CHRIS LANGHAM FREED AFTER SENTENCE CUT

[donnie]

I just read it on the BBBC website - sorry, no good at links.

What message does this send to people, if possessing child pornography is viewed as so minor an offence?

I am very angry about this.

That is truly disgusting Elizabeth

I wonder what % of abused people go on to be paedophiles?

"there isn't one morally and emotionally correct response to this activity"

Got to say I disagree with you on that one, particularly with regards to the moral response to it.

Eh? All NoNameToday said was he was found not guilty of abusing that girl, and unless further evidence comes to light, or he is found guilty of abusing someone else, he remains not guilty of this! All he has been found guilty of is downloading images of child abuse. Earlier on, iirc, people were suggesting he had committed child abuse, and NoNameToday was just saying this isn?t necessarily true, just because he downloaded those images.

She certainly isn?t ?not bothered? by what he has admitted he did. Crikey!

around 37% I read Bundle

oops, x-post harpsi!

gfc where did you read that?

Quite aside from whether Chris Langama did or didn't have abuse this girl, I think there should be much tougher punishment for people who download child porngraphy. I am seriously disturbed by the leniency which seemsto be shown to those who do this.

really? you think there is one morally correct response to treating someone who has downloaded images of abuse?
what is that correct response, then?
I am genuinely interested?
does it include, compassion, understanding, treatment, rehabilitation?
or is there only room for condemnation and ire?

www.ipce.info/library_3/files/lancet_2.htm

Sorry complete pants at links

Very presumptious of you Elizabetth, to assume I am not bothered by the crimes the man comitted and served a sentence for.

You, and the rest of 'you' are justified in condemning this man for what he did.

But, not satisfied with that, you have to condemn the man or any other man/woman in a similar situation for things that they may do.

That's the part I have a problem with, some may be condemned for what they may do, others may not.

Depends which thread you are on doesn't it?

the roots of sexual preference are incredibly deep and difficult to untangle.
many people may be curious about or have some sexual interest in children.
the vast majority will never go on to do anything about it.
twenty years ago only a tiny proportion offended.
the internet has created the opportunities for offending and made it much easier.
one answer is much tighter regulation of images on the internet.

Reads it properly and its 12% oopps..sorry trying to do ten things at once here.

'he'll be on teh sex offenders' register but not sure what level (if any) supervision he'll get '

So was Peter Tobin, a Scotsman who was recently convicted of the rape and bludgeoning death of a 23-year-old woman.

He committed this crime whislt a registered sex offender.

Today, he stood in Linlithgow Sheriff Court accused of the murder of a 15-year-old West Lothian girl whose body was found yesterday buried in the back garden of a home he lived in in Essex.

He's now thought to be responsible for the murder of at least 11 women and girls.

sorry goingfriggincrazy it doesn't exist on my computer

[HMM]

who's it by? (I have access to the lancet online)

In the study, led by Professor David Skuse, researchers assessed the childhood experiences and personal characteristics of 224 men who had been abused as children, and collected information detailing whether any had been convicted of sexually abusive acts as adults.

Results showed that 26 of the former victims (12 per cent) had committed sexual offences ? in almost all cases with children ? mainly outside their families

i was astounded and sickened by his speech which i heard on the radio, he tried to make himself out to be the victim in this case

reminded me of jonathan king

"really? you think there is one morally correct response to treating someone who has downloaded images of abuse?
what is that correct response, then?
I am genuinely interested?
does it include, compassion, understanding, treatment, rehabilitation?
or is there only room for condemnation and ire?"

I save my compassion for the victims of criminals not the criminals themselves. He made a choice to download those images, he could have reported them to the police and maybe helped a child but instead he put them in files called things like "Lolita" and "Incest".

I think having compassion for someone who does things like that is incredibly odd, and it's why I was talking before about the oddness of these criminals and their supporters.

It is difficult to rehabilitate someone who denies his crime HC. I actually felt he should have some sort of therapy as part of his sentence, not 4 months and then there you go sir. I'm very much in favour of methods other than prison [or other than just prison] That seek to rehabilitate offenders and help prevent them reoffending. But the offender has to admit they've done something wrong first.

denial, lou

goingfriggincrazy, not a huge study. bit suspicious of extrapolating to whole population.

and you don't use words like 'Lolita' when you're looking at images to help heal your past.

[[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 nytimes]

"Debate on Child Pornography?s Link to Molesting

By JULIAN SHER and BENEDICT CAREY
Published: July 19, 2007

Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape.
....

Previous studies, based on surveys of criminal records, estimated that 30 percent to 40 percent of those arrested for possessing child pornography also had molested children."