I dont know why I feel this but in a strange way the conviction of chris langham for looking at images of children may be a watershed on this whole matter. I welcome Dr stephenson for having the courage to do this interview, I think for far too long the issues around child abuse and images provoke more hysteria than measured reflection and resonse. Witchhunt springs to mind. It is worth noting that Chris Langham himself admitted that he had looked at the images of abuse but in no way was he a paedophile - and the judge agreed. I think Chris Langham is not an isolated case. The question needs to be asked why do so many men look at child pornography, why do some commit crime and why do others never contemplate it. Why is it a crime to look at images? The real crime surely is those that produce, push, sell, publish, buy. And for once well done channel 4 for showing it
I, too, am an ex-offender, in terms of making (downloading) indecent images of children.
Although I have some issues with Freudian psychotherapy, Dr Stephenson is to be congratulated for enabling the discussion, and Mr Langham for bearing his 'soul', for all to see.
It is a crime because by showing any kind of a demand for such images - downloading them, "hitting" a website that hosts them, buying them, perpetuates the abuse. They are not just pictures drawn in Photoshop - somewhere in the world there is a real child who is being abused to create these images. The more demand there is for such images, the more children are going to be abused.
Whether you look at these images out of idle curiosity or because you get off on them is irrelevant - you are creating a demand for them.
At any stage in the deal - looking at images, hosting them, making them, procuring and grooming children to appear in them - it is perpetuating abuse and should be treated legally as such.
I do not think Dr.Connelly was "brave"- but she perhaps didn't explore the subject as fully as she could have. For example, the description Langham gave of the raid on his home was classic Operation Ore tactics. The police knew that Langham had not actually paid for any images before they even arrived at his house- but this did not serve their witchhunt/scaremongering in the media.
In Langham's case he admits to have intentionally sought these images out. It was (in his own words) an incredibly stupid,arrogant act.
One thing we must be careful of is determining if images are on a hard drive intentionally or accidently. Contrary to what the IWF and CEOP want people to believe, you can get this stuff by accident; it is called P2P. TC
Wanted to add my voice to the debate and I'm going to start by briefly outlining my background. My dad was very recently convicted for downloading 1000s of illegal images of child pornography. The effects of his behaviour have been devasting for my family and I no longer have nor wish to have contact with my dad. He received a suspended 8 month sentence provided he attends group therapy class.
I want to address a few points raised in this thread and in the other Chris Langham thread. Firstly the question of "Why is it a crime to look at images?", it is a crime because it is morally wrong to look at images of children being sexually abused. Whilst WM_CritEst finds the argument of supply and demand "old, tired, misinformed", it is however true, there are so many images because there is a demand for them, it is peddaling the misery of children. Yes of course children would be abused if there wasn't a demand for the images, BUT more children are subjected to abuse as a result of the demand for these pictures. These children have been subjected to horrific abuse, abuse that never should of happened and abuse that should not have been recorded for the entertainment/pleasure of others. I agree that those who make this images and subject children should be dealt with and I also think it worth raising the point that there are people making lots of money out of making and supplying these images, purchasing these images makes them richer. For those who questioned the legality of viewing child pornography I would like to ask, do you think it should be legal to view photos and film of children being buggered and raped?
I do agree with some of the points made about hysteria and witchunt. I'm not entirely sure how I feel/think about the Chris Langham case, but when faced with the information that his was 15 counts of downloading child pornography and my dad's 1000s and that Chris Langham received a 10 month sentence my dad received 8 months suspended, for me it raise issues about hysteria and witchunt mentality. I feel like my dad has got away with his behaviour and not so much that Chris was harshly treated. I would like to see continuity when it comes to sentencing.
I think channel 4 were right in showing the programme, it is taboo subject matter, but it's not going away and it needs to addressed. I understand that is hard for some people to deal with, but the more it is talked about and the eaiser it becomes to deal with.
I would just like to add that viewing of child pornography images is devasting. Devasting for the child who has been subjected to horrific abuse, it keeps me awake at night thinking about the dreadful situation some children are placed in. It is also devasting for the wives and children of these middle age men who think it is acceptable and often enjoyable to view it. We live with the shame of their behaviour, we live with the newspaper reports, the neighbours knowing, people thinking and asking you if you've been abused. Ultimately we all know the sexual abuse of children is wrong, viewing images of it is wrong, there is NO need to do it, get your kicks legally.
Whilst WM_CritEst finds the argument of supply and demand "old, tired, misinformed", it is however true, there are so many images because there is a demand for them, it is peddaling the misery of children. Yes of course children would be abused if there wasn't a demand for the images, BUT more children are subjected to abuse as a result of the demand for these pictures. These children have been subjected to horrific abuse, abuse that never should of happened and abuse that should not have been recorded for the entertainment/pleasure of others.
>95% fallacy and rhetoric.
There is no published proof, or even evidence, that an indecent image of child is the primary (or any) antecedent for any psychological damage. There are millions of anecdotal cases that it is not. There is less than a handful that it is.
It is simply your staunch belief, at this time.
quote:
I would like to ask, do you think it should be legal to view photos and film of children being buggered and raped?
Yes, I believe it should be legal for anyone to own any image which is in the public domain (perhaps many which are not).
There is no published proof, or even evidence, that an indecent image of child is the primary (or any) antecedent for any psychological damage. There are millions of anecdotal cases that it is not. There is less than a handful that it is.
If there's no published proof then you can hardly provide a percentage of the degree of fallacy and rhetoric! That is simply your staunch belief, at this time.
You may claim that photographing and filimg the sexual abuse of children does not leave psychological damage, I would argue that the lack of study into this area would account for the lack of published evidence rather than a specific lack of psychological damage. Sexual abuse undoubtly causes the children that are subjected to it psychological damage, the knowledge that this horrific abuse had been filmed would cause further distress to the victim. I would find the thought of any such films of me as unbearable and the thought that anyone would find sexual gratification in such horrific abuse leaves me even more heartbroken for those who are subjected to it. What about preserving the dignity and respect of those subjected to such horrors? And aside from psychological damage there is the issue that this behaviour is illegal as is the viewing of it whether you agree with that fact or not and it is (thankfully) likely to remain that way.
With regards to my dad, yes unfortunately he is the same person and yes my view of him has changed. As has my view of my childhood, which has been shattered by his behaviour and it's reprocussions. I do not care how much love and support my dad needs, just as he did not care what the reprocussions would be for me and my family when he illegally downloaded horrific images of children being sexually abused. I needed love and support when social services were duty bound to investigate my children because of his acts. I needed love and support when I had to explain to my son's headmistress why social services required a report on my son. I needed love and support when I had to come to terms with my dad gaining sexual gratification over viewing images of children being rapped and buggered. I needed love and support when I had to face people at the school gates who knew what he had done through gossip. I needed love and support when the police told me that he was not to be alone with the grandchildren because they had concerns for their safety.
I want to gain a better understand, but that does not mean I will ever think that the creation, distribution or viewing of child pornography is right nor should be legal. It's not my place to forgive or redeem my dad, but I wish him well on his quest to become an ex-offender and I wish you well on yours to remain an ex-offender, I think it is you who needs the good luck Nigel.
One cannot prove a negative, however, the evidence which exists is overwhelming, so your 'turnaround' fails.
Thank you for falling into my 'trap'. I did not say 'images of abuse'. Read my comment again.
Abuse occurs when damage is done. If there is no damage, there is no abuse.
quote:
Sexual abuse undoubtly causes the children that are subjected to it psychological damage
Does it? Are you certain? Or, are you referring to a small, vocal number of people who claim it has, and contradictory research studies, in the last two decades?
Again, you depend, predominately, on rhetoric and dogma for your belief.
quote:
the knowledge that this horrific abuse had been filmed would cause further distress to the victim
That is only because they are suffering a cognitive distortion about the nature of an image. This is part of their alleged or real dysfunction. Treatment is available.
quote:
What about preserving the dignity and respect of those subjected to such horrors?
See above. One of the positive aspects of the legal ownership of these images, would enable the capture of many more hand-on 'abusers'. In fact, this has already been shown to be the case (and conceded by LEAs and academics), with the increase in the number of hands-offenders identified from the availability of these public domain images; a small number, but not negligible.
Now, I could argue, that a Benthamic Principle is enough, here, for such a decision. However, surely, any actual victim, who thought that their images out there would lead to the arrest of many more 'abusers', would see themselves doing a valuable, public service, would they not? I would.
You, continuously, imply that these images are abusive, where, the vast majority are not, in principle, or in practice, by any measure, at this time - that makes it a belief, on your part.
You should not believe what the authorities tell you or do, they too, are locked in their cognitive distortions, coupled with powerful vested interests. We are dealing with them.
As someone who was abused and photographed the thought that men can look at images of me and not be put in jail sickens me.If you go online and download pictures of such horrors I think you deserve jail whether you actually touch the kids or not.
A major part of my pain is not only the memories but the fact I know people can and do still access images of me being abused , them looking at old pictures is still abusive towards me. This I should imagine is the case for many abused people, therefore looking is abuse.
