Let us say a person records themselves sexually abusing their son and shares the images with another person. Who should receive the harsher sentence: the person who abused the child or the one who received the images of the abuse?

Logic and ethics would suggest that the person who had physical contact with the child should face the stiffer sentence. However, this does not apply when one adds in the sex of those involved. Such is the situation in a recent case:

A Red Deer mother and licensed daycare worker has been sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for using her four-year-old son to make child pornography. The woman, 43 years old at the time she was charged, pleaded guilty to sexual assault, making child pornography and distributing child pornography.

Authorities discovered the woman while investigating Peter Allen Cash. The Idaho man had numerous videos and images of child pornography on his phone. Canadian and Idaho authorities worked together to track down one of the boys from the images, which led to the woman’s arrest. Here is where it gets odd:

Cash pleaded guilty to nine felony child pornography charges and was sentenced last September, according to Idaho court records. Each count carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

The woman is from Canada and Cash is from the United States. One would expect a difference in legal statutes. Yet even if one factored in the different jurisdiction, the different states involved, and the number of charges, why is it that the man possessing child pornography faces more time than the woman who created it? One would think creating and distributing child pornography would carry harsher sentences.

Let us have a look at the statutes in each case. In Cash’s case, he was charged under Idaho’s criminal code section 18-1507, which is the sexual exploitation of a child. According to the code:

“Sexually exploitative material” means any image, photograph, motion picture, video, print, negative, slide, or other mechanically, electronically, digitally or chemically produced or reproduced visual material which shows a child engaged in, participating in, observing, or being used for explicit sexual conduct, or showing a child engaging in, participating in, observing or being used for explicit sexual conduct, in actual time, including, but not limited to, video chat, webcam sessions or video calling.

The code continues to state “the sexual exploitation of a child […] of this section is a felony and shall be punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a period not to exceed ten (10) years […]”. It appears then that Cash faced nine charges with a potential 90-year sentence. According to a report, Cash received a 40-year sentence, 18 years mandatory and 22 years indeterminate. That is essentially 4 and a half years per count.

As for the woman, she was charged under Canadian criminal code section 163.1. The statute states:

Making child pornography (2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year. Distribution, etc. of child pornography (3) Every person who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells, advertises, imports, exports or possesses for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale, advertising or exportation any child pornography is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year. Possession of child pornography (4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months. Accessing child pornography (4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months. Interpretation (4.2) For the purposes of subsection (4.1), a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.

The code is quoted in full to highlight what happened. This woman made, distributed, possessed, and accessed child pornography. Yet it appears that she only received the minimum for the subsections 2, 3, and 4. The remaining year appears to come from section 271, i.e. sexual assault, which also carries a one-year minimum sentence.

Each one of these charges carries a potential 10-year or more sentence, yet it appears the woman received the minimum sentence on each count. This means that the person who created the images and actually committed sexual assault on a child will spend less time in jail than the person who viewed. Not only will the woman spend less time in jail, but even per charge the man possessing the porn received a harsher sentence. If one limited the years to the mandatory parts of the sentence, Cash received twice the sentence as the woman. If one counted the full sentence, Cash received four and a half years for every one year the woman received.

It makes no sense that a person who forcibly sexually assaults a child should spend less time in jail than a person who viewed pictures or video of it. Try as I have, I cannot think of a similar instance in which a man received a lesser sentence for creating child pornography while the person he sent it to, be they male or female, faced a harsher punishment.

This case highlights the gross double standard when it comes to prosecuting women who commit sex offenses. No matter what a woman does, if a man is involved at some point, it appears the man will get more time, even if he never touched, spoke to, saw, or knows the victim.