What is it?
The rule of law is a principle that ensures laws are justly applied and enforced, and everyone within a particular jurisdiction is subject to and abides by the same laws. In the context of online child sexual exploitation (CSE), the rule of law means moving beyond whether the law includes certain provisions to also ensure that law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges are well-trained, adequately resourced, and committed to child safety outcomes.
NCMEC's Position:
Beyond merely enacting relevant laws, regulations, treaties, and other legal instruments, governments should prioritize effective, consistent, and just enforcement to promote child safety.
Why does it matter?
Laws that prohibit abusive or exploitative conduct and permit access to relevant remedies, are essential to ensuring that governments adequately protect vulnerable populations, including children. However, laws alone are not sufficient.
When a jurisdiction has strong laws but ineffective or inconsistent enforcement, prosecution, and/or judicial interventions, protection of citizens, especially vulnerable populations, is incomplete. Gaps or lack of resources in the justice system—including lack of up-to-date training for law enforcement, underfunded prosecutors, and/or overburdened courts—deprive children of protection by obstructing the effective implementation of strong laws. In the worst cases, such defects cause additional harm by leaving children at risk of continued abuse or by breaking trust when crimes against children are addressed inconsistently or not at all.
What context is relevant?
Most jurisdictions have room to strengthen their systems to better protect children. In some jurisdictions, criminal justice officials are well-trained, adequately resourced, and motivated to protect children within a legal system that gives them the authority to do so. Elsewhere, strong laws exist, but there are gaps or deficiencies that prevent those laws from being consistently enforced. In other places, relevant laws may be weak, despite the presence of expertise and high capacity within criminal justice agencies.
In many low-income jurisdictions, development-focused organizations have initiated various projects to build capacity, revise legislation, and advocate for additional government funding to help strengthen justice systems and better protect children. However, this is not simply a matter of economics or sustainable development.
The United Kingdom—a high-income jurisdiction—is often credited with aggressive enforcement of robust laws related to online child sexual exploitation, yet sentencing of convicted offenders has historically been relatively lenient. Consequently, some advocacy efforts in the UK have highlighted demand for stronger sentencing to better protect children.
In the United States—also a high-income jurisdiction—many law enforcement agencies benefit from the support of non-governmental organizations to supplement government funding, training, equipment, and expertise. The need for such support is arguably due not to a lack of government resources but to the allocation of those resources to issues other than child protection.
What have survivors said about it?
Some survivors have noted that justice systems are typically not built with victims in mind, causing “great harm, trauma, and distrust.” Others have called for mandating appropriations, or funding, alongside passage of laws to ensure there are adequate and committed personnel, equipment, and training to minimize gaps between legislation and its real-world application.
The appropriate creation and enforcement of strong child protection laws requires resources and judicial and government attention and also a continued commitment to ensuring child safety throughout the application of the judicial system.
All countries should have standards of practices that protect their nations most vulnerable. …Without laws and substantial enforcement, many victims worldwide will lack justice and/or opportunities at a better life.
- Survivor
What drives opposing viewpoints?
In principle, the just enforcement of laws is widely accepted as positive. Different perspectives on how best to achieve this outcome can result in conflict. Some may argue against certain measures because of anticipated financial costs or the diversion of resources from other important issues. Some jurisdictions may have laws that conflict with long-held tradition or cultural practices. Elsewhere, communities might view strong enforcement measures as overly punitive and insufficiently focused on reconciliation between offenders and victims.