Hi and welcome to this JK News Op-Ed for VPN:
In the arena of online discourse on current affairs and social and political issues, precision in language is paramount, especially when discussing sensitive and legally defined terms.
However, recent discussions in online forums have demonstrated a concerning trend of mislabeling individuals convicted of grooming offences as "child rapists."
The world of social media has given sexual predators a deadly means to gain contact with vulnerable young people, befriending them and gaining their confidence for sinister purposes. While both grooming and sexual assault are abhorrent and deserving of condemnation, it's crucial to distinguish between them to ensure clarity and accuracy.
The offence of grooming, as outlined in criminal legislation, involves an adult arranging to meet a person under 16 for sexual purposes.
When either party travels to an arranged meeting, an offence has been committed.
The offence of grooming does not require a physical act to have been committed against a child.
This is distinct from child rape, which encompasses a range of sexual acts perpetrated against minors, including penetration. It is likewise different or the crime of sexual assault, involving inappropriate touching.
The varying severity of these actions and the varying harm caused to their victims is reflected in the legal penalties, with child rape or sexual assault carrying significantly harsher sentences than grooming.
We all recognise that there is a difference between committing murder, committing attempted murder, planning a murder, and making death threats.
Just as we stick to the facts and don't label an individual convicted of conspiracy to commit murder as being a murderer, so we must maintain the distinction and not mislabel someone who arranged to meet a child for sexual purposes as a rapist.
This is nothing exceptional about this distinction and it matches the situation with many other laws.
While a groomer is someone who intended to have sexual contact with a child, we cannot talk of rapist where there has been no rape.
It is crucial to adhere to legal definitions and follow the logic of the law. Where it can be proven that a child has been raped, we can talk of a child rapist, until then, we should use the correct term.
Mislabeling individuals convicted of grooming offences as "child rapists" not only misrepresents the legal reality but also undermines efforts to understand the prevalence of these offences and to combat all sexual exploitation offences comprehensively.
Such mischaracterizations can perpetuate misconceptions about the nature and prevalence of these offenses, hindering public understanding and impeding effective prevention strategies.
Prevention strategies include 'sting operations', where undercover police, or independent child safety groups, may set up fake profiles of children who are then approached and targeted by adults online, despite the children's profiles containing nothing of an inappropriate or adult nature nor anything to imply that they are of legal age to consent.
Just as the laws which criminalise the planning of a terrorist attack are a part of the strategy to prevent terrorist attacks, child grooming laws which are used to catch people with harmful intent are legitimate and effective part of the strategy of preventing physical abuse of children.
Additionally, to fill in perceived gaps in this legislation, further safety laws were introduced in 2017.
Sexual communication with a child, introduced in this more recent legislation, targets the initial stages of exploitation by criminalising online communications with minors for sexual gratification.
In many contexts, discussing sexual topics with minors is an offence in itself, - certainly in any flirting context.
This offense acknowledges the pervasive danger posed by online predators and seeks to stop them in their tracks, before physical harm occurs.
It criminalises sexual communications which may remain in the online realm, whereas the offence of child grooming was only completed when a physical meeting was attempted following online communications.
To foster a more informed and constructive dialogue on the protection of our children, it's essential to use terminology accurately and responsibly.
Doing so shows the parallels with other areas of the law and highlights the preventative purpose of many of our laws.
Furthermore, for productive discussions which draw on statistics for criminal conviction, it is vital to use the correct terminology and not to confuse different offences.
Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.
Jason King
Birmingham City-Desk
Twitter (X) @JasonKingNews
Комментарии