Welcome to another week.
A former police officer has been spared jail after 1,000 indecent images of children were found in his home – some of which he had made – because of his work exposing paedophiles. Lee Kelly was given a 10-month sentence, which has been suspended for two years.
The judge told Kelly that he felt it would be unjust to send him to prison immediately because of his previous good work during his career as a police officer. It is unclear whether any of the child abuse images were made or gathered during the time he served as a police officer, although media reports suggests this may have been the case. It is also not clear whether the police officer collected and produced images with a view to catching offending paedophiles or for his own use. There is some suggestion from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that Kelly was using the images for sexual gratification.
Despite the lack of clarity on issues going to motive, the CPS did not request a trial of fact to determine why Kelly downloaded the images in the first instance.
Our question to you this week then, is this: do you agree with the officer’s sentence?
Researching Reform 
This sort of question is always difficult to answer without stirring controversy.
i would say if he has not shared the images with other people online etc and this was his first offence then the Sentence is just. to put him behind bars would cost the Tax payer around £1000 per week. i dont think that would be in the public interest unless he is caught doing it again.also it may be worth adding that this sort of Police work should not be carried out by Men and especially if the children in the images are girls.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi DM, thanks for your comment. Throwing some ideas out: can we really call the physical download of thousands of images one offence? Should the time it takes to amass such content make a difference to sentencing? Does it matter if child abuse images are shared where the subject matter has already been exploited? Does prison time actually serve a purpose/ address the underlying behaviour?
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Does prison time actually serve a purpose/ address the underlying behaviour ? ”
Usually not as most go on to re-offend when they get out. some kind of rehab may be more effective. many prisoners learn from other Criminals inside and become even more a burden on Society.
LikeLike
Pingback: Question It! | Researching Reform – Dec 2018
i’d say the judge is a nonce. but who in the establishment will dare go against criminal members of the establishment? there’s not a atom of integrity between the lot of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He should have been jailed.
LikeLike
Naming and shaming is possibly better than a term of imprisonment which might well have compounded the problem.
I think we are too ready to incarcerate people for offences that do not involve violence or pose a threat to the community at large.
We need to think more about rehabilitation and reform – especially for first offenders. I would suggest that everyone deserves that all important chance to put their life in order.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
Naming and shaming is possibly better than a term of imprisonment which might well have compounded the problem.
I think we are too ready to incarcerate people for offences that do not involve violence or pose a threat to the community at large.
We need to think more about rehabilitation and reform – especially for first offenders. I would suggest that everyone deserves that all important chance to put their life in order.
LikeLike