Welcome to another week.
A paedophile convicted of possessing a huge volume of some of the most extreme images of child sex abuse available and who hopes to start a family of his own in the near future, has been spared jail because of mitigating circumstances.
Those mitigating circumstances include being charged for the first time, pleading guilty at the first opportunity, having a supportive wife and being in steady employment.
The judge also took the view that Richard Arrowsmith was previously of ‘good character’. Arrowsmith had been viewing and storing child abuse images for over four years before he was caught.
There does not appear to be any concern over his desire to have children of his own although he has been ordered to sign the sexual offences register and is now banned from working with children. Arrowsmith has also been given a supervision requirement for 12 months, and cannot leave his house between 7pm and 5am.
Our question this week then is this: do you think the judge was right to allow the mitigating circumstances above to influence his decision?
Researching Reform 
No
LikeLike
Enough Abuse UK has appealed to the Attorney General only last week as unduly lenient and against this ludicrous situation. Please join us as you have 28 days to appeal following the date in court
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
People steal from a shop or fiddle the housing or social and then sentenced to prison or given a heavy fine, or as the TV programs show don’t pay we will take it and many times on a high court order families and kids are thrown out onto the street within an hour, again I will say there is no JUSTICE for the children being used by paedophiles in what ever way, I wonder does this paedo have contacts some where as we all know it is not what you know but who you know, how a judge can give such a judgment says it all, the law is for the paedophiles to walk free, and as for the plebs the law by the family courts takes the kids for the paedophiles, I wonder if and when he has kids he will sell their nude pictures he has the experience to do so, as for his wife what can any one say who supports a paedophile,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably right since he never harmed anyone but himself.
LikeLike
Or he was not caught ?
LikeLike
Just the fact that he was caught with 137,000 child sex abuse images should have been more than enough to send him to jail. they didnt let Gary Glitter off so why should he be let off. this is proof that people accused of serious offences get far more consideration of a second chance than parents in the Family courts. clear case of Double standards of Law and Justice. it stinks!
LikeLiked by 2 people
What ‘mitigating circumstances’ exactly? I can’t see any. Perhaps the Judge thought he couldn’t possibly be attracted to his own kids, if he has them. And it’s not true he hasn’t harmed anyone but himself. Children are put through horrendous abuse to get these photographs or ‘images’. Each one will be damaged by it, quite possibly for life. By obtaining these ‘images’ (which make it sound rather abstract) he is supporting, condoning and fuelling this perverted industry. I’m regarded as usually fairly liberal, but I do not think this individual should have children. How many warning signs must there be? I really think he should be ‘doctored’ (similar word to ‘image’ in this context), rather than allowed children only for them to be taken away. Kinder to all parties, including the potential children.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The definition of a paedophile is an adult or older youth sexually interested in children. In common parlance when “paedophile” is mentioned it is usually in connection with a sexual act on a child that the person has committed. Saville immediately comes to mind.
This man is not alone in viewing child images for personal sexual gratification but people “forget” that child porn images are also crimes against children even if they are enacted by others. There are even categories for the severity of the depravity. Arrowsmiths were deemed to be extreme. It is also believed that those viewing child porn go on to enacting out themselves. That it is only a matter of time or opportunity.
The Judge was wrong.
How could Arrowsmith have been of previous good character, if he had indulged, albeit secretly, in extreme child porn over a 4 year period, that he admits to! As regards mitigating circumstances, that may have resulted in a lesser sentence but he should have been jailed.
It is a absolute nonsense to give him a curfew. After all I should imagine he wasn’t outside of his home when he was indulging but sat in front of a computer in his home! If he had been out and about he may not have got into child porn!
He appears to have a good relationship with his wife but obviously his sexual satisfaction was appeased by thoughts of children not her. Or at least not only by her.
As regards any future children any decisions made now will be reveiwed if or when they arrive. Often paedophiles leave their own children alone but other children would be exposed to him, through his children.
I think when you compare what the Family Court does compared with what Criminal Court does, there is no reasoning behind what either do!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher.
LikeLike