For years, society has urged people struggling with their mental health to seek help before they reach crisis point.

That message should apply to everyone, including those who recognise dangerous or deviant thoughts and seek professional treatment before acting on them. Early intervention saves lives and, in some cases, may even prevent future victims.

But there is an important distinction that must never become blurred.

Seeking help before committing a crime is one thing. Seeking help after committing one is another entirely.

The recent court ruling in which a man convicted of possessing child sexual abuse material was spared the minimum prison sentence required by law has ignited an uncomfortable debate.

The court found "special and extraordinary" circumstances to justify departing from the mandatory minimum, citing, among other factors, the accused's decision to voluntarily seek therapy and continue treatment.

That decision has drawn criticism from the Lisa Maria Foundation, which argued that the ruling risks minimising the gravity of crimes involving child sexual abuse material and sends the wrong message about accountability.

Whether one agrees with the sentence or not, the concerns it has sparked deserve serious consideration.

Child sexual abuse material is not pornography. It is not a victimless crime committed behind a computer screen.

Every image and every video documents the abuse of a real child. Every download, every viewing and every act of possession sustains demand for material that exists only because a child was exploited.

That is why these offences are viewed so seriously across the world.

This is not to dismiss the importance of rehabilitation. On the contrary, Malta should continue encouraging anyone experiencing disturbing sexual thoughts towards children to seek professional help before they offend. Removing stigma around treatment could prevent abuse from ever occurring, and that should remain a public health priority.

However, once the offence has already been committed, rehabilitation cannot be the only consideration.

Therapy may reduce the likelihood of reoffending. It may demonstrate genuine remorse and personal responsibility. Those are factors any court is entitled to consider, but they cannot erase the exploitation already suffered by the children whose abuse was recorded, shared and consumed.

Justice has several purposes. It punishes wrongdoing, protects society, deters others from offending and acknowledges the harm suffered by victims.

When one of those objectives appears to outweigh the others, particularly in cases involving children, it is understandable that many people question whether the balance has been struck correctly.

The message sent by the criminal justice system matters. Victims need to know that the law fully recognises the seriousness of what was done to them.

Society needs confidence that offences involving child exploitation will be met with consequences that reflect the gravity of the harm caused. At the same time, those who need psychological help must never be discouraged from seeking it before they offend.

These are not contradictory principles. They can and should coexist.

Protecting children requires more than punishment alone. It requires education, prevention, accessible mental health services and strong safeguarding systems.

However, it also requires accountability when those protections fail and children become victims.

Compassion has an important place in every justice system. Yet when crimes involve the exploitation of children, compassion for an offender should never eclipse compassion for the victims.

That is the balance the courts must strive to achieve, because children deserve nothing less than the full protection of both the law and society.