Not all messages are displayed:
show all messages (39 of them)
What if this same man has another family thing too? Will he go out to
kill again.? I think he would definately be capeable of it! He's
timebomb! Then I think too that some men kill because they CAN!
Here is one for you, When I was about three-4 years old, a baby of
about my age was discovered in a trunk of a car( in pieces) I didn't
know him,
but I remember his name to this day.:( Should these men walk the
streets? If you were a parent would you have him walking the steets?
― Gale Deslongchamps, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Well as I said upthread, my position is that compulsive child abusers
are mentally ill and should be in hospitals, outside society, until
they can be cured, or for life if they can't be cured. They should be
treated in the same way as any other dangerously ill individual. But
if you are going to let them out then the very very last thing you
want to do is make them feel they have nothing to lose.
― Tom, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
And this is precisely what it boils down to, in fact. These people
should be treated until what time (if ever) they no longer pose a
danger to our children.
This is why it is far better that they are removed from the criminal
system altogether, which have scant regard for such lofty and high-
minded ideals as rehabilitation. They'll release someone when they
reach the end of their sentence, it's as simple as that. Likelihood
of reoffending only ever gets addressed at parole board meetings.
Pederasts are therefore far better dealt with by the medical
profession. Someone sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 will
be detained indefinitely, until in the opinion of at least two
doctors they are fit for release.
Which brings me back to my original point - what we need to deal
effectively with these people is a medically AND legally accepted
definition of pederasty.
And Judges need to stop speaking with so-called authority on medical
issues. In sentencing Sarah's killer, the Judge unhelpfully commented
that he did not consider the accused to be mentally ill, as he had
exhibited clear-headedness throughout. Such remarks prevent sex
offenders from being treated for mental health issues, as legally
they are regarded as completely sane. In my view this cannot be right.
― Trevor, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
DG, I agree that Sarah's Law is a bad idea which would encourage
sink-estate lynch-mobs and be counterproductive to rehabilitation, but
there must be something seriously wrong with the current legal set-up
if a predatory paedophile can abduct a child at knife-point, sexually
abuse her for hours, serve only two years for it and then go on to
kill. Isn't that cause for justified outrage? What bothers me is
the implication that the concern this case has generated is some kind
of simple-minded knee-jerk moral hysteria from people who would
happily brush the real problem under the carpet. Yes, abuse within
families is a hellishly complex problem to address and if the same
were true of stranger abuse then it would be reasonable to focus
attention on the larger problem first, but the fact that there are
straightforward practical measures (renewable sentences, say) which
can be put in place to help protect at least some children from these
appalling crimes (which are not 'irrelevant' so long as they happen at
all) is precisely what justifies the demands for action made by people
whose outcry over this case and cases like it in no way means they
wouldn't like to see abuse tackled wherever it occurs.
On the mental illness point - paedophiles have abnormal innate desires
but is there any evidence that this leads to them being fundamentally
less capable of choosing whether or not to act on their desires? It's
not as if they hear voices ordering them to molest children.
― noah, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link