Protecting children - The wrong message

WHEN a court, on behalf of society, imposes a sentence on someone convicted of a crime several objectives are in play. One is to remove a threat from society; another is to punish the individual and a third is to warn others of the consequences of the behaviour that led to the conviction. It is hard to see how these needs were served in the David Ivers case.

Ivers was convicted of having over 15,000 images of child pornography. Some involved children no older than toddlers. Others showed children between one and six subjected to physical abuse and oral sex.

Judge Patrick J Moran said they provoked a feeling “approaching horror” in him yet he felt a four-year suspended sentence appropriate.