The public wholeheartedly support law enforcement methods to catch and punish paedophiles. As the law presently stands, men who use social media to groom children for sex are tracked by specialised police officers posing as a child and when sufficient evidence has been gained, the offender is put before a court. If the evidence convinces a magistrate, that person is found guilty and given punishment commensurate with the crime.
The Crimes Act is now being overhauled and toughened in what has been termed " the greatest crackdown on paedophiles in a generation ". This takes the form of mandatory minimum sentences and that leaves the Law Council of Australia aghast because it removes the right of magistrates and judges to consider all the aspects of the case - and deciding what suitable punishment should apply.
There is a danger that in framing a law that includes jail terms of at least five years the definition of offences blurs the difference between the actions of paedophiles and what could be described as " ordinary teenage behaviour ". Once a legal statute is on the books that is the law that must be applied, even though the people tasked with upholding the law may think that it some cases it is an over reaction.
The teenage world has always been rife with kids pushing the boundaries as they develop their individual sexuality. Fondling in the back row of a cinema was a usual sexual experience many decades ago and today that has become more open. Many parents were astonished to learn that children as young as primary school age were exchanging nude photographs as a normal part of the " coupling " procedure. That became known as " Sexting " !
That was probably inevitable with the development of the digital camera. No need to have a film " developed " by strangers and todays kids have their own computer and its email service to take care of distribution. But exchanging nude photographs between a paedophile and a child victim is a crime, but we would not want sexting kids put into a jail cell for five years because the law makes no difference in the way of definition.
This law also strays into the murky world of under age sex. The present law deems the " age of consent " for girls to be sixteen, but is an inescapable fact that sex is prevalent well before that age in many instances. In todays teenage world the exchange of sexual favours is often seen as a normal part of the constant interchange of " coupling " that takes place as early as the school yard. Young people may have had several sexual experiences before they reach the age of consent.
The rate of teenage pregnancies has dropped sharply in recent times. Contraception is now freely available and some wise parents who are aware of the commonality of sex in todays teen world make sure that their daughters have pregnancy protection at an early age. We may remember one lurid story where it was revealed that sex was a normal activity at one school during the lunch break. For lack of contraceptives, the kids were using the cling wrap from their sandwiches for that purpose.
Some people who work with kids see a danger in this legislation delivering " unintended consequences ". Where investigations of suspected paedophile activity uncover a teenage admission of what is illegal sex with another under age kid that admission may automatically lead to prosecution - without the right of the magistrate to judge the degree of punishment. A mandatory jail term is just that - time in a prison.
The law has never stopped kids having sex in the past - and it is unlikely to do so in the future. The whole purpose of having a judge or a magistrate is to deliver an outcome that suits the circumstances.
Mandatory minimum sentences imposes the " one size fits all " approach !
No comments:
Post a Comment