Key Takeaways
- Jevon McSkimming, a former deputy police commissioner, was sentenced to nine months home detention for possessing child sexual exploitation and bestiality material.
- McSkimming’s case is unique in that he was prosecuted for simply viewing objectionable material online, rather than downloading or distributing it.
- The law has not kept up with technology, and victims’ advocates argue that viewing objectionable material contributes to its creation and demand.
- The distinction between viewing, downloading, and sharing objectionable material is becoming increasingly blurred, and advocates argue that all three should be treated equally.
- The harm caused by objectionable material is very real for victims and their families, who can be triggered by the knowledge that such material is being viewed or shared.
Introduction to the Case
The sentencing of Jevon McSkimming, a former deputy police commissioner, has brought attention to the issue of viewing objectionable material online. McSkimming was sentenced to nine months home detention after pleading guilty to possessing child sexual exploitation and bestiality material. What makes his case unique is that he was prosecuted for simply viewing the material, rather than downloading or distributing it. This has raised questions about the law’s ability to keep up with technology and the implications of viewing objectionable material online.
The Legal Implications
During the sentencing, Judge Tim Black and defence lawyer Letizea Ord noted that McSkimming’s case was the first of its kind in New Zealand. Ord stated that "perhaps one of the unique features of this case is that none of the images were downloaded or stored in any way." However, she acknowledged that viewing the material, particularly clicking on some 160 images, was "akin to downloading from a sentencing perspective." Judge Black noted that there was a "limited pool of decisions which involve possession" and that most cases involved more serious offending, such as importation or distribution. This highlights the challenges of prosecuting cases involving online activity and the need for the law to adapt to new technologies.
The Impact on Victims
Victims’ advocate Claire Buckley argues that the law has not kept up with technology and that people no longer need to download material to have it at their fingertips. She believes that viewing objectionable material contributes to its creation and demand, and that the distinction between viewing, downloading, and sharing should be eradicated. Buckley notes that viewing objectionable material can lead to more extreme searches over time, generating demand for real and harmful content. She also highlights the harm caused to victims and their families, who can be triggered by the knowledge that such material is being viewed or shared. The evidence shows that people who view objectionable material tend to make the shift from AI-generated content to reality, but very few make the jump from watching content to acting out those things themselves.
The Consequences of Objectionable Material
Buckley emphasizes that the harm caused by objectionable material is very real for victims and their families. Parents of children who have been filmed for this purpose find it incredibly triggering to know that such material is being viewed or shared. Once images are shared online, they can never be fully removed, and families who have been harmed by this kind of content are harmed over and over again. Buckley argues that people do not separate the act of viewing from the act of downloading or sharing in their minds when they are a victim. This highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the impact of objectionable material and the importance of treating all forms of engagement with such material equally.
Conclusion
The sentencing of Jevon McSkimming has brought attention to the issue of viewing objectionable material online and the need for the law to adapt to new technologies. The case highlights the challenges of prosecuting cases involving online activity and the importance of considering the impact of such material on victims and their families. As technology continues to evolve, it is essential that the law keeps pace and that we develop a more nuanced understanding of the implications of viewing objectionable material online. By treating all forms of engagement with such material equally, we can work towards reducing the demand for harmful content and protecting victims and their families from further harm.
