View Full Version : Who can justify this.
I have just been going through the news and came upon the story of Mr Meehan, the ex partner of shannon mathews mother.
Now according to the papers he has been charged with having downloaded 134 indecent imagines.
heres the news link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7603648.stm
Now reading the article i came across a section which has blown my mind, to the point of total confusion.
Who the hell came up with this system:[evil]
This is the quote from the above link that has just made me realise what a strange society we live in when it comes to this kind of crime.
"The prosecutor said 16 of the images were classified as level four in a scale of one to five, where five is the most serious."
How do you put a rating on this kind of thing.What are they thinking i would have thought that any image of a child should be classed as serious.[disgust] Im totaly amzed by this. I did not know there was such a thing as a rating as to what kind of imagine it was. It is still a child not an animal.
The "rating" system was brought to classify how "graphic" and disturbing the images are. ALL Images are disturbing to most "normal" people.They classify them so as the judge and sometimes jury know just how bad the images are(without necesarrily having to view them).Thats not to say that images at the bottom of the scale are any less harrowing than those at the top, I think it is just a way that the legal system can classify the different strength(for want of a better word)of the kind of images.After googling I found that it is called the "copine scale" there are 5 levels but I wont go into them. I found this out at wikipedia so its up to the individual if they want to find it themselves as I am not posting a link to it from here.
Its disturbing enough that they find imagines like this but to rate it is ludicrous.I never knew there was rating and i am just so shocked.
Thanks for the explanation Hotrod, i still cant get my head round the logic of it..
I knew that they rated crimes in seriousness,whether weapons were used, people injured and so on, but this is just so , well i am speechless.:confused
Its disturbing enough that they find imagines like this but to rate it is ludicrous.I never knew there was rating and i am just so shocked.
Thanks for the explanation Hotrod, i still cant get my head round the logic of it..
I knew that they rated crimes in seriousness,whether weapons were used, people injured and so on, but this is just so , well i am speechless.:confused
It is shocking that they "rate" the images but I suppose they have to have something in place. It does make it easier on the legal system and hopefully would prevent people getting away with the crime,as they have to cover all bases now.Sad but true.
i can kind of see why they would do this..
for example, you might get some sicko downloading pics of kids in a pool/bath/beach.... etc.. something that can be natural for people to have... the idea of someone using this images we would see as normal, would repulse us all.. but its likely here that the kids are not harmed, maybe even totally unaware of this... or maybe a 16 year old with a dodgy pic of a 15 year old...
then you will get the other end of the scale... pictures where kids are actually being harmed....
Im not saying the person in the 1st scenarios should get away unpunished, but id certainly want a far harsher punishment for the last one.....
(i hope that made sense!)
i can kind of see why they would do this..
for example, you might get some sicko downloading pics of kids in a pool/bath/beach.... etc.. something that can be natural for people to have... the idea of someone using this images we would see as normal, would repulse us all.. but its likely here that the kids are not harmed, maybe even totally unaware of this... or maybe a 16 year old with a dodgy pic of a 15 year old...
then you will get the other end of the scale... pictures where kids are actually being harmed....
Im not saying the person in the 1st scenarios should get away unpunished, but id certainly want a far harsher punishment for the last one.....
(i hope that made sense!)
Makes sense to me, I think that is why they have this system in place.
makes sense to me,
i suppose though i never think about how graphic images may or may not be when reading about things like this, so i never really thought that a rating system was in place. But it is reasonable now i see why it would be rated as such.
Bad Manners
08-Sep-08, 18:19
the thing that surprises me is that the maximun sentence even if the offences are level 5 the worst is only 10 years I think that if the offence was at this level it should be life(whole life) imprisonment.
I totally agree Bad Manners. it makes my blood boil when we see people getting away with such lenient sentences... they are nothing compared to the life sentences that the victims have to endure, yet its the offenders "human rights" that are fought for....
Melancholy Man
08-Sep-08, 18:57
Sounds reasonable to me. Level I images would require, in turn, a highly neurotic mind unhinged by the over-sexualization of popular culture to read sexual intent into: one which would see paedophiles behind their Daily Mail, and consider the Little Mermaid statue to be indecent. One which, I strongly suspect, is hiding its own disgust as imagining two year olds in such poses by outing paedophiles. The lady doth protest too much, and all that.
There will be individuals who'd derive sexual gratification from Level I images, sad child-men like Charles Dodgson, but, on the whole, they'd be to pitied. Like those weirdos who trawl Google Earth looking for ten pixel wide nudes.
Of course, this ain't to dismiss the very real threat a small number of individuals pose, with their pathological and hard-wired desire for sex with children. These individuals, however, would be highly likely to have progressed up the scale. By the time we get to Level IV, we'll be dealing with overtly sexual representations and the potential for adults engaging in acts with the subjects.
Furthermore, with eye-popping frequency. Thus, I'm surprised that Meehan had 'only' 134 images.
Lolabelle
08-Sep-08, 22:14
i can kind of see why they would do this..
for example, you might get some sicko downloading pics of kids in a pool/bath/beach.... etc.. something that can be natural for people to have... the idea of someone using this images we would see as normal, would repulse us all.. but its likely here that the kids are not harmed, maybe even totally unaware of this... or maybe a 16 year old with a dodgy pic of a 15 year old...
then you will get the other end of the scale... pictures where kids are actually being harmed....
Im not saying the person in the 1st scenarios should get away unpunished, but id certainly want a far harsher punishment for the last one.....
(i hope that made sense!)
Just the thought that there is a need for such a scale is so awful. But obviously there is, if I had to be on a jury in such a case, I would be satisfied to know a crime was a particular level and not have to endure a lifetime of graphic images haunting me. I wouldn't want to see the actual photos. [evil]
teenybash
08-Sep-08, 22:34
Dreadful, though it is, there is a need for grading...........I can't bring myself to think how one would go about this.....our societies become increasingly sicker by the week................:~(
Melancholy Man
08-Sep-08, 22:36
I can see Shannon's mother being presented the same way as Joanne Lees or Maxine Carr.
I can see Shannon's mother being presented the same way as Joanne Lees or Maxine Carr.Maxine carr should be rotting in a jail cell the same way as Myra Hindley.
Melancholy Man
08-Sep-08, 22:48
Maxine carr should be rotting in a jail cell the same way as Myra Hindley.
Except she didn't kill anyone, and no-one can pin complicity on her. Her 'crime' was to rebel against an abusive partner and then kiss a man who wasn't her boyfriend.
Except she didn't kill anyone, and no-one can pin complicity on her. Her 'crime' was to rebel against an abusive partner and then kiss a man who wasn't her boyfriend.She was complicit, she lied for him knowing full well that he had killed.
Melancholy Man
08-Sep-08, 22:58
Yes, she covered for him after the fact, and this was an abuse of the justice system for which she should have been punished. However, Myra Hindley was a willing partipant in the Moors Murders, which is nothing like that which Maxine Carr did.
I see the need for this. Unfortunatly its a neccessery evil. This is a minefield and even makes me sick to think of anything like this. I dont envy the police and officials that have to investigate this type of crime.
If they didnt have this grading then what could it be replaced with. Cause without something in place then our own personal pics we take as parents can easily be misrepresented and its amazing how easy a simple thing can be turned around on you.
Yes, she covered for him after the fact, and this was an abuse of the justice system for which she should have been punished. However, Myra Hindley was a willing partipant in the Moors Murders, which is nothing like that which Maxine Carr did.I see your point but I still reckon she should rot in hell for her 'complicity'.
Melancholy Man
08-Sep-08, 23:13
She should face the consequences for her actions, but rot in hell? A true Calvinist would tell you that none of us know who is good and who is bad.
She should face the consequences for her actions, but rot in hell? A true Calvinist would tell you that none of us know who is good and who is bad.It wouldn't take a Calvanist to work that out. There are many evil people in this world, Just because they haven't commited a crime as of yet or perhaps been caught, doesn't mean they do not exist. It would be naive in the extreme to think otherwise.
teenybash
08-Sep-08, 23:25
I can see Shannon's mother being presented the same way as Joanne Lees or Maxine Carr.
I think Shannon's mother was lead by her boyfriend to try and create a similar story to that of Madeleine McCann, for the sole purpose of making money.................. There was no killing only the fake disappearance of a little girl, who had no idea was supposed to have been abducted.
I think Shannon's mother was lead by her boyfriend to try and create a similar story to that of Madeleine McCann, for the sole purpose of making money.................. There was no killing only the fake disappearance of a little girl, who had no idea was supposed to have been abducted.That would imply an intellegence which I doubt they had between them.
Melancholy Man
09-Sep-08, 00:09
I think Shannon's mother was lead by her boyfriend to try and create a similar story to that of Madeleine McCann, for the sole purpose of making money..................
I agree with that. Neither Shannon's ma nor her step-pa are particularly bright and, whilst I equally do not consider the McCanns to have been behind their daughter's aduption, nor do I think they were justified in calling for an audience with the Pope or whomever. Instead, the former are a pair of plebs whilst the latter are 'respectable' enough to have excuses made for them.
Compare the neglect demonstrated by the McCanns to that was by which Scarlett Keeling's ma. Guess who received the most oppobrium in the press.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.