Proportionate
From Seenoevil
How do the punishments for possession images compare with physical crimes they portray or resemble?
Contents |
Realistic depictions
"The second threshold would be an objective test for the jury in respect of actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts." (amended government proposals)
The first important point to make is that the proposed law will be (in part) criminalizing representations of legal activity that only resembles illegal activity.
Violence
Fear of harm
The government proposals about images of serious violence state that "we intend to catch material which is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm." (response document), and is this point clearly regarded as important. [1] . However fear of violence or harm is not in itself necessarily against the law.
Assault, Sadomasochism and consent
Under current law even consensual sadomasochistic activities are still against the law.[source needed] However there is some movement to change this law, including questions asked by those who make the law in Scotland [source needed] and England and Wales [source needed]. If these developments happen then it’s possible that viewing activity that was clearly consensual and lawful would be illegal.
Rape
It is often claimed that a significant number of people share an interest in non-consensual sexual fantasizes including fantasy rape.[source needed] On occasion a newspaper reports such fantasy enactments being reported to the police.[source needed] Typically the players are given no more than a stern telling off from the police but in theory they could be charged with Wasting Police Time, which has a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment [2]
Murder
Actual murder is punishable by life imprisonment.[source needed] This would include killings that have a sexual motive or are filmed (see snuff).
Bestiality
Currently cruelty to animals is only punishable by up to six months in prison (though the Animal Welfare act, which is on the point of becoming law, will increase this maximum tariff to 51 weeks).[3] Typically those convicted do not receive a jail term. For example the woman convicted of microwaving her cat to death received only a two-year community rehabilitation order and a ban from keeping pets for 5 years.[4] In 2004, 70,000 pets were tortured or killed. [5]
Until the Sexual Offenders Act (2003)[source needed] there was no specific crime of bestiality or sexual contact with an animal. Since this act came into force in 2004 penetration of or by an animal has been punishable by up to 2 years in jail [6], regardless of harm or lack of harm to the animal involved. This sounds like an expression of sexual Puritanism rather than a desire to protect animals. A further example of this type of thinking comes from Helen Munro in The Veterinary Journal[7] where vets are encouraged to look out for signs of 'sexual abuse' rather than actual harm to animals - as if the sexual component somehow made it more serious. It is also proposed that animals may still be harmed even if they show no signs of physical damage, without comparing this to psychological harm animals may suffer from non sexual contact with humans. It is often claimed that sexual contact with animals is widespread; however it seems like only a minority of these contacts results in harm serious enough to be reported.[source needed]
The proposed law on extreme pornography will make possession of images representing bestiality punishable by a yet to be announced tarif of less than the maxiumum 3 years in prison. It will also amend the Obscene publications act, increasing the tariff for producing pictures "likely to deprave or corrupt" to up to 5 years in prison. It seems that the government regard thoughts as more dangerous than actions.
The extreme pornography law includes images of acts which are legal: oral sex with an animal (the Sexual Offences Act 2003 only criminalises anal or vaginal penetration), and furthermore, an amendment in the House of Lords extended the extreme pornography law to include images of dead animals (the law on bestiality only covers living animals).
Necrophilia
Most authorities agree that instances of actual necrophilia are very rare.[source needed] Prior to the Sexual offenses act (2003) there was no specific penalty for Necrophilia. [8] Once this act came into force penetration of a corpse became punishable with a prison sentence of up to 2 years.
The proposed law on extreme pornography will make possession of images representing Necrophilia punishable by a yet to be announced tarif of less than the maxiumum 3 years in prison. It will also amend the Obscene publications act, increasing the tariff for producing pictures "likely to deprave or corrupt" to up to 5 years in prison. The law on extreme pornography is broader than the law on actual necrophilia, covering "sexual interference", rather than requiring penetration. Again, it seems that the government regard thoughts as more dangerous than actions. None of the notorious sites on-line, such as Necrobabes feature actual corpses so these penalties will be almost entirely for images which are produced without breaking the law.
Victim-less crime
It seems clear that in many, most or possibly nearly all cases images covered by the proposed law will not involve harm to anyone. Is the Governments creation of victim-less offense a desirable objective?
