive the same sentence, although some of you chose to infer that.
However, rape is rape. Whether it be a boyfriend who continues when his girlfriend says ‘stop’ or the archetypal stranger jumping out of the bushes and raping someone. Both of these acts are rape. That does not mean they will or should attract the same sentence (indeed the first example will highly likely attract no sentence at all).
I sincerely apologise Charlotte for thinking you were a man. As you say, it was mud slinging.
So neither am I saying that all forms of paedophilia should attract the same sentence, but I still maintain that looking at images is not a victimless crime and the wrong message was sent out by the sentence reduction.
If we blithely take on all UK practices, we are effectively saying that the UK is perfect.
Report abuse
It appears that this thread has been taken off the ‘Most Commented’ list; so I suggest you bookmark the thread to return easily.
@ Jeffers: I am not convinced that the majority of posters here are a fair sample of the population as a whole; nevertheless, it is more important that sentencing is decided in a rational way rather than a straw vote.
Coincidentally, I see that our Home Department is working on a sentencing policy for sex offences: we will have to wait and see what they come up with. Mr Sumption has already said that Guernsey does not need to penalise the offences excessively (interpreted by the Press as ‘going soft’). But I agree that is just one opinion, though an informed one.
It was not edifying to see the minister, Geoff Mahy, reported as saying: “Taking a mature approach, it [the Home Department] has accepted that the right of appeal is a fundamental part of our justice process.”
That sounds extraordinarily grudging – was the department, or some of it, really considering removing the right of appeal?
Report abuse
@David Cranch
“probably of naked children, unabused, unmolested, unkilled”
The distasteful way in which you so blithely disregard the nature of these photographs is disturbing.
Let’s not forget, as so many apologists here appear to have done so, that Mr Gunter was also found in possession of category three and four images, with only the category five classification images being challenged by Sumption as requiring ‘downgrading’.
Category three and four images comprise ‘non-penetrative sexual activity between adult(s) and child(ren’ and ‘penetrative sexual activity between child(ren) and adult(s)’ respectively.
That two of the images were initially classed as category five, meaning that they depicted sadism or bestiality, implies that there was sufficient reason to do so. Sumption challenges that classification, not because they were ‘harmless’, as you like to call it, category one images, but because they did not quite, in his opinion, satisfy the full criteria for inclusion in category five.
But then you would probably prefer to focus on the category one images, wouldn’t you? It’s so much easier to spout apologist technicalities and conflations when you ignore the fact that he was in possession of images depicting actual and real sexual abuse of a child.
Besides which, he only had a few of them, right? So how many could he have of your children being raped before you’d call for harsher sentencing? Could he ‘get away’ with a single digit number of your child or, for that matter, you as a child, being raped, before you’d change your mind about defending the ‘harmless’ nature of his crime? I mean, he’s only looking at a child being raped for the purposes of his sexual gratification, it’s not as if he’s doing it himself, right?
Would you spout off about how he has ‘served his sentence’ after only a few months if it was your child, or you as a child, in the images depicting child rape?
Report abuse
Thank you j jones.
Jeffers, I haven’t lost sight of what was being discussed at all and he (I presume you mean Mark Gunter) is not my friend, why are people incapable of commenting or debating without trying to discredit other posters by bizarre means?!
A story on This Is Guernsey and it’s contributors are not indicative to what the majority of people think. But even if it is, does this make whatever your opinion ‘right’ purely on the basis that x amount of people agree with you? If so then I refer you to my first post on the subject.
Report abuse
David Cranch – Pictures of naked “unabused, unmolested and unkilled” children might not be as severe as those depicting abuse, however that’s not to say they won’t be traumatic for the child in the future.
Very young children are not aware of sexuality and so they wouldn’t bat an eyelid if someone took a naked photo of them. It happens all the time when parents take photos of their babies / children in the bath, for example – the difference of course being that this is not for sexual gratification, but rather a wholly innocent means for parents to look back in future years over the lives of their children.
However when the intentions are less innocent, there can be traumatic consequences. Although not traumatic for the child when the photo was taken, children grow up and become aware of their sexuality and for a child to grow up and then become aware in future years that naked photos of them were/are being circulated around the Internet for sexual gratification could well cause a significant trauma. Yes it might not be direct physical abuse, but I imagine it would nonetheless leave someone feeling pretty violated. Would you agree that this future trauma should also be taken into account when assessing evidence in these cases?
Incidentally, this does raise the wider issue about the posting of photographs on social networking sites such as Facebook. Although done wholly innocently by parents looking to share happy memories with friends and family, it is effectively placing them in the public domain. I know my wife and I will not post any photos of our daughter on the Internet for that very reason.
Report abuse
Both Bill Yeager and Paul Le Page are tilting at windmills.
The making and taking of these photographs is of course a more serious offence than possession. You need to ask yourselves why you are raising the issue.
Bill Yeager needs to review the whole of his last posting. I cannot reply to nearly wholly complete invention.
Report abuse
Again you are so right Charlotte. When the shrill and hysterical arguments of the “hang ‘em and flog ‘em all” brigade are shown up for what they are they then revert to pathetic attempts to discredit other posters.
The latest one to do this is Bill Yeager, labeling all those who accept the decision of Mr Sumption and his two fellow judges as paedophile ‘apologists’ and parroting the lynch mob’s favourite “If it was your child…”
Here are a couple of rational, emotion free facts to consider Bill.
First Mr Gunter WAS punished for his crime. He was jailed for three months.
Second you are not privy to any of the facts of this case beyond what was reported in the local media.
You may have googled and trawled the Internet to tell us all about the various image categories but you are not in possession of the full facts of the case as the three judges were. However, I suppose that makes Mr Sumption, Sir Hugh Bennett and Sir de Vic Carey ‘apologists’ too in your eyes.
PS I’d better declare without further delay that I don’t know Mr Gunter from Adam. I don’t want to be accused of being a friend of his but I guess that’s unavoidable on this thread.
Report abuse
Charlotte Lucy
You are very similar to another regular poster on this thread, you raise points that have nothing to do with the subject. Your last post rambles on about me discrediting you with bizarre means. Where did that come from? I don’t think I even mentioned your name.
Another area where you are very similar to your fellow poster is that you love to remind anyone that disagrees with you, that they only have an opinion – true, but when looking at where you place your own opinion, we read that This is Guernsey can;t be relied upon, the contributers cannot be relied upon, the majority cannot be relied upon, mmh, sounds like the only people with sound judgement are you and your six supporters.
Try if you can not to block the thread with stuff about me, your supporters, mud, Daily Mail readers, the low class of people on a public forum and such diversionary tactics. I note that you even refuse to use the word paedophile, you use “P word” admittedly it sounds nicer, but P word is not the debate. The matter is, Should we go soft on paedophiles.
As an uneducated manual worker who uses a public forum, and doesn’t even take an english newspaper, but does enjoy The Guernsey Press, I know that your opinion is worth much more than mine, but as yet, I am still permitted to have one.
Report abuse
Hi, as a prison officer I would love to tell you the truth about how the convicted vuneruble prisoners(read this how you want) behave. I have found out I am under investigation so this is my last post on this issue. A lot of you are wrong and alot of you are right. I will let you decide. Have a long hard look at Cranch and Martino!Anyway, hi to the Prison Security Dept. Hi to Sir de Vic Carey ‘cos I just found out I may be related to you and Sir Peter le Chemiminant. With a pedigree like that maybe my arse ain’t in a sling,Geoff and Paul?
Report abuse
Martino
Your comments re Bill Yeager show something of your grasp on reality. Bill Yeager either is aware or researched the subject being debated here and you put him down for sharing what he knows on this topic. I will remind you yet again, at least he is on topic. Your posts on “Should we go soft on paedophiles” have ranted about Africans, Homosexuals, Lynch mobs, Bigots, Baying, consensual sex with adults, and bigging up your supporters whilst the man you are criticising is relating to the thread topic.
Your lack of any rationale is evident in your first paragraph, you accuse a man of being shrill and hysterical, then you yourself become hysterical to the point of accusing Mr Yeager of wanting to hang and flog them all (I think thats a lie but maybe I missed him saying that) You then close your paragraph with “some people just discredit others, its pathetic” Where are the discrediting remarks coming from? Think about it.
If you really want to campaign for lighter sentences for paedophiles, you are going to have to come up with something a little more substantial than the above off topic toot.
Report abuse
Sigh. You’re the one doing all the campaigning Jeffers – campaigning against a decision by three learned judges. All I am saying, in essence, is let’s not load our prison with low level offenders, whether they be child porn viewers at the lower end of the scale or drug abusers/importers at the lower end of the scale. I’m not hung up about this issue. People like you and screwed and Billy Y patently are. I wonder why?
Report abuse
Martino
Just for the purposes of the argument, let us ignore the hundreds of low level images the prisoner had and concentrate on the few high level images. For my own sanity I won’t be googling this, but if the classification that has mentioned on here is correct and if the Press report of the images is correct (and I am sure they would have been forced to print a retraction if it was not), then how many images of a CHILD being treated in this way should someone have before deserving a long custodial sentence?
Report abuse
Jeffers, I used the phrase ‘p word’ in a sarcastic manner. Admittingly it’s rather difficult to convey that on a forum. My point was that as soon as the word pedophile is mentioned everyone assumes it’s someone who has sexually assaulted a child by the worse possible means when in fact it may not be. A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children. This means they may not act upon it but are still classed as a pedophile. I’ve noticed debates on this forum in the past which has discussed whether these people can ‘choose’ which I doubt they can if homosexuality is anything to go by. Please don’t mistake my post by being an apologist, I’m merely giving another point of view. I have never stated that my opinion is ‘right’ however it is levied and my opinion. Even if it is in the minority of this forum it is as much ‘right’ as yours I’m afraid.
My mud slinging comment was in reference to your post on the 1st of August at 10.17pm in particular the following:
“…I notice that the little team mutually admiring one another seem to be blissfully unaware of what is really being debated here. It is not about your friend in particular…”
You try and imply that we are only debating the other side of this argument because we are ‘friends’ with Mark Gunter. You may of course have been writing in sarcastic overtones but we know how difficult that is to convey don’t we? In either case it’s still petty.
I think both issues are related to the topic we’re debating. You cannot debate a story purely on the headline and not the story itself and use real life examples/cases. Personally I think the man who abused Zibby Yates was given quite an easy sentence but I don’t profess to know everything about that case and I put my trust in our judicial system. You may choose to disagree with them but until you know about any case fully I think that is somewhat premature of you.
Report abuse
Jeffers, you need to be aware that “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” is an epithet in common use to describe people who advocate very stern sentencing. It is not necessarily true that the people described are actually recommending hanging and flogging.
Martino, the guidelines distinguish between a small number and a large number. That seems reasonable: someone who possesses several images possibly out of curiosity is in a different category to someone with dozens of them. The dividing line is not clear, presumably because it may depend on other factors. These are guidelines intended to be used thoughtfully.
The same words, i.e. ‘small’ and ‘large’ are used for each image level. Thus it applies to nude family snaps as well as posed erotic images and those depicting sexual activity.
Report abuse
Martino, I beg your pardon: I was commenting on j jones’ posting at 6:52 am wherein he starts with your name.
Report abuse
j jones
The Guernsey court of appeal decided that ‘a few’ images at level 3,4,5 warrant 3 months.
Page 110 in this document from the UK sentencing council covers guidelines for the UK.
http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_SexualOffencesAct_2003.pdf
The Oliver Guidelines are available if you do a google search.
Interesting to see that our sister island has it’s own guidelines and appears to apply a 1 year custodial sentence for downloading indecent images of children.
http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/search/label/jersey%20paedophile
The UK guidelines are not soft, at the top end where someone produces images at Level 4 or 5 they are broadly similar to the sentence for actual penetration in the range of 4-9 years.
I hope we do not see any more of these cases come up, however if we do whatever sentence applied needs to be consistant.
Looking at recent cases, Mark Gunters’ stands out by the sentence being considerably lower than Chris Sharp’s 4-years. If we follow our sister Isle’s example, then both Chris Sharp and Mark Gunter would have had a sentence of a year.
Regardless, we have to get away from the principal that a picture of an act is the same as the act itself. if that was the case looking at a picture of a murder would make you a murderer.
Report abuse
@David Cranch
“You need to ask yourselves why you are raising the issue.” – I have no idea what the purpose of this particular deflection is, asides, of course, from acting as a deflection.
The issue is one whereby responders on this topic are challenging your attempts to downgrade the offence of ‘mere’ possession of child pornography, from something you repeatedly claim can be dismissed or downplayed, even alleging ‘curiosity’ as one excuse, in the hope that you might be honest enough to consider the very real harms associated with crime. If that includes asking you to state whether you would feel the same way if it was your child, or you as a child, in a handful of images found on a paedophile’s computer, then it is a valid question. It is not unreasonable to pose such a question in the light of trying to establish whether you are willing to truly stand by your position.
So, would you still maintain the position you hold, supporting the reduction in prison sentence of a paedophile, if it was your child, or you as a child, in his collection of child rape images?
It is a valid question, please answer it.
@Martino
“People like you and screwed and Billy Y patently are. I wonder why?”
Another deflection. This is clearly a common tactic amongst those who would prefer not to have to examine their own morality.
You also go on to roundly declare that we, mere mortals, are not privy to the full facts of the case. The man was found guilty of having hundreds of indecent images on his computer, a small number of which were of sexual activity with a child. This is not for debate, this is a fact. The man was viewing these images for his sexual gratification, he is a paedophile.
As I have mentioned before, Paedophilia is a serious mental illness, it cannot be cured, it can barely be controlled and we, those who oppose the casual downgrading and downplaying of these offences, are challenging the current status quo. There are very real and very organised paedophile apologist and pro-paedophilia groups in existence, yet you choose to focus your argument on shouting down those who wish to propose harsher sentencing for these despicable offences.
I’m sure the likes of NAMBLA and the FMSF would applaud your efforts. I, for one, cannot see why anybody would be against harsher sentencing for this most toxic of societal malaise. You complain about our prisons filling up with these ‘low-level’ offenders, we simply argue that, in our opinion, these are not ‘low-level’ crimes. They are the toxic behaviours which poison society, thus repeating the cycle and breeding more dysfunction.
As human animals, murder is, potentially in all of us. Paedophilia is not.
Report abuse
Thank you, Palace of Justice, for a welcome dose of clarity with regard to the sentencing guidelines and how they work. In stark contrast to Bill Yeager’s last post I might add.
Bill, you really do come across as one of those ‘reds under the beds’ types from the McCarthy era. Except instead of ‘Commies’ there is an evil, poisonous paedo lurking around every corner, and if people like myself, David, Charlotte and Palace dare to suggest anything other than that they should all be locked up (with the key thrown away), whatever the nature and the level of the offences they commit, then we are actual apologists or we are dupes, doing the evil work of the NAMBLA or whatever (I have never heard of it before but for NAMBLA read USSR in this context).
No Bill, you are the one doing the deflecting and you are doing it in quite an arrogant way by suggesting that you are better placed than the CI Court of Appeal in formulating sentencing policy. And in answer to your question j jones. I don’t know the answer but I am happy to leave it to the experts (Mr Sumption, Sir Hugh and Sir de Vic) to work it out on my behalf in a dispassionate, calm, considered way. Their decision to go roughly with UK sentencing guidelines in future seems an eminently sensible one to me.
@ David Cranch
No harm done with your little mistake. Again I agree with the entire thrust of what you are saying.
Report abuse
@Bill Yeager
You appear to have some difficulty accepting the principles underlying the guidelines. These were drawn up by judges in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, and who can safely be assumed to be experienced judges.
It was them, not me, that specified the different ranges of sentences, in each case increasing the sentence if more than a few images were involved at a particular level. I am afraid that it is an inevitable consequence that the sentence is less if only a few are involved. And it is not my choice that the sentences are higher for making or distributing such images and, therefore, less for ‘mere’ possession.
They do not specify what reason there might be for holding only a few: it was my suggestion that it might be curiosity; but it could be accidental, or it could be the remnants of a collection most of which has been deleted. It hardly matters: the sentence should go with the evidence.
You do really need to ask yourself why you are unable to discuss this issue without climbing inexorably up the levels. We all know that, often, one thing leads to another and that an offender at a lower level might offend at higher levels. Indeed it is one objective of the guidelines to offer a disincentive to do just that. Throwing the book at a low level offender would only encourage the thought that it would make no difference being hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
I reject absolutely your mind game with the depicted child being one of mine. To start with, it seems extremely unlikely that knowledge would come my way – I do not see such images, and they are not published in the newspapers. But, if the worst should happen, I hope that (after some time had elapsed and reason had replaced emotion) I would not think a harsher sentence should be invoked simply because it was a child of mine involved.
Far from downgrading these offences, I am simply suggesting that the guidelines be followed – unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.
Report abuse
@David Cranch
“Far from downgrading these offences, I am simply suggesting that the guidelines be followed – unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.”
What you seem to be ignoring is that I, and a great many responders on this topic, are saying that the guidelines are insufficient and that, for too long, these offences have been treated with a smack on the wrist, as if, much like domestic violence offences were treated in the past, it is to be ‘tolerated’ to some degree.
To continue ignoring that point, simply defaulting to labelling us all as ‘the ignorant angry mob’, is to deny that there is purpose and reason behind calls for harsher sentencing. I can find no positive purpose or reason behind arguments defending shorter sentencing or approving of the current guidelines. Current, or, for that matter, past guidelines, have not accomplished anything constructive.
@Martino
Far from your preposterous claims that I see paedophiles around every corner, a la ‘communist witch-hunts’, I do, instead, see the ineffectiveness of current sentencing policy, with regards to paedophiles and wish to present arguments that explain why I, and many others, feel very strongly about the need to impose far stricter punishments and controls on these individuals.
I find it rather ironic that, whilst berating me for having the audacity to challenge the ‘great and good’ experts who, in your opinion, know far more about the harms of paedophilia than an anonymous online discussion poster ever could, you seem to have forgotten your own past involvement in promoting a change in existing law, as highlighted in previous posts.
Clearly, back then, you disagreed with the ‘great and good’ and wanted to promote your own agenda of change, presenting argument to support it sufficiently enough that the law was, indeed, changed.
Yet, here we are, with you displaying utter contempt that I might question the positions currently held by the ‘great and good’.
Report abuse
Oh dear, you can’t see the wood for the trees can you Bill?
Yes, I do think some of our laws are STILL outdated, unfair, unworkable and all the rest of it, and yes I have campaigned for changes in certain laws in the recent past (and doubtless will do so again in the future).
However, we are not talking about an actual law here. We are talking about sentencing guidelines and sentencing policy to deal with those who break that law.
Believe it or not I am just as keen as you to see all types of child abuse classed, in law, as criminal acts punishable by imprisonment. When it comes to sentencing, though, the judges are best placed to set and amend and apply those guidelines – not you or I.
Furthermore the appeal judges are best placed to decide whether the lower court, in any individual case, has been too harsh or too lenient. Not because they are ‘the great and good’ but because they have at their disposal all the facts of each individual case plus a higher level of expertise and experience in applying/amending/setting the court’s sentencing policy.
Sure, the judges get it wrong sometimes. They are human. But I would far rather see them in charge of sentencing than an undignified rabble who see all paedophile offences in exactly the same light and who cannot distinguish the difference between very serious offences, serious offences and not so serious offences. You fall into the latter category.
Report abuse
I will continue to follow activity on this thread, but do not intend contributing unless anything more substantial comes up. Recent comments tend to be a handful of people speaking about the subject in hand and seeking to protect children and families. Then there is one poster who did make a huge mistake, but generally tries to be politically correct and voices his opinion as he has every right to do. And then we have a close knit little group who mutually praise each other, proving they are correct because the judge and a former Bailiff are thinking the same as them. They talk endlessly about Africans and mobs and a host of other nonsense, they ridicule and attempt to silence anyone who dares to research or show any measure of common sense or value for the family unit.
For a while, I enjoyed seeing such arguments dashed, however, there isn’t any argument any more, the facts have been made clear by over 100 correspondents 3 people put an opinion across sensibly disagreeing with the majority (nothing wrong with that) and then we have a remainder that insult others and big each other up day after day. Unless things get back on topic, as Duncan would say “I’m oot”
I just hope that when the matter is raised politically, that the correct decision is made.
Thanks for your lively posts, even if at times I have been rather blunt in my delivery of my feelings on the issue.
Report abuse
Martino
Re your post 5-40. I had already posted before this post came up and so my post will not read fairly as your comments are a lot more open.
I am dead against any child abuse as you will have picked up, however, I can see and do agree that a judge will have access to all of the information on an individual. I know of one individual who was involved in an exposure case. He was not an evil person, he was simple and easily lead. When he went to prison, I felt very sorry for him, not because of what he did, that was wrong without question, but knowing him and his lack of ability, I’m glad that he was not punished horrendously. Oddly enough, a very well known character involved in the same case went on to physically sexually abuse a child in his care, he was not retarded, he was gifted and very cunning. I appreciate that these two characters need very different treatment by the courts.
If I had any say in what the way forward is (which I haven’t) then I would recommend huge sentences be permissible for when required, but giving the judge the scope to use common sense to decide at what level to penalise depending on the circumstances.
Report abuse
Well Bill, you’ve finally managed to say that you just want harsher sentencing.
How that squares with your belief that paedophilia is a serious mental illness, I’m not quite sure.
Do you think that prison is the place the mentally ill. Especially those convicted of such an offence who may be in for a tough time at the hands of other inmates, who may well think like you?
Report abuse
@David Cranch
I don’t think I have suggested anything other than harsher sentencing as my position in this discussion. So I think it’s more of a case of you, finally, realising that is exactly what I, and many others here, are calling for.
Whilst paedophilia is a serious mental illness it does not, other than in those who suffer from mental retardation, prevent the paedophile from knowing that their actions are abhorrent to decent society. Unfortunately many delude themselves that their compulsions to abuse are, instead, an act of ‘love’ and will convince themselves that society just doesn’t understand them and that it is we who are wrong.
Only by establishing a rigid and harsh sentencing policy can we ever hope to either demonstrate to these individuals that any ‘giving in’ to their warped desires could result in a long prison sentence or, at least, ensure that those paedophiles who do commit such acts, thereby proving that they are unable to control themselves, are removed from society for as long as possible.
Yes, it is a mental illness, but it is not a debilitating one. There are no ‘part-time’ paedophiles, there are those who possibly may be able to recognise their condition and have sufficient control to prevent themselves from being ‘active’, but the majority are, and will always be, a threat to society. Why should we pretend that a short spell in prison will ‘cure’ them of their compulsions, it won’t.
Prison needs to act as both a strong deterrent and a means by which to incarcerate those who represent a continual danger to society.
The cycle of abuse needs to be stopped and, until we can develop an alternative, removal from society is all we have.
If you want to take our options further though, open your mind real wide now, it would be productive to include in sentencing the option, after a period of the sentence has been served, to offer early release on the condition that the inmate agrees to surgical castration. Remove the sex drive and you remove the threat to society.
Before your knee spasms right through your monitor, consider, for a moment, what I am proposing. Or do the ‘rights’ of a child abuser outweigh the rights of decent society?
Report abuse
Your hope that prison is a deterrent is hopeless.
Longer prison sentences to remove the offender from society is a more rational policy, though a costly one. Our prison is already full of drugs offenders in a hopeless attempt at deterrence. What do we do – build another prison?
Your wish that the cycle of abuse be stopped is forlorn. The vast majority of offences go undetected.
Report abuse
Spot on David Cranch. There is no logic or rationale at all to Bill’s stance. If a short spell inside won’t ‘cure them of their compulsions’ then a long spell sure as hell won’t either. His deterrence argument falls flat on its face.
By all means lock away the very worst offenders such as this one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-14400703
But to pretend they all fall into this category is just plain silly and totally impractical. As you say, David, we’d need a second prison and possibly even a third!
Report abuse
David Cranch / Martino
If prison isn’t a viable option, what is? You almost seem to be saying there’s no point in trying to do anything about the problem, should we just accept it and let these people go unpunished?
Report abuse
You both seem to be avoiding the actual point of long prison sentences, as a deterrent for ‘inactive’ paedophiles and as a means to incarcerate, and remove from society for a very considerable time, ‘active’ paedophiles.
I am proposing double-figure sentencing as the minimum. If a paedophile wants out before the full prison-time is served, they would have to agree to surgical castration. Whilst, certainly, it would initially result in a surge in prisoner numbers, this would be paid back within a generation or two by the drastic reduction in those who are abused by paedophiles, thereby breaking the cycle and reducing the incidents of children who grow to become child abusing adults.
The notion of a paedophile as someone who is just ‘born that way’ or who ‘chooses’ to become one as an adult is simply untrue, as all modern research and scientific understanding points to toxic childhoods as being the source of this particular mental illness. So, surely, the only effective option we have currently as a society is to remove the opportunity these people have from poisoning others.
I don’t see why you would claim that this argument has no logic or rationale, it does, in fact, have a great deal of both.
David’s claim, that a desire to break the cycle of abuse is futile, is one that pretty much highlights the flaws in current sentencing policy. We all shake our heads, shrug our shoulders and bemoan the ineffectiveness of past and present policies designed to deal with this problem, yet calls that would actually go some way to achieve something constructive are labelled as reactionary, baseless and unwarranted.
It’s time we took our heads out of the sand and realised that, until we accept the uniquely insidious and harmful nature of this crime, we will continue to fail to implement anything capable of actually dealing with it effectively.
Report abuse
One only needs to read the Guernsey Press over a few days and notice the amount of court cases that relate to drugs to realise long sentences do not act as a deterrent.
Report abuse
No Phil, I’m saying that what Gunter got in the end – a three month sentence – was about right for his crime at the lower end of the spectrum. He did not go unpunished. Bill has made it clear that he wants to see all offenders serving a minimum of 10 years. I think his angry obsession with the ‘paedo menace’ means he is unable to distinguish between different degrees and levels of offence. It’s like saying anyone caught with illegal drugs, whether 10 tonnes of coke or a couple of ounces of dope, should get a minimum of X years. Simplistic nonsense.
Report abuse
JJ
You forgot to include what your answer is
Report abuse
@Phil
It’s a viable option; it’s just not effective.
And punishment is only effective insofar as the recipient had a free choice and recognises the justice of the punishment. For those who were born to become padeophiles the punishment is ineffective.
@Bill Yeager
No avoidance. Prison is not a deterrent, not for the harder cases anyway. I did say that using it to remove offenders from society was not a bad idea. Although if that is the intention it is not something our prison system is designed for.
You go on to say that it would also result in a drastic reduction of offences. Not so, Bill: most offences are undetected, and therefore unpunished. The few who go to court are just the tip of the iceberg. Lengthening the sentences would have only a marginal effect on the number of offences committed because of the large number of offenders outside.
It is unfortunate that your ideas will not significantly affect the problem.
Report abuse
David
So let me get this straight, you are saying that these offenders have “no choice”, they were “born that way” and therefore can’t be “cured” (in the same way that homosexuality cannot be “cured”).
It appears to be quite straightforward then, we either lock them up indefinitely or accept that they’ll continue to offend. Is that what you’re saying, or are options such as castration on the cards?
Martino
I’m afraid that I don’t see 3 months as “about right” in the context of other sentences for other crimes, particularly drug related crimes. You’d get more for importing some dope for personal use, who exactly is being harmed by that particular offence?
I think the entire criminal sentencing framework needs to be looked at and rewritten, to reflect both current public opinion and to increase the sentences for offences against the person, and decrease them for others. Just my opinion, but many, many people cannot work out the current sentencing policy, common sense certainly doesn’t appear to be a factor.
Report abuse
Ray, I do not know what the exact answer is. Locking up offenders does protect the public, so a custodial sentence has it’s benefits. But to say long sentences act as a deterrent is 100% wrong.
Report abuse
@Phil
Detention as a preventative measure ought to considered as different to imprisonment. It should, for example, provide as much freedom as is consistent with preventing offending, allowing the individual to live as normal a life as possible.
Castration is a possibility, particularly if voluntary.
A suggestion of my own is that there could be an amnesty for undetected offenders opting for one of these preventative solutions.
Report abuse
David
I assume any proposed amnesty would have restrictions as to the seriousness of the individual’s offending.
Would permanent tagging i.e. chipping be an option? It probably violates human rights legislation somewhere along the line.
Report abuse
@Phil
I agree with you that there are far too many low level drug offenders serving long periods of time in our prison at great expense to us taxpayers. I also believe there are too many low level sex offenders (people convicted of the ‘thought’ crime of viewing sick images from the world wide web) serving overly long sentences as well.
When considering sentences it is far more useful to compare apples with apples and pears with pears.
A ‘Mr Big’ drugs baron like Curtis Warren in Jersey should serve a lot of time. Someone who brings in a few ounces of dope should get a suspended sentence.
An actual child abuser like Eugene Hughes should be put away for a few years. Someone like Mark Gunter who commits only a ‘virtual’ crime via the Internet should get a much shorter sentence.
The Court of Appeal saw sense in reaching that conclusion. Now I hope the senior judges rationalise our drugs sentencing policy in a similar way.
Report abuse
@Phil
I was only throwing the idea of an amnesty in with the intention that it could get the undetected offenders out of circulation. Thus it would apply, I think, especially to the more hard line offenders. That does not rule out the possibility that it could comprise a preventative measure plus a reduced prison sentence. Obviously the package would have to seen as a tolerable way out for the offenders themselves, or it just wouldn’t work.
Report abuse
I can see people coming forwards in their droves to have the label and stigma of paedophile pinned onto them and the prospect of a lengthy prison sentence with castration as s get out of jail early option.
My real concern would be where all the money would come from to finance the hundreds or possibly even thousands wanting to nominate themselves for such a scheme?
Obviously it would prove to be so popular many millions would need to be put aside.
Report abuse
I too feel the need to specify that I don’t know Gunter nor Guernsey and that I am really a man. I’m not a native English speaker either, so it could explain why some of you have had trouble understanding me.
Japan is the other country of the G8 that don’t criminalize the simple possession of child pornography. Again, instead of rioting, the population is content. Are we to consider the Japanese people are just a bunch of unscrupulous perverts? Or are we just not civilized enough to do the same? I’m not saying it’s okay to fabricate and distribute child pornography, but I’m certainly saying that we should give a break to the simple possessors. The police, who is always complaining about not having enough resources, should catch the people hurting children instead of making smoke by spinning their wheels. The availability of virtual children could reduce the abuses against physical children by serving as an easy substitute. The case of Japan should help us determine if a paedogeddon would likely sweep our country.
We live in a time when it is fashionable for little girls to dress sexy while gyrating suggestively to the sound of their favorite pop stars under the encouragement of their parents and the public, yet we are quick to throw the stone at anyone who dares to suggest they are sexy. What did Jesus say? “Let the little children come to me and don’t stone your fellow if you are not innocent”:-P When it’s socially accepted, people are surprisingly pedophiles. In this time when we idealize and promote the Lolita image through advertising, fashion, youth icons and more, some responsibility lies in the hands of society and the industries creating and profiting from these pervasive images shaping the landscape of our collective fantasy pool, giving wet dreams and nightmares. It also means less responsibility rests on the shoulders of pedophiles. We have the laws of our time, and the time is to hysteria. It’s useful to blackmail, steal children, grow the prison business and strip us away from our freedom and privacy in the name of protecting children against sexual abuse.
Certain sexual contacts between adults and children are abusive but it is naive to think that all of them are, otherwise we should put every parents in jail. Most child abusers are not pedophiles and most pedophiles are not abusers. They are as much human as anybody, but the lonely and loveless existence they must cope with is hardly human. If you treat someone like a monster, you might very well contribute to its creation. The total prohibition fuels secrecy where abuses can thrive.
Children have a sex and they like to use it too. Imposing your selfish desire of sexual privation is an abuse. Parents and society virtually steal their sex and their naughtiness. This brings life-long consequences. Some parents even ritually mutilate the penis of their baby boy without his consent, but that’s “okay”.
Palace of Justice has said: “The twisted logic of many of you would brand her both a victim and a pedophile maker of indecent images of children”.
Thanks for your example of a false victim(I didn’t say false memories).
Unfortunately, it’s hard to express a diverging opinion on these matters without being branded a rape apologist. The debate suffers from such logical fallacy, and if the debate(which one anyway?) suffers, the children too. I don’t apologise “pedophilia”, I have to apologise for defending children.
Report abuse
@Observant
Voluntary castration is not unpopular where it has been offered. It is effective as a cure. Consequently the label ‘paedophile’ does not apply afterwards.
Despite their disorder, some paedophiles find the idea of living freely in society, and freely of guilt, is attractive.
The numbers of people potentially taking up such an operation in Guernsey would be relatively small: the cost would be certainly be much smaller than the alternatives, and money well spent to boot. Ask the victims.
Report abuse
@Adam
Back again huh? This time it’s to tell us how wrong we’d be to criticise Japanese culture. Please do tell me how the Japanese are a paragon of psychological health and balance. As far as I understand, they have a disturbingly high proliferation of paedophile imagery in their mainstream media, yet are also widely known to be extremely uptight and repressed emotionally, how does this balance with your assertion that, “if it’s alright for the Japanese then who are we to question it”, which was what you tried with the Russians too.
Others in this discussion are willing to cover issues such as worthwhile punishments and controls, you, on the other hand, are clearly determined to ram ‘cultural difference’ down our throat and declare that we are all putting our six-year old daughters in push-up bras, so we are all paedophiles anyway. Nice try, but the vast majority of parents are disgusted at the sexualisation of children by mainstream media and grubby clothes manufacturers desperate to shill their wares.
Don’t think it isn’t glaringly obvious that you are trying to throw in as many irrelevant distractions from your true purpose as to obfuscate it. Genital mutilation for religious purposes is not ‘ok’, it is child abuse. For that matter, raising children to believe in ooky-spooky unseen gods and demons is too, but that’s another discussion.
“Certain sexual contacts between adults and children are abusive but it is naive to think that all of them are, otherwise we should put every parents in jail.” – Any sexual contact between an adult and a child is coercive, therefore it is rape. Betraying a child’s trust and fooling them into thinking that sexual contact with an adult is anything other than what it is, is a common ploy amongst paedophiles. As for your notions about having to put every parent in jail, guess what? Incest is rape too, no matter how much ‘love’ you might try to pretend it has.
The rape of a child may not always be violent, but it is always rape. Children are not psychologically developed enough to understand sexual interaction sufficiently to be either informed or empowered, which means that the adult is using their power to fool a child into thinking that what they want them to do is ‘normal’ or, perhaps even, ‘special’, but it is neither, it is gross betrayal and *that* is what causes the trauma, even if the sexual abuse did not at the time.
You can try and pretend it is something else Adam, but it will always, even under the twisted guise of your ‘love’, be an act of utter betrayal on a vulnerable child.
Shame on you.
Report abuse