I just read a very disturbing article from our local news paper, The Surrey Now, about a child pornography case going through the Surrey Provincial Court.  The Now tells us that:

A Surrey dad who sexually molested seven girls under the age 10 – three of them his own daughters among them – and made videos to swap with other men in South Africa, Australia, Toronto and Iowa is facing up to 15 years in prison after pleading guilty to 11 charges involving incest, sexual assault, sexual exploitation, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and making and distributing child pornography…

… Outside court, [Crown Prosecutor] Sandhu said he was particularly disturbed by the way the molester had groomed his victims and counts the case as “certainly” one of the toughest he’s had to deal with.He’s calling for a sentence of 14 to 15 years.“We’re seeking a high sentence,” he said.

You can read more of the story here.

I’m still reeling with the realization that this monster will be back on the streets when I have children one day. He has stolen both innocence and childhood from seven little girls, and the prosecutor is hopeful that he will serve the “high sentence” of 14 or 15 years?  What sort of justice is that?  In 15 years, those little girls will be in their midtwenties; they’ll still have a lot of life to live, carting this baggage along with them.

Apparently, the courts don’t take sexual offenses seriously. In March, the courts allowed a convicted sex offender to move back into his Langley neighborhood, in which one of his victims lives; they also made provision for him to continue his work as landscaper in proximity of children, as long as he is outdoors in daylight. This man exposed himself to two young girls, performed lewd acts in front of them while watching pornography, and invited them to touch him.  He served just four months of his six month sentence. You can read about it on The Province.

These are just two examples of very lenient sentences for very dangerous, sick men.   What I find more concerning is that, after a very thorough google search, I anything useful about a sex offender registry.  In Washington, I believe one could check the registry and knew if an offender was living in one’s backyard. Not so in Surrey!  What I learned tonight is that the sex offender registry is sealed, even to local detachments of the police. Unless the police file an official request pertaining to an active investigation, they don’t have access to the national registry!

Compare the situation in my area to the case of a Gobsonton, Florida offender. This man did not make child pornography, he simply possessed copious amounts of it. He was also found guilty of intent to have sex with a mentally challenged girl. Tampa Bay Online says the following about the case:

He was charged with using a computer to solicit child pornography, two counts of attempted lewd and lascivious battery, and 45 counts of possessing more than 10 images of child pornography.

Cocking faced 1,300 years under state law, but prosecutors said 55 years was the maximum sentence under state sentencing guidelines.

For lesser crimes, the Floridian man faces 55 years in prison.

I’m gravely concerned by the light sentences the offenders in my area receive.  Two messages emerge. First, sexual offenses are not serious in nature. Second, sexual offenders need not fear repercussions of their actions because they will simply get a slap on the wrist.  Both are dangerous messages for our society to proliferate.

I think the following quote from the Florida circuit judge sums up the situation succinctly:

Every time these images are made, a child has been raped, a child has been victimized and a child has lost its innocence. It has to be stopped.

I’m not sure how we put an end to child pornography, but I’m sure it starts with acknowledging the serious nature of the crime and responding accordingly in the court system.