An academic study of Irish cases of internet child pornography suggests the problem will become more prevalent and difficult to prevent, writes Ian O'Donnell
On foot of information received from American authorities, members of An Garda Síochána carried out a series of dawn raids on May 27th, 2002. Codenamed Operation Amethyst, the investigation exposed Irish involvement in the international child pornography trade for the first time.
Media coverage suggested a crime wave of greater magnitude than anyone had imagined. One report claimed that gardaí had "confiscated evidence that shows paedophilia is indulged on a frightening scale here". What was presented as most shocking was the background of those who were investigated, including members of the legal profession and other pillars of society.
As the Amethyst cases proceeded through the courts, the public became vocal in its disapproval of what was perceived as lenient treatment of sex offenders. Some sentences provoked national outrage and contributed to a belief that there was an unacceptable level of disparity in the way judges handled these cases.
The child pornography issue became a lightning rod for public fear and discontent. The arrival of the internet and anxiety about its potential to facilitate, or even encourage, this kind of crime put the criminal justice system under pressure to respond. However, understanding of the issues fell behind the level of public, political and media concern.
To begin a process of understanding, a research project was carried out by the UCD Institute of Criminology with the support of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It took account of the Amethyst cases as well as other crimes involving child pornography that have come to attention over the past several years.
The research involved an examination of how cases were handled by the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Judges were interviewed and newspaper coverage was scrutinised. So what did we learn?
Let us turn first of all to the kind of material involved. The number of images varied greatly. In a few instances they could be counted in single digits and in a handful there were several thousand. The content ranged from images of erotic posing with no sexual activity to sadism and bestiality. The whole spectrum of depravity was covered.
All of those prosecuted were male and they ranged in age from teenagers to senior citizens. These were individuals who had seldom come to police attention before.
Imprisonment, usually immediate, was the only penalty meted out by the courts for the production or distribution of child pornography. For possession, by far the most common offence, the full range of sentencing options was utilised, from the maximum of five years in custody to 12 months' probation.
In terms of selecting an appropriate penalty, the nature of the images was the aggravating factor most frequently cited by judges. Those involving very young children were viewed with particular abhorrence. Any indication of the offender posing a risk to children, or abusing a position of trust, was considered to exacerbate the seriousness of what he had done.
There were a number of mitigating factors. These included previous good character, an immediate acceptance of responsibility, a willingness to seek professional help and evidence of social isolation or immaturity.
Judges were asked what weight was given to the likelihood of future offending when deciding on an appropriate sentence. All said that they had looked for, and been guided by, expert opinion on this matter.
Risk assessments from psychologists and psychiatrists, as well as probation officers, were taken very seriously.
Judges believed in the need for imprisonment when dealing with possession of child pornography. But generally speaking it was not seen as the automatic option. More than half said they would consider community service a suitable sanction under certain circumstances. Although not completely ruling out financial penalties, the majority were very cautious of their use in child pornography cases. There was a feeling that they might be seen as inadequate to mark the seriousness of the activity in question.
In the main, judges said they would consider putting an offender on probation. If the risk of re-offending was low, and supervision could reduce it further, this was seen as an option that was in the public interest to pursue.
Child pornography offences cause a great deal of public anxiety and revulsion. They also embrace a wide range of harms.
Through the exercise of discretion at sentencing, judges are careful to seek a balance between the seriousness of the crime and the circumstances of the offender. This explains why cases which seem similar can result in different outcomes in court.
The introduction of the internet has made child pornography easily available on a global scale. Images of the most horrendous abuse are only a few keystrokes away. As computer use becomes more widespread, the number of broadband connections increases, and users become more sophisticated at covering their tracks, it is likely that this type of criminal activity will become both more prevalent and more difficult to eradicate.
The extent of this challenge cannot be underestimated.
Ian O'Donnell is professor of criminology at the School of Law, University College Dublin