THE LAST DITCH

Discussions of "sexting" in the media and on websites advising young people and their parents, focus on the risks to teenagers of being coerced, blackmailed or subjected to "revenge porn".

There is another, perhaps worse, risk from the criminal justice system.

Firstly, the law on this subject is very badly drawn, having been enacted in the course of a moral panic about child pornography. Secondly, Britain has the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe: just ten years old. It is a criminal offence to create, publish or possess pornographic images of a minor. There is no carve-out, as in wiser jurisdictions, for images exchanged between minors. They are just as guilty, ludicrously, as an adult pornographer making an image of them. Or an adult pervert sending them pictures of his or her genitals.

Surely the law should protect children against sexual exploitation by adults, not from their playing the digital version of "doctors and nurses"? Even your august and respectable blogger has memories of a game of strip poker backstage during a school play that could have had legal consequences had the smartphone been invented (and this law been in place) in the 1970s.

I would not encourage a child to commit their genitalia to digital immortality. Of course I wouldn't – for all the good reasons mentioned above. But if he or she made the common mistake of doing so (I have seen estimates as high as 40% of British teenage girls having published sexual images) I do not think a criminal conviction or worse – a lifetime on the sex offenders register – should be the consequence.

Given how common this crime is, why are more children not convicted? Most offences go undetected or are detected only by sensible parents who quietly deal with it themselves. Where complaints are made, the police and Crown Prosecution Service mostly choose not to enforce a terrible law that would trash young lives without in any way serving the public interest. God bless them for that. Practically, irate parents complaining about an erect member on their daughter's smartphone are usually less keen for the boy to be prosecuted when they realise daughter dearest is just as guilty. And vice versa.

Prosecutorial discretion however is not justice. Far from it. It is the very opposite of the rule of law because it subjects us to the whims and prejudices of the men and women concerned. We need only good laws, which is to say necessary laws that protect citizens from genuine harm, and we need them consistently enforced.

Even if a case is not pursued, vulnerable young people at a point in their lives where their sexuality is often as alarming and worrisome as it is fascinating and compelling are having their studies disrupted and their lives turned to horror. Imagine the police telling your mum or your headmaster about your sexual indiscretions and showing them your bits. All for being just as horny, stupid and normal as your forefathers and foremothers, but in a more technological age.

When the politicians come calling in election mode and ask what they can do for you, please consider mentioning this injustice they have wrought and asking them to fix it. Give them a copy of this post and ask them to email tom@thelastditch.org. I will be happy to help them draft an amendment to the law, entirely free of charge.

4 responses to “A libertarian says “think of the children” in calling for less law”

  1. JuliaM Avatar

    I fully expect it to work exactly as the underage sex law currently works – two under 16 year olds voluntarily swap images rather than bodily fluids, and it’s the male that’ll feel the full weight of the law!

    Like

  2. prog Avatar
    prog

    Minors swapping explicit images is one thing, but what if these images are stored for future…erm…’reference’ in adulthood?

    Like

  3. patently Avatar

    It’s actually even worse. The offence arises with mere “possession” of the image.
    Say for example that Minor 1 creates an image and sends it to Minor 2. So Minor 1 is guilty of creation and possession of the image. Minor 2 may not have solicited for the image and may not even want it, but now possesses the image and is therefore also guilty.
    If Minor 2 is wise then s/he will swiftly delete the image in order to destroy the most easily-available part of the evidence of the crime they have already committed. However, not all minors are that legally aware. Also, one wonders if there is an offence in deliberately destroying the evidence of one’s crime?
    As you say, it all boils down to prosecutorial discretion, which is another way of saying that power has been handed from an elected body (Parliament) to an unelected body (the CPS). The moral seems to be to keep all the authorities well away from the phones used by one’s teenage children, if at all possible. Just in case…

    Like

  4. Tom Avatar

    I agree. I would say it’s an incredibly bad piece of parliamentary drafting, but I practised law for too long to be surprised by the poor quality of legislation. I am not sure whether I care as much about the body making the decision being elected, as I do about it being an independent judge. Even that doesn’t help if the law is plain bad.

    Like

Leave a comment

Tom is a retired international lawyer. He was a partner in a City of London law firm and spent almost twenty years abroad serving clients from all over the world.

Returning to London on retirement in 2011, he was dismayed to discover how much liberty had been lost in the UK while he was away.

He’s a classical liberal (libertarian, if you must) who, like his illustrious namesake, considers that

“…government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

Latest comments
  1. Lord T's avatar
  2. tom.paine's avatar
  3. Lord T's avatar
  4. tom.paine's avatar
  5. Lord T's avatar