PDA

View Full Version : BBC Have your Say - paedophiles



Burdock
1st June 2007, 12:42
Today's Have Your Say is entitled:

Should some paedophiles avoid jail?


I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen 'castration' and 'execution' -just on the first page!


http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6482&&&edition=1&ttl=20070601134153

wendigo100
1st June 2007, 12:44
Abnormal is normal.

gingerjedi
1st June 2007, 12:48
Seriously I think castration would be a good thing, it stops randy dogs shagging strangers legs so why not do the same to kiddie fiddlers?

Troll
1st June 2007, 12:50
If death is not an option


tattoo a large red 'P' on their forehead

Old Greg
1st June 2007, 12:59
Don't forget those paediatricians.

Burdock
1st June 2007, 13:00
and paedarasts...

Kyajae
1st June 2007, 13:02
Don't forget those paediatricians.

And paedagogues

Old Greg
1st June 2007, 13:02
And pedestrians.

Bagpuss
1st June 2007, 13:04
I feel one of Sally's fairy tales coming on, after all this happens in nature as well

Rantor
1st June 2007, 13:04
And pedestrians.

And Pedalos

HairyArsedBloke
1st June 2007, 13:08
Who wants to look at old women?

I likes ‘em nice and young.

portseven
1st June 2007, 14:56
If its a 16yr old lad who boff's his 15yr old girlfriend then no. Like most things there are shades of grey

freakydancer
1st June 2007, 15:19
I'm 30 and currently poking a 20 year old bird.

YES!!!! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

shoes
1st June 2007, 15:20
Yes, shades of grey. Im always reminded of the 'pedofinder general', a cartoon in some suprisingly good bbc comedy show that used to be on tv. People want villians to hate. Real life isn't that simple. This pandering to mob rule that seems to be going on is genuinely frightening.

XTC
1st June 2007, 15:20
If its a 16yr old lad who boff's his 15yr old girlfriend then no. Like most things there are shades of grey

What if I was to boff the 16yr old lad, is that legal?

Burdock
1st June 2007, 15:23
I'm 30 and currently poking a 20 year old bird.

YES!!!! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


paedo...

Old Greg
1st June 2007, 15:35
What if I was to boff the 16yr old lad, is that legal?
Has he consented?

PRC1964
1st June 2007, 15:36
What if I was to boff the 16yr old lad, is that legal?

It's positively encouraged by most Labour MPs.

Ruprect
1st June 2007, 15:41
Saw an advert on the tube today for "Fiddler on the Roof" over which someone had written "KIDDY".

Made me laugh anyway...that'd be a whole different musical, and I'm guessing there would be pitch forks.

WotNxt
1st June 2007, 16:10
I had one of my daughters fiddled with and the scumbag was never even taken to court!!!! I can't tell you why or the details but I don't believe that "the system" was working "impartially".

Paedophiles are a massive problem and the state does not tackle it well at all. Society is in denial at the scale of the problem.

They should NOT be free to re-offend. So at the very least they should be in a secure facility.

Personally I would be happy if they were executed but society probably wouldn't accept that - although I believe A VERY SIGNIFICANT minority would agree with me.

Look at all the apologists, bleeding heart liberals and downright supporters of paedos that have posted on there! Makes me sick to the stomach and then people complain about the hang-em high brigade! At least the HEHB have the interests of the vulnerable kids as their motive.

I used to hear people make jokes about doing things with kids and think nothing of it - just joking of course. Now I think VERY carefully about whether there is something more to what they are saying. Maybe some of you on here should consider what other may begin to believe about you before commenting further on this thread.

Troll
1st June 2007, 16:26
If its a 16yr old lad who boff's his 15yr old girlfriend then no. Like most things there are shades of greyI find it difficult to understand why people confuse paedophilia with underage sex.

If the child has passed puberty then it cannot be called paedophillia
& a 16 year old bonking a 15 year old has been happening forever... all that stops it (ha!) is the age of consent (which varies by country)

I think also that paedos are not attracted to children once past puberty

wendigo100
1st June 2007, 16:42
I find it difficult to understand why people confuse paedophilia with underage sex.

If the child has passed puberty then it cannot be called paedophillia
& a 16 year old bonking a 15 year old has been happening forever... all that stops it (ha!) is the age of consent (which varies by country)

I think also that paedos are not attracted to children once past pubertyI'd go along with that. We are mixing up paedophilia with the age of consent.

The way I see it, a paedo is unnaturally attracted to pre-pubescent kids. Being attracted to a buxom 14 or fifteen year-old seems to be more natural, especially for other teenagers, and AIUI it's legal to have sex at that age in many countries, even as near to home as Holland and Spain.

The Lone Gunman
1st June 2007, 17:05
If we are going to treat Kiddie fiddling as a crime then we have to use the current criminal justice system.

If that means that some get away with it then that is the price we must pay.

It is (and always has been) my belief that these people are mentally ill and should be treated as such under the mental health act.
This may mean that they avoid "punishment" but they could be treated properly.

Neither the criminal justice system not the mental health act is robust enough in this day and age.

IR35 Avoider
1st June 2007, 17:44
It is (and always has been) my belief that these people are mentally ill and should be treated as such under the mental health act.

Homosexuality used to be regarded as a mental illness, there are probably still some people who think of it like that. When Alan Turing was convicted in a British court in the early 1950's after admitting to his homosexual encounters, he was sentenced to hormone treatments (chemical castration?) which caused him to develop breasts. This is the sort of treatment some are now advocating for paedophiles. (In the USA they are sometimes given it, not sure if it is used here.)

Whenever I see a witch-hunt, I want to take the side of the witch.

I think paedophilia is analogous to homosexuality, in that it's a minority preference that is just the way some people are wired. I feel sorry for those who are wired that way, because unlike homosexuals they can't hope that changing social customs will make their sexuality acceptable. Children will never be considered capable of giving consent.

Imagine (if you are male) what it would be like if even fantasising about adult women made you such a dangerous freak that you couldn't admit your fantasies to you best friend, and that if you actually ever shagged someone you were risking years in jail each time. Imagine living your whole life where your only realistic legal option for sex was playing with yourself (and even then it was a crime to access relevant fantasy material.)

Before I get any predictable responses from the hard-of-thinking, I'd just like to draw their attention to the distinction that a paedophile is someone who would like to fiddle with children, not necessarily someone who actually does.

Someone pointed out on Radio 4 this morning that not everyone who is guilty of a paedophile crime is a paedophile; someone who clicks to view an image labelled "three virgins" and gets a picture of some younger-than-expected girls has committed a crime, even if the picture is of no interest to him. This was given as an example of a "paedophile" who might be a prime candidate for receiving a caution as opposed to execution/chemical castration/a life sentence etc.

VectraMan
1st June 2007, 20:31
Before I get any predictable responses from the hard-of-thinking, I'd just like to draw their attention to the distinction that a paedophile is someone who would like to fiddle with children, not necessarily someone who actually does.

Agreed. Just because I'm heterosexual and attracted to women doesn't make me a rapist, because I have self control. There seems to be this assumption that anybody who ever looks at child pornography is actively stalking children for sex as well. The argument for making child porn illegal is based on supply and demand, but there's another argument that says that porn is a harmless way of indulging your fantasy and the alternative might be more actual abuse.

OwlHoot
2nd June 2007, 03:21
If the child has passed puberty then it cannot be called paedophillia [..] I think also that paedos are not attracted to children once past puberty

People attracted to kids past puberty used to be called pederasts, although you don't see that word used so often these days. See Wikipedia discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watc h/Terminology)

pisces
2nd June 2007, 06:36
I'm 30 and currently poking a 20 year old bird.

YES!!!! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

35 poking 19 :wave:

Troll
2nd June 2007, 23:44
Today's Have Your Say is entitled:

Should some paedophiles avoid jail?


I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen 'castration' and 'execution' -just on the first page!


http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6482&&&edition=1&ttl=20070601134153
Another problem is what to do with them once released


The probation service in Kent is trying to calm public fears after the whereabouts of a convicted paedophile were published in a national newspaper.

Robert Oliver, 52, is being housed in Maidstone after police had to escort him from a home in Somerset in December when a protest sprang up outside.
Two mothers in the town have started a petition, and written to their MP demanding Mr Oliver be re-housed.
Kent Probation Area said it was keen to discuss the women's concerns.
Mr Oliver was part of an east London paedophile gang responsible for killing 14-year-old Jason Swift in 1985. He was released from prison in 1997 after serving two-thirds of a 15-year sentence.Jason was gang raped by Mr Oliver and his 'like-minded' friends and then killed, not sure these people can ever be cured, rehabilitated or considered safe

angusglover
4th June 2007, 07:35
Isn't that the good thing about 29 year olds??? ...Well, there are 20 of them.....

angusglover
4th June 2007, 07:35
Another problem is what to do with them once released

Jason was gang raped by Mr Oliver and his 'like-minded' friends and then killed, not sure these people can ever be cured, rehabilitated or considered safe

The fact that they are still alive shows the state of the country...

Burdock
4th June 2007, 07:49
35 poking 19 :wave:


GIT!

;)

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 10:12
Whenever I see a witch-hunt, I want to take the side of the witch.

How about taking the side of the paedophiles' victims? Or do you think they should be grateful for the "physical acts of love" forced upon them?


I think paedophilia is analogous to homosexuality, in that it's a minority preference that is just the way some people are wired. I feel sorry for those who are wired that way, because unlike homosexuals they can't hope that changing social customs will make their sexuality acceptable. Children will never be considered capable of giving consent.

Paedophiles cannot be cured in the same way that homosexual people cannot be "cured".


Imagine (if you are male) what it would be like if even fantasising about adult women made you such a dangerous freak that you couldn't admit your fantasies to you best friend, and that if you actually ever shagged someone you were risking years in jail each time. Imagine living your whole life where your only realistic legal option for sex was playing with yourself (and even then it was a crime to access relevant fantasy material.)

Yeah, and imagine you were a would-be serial killer. Should we feel sorry for you then? What if you were a necrophiliac?

The line has to be drawn somewhere and it should be firmly drawn in favour of the victims who, by and large, are completely innocent children.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 10:16
The fact that they are still alive shows the state of the country...

Alive AND set loose to re-offend. I agree that this country needs to get a grip on these issues and introduce some tougher new sentencing at the very least.

Don't underestimate the amount of paedophiles that get away with their crimes though. It is quite uncommon to get a conviction since most of the time it is simply the word of the child against that of their attacker. They may get convicted eventually but often only after many years of abuse of many different victims.

wendigo100
5th June 2007, 10:19
How about taking the side of the paedophiles' victims? Or do you think they should be grateful for the "physical acts of love" forced upon them?

Paedophiles cannot be cured in the same way that homosexual people cannot be "cured".

Yeah, and imagine you were a would-be serial killer. Should we feel sorry for you then? What if you were a necrophiliac?

The line has to be drawn somewhere and it should be firmly drawn in favour of the victims who, by and large, are completely innocent children.I think his point was - someone like that cannot help what they are.

Answer me this - if someone realises that they like to shop in awkward places, what do you want them to do?

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 10:22
I wonder how long a sentence he will get for ruining this boy's life?

http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news?articleid=2921417

wendigo100
5th June 2007, 10:23
I wonder how long a sentence he will get for ruining this boy's life?

http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news?articleid=2921417You didn't answer my question. I'm interested to know what you think.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 10:27
I think his point was - someone like that cannot help what they are.

Answer me this - if someone realises that they like to shop in awkward places, what do you want them to do?

And my point is that I have as much sympathy for a serial killer as I do for a paedophile, rapist, etc. i.e. NONE!

I don't care whether their tendencies are their own fault or not since if they act on them that is DEFINITELY through their own choice.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 10:29
It's a hard one really. I must agree that if people have these wierd feelings but don't act on them they aren't really criminal. It is when they act upon them that they become criminal and we all have the potential to become criminals in one way or the other.

The other problem is branding people as paedophiles when they are not. It is possible that somebody may have accidently clicked on a site that brought up a disgusting image, and they have gone EWW and shut the browser. Should this person be branded as a paedophile and locked up?

Obviously if they are paying to access a site with these images it is wrong and they should be punioshed, but as with everything in life there is a grey line, and we can't ignore that. If we do we face labelling perfectly normal people as paedophiles which would not be a good thing.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 10:30
You didn't answer my question. I'm interested to know what you think.

Sorry, don't understand the point or relevance of the question. Does the word "awkward" have a hidden meaning of "illegal" or "causes massive harm to others"?

I would suggest that you are just trying to wind me up. Get a life.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 10:34
The other problem is branding people as paedophiles when they are not. It is possible that somebody may have accidently clicked on a site that brought up a disgusting image, and they have gone EWW and shut the browser. Should this person be branded as a paedophile and locked up?

Clearly, they should not. If the law is framed in such a way at present then it should be amended. Any amendment would need to be made VERY carefully so as not to provide a loophole for the real scumbags.

wendigo100
5th June 2007, 10:36
Sorry, don't understand the point or relevance of the question. Does the word "awkward" have a hidden meaning of "illegal" or "causes massive harm to others"?

I would suggest that you are just trying to wind me up. Get a life.Homosexuals aren't illegal.

Look, I'm not defending the actions of these people, but you seem to be going further - blaming them for what they are.

"They cannot be cured" and "Yeah, and imagine you were a would-be <insert perversion as required>. Should we feel sorry for you then?"

So, someone with paedaphile urges who hasn't actually done anything wrong, no kiddy fiddling, no porn sites - is he a bad man? Can he help himself?

pisces
5th June 2007, 10:37
And my point is that I have as much sympathy for a serial killer as I do for a paedophile, rapist, etc. i.e. NONE!

I don't care whether their tendencies are their own fault or not since if they act on them that is DEFINITELY through their own choice.

Some of these people are mentally ill and thus don't act on their own choice.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 10:38
This is where the problems come in. How do you draw the line?

Is 1 image in your internet cache OK? 5 ? 10 ? what if somebody inadvertantly clicked on a page that loaded 100 images ?

What is to stop a paedophile from using this as a defense and getting away with it? Will they get speciallt constructed pages holding 100 images that they look at and say oops just clicked on it once and went EWW i'm not a paedophile honest guvnor.

angusglover
5th June 2007, 10:46
Homosexuals aren't illegal.

Look, I'm not defending the actions of these people, but you seem to be going further - blaming them for what they are.

"They cannot be cured" and "Yeah, and imagine you were a would-be <insert perversion as required>. Should we feel sorry for you then?"

So, someone with paedaphile urges who hasn't actually done anything wrong, no kiddy fiddling, no porn sites - is he a bad man? Can he help himself?

We all have urges we do not act on. Having the urge does not make you bad, but acting on it implies making a decision. We all make our own choices and acting on an urge that is either illegal or immoral means you therefor accept responsibility.

IMHO people that have these urges and act on them, albeit through mental incapacity, need to be removed from society for the safety of inncoents i.e. kids, women etc.

SallyAnne
5th June 2007, 10:51
I'm 30 and currently poking a 20 year old bird.

YES!!!! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


A 20 year old thick bird.

HTH.

angusglover
5th June 2007, 10:52
HEHE, does she have a sister?

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 10:52
This is where the problems come in. How do you draw the line?

Is 1 image in your internet cache OK? 5 ? 10 ? what if somebody inadvertantly clicked on a page that loaded 100 images ?

What is to stop a paedophile from using this as a defense and getting away with it? Will they get speciallt constructed pages holding 100 images that they look at and say oops just clicked on it once and went EWW i'm not a paedophile honest guvnor.

I believe this is where you would use a word like "reasonable". I.e. It would then be up to a jury to decide what was "reasonable" in the individual circumstances of the case.

Let's face it though, anyone who stumbles accidentally across a dodgy page on the net is very unlikely to be prosecuted - the police and CPS have discretion in these matters even if they ever did find out about it.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 10:55
Some of these people are mentally ill and thus don't act on their own choice.

Then they could/should be locked away simply for that reason!!!!!! Isn't that what secure mental facilities are for?

Get real

freakydancer
5th June 2007, 10:58
A 20 year old thick bird.

HTH.

Nope, she's actually very slim - I don't do thick birds.

HTH

Rantor
5th June 2007, 10:58
I believe this is where you would use a word like "reasonable". I.e. It would then be up to a jury to decide what was "reasonable" in the individual circumstances of the case.

Let's face it though, anyone who stumbles accidentally across a dodgy page on the net is very unlikely to be prosecuted - the police and CPS have discretion in these matters even if they ever did find out about it.

There are a group of people suing for wrongful arrest because of the lack of discretion (no evidence but progressing with prosecution until thrown out.)

There is also anecdotal tales of it being used as general fit-up strategy - very effective I imagine given the social stigma.

Still doesn't mean that there are ain't a lot of bad stuff on the web catering to the tastes of some sick puppies.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 11:05
There are a group of people suing for wrongful arrest because of the lack of discretion (no evidence but progressing with prosecution until thrown out.)

There is also anecdotal tales of it being used as general fit-up strategy - very effective I imagine given the social stigma.

Still doesn't mean that there are ain't a lot of bad stuff on the web catering to the tastes of some sick puppies.


In my experience it is far more likely for a case to not even be brought to court for fear of the evidence being insufficient.

Fit-ups must happen but must also be very rare and would happen with other types of crime too.

If the authorities were determined enough they would be able to make serious inroads into the purveyors of the "bad stuff". I believe the real trouble is that too many people in authority are actually in favour of the "bad stuff" - how many police officers and other authority figures were caught by Operation Ore? In the hundreds wasn't it?

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 11:16
I believe this is where you would use a word like "reasonable". I.e. It would then be up to a jury to decide what was "reasonable" in the individual circumstances of the case.

Let's face it though, anyone who stumbles accidentally across a dodgy page on the net is very unlikely to be prosecuted - the police and CPS have discretion in these matters even if they ever did find out about it.

Unfortunatly once the accusation is public the media jump on it and your life may as well be over. Don't you find it odd that most high profile cases nowdays end up with the police finding kiddie porn on computer equipment owned by the accused (Forest Gate terror raid where everybody was released without charge, guy who was arrested by Portugese police over dissapearance of that little girl, etc), yet very little happens afterwards. I haven't heard of any of them being prosecuted for it yet, but the media have done a great hatchet job on them.

angusglover
5th June 2007, 11:22
Unfortunatly once the accusation is public the media jump on it and your life may as well be over. Don't you find it odd that most high profile cases nowdays end up with the police finding kiddie porn on computer equipment owned by the accused (Forest Gate terror raid where everybody was released without charge, guy who was arrested by Portugese police over dissapearance of that little girl, etc), yet very little happens afterwards. I haven't heard of any of them being prosecuted for it yet, but the media have done a great hatchet job on them.

So a true believer in conspiracy theory then?

Rantor
5th June 2007, 11:33
If the authorities were determined enough they would be able to make serious inroads into the purveyors of the "bad stuff". I believe the real trouble is that too many people in authority are actually in favour of the "bad stuff" - how many police officers and other authority figures were caught by Operation Ore? In the hundreds wasn't it?

Not up to speed on that but it sure as hell would make a good conspiracy theory.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 11:36
So a true believer in conspiracy theory then?

If you classify "beliving that the old bill will always "find" some evidence to prove that they were justified in arresting somebody when it's a high profile case" as beliving in conspirocy theories... Then yes :wink

wendigo100
5th June 2007, 11:38
So a true believer in conspiracy theory then?I remember the reports in the press and TV about the forest green two having kiddy porn on their machines. Despite that apparent weight of evidence, they were never charged. So the reports were all bollocks. Who made them up? Someone must have.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 11:39
Not up to speed on that but it sure as hell would make a good conspiracy theory.
I read (can't remember where but somewhere reputable) that a lot of the Operation Ore arrests were based on credit cards used to buy child pornography, and that a fair amount of paedophiles use stolen credit card numbers for obvious reasons. It sounds like a fair number of the people arrested may be innocent. In the US they were a great deal more circumspect about who they arrested as a result of the investigation, but the story is that in the UK, the police felt pressurised into obctaining a success in the fight against child pornography. If this is the case, I'd say it's a good job none of the wrongly convicted were castrated or executed.

Troll
5th June 2007, 11:41
If the authorities were determined enough they would be able to make serious inroads into the purveyors of the "bad stuff". I believe the real trouble is that too many people in authority are actually in favour of the "bad stuff" - how many police officers and other authority figures were caught by Operation Ore? In the hundreds wasn't it?How difficult is it to block the bad stuff at the ISP, a case has recently made the local news - a guy was reported by Croatian authorities to the UK police, this suggests that Croatia knew where to monitor for who was looking,
If so why not shut it down?

angusglover
5th June 2007, 11:59
I remember the reports in the press and TV about the forest green two having kiddy porn on their machines. Despite that apparent weight of evidence, they were never charged. So the reports were all bollocks. Who made them up? Someone must have.

Ah, the diffference in the theory rests on who made it up. If the press made it up then that is just to sensationalise the story, but if you believe that the cops put that story out then you really are a believer.

I am not saying the cops are good, cos the whole system sucks but I do not believe that whenever there is an arrest they say kiddie porn was on their PC.....thats the press.

BrilloPad
5th June 2007, 12:15
Of course some professions are allowed to be paedophiles. like judges. Judge Selwood of Southampton court was caught with indecent images. Was given option of being prosecuted or retiring immediately on full pension. He retired.

And this chap was a family court judge!

BrilloPad
5th June 2007, 12:18
I do have a fathers-4-justice friend who was not allowed to see his daughter from aged 4. He objected to his ex-partner's new boyfriend as a known paedophile. Described as an "aggrevated allegation" by social services(Hampshire SS are renowned as being anti men).

His daughter was raped aged 6 - I will not forget his posting on the f4j website - I will try to dig it out later if I dont get too upset.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 12:26
I do have a fathers-4-justice friend who was not allowed to see his daughter from aged 4. He objected to his ex-partner's new boyfriend as a known paedophile. Described as an "aggrevated allegation" by social services(Hampshire SS are renowned as being anti men).

His daughter was raped aged 6 - I will not forget his posting on the f4j website - I will try to dig it out later if I dont get too upset.

Was his daughter raped by the ex-partner's new paedophile boyfriend?

If so and the "authorities" had prior knowledge of his past yet didn't prevent it then they are to blame and should be hung out to dry. What happened to the attacker?

Paedophiles convicted of an actual assault should NEVER be released back into society. Also, action should be taken to increase the detection and conviction rates for these crimes as far too many get away with it for far too long.

Slightly off topic, I was reading the latest in the Maddie story at lunchtime. It made me want to cry - those poor people and that poor little girl. The abductors, IMHO, do not deserve to live on this earth.

angusglover
5th June 2007, 12:29
Cut their fingers and toes off, drill a hole in their heads, fill it full of maggots then bury them alive.....to start with....

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 12:32
Cut their fingers and toes off, drill a hole in their heads, fill it full of maggots then bury them alive.....to start with....
What about those convicted of downloading child pornography?

angusglover
5th June 2007, 12:39
What about those convicted of downloading child pornography?

IMO, downloading it is wrong but not as wrong as carrying out some kind of attack. Maybe we should just do fingers, or toes, for these guys?

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 12:46
IMO, downloading it is wrong but not as wrong as carrying out some kind of attack. Maybe we should just do fingers, or toes, for these guys?
But aren't you paying for someone else to do the attacks by proxy?

And presumably, when you find you can store the fingers and toes until you find they're wrongly convicted and then sew them back on again? It amuses me that those that complain about Muslims are often the ones who sound like they want to live under Sharia law. Saudi Arabia should suit you alright, mate.

hattra
5th June 2007, 12:52
What about those convicted of downloading child pornography?


And lets not forget that downloading child porn is not a victimless crime - a child had to be abused to make those images, and anyone viewing them is as guilty as if they were an actual participant.

angusglover
5th June 2007, 12:55
But aren't you paying for someone else to do the attacks by proxy?

And presumably, when you find you can store the fingers and toes until you find they're wrongly convicted and then sew them back on again? It amuses me that those that complain about Muslims are often the ones who sound like they want to live under Sharia law. Saudi Arabia should suit you alright, mate.

No need to be so antagonistic. I am speaking as a father about what I would do if someone harmed my kids. Nothing at all to do with Sharia Law...or Muslims for that matter.

BrilloPad
5th June 2007, 12:55
Was his daughter raped by the ex-partner's new paedophile boyfriend?

yes


If so and the "authorities" had prior knowledge of his past yet didn't prevent it then they are to blame and should be hung out to dry. What happened to the attacker?


Attacker was convicted and sentenced. As for the authorities - it is impossible to sue Social Services. Theory is that they would never do anything!

Also Social Services are not answerable to MPs. Another friend of mine complained about SS (they refused to investigate video of his son saying his ex-wife's new partner had touched him up). SS did nothing. My friend complained to MP. MP wrote to SS. SS said "we do not have to respond to you. and we will not". That was it - a one sentence letter.

I wish I had never been a f4j co-ordinator.

Please please dont get divorced.

Andy

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 12:57
No need to be so antagonistic. I am speaking as a father about what I would do if someone harmed my kids. Nothing at all to do with Sharia Law...or Muslims for that matter.
Fair enough - sorry about that - I typed it with a smile, but you wouldn't have seen that. But the chopping of of limbs and things is kind of Sharia in a way (or Medieval if you prefer). I like to think we're a bit more civilised nowadays.

angusglover
5th June 2007, 13:00
Fair enough - sorry about that - I typed it with a smile, but you wouldn't have seen that. But the chopping of of limbs and things is kind of Sharia in a way (or Medieval if you prefer). I like to think we're a bit more civilised nowadays.

I agree and I generally do not advocate the death penalty. I guesswe all have a way that we imagine we would deal with issues like this. I admit, my way would be harsh.....

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 13:29
Fair enough - sorry about that - I typed it with a smile, but you wouldn't have seen that. But the chopping of of limbs and things is kind of Sharia in a way (or Medieval if you prefer). I like to think we're a bit more civilised nowadays.

Paedophiles are not civilised so why should we treat them in a civilised manner?

You may trot out the line about us lowering ourselves and becoming as bad as the criminal if we treat them inhumanely - but that is just ballocks. We should be protecting our kids and not pandering to criminal sub-humans.

The kids matter, the paedos don't.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 13:31
Fair enough - sorry about that - I typed it with a smile, but you wouldn't have seen that. But the chopping of of limbs and things is kind of Sharia in a way (or Medieval if you prefer). I like to think we're a bit more civilised nowadays.

I do not agree with Sharia law generally but in some respects I think they have it right.

I hope the abuctors of Maddie are caught in Saudi Arabia or somewhere similar and tried there. The sentences hand out there would be a much better result than our namby pamby european justice systems could ever produce.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 13:33
Paedophiles are not civilised so why should we treat them in a civilised manner?

You may trot out the line about us lowering ourselves and becoming as bad as the criminal if we treat them inhumanely - but that is just ballocks. We should be protecting our kids and not pandering to criminal sub-humans.

The kids matter, the paedos don't.
No it's not just ballocks, it's a different viewpoint. I don't believe in killing (or maiming) criminals as a judicial tool, simple as that. As for protecting kids, a life sentence with no parole would do that.

angusglover
5th June 2007, 13:36
No it's not just ballocks, it's a different viewpoint. I don't believe in killing (or maiming) criminals as a judicial tool, simple as that. As for protecting kids, a life sentence with no parole would do that.

A life sentence? By that you mean 12 years...of watching tele, playing PS2, living in a cell with duvets etc???

I would have them rowing big boats up and down the Thames 23.9 hours a day!!!!!......with no nuts!!!

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 13:39
A life sentence? By that you mean 12 years...of watching tele, playing PS2, living in a cell with duvets etc???

I would have them rowing big boats up and down the Thames 23.9 hours a day!!!!!......with no nuts!!!
You missed the 'without parole'. We can debate the conditions later - it's the death bit that bothers me.

Rowing boats? At least it gets you out in the fresh air.

angusglover
5th June 2007, 13:42
You missed the 'without parole'. We can debate the conditions later - it's the death bit that bothers me.

Rowing boats? At least it gets you out in the fresh air.

Also, I am sure there are rocks that need breaking...that's the sound of the men,,,working on the chain gang!!!

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 13:42
A life sentence? By that you mean 12 years...of watching tele, playing PS2, living in a cell with duvets etc???

I would have them rowing big boats up and down the Thames 23.9 hours a day!!!!!......with no nuts!!!

:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Unfortunately I don't think there would be enough room on the Thames for all the boats you'd need. Perhaps they could row off to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and then round in circles - plenty of room out there.

Alternatively, you could get them running on treadmills to generate electricity and reduce the need for CO2 emissions from power stations - again with no nuts!

angusglover
5th June 2007, 13:45
:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Unfortunately I don't think there would be enough room on the Thames for all the boats you'd need. Perhaps they could row off to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and then round in circles - plenty of room out there.

Alternatively, you could get them running on treadmills to generate electricity and reduce the need for CO2 emissions from power stations - again with no nuts!

See, now that we are beginning to think as a team, we start to make progress...we see the big picture and we start to get the ticks in the right boxes... :rollin:

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 13:45
:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Unfortunately I don't think there would be enough room on the Thames for all the boats you'd need. Perhaps they could row off to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and then round in circles - plenty of room out there.

Alternatively, you could get them running on treadmills to generate electricity and reduce the need for CO2 emissions from power stations - again with no nuts!
I suggest you leave their nuts where they are. They may come in handy when you have to release someone wrongly convicted. One day that might be you.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 13:47
Not a bad idea forcing the prison population to run on treadmills to produce power though, then again we don't want them to get too good at running. They may get silly ideas during a moment of lapse security.....

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 13:49
Not a bad idea forcing the prison population to run on treadmills to produce power though, then again we don't want them to get too good at running. They may get silly ideas during a moment of lapse security.....
That's kind of how prison warders became known as Screws. Prisoners had to turn a handle so many times in a day (there was a counter) and some warders would turn the screw to make it harder. It was abandoned as it wasn't doing a great job of rehabilitation.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 13:50
You missed the 'without parole'. We can debate the conditions later - it's the death bit that bothers me.

Rowing boats? At least it gets you out in the fresh air.

Why are you bothered about the death bit? Do paedophiles feel remorseful about what they have done to their victims? Are serial killers sorry for what they have done? Why should we be bothered about ridding the world of such scumbags?

Admittedly there are sometimes miscarriages of justice but with careful safeguards there would be minimal mistakes made - the Americans seem to keep people on death row for years to give plenty of chance for appeals to take place. Maybe they could row boats for 5 years and then if not reprieved would be executed.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 13:56
Why are you bothered about the death bit? Do paedophiles feel remorseful about what they have done to their victims? Are serial killers sorry for what they have done? Why should we be bothered about ridding the world of such scumbags?

Admittedly there are sometimes miscarriages of justice but with careful safeguards there would be minimal mistakes made - the Americans seem to keep people on death row for years to give plenty of chance for appeals to take place. Maybe they could row boats for 5 years and then if not reprieved would be executed.
The wrongful conviction is slightly separate, in that even if the possibility could be removed, I'd still be 100% against the death penalty as a judicial tool.

Even if the worst criminals don't feel remorse for their crimes, I assert my difference from them by not acting like them and by rejecting the death penalty. I believe it's murder, simple as that. I doubt we'll convince each other on this one. You may think that's b0llocks if you want.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 13:56
That's kind of how prison warders became known as Screws. Prisoners had to turn a handle so many times in a day (there was a counter) and some warders would turn the screw to make it harder. It was abandoned as it wasn't doing a great job of rehabilitation.

That's because it server no purpose other than to punish and the presumption was that the prisoners would one day be set free.

We are talking about whole of life sentences and the production of a useful commodity for the benefit of the society they have wronged. Paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated anyway so if they are not going to be executed we should ensure they are contributing to society instead of being a drain on it.

angusglover
5th June 2007, 13:59
I suggest you leave their nuts where they are. They may come in handy when you have to release someone wrongly convicted. One day that might be you.

Are you back on that nut storage thing again?

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 14:00
That's because it server no purpose other than to punish and the presumption was that the prisoners would one day be set free.

We are talking about whole of life sentences and the production of a useful commodity for the benefit of the society they have wronged. Paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated anyway so if they are not going to be executed we should ensure they are contributing to society instead of being a drain on it.
Yes - I was talking about why it was abandoned in the Victorian (?) era.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 14:04
Ask yourself this. What would be worse?


Living in a sealed metal box for the rest of your life and meeting the odd guy called Leroy who likes your ass
A quick painless death
I personally would much rather see them suffer in a box for as long as possible

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 14:05
Ask yourself this. What would be worse?


Living in a sealed metal box for the rest of your life and meeting the odd guy called Leroy who likes your ass
A quick painless death
I personally would much rather see them suffer in a box for as long as possible
I'm not sure the esteemed posters had painless in mind.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 14:10
I'm not sure the esteemed posters had painless in mind.
Capital punishment is always done as painlessly as possible. lethal injection where you fall assleep and die, hanging where your neck snaps instantly so no pain, or the worst will be guilotine where you may have half a second of seeing your head fall off your body until the oxygen supply to the brain runs out.

Generally speaking capital punishment is as painless as possible.

I can't really see us going down the route of drawn and quartered any more in this PC world. If you want them to suffer the only way for it to happen is make them suffer mentally in prison.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 14:12
Capital punishment is always done as painlessly as possible. lethal injection where you fall assleep and die, hanging where your neck snaps instantly so no pain, or the worst will be guilotine where you may have half a second of seeing your head fall off your body until the oxygen supply to the brain runs out.

Generally speaking capital punishment is as painless as possible.

I can't really see us going down the route of drawn and quartered any more in this PC world. If you want them to suffer the only way for it to happen is make them suffer mentally in prison.
Yes - it's obviously political correctness gone mad. Can't even hang, draw and quarter anyone any more.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 14:17
Yes - it's obviously political correctness gone mad. Can't even hang, draw and quarter anyone any more.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to advocate hanging, drawing, or quartering. just trying to point out that if suffering is the ultimate objective this is the only way you will get it. I personally don't belive in Capital punishment, however I do belive that prison should be more of a punishment and we shouldn't be worrying about prisoners "Human Rights". They didn't worry about thier victums human rights and they should be given a tiny cell, a wooden bed with no matress and a tin in the corner to shit in.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 14:28
Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to advocate hanging, drawing, or quartering. just trying to point out that if suffering is the ultimate objective this is the only way you will get it. I personally don't belive in Capital punishment, however I do belive that prison should be more of a punishment and we shouldn't be worrying about prisoners "Human Rights". They didn't worry about thier victums human rights and they should be given a tiny cell, a wooden bed with no matress and a tin in the corner to shit in.
But I think you inevitably worry about some rights:

If a prisoner is badly beaten by another prisoner, or warders, and you allow that prisoner to make a complaint with a view to a criminal case against the attackers, then you've allowed that prisoner human rights.

If you've disallowed a prisoner the right to vote in election, you've denied a right.

Most people (in society, I mean, not in this moral cesspit) would, I reckon, go along with those 2 points above. And somewhere in between, you get to a list of all those rights that are allowed, not allowed or curtailed.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 14:37
Well there have to be limits otherwise the whole prison system would be in anarchy, but I see no reason why prisoners should have a comfy life and access to TV/Internet/Pool tables/games/etc.


IMHO prison is now becoming a holiday camp where you can learn more tricks of the trade. Seomthing that is a long way away from its original objectives!!!

The Lone Gunman
5th June 2007, 14:39
Well there have to be limits otherwise the whole prison system would be in anarchy, but I see no reason why prisoners should have a comfy life and access to TV/Internet/Pool tables/games/etc.


IMHO prison is now becoming a holiday camp where you can learn more tricks of the trade. Seomthing that is a long way away from its original objectives!!!Try getting sent to one and then tell me it is a holiday camp.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 14:42
Well there have to be limits otherwise the whole prison system would be in anarchy, but I see no reason why prisoners should have a comfy life and access to TV/Internet/Pool tables/games/etc.


IMHO prison is now becoming a holiday camp where you can learn more tricks of the trade. Seomthing that is a long way away from its original objectives!!!
And the limits are what need to be defined.

I would like to see a prison system that when it soes release people, erleses tham with some kind of social and practical skills that mean they can live and earn a living in society. Don't know how, though.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 14:45
And the limits are what need to be defined.

I would like to see a prison system that when it soes release people, erleses tham with some kind of social and practical skills that mean they can live and earn a living in society. Don't know how, though.

All well and good, but they also need to be made to fear prison so that they stay on the straight and narrow and don't want to go back in. The trick is getting the balance right where they fear going back, and are also given the skills required to integrate into society again.

In my opinion we have gone too far to the skills side and need to push it back towards the fear side to balance it off again.

pisces
5th June 2007, 14:46
Then they could/should be locked away simply for that reason!!!!!! Isn't that what secure mental facilities are for?

Get real

Do you not think mentally ill people are entitled to help?

Cut the attitude please.

The Lone Gunman
5th June 2007, 14:49
And the limits are what need to be defined.

I would like to see a prison system that when it soes release people, erleses tham with some kind of social and practical skills that mean they can live and earn a living in society. Don't know how, though.One of the problems we have is because the prison system is expected to cover two seperate issues. Retribution and rehabilitation. It is almost impossible to fullfil both agenda.
The whole system needs tearing apart and restarting.
Some offenders are well past being rehabilitated, but share a prison system with the young and vulnerable who might one day contribute to society.

I have a huge piece to write here and no time to do it.

Our prisons only operate with the cooperation of the inmates.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 14:50
All well and good, but they also need to be made to fear prison so that they stay on the straight and narrow and don't want to go back in. The trick is getting the balance right where they fear going back, and are also given the skills required to integrate into society again.

In my opinion we have gone too far to the skills side and need to push it back towards the fear side to balance it off again.
I don't see how we've one too far with the skills side, when people are leaving with no skills - I assume it's being badly done. People with a criminal history and no skills to live in society are going to end up back in prison, and I don't think fear of how bad it is is going to stop them. The old style brutal borstals, short sharp shock and all manner of harsh eregimes don't seem to have any effect on recidivism (although I have no evidence to back that up and would be interested if anyone has any one way or another. So make it harsh (particularly if it's Paris Hilton), but don't expect it will stop people going back.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 14:54
Apart from Ole Sparky, the electric chair, which is almost certainly not painless and is basically a form of electrical cooking.

The gas chamber is also not painless; prospective occupants were advised by kinder operators to take a deep breath as the cyanide crystals fell into the acid so that a goodly amount of cyanide gas had evolved by the time they required another breath.

There was the interesting method known as being pressed to death, wherein the victim was put under a board and large stone were placed thereupon, the nastier bit being the sharp stone placed under the spine so that the spine fractured before death...

Dear old Vlad used to impale people on wooden stakes driven up the fundament with hammers...

The Romans had an interesting take on the hot seat with an iron chair with a fire underneath it...

Most hangings involved slow strangulation rather than the more sophisticated drop method.

The garrot forced an iron spike through your cervical spinal column.

All jolly good fun, but not necessarily painless.

Must admit i was really thinking about the ones used in this day and age (with the exception of the guilotine) and I had forgotten about the good old electirc chair. I don't belive that is used any more though.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 14:56
Apart from Ole Sparky, the electric chair, which is almost certainly not painless and is basically a form of electrical cooking.

The gas chamber is also not painless; prospective occupants were advised by kinder operators to take a deep breath as the cyanide crystals fell into the acid so that a goodly amount of cyanide gas had evolved by the time they required another breath.

There was the interesting method known as being pressed to death, wherein the victim was put under a board and large stone were placed thereupon, the nastier bit being the sharp stone placed under the spine so that the spine fractured before death...

Dear old Vlad used to impale people on wooden stakes driven up the fundament with hammers...

The Romans had an interesting take on the hot seat with an iron chair with a fire underneath it...

Most hangings involved slow strangulation rather than the more sophisticated drop method.

The garrot forced an iron spike through your cervical spinal column.

All jolly good fun, but not necessarily painless.
You could always feed them to giant lizards.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 14:57
I don't see how we've one too far with the skills side, when people are leaving with no skills - I assume it's being badly done.

Well at the moment there is no fear and everybody bleats on about giving the offenders skills and making them part of the community. We are too worried about providing the inmates a nice life with lots of opportunities at the moment, the fact they aren't learning anything just shows that offering too much doesn't have the desired effect.

I say outsource our prisons to Thailand. Much cheaper than the current prison service. Will make people think twice and is totally in line with what a lot of large companies are already doing!!

:devil

Chugnut
5th June 2007, 14:58
Apart from Ole Sparky, the electric chair, which is almost certainly not painless and is basically a form of electrical cooking.

The gas chamber is also not painless; prospective occupants were advised by kinder operators to take a deep breath as the cyanide crystals fell into the acid so that a goodly amount of cyanide gas had evolved by the time they required another breath.

There was the interesting method known as being pressed to death, wherein the victim was put under a board and large stone were placed thereupon, the nastier bit being the sharp stone placed under the spine so that the spine fractured before death...

Dear old Vlad used to impale people on wooden stakes driven up the fundament with hammers...

The Romans had an interesting take on the hot seat with an iron chair with a fire underneath it...

Most hangings involved slow strangulation rather than the more sophisticated drop method.

The garrot forced an iron spike through your cervical spinal column.

All jolly good fun, but not necessarily painless.

Due to over familiarity with various methods of dispatching humans, I suspect our alien, reptilian friend is actually a Predator.

Prosecution rests.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 15:00
Well at the moment there is no fear and everybody bleats on about giving the offenders skills and making them part of the community. We are too worried about providing the inmates a nice life with lots of opportunities at the moment, the fact they aren't learning anything just shows that offering too much doesn't have the desired effect.

I say outsource our prisons to Thailand. Much cheaper than the current prison service. Will make people think twice and is totally in line with what a lot of large companies are already doing!!

:devil
I'm not bothered about the nice life. I think the reason people come out with no skills is because governments are bleedin' incompetent and can't do anything right.

Rantor
5th June 2007, 15:03
Well at the moment there is no fear and everybody bleats on about giving the offenders skills and making them part of the community. We are too worried about providing the inmates a nice life with lots of opportunities at the moment, the fact they aren't learning anything just shows that offering too much doesn't have the desired effect.

I say outsource our prisons to Thailand. Much cheaper than the current prison service. Will make people think twice and is totally in line with what a lot of large companies are already doing!!

:devil

There are a lot of people on Death Row in the US, they execute loads of people in some states but that doesn't do much to deter violent crime. Fear is not an issue.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 15:07
There are a lot of people on Death Row in the US, they execute loads of people in some states but that doesn't do much to deter violent crime. Fear is not an issue.

Fear is an issue, however when your life outside prison is no worse than it would be in prison it stops becoming an issue. To properly re-integrate people into our society is a hard job that is very difficult to get right.

So why bother, pay Thailand £500,000 a year to deal with all our prisoners, job done, thank you very much.

I'll even act as an agent for a nominal fee of 10% to get the ball rolling if you would like!!:banana:

Burdock
5th June 2007, 15:12
Zeity!! your interest in death disturbs me greatly!

:eek:

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 15:18
This is jolly...

I'd forgotten the stoning option...

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:L8gtm1d_lEwJ:web.mac.com/flip/iWeb/AUR/Archives%2520of%2520Uncomfortable%2520Research/87E30FCE-9BBA-436B-8785-896A315CDB57_files/Hillman1993Execution.PDF+methods+of+judicial+execu tion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=uk

How about buring? Worked well on witches....

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 15:22
How about buring? Worked well on witches....
:spel Burning. Burying alive is good as well.

Seeing as there's such an interest in this, and in making the penal system less expensive, I'd like to introduce sponsored live Pay per View celebrtiy fights to the death.

Saddam Hussein vs Paris Hilton

I'd pay good money to watch that.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 15:24
The wrongful conviction is slightly separate, in that even if the possibility could be removed, I'd still be 100% against the death penalty as a judicial tool.

Even if the worst criminals don't feel remorse for their crimes, I assert my difference from them by not acting like them and by rejecting the death penalty. I believe it's murder, simple as that. I doubt we'll convince each other on this one. You may think that's b0llocks if you want.

I assert my difference from them by not committing the crimes. If capital punishment were legal then it would NOT be murder since murder is a crime.

The only problem is that if capital punishment were re-introduced it would probably be run by Group 4 or some such outfit. What we really need is easyExecution or Virgin running it.

Rantor
5th June 2007, 15:27
I assert my difference from them by not committing the crimes. If capital punishment were legal then it would NOT be murder since murder is a crime.

The only problem is that if capital punishment were re-introduced it would probably be run by Group 4 or some such outfit. What we really need is easyExecution or Virgin running it.

Ok, hold a referendum on it - bound to win BUT executions would have to be carried out by yes voters selected by lottery. Failure to carry out said civic duty is punishable by death.

All televised of course.

Ardesco
5th June 2007, 15:27
:spel Burning. Burying alive is good as well.

Seeing as there's such an interest in this, and in making the penal system less expensive, I'd like to introduce sponsored live Pay per View celebrtiy fights to the death.

Saddam Hussein vs Paris Hilton

I'd pay good money to watch that.

May have a problem there, Saddam is already dead. How about Paris Hilton vs A Brick Wall and the only weapon she is allowed to hit the wall with is her face. I'd definetly pay to see that!!

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 15:29
Do you not think mentally ill people are entitled to help?

Cut the attitude please.


Yes. Do you not think that kids are entitled to protection from nutters?

pisces
5th June 2007, 15:29
Yes. Do you not think that kids are entitled to protection from nutters?

Yes.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 15:29
I assert my difference from them by not committing the crimes. If capital punishment were legal then it would NOT be murder since murder is a crime.

The only problem is that if capital punishment were re-introduced it would probably be run by Group 4 or some such outfit. What we really need is easyExecution or Virgin running it.
I understand your postion. But murder is not only defined by its legal status - I would still consider it murder from a moral perspective, even if not legally so. For example, I believe that when criminals are executed by the State of Texas or by the Chinese state, they are murdered.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 15:50
I understand your postion. But murder is not only defined by its legal status - I would still consider it murder from a moral perspective, even if not legally so. For example, I believe that when criminals are executed by the State of Texas or by the Chinese state, they are murdered.

So non-rehabilitable criminals should be kept as a drain on society?

How much does it cost to keep one high-security prisoner in gaol for a year?

How many people earning the average wage need to pay tax for a year to pay for them?

Why SHOULD they?

Rantor
5th June 2007, 15:55
So non-rehabilitable criminals should be kept as a drain on society?

How much does it cost to keep one high-security prisoner in gaol for a year?

How many people earning the average wage need to pay tax for a year to pay for them?

Why SHOULD they?

Beacuse even if they cannot be moral creatures there is no reason why we should abandon our values and morals.

Plus, stringing up innocent people is not so good.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 16:15
Beacuse even if they cannot be moral creatures there is no reason why we should abandon our values and morals.

Plus, stringing up innocent people is not so good.


YOUR values and morals. Not MY values and morals.

Where are YOUR values and morals leading this country?

The rise of the chavvy scummy criminal classes who know they can get away with virtually anything or at least only get a minor punishment due to apologists and soft bleeding heart liberals with no backbone?

I say it is time the law abiding majority stands up for itself while it is still the majority. We need to push the expectations of everyone back towards the idea of crime being unusual rather than the norm. People need to have justice and to see it being done - this is NOT currently happening. The chavvy scummy crims will have more respect for others if they come to understand we will not take it up the a*** lying down any more.

Have already discussed earlier in this thread the issue of safeguards to try to avoid mistakes.

Rantor
5th June 2007, 16:23
YOUR values and morals. Not MY values and morals.

Where are YOUR values and morals leading this country?

The rise of the chavvy scummy criminal classes who know they can get away with virtually anything or at least only get a minor punishment due to apologists and soft bleeding heart liberals with no backbone?

I say it is time the law abiding majority stands up for itself while it is still the majority. We need to push the expectations of everyone back towards the idea of crime being unusual rather than the norm. People need to have justice and to see it being done - this is NOT currently happening. The chavvy scummy crims will have more respect for others if they come to understand we will not take it up the a*** lying down any more.

Have already discussed earlier in this thread the issue of safeguards to try to avoid mistakes.

Firstly, I was not aware that not executing/maiming criminals was leading the country to fall apart.

Secondly, they are not just my morals. The fact that most of us don't get murdered by individuals or the state assures me of that.

You can capitalise all you want but you are not promoting anything to protect anybody's interest.

You do not seem to be able to tell the difference between justice and pandering to your all-consuming rage.

The Lone Gunman
5th June 2007, 16:30
I am assuming that the string em up brigade will be happier that children do not survive a paedo attack?

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 16:40
Firstly, I was not aware that not executing/maiming criminals was leading the country to fall apart.

Secondly, they are not just my morals. The fact that most of us don't get murdered by individuals or the state assures me of that.

You can capitalise all you want but you are not promoting anything to protect anybody's interest.

You do not seem to be able to tell the difference between justice and pandering to your all-consuming rage.

Taking your blinkers off man!

Crime is only under minimal control because people are so scared they now take lots of precautions - drive your kids to school anyone?

So how were your morals fitting with the whole Iraq business then? That must have REALLY upset you. State controlled murder anyone?

The capitalisation was merely to leave no doubt to the reader when discussing your views as opposed to mine.

You do not seem to be able to tell the difference between justice in the abstract sense and working justice in the real world. We may have the former but we certainly don't have the latter.

Wait until one of your kids is attacked and then see what you think.

WotNxt
5th June 2007, 16:41
I am assuming that the string em up brigade will be happier that children do not survive a paedo attack?

Errm, why? What strange logic are you employing to infer that?

The Lone Gunman
5th June 2007, 16:44
Errm, why? What strange logic are you employing to infer that?Well known in all sorts of crime.
If a crime carries a death sentence then it is far more likely that the victim of said crime will be killed.

As the child would be the only witness then it is less likely that the paedo will be caught and hung if the victim is dead.
You can only hang them once you know.

Rantor
5th June 2007, 16:51
Taking your blinkers off man!

Crime is only under minimal control because people are so scared they now take lots of precautions - drive your kids to school anyone?

So how were your morals fitting with the whole Iraq business then? That must have REALLY upset you. State controlled murder anyone?

The capitalisation was merely to leave no doubt to the reader when discussing your views as opposed to mine.

You do not seem to be able to tell the difference between justice in the abstract sense and working justice in the real world. We may have the former but we certainly don't have the latter.

Wait until one of your kids is attacked and then see what you think.

I'm not going to bite on the Iraq one as it is not strictly related to the Criminal Justice System.

I will not be waiting for something bad to happen to my kid as that would be insane.

I guess we have opposite views on this. I simply refuse to believe that I inhabit a world where it is necessary, practical or right to mutilate and execute other humans beings.

I certainly do not want to give such powers to any state.

Maybe you should consider a hobby as a masked vigilante?

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 17:45
So non-rehabilitable criminals should be kept as a drain on society?

How much does it cost to keep one high-security prisoner in gaol for a year?

How many people earning the average wage need to pay tax for a year to pay for them?

Why SHOULD they?
I don't think we're going to convince each other on this one. I think the death penalty is murder, that's why I think we shouldn't have it. From that starting point, the cost of keeping people in prison is the price I elieve we pay not to be murderers.

Old Greg
5th June 2007, 17:48
So how were your morals fitting with the whole Iraq business then? That must have REALLY upset you. State controlled murder anyone?

I also see the invasion of Iraq as mass murder.

angusglover
6th June 2007, 06:37
I see the nuking of Iraq as mass murder......but we have to start somewhere... :laugh

WotNxt
6th June 2007, 08:25
I don't think we're going to convince each other on this one. I think the death penalty is murder, that's why I think we shouldn't have it. From that starting point, the cost of keeping people in prison is the price I elieve we pay not to be murderers.

So with the prison population at an all time high and with a higher percentage of people in prison than most European countries ... when does the cost of prison become too draining on society?

In my view there are simply not enough people in prison right now as many are let out too early, many are not given custodial sentences simply because the prisons are full and far too many never even get put in a courtroom let alone convicted. Oh ... unless they are pensioners who don't pay their council tax!

If all serious crimes (wooly term, I know!) resulted in convictions and sentences were served in full then I believe the prison population would be about 4 or 5 times what it is now, maybe more. Crime rates would plummet and we would all be much safer - but would the financial cost be too high? Of course this is only theoretical and even if it were not we would never achieve this as it would be too "embarassing" to have that high a prison population.

On the matter of finance though, how much do we pay for our armed forces and nuclear deterrent to keep ourselves "safe" from external dangers? Anyone know how this compares to the bill for prisons?

Chugnut
6th June 2007, 08:47
I don't think we're going to convince each other on this one. I think the death penalty is murder, that's why I think we shouldn't have it. From that starting point, the cost of keeping people in prison is the price I elieve we pay not to be murderers.

I wouldn't want to resort to the death penalty either but I think the reason so many people are keen on advocating it these days is that there does not seem to be a perception that any alternatives are working.

If anyone harmed my wife or child, I would like to think that provided they spend the rest of their life in prison, it would be enough for me, but in all honesty I suspect I'd want them snuffed. It's clearly a very emotive issue and that clouds the judgement.

I genuinely think people feel the balance is the problem and they're desparate to suggest anything since the country's being run into the ground. Law abiding, work-for-a-living people don't feel they have their needs catered for. If a burglar breaks into your house and gets a kicking off you for their trouble, the law should always be on your side. They should never be able to sue. Teachers & parents should be able to discipline kids (a clip round the ear when it's needed) without ramifications.

I don't think it'll ever happen though since we don't have any politicians with any backbone. Remember a few weeks back when John Howard ordered Australia's cricket team to pull out of Zimbabwe, calling Magabe a "grubby dictator"? Brilliant! Someone with a bit of spine. Getting someone like that in office would be a good start.

Old Greg
6th June 2007, 08:56
So with the prison population at an all time high and with a higher percentage of people in prison than most European countries ... when does the cost of prison become too draining on society?

In my view there are simply not enough people in prison right now as many are let out too early, many are not given custodial sentences simply because the prisons are full and far too many never even get put in a courtroom let alone convicted. Oh ... unless they are pensioners who don't pay their council tax!

If all serious crimes (wooly term, I know!) resulted in convictions and sentences were served in full then I believe the prison population would be about 4 or 5 times what it is now, maybe more. Crime rates would plummet and we would all be much safer - but would the financial cost be too high? Of course this is only theoretical and even if it were not we would never achieve this as it would be too "embarassing" to have that high a prison population.

On the matter of finance though, how much do we pay for our armed forces and nuclear deterrent to keep ourselves "safe" from external dangers? Anyone know how this compares to the bill for prisons?
I'm not sure whether evidence supports the view that banging up more people and/or for longer reduces crime rates. Common sense might tell us it does, but that don't make it so.

Don't know about the military question - but you're right - it's an interesting question.

BrilloPad
6th June 2007, 09:03
I'm not sure whether evidence supports the view that banging up more people and/or for longer reduces crime rates. Common sense might tell us it does, but that don't make it so.


I feel sure that letting them all out would increase crime. Wonder what the correct number is?

Old Greg
6th June 2007, 09:12
I feel sure that letting them all out would increase crime. Wonder what the correct number is?
Yes - somewher between never locking anyone up and locking everyone up forever is the correct number (and I mean correct in terms of effectiveness in harm reduction, as I'm a pragmatic kind of guy.) Don't know where this is. I read a nice book called 'Freakonomics' a little while ago which touches on this.

angusglover
6th June 2007, 09:15
Yes - somewher between never locking anyone up and locking everyone up forever is the correct number (and I mean correct in terms of effectiveness in harm reduction, as I'm a pragmatic kind of guy.) Don't know where this is. I read a nice book called 'Freakonomics' a little while ago which touches on this.

I have this book...not read it yet tho...

WotNxt
6th June 2007, 09:15
I'm not sure whether evidence supports the view that banging up more people and/or for longer reduces crime rates. Common sense might tell us it does, but that don't make it so.

Don't know about the military question - but you're right - it's an interesting question.


I believe it is true that most crimes are committed by only a few people and that most are repeat offenders. Maths then suggests that locking up only a few extra people for a bit longer would have a dramatic effect in reducing the crime rates. Of course this could be offset by others moving into the criminal void that it created e.g. other drug dealers or organised gangs taking over when a rival is nicked or put into disarray. A sustained hard line against criminal activity MAY keep this minimised however.

Old Greg
6th June 2007, 09:25
I believe it is true that most crimes are committed by only a few people and that most are repeat offenders. Maths then suggests that locking up only a few extra people for a bit longer would have a dramatic effect in reducing the crime rates. Of course this could be offset by others moving into the criminal void that it created e.g. other drug dealers or organised gangs taking over when a rival is nicked or put into disarray. A sustained hard line against criminal activity MAY keep this minimised however.
I think the 'void' is critical. It's like any market. If you take operatives out of the market, you create opportunities that others will fill. Now, I'm not saying it's as simple as that as there are a lot of factors in play. The shocking conclusion of Freakonomics (if I remember correctly) was that Zero Tolerance policing, more police on the streets and 'three strikes and you're out' (all in the US) had no/minimal effect on crime rates, but that some of them appeared to havean effect because they were implemented a generation after the leagalisation of abortion - the conclusion was that the abortion of foetuses (in disproportionately poor, badly structured families) reduced the number of babies born who would have ended up growing into criminals. Made me think. If you buy this, and I recommend the book highly, you can draw your own conclusions as to what to do about it.

threaded
6th June 2007, 09:30
How's about if there are less laws: then there are less crimes to commit!

threaded in "it ain't rocket science y'know!" mode.

WotNxt
6th June 2007, 10:45
I think the 'void' is critical. It's like any market. If you take operatives out of the market, you create opportunities that others will fill. Now, I'm not saying it's as simple as that as there are a lot of factors in play. The shocking conclusion of Freakonomics (if I remember correctly) was that Zero Tolerance policing, more police on the streets and 'three strikes and you're out' (all in the US) had no/minimal effect on crime rates, but that some of them appeared to havean effect because they were implemented a generation after the leagalisation of abortion - the conclusion was that the abortion of foetuses (in disproportionately poor, badly structured families) reduced the number of babies born who would have ended up growing into criminals. Made me think. If you buy this, and I recommend the book highly, you can draw your own conclusions as to what to do about it.


I was under the impression that the zero-tolerance policing in New York had made a massive difference to the crime rates - or was this just political spin?

Were any numbers given on the reduced birth rates to back this up? We have legal abortion here but it doesn't seem to stop the high birth rate in "disproportionately poor, badly structured families". I can see that it might have a short term effect when newly legalised but in the long term it doesn't seem to be a factor - at least in the UK.

It would seem that the conclusion is also VERY un-PC and probably wouldn't have any political capital in the UK (or anywhere?). Can you imagine a government publicly trying to persuade mothers falling into the category of "disproportionately poor, badly structured families" to have abortions? It just wouldn't happen.

In fact, the opposite appears to be true as the government (successive governments too?) is so concerned about the falling birth rate that they positively encourage, via the benefits system and general economic policies, these types of "families" to produce more children. One could infer, using the converse of the conclusion re: abortions from Freakonomics, that government policy in this country is contributing significantly to rising crime rates.

Old Greg
6th June 2007, 10:58
I was under the impression that the zero-tolerance policing in New York had made a massive difference to the crime rates - or was this just political spin?

Were any numbers given on the reduced birth rates to back this up? We have legal abortion here but it doesn't seem to stop the high birth rate in "disproportionately poor, badly structured families". I can see that it might have a short term effect when newly legalised but in the long term it doesn't seem to be a factor - at least in the UK.

It would seem that the conclusion is also VERY un-PC and probably wouldn't have any political capital in the UK (or anywhere?). Can you imagine a government publicly trying to persuade mothers falling into the category of "disproportionately poor, badly structured families" to have abortions? It just wouldn't happen.

In fact, the opposite appears to be true as the government (successive governments too?) is so concerned about the falling birth rate that they positively encourage, via the benefits system and general economic policies, these types of "families" to produce more children. One could infer, using the converse of the conclusion re: abortions from Freakonomics, that government policy in this country is contributing significantly to rising crime rates.

The author's argument was that zero tolerance policing was coincidentally contemporaneous with the effects of abortion - it's very well supported by stats and analysed and argued and I don't have the expertise to argue with it. Certainly convinced me , but it is a pop-economics/statistics book. I've not seen any similar analysis for the UK. How do you know abortion doesn't affect birth rates in poor people in the UK? They might be higher otherwise - again, I don't know one way or the other.

I don't think the conclusion has anything to do with political correctness (sorry to be a bore, but I think the term is considerably misused) but it may be politically unpalatable for some.

Your point about persuading poor mothers to have abortions would obviously be political suicide, as you suggest, but it is only one possible conlclusion (in terms of what do we do about it) of the lesson, which is, I believe, that the circumstancs in which people are born and grow up will have a correlation to the likelihood of their becoming criminals. Reducing birthrate is one way - another is doing something about the circumstances in which people are born and grow up, but that's an argument for another day (at least for me).

Ardesco
6th June 2007, 11:07
How about convincing poor people to not get bloody pregnant in the first place if they can't afford to bring up kids.

Would be a bloody good start, would reduce the drain on our resources and would probably reduce crime figures too.

Lets start an ad campaign.

CHAV LADI...., erm WOMEN.

The government now encourages you to let your lads do you up the ass so that you don't get pregnant and don't have a bunch of kids that the rest of us pay to bring up and then pay to keep in jail for the vast majority of thier lives.

etc

Old Greg
6th June 2007, 11:27
How about convincing poor people to not get bloody pregnant in the first place if they can't afford to bring up kids.

Would be a bloody good start, would reduce the drain on our resources and would probably reduce crime figures too.

Lets start an ad campaign.

CHAV LADI...., erm WOMEN.

The government now encourages you to let your lads do you up the ass so that you don't get pregnant and don't have a bunch of kids that the rest of us pay to bring up and then pay to keep in jail for the vast majority of thier lives.

etc
From a purely pramatic point of view, the question would be whether such a campaign would be effective.

andy
6th June 2007, 12:21
From a purely pramatic point of view, the question would be whether such a campaign would be effective.
Only if explained in chav hip-hop way