If you didnt know already he was sentenced to 10 months today for 15 counts of downloading child pornography watching videos of children being tortued and abused, who agrees that the sentence is far to short. People who download this stuff should be punished as if they had done the act themselves.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070914/tuk-uk-britain-langham-fa6b408_3.html
2007-09-14 10:10:13 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Yes i agree with you. It is disgusting to even look at sick picture/videos that feature the rape of CHILDREN never mind actually be the one doing it to them. Hope they kick the sh*t out of him many times over inside, the sick pervert! Anyone caught looking at innocent children being abused for their own sick pleasure are just as bad as the people making the films. As long as they keep paying the makers money, they will keep on making sick films.
Not sure what planet Jessicahooper is on with her quote of 'don't be to quick to judge'. He has been judged and found GUILTY....
2007-09-14 10:20:18 · answer #1 · answered by claire 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You said : "People who download this stuff should be punished as if they had done the act themselve"
Problem is, there is a saying "Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb". In other words, if you make paedophiles realise that they will get 8 years for having sex with a child OR 8 years for just watching it, there is a rather strong chance that many of them will work on the basis that "might as well do it for real then" - same penalty!
Sadly this logic is already in place to some degree. Most paedophiles who abuse children under 10 are given life sentences. At first you might think "Good, quite right"
Who would blame you?
Problem is though, that if a paedophile has just abused a young child - and realises that if the child reveals their identity they will be facing LIFE imprison, there isn't much incentive for them to spare the child's life is there? As a result,, MOST children OVER 10 seem to be spared - most children UNDER 10 end up dead.
Dead men (and sadly children) tell no tales.
No matter how much you hate the crime, you must ALWAYS make sure that a padeohpile has NO incentive to kill the child - and ideally would prefer to just watch photos rather than "do it for real". You may find the idea of child porn utterly disgusting - but I for one would rather a padeophile watched it than abused a child for real. Still evil I grant you, but surely a lesser of two evils.
A most distatesful subject, but one where knee jerk reaction - and sentencing may very well make the problem far worse.
Please do NOT go down the "whatever they do, punish them exactly the same" route. It is the sort of thing that COULD happen if enough people pushed their MP's for it - and it will be the children - NOT the paedophiles - who will suffer the fairly predictable consequences.
Mark
2007-09-14 20:41:14 · answer #2 · answered by Mark T 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
jessicaHooper, what are you on about? What Langham did is fact not supposition.
Every time the police comment on this case they are at extraordinary pains to point out just how graphic the images where - videos, with sound, of children being raped and tortured (how much time do you need to judge?)
By paying for these images, Langham lined the pockets of the pornographer and to this end, I believe, should be given the same punishment as those who actively participate in these vile acts of paedophilia.
2007-09-14 18:39:26 · answer #3 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I must disagree with menifeemaniac, Who thinks Chris Langham deserves a lighter sentence than the actual people who carry out the dreadful act of abusing children, and filming the act for entertainment.Without perverts like Langham, there would be no market for the scum bags to peddle their filth, and if anything I think Langham deserves a worse sentence. Lock the lot of them up and throw away the key. After castrating them.
2007-09-14 17:54:45 · answer #4 · answered by 'Er indoors!! 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He only got ten months on paper. He will be out in a few weeks for good behaviour. The entire system is run by that lot!
2007-09-15 01:04:31 · answer #5 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Although Langam is guilty of obtaining and possessing chid pornography; thus, helping to create a market for the abusers and pediophiles, I do not believe his sentence should be equal to the scum who seduce/force the children into illegal acts; or the aiders and abetters, such as the cameraman, who help produce the final product.
This man's career is ruined; he may be labeled as a pediophile for the rest of his life; and when the men in prison discover his offense, he may be calling himself Christine when he gets out.
2007-09-14 17:18:48 · answer #6 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
10 months is a joke he will do 4 out of that iam Shae some of these judges are perverts as well they should have mothers of young kid as judges for pervert cases
2007-09-14 20:46:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not only has the sick f*ck just been given 10 months, he's only to serve 5, because he's been in police custody for a while!
THAT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL!.. People have been sent to jail for longer for speeding!!!
2007-09-14 17:28:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
and this kind of sentencing is supposed to keep our children safe??? and at the same time!! the same government is telling us that we should be encouraging our kids out on the streets to play!!! lets face it....not a lot of joined up thinking with new labour is there. the whole party is as senile as our judges.
2007-09-14 19:55:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No doubt it's down to, friends in high places. I would question why he did not also receive a sentence for perjury. If he had to study this for a TV programme what the hell are we watching???.
2007-09-15 03:38:32 · answer #10 · answered by flint 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋