Consultation response

Response from a Criminologist

From www.backlash-uk.org.uk

April 2006

The response of a 30 year old female professional working in the field of sexual reproductive rights, with a degree in criminology and active in the London BDSM scene

1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the law to be strengthened ?
Not at all. The laws currently in place to protect children and the public from materials produced for and by paedophiles are adequate for those and related crimes alone and should not be related to, nor compared to, pornographic images featuring consenting adults indulging in consensual and/or sadomasochistic sexual behaviour.

Parents, guardians and teachers of a position in loco parentis are responsible for those in their charge and have the tools and technology available necessary to protect their children from accessing any material they see as unsuitable.

2. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material which is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated ?
Materials featuring children, animals, necrophilia are already banned and for good reason. There can not be consent in these activities.

Proposing a possession offence to try to break the demand/supply cycle and discourage interest in this material has not succeeded in deterring paedophiles, necrophiles or those who have an interest in bestiality in accessing or creating the materials they want - activities that are already illegal. There has been no reduction in any of these practices and no reduction in the number of individuals arrested for these crimes.

There is (as is stated in the consultation document) no evidence to suggest that access to violent consensual adult pornographic images leads to criminal behaviour. In fact, during 1990, in Palm Beach Florida County Jail, violence by male inmates actually declined when violent films were shown as entertainment for the prisoners.

The comment by Cathy Jamieson and Paul Goggins on the consultation paper stating that "We believe most people would find this material abhorrent" is irrelevant to this consultation process. This is not an issue of what they find "abhorrent" or acceptable forms of sexual expression, the consultation is to discuss the potential and possible reduction of harm through the possession or potential illegality of possessing of extreme adult pornography.

3. Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39) ?
I am unsure as to what this question refers to exactly. I agree that actual scenes featuring -

(i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal
(ii) sexual interference with a human corpse
(iii) serious violence in a sexual context
(iv) serious sexual violence

should be restricted to the offence, but realistic depictions of these acts is as stated - a "depiction". They are not "real". Extreme adult pornography featuring "depictions" of these are just that - "realistic depictions". To make an offence of such depictions would mean that a great of the cinema accessible to adults in the past would be viewed as illegal.

The character Sarah Tobias played by Jodie Foster in The Accused was gang-raped. Jodie Foster won an Academy Award for this film which expressed the essence of rape, in violence and abuse of power. If this consultation lead to the criminalisation of such images and those involved in the production of such images, the actors who raped Jodie Foster would be guilty of assault or worse.

Many of the images and films with the BDSM community feature depictions of violence, abuse of power and the like. Materials that are produced between consenting adults for private enjoyment, or the enjoyment and even education of others.

Simply dramatising serious sexual violence should not be a crime.

4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such material ?
Categorically Yes.

Adults are allowed such freedoms within society as to select what they do or do not wish to watch. If what they wish to view is unacceptable to the majority, then it is a matter of preference.

5. Which option do you prefer ?
Option 4 (do nothing)

6. Why do you think this option is best ?
There is no evidence that proves that possession of such materials causes or is likely to ever cause an increase in "real" sexual violence, and I believe it causes a reduction in real sexually violent behaviour.

7. Which penalty option do you prefer ?
I don't believe there should be a penalty for possession of these materials.

© Copyleft backlash 2005-6

www.backlash-uk.org.uk/criminologist.html