Would you electronically tag your child?

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
The thing about 'monsters' is that they are not monsters but broken human beings.

You can't undo what was done to them, and they have been destroyed as much as if they had been killed. It's little use focusing on them as a victim, unfortunately, if it lessens the efforts to prevent further attacks. It's a matter of priorities, sadly, but a fact nonetheless. Our performance record of keeping track of sex offenders and maintaining control of them is a long way off the 50 years experience would have you hope. They seem to be out and untraceable by the authorities within 5 years.

quote:

I think it is important to recognise that the abuser in my post was an 'innocent' himself once upon a time.

Why? How is that going to stop it happening again, which has to be paramount?

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE] It's little use focusing on them as a victim, unfortunately, if it lessens the efforts to prevent further attacks.

There is no reason why it should as long as the focusing is done with the offender firmly behind bars, which is where they truly belong.

quote:

It's a matter of priorities, sadly, but a fact nonetheless.

True. Agreed.

quote:

Our performance record of keeping track of sex offenders and maintaining control of them is a long way off the 50 years experience would have you hope. They seem to be out and untraceable by the authorities within 5 years.

I agree. It is a bloody scandal.

quote:

Why? How is that going to stop it happening again, which has to be paramount?

My comment is about having compassion for a victim - Yes a victim who is also a persecutor but a victim nonetheless - it was not a comment about establishing what is paramount. I am not a believer in punishment as in seeking mere retribution but in punishment with rehabilitation (for all crimes). There is no rehabilitation without understanding and forgiveness regardless of the progress an offender may make whilst in a secure hospital or prison. Rehabilitation is a two way process. Merely to condemn and punish is to give up on a human being and I am loathe to do this with anyone. Catch the buggers, lock em up for sure, but don't be so quick to condemn them as a worthless and irredeemable monster until you know their story.

What if you had a child who got abducted by a sicko and abused for years and who turned into a wretched sicko himself? Would you tell the courts to lock him up and throw away the key or would you plea for understanding? Would you disown him? Things are different when they affect us personally. Do not think for a second that I am suggesting that anyone should be let off or that anyone should have their sentence reduced - I am merely saying that some offenders were innocent children themselves once and we should remember that. In increasing our understanding of how a victim can turn into an offender we can maybe help some to break the cycle. We can't do this by labeling another victim a 'monster' and locking them up as irredeemable. Some may prove to be irredeemable but something can still be learnt from these poor sods. Health care professionals, social workers and teachers are getting better at spotting those who have been subjected to sexual abuse - in learning how a victim can become a perpetrator the early signs can be spotted and appropriate action taken? Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part. Any social workers here?

What is "paramount" in my view is the prevention of the cycle carrying on. For those caught, there should be no chance of release.

I am all for forgiveness, but without the evidence to suggest that such damaged people will ever change their behaviour then I cannot see any other way.

Children are the future, and should always take priority in assigning "rights" in my view. I am not for brutalising child abusers once incarcerated - perhaps the emphasis should be on making their life sentance reasonably, though not excessively, comfortable - but there is no doubt in my mind that though the issue is taken more seriously nowadays, that it is not taken nearly seriously enough yet.

ATB from Fredrik

Yet another reason for abortion - the disfunctional parents in acads story should have been sterilised before they had started breeding and if they had started to breed then the offspring should have been terminated.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Yet another reason for abortion - the disfunctional parents in acads story should have been sterilised before they had started breeding and if they had started to breed then the offspring should have been terminated.

A friend once suggested that everyone should have their sperm/eggs harvested at puberty and then only given back when they had demonstrated the capability to parent. (If however this was run by government in the same manner as tax credits I dread to think how many children I'd have by now!)

Regards,

Willy.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:

Yet another reason for abortion - the disfunctional parents in acads story should have been sterilised before they had started breeding and if they had started to breed then the offspring should have been terminated.

I love this stuff.

Out of one side of the mouth, people whinge about how the State deigns to interfere with their everyday life - while out of the other side of their mouth, when faced with an intractable problem, they'd like the State to become absolutist.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

I am not for brutalising child abusers once incarcerated - perhaps the emphasis should be on making their life sentance reasonably, though not excessively, comfortable

I cannot but comment that if, as a child, I was sexually abused by an adult and that the offender was still in jail today after 30 years had elapsed and that they had no hope of release, then I would feel bloody awful.

We do not live in a sick society. We're all functioning, contributing parts of that society.

The crime of sexual abuse of children is pernicious and has fairly sweeping consequences for victims. But it needs to be put into perspective. Most victims of crime are seriously and lastingly affected by the crime - whether or not it is sexual in nature; and whether or not it was committed against them as children.

Many of the suggestions here just focus the resources of the State upon the perpetrator of the crime and leave the victim shivering in the cold. Jailing or chemically castrating the offender after the fact serves the interests of the victim very poorly.

Has anybody got any ideas how the State might spend some money on helping victims over the course of their lifetimes?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:

Yet another reason for abortion - the disfunctional parents in acads story should have been sterilised before they had started breeding and if they had started to breed then the offspring should have been terminated.

I love this stuff.

Out of one side of the mouth, people whinge about how the State deigns to interfere with their everyday life - while out of the other side of their mouth, when faced with an intractable problem, they'd like the State to become absolutist.

Quite simple really. I don't want the state to interfere in my life. Just everyone else's.

Regards,

Willy.

quote:

I think it is important to recognise that the abuser in my post was an 'innocent' himself once upon a time..but not for long. The chances of this wretched man leading a normal life were zero. Merely punishing is not enough - we must seek to understand a problem if we are to learn how to minimise it and then what is now easier said than done may become more readily achieved. I am sure we have learnt a great deal about these wretches and how to treat them over the last 50 years and I hope we continue that learning process and not bow to the publics lynch mob mentality.

Though I have spend much less than 50 years at it i absolutely agree. Hang em and flog em is a short term solution. Understanding and changing behaviour is more strategic.

quote:

Any social workers here?

Nurse working in a multi agency team, managed by children's services(Social Services). Primary role in Substance Misuse (Young People) and safeguarding children. Specific interest in Hidden harm (harms done to children by neglect or abuse by Substance Misusing Parents)

Good for you Diccus - I admire the work you and all your colleagues do enormously.

Enourmous Diccus work...

(Well, somebody had to say it.)

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Good for you Diccus - I admire the work you and all your colleagues do enormously.

I feel privileged to work particularly with young people and children that have had a bad deal. If i can make a small difference to their lives then I am doing my job properly.

"Though I have spend much less than 50 years at it i absolutely agree. Hang em and flog em is a short term solution. Understanding and changing behaviour is more strategic."

Absolutely and totally wrong. What you are doing is fundementally criminal. By attempting to change their behaviour you are gambling with childrens lives.

A child abuser should be locked up and not let out until he is sexually inactive, say 70 years of age. That is the only sure way to protect children. By trying to "cure" them and letting them back into society, you are risking the welfare of inocent children and that is a terrible thing to do.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

By trying to "cure" them and letting them back into society, you are risking the welfare of inocent children and that is a terrible thing to do.

The business model, and capitalist economies generally, risk the welfare of innocent children every day.

And that's a terrible thing to do also.

Deane

Cheap sound bites are not an answer.

Releasing "reformed" peadophiles back into society is an unacceptable gamble.

Regards

Mick

Mick

Releasing any criminal back into society could easily be argued as an unacceptable gamble.

But oppressive criminal justice regimes are the hallmark of tyrannies - like the one you had in England a couple of hundred years back.

Child sexual abusers are members of our society. They're not special in any way. They get the same treatment as any other criminal, are afforded the same opportunities at trial and at appeals, are - in other words - subject to the law and entitled to the benefits of the high principles behind English judicial traditions.

Dear Forum buffoon,

Many men stay sexually active into their 80s (Charlie Chaplin fathered a child at 80). Not being sexually active is no guarantee against abuse. The fact that a man can't get a stiffy will not mean that he will no longer offend! This is a fact.

1/ If a 20 year old has consensual sex with a 14 year old should he be locked up for 50 years?

2/ If a 40 year old man has sex with an 8 year old (first and only offense)and is deeply remorseful should he be locked up for 50 years?

3/ If a 40 year old has sex with a 3 year old and has multiple previous convictions and no remorse should he be locked up for 50 years?

I am just wondering if you would discriminate between these offenses?

BTW I don't think Diccus has said that he believes Paedophiles should be reformed and released back into society. I know this because I have read what he wrote - you have not.

I would also suggest that when Diccus wrote 'Hang em and flog em is a short term solution. Understanding and changing behaviour is more strategic' he was not talking about releasing paedophiles or even curing paedophiles he was talking about changing behaviour at a straegic level i.e. the behaviour of our society as a whole.

acad

If many men stay active until they are 80, then yes let us raise the release date accordingly.

To answer your specific questions.

Q1 Yes if he has sex with a 14 year old girl, he is untrustworthy and a potential risk to other 14 yr olds, so yes lock him up.

Q2. He should be locked up until he is eighty. Remorse is irrelevant, he could easily do it again and to be frank the remorse could be faked.

Q3 He should be locked up until he is 80.

All of the 3 men listed above have abused children and all 3 pose a risk of doing it again, admittedly each has a different level of risk but the risk is still there. My point is simple. I attach little or no value to their well being but I am concerned for the safety of children. Therefore locking them up until they are about to die solves the problem because they cannot do it when they are inside.

Regards

Mick

Deane

Child abuse is one area where the gamble is not worth the risk. What these men do is terrible and no child should ever have to suffer it, so lock them up and forget they exist.

Regards

Mick

Male sexual activity seems to be irrelevant in this case now anyway, as they are now looking for a woman. Maybe you would all like to review your last few posts with this fact in mind?
The poor girl has her birthday on Saturday. As a parent of a 4 year old, my viewpoint currently is clouded by great sadness and extreme anger. You won't get a rational comment from me on this one for a very long time. I don't know how you do it Diccus. You have a rare quality.

Mick,

I agree they all should be locked up. In my view Number 1 should go to a normal jail but not for long though. Having sex with a consenting 14 year old is an offense but it does not make the man a paedophile or necessarily a danger to other 14 year olds. He should of course have a thorough psychological evaluation. Locking a man up for 50 years who may have genuinely believed the 14 year old consenting female was 16 because she told him she was 16 is not really so a great a crime methinks. 14 is a legal age in some countries.

Number 2 should be locked up for quite a few years in a secure hospital for treatment as an 8 year old is clearly pre-pubescent and this makes the man a paedophile and mentally sick as well criminally dangerous. If the offense is genuinely the man's first and he otherwise is attracted to adult women he may well respond to treatment and rehabilitation and if a board of qualified psychiatrists judge him to be cured he should be released, having served his time, under supervision and on-going psychiatric monitoring.

number 3 is an habitual paedophile and should be locked up in a secure hospital for life and life should probably mean life in this case.

That's my view for what it is worth.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
Male sexual activity seems to be irrelevant in this case now anyway, as they are now looking for a woman.

I saw a documentary on TV which said that 25% of all sexual abuse of children is performed by women! Of course many of these will have first been abused by men themselves.

I hope and pray that if the little girl has been abducted by a woman that she has been abducted by one who has lost her own child as she will hopefully at least be looking after her well and that they be found very soon.

Sadly the way millions of children are abused, mistreated and exploited around the world leads me to have a pretty dim view of the human species.

quote:

BTW I don't think Diccus has said that he believes Paedophiles should be reformed and released back into society. I know this because I have read what he wrote - you have not.

I would also suggest that when Diccus wrote 'Hang em and flog em is a short term solution. Understanding and changing behaviour is more strategic' he was not talking about releasing paedophiles or even curing paedophiles he was talking about changing behaviour at a straegic level i.e. the behaviour of our society as a whole.

I think you read it very well

quote:

Male sexual activity seems to be irrelevant in this case now anyway, as they are now looking for a woman

You never heard of Myra Hindley or Rosemary West then?