So much for the notion of deterrence.

On March 26, John Robin Sharpe was convicted in B.C. Supreme Court of possession of child pornography, an offence punishable by up to five years in prison.

Let us be explicit about what was involved. Mr. Sharpe had tried to enter Canada from the United States with (in the court's words) "photographs of nude Caucasian boys in sexually provocative poses displaying their genital organs" -- boys estimated at 13 to 15 years old -- and "film which was later developed into several photographs of a dark-skinned boy, also in sexually provocative poses displaying his genital organs and his anal area." A subsequent raid on Mr. Sharpe's apartment found 400 photographs of boys, some engaged in explicit sexual activity such as fellatio.

Story continues below advertisement

A year ago, ruling on issues in the Sharpe case, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the law against possessing such photos. "The ability to possess child pornography makes it available for the grooming and seduction of children by the possessor and others," it said. "Mr. Sharpe does not deny that some child pornography can play an important role in the seduction of children. . . .

"Children are used and abused in the making of much of the child pornography caught by the law. Production of child pornography is fuelled by the market for it, and the market in turn is fuelled by those who seek to possess it. Criminalizing possession may reduce the market for child pornography and the abuse of children it often involves. . . .

"The link between the production of child pornography and harm to children is very strong. The abuse is broad in extent and devastating in impact. The child is traumatized by being used as a sexual object in the course of making the pornography. The child may be sexually abused and degraded. The trauma and violation of dignity may stay with the child as long as he or she lives. Not infrequently, it initiates a downward spiral into the sex trade. Even when it does not, the child must live in the years that follow with the knowledge that the degrading photo or film may still exist, and may at any moment be being watched and enjoyed by someone."

The Crown asked that Mr. Sharpe be sent to jail for a year. Instead, the judge last week grounded him for four months, as though he were a naughty teenager: can't leave his house at night, can't visit pornographic sites on the Internet. The judge said "Mr. Sharpe has already been punished" because "in the eyes of many he has become a pariah."

Of course he has. People who collect sexually explicit photographs of children, feeding the market that exploits and molests children in producing the photos, set themselves up as pariahs. Mr. Sharpe fuelled the fire by insisting, as paraphrased by the prosecutor, "that sex between adults and boys is a positive and beneficial activity for both parties."

The house arrest tells other pedophiles that indulging in this criminal behaviour will at worst set them up for slight inconvenience. The sentence is indefensibly light. The Crown has every reason to appeal it.