Parenting and child abuse

[j4bberw0ck]

I thought this might be best in a thread separate to >>>this one<<< (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=21365)because I wouldn't want anyone to think I was missing the point, or trying to play down the appalling things which happened.

Reading through the comments, though, there's a common thread of revenge. Disembowelling, sterilisation, having prison guards turn a blind eye, and execution are all in there somewhere.

If one were to take the view that any person capable of inflicting that sort of horror - or in fact, any significant abuse on a child - is mentally ill (as it was in the Victoria Climbie case), would your views be the same?

And if so, would it be the case that you believe any mentally ill person (whatever the cause) should be sterilised to prevent the possibility of child abuse? Even those who are ill because they themselves were the victims of horrendous abuse?

Or if a parent becomes mentally ill, should their child be taken into preventative care, and the parent sterilised to prevent further pregnancy?

Or even, why not go the whole hog and sterilise everyone who has impaired mental function or a genetic illness?

That model of social care and liberalism, Sweden, was sterilising Down's Syndrome children and people who were mentally ill and in care, COMPULSORILY until the 1980's, when a public outcry stopped the practice.

Emotionally, I'm tempted by the "hang 'em" solution for abusive parents at this scale - but to give the State that sort of power would be half-way down the slippery slope towards totalitarianism with no way back.

Any thoughts, anyone? Would it be morally acceptable to do to abusing parents some of the things suggested in the other thread?

[Oddquine]

I thought this might be best in a thread separate to >>>this one<<< (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=21365)because I wouldn't want anyone to think I was missing the point, or trying to play down the appalling things which happened.

Reading through the comments, though, there's a common thread of revenge. Disembowelling, sterilisation, having prison guards turn a blind eye, and execution are all in there somewhere.

If one were to take the view that any person capable of inflicting that sort of horror - or in fact, any significant abuse on a child - is mentally ill (as it was in the Victoria Climbie case), would your views be the same?

And if so, would it be the case that you believe any mentally ill person (whatever the cause) should be sterilised to prevent the possibility of child abuse? Even those who are ill because they themselves were the victims of horrendous abuse?

Or if a parent becomes mentally ill, should their child be taken into preventative care, and the parent sterilised to prevent further pregnancy?

Or even, why not go the whole hog and sterilise everyone who has impaired mental function or a genetic illness?

That model of social care and liberalism, Sweden, was sterilising Down's Syndrome children and people who were mentally ill and in care, COMPULSORILY until the 1980's, when a public outcry stopped the practice.

Emotionally, I'm tempted by the "hang 'em" solution for abusive parents at this scale - but to give the State that sort of power would be half-way down the slippery slope towards totalitarianism with no way back.

Any thoughts, anyone? Would it be morally acceptable to do to abusing parents some of the things suggested in the other thread?

Can't see that mental problems were the reason for the torturing of the wee lassie.........if it was, then the boys would have borne some of it as well. Just plain nastiness, it seems to me.

I find that the mental illness excuse for child abuse is all too often reached because there is a tendencynot to believe that people can do such things deliberately. Hence all these "personality disorders" which have made their appearance in the reasonably recent past.

I'm afraid I think that a "personality disorder" is just another excuse for unacceptable behaviour.............and as they can't be cured or treated they aren't an illness to my way of thinking....just a person's makeup.

Out of interest, I have just taken the test at http://www.4degreez.com/misc/personality_disorder_test.mv

and find out that I have a high chance of having "Avoidant Personality Disorder" and for people who live in the real world............that means I am extremely shy.

And that kind of thing is why I think that the newer range of "personality disorders" are a get-out clause rather than a mental illness.

Someone who has a genuine mental disability should not be forcibly sterilised, but I do think that if they are at a level where they are not capable of making that decision for themselves, then parents or other guardians should make that decision for them.

And parents with mental disabilities should be under the supervision of Social Services and their children monitored for well-being as a matter of course, and not rely on outsiders to "notice" problems.

[j4bberw0ck]

If one were to take the view that any person capable of inflicting that sort of horror - or in fact, any significant abuse on a child - is mentally ill (as it was in the Victoria Climbie case), would your views be the same?

Sure, I'm assuming there's a mental illness dimension here but I don't agree that because other children weren't harmed, it shows that there's no mental illness. On the contrary, it might be a very strong indicator of irrational behaviour.

It's interesting, though, because decent people who'd not harm anyone in any normal circumstance suddenly become bloodthirsty monsters (apparently). Is it a mob reaction? Remember when girls used to scream hysterically at The Beatles (yeah, OK, I'm old :lol:) - if you took one of them and sat her alone in front of them, would she scream hysterically?

So, there's a public reaction when in a group and a private reaction in the privacy of one's own mind. And sometimes it's tempting to follow a path without thinking about the wider issues it raises. Like where do you draw the line on enforced sterilisation? Or execution? Or on turning a blind eye? Like how much power do you want the State to have over people's lives? Should the State be empowered to act in a preventative capacity, or only after a crime has actually been committed?

[sam]

Maybe just maybe the only reason the little girl was the only one to be harmed was because she was disabled and that is why the boys were never harmed.
You just never know with some folks how their minds work.
But surely under the circumstance's psychiatric reports would of been carried out on the parents to see why they were capible of doing such horrendious things to an innocent child.

[danc1ngwitch]

this is the truth... there is an amount of pleasure in the whole abuse.
Me I think they should suffer... They liked the pleasure of what they did. To hell wea them and the likes of them...Mental illness, lets hurt a little child, I will just blame my brain... Scoop the idiots brains out and take a good look at it...( they need the same treatment back but three fold ).[evil]

[Oddquine]

Sure, I'm assuming there's a mental illness dimension here but I don't agree that because other children weren't harmed, it shows that there's no mental illness. On the contrary, it might be a very strong indicator of irrational behaviour.

But I don't think that necesarily follows, j4bberw0ck............I have to say I'm getting a bit fed up with everyone finding excuses for every nasty person who hurts another one.

I'm inclined to agree with sam.........it was because she is disabled...........the parents resented the work entailed in looking after a disabled child..........and they had no extra problems with the sons..........simply that.

Most of us only think they must be "mental" because we wouldn't dream of harming any child, far less one of our own.......but there are nasty people in the world........no question........ and imo, the only "personality disorder" they have is their personality.

Anyway, if they were bright enough to have fooled the child's grandmother for three years, the hospital and the Social Work department........they were certainly not mentally disabled/ill.



It's interesting, though, because decent people who'd not harm anyone in any normal circumstance suddenly become bloodthirsty monsters (apparently). Is it a mob reaction? Remember when girls used to scream hysterically at The Beatles (yeah, OK, I'm old :lol:) - if you took one of them and sat her alone in front of them, would she scream hysterically?

Don't know about mob reactions..........as one who sat on the benches at the back of the Two Red Shoes and watched the Kinks and Herman's Hermits with hands folded demurely in lap and only foot tapping.........I don't appear to do mob!

I think it's as much because they can't do anything and know it that allows people to go OTT in reactions to incidents like the wee lassie. Talking isn't doing.......or even planning............it's just a way of getting the horror and disgust off your chest.



So, there's a public reaction when in a group and a private reaction in the privacy of one's own mind. And sometimes it's tempting to follow a path without thinking about the wider issues it raises. Like where do you draw the line on enforced sterilisation? Or execution? Or on turning a blind eye? Like how much power do you want the State to have over people's lives? Should the State be empowered to act in a preventative capacity, or only after a crime has actually been committed?

Do you really think that all those who posted in the thread about the wee lassie would take to the streets with placards.........or turn up mob-handed at a trial to try and get at someone. The posting in the forum gave them permission to write what was a private reaction in the privacy of their own mind, knowing they are anonymous. There was no thinking about the wider issues it raises at all...............and why would you expect it from an emotional reaction?

But I'm still of the opinion that people with known severe mental problems who have children, in a society which does not forcibly sterilise, should never be left to cope alone...and if that takes legislation, so be it.