View Full Version : Sex Offenders
is it just me or should we be informed when there are known sex offenders in our area, im in thurso and there is alot, the majority of them live by swing parks and schools, its disgraceful!
I didnt realise we had a lot of sex offenders up here!
this is worrying but i think the police have to keep tabs on them..
i used to live in springpark and there are 3 there,
because they have all been in the paper
one was last year, dunno how much im allowed to say on this
changilass
02-May-07, 12:10
when living in thurso we had 2 people on the sex offenders list living in very close proximity to us, at the time we were also fostering, when I told social services about this and questioned if we would still be able to foster or should we move, we were informed that as we knew about them we were more likely to be more aware of the dangers and if we moved we could end up still living in close proximity but not knowing.
I don't think it is right that all sex offenders are made known to all in the area as ther could be vigilante action against them, I think the only thing we can do is be aware that this is a problem and do our best to ensure our childs safety.
i understand your point of view but my family lives 2doors away from one, who got away with what he did, which is absoltuely awful, its hard knowing that they are allowed to get back on with their lives after what they did and the people around them are just be to accept it
yes, you probably do have them in your area !
There is no need at the moment for families to be notified, although the police and other agencys will have been informed. Trying to house them is always going to be a problem due to the stigma that goes with it, unfortunatly there are play areas in just about every housing area and with Thurso being a town there are more close at hand. They will have conditions set when they left prison as to where and what they can do, etc
This will always be a difficult area, as parents we want our children to be safe, but any prisoner having left prison is also entitled to try and rebuild his/ her life with out prejudice. If parents were to be informed, it may lead to all sorts of trouble, scaremongering, hassle etc etc and i fully understand as a parent how worrying it can be !
but..............at least the authorities can keep tabs on them, check on them and know where they are, if not, and he/she legs it due to pressure from those around him/her and we lose contact and he / she goes underground.......... then what...........possibly one dangerous person out there and we dont know where !
This will always be a contentious issue, with people holding strong views on this, understandably so.... but .........
Sorry, Brew, but people are still "innocent until proven guilty" in this country.
It would seem, from what you say, that people in the immediate area you speak of are already aware of the person you speak of. The last time what you suggest was tried by a National Newspaper it resulted in a Paediatrician being attacked simply because some idiots got their rumours mixed up.
It's not all that long ago that an elderly man was murdered in Inverness because somebody mistook something he said and, quite wrongly, decided he was a paedophile.
If you have concerns that somebody might be a paedophile then inform the Authorities, that is why they are there.
Risking people taking matters into their own fists, which will happen at some time, causes more problems than it solves.
Unfortunately we still haven't improved much since the days when people took the attitude, "Everybody knows the old hag is a witch, lets burn her out and be rid of her!" Many an old woman, in the past, has been persecuted because of the actions of vindictive neighbours who held some sort of grudge.
What amazes me is how little we have learned from many such disgraceful episodes over numerous centuries.
Boozeburglar
02-May-07, 13:54
Sorry, Brew, but people are still "innocent until proven guilty" in this country....
....What amazes me is how little we have learned from many such disgraceful episodes over numerous centuries.
I think we are talking about convicted offenders here, so the point about "innocent until proven guilty" doesn’t apply.
Over and over again sex offenders are not being sent to prison, or are released only to re-offend, often going on to more serious offences, occasionally escalating to murder.
Our Law system is not dealing with these people effectively, not taking public safety seriously.
Were we to have a means of identifying these individuals with 100% certainty the ‘mistaken identity’ cases would most likely not have occurred.
I think the fact that some people may choose to act as vigilantes is no reason to prevent the majority of parents having access to information useful to them in protecting their children.
In my opinion, it is tough luck if you think you can re enter society under the cloak of anonymity after committing acts that provoke public outcry and attract vigilante behaviour. Perhaps you could appeal to be kept in prison?
we moved up to caithness to get away from the likes of these sex offenders and i am supprised that there are so many up here....
As for the innocent until proven guilty, that does not matter to these kind of people.....We used to live in a part of bolton which had a lot of children about....There was one who lived four doors down from us called ryan mason.He was an innocent 6yr old little boy....One day in febuary 2003 we had the police out looking for this little boy who had gone missing....They found his body in a wheelie bin in a river by the golf course 2 days later......The perp was a man called Ronald mariner, who was a known sex offender from bury.When the police realeased him 2 yrs before from prison he was supposed to tell them if he moved to another town.He did not and went on to kill this young boy with a hammer...I took the police to his house and he was arrested... I lived with being called a grass for months, but i would do it all over again...There is no stopping these people unless they are caught and put into prison for a very long time..... which in my eyes is never long enough.....When people read it in the news they think all different kind of things, but when it happens to a quiet little child who lives on your street that your own children could have been the one, it is frightening.....I wish that they could kepp up with the name and shame and they should tell the residents if a known sex offender moves into the town, but the police dont always know where they are.....
The authorities have tightened up procedures in the last few years with the Sex Offenders Register set up by the Conservatives, which people convicted of these type of offences go on (the length of time depends on their offence I think). But, I don't know if the authorities keep tabs on people who were convicted before the register (presumably there will be a record somewhere), or what, if any attempts are made to check out people coming here from abroad for example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1183201,00.html
One thing that worries me (maybe some of you know the answer) is that although, the past of British people who apply to work with vulnerable people are checked out thoroughly, I am not sure how how thorough the checks are on the past of people who come to the UK, from abroad if they apply to work with vulnerable people .
I think the fact that some people may choose to act as vigilantes is no reason to prevent the majority of parents having access to information useful to them in protecting their children.
So taking the law into their own hands is right ? someone has left prison, and for all we know may be a better person for it, what are we going to do, hound him/ her for the rest of their lives, beat them up, move them onto some one elses door step ?
I am not standing up for them, but i have seen both sides of the arguement here first hand ! It is a issue that will never be solved to everyones satisfaction....
Hasn't there been completely innocent people just being beaten up and worse because people have got the wrong person?
i understand your point of view but my family lives 2doors away from one, who got away with what he did, which is absoltuely awful,
what does this mean...got away with it? does it mean he wasnt charged or he was found not guilty or what - either way it means he is innocent.
dunderheed
02-May-07, 16:28
to my knowledge there is more than 3 people in springpark on the register . obviously names cant be named on here . i think what people on here mean is name the peado's , remember the register covers more sins than that.
on another small point disclosure only works if the person being investigated has a prior history (this came to light a few years ago when the guy playing nutz the squirel for kilmarnock fc was caught kiddy fiddling , the club were drawn over the coals by the press never to recieve an apology when it came out that they had put him through disclosure)
If we are to debate this topic, can we do so without derogotory terms and phrases!
there may well be minors reading or seeing this.
The worry for me about all this is that its all about " to my knowledge" or " i think" or " i read in the papers" or other subjective stuff. The danger with a little knowledge is that its exactly that - a little knowledge.
Suppose someone reading this on here who thought they knew who you were talking about found that person talking to their child and lost the plot and battered them - then found out they had got the wrong person - that it was another man with the same name or that it wasnt anyone at all - simply mob hysteria that had made the decision to hang someone regardless of whether what they were saying was true.
How many times have we been told something - a juicy bit of gossip, the story of someones marital breakdown, the suggestion that someone has won the lottery, the story that someone got caught doing something they shouldnt and then later found out it wasnt true. Stories grow arms and legs and tentacles and become some thing else entirely and we would do well to remember that
I was living in South Wales when a Paediatrician's house was vandalised in Gwent. Let the authorities deal with things.
Just because we know our neighbour is a sex offender doesn't mean the others are not.
connieb19
02-May-07, 18:28
what does this mean...got away with it? does it mean he wasnt charged or he was found not guilty or what - either way it means he is innocent.
Why do you assume he is innocent? Could this not mean he was found guilty but got away with a fine or community service?
Fraser Macleod
02-May-07, 18:56
Has anyone else noticed one that almost all of you with the exception of dunderhead are taking 'sex offender' to mean either pedophile or child molester? Also if you look at statistics for both pedophilia and accounts of child molestaion neither has incresed drastically since 40 years ago when many of you played on the streets and your parents did not feel the need to obsess over the slightly odd man four doors down. Also while we're on the subject it is worth noting that the number of children whisked away by strangers on chat rooms each year is infinitessimaly small when compared to the number hit by cars in a week. Your children are far more likely to become the sexual targets of members of their own immdiate family than of the pedophile you're constaly checking over your shoulder for. Yes both pedophilia and child molestation are inexorably evil, however buying into the medias fantasy that there is someone just waiting to snatch your children away on every street corner is only going to lead to your children leading overly sheltered and envitably unhappy lives, afterall we couldn't possibly let Britains kids play conkers without wearing safety goggles but by the age of 13 they're the most likely culprits in europe for underachieving in school, getting drunk, getting pregnant and having unprotected sex or taking drugs. As I pointed out before you all played out on the streets as children, and no one blamed your parents for allowing you to become obese while they sheltered you indoors simply because you wern't, you were encouraged to embrace your childhood without the latest 'Sun' or 'Daily Mail' headlines hanging over you and warning your parents that no one can be trusted.
Ciao
danc1ngwitch
02-May-07, 21:37
Let's say that this person that Brew talks of did get away with it.
I think that this will make him wise for the next time.
You see people such as these sex predators, learn by their mistakes.
We make it so next time he will have little chance of being
caught.
Monster's, lurking in all kinds of places.
Our children are not strong enough to protect themselves from
Monsters such as these we talk ( lowly ) of.
I think it is good for Brew to let others know where abouts these
monsters are and how many are there.
And if it is hear-say then so what... MY CHILDREN ARE MORE IMPORTANT
THAN SOME GUYS REPUTATION.
Well said Danc1ingwitch.
I know of a convicted paedophile who lives in the Mount Vernon area. He committed the crime within Thurso area, he then got sentenced to 4 years imprisonment (only served two of them due to good behaviour!!!), and as soon as he was released he came back to live in Thurso again. I do know that he has been hassling the family involved but the police just say they can't do anything about it. There is a court order but for some reason the police say it doesnt matter.
I think they should get what they deserve!! If it is a known fact!!!
j4bberw0ck
02-May-07, 23:29
Why do you assume he is innocent? Could this not mean he was found guilty but got away with a fine or community service?
The way the law works in this country is that if a Court of Law finds someone not guilty - THEY DIDN'T DO IT. It's a necessary safeguard.
That's it. Full stop. End of story. If you don't like it I suggest you move to Afghanistan or some other place where the law is more, ah, pliable. Take your children with you. I suspect it won't take you long to see the wisdom of a legal system that's been evolving for 1100 years.
j4bberw0ck
02-May-07, 23:32
If it is a known fact!!!
The biggest word in your post is "if".
If pigs could fly; if only I won the lottery; if only I could rely on what people know to be "a fact". Especially that refuge of the truly ignorant - "a known fact". Known by whom?
connieb19
03-May-07, 01:21
The way the law works in this country is that if a Court of Law finds someone not guilty - THEY DIDN'T DO IT. It's a necessary safeguard.
That's it. Full stop. End of story. If you don't like it I suggest you move to Afghanistan or some other place where the law is more, ah, pliable. Take your children with you. I suspect it won't take you long to see the wisdom of a legal system that's been evolving for 1100 years.Excuse me, where was it said that this bloke was found NOT GUILTY? As far as I can gather from the posts on here this bloke is GUILTY and was proven to be GUILTY. [disgust]
As far as I am aware the way that the law in this counrty works is that in the Court of law someone has been convicted then it means that they have been found guilty, so sorry but I wont be taking my kids to Afghanistan, I'll be staying in Caithness where I was born and bred.
vodka-queen
03-May-07, 01:31
My mate was wrongly accused of this and is on the sex offenders for doing something i know was not done!!
I think it is a disgrace how this happens then people think differently of them when they have done nothing wrong.
:mad::mad:
Jeemag_USA
03-May-07, 01:31
Why do you assume he is innocent? Could this not mean he was found guilty but got away with a fine or community service?
If you read what Squidge says its self explanatory, squidge is posing a question and waiting for an answer, Squidge quoted examples by saying if not charged or found not guilty then they are innocent. May be the person did get off lightly and that is why Squidge is asking the question, to get an answer, not sure why your questioning the question before its answered? Now I am confusing myself :Razz
i understand your point of view but my family lives 2doors away from one, who got away with what he did, which is absoltuely awful,
what does this mean...got away with it? does it mean he wasnt charged or he was found not guilty or what - either way it means he is innocent.
Why do you assume he is innocent? Could this not mean he was found guilty but got away with a fine or community service?
The way the law works in this country is that if a Court of Law finds someone not guilty - THEY DIDN'T DO IT. It's a necessary safeguard.
That's it. Full stop. End of story. If you don't like it I suggest you move to Afghanistan or some other place where the law is more, ah, pliable. Take your children with you. I suspect it won't take you long to see the wisdom of a legal system that's been evolving for 1100 years.
Sorry j4bberw0ck there was nothing wrong with connieb19's question in the context of the thread (see above). Even allowing for a tongue-in-cheek light hearted post your answer to her was was over-the-top and uncalled for.
Sorry j4bberw0ck there was nothing wrong with connieb19's question in the context of the thread (see above). Even allowing for a tongue-in-cheek light hearted post your answer to her was was over-the-top and uncalled for.
Gave him chance to get a dig in at a Muslim country though.
Excuse me, where was it said that this bloke was found NOT GUILTY? As far as I can gather from the posts on here this bloke is GUILTY and was proven to be GUILTY. [disgust]
I asked the question in the context of the statement that "he got away with it" - i dont know what that means but i do know that if somoene is tried in a court of law and found not guilty then they are not guilty. If he was found guilty then how exactly does it mean he got away with it.
You say "this bloke" - which bloke connie - how do we know, how do you know who is being talked about? Are we all talking about the same person? Or are we all talking about different people. As far as i can see brew was initially talking about three different people.
We need to be very careful - i remember a case a few years back in where an 18 year old laddie was placed on the sex offenders register for mooning out the window of a car. He wasnt a paedophile. He never attacked or touched anyone as far as i could tell from the reporsts in the Groat but he was placed on the sex offenders register. Should this person be considered a danger to children ten years later if he has not been in any trouble at all since then? He will still have the tag of a "registered sex offender" hanging over him and what is going to happen if thats publicised? Registered sex offender living at such and such an address. Do you think people are going to stop and ask questions if their iclination is to put a brick through his window?
Somehow i dont
j4bberw0ck
03-May-07, 10:42
Don't be silly, fred; I simply meant a country where you can be stoned to death or otherwise executed either through the process of law, or through the operation of a mob, without a burden of proof being necessary either way. I could have mentioned Nigeria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Pakistan.
The fact that countries which tolerate such behaviour are largely or predominantly Muslim is something that apologists for Islamic excesses need to factor in to their beliefs. But let's not convert this thread into another rant-o-rama about the evil forces of the West, eh?
i remember a case a few years back in where an 18 year old laddie was placed on the sex offenders register for mooning out the window of a car. He wasnt a paedophile.
I just thought, if that was the case then is it perfectly possible for a lass to be put on the sex offenders register for the ladette display of taking her top off in public?
I agree that any offender could be rehabilitated during imprisonment and go on to lead a blameless post sentence life.
Repeat offending is the problem that should maybe bother us and perhaps a case could be made for "Naming and Shaming" persistant offenders.
What we might also want to consider is that it is unlikely that these people have made a lifestyle choice to be either a pedophile or a child molester and that they are in fact suffering from some sort of mental illness. In that case, is it not unfair of "us" to penalise a person because they do not conform to "our" idea of normal.
Dusty.
Boozeburglar
03-May-07, 11:35
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the Criminal Justice system.
If someone is found not guilty, it means there was not sufficient evidence to convict.
This does not mean someone did not do it.
They could be arrested and possibly charged on suspicion, mistakenly.
However, normally you wouldn't be end up in court if the CPS or PF considered there was NO evidence.
If you are innocent and you end up in court, there must be facts needing closer examination to identify where the process went wrong, or someone must have lied.
Many of these crimes go unreported, and therefore will never attract a conviction.
You only have to think back to all the reports of serial abusers who carried on for years before someone stood up and accused them, these people often had a string of crimes going back twenty, thirty or more years.
I think that there needs to be more routine scrutiny of everyone, to remove the stigma from the process.
I am not advocating people taking the law into their own hands, but don't tell me that there is never a case for doing so.
The Law also acknowledges there are sometimes situations where it is permissible for members of the public to take action unilaterally.
If your family are ever threatened and you respond, you may end up being charged but you will be dealt with most sympathetically.
Were any of the child killers to be murdered by their victim's parents those parents would walk home from court.
Were any of the child killers to be murdered by their victim's parents those parents would walk home from court.
I find that hard to believe - nor would I want to believe it. What you are saying is for arguments sake, a 22 year old kills an 11 year old, then the 35 year old mother/father kills the 22 year old and gets sent home with a slap on the wrist!? They are both murderers. Plain and simple.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the Criminal Justice system.
If someone is found not guilty, it means there was not sufficient evidence to convict.
You have misunderstood.
In Scotland in that scenario, the jury would deliver a verdict of 'not proven'.
I think we also have to remember, just because someone's name is on the sex offenders register, it doesn't mean they are a child molester.
People can be put on that list as a result of mooning people(which used to be a laugh when I was younger). I've seen it reported.
What Thurso doesn't need is vigilantes. If these people have been proven innocent, then that's that.
As long as you're looking after your children, there shouldn't be a problem... or there should be a greatly reduced risk of something happening.
Boozeburglar
03-May-07, 12:38
You have misunderstood.
In Scotland in that scenario, the jury would deliver a verdict of 'not proven'.
I haven’t misunderstood, old bean.
There was a reference earlier in the thread, equating not guilty with innocence. I was addressing that, perhaps I should have quoted it.
Had there been a reference to Not Proven my response would have been the same.
Guilty – beyond reasonable doubt
Not Guilty- reasonably doubtful, evidence does not support a conviction
Not Proven- not so doubtful, but again evidence does not support a conviction, and they want the verdict to indicate they are not giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, they just can’t nail them
My statement was pretty accurate.
You won’t be in court, before a jury at any rate; in the first place if there is poor evidence, the case will be dropped before it gets there.
Not Guilty merely means there was not sufficient evidence to convince beyond reasonable doubt.
Not Proven is used in a small number of cases, as Judges and Juries quite rightly regard the Not Guilty verdict as meaning essentially the same, rather than guarantee of a defendant’s innocence, as many people assume is the case.
I personally feel the Not Proven verdict is a terrible muddling of the necessarily black and white nature of the Criminal Justice system.
It should be a case of put up or shut up, if your case is not strong enough to prove.
Of course, being an ex bobby you will have encountered many cases where everyone knew someone was guilty, but they couldn't pin it on them.
Were any of the child killers to be murdered by their victim's parents those parents would walk home from court.
Was there not a case in Germany where the mother of a rape and murder victim shot the accused in the courtroom and was meted out some token sentence?
I have often said that if anyone did that sort of thing to any of my kids (and I include inducing them to use drugs), i would "swing" for them.
It is a very emotive subject and I think what is being said by Boozeburglar is that although we do not recognise "a crime of passion" officially, common sense would come into play and the background of the parent as well as the circumstances of the crime would be taken into account.
There is no doubt that a crime would have been committed, but the punishment would be less severe than might normally be the case.
Dusty.
Boozeburglar
03-May-07, 13:18
Aye, I am perhaps overstating the case to suggest they might walk home.
Me overstating something, who would have thought?
;)
ok im sorry, but end of the day regardless if the offenders went to jail which most of them dont... why on earth should we give them another chance, one of use said some people should look closer to home, i dont know where u come from or what ur background is but i know that i would never have to look closer to home and i would NEVER befriend a paedophile!
Boozeburglar
03-May-07, 17:31
Just saw on the news that a guy who abducted, etc. a thirteen year old got an eight year sentence, and eight more years supervision.
Can anyone here honestly tell me that eight years is justice?
There are those who might argue that eight years is a long time, but history tells us these people re offend, how would you feel to know he was going to be out in eight years if it was your kid?
I am amazed at the leniency.
Just saw on the news that a guy who abducted, etc. a thirteen year old got an eight year sentence, and eight more years supervision.
Can anyone here honestly tell me that eight years is justice?
There are those who might argue that eight years is a long time, but history tells us these people re offend, how would you feel to know he was going to be out in eight years if it was your kid?
I am amazed at the leniency.
2 sides of the coin
1) If the courts set a sentence and it is served does that mean that person has paid their debt to society?
2) Are the courts to lenient?
j4bberw0ck
03-May-07, 18:33
I am amazed at the leniency.
Then perhaps you should go to Law school, get a degree, join a barrister's Chambers and work for some years on low pay before qualifying as a barrister; work your butt off to achieve experience and a reputation that makes you suitable to be selected as a QC, then work more years to acquire a reputation and experience that leads to your being selected as a Judge, then try a few cases where your job is to set the tariff for the offence. You'll have access to all sorts of information not in the public domain and your many years of experience and skills acquisition will allow you to set an appropriate tariff within the restrictions placed on you by the legislation that covers the crime being tried. Believe it or not, judges tend to know what they're doing in taking into account all the factors of a case.
The "lock 'em up forever" approach favoured by the tabloids and their readers isn't justice.
1) If the courts set a sentence and it is served does that mean that person has paid their debt to society?
2) Are the courts to lenient?
1) Yes, from the legal standpoint
2) You mean too lenient. And the answer is it depends on your point of view. People who want revenge as opposed to people who want justice will rarely agree.
Yep, sadly Caithness is full of these 'pedos'.:eek:
1) Yes, from the legal standpoint
2) You mean too lenient. And the answer is it depends on your point of view. People who want revenge as opposed to people who want justice will rarely agree.
If we are getting technical
2) You mean too lenient and the answer is....
or
2) You mean too lenient. The answer is....
Back to the matter at hand. It does depend on your point of view. The way I look at it is, when is a person's debt to society paid. We have a system of courts that either work or they don't. If they need overhauling so that people who are still a threat to society are kept behind bars or very closely monitored (I don't believe monitoring is workable) then lets do it. If there is no problem with the courts then it follows, time served is the end of their debt and they are free to go.
I personally think we need to take a closer look at sentencing and how the courts deal with issues of rehabilitation etc.
Boozeburglar
03-May-07, 19:38
“A parish priest has been jailed for five-and-a-half years for sexually abusing six boys over a 30-year period.” BBC News
One of the crimes of which he was found guilty, alone, would attract at least the five-and-a-half years starting point.
"10 charges of indecent assault, one sexual assault of a child under 13 and one of sexual activities with a child under 16."
So we are to assume he gets the ten indecent assaults and sexual activities with a child under 16 thrown in gratis.
What a sweet system it is for the paedophiles.
I suppose the Judges know what they are doing; or at least the Sentencing Guidelines Council do.
By the way, I read the Guardian, the Observer, Caithness Courier/John O'Groat Journal, Scot Ads and Viz now and then. I also did two years at Law school, before family circumstances intervened.
By the way, I read the Guardian, the Observer, Caithness Courier/John O'Groat Journal, Scot Ads and Viz now and then. I also did two years at Law school, before family circumstances intervened
Then you will be fully aware that he might get sentenced on all charges, but it is up the the judge to decided concurrent or constecutive !
I was reading through some of the posts and it struck me that why should sexual offences not take place in families? I would have thought there would be more prevalence of this in the area not just unknown offenders. Also as we are the last stop on the train. I also agree with whoever posted about the moonies because I hae heard of the register being taken to the extreme like that before.
Have been reading this thread and cannot understand some peoples attitude. Having been born and brought up here, knowing a wide variety of people, locals and incomers been through alot in life and seen friends suffer too. A paeodophile is the lowest of the low the sentence is far too lenient, they know exactly what they are doing and will re-offend know doubt. You don't seem to be thinking from a childs point of view, what they had to suffer at the hands of these disgusting 'people', we all read the stories and think how dreadful what has happened but you can just forget about it and get on with your own life, not the victims and their families though, so yes we should be aware of where these 'people' are living, not to be vigilantes but to take care and look after our children. This is only my point of view but I am sadly speaking from experience. If there was a wild animal living in Dunnet forest that had harmed someone we would have been warned about it but if theres a sexual offender in your street that has abused someone you don't get warned?
so yes we should be aware of where these 'people' are living, not to be vigilantes
That in an ideal world would be fine but...................... human nature would take over and threats of violence and acts of would take place.
If you had a murderer/mugger/drugaddict/house breaker living in your street would you take the same action ? demand to know where they live ? drum the out of town ?
I am fully aware of the trauma that the victim and the victims family have to endure, but two wrongs dont make a right !
For this to work, we have to let the powers that be control this, further more you all keep saying that they will re-offend, are you sure of that ? remember there are a huge number on our streets, not just pedophiles but sex offenders who target adults and yes there are a few that do re- offend, but i think you will find there is less than the papers will have you believe.
j4bberw0ck
04-May-07, 13:54
You don't seem to be thinking from a childs point of view, what they had to suffer at the hands of these disgusting 'people', we all read the stories and think how dreadful what has happened but you can just forget about it and get on with your own life, not the victims and their families though, so yes we should be aware of where these 'people' are living, not to be vigilantes but to take care and look after our children.
The law is carefully structured not to be seen to work from the victim's viewpoint. It has to be an independent function to try as well as may be to maintain a common standard of justice. If it was as simple as looking at a crime from the victim's standpoint (something which judges will take into account when sentencing) then you might as well just give the parents of an abused child a baseball bat and invite them to get on with it.
It's also clear from things some have written in here that given the information, there'd be vigilantism.
If there was a wild animal living in Dunnet forest that had harmed someone we would have been warned about it but if theres a sexual offender in your street that has abused someone you don't get warned?No, and it's quite right that you don't. People in mobs wind each other up into a state where they're not rational. Mobs don't form because of wild animals. They do, though, and have, formed when the subject is a sex offender - there's always some idiot who things justice is better served by burning someone's house than by leaving matters to the courts.
connieb19
04-May-07, 14:00
It's also clear from things some have written in here that given the information, there'd be vigilantism.
Where? I havn't seen any posts to say that. :confused
Connie, read back, it is clear that the tone of the thread would back some form of vigilanty justice.
One thing that did catch my eye again after reading it was this
And if it is hear-say then so what... MY CHILDREN ARE MORE IMPORTANT
THAN SOME GUYS REPUTATION.
So, if someone started a rumour, and it was untrue, you would not care if you ruined the guys life, family life and possibly his work ? just over hearsay and gossip ? wow :(
And that would be a prime example of what would happen when mob rule took over, bit like the witch hunts, by the time they realised you were not a witch it was to late !!
We have advanced from the age where we carried burning torches through the streets to lynch some one !
in an ideal world we would be informed but it seems as if the people who commit these crimes are helped more than their victims.
Yes we have advanced from burnings but not so far as to prevent these type of offences happening so often. two wrongs don't make a right but people have been saying this for too long now. Something else needs to be done by these people in charge of the judicial departments all through the law. Its no wonder people have vigilante views I for one don't but the justice system needs a shake up.
in an ideal world we would be informed but it seems as if the people who commit these crimes are helped more than their victims.
I can't help feeling that if people knew of a sex offender living nearby that people would over protect their children and instill a fear in them. The important thing is that children know that no matter what, they can confide in you no matter what it is and no matter what threats are made by someone - regardless of what the situation is, be it playground bullying or abuse.
I in no way condone abuse - I know too many people that have been victim to it, but in most of the cases I know of, it has been a family member, not someone along the road. :~( But just because 'Joe Bloggs' at number 13 is on a sex offender register (for mooning or equivalent) does he pose more risk to your child than 'John Smith' at number 11 that has abused someone, but never been reported!?
Penelope Pitstop
04-May-07, 14:56
in an ideal world we would be informed but it seems as if the people who commit these crimes are helped more than their victims.
I can understand your line of thinking.
If anyone interferred with my kids it worries me to think what I would do to the perpetrator if I got the chance. :confused
I know that would not be the right thing to do and it wouldn't solve anything,(I wasn't brought up as a thug...honest!!) it would end in more trouble, but I think it would just be my gut instinct. It would in no way help the child and it is the child that should get the most help and justice so they can look forward and get on with their life (if they were "lucky" enough not to be killed). I suppose they can only get on with their life if they think justice has been done....and everyone has different views on what the correct justice is.
in an ideal world we would be informed but it seems as if the people who commit these crimes are helped more than their victims.
I doubt that they recieve more help than the victims, although it may be percieved that way, but if you were to release them from prison with no house, no money no clothes, what then ? you would have unlimited offenders roaming about in squats, with no tabs kept on them what so ever !
I can't help feeling that if people knew of a sex offender living nearby that people would over protect their children and instill a fear in them
exactly !! even i am wary of talking to young kids, often if i am out in the garage in in the garden and kids want to stop and have a chat about the bike or my dogs, i love it but................ in the back on my head is always " what are people thinking, see a kid crying on the street, you go over to so if he/she is ok, and straight away people look at you funny.
I in no way condone abuse - I know too many people that have been victim to it, but in most of the cases I know of, it has been a family member, not someone along the road
often the case, but it can come from a "friend" who introduces himself to the family in whatever way and starts the grooming process, not just on the child but on the parents also, making them feel secure and building up trust !!
[quote=Solus;219672]I doubt that they recieve more help than the victims, although it may be percieved that way, but if you were to release them from prison with no house, no money no clothes, what then ? you would have unlimited offenders roaming about in squats, with no tabs kept on them what so ever !
i think that sex offenders should have tabs kept on them. attacking a kid in this way is with them for the rest of their life. the offender is free in a couple of years ready to go on his way. while us the tax payer has kept him fed and housed in jail and now were expected to pay to house and clothe again. aye right.
obiron, i never said they should not be kept tabs on, i said that if we did not offer them some form of support then we cant keep tabs on them, not knowing where they live,where they work !
How else do you propose to keep tabs on them?
and i am fully aware of what kids or any victim goes through, and dont kid yourself that when they walk out the prison gates they are ready to go on their way !!
obiron, i never said they should not be kept tabs on, i said that if we did not offer them some form of support then we cant keep tabs on them, not knowing where they live,where they work !
How else do you propose to keep tabs on them?
and i am fully aware of what kids or any victim goes through, and dont kid yourself that when they walk out the prison gates they are ready to go on their way !!
Should they be allowed to walk out of the gates? Many of these people simply cannot be stopped from reoffending and locking them up for life is the only realistic way to stop them.
Should they be allowed to walk out of the gates? Many of these people simply cannot be stopped from reoffending and locking them up for life is the only realistic way to stop them.
We cant hold them after their sentence is over ! and how you come to the conclusion that these people cant be stopped from re-offending is beyond me, what figures/info do you have or have seen, only the minority do, as i have said before there are a lot that do lead a offence free life after release from prison. I know of and have seen first hand how many go on to lead a offence free life and cause no more victims.
Boozeburglar
04-May-07, 20:10
"Tobin attacked two 14-year-old girls in Havant, Hampshire, in 1993. He raped one of the children and sexually assaulted the other and was released in 2004.
At his trial at Winchester Crown Court, the judge described it as "an appalling incident, I think the worst I have ever come across." BBC News
I am entitled to my opinion, and it is that someone who commits a crime like that should NEVER be allowed the opportunity to re-offend, and I consider the blood of Angelika Kluk to be on the hands of anyone involved in setting the ridiculously lenient sentencing guidelines.
We cant hold them after their sentence is over ! and how you come to the conclusion that these people cant be stopped from re-offending is beyond me, what figures/info do you have or have seen, only the minority do, as i have said before there are a lot that do lead a offence free life after release from prison. I know of and have seen first hand how many go on to lead a offence free life and cause no more victims.
I will agree that many come out and don't reoffend, but the problem is that some do.
These people should not be allowed out if they are likely to reoffend - take Roy Whiting for example. He was known to be high risk and was still allowed into the community - that should not be allowed.
and how do you propose to keep some one commited to prison once there sentence has expired ?
Where? I havn't seen any posts to say that. :confusedWhere's j4bberw0ck? Punctuation! Punctuation! Punctuation!
Why has the Bard of Birsay not treated us to a treatise on the merits of the literati and the failings of the literali?
I say we dig out the old two bricks and cure the sex offenders for once and for all.
Boozeburglar
05-May-07, 01:15
in a loving way of course
Aye, of course. Sex offenders must be treated gently. Unlike those who steal intoxicating liquor. Thank you for volunteering for the experiment.
Moderators, please note use of dry, light hearted humour.
j4bberw0ck
05-May-07, 09:39
I am entitled to my opinion, and it is that someone who commits a crime like that should NEVER be allowed the opportunity to re-offend, and I consider the blood of Angelika Kluk to be on the hands of anyone involved in setting the ridiculously lenient sentencing guidelines.
What a rational and helpful viewpoint, especially from someone who claims to have spent two years in law school and so might have been assumed to have learned something important about the law. Let's just lock up everyone for ever!! Woo-hoo! One strike and you're out! Justice? Mercy? A second chance? Pah! That's for the weak! Boozeburglar for Lord Chief Justice! Just hope he never thinks you might possibly do something in the future....
I suppose you're up there with those who want an enquiry into why MI5 was careless, stupid and negligent enough NOT arrest a couple of Muslims who'd committed no crime at the time they were observed but who later went on to bomb the London Tube.
"I consider the blood of the dead and injured in the Tube to be on the hands of anyone involved in setting the ridiculously lenient arrest guidelines that say you actually have to have committed an offence before you can be arrested".
and how do you propose to keep some one commited to prison once there sentence has expired ?
Well, you have summed it up there have you not? Sex offenders should be sentenced to an unlimited term with a minimum time that they must serve, not a maximum time.
This way once they have served the mimimum they are not automatically released, they could be assessed and depending on the outcome they may or may not be released.
Boozeburglar
05-May-07, 14:10
What a rational and helpful viewpoint, especially from someone who claims to have spent two years in law school and so might have been assumed to have learned something important about the law. Let's just lock up everyone for ever!! Woo-hoo! One strike and you're out! Justice? Mercy? A second chance? Pah! That's for the weak! Boozeburglar for Lord Chief Justice! Just hope he never thinks you might possibly do something in the future....
I suppose you're up there with those who want an enquiry into why MI5 was careless, stupid and negligent enough NOT arrest a couple of Muslims who'd committed no crime at the time they were observed but who later went on to bomb the London Tube.
"I consider the blood of the dead and injured in the Tube to be on the hands of anyone involved in setting the ridiculously lenient arrest guidelines that say you actually have to have committed an offence before you can be arrested".
What a rational and helpful viewpoint
Thank you, I knew you would see that in the end. Your sarcasm and ad hominem argument is most rational and helpful too.
especially from someone who claims to have spent two years in law school and so might have been assumed to have learned something important about the law
You obviously assume that not to be the case. Fair enough. I have, however, had the chance to formally look at the issues surrounding the presumption of innocence, rehabilitation of offenders and prescriptive sentencing, amongst other things relevant to this discussion.
You might be surprised to know that within the Law these types of offenders are held in just disdain, and many professionals involved feel their hands are tied as to how to deal with them effectively.
Let's just lock up everyone for ever!!
How about we start by locking up those who pose a danger to society for AT LEAST the term they were set, and we scrutinise in depth the system that determines whether they are fit for release? Peter Tobin should have been behind bars when he raped and murdered that girl. The likelihood is he would have offended at any point of release, in view of that I think his sentence for the crime he committed in 1993 WAS lenient.
I also feel we should be committing more resources to the rehabilitation of offenders, those who can be rehabilitated, and funding creative alternatives to imprisonment. We have far too many people in prison.
Woo-hoo! One strike and you're out! Justice? Mercy? A second chance? Pah! That's for the weak!
I don’t really consider holding two fourteen year olds prisoner at knifepoint, drugging them, raping one and sexually assaulting another is ‘one strike’.
Justice?
I wonder how those girls parents felt about justice, and how they and the girls feel knowing he was released early to ‘strike’ again.
Mercy?
That is why he was not given a capital sentence, the Law is merciful, we are a very merciful people and that is something to be upheld at all costs.
A second chance?
He had not one, but several ‘chances’. The Law recognises that there are several stages to most crime; and at any of those stages the perpetrator may opt to cease what they are engaged in. This is accepted as mitigation, and weighs for the defendant in sentencing.
“The court heard how he lured the girls to his home, held them captive at knifepoint and forced them to take sedatives. He raped one of them while she was partially conscious and indecently assaulted the other.
Tobin fled to Coventry where he sought refuge among an evangelical Christian community using a false name to cover his tracks.” BBC News
So at what point did he take his chance to stop? He never even handed himself in. At no point it seems did his conscience weigh in.
This was a premeditated violent sexual assault on two children. At no point did he cease. I can identify at least ten points where he could have stopped, and no further crime would have been committed.
I firmly believe in a second chance, a third and a fourth. If we were talking about a non violent burglar here I would be hoping to see them getting a fifth chance, and real rehabilitative input.
I think Tobin had all his chances and more, and while I think time spent in prison is not going to change a man like this, the sentence should provide a more extensive period of protection from him. Effective measures to prevent him re offending should also be in place before he is released.
Boozeburglar for Lord Chief Justice! Just hope he never thinks you might possibly do something in the future....
If I had a platform to do it from, I would reduce the prison population by half or more within ten years, and move the whole focus onto rehabilitation, community involvement in sentencing, mentoring and offering valid lifestyle alternatives to crime for those who have fallen into it. The vast majority of prisoners are good people who have done bad things.
Guys like Peter Tobin are bad people doing atrocious, inhuman things.
I appreciate he may have had a terrible childhood and may well have had a poor go on the whole, but at the point where his crimes move from property to person all bets are off.
I suppose you're up there with those who want an enquiry into why MI5 was careless, stupid and negligent enough NOT arrest a couple of Muslims who'd committed no crime at the time they were observed but who later went on to bomb the London Tube.
Conspiring to undertake such an attack IS a crime, attracting a very long jail sentence. We now know they had certainly been conspiring at the time they were observed, and could therefore have been arrested had the intelligence been available.
I don’t think it is normal to make an inquiry with a foregone conclusion. We shall see just how much was known and why resources were diverted elsewhere. Perhaps the blame laying is less important than improving procedures for
prevention?
Incidentally, I don’t believe they were genuinely devout Muslims at the point they carried out that atrocity; they were indoctrinated by extremists in my opinion, and pretty much ‘insane’.
"I consider the blood of the dead and injured in the Tube to be on the hands of anyone involved in setting the ridiculously lenient arrest guidelines that say you actually have to have committed an offence before you can be arrested".
Had the 7/7 bombers committed crimes previously, and been released early, I would see the relevance of this reapplication of my opinion. It was not the case, but it was with Peter Tobin.
Again, it is not the case that you have to have carried out an offence to have committed one. That is why we have Crime Prevention. Their intention was offence enough.
They had certainly committed enough offences to be jailed for a long, long time.
It is perfectly right for the process that failed to administer justice and protect the public to be scrutinized to ensure a repetition is less likely.
The authorities did a fantastic job preventing the next attack.
Boozeburglar
05-May-07, 14:16
Well, you have summed it up there have you not? Sex offenders should be sentenced to an unlimited term with a minimum time that they must serve, not a maximum time.
This way once they have served the mimimum they are not automatically released, they could be assessed and depending on the outcome they may or may not be released.
Totally agree with you!
Well, you have summed it up there have you not? Sex offenders should be sentenced to an unlimited term with a minimum time that they must serve, not a maximum time.
This way once they have served the mimimum they are not automatically released, they could be assessed and depending on the outcome they may or may not be released.
Who decides that they are fit for release? I can't see people lining up for the job.
As was suggested by someone earlier, some offenders befriend their victims and/or families - they are able to fool them into thinking they are genuine. Could the same not be possible with the psychiatrist/assessor? Imagine the burden you are putting on that innocent individual - that after rigorous assessment, they deem the offender fit for release, only for them to go out and re-offend. Its an awful lot of guilt to be laying on them. I think it would be an impossible job.
Boozeburglar
05-May-07, 14:37
The Parole Board carries out the functions mentioned.
I still think it would be an impossible job. Unless lie detector tests are accurate, then surely its just a case of hooking them up and asking 'if we release you now, do you think you will re-offend?'
there are loads of things that i agree with on this, but i think the whole point of this thread was to see if people should be informed about who they are living beside, i for one think we should, i grew up in springpark area and recently a man who me and a friend use to visit was taken to court for doing rather horrible things with little children, he got off with it as the child was to scared to go into court, this is awful, i shudder when i think back now on how that man used to be with me and my friend, i have a 3year old girl and the thought terrifies me! :mad:
I still think it would be an impossible job. Unless lie detector tests are accurate, then surely its just a case of hooking them up and asking 'if we release you now, do you think you will re-offend?'
To some extent I agree, but there are some who have no desire to change their behaviour towards children - and they make it pretty obvious that that is the case.
The example I used early of Roy Whiting - he was known to be at a very high risk of reoffending. If a psychiatric report is produced on these people and the outcome is that they are at a high risk then they should not be released.
If I had a platform to do it from, I would reduce the prison population by half or more within ten years, and move the whole focus onto rehabilitation, community involvement in sentencing, mentoring and offering valid lifestyle alternatives to crime for those who have fallen into it. The vast majority of prisoners are good people who have done bad things.
This has been tried, its not working, not funded enough and not enough want to break their cycle of offending ie - drug addicts, house breakers, muggers.
And how can some one be a good person if they are inside for what ever reason, before you get a prison sentence these days, you need to have commited a serious crime, murder, rape, assault or have commited the same crime or crimes time and time again !!! a prisoner cant be a good person, if they were a good person they would still be walking the streets.
You folk should really read up more on the prison system the parole system and the sentencing of life prisoners.
j4bberw0ck
05-May-07, 17:40
Unfortunately, I have to shaved, showered, changed and out of the house in 30 minutes so intake of food and wine permitting :lol: , I'll work on a response later. Some of it (one point in particular, anyway) in agreement with you.
j4bberw0ck
06-May-07, 11:05
You obviously assume that not to be the case.Not at all. Little evidence of it here, though. Although you go on to develop an argument in this post about the rights and wrongs of the sentencing process, you didn't in the post to which I was responding. You appeared to have completely done away with the notion that once a sentence is spent, then it's spent.
You might be surprised to know that within the Law these types of offenders are held in just disdain, and many professionals involved feel their hands are tied as to how to deal with them effectively.Maybe, but can I point out, my learned friend, that the law doesn't allow for the holding of people in disdain. Are you suggesting they get a less-than-perfect defence?
How about we start by locking up those who pose a danger to society for AT LEAST the term they were set, and we scrutinise in depth the system that determines whether they are fit for release? Peter Tobin should have been behind bars when he raped and murdered that girl. The likelihood is he would have offended at any point of release, in view of that I think his sentence for the crime he committed in 1993 WAS lenient.Do you mean all criminals sentenced to jail, or just sex offenders? If you're going to treat sex offenders differently you need a good reason for it. I'm not here to defend them, but I'd fight to avoid being in the situation where in 2007, a Boozeburglar can read a few newspaper reports about a matter which wasn't referred to in trial and decide unilaterally that (a) in his opinion, Tobin would have reoffended at any time (your qualifications for this are.......?) and (b) that Tobin's sentence was lenient.
Tobin's sentence was set by a judge as the necessary tariff in 1993. When people inflamed by reading newspaper articles - BB - start spouting about leniency and people "getting what they deserve" (not your phrase, I know), that's when paediatrician's houses get attacked. It's also possible to be right much more often when looking at situations with the clarity of hindsight - as you clearly acknowledge.
Whether parole has become a means of turfing people out of prison sooner to free off a space is a matter for discussion - I suspect it has. But that delivers the fault squarely at the Government's door and not at the original sentencing and certainly not at the principle of the law which allows people, having spent their sentence, to have a second chance.
I also feel we should be committing more resources to the rehabilitation of offenders, those who can be rehabilitated, and funding creative alternatives to imprisonment. We have far too many people in prison.Yes, we do, including I suspect thousands who in a less politically-correct and more fair-minded age would simply have been birched and let go. Instead we lock 'em up in a first class University of Crime to do an Honours degree in how to get away with it for longer next time.
Then we turf 'em back out on the street and the (say) 80% who want to get a job and lead a normal life find it difficult in this age of convictions disclosure to get the job and eventually think "oh what the hell"..... madness.
And creative alternatives? No problem here with using prisoners for clearing litter along the sides of motorways, painting bridges, weeding old folks' gardens.
I don’t really consider holding two fourteen year olds prisoner at knifepoint, drugging them, raping one and sexually assaulting another is ‘one strike’.It rests, though, as one conviction.
Justice?
I wonder how those girls parents felt about justice, and how they and the girls feel knowing he was released early to ‘strike’ again.
Oh dear, Boozy. Several problems here. As you would hopefully know better than I, the law isn't about the victim's - or even the victims' parents - feelings of justice. It isn't about revenge. It doesn't work on the victim's behalf. It works on Society's behalf to provide a consistent, impartial framework within which criminals can be fairly tried. The people who bellow about victims and feelings of justice are generally the tabloid press, trying to rake up sales. Have you been scouring the Daily Record again?
Mercy?
That is why he was not given a capital sentence, the Law is merciful, we are a very merciful people and that is something to be upheld at all costs.
No, son, he wasn't given a capital sentence because it was done away in the mid-Sixties. And they stopped giving death penalties for aggravated assaults a long, long time before that. I like the "merciful" sentiment, though, even though I note that it clashed with your other point above about taking the feelings of the victims into account.
A second chance?
“The court heard how he lured the girls to his home, ........
So at what point did he take his chance to stop? He never even handed himself in. At no point it seems did his conscience weigh in.
Are you serious? It's a sign of his evil nature that he didn't give himself up? You should think on that a while.
This was a premeditated violent sexual assault on two children. At no point did he cease. I can identify at least ten points where he could have stopped, and no further crime would have been committed.I dare say you can, with your education an' all, and the advantage of having time to research and read and get all worked up about it. I don't suppose Tobin was able to look dispassionately at what he was doing and make the decision as to at what stage he could claim he'd done nuffin', copper. That's not a defence of Tobin - just trying to point out how silly things get when well-meaning people who can't think about wider principles and what they'd mean if uniformly applied try to get involved in sentencing and judging. The law which protects you and me isn't perfect but it's got 1100 years of experience. Don't you think people might have learned a thing or two in all that time?
Effective measures to prevent him re offending should also be in place before he is released.I always love these little throwaways at the end of an argument. "Effective measures"? And who says what they are? And who applies them? And monitors them? What are we talking about here.... a shot in the back of the head? A flogging a day keeps the coppers away? Josef Stalin would recognise little throwaways like that one, Boozy.
If I had a platform to do it from, I would reduce the prison population by half or more within ten years, and move the whole focus onto rehabilitation, Ah yes! Fine words! (And I agree it would be a worthwhile endeavour) But someone needs to pay for it.
Conspiring to undertake such an attack IS a crime, attracting a very long jail sentence. Were you out of college the day they covered "burden of proof"?
Incidentally, I don’t believe they were genuinely devout Muslims at the point they carried out that atrocity; they were indoctrinated by extremists in my opinion, and pretty much ‘insane’.So? Not that your opinion of their sanity counts for anything..... though I notice it's the second time in your post you've presumed to judge the mental states of others. So let's assume a moment they were "insane" - and let's assume a moment that Tobin was "insane" because he'd been abused as a child. Are you saying you'd lock up the insane for life, "just in case", or are you saying you'd treat them leniently?
Had the 7/7 bombers committed crimes previously, and been released early, I would see the relevance of this reapplication of my opinion. It was not the case, but it was with Peter Tobin.
You didn't read it. I used it to parody your statement by referring to arrest guidelines.:roll:
Their intention was offence enough. Whaaaat? Dear god, it'll be speeding tickets through the post next, just for having the intention of driving down the A9 next week and of maybe exceeding the speed limit..... Stalin, where are you now????
all i can say on this subject.. is this.. if anyone ever hurt my babies.. they had better pray to GOD that the police get them before i do.. because i would quite happily spend the rest of my days in prison.. if it meant that i could slowly torture the SOB that did those things to my boys.
i dont care if they have "mental problems" they would have a life problem if i got them .. cause they wouldnt be living very long.
I wonder how many remember this case
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/4/newsid_2521000/2521067.stm
A shocking case of what happens when vigilanties and so called do gooders get it wrong, these children will never recover from that experience
Golach, those were not vigilantes nor do gooders , they were the social work dept that had a knee jerk reaction, but still a good point to show what can happen when people jump to conclusions. It also shows though how difficult it can be, do nothing and it may turn out there was a problem, do something and find there was nothing there !
Who decides that they are fit for release? I can't see people lining up for the job.
As was suggested by someone earlier, some offenders befriend their victims and/or families - they are able to fool them into thinking they are genuine. Could the same not be possible with the psychiatrist/assessor? Imagine the burden you are putting on that innocent individual - that after rigorous assessment, they deem the offender fit for release, only for them to go out and re-offend. Its an awful lot of guilt to be laying on them. I think it would be an impossible job.
Ultimately it is up to the Parole Board, who look at every report, these reports come various professional people all trained in working with sex offenders. These range from the staff in the prison who work closely with them, social work within the prison,psychologist, education reports, social work external, doctors, the list is very long !
You also state that they could fool the Psychiatrists/ assessors, this is not the the case, it is never up to one person to form an opinion of the offender, all reports are looked at, so he may fool one, but there are very many test done from everyone and all collated.
all i can say on this subject.. is this.. if anyone ever hurt my babies.. they had better pray to GOD that the police get them before i do.. because i would quite happily spend the rest of my days in prison.. if it meant that i could slowly torture the SOB that did those things to my boys.
i dont care if they have "mental problems" they would have a life problem if i got them .. cause they wouldnt be living very long.
Not a very Christian attitude there Brandy!!
Is it OK for someone to torture a fellow human if the circumstances are right?
Are our OWN children worth more than someone else's murdered child?
I wonder how many people who are ostensibly against the Death Penalty would favour it for crimes against their own loved ones?
One thing is certain, executed murderers never commit any more offences. I wonder if there are any statistics for numbers of people murdered by re-offenders, to compare to the number of murderers who might have been executed by mistake had the Death Penalty been administered? It might shed some light on the success rate of our current method of dealing with these matters.
Then again murderers may be mostly good people who have just done a bad thing. Perhaps we should be looking at offering them an alternative lifestyle, pandering to their need to be rehabilitated at our expense while our elderly, law-abiding citizens go cold and hungry and cannot walk the streets in safety.
Poor criminals, it's all someone else's fault that they turned out the way they did. Blame the parents, blame society, blame anything, other than the fact than some people are simply bad bar stewards.
actually its very christian *evil grin* an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..
religion does not come into .. if someone hurts my babies, i will do what i have to.
its as simple as that.
i have never said that im a better person than anyone else.. or tried to be holier than thou..
im a human being.. and you darned straight.. if someone hurts my kids im willing to rip them apart.. their is nothing on this planet more fierce than a mother defending their young.
i would lay down my life for my children in a heartbeat,
there is nothing i wouldnt do for them
danc1ngwitch
07-May-07, 19:06
i can understand brandy and her feelings, but then what happens to the other children in the family home? don't they need you?
I think that everyone should stand up an be responsible for their own actions.
I recall the above case, mention occult/ cult/ witch/ pagan etc and people think torture involving children.
Not all christians are do gooders, for in the past many a woman took their lives in the sea, out numbered and not wanting to be forced to be christian.... just some food for thought.
actually its very christian *evil grin* an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..
religion does not come into .. if someone hurts my babies, i will do what i have to.
its as simple as that.
i have never said that im a better person than anyone else.. or tried to be holier than thou..
im a human being.. and you darned straight.. if someone hurts my kids im willing to rip them apart.. their is nothing on this planet more fierce than a mother defending their young.
i would lay down my life for my children in a heartbeat,
there is nothing i wouldnt do for them
Ats my baby..Reading all the stuff previous and mind reeling a bit, I needed something to get my teeth into,me i'm with you.
Metalattakk
07-May-07, 22:41
Imagine, if you will, getting sent to a job where a 15 year old boy is threatening suicide. You turn up at the address and discover that it is a care home. Meeting with one of his carers she hands you a list of the boy's medications and it reads like a 'Who's who' of psychiatric drugs. You talk to the boy, and he seems calm, collected and very polite. He explains that he wants to jump out of a window and kill himself, and agrees that he would like to go to hospital. You take him into the paediatric department of a local hospital. As this does not feel like the normal "Teenager wants to kill themselves" you have a chat with the children's nurse and you ask them to let you know what happens to the patient. You leave, and continue with your shift. The next day you ask the children's nurse about the patient and she tells you - "The boy wanted to die because he wants to have sex with, and kill small children - and that he knows that it is wrong".
I hate paedophiles as much as any other member of society - but in front of me that day, I saw a victim.
The words of Tom Reynolds, from his 'blog "Random Acts Of Reality".
Just goes to show that some of these people are victims too. I wonder how many more are like this, who know that they are doing wrong and their feelings repulse them, and how many of them slip through the net unchallenged and shunned by people - doctors and counsellors - who can help them.
And I wonder how many of the "Hang 'Em High" brigade would deny this boy the help he so desperately needs.
actually its very christian *evil grin* an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..
religion does not come into .. if someone hurts my babies, i will do what i have to.
It is not at all Christian.
"Thou shalt not kill"
Or does that Commandment not apply when it suits you to ignore it?
I don't expect people to be "holier than thou" but I would expect someone who claims to follow a Religion or a God to adhere to the principles of their chosen "Faith"
Part of the reason I am against Religion is my experience of faux religious people, who witter on about the "Good Book" but who do not have a truly Religious bone in their body. If one were to truly believe in God, there would be no concern over what happens in this life and it would not be our place to extract revenge by taking another's life. It would be God's place to judge and deal with in the next life. What is unacceptable, God or no God, is to wish to torture someone beforehand.
The words of Tom Reynolds, from his 'blog "Random Acts Of Reality".
Just goes to show that some of these people are victims too. I wonder how many more are like this, who know that they are doing wrong and their feelings repulse them, and how many of them slip through the net unchallenged and shunned by people - doctors and counsellors - who can help them.
And I wonder how many of the "Hang 'Em High" brigade would deny this boy the help he so desperately needs.
It's just not that simple. Easy to say this poor guy is a victim but who do you blame?
What if this guy turned 18 and killed a child, goes to jail, is deemed fit to go back into society and kills another child? Do you still label HIM a victim? How do you square it with the families of those who died?
I make the observation that executed murderers commit no further killings. I am not advocating killing 15 year olds with serious problems, before they have actually killed someone.
actually its very christian *evil grin* an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth..
Actually that is not very Christian, you being one, I am quite surprised by your lack of knowledge of the Good Book. Are you unaware that Christ repealed that old Jewish law.;)
I cannot believe that someone would move to Caithness because they wanted to get away from sex offenders. They'd be better off trying the moon. What makes anyone think the proportion of sex offenders per head of population is any different here than any other part of the world? Humans in Caithness will have the same ratio of weaknesses and strengths as any other part of the human race, i imagine.
The quality of life is different, but the area is not immune from anything. And judging by some of the posts, it is not immune from the kneejerk vigilante action that happens elsewhere, either. Even if a known sex offender moves into an area, I dont think it greatly alters the risks to children in that area. For every registered sex offender in an area, I am sure there are significantly more who are neither registered nor convicted. They do not walk around with "sex offender" tattooed on their forehead.
It is important to keep a sense a perspective and ensure children do not grow up with a false sense of security.
*whew* ok yes rheg i do know that the law of moses was fufilled.. but it is in the bible.. and yes jesus did say to turn the other cheek..
but just you wait til your baby gets here and see how you feel then.
just think of some sick twisted person hurting your baby, doing things to it, and tell me you wouldnt want to rip them apart.
it is basic human nature to protect your children and to lash out when they are hurt.
yes i am deeply faithfull, but im not perfect have never claimed to be.
if you want to call me unfaithful because i would be willing to hurt someone that destroyed my children .. then you go right ahead.
it dosent bother me,
i love God,
I love my family
I like most people.
the only thing i hate is spiders.. they are just evil!
again i say i would do anything to protect my children.
and yes i belive that i will be with them again one day.
Just like i belive that i will be with Tom again one day.
but, i dont want them to leave me.. i want them with me now, for as long as i can keep them.
until you loose a child you have no concept of that pain.
it eats at you, tearing you apart inside.
and i sincerly hope you never experiance it.
*whew* ok yes rheg i do know that the law of moses was fufilled.. but it is in the bible.. and yes jesus did say to turn the other cheek..
but just you wait til your baby gets here and see how you feel then.
just think of some sick twisted person hurting your baby, doing things to it, and tell me you wouldnt want to rip them apart.
it is basic human nature to protect your children and to lash out when they are hurt.
yes i am deeply faithfull, but im not perfect have never claimed to be.
if you want to call me unfaithful because i would be willing to hurt someone that destroyed my children .. then you go right ahead.
it dosent bother me,
i love God,
I love my family
I like most people.
the only thing i hate is spiders.. they are just evil!
again i say i would do anything to protect my children.
and yes i belive that i will be with them again one day.
Just like i belive that i will be with Tom again one day.
but, i dont want them to leave me.. i want them with me now, for as long as i can keep them.
until you loose a child you have no concept of that pain.
it eats at you, tearing you apart inside.
and i sincerly hope you never experiance it.
Nothing will make me to turn my back on the Lord's teachings.
well then rheg you are a better person than I.
not even issac could bring himself to sacrifice his own son to GOD.
travelgirl
08-May-07, 07:57
I say we should be told afterall we want to protect our children dont we?
philupmaboug
08-May-07, 09:44
Do you really think you could kill or torture someone? in the cold light of day! looking into thier eyes! after the red mist had lifted! talk is cheap!! you should stick to reading the bible or better still read up on peadofiles, a great number of them see children as you see your wife , husband, lover or I imagine its how a gay person looks at another gay, not PC in some eyes. I am no advocate but real life requires real thinking and if you can be hung for a thought as was previously mentioned then step up Brandy the hangman awaits.
We need to change the law, we need to put up the money to enforce the law, we need to build jails as they were not the butlin prison camps they have now! chain gangs, basic food, no recreation no segregation (see how sex offenders get on then) we need to step back in prison time, rehabilitation is for those wearing sandles and flowers in thier hair. Make it tough and hang the murderers.... if you believe in the judicial systeme then let it perform to the max.
just my opinion....sorry.
your right.. i wouldnt be able to tourtue a flea..
but could i kill someone?
if my life or someone elses depended on it, then yes i could.
i agree they should beef up the system and make it to where prison is a punishment.not a reward.
the fact that i would want to tourture someone who hurt my children to make them suffer slowly is a natural responce.
someone hurts you you hurt them back,
acting on it, is another thing.
honestly i dont know what i would do in the situation.
loose my ever loving mind would be the first thing.
wanting the sob dead would be the second.
if im a bad person for wanting the person that hurt my family strung up .. then im a very bad person.
Do you really think you could kill or torture someone? in the cold light of day! looking into thier eyes! after the red mist had lifted! talk is cheap!! you should stick to reading the bible or better still read up on peadofiles, a great number of them see children as you see your wife , husband, lover or I imagine its how a gay person looks at another gay, not PC in some eyes. I am no advocate but real life requires real thinking and if you can be hung for a thought as was previously mentioned then step up Brandy the hangman awaits.
We need to change the law, we need to put up the money to enforce the law, we need to build jails as they were not the butlin prison camps they have now! chain gangs, basic food, no recreation no segregation (see how sex offenders get on then) we need to step back in prison time, rehabilitation is for those wearing sandles and flowers in thier hair. Make it tough and hang the murderers.... if you believe in the judicial systeme then let it perform to the max.
just my opinion....sorry.
Well put, I wonder too about all the threats of violence being posted here. Would you in the cold light of day take on the part of Judge, Jury and Executioner......somehow I dont think so.
But I agree our Prison system is too soft and no longer is a deterrent, IMO commit a crime, be found guilty....then you lose all privileges to be a member of society,
This is my type of Sheriff, if he can do it why not here?
http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Sheriff_Bio
j4bberw0ck
08-May-07, 10:39
Notable Date Notable Event
1908 People under 16 are no longer liable for hanging
1922 Infanticide (Mother killing her child) is no longer a capital offence
1931 Pregnant Women are no longer hanged
1933 People under 18 are not executed. sentenced to Her/His Majesty's Pleasure
1948 House of Commons suspends capital punishment. Overruled by House of Lord's
9 March 1950 Timothy John Evans (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/evans_christie.htm) hanged at Pentonville Prison
28 January 1953 Derek Bentley (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/derek_bentley.htm) hanged at Wandsworth Prison for the murder of P.C. Miles
13 July 1955 Last Women hanged in U.K (Ruth Ellis (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/ruth_ellis.htm) at Holloway Prison)
1956 The passing of Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill is overturned by Lord's
1957 Homicide Act 1957 restricts use of capital punishment
23 July 1957 First execution under the 1957 act: John Vickers (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/john_vickers.htm)
5 November 1959 Last execution for murder of police officer: Gunther Podola (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/podola.htm)
13 August 1964 Last executions: Peter Anthony Allen (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/last_ones.htm) & Gwynne Owen Evans (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/last_ones.htm)
1965 Capital punishment in murder cases is suspended for 5 years
1966 Timothy John Evans receives a posthumous pardon
1969 Capital punishment for murder is abolished
February 1998 Mahmood Mattan (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/mattan.htm) receives a posthumous pardon
July 1998 Derek Bentley (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/derek_bentley.htm) receives a posthumous pardon
March 1999 James Hanratty (http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/james_hanratty.htm) case referred back to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
It's all very well saying "bring back the Death Penalty" but just look at the last few entries in that list; posthumous pardons and referrals back to Appeal. And who's to say that if the technology existed at the time, there wouldn't be a few more up there too?
Better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent is incarcerated? Or hanged? Hmmmmm.....
And anyone who remembers the way certain groups and people have been "fitted up" for crimes of all descriptions by well-meaning Police who "knew they were guilty" so just took the odd shortcut here and there........ would you tolerate your husband / wife / lover / child being hanged after being found guilty, if you believed them innocent?
Answer yes to vote in favour of capital punishment, no to acknowledge that it's too dangerous for the innocent to reinstate it.
dunderheed
08-May-07, 10:42
aha thats the guy whos jail is featured on a bravo chanel show , they have taken ten yobs from britain and placed them in the tented prison , one of them only lasted 1 night.
its on at 10pm on a thursdy night on bravo channel 121
The solution is as follows:
1. Rehabilitation to be an integral part of sentencing
2. Proper assessment of sex offenders to calculate realistically the risk they pose and either confine or control them to minimise that risk
3.Tighten up the vetting procedures so that they are absolutely watertight and people cannot easily get jobs without their past being known
4. Help and support for those offenders who are themselves "victims" of sexual or other abuse to minimise the risk of re offending
5. Selective information to be available in certain circumstances to people who are closely involved with registered sex offenders
6. No wide public notification to ensure that wrongly accused people are safe from vigilante action.
In short the solution is not to offer a free for all for anyone who wants to take a pop - a coconut shy of sex offenders if you like. It is to make the systems that we have and should have work better and do the job they are designed to do properly, efficiently and without room for people to wriggle away from the consequenses of their actions. there may be very few people here who would beat up and old man at a bus stop cos they thought he was a peadophile but there are people in society who would do that and we need to remember that because they get it wrong when they get half the information
Boozeburglar
If you dont have enough evidence to convict then you ahve to decide that person is innocent - i am sure the many many wrongly arrested people would be highly offended that most people thought they had "got away with it". People do still remain innocent until found guilty - therefire the premise has to be not guilty? Then you are innocent.
j4bberw0ck
08-May-07, 11:57
One of my criticisms of Boozeburglar's long post was the notion that he'd overlooked that once a sentence is completed, it's regarded as spent.
I may owe him an apology; I just read the Times Online and an article about the horrendous mess that is the Home Office or Justice Ministry (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1760015.ece), or whatever it's masquerading as, these days:
For the past two years the courts have been empowered to hand down what are known as “indeterminate” sentences to those who have been assessed as particularly dangerous and sentenced for crimes drawn from a list of 153 offences. Such prisoners are obliged to serve a minimum tariff but will then remain behind bars until the Parole Board decides that they are no longer a threat to society. Ministers seem to have expected that a comparatively small group of especially dubious characters would be affected by this change and would be awarded relatively lengthy minimum sentences.In fact, a much larger number have been placed in this category. Despite being designated as dangerous, however, half of those recently sentenced have received an initial term of 20 months or less. Prisons will soon find themselves choked with people waiting for the Parole Board to pronounce on whether they have been sufficiently reformed to be released.
So there is, in fact, a means of keeping people inside, introduced quote recently, until the Parole Board decides they're fit to release. Whether indeterminate sentences are available for sex offenders, I don't know. I also think it's another dangerous decision by the most dangerous government this country has ever had - it blurs the lines of justice and makes Civil Servants, not judges, responsible for sentencing, in effect.
I don't want to appear ungracious in admitting this, but whether Boozeburglar had this particular thing in mind, I don't know. If he did, my apology is here, though I stand by every word I wrote.
Boozeburglar
08-May-07, 15:33
Hi Squidge!
I have at no point said that someone who is ‘Not Guilty’ is actually guilty, having ‘got away with it’. I presume you are referring to someone else’s post.
In my post on the matter, I stated that a Not Guilty verdict is just that, not a guarantee of innocence.
The fact that most of us take Not Guilty to reflect innocence is a good thing, and it is obviously a fair interpretation of that verdict in the majority of cases.
As the burden is on the Prosecution not the Defence in our system, there will never be such a verdict as ‘Proven Innocent’.
“If you don’t have enough evidence to convict”, whether you are judge or jury, you have to decide that the Prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and return a verdict of Not Guilty, regardless of your personal feeling about the defendant’s actual guilt or not. That is the way the system should work. It is also a good reason why we should all be up in arms about the reduction in the option of a trial by jury. You do not have to think the defendant is ‘innocent’ as such.
I am quite happy with this state of affairs, as I believe mud sticks. The necessity to have good evidence and a provable case prevents lots more people being dragged through the courts on here-say and rumour or flimsy evidence.
:)
Boozeburglar
08-May-07, 16:21
One of my criticisms of Boozeburglar's long post was the notion that he'd overlooked that once a sentence is completed, it's regarded as spent.
It would be helpful to point out what exactly I posted that led you to this conclusion.
I assume you must be misunderstanding or misinterpreting my posts.
I also wonder why you think it is relevant in this case, as Tobin was still under the term of his original sentence of fourteen years ‘imprisonment’, having been released after nine only to go back for a year for failing to adhere to his release conditions, (something he did again, leading up to his latest crimes). His sentence was not ‘spent’ in any way shape or form, nor had he ‘paid his debt to society’, even in this sense. He was under a supervision order, had not kept to it, and was currently at flight facing return to prison at the time of his latest crimes.
though I stand by every word I wrote
Do you stand by your continued references to me as a tabloid reader, made after my posting a list of the papers I sometimes read?
can i just say that no sex offender should be within easy reach of a school or swingpark, i live in springpark and last year the man who had been indecently assaulting my daughter for at least 2 years was up in court and because he pleaded guilty to 1 offence they let him of with community service and on the sex offenders list(dont know how long for) and he still lives round the corner with a swingpark just yards anyway from his house and a school , but my daughter has to live with this forever what sort of message does this spell out its about time the courts got tougher on these people.:mad: [disgust]
j4bberw0ck
08-May-07, 16:45
How about we start by locking up those who pose a danger to society for AT LEAST the term they were set, and we scrutinise in depth the system that determines whether they are fit for release?
This was the point I took issue with; that judges set the tariff and you then appeared to suggest that someone else in the chain could vary that sentence.
That struck me as highly dangerous because it's the sort of thing one might imagine going on in Stalin's USSR - justice has apparently been served but the State controls when you actually get out. All sorts of issues there.
And then I found - quite by accident - that for two years, the Government has been able to play that game; I happen to think that's a disgrace and another example of the way this government has become the greatest threat to liberty we've ever known.
So, ever the gentleman (well, I try :lol: ) I decided that perhaps that was what you were referring to. It didn't seem likely, but......... Hence the apology. No thanks necessary, by the way.
Since it's now clear from your confusion that the recent introduction of "indeterminate" sentences isn't what you were referring to, I stand by everything I said.
can i just say that no sex offender should be within easy reach of a school or swingpark, i live in springpark and last year the man who had been indecently assaulting my daughter for at least 2 years was up in court and because he pleaded guilty to 1 offence they let him of with community service and on the sex offenders list(dont know how long for) and he still lives round the corner with a swingpark just yards anyway from his house and a school , but my daughter has to live with this forever what sort of message does this spell out its about time the courts got tougher on these people.:mad:
hey i know who you are talking about, its awful, i grew up in springpark, i cant believe he is allowed to still live there, how anyone can say that they wont reoffend, or deserve a second chance! what a joke! these people obviously dont have children! why would anyone want their kids around a perv! [evil]
Boozeburglar
08-May-07, 18:45
One of my criticisms of Boozeburglar's long post was the notion that he'd overlooked that once a sentence is completed, it's regarded as spent.
You quoted this to support that assertion…
How about we start by locking up those who pose a danger to society for AT LEAST the term they were set, and we scrutinise in depth the system that determines whether they are fit for release? Peter Tobin should have been behind bars when he raped and murdered that girl. The likelihood is he would have offended at any point of release, in view of that I think his sentence for the crime he committed in 1993 WAS lenient.
How did you manage to come to that conclusion? I did not refer to what happens after a sentence is spent? I suggested we lock up people who are still deemed a threat to society for the custodial term they were actually set, which is an available measure within the terms of their original sentence, and make darn sure they are no longer a danger before we let them go on their way.
This was the point I took issue with; that judges set the tariff and you then appeared to suggest that someone else in the chain could vary that sentence.
It has always been the job of the Parole Board to decide if a prisoner is released before the full possible term in prison under their sentence, and in Scotland’s case ministers decide who gets out and when amongst the serious offenders. Nothing to do with Judges, as the original sentence allows for this.
I did not appear to suggest that “someone else in the chain could vary that sentence”, clearly your confusion.
Since it's now clear from your confusion that the recent introduction of "indeterminate" sentences isn't what you were referring to, I stand by everything I said.
Again, do you stand by your assertion I glean most of my insight from the pages of the Daily Record? What has the introduction of indeterminate sentencing got to do with this case? I was proposing a system I feel would be effective, regardless of what is current.
This is a message board, it is just banter.
A guy who went to court for attempted murder, rape, sodomy, indecent assault and unlawful imprisonment of two children; who plea bargained guilty to rape, sodomy and indecent assault, and who was released after nine years of a fourteen year sentence went on to brutally rape and murder again during time he should have been in prison.
Happens over and over again.
I happen to think there is a problem with that.
You are more concerned that sex offenders should get a fair shake, I am not too bothered.
We disagree. I won’t be up in the night worrying about that.
[disgust] the man in question just makes me sick and i only know partly what he did to my daughter, he has ruined her life and made a huge impact on mine as i have to live with what he did everyday and to think he has done his community service so in his eyes he has served his time, my god they put people to prison for non payment of fines and council tax and yet these sick creatures get of nearly scot free where is the justice in that and because his rent is paid on time the council wont move him, believe me we have tried, it makes me so angry, people who say they all deserve a 2nd chance really are on another planet put them all to stroma so they can act out all their sick ideas on each other put we better remove the poor sheep first[evil]
j4bberw0ck
08-May-07, 23:28
You are more concerned that sex offenders should get a fair shake, I am not too bothered. We disagree. I won’t be up in the night worrying about that.
That's OK. All I'm trying to say is that if you decide summarily that a category of offenders is outside the normal operation of the justice system, then there's a problem.
Either judges set the tariff, or non-judges set it. In this context - i.e.sex offenders - non-judges appear to equal mobs or those who would lead them.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you knew about "indeterminate" sentences though I didn't, and I offered an apology for that assumption once I realised that I might have misunderstood. You've decided, it seems, that I'm trying to score some sort of quick points victory. I'm sorry you feel that way, and I'm somewhat confused by your stance.
You've got particularly heated by my suggesting you read tabloid newspapers. I do, in addition to the broadsheets. They're not nice and they're not clever, but they reflect a good deal of what you have to say and represent the source of information relied upon by perhaps the majority of our fellow citizens. To be honest, I couldn't give a rat's posterior whether you read them or not, though on balance I think I'd rather you did.
It is ESSENTIAL for the operation of law in this country that the law is applied uniformly. No "disdain". No special rules for some classes of prisoner. No suggestion that someone in political power can interfere with the judges. That is my only point.
Can we agree to differ, if that's what it takes?
No special rules for some classes of prisoner.
I happen to think that sex crimes should be dealt with differently. Of all the Human instincts, the sex drive is probably the strongest and most difficult to suppress for most people. If you picture the most happily married man in the world watching a movie, a scantily clad Julia Roberts appears on-screen, what odds would you give me on said gentleman inwardly crying "Get down Shep" and reaching for the Guardian to spread on his lap?
Luckily, most people can live out their fantasies in their mind and are aware of the Social Taboos. However, those who are driven to ignore the Taboos and who have to live out their darkest desires in the real world, have clearly got a problem that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate.
I do believe that some murderers can be rehabilitated and will not re-offend, however, in the case of murderers motivated by the most unspeakable sexual desires, I am strongly inclined to think that they may be beyond rehabilitation.
j4bberw0ck
10-May-07, 00:47
Look, Scorrie, you're not wrong. BUT if certain types of criminal start to be treated differently by government / politicians / the State, then what protection is there when a government / politician / the State decides that not voting for them is a crime?
You might think that's ludicrous, but you can only think it's ludicrous because you sit behind, and take for granted, 1100 years of independence of the judiciary.
You CANNOT make ad hoc judgements about certain types of crime because when you do, you throw away the citizen's right to protection. Like in China, for instance.
If you doubt what I say, read "1984" by George Orwell. That should focus anyone's mind.
Look, Scorrie, you're not wrong. BUT if certain types of criminal start to be treated differently by government / politicians / the State, then what protection is there when a government / politician / the State decides that not voting for them is a crime?
You might think that's ludicrous, but you can only think it's ludicrous because you sit behind, and take for granted, 1100 years of independence of the judiciary.
You CANNOT make ad hoc judgements about certain types of crime because when you do, you throw away the citizen's right to protection. Like in China, for instance.
If you doubt what I say, read "1984" by George Orwell. That should focus anyone's mind.
A wee bit cheeky telling anyone to read a Secondary School Staple!!
I read "1984" more than 30 years ago and have seen two film versions as well. The book is Fiction if I remember correctly ;o)
I found "1984" to be a thought provoking but not particularly enjoyable read. Of course 1984 has come and gone by quite some time now and, despite the CCTV cameras, we are watching Big Brother rather than Big Brother watching us.
You talk about throwing away the citizen's right to protection. It is my belief that we should apply this statement to our law abiding citizens first and foremost, before worrying about whether those who commit heinous crimes are getting a fair crack of the whip (or not getting it enough in another manner of speaking!!)
The human race has changed dramatically in the last 1100 years you refer to. It is pretty safe to say that many things have changed in that time and we know an awful lot more about ourselves now than we did then. I believe that we need to constantly monitor our system of justice and make the changes necessary to offer the best protection for those of us who manage obey the laws that society expects us to.
By the way, I much preferred Keep the Aspidistra Flying, Down and Out in Paris and London and The Road to Wigan Pier of the other Mr Blair's other works.
j4bberw0ck
11-May-07, 00:06
:lol: Yeah, OK. Cheeky it may be, but 1984 is still the most chilling summary ever written of what happens when you start to try to get inside the mind of those who offend.
The problem I have with your argument is that, paraphrased, it says "if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to be afraid of". That is the biggest single sell-out it's possible to make because you hand to others with opinions the responsibility for deciding right and wrong.
There have to be absolutes in justice. Right and wrong must be defined and set in concrete, not left to the whim of a politician.
And my compliments on being aware of the other "Mr Blair". The serious one.
oldmarine
11-May-07, 00:26
is it just me or should we be informed when there are known sex offenders in our area, im in thurso and there is alot, the majority of them live by swing parks and schools, its disgraceful!
I certainly would want to be informed if they moved close to my grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. Unless they can learn to control their urge, I don't believe they should be located in reach of children.
I happen to think that sex crimes should be dealt with differently. Of all the Human instincts, the sex drive is probably the strongest and most difficult to suppress for most people. If you picture the most happily married man in the world watching a movie, a scantily clad Julia Roberts appears on-screen, what odds would you give me on said gentleman inwardly crying "Get down Shep" and reaching for the Guardian to spread on his lap?
Luckily, most people can live out their fantasies in their mind and are aware of the Social Taboos. However, those who are driven to ignore the Taboos and who have to live out their darkest desires in the real world, have clearly got a problem that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate.
To supress the sexual desire is not the way to tackle rehabilitation. I have copied and pasted a few extracts of what is done and how its done. Some may disagree with it, others may say its the way to deal with it.
"On admission, inmates undergo a series of psychometric tests. Their use of alcohol and drugs and their propensity to violence are examined along with the specific nature of the offence for which they have been convicted. The process forms the basis for their participation in the programme that will tackle head-on their committing of sexual crimes, in group sessions. Ten trained and supervised prison officers, led by a manager, carry out the Stop 2000 programme, supported by psychologists and social workers"
"Sex offenders know their own kind very well, and attempts by anyone to conceal or minimise their actions are challenged by other members of the group. Sessions can sometimes end in breakdown and recriminations. Sex offenders represent a challenging group to each other, but also to the professionals - they are generally more articulate and have a higher IQ than their criminal counterparts in mainstream prisons. They have spent years learning how to hide their crimes and are skilled in manipulation. "
"The architect of this kind of programme is Professor Bill Marshall. The diminutive, snowy-haired Canadian has been working with sex offenders for 35 years and acted as a consultant for both the Scottish and English prison services in the 1990s. He has watched them develop as the understanding of the ways sex offenders operate become more sophisticated. Stop 2000 is an adaptation of his own cognitive-behaviour programmes and a glowing endorsement of the work in Peterhead is that Marshall has since adopted some of Peterhead’s adaptations into his own Canadian practice. "We started off with very simple ideas about what was wrong with these men in that we believed they had either been born with or developed an abnormal attraction to women or children and that we should simply remove that abnormality," he says. "Over time, we have recognised that not only can we address these thoughts and help control them, but we can also make the men see that there are other ways of pursuing life."
Most therapists do not envisage a ‘cure’, as such, but there is a consensus that some sexual deviants can learn to control their urges in the same way that an alcoholic stays sober. It might appear a remarkably simple approach to a terrible problem, but it appears to work. Marshall says that the evidence collected over 30 years shows that sex offenders who have access to treatment programmes have a marked reduction in recidivism rates. The Association of the Treatment of Sexual Abusers identified 42 studies around the world, that encompassed 9,000 sex offenders, half of whom had undergone treatment. While 18 per cent who had not undergone treatment re-offended, the figure for those who had received therapy was nine per cent.
Society tends to baulk at the idea of a psychological approach to the treatment of sex offenders. Some tend to prefer a more direct method, but as one therapist explained, "Castration simply removes the implements of abuse, not the thoughts that control them." And ‘throwing away the key’ is impractical: one in 1,000 Scottish men is already on the sex offenders register, some 6,000 crimes of indecency are reported to the police every year; and there are already 400 sex offenders in the prison system. Marshall is convinced that his is the better way. "I’m guided by evidence and empirical research," he says. "If someone could prove to me that standing in a corner and yodelling at sex offenders would work, then I would do it."
Peterhead continues its progressive work, despite the limitations of the institution; a bleak Victorian structure chilled by the North Sea air. Not all its inmates are willing to take part in the programme; around 100 maintain their innocence or refuse to accept the full extent of their crimes. But the remainder do want to undergo the course. Since 1993, just over 300 sex offenders have completed Stop programmes at Peterhead. During that period, 200 have been returned to the community having completed their sentences, nine have been reconvicted for a sexual offence and returned to Peterhead, and 16 have been recalled to custody for a breach of their licence - that is, they could be displaying behaviour that puts them at risk of committing another sexual offence. There is no doubt that there are some offenders who walk out of the prison gates who staff recognise as being a serious threat to women and children. "For society’s sake, permanent confinement of some sex offenders is perhaps an option," says programme manager, Stuart Campbell.
"But the public needs to recognise that we do live in a society where we do not simply throw away the key. We work with these men because we think we can make a difference. Doing nothing with these men just isn’t an option. We give them the tools to address their behaviour, but it is their choice to decide whether to use them or not."
taken from the scotsman newspaper, reporter Mandy Rhodes
To supress the sexual desire is not the way to tackle rehabilitation.
There is no doubt that there are some offenders who walk out of the prison gates who staff recognise as being a serious threat to women and children. "For society’s sake, permanent confinement of some sex offenders is perhaps an option," says programme manager, Stuart Campbell.
I never said suppression was the way to tackle rehabilitation, I was just pointing out how potent the sexual urge can be.
Obviously the scheme you mention can quote some numbers on those who go on to re-offend but I would question whether many would implicitly trust those who came through the programme and have not re-offended thus far?
I note that the Programme Manager admits that some offenders have deeper problems that we may need to be protected from.
Thanks for your input, I can see your point of view also.
It is not a "scheme " it is a fully operational programme, that has been used in many other countries and Peterhead prison was the bench mark set for others to follow.
I have never said that this is a be all and end all way to treat them, but for the time being it is all we have, it works well, and until the powers that be pass greater powers to detain this is the way forward.
But, for every one that leaves prison, and does not go on to offended again is a plus !
the only way way to combat force is to apply a greater force.
hang em
It is not a "scheme " it is a fully operational programme,
But, for every one that leaves prison, and does not go on to offended again is a plus !
Now then, getting a bit picky are we? I refer to the "scheme" later on as a programme and make reference to the Programme Manager. Perhaps when human beings can see beyond picking fault with every word used, then we might be able to move forward more harmoniously.
You say the scheme works well. How do you quantify that? If you ask the victims of the nine who re-offended, you might get a different opinion on the success rate. Who knows to what extent the successful "graduates" of the PROGRAMME are truly rehabilitated?
My two "schemes" have a 100% success rate. Offenders kept behind bars do not re-offend, offenders who are executed do not re-offend. You can argue the morals of that from here to eternity but you cannot challenge the efficacy of my "schemes".
i think every one that has 1near by should no about them so they can warn there kids, look at the news about that 3year old girl .every one open there eyes becouse it ant far away from us
Cant argue that point, but as it is, there is no other option open but to go down this route,until they want to alter the way sentences are dished out !
Who knows to what extent the successful "graduates" of the PROGRAMME are truly rehabilitated?
If they have not gone on to reoffend !
You say the scheme works well. How do you quantify that?
I did that job for a very long time !!
i think they should leave them to the mums of the world see how good they are then
Cant argue that point, but as it is, there is no other option open but to go down this route,until they want to alter the way sentences are dished out !
If they have not gone on to reoffend !
I did that job for a very long time !!
I suspect you are getting more desperate here.
Until an offender reaches the end of their life without re-offending, they cannot be deemed to be re-habilitated fully. It is akin to the Alcoholic who knows that they are only one drink away from being back to square one.
I am not sure which job you talk about but it is certain that you will be biased if you have worked in a similar sphere. I speak from a totally neutral standpoint.
My input has been totally based on logic. I never said that "this or that" was available. I merely gave my thinking upon that which would DEFINITELY work as a solution.
The rusty knife can be a Godsend. It's way more effective than wee scorrie's logic.
The rusty knife can be a Godsend. It's way more effective than wee scorrie's logic.
Your statement makes no sense. By the way, do you have any useful input on the topic?
ps I'm 6' 3" and 16 stone, so less of the "wee" ;o)
Do you practise these put-downs in front of a mirror or does it come naturally oh wee one?
I have today just been told that one of my beautiful daughters was sexually abused when she was 8/9.Shes now almost 18 . As a mother i want to go out and kill him but i know we have to go down the police route, she doesnt want to . What are we to do about it , i cant let it just go. Hubby has taken this very very bad and me well i just feel sick to think we didnt protect are little girl enough. The man in question HAS been in jail before for the same thing. If i knew where he was i can assure you that by the end of today i will be behind bars as the anger i feel is nothing ive ever felt before. Where do i go from here, Im so distraught and dont know what to do for the best . jan x
Someone help me, advise me before i do something i may or maynot regret. :~( :~(
The rusty knife can be a Godsend. It's way more effective than wee scorrie's logic.
Why do you all ways assume that all sex attackers are male?
I have today just been told that one of my beautiful daughters was sexually abused when she was 8/9.Shes now almost 18 . As a mother i want to go out and kill him but i know we have to go down the police route, she doesnt want to . What are we to do about it , i cant let it just go. Hubby has taken this very very bad and me well i just feel sick to think we didnt protect are little girl enough. The man in question HAS been in jail before for the same thing. If i knew where he was i can assure you that by the end of today i will be behind bars as the anger i feel is nothing ive ever felt before. Where do i go from here, Im so distraught and dont know what to do for the best . jan x
Someone help me, advise me before i do something i may or maynot regret. :~( :~(
paris, I will pm you about this.
Don't do anything rash, please!
Oh Paris I'm so sorry, the deep pain you will be going through, It's hard to write words but I wish to send a big hug I know this is nothing in comparison but I'm afraid I don't know any words to take away your pain even writing this to you makes tears come to my eyes for I have been there and for every child you hear of you feel the pain again, but I am still here and still have a beautiful family around me. x
cullbucket
19-May-07, 15:48
Here in Anchorage, anyone can access the sex offenders register to see if there are any in your area. This information has to be disclosed while buying or selling a house, too. I havent heard any vigalante type stuff going on, maybe because there is nothing to stop a sex offender having firearms to protect themselves.
http://www.dps.state.ak.us/sorweb/Sorweb.aspx
Shoot the lot of them scum of the earth. If they are found guilty Kill them slowly.
Shoot the lot of them scum of the earth. If they are found guilty Kill them slowly.
I agree with you. just becouse some did this to them at some stage in their lives would be reason enough not to do it to others
at last people are talking sense, i dont understand people saying we should give them a 2nd chance! why? risk them doing it again!:mad:
Shoot the lot of them scum of the earth. If they are found guilty Kill them slowly.
All of them? Every last one?
O.K. Here's a tale of woe for you.
A young sailor has been off serving his Queen and country on a nuclear submarine for the last eight months and he lands back at Portsmouth on a Saturday night with his pockets full of money and he sets off to have him a good time. He samples one or two of the better hostelries and one or two of the not quite so good and is just headed for somewhere downright seedy when a young lady with legs that went to her arm pits, two beautiful big blue eyes and a behind like two melons in a sack comes up and asks if he is looking for business. Well reluctantly he agrees, a deal is struck and they retire to the nearest dark alley to make further arrangements. They have just been making further arrangements for a few minutes when the sailor goes blind, a policeman's torch was being shon in his face and half a second later the young lady is screaming "RAPE". In court next morning he finds out that the young lady was only 15 years old.
Shoot the scum of the earth? Kill him slowly? Don't you think the years the young sailor will spend in prison punishment enough for his crime?
All of them? Every last one?
O.K. Here's a tale of woe for you.
A young sailor has been off serving his Queen and country on a nuclear submarine for the last eight months and he lands back at Portsmouth on a Saturday night with his pockets full of money and he sets off to have him a good time. He samples one or two of the better hostelries and one or two of the not quite so good and is just headed for somewhere downright seedy when a young lady with legs that went to her arm pits, two beautiful big blue eyes and a behind like two melons in a sack comes up and asks if he is looking for business. Well reluctantly he agrees, a deal is struck and they retire to the nearest dark alley to make further arrangements. They have just been making further arrangements for a few minutes when the sailor goes blind, a policeman's torch was being shon in his face and half a second later the young lady is screaming "RAPE". In court next morning he finds out that the young lady was only 15 years old.
Shoot the scum of the earth? Kill him slowly? Don't you think the years the young sailor will spend in prison punishment enough for his crime?
Was he charged with Rape or just underage sex?
There is a big difference. If he was simply charged with underage sex and it was accepted that the "lady" in question was "open for business", then it is clearly a very different crime from the premeditated Rape of a child.
I have today just been told that one of my beautiful daughters was sexually abused when she was 8/9.Shes now almost 18 . As a mother i want to go out and kill him but i know we have to go down the police route, she doesnt want to . What are we to do about it , i cant let it just go. Hubby has taken this very very bad and me well i just feel sick to think we didnt protect are little girl enough. The man in question HAS been in jail before for the same thing. If i knew where he was i can assure you that by the end of today i will be behind bars as the anger i feel is nothing ive ever felt before. Where do i go from here, Im so distraught and dont know what to do for the best . jan x
Someone help me, advise me before i do something i may or maynot regret. :~( :~(
You MUST abide by the law. If you end up in jail, it will surely ruin your Daughter's life. The natural reaction is to hurt the person who carried out the abuse but you have to try to see the benefit in staying within the law. I would also think about the damage you may do if you decide to pursue the matter against your Daughter's wishes. It may well lead to her having to relive some very bad events and the levels of stress and emotion that go along with such a process can be very damaging. Whatever you do, try to remain as calm as possible, think and TALK things through thoroughly. Sometimes, doing nothing can be the best option. Best wishes.
There is a big difference. If he was simply charged with underage sex and it was accepted that the "lady" in question was "open for business", then it is clearly a very different crime from the premeditated Rape of a child.
He would be charged with having sex with a minor and be placed on the register regardless.
Was he charged with Rape or just underage sex?
There is a big difference. If he was simply charged with underage sex and it was accepted that the "lady" in question was "open for business", then it is clearly a very different crime from the premeditated Rape of a child.
I would imagine he would be charged with both.
The young lady in question being from a middle class family and not wanting her parents to know what she got up to when she told them she was going to the library pleaded innocent throughout and turned up at the man's trial in her school uniform with her hair in pigtails. This was the reason she started screaming "RAPE" as soon as she saw the policeman.
Again a sex offender is a sex offender. People who hurt young children should be shot!!!! No if ands or buts. Men or Woman Im sorry if this offends anyone but thats the way I feel.
oldmarine
20-May-07, 04:25
I have today just been told that one of my beautiful daughters was sexually abused when she was 8/9.Shes now almost 18 . As a mother i want to go out and kill him but i know we have to go down the police route, she doesnt want to . What are we to do about it , i cant let it just go. Hubby has taken this very very bad and me well i just feel sick to think we didnt protect are little girl enough. The man in question HAS been in jail before for the same thing. If i knew where he was i can assure you that by the end of today i will be behind bars as the anger i feel is nothing ive ever felt before. Where do i go from here, Im so distraught and dont know what to do for the best . jan x
Someone help me, advise me before i do something i may or maynot regret. :~( :~(
Paris: I know you and your husband's feelings of wanting to go after this sex criminal who has done this dastardly deed to your 8/9 year old daughter (now almost 18). I have three daughters now ranging in age from 30 years to 45 years. If this happened to any one of them I would feel the same as your husband and you. I likewise would want to go after him and do him in; however, the law is very explicit on this. Doing what you feel like doing would be against the law and would move you (or your husband) away from your children and would not help your spouse or your children. You need to have consuling with both a consuler and a law enforcement person. Please don't take the law into your own hands.
sassylass
20-May-07, 06:34
oldmarine, that's excellent advice.
He would be charged with having sex with a minor and be placed on the register regardless.
I am posing the question as to whether a man who makes the mistake of having sex with a 15 year old posing as a prostitute, is as evil as a man who Rapes a four year old child?
I am posing the question as to whether a man who makes the mistake of having sex with a 15 year old posing as a prostitute, is as evil as a man who Rapes a four year old child?
IMO the later is a crime the former is not
there is a difference between sleeping with a minor and being a paedophile, nowadays young girls dress alot older for there age...... its still wrong tho
IMO the later is a crime the former is not
I agree with you, golach, that there is little comparison between someone sexually abusing a 4 year old child and someone having sex with a 15 year old posing as a prostitute.
But unless the age of consent is lowered, sex with anyone under 16, if you are older, is legally considered a crime, isn't it? (Or am I wrong?)
I don't think it likely that the age of consent will be lowered below the age of marriage, although linking the two now seems extremely old-fashioned, and we'd also have to be incredibly naive to believe that nobody was sexually active before their sixteenth birthday.
Different where the older person is in a position of "power" or responsibility", such as teaching, however, imo.
Rape, of course, is a different matter, no matter what age the victim is.[evil]
IMO the later is a crime the former is not
Golach. I'm sure your last post does not reflect your true thoughts. Prostitution is illegal and 15 year old vulnerable girls need protected too.
there is a difference between sleeping with a minor and being a paedophile, nowadays young girls dress alot older for there age...... its still wrong tho
OK then here's another hypothetical situation for you.
A twelve year old girl suspects her mother is having an affair with a married neighbour. Wanting to end the affair the girl lets it slip to her social worker that the man has been interfering with her. At the last minute when questioned in court the girl admits she made the story up but by this time the man's life is ruined, his wife and family have disowned him, he's lost his job, lost all his friends, he's spent time in prison on remand, people cross the road to avoid having to speak to him.
Should they lock the girl up and throw away the key for what she did to the man?
what on earth has this got to do with my comment?! i mean someone who would sleep with a prostitute should have to deal with any consequences thrown at them...they dont know the person they are playing to sleep with....they dont know if the male/female is of legal consent! as for the comment you left thats nothing to do with sex offenders... obviously the young adult who is claiming to abused should be punished but this thread was started by me asking if people thought we as parents should be informed of sex offenders in the area! no about people who lie about being abused!
but this thread was started by me asking if people thought we as parents should be informed of sex offenders in the area! no about people who lie about being abused!
I thought the person who started this thread was called Brew.
he is my partner and i used his account until i got my own
he is my partner and i used his account until i got my own
Ah Brew is your partner, no wonder you agreed with him.
Now I just have to work out who macca is.
i agreed with him as it was me that posted it under his details as i didnt have an account... you cant honestly say you wouldnt want to know of sex offenders in your area... i have just found out that my friendly neighbour hood isnt so friendly...and one of the not so friendly neighbours is someone known well by his occupation!
A big Thank you to all who Pmd me. I will now deleat the original post so daughter doesnt have to read it Thank you again jan x
Again a sex offender is a sex offender. People who hurt young children should be shot!!!! No if ands or buts. Men or Woman Im sorry if this offends anyone but thats the way I feel.
I AGREE WITH YOU, public hanging is much better. my kids are all grown up but when they were younger i certainly would have liked to know if a perve lived close by. i would still like to know even now as there are kids around me now, we should all have that right as it is up to the mums and dads & neighbours to look out for our the kids. the police seem only able to act after the crime has been commited .[lock the stable door after the horse has bolted] ?? these perves have a way of worming their way into communities where kids are vulnerable. and most of those scum are repeat offenders
[disgust] [evil]
changilass
23-May-07, 16:57
The majority of sex offences against kids are commited by family members, not by your friendly neighbourhood sex offender.
Vigilante action is not the way to go, which is what would happen if names were given out to everyone.
Don't get me wrong, if anyone was to touch my wee boy, I would be the one to end up in court over it.
The majority of sex offences against kids are commited by family members, not by your friendly neighbourhood sex offender.
Vigilante action is not the way to go, which is what would happen if names were given out to everyone.
Don't get me wrong, if anyone was to touch my wee boy, I would be the one to end up in court over it.
but if we know where they are we can keep an eye on them. personally i would put them in a fenced compound all together where they can fullfill their obscene fantasies on no other than themselves. hurtng no one but themselves, other than that just hang em. full stop no more reoffending.
if the punishment fitted the crime there would be less crimes[ of all sorts] commited.
j4bberw0ck
23-May-07, 19:18
if the punishment fitted the crime there would be less crimes[ of all sorts] commited.
I'm sure you'll be very happy when you've moved to some place with Sharia law. Shoplifters get their hands cut off, adulterers get stoned to death, women who've been raped get put to death while the rapist is pardoned.
Oh yes. Let punishment fit the crime and horse on into our Brave New World of no crime and plenty punishment. How's your beard-growing, Johno?
I'm sure you'll be very happy when you've moved to some place with Sharia law. Shoplifters get their hands cut off, adulterers get stoned to death, women who've been raped get put to death while the rapist is pardoned.
Oh yes. Let punishment fit the crime and horse on into our Brave New World of no crime and plenty punishment. How's your beard-growing, Johno?
about three feet long an i like it cool.
I'm sure you'll be very happy when you've moved to some place with Sharia law. Shoplifters get their hands cut off, adulterers get stoned to death, women who've been raped get put to death while the rapist is pardoned.
Oh yes. Let punishment fit the crime and horse on into our Brave New World of no crime and plenty punishment. How's your beard-growing, Johno?
jokin aside though, shoplifters cost everybody money as we all pay for what they nick, reckon they aught to be fined treble what they steal and the goods returned or the equivalent. keep the prisons free for the rapists , child molesters and the violent, adultery as far as im aware may be a moral sin but i dont think it,s an offence punishable by law so why take it into this debate.The unfortunate women that have been raped aught to have a say in the sentence that the rapist should get,[ WHY NOT ] if proven guilty. how would he like to be raped himself??.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.