Agree with everything said in the previous three posts. Although it should be noted that the guy sending these images to him also only got a suspended sentence which was also absurd

It’s pretty standard sentencing for the crimes committed. Low level risk and certainly not jail worthy.

It’s pretty standard sentencing for the crimes committed. Low level risk and certainly not jail worthy.

 

I would consider someone who intentionally seeks out child pornography to be very jail worthy :blink:

I would consider someone who intentionally seeks out child pornography to be very jail worthy :blink:

If the judge doesn't consider him to be an out-and-out danger, there's not much anyone can do. An extra 5 years in prison probably wouldn't actually make much of a difference to someone whose reputation and livelihood is already completely damaged.

If the judge doesn't consider him to be an out-and-out danger, there's not much anyone can do. An extra 5 years in prison probably wouldn't actually make much of a difference to someone whose reputation and livelihood is already completely damaged.

but does he deserve the privilege of being able to roam about freely given the morally abhorrent crimes he's commited? I struggle to see how anyone could not see him deserving a custodial sentence tbf

but does he deserve the privilege of being able to roam about freely given the morally abhorrent crimes he's commited? I struggle to see how anyone could not see him deserving a custodial sentence tbf

 

He should have a custodial sentence if anyone else who has committed the exact same crime has been given one.

I think there's a difference between the morality of a situation and the practicality of a situation. From an idealogical point of view you can have clean lines between what is right and wrong (even if not everyone agrees where that line should be) but from a practicality point of view I would imagine that judges must consider the situation in the country as a whole around whether we have enough space in prisons for everyone who commits offences. Obviously the priority has to be given to those who commit the most severe offences or who are likely to be of harm to others - I don't know in detail where this case stands along that scale but I would trust that a judge will have factored things in fairly.

He should have a custodial sentence if anyone else who has committed the exact same crime has been given one.

From what I’ve read, the sentence he received is fairly normal for a first offender. He wil clearly have been assessed after the the trial to determine whether he posed a risk to the public.

From what I’ve read, the sentence he received is fairly normal for a first offender. He wil clearly have been assessed after the the trial to determine whether he posed a risk to the public.

 

That’s what I meant. There’s no use in demanding he see a harsher punishment if they haven’t handed any to someone else in the same position.