Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Roses on August 07, 2018, 11:53:41 AM
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/07/german-couple-convicted-rape-selling-young-son-sex-dark-web/
A truly shocking story. They should have been put away for life. >:(
-
I'm not really sure what you expect anyone to say, LR. It's an incredibly distressing story, but I don't see why anyone would want to discuss it.
-
It is creating a lot of discussion on other forums!
-
You must hang out in some seriously weird places then.
-
You must hang out in some seriously weird places then.
What are you on about? Surely the fact these paedos got such a light sentence is worth discussing?
-
What are you on about? Surely the fact these paedos got such a light sentence is worth discussing?
Why? What will it change?
Frankly this reminds me of those magazines that people buy in supermarkets with headlines like "Dad raped me while mum was shagging her boyfriend' or some such. Horrible, distressing stories that nobody in their right minds would want to dwell on.
-
Why? What will it change?
Frankly this reminds me of those magazines that people buy in supermarkets with headlines like "Dad raped me while mum was shagging her boyfriend' or some such. Horrible, distressing stories that nobody in their right minds would want to dwell on.
We discuss lots of things on this forum, I don't see the point you are making, unless it is distressing you for personal reasons?
-
What are you on about? Surely the fact these paedos got such a light sentence is worth discussing?
Presenting your opinion as fact.
-
We discuss lots of things on this forum, I don't see the point you are making, unless it is distressing you for personal reasons?
Find it rather bizarre that only those who have a 'personal reason' should find this story distressing, or not want to discuss it.
Why on earth anyone outside of the judicial or child protection system would want to dwell on this is beyond me.
-
When you think you've heard most of the disgusting things like this there always seems to be something else that manages to be even more disgusting than the last event you've had the misfortune to hear about, I'm glad I'm not involved with the sorting out of this lot, the poor police, lawyers, social services etc., they have my sympathy.
ippy.
-
What are you on about? Surely the fact these paedos got such a light sentence is worth discussing?
Did you read to the end of the story? The judge is of the opinion that the woman can be rehabilitated hence the twelve year sentence. The man also got a twelve year sentence but only because he shopped everybody else. The judge said that he will always be a danger, so after his sentence is completed, he wil be held in preventative detention for the rest of his life.
-
As paedophiles are such a danger to the mental and physical health of their victims, I am of the opinion that no one convicted of that crime should ever be freed to offend again. Attempts to cure them haven't been successful. There was one project set up expressly for that purpose, but had to admit failure. :o
-
As paedophiles are such a danger to the mental and physical health of their victims, I am of the opinion that no one convicted of that crime should ever be freed to offend again. Attempts to cure them haven't been successful. There was one project set up expressly for that purpose, but had to admit failure. :o
LR.
This has happened in a different jurisdiction to the one with which you are familiar. What do you know about the effectiveness and success rate of the German justice system in rehabilitation? It would appear that in the Netherlands, recidivism is very, very low by UK standards and this comes from the willingness of the state to use the incarceration period as one in which various forms of training, education and therapy are used to prepare convicted criminals for a more productive life following release.
My impression is that prison sentences in many European countries do not match the pattern with which we are familiar. Mercifully, the UK system does not quite follow the US practice of awarding very long sentences, using prisons as warehouses for convicted criminals. But at the same time I do get the impression in the UK rehabilitation is not a priority.
How do you know that - with appropriate management - paedophile convicted criminals cannot be successfully returned to the community?
-
Just to note to LR that 'cure' and 'rehabilitation' are not the same thing.
-
My impression is that prison sentences in many European countries do not match the pattern with which we are familiar.
Indeed. There have been cases in Italy and Spain where rape convictions either haven't happened or have been overturned or sentences reduced because the victim didn't behave enough like a victim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/26/protests-spain-five-men-cleared-of-teenagers-gang-rape-pamplona
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/italy-rape-resentencing-victim-drank-alcohol_us_5b4f4c49e4b0fd5c73c122ff
-
Just to note to LR that 'cure' and 'rehabilitation' are not the same thing.
I very much doubt sex offenders can be rehabilitated, you could never trust them to be around children again, imo.
-
I very much doubt sex offenders can be rehabilitated, you could never trust them to be around children again, imo.
So I'm told these child abusers really don't think there's anything wrong with the things they do or want to do, I'm sure this is so but I still think it's so weird and have difficulty getting my head around it although I'm equally sure the experts must know what they're talking about.
Regards ippy
-
So I'm told these child abusers really don't think there's anything wrong with the things they do or want to do, I'm sure this is so but I still think it's so weird and have difficulty getting my head around it although I'm equally sure the experts must know what they're talking about.
Regards ippy
So called experts don't always get it right. I remember reading about a child sex offender who was supposedly 'rehabilitated', only to offend again. And of course Jon Venables was released after intensive 'rehabilitation', but is now locked up again, because of all the child porn he had stashed on his computer! >:(
-
So called experts don't always get it right. I remember reading about a child sex offender who was supposedly 'rehabilitated', only to offend again. And of course Jon Venables was released after intensive 'rehabilitation', but is now locked up again, because of all the child porn he had stashed on his computer! >:(
As it happens the major percentage of them can't be turned/rehabilitated either so they tell me, the experts would be agreeing with you on that L R.
How on earth they somehow reason out that there's nothing wrong with their deeds I'll never manage to work that one out?
Regards ippy
-
As it happens the major percentage of them can't be turned/rehabilitated either so they tell me, the experts would be agreeing with you on that L R.
How on earth they somehow reason out that there's nothing wrong with their deeds I'll never manage to work that one out?
Regards ippy
I have mentioned before about the broadcast in the 80s by the Paedophile Information Exchange on BBC Radio 4, not long before it was a banned organisation. They thought they had a right to have sex with children, and even stated it was a child's right to have sex with them. How sick and deluded can you get? >:(
-
As paedophiles are such a danger to the mental and physical health of their victims, I am of the opinion that no one convicted of that crime should ever be freed to offend again. Attempts to cure them haven't been successful. There was one project set up expressly for that purpose, but had to admit failure. :o
Well, I think I’ll defer to the judge in the case, who presumably has access to all the psychiatric reports on these people, unlike you. Note that he agrees with you in the case of the man. He doesn’t agree with you in respect of the woman, but I’m sure he has good reason to believe she will not be a danger when she is released.
-
Well, I think I’ll defer to the judge in the case, who presumably has access to all the psychiatric reports on these people, unlike you. Note that he agrees with you in the case of the man. He doesn’t agree with you in respect of the woman, but I’m sure he has good reason to believe she will not be a danger when she is released.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm!
-
Hmmmmmmmmmmm!
Why should I believe you over the judge?
-
Why should I believe you over the judge?
And what if the judge is wrong?
-
And what if the judge is wrong?
It won't be the judge that is wrong, it'll be the psych who assessed the individuals. No idea how thorough they are in the German criminal courts but if they are like some that happen in the UK courts then you are right to be sceptical; that said, I'm aware of the problem affecting the family court here and it may be that criminal court are more rigorous.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45127284
Another shocking tale of sexual abuse concerning two Catholic Schools Ampleforth and Downside. The schools were keen to protect their reputations, rather than protect the children attending those places! >:(
-
The report says that the headmaster of Downside burned wheelbarrow loads of papers. And even after being warned, both schools were secretive. "The overriding concern was to avoid contact with the police". This went on for 40 years!
-
And what if the judge is wrong?
Bad news. But I think you are more likely to be wrong than the judge.
-
Bad news. But I think you are more likely to be wrong than the judge.
You reckon? :D
-
Whilst no denomination is immune from child sexual abuse, it does appear that the RCC in predominant in this area. Whilst there is never any excuse for this perverted behaviour, I do wonder if the celibacy rule, which is very unnatural, encourages some monks and priests to behave in this way?
-
You reckon? :D
Absolutely. The judge has all the facts available to him. You do not.
-
Whilst no denomination is immune from child sexual abuse, it does appear that the RCC in predominant in this area. Whilst there is never any excuse for this perverted behaviour, I do wonder if the celibacy rule, which is very unnatural, encourages some monks and priests to behave in this way?
You may be right but that is pure speculation. I want to believe you but the skeptical part of my brain is asking where the evidence is. It could just be that the RCC gets all the publicity because of the way they covered up child sex abuse.
-
Absolutely. The judge has all the facts available to him. You do not.
To be fair, what the judge has in front of him are psychological/psychiatric reports. Psychology and psychiatry are inexact sciences at best so what he has is expert opinion, not facts. And we don't know what form these assessments take, how long they last for or how many are made; for example, it can take many sessions - and a pattern of offending - for narcissist personality disorder to become apparent. Not commenting on this case in particular, but hypothetically it is possible that the wife is the dominant party and her skill as a narcissist has convinced everyone that she has been manipulated into abusing.
-
To be fair, what the judge has in front of him are psychological/psychiatric reports. Psychology and psychiatry are inexact sciences at best so what he has is expert opinion, not facts. And we don't know what form these assessments take, how long they last for or how many are made; for example, it can take many sessions - and a pattern of offending - for narcissist personality disorder to become apparent. Not commenting on this case in particular, but hypothetically it is possible that the wife is the dominant party and her skill as a narcissist has convinced everyone that she has been manipulated into abusing.
This is all true, but I think it is more likely that the judge has the relevant knowledge to make a decision than Little Roses who doesn't even have access to the psychiatric reports.
-
So called experts don't always get it right. I remember reading about a child sex offender who was supposedly 'rehabilitated', only to offend again. And of course Jon Venables was released after intensive 'rehabilitation', but is now locked up again, because of all the child porn he had stashed on his computer! >:(
That boy was not rehabilitated. Where did he learn about porn except from inside - and a member of staff had a sexual relationship with him. This country doesn't do rehabilitation very well but you don't have to be an expert to know that for a ten year old who commits murder every effort should be made to rehabilitate them.
This thread is about some pretty horrific & heartbreaking stuff. I can't add to what has already been said.
-
That boy was not rehabilitated. Where did he learn about porn except from inside - and a member of staff had a sexual relationship with him. This country doesn't do rehabilitation very well but you don't have to be an expert to know that for a ten year old who commits murder every effort should be made to rehabilitate them.
This thread is about some pretty horrific & heartbreaking stuff. I can't add to what has already been said.
Absolutely right.
The sad truths about the Jamie Bulger affair.
1 The two boys were demonised during their trial. The response for two ten-year olds should have been rehabilitation under a cloak of total confidentiality. Instead they were criminalised as adults.
2 Jamie's mother became the property of the gutter press - who took every opportunity to wind her up like a clockwork toy whenever they felt her grief could boost circulation. She, too, should have been protected and rehabilitated.
3 Even though both boys were were given new identities there remains the desire (by officialdom) that their subsequent lives should be accessible to the public domain.
-
Jamie's mother became the property of the gutter press - who took every opportunity to wind her up like a clockwork toy whenever they felt her grief could boost circulation. She, too, should have been protected and rehabilitated.
I agree with this but 'rehabilitated' isn't the right word for a victim, she's done nothing wrong. Whatever she would have needed - therapy, certainly, and lots of it - she may well have had, or at least had access to - maybe she declined it. And as a mother myself I'm not sure whether a lifetime of therapy would ever be enough to find a way to live with what happened to her little boy.
-
I've often thought the same Rhi.
There's no doubt the whole thing was handled terribly, all the publicity, pictures of the boys in the newspapers, their names known. At the time other countries in Europe were up in arms that the names of two children that young were publicised. Then when they were incarcerated there were descriptions of the places giving the impression they were 'holiday camps'. Nothing to be proud of.
Sufficient surely for the GBP to know a poor little child was brutally murdered, two children under the age of 15 charged, tried and sentenced in private without all the details and pictures. Then not mentioned again. James Bulger's parents may have been able to receive help to accommodate their grief in a kinder, more gentle atmosphere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45127284
Another shocking tale of sexual abuse concerning two Catholic Schools Ampleforth and Downside. The schools were keen to protect their reputations, rather than protect the children attending those places! >:(
You may have seen the documentary. I watched it when I was on my own. The subject was not sensationalised,it was upsetting but to hear what was said was informative.
https://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week8/boarding-schools-secret-shame-exposure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWOM3iqF7c
-
I think it right to out the Bulger killers, their crime was so heinous. >:(
-
I think it right to out the Bulger killers, their crime was so heinous. >:(
But what purpose does it serve?
-
But what purpose does it serve?
I reckon their sentence probably gave satisfaction to the relatives of their victim.
-
Doesn't bring little James back. There could have been justice without publicity.
But what purpose does it serve?
Fuels outrage in the minds of pond life. I wonder if they feel better for it.
-
I reckon their sentence probably gave satisfaction to the relatives of their victim.
What has that to doing with them being named?
-
I agree with this but 'rehabilitated' isn't the right word for a victim, she's done nothing wrong.
There's slightly different meanings to the word. The murderers needed to be rehabilitated so that they were both no longer a danger to society and could both function in the said society in a constructive way.
Jamie Bulger's mother need to be rehabilitated in the sense of recovering from a grievous injury.
-
I think it right to out the Bulger killers, their crime was so heinous. >:(
They were 10 years old. Why was their crime more heinous than an adult who has a better understanding of what they are doing committing murder?
-
I reckon their sentence probably gave satisfaction to the relatives of their victim.
I bet it didn't.
I think there are three reasons for incarcerating criminals:
1. protecting society from them
2. deterrence
3. rehabilitation
Are you proposing to add vengeance to that list? In my opinion that would be wrong.
-
I reckon their sentence probably gave satisfaction to the relatives of their victim.
Really?
-
I bet it didn't.
I think there are three reasons for incarcerating criminals:
1. protecting society from them
2. deterrence
3. rehabilitation
Are you proposing to add vengeance to that list? In my opinion that would be wrong.
Agreed.
-
They were 10 years old. Why was their crime more heinous than an adult who has a better understanding of what they are doing committing murder?
And what abuse had one or both been subject to in order to commit their crimes in the first place? I agree, they were children ffs.
-
There's slightly different meanings to the word. The murderers needed to be rehabilitated so that they were both no longer a danger to society and could both function in the said society in a constructive way.
Jamie Bulger's mother need to be rehabilitated in the sense of recovering from a grievous injury.
Grieving people don’t need rehab. They need recovery. Different thing.
We don’t know what kinds of recovery programmes she was offered.
-
Grieving people don’t need rehab. They need recovery. Different thing.
We don’t know what kinds of recovery programmes she was offered.
Well I think it is a valid use of the word "rehabilitation" to talk about being rehabilitated after an injury. But it's a narrow semantic point, so I won't say any more on the issue.
-
Well I think it is a valid use of the word "rehabilitation" to talk about being rehabilitated after an injury. But it's a narrow semantic point, so I won't say any more on the issue.
I think you have to put yourself in the position of a victim here. To suggest a victim needs ‘rehabilitation’ is yet another insult to add to injury. However, recovery is a different thing. There’s a notion of blame or wrongdoing in ‘rehab’ that doesn’t exist in the idea of ‘recovery’. I’ve never heard of ‘rehabilitation’ used in association with the grieving process until today.
-
What has that to doing with them being named?
All murderers should have their names revealed, imo.
-
All murderers should have their names revealed, imo.
And to repeat, for what reason?
-
They were young children LR. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but the law generally protects the privacy of offenders the age of fifteen. There have been heinous, violent crimes committed by under 15s whose names have never been revealed. Why is it different for those who commit murder? Especially ten year olds for goodness sakes. Those two are not the only ones who have been exposed in the past, I don't think that has happened recently thankfully.
What good has it done any of us to know the original names of, & so much about, these boys? I don't feel any better for it.
-
And to repeat, for what reason?
Because they are murderers as I have said before. The should face vilification for the rest of their lives, imo.
-
They were young children LR. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but the law generally protects the privacy of offenders the age of fifteen. There have been heinous, violent crimes committed by under 15s whose names have never been revealed. Why is it different for those who commit murder? Especially ten year olds for goodness sakes. Those two are not the only ones who have been exposed in the past, I don't think that has happened recently thankfully.
What good has it done any of us to know the original names of, & so much about, these boys? I don't feel any better for it.
I don't care, they are still murderers.
-
I don't care, they are still murderers.
No, you don't care, do you? This is what your attitude of 'lifelong vilification' leads to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186431/Father-killed-hate-mob-wrongly-accused-James-Bulger-child-killer-Robert-Thompson.html
-
Because they are murderers as I have said before. The should face vilification for the rest of their lives, imo.
Saying that murdered should be named because they are murder Wes is just circular logic, it's not a reason.
If continually vilifying people was to lead to a n increase in violence overall, would you still support it?
-
No, you don't care, do you? This is what your attitude of 'lifelong vilification' leads to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186431/Father-killed-hate-mob-wrongly-accused-James-Bulger-child-killer-Robert-Thompson.html
Arguably that people can be wrongly accused of being someone would be less likely if people were known - but the point that 'vilification' effectively amounts to a form of persecution is valid.
-
Arguably that people can be wrongly accused of being someone would be less likely if people were known - but the point that 'vilification' effectively amounts to a form of persecution is valid.
If the identities were known it would mean that a) innocent people with the same names would be subject to persecution and b) Venables and Thompson would probably be killed at some point.
-
If the identities were known it would mean that a) innocent people with the same names would be subject to persecution and b) Venables and Thompson would probably be killed at some point.
But you could say that about an adult murderer.
-
But you could say that about an adult murderer.
You are the one supporting the vilification of children.
What do you think about the man who was hounded into suicide?
-
So are you saying that no one convicted of a terrible crime should have their name revealed?
-
How I see it is that children must be protected, even children who do something terrible.
At the risk of repetition it does none of us any good to know so much & the way the story is brought back in its entirety into the public gaze every so often helps no-one.
-
How I see it is that children must be protected, even children who do something terrible.
At the risk of repetition it does none of us any good to know so much & the way the story is brought back in its entirety into the public gaze every so often helps no-one.
You see it your way, I see it mine. I have no more to say on this topic.
-
So are you saying that no one convicted of a terrible crime should have their name revealed?
Non sequitur.
We are taking about children. Not long after the case happened I had dinner with someone who had connections to someone directly involved in the case. Apparently the way that some things were done was very childish, as you would expect, but others were very adult. There is only one way that young children know how to abuse like an adult does. Think about it.
-
How I see it is that children must be protected, even children who do something terrible.
At the risk of repetition it does none of us any good to know so much & the way the story is brought back in its entirety into the public gaze every so often helps no-one.
I came onto this thread saying that I didn't get why someone would want to discuss something so horrific, and I still don't. But the way that this thread has gone does show that it is necessary to talk about how these cases are handled in the hope of putting an end to the lynch mob mentality that too many people hold. Such an attitude doesn't prevent sex crime, nor does it keep children safe.
-
My take, for what it is worth, is that it is important for the general public to know that criminal activity in which children are compromised or harmed is properly investigated and that any offenders are dealt with, that those directly affected are suitably involved and that there are arrangements to deal with any reasonable concerns expressed by members of the public.
However, I can't see that there is any benefit at all in sensationalist voyeurism. I think that type of coverage, in such circumstances, cheapens all of us and achieves nothing.
-
My take, for what it is worth, is that it is important for the general public to know that criminal activity in which children are compromised or harmed is properly investigated and that any offenders are dealt with, that those directly affected are suitably involved and that there are arrangements to deal with any reasonable concerns expressed by members of the public.
However, I can't see that there is any benefit at all in sensationalist voyeurism. I think that type of coverage, in such circumstances, cheapens all of us and achieves nothing.
Agreed.
-
My take, for what it is worth, is that it is important for the general public to know that criminal activity in which children are compromised or harmed is properly investigated and that any offenders are dealt with, that those directly affected are suitably involved and that there are arrangements to deal with any reasonable concerns expressed by members of the public.
However, I can't see that there is any benefit at all in sensationalist voyeurism. I think that type of coverage, in such circumstances, cheapens all of us and achieves nothing.
Not the benefit of lifelong vilification which was cited.
-
Yes. Strikes me there are people who get some satisfaction out of being outraged, makes them feel better about themselves. They rise up in superiority.
-
All murderers should have their names revealed, imo.
Thank heavens you're not in charge of the criminal justice system.
-
Thank heavens you're not in charge of the criminal justice system.
Why should people convicted of terrible crimes not have their names revealed?
-
Why should people convicted of terrible crimes not have their names revealed?
Because we don't live in Dodge City c. 1880 and are meant to live by the rule of law and not vigilante justice. If entirely innocent people can be hounded to their deaths, those who have been tried, convicted and have served their time can be attacked too.
-
Because we don't live in Dodge City c. 1880 and are meant to live by the rule of law and not vigilante justice. If entirely innocent people can be hounded to their deaths, those who have been tried, convicted and have served their time can be attacked too.
Do you think the Fred West, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady should not have had their names revealed?
-
Do you think the Fred West, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady should not have had their names revealed?
Certainly. We know the names of the killers of James Bulger. However, for their own safety they have been given in effect new identities, as was Mary Bell. For these identities to become common knowledge leaves them wide open to attack and even murder, meaning that we end up with even more deaths than would otherwise have been the case. Perhaps that's what you want?
-
Certainly. We know the names of the killers of James Bulger. However, for their own safety they have been given in effect new identities, as was Mary Bell. For these identities to become common knowledge leaves them wide open to attack and even murder, meaning that we end up with even more deaths than would otherwise have been the case. Perhaps that's what you want?
After what those evil people have done if someone topped them I would not cry any tears at all.
-
After what those evil people have done if someone topped them I would not cry any tears at all.
So you (a) support the death penalty (b) carried out by random citizens - in other words, murder (c) with the very real prospect of the wrong person being targeted murdered.
-
So you (a) support the death penalty (b) carried out by random citizens - in other words, murder (c) with the very real prospect of the wrong person being targeted murdered.
I don't actually support the death penalty, too many innocent people were hanged in the past.
-
I don't actually support the death penalty, too many innocent people were hanged in the past.
But by revealing the names of those killers given new identities you are laying both them and as Rhiannon pointed out those with the same name - innocent people - wide open to attack and therefore potential murder. You can't have it both ways.
Rumour, innuendo and gossip are more than sufficient for someone to be targeted. This isn't some fantasy of what might happen; it has already happened.
-
I don't actually support the death penalty, too many innocent people were hanged in the past.
But you - apparently - support mob rule.
After what those evil people have done if someone topped them I would not cry any tears at all.
-
Certainly. We know the names of the killers of James Bulger. However, for their own safety they have been given in effect new identities, as was Mary Bell. For these identities to become common knowledge leaves them wide open to attack and even murder, meaning that we end up with even more deaths than would otherwise have been the case. Perhaps that's what you want?
And as pointed out a man has already killed himself because of rumours that he is Robert Thompson.
When I was on Mumsnet years ago a woman posted to say that she'd heard that someone who had just moved onto het estate was Maxine Carr and that she didn't know what to do. It had to be pointed out to her that a) this was dangerous gossip and bullshit and b) Maxine Carr never actually killed anyone. I dread to think what that poor woman's life was like.
-
I suppose quite a number of people support that view that names should be released, and if they are killed, well, good job. What can you call this? Broken Britain? A moral cess-pit? Hopefully, there are enough decent people around.
-
But by revealing the names of those killers given new identities you are laying both them and as Rhiannon pointed out those with the same name - innocent people - wide open to attack and therefore potential murder. You can't have it both ways.
Rumour, innuendo and gossip are more than sufficient for someone to be targeted. This isn't some fantasy of what might happen; it has already happened.
How many people with the same name as notorious murders have been killed?
-
How many people with the same name as notorious murders have been killed?
No idea. The situation is even worse: completely innocent people with entirely different names have died, all on the basis of gossip.
-
And as pointed out a man has already killed himself because of rumours that he is Robert Thompson.
When I was on Mumsnet years ago a woman posted to say that she'd heard that someone who had just moved onto het estate was Maxine Carr and that she didn't know what to do.
Why would anybody have to do anything even if it was Maxine Carr? What am I missing?
-
No idea. The situation is even worse: completely innocent people with entirely different names have died, all on the basis of gossip.
And your evidence for that statement is? Besides which, if innocent people have been killed, even though they don't share the same name as the killer, what is the point of changing their name?
-
And your evidence for that statement is?
Reply #57.
Besides which, if innocent people have been killed, even though they don't share the same name as the killer, what is the point of changing their name?
To try to minimise the chances of them being murdered by brainless vigilante thugs. Unfortunately, given the stupidity of certain sections of humanity who think that they are judge, Judy and executioner, you can't eliminate the risk entirely.
-
I suppose quite a number of people support that view that names should be released, and if they are killed, well, good job. What can you call this? Broken Britain? A moral cess-pit? Hopefully, there are enough decent people around.
It's not new, Wiggs.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2000/aug/10/childprotection
-
Do you think the Fred West, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady should not have had their names revealed?
None of those people ever walked free again but if they had been released from prison, certainly, they should have been given new identities. Somebody who has served their sentence does not deserve to be lynched.
-
None of those people ever walked free again but if they had been released from prison, certainly, they should have been given new identities. Somebody who has served their sentence does not deserve to be lynched.
But then you have the issue as to whether local people should be informed as to who is living nearby.
Just one example: a sex offender started to attend church. A CRB check would have revealed his offences so he didn't apply for any volunteering posts. Instead he got to know the families at church and ended up babysitting for one couple while they attended Bible study together. While they were out, he was abusing their prepubescent daughter.
'Serving time' does not make someone safe. What the answer is here I don't know, but I do know that sexual abuse screws lives up.
-
But then you have the issue as to whether local people should be informed as to who is living nearby.
Just one example: a sex offender started to attend church. A CRB check would have revealed his offences so he didn't apply for any volunteering posts. Instead he got to know the families at church and ended up babysitting for one couple while they attended Bible study together. While they were out, he was abusing their prepubescent daughter.
'Serving time' does not make someone safe. What the answer is here I don't know, but I do know that sexual abuse screws lives up.
There are some people who should never be released, like serious sex offenders as they will always be a danger to children, unless they can be put on an unihabited desert island far from civilisation.
-
There are some people who should never be released, like serious sex offenders as they will always be a danger to children, unless they can be put on an unihabited desert island far from civilisation.
But how does anyone know who is 'safe' and who isn't? And if they can't be released, what should be done with them?
-
Do you think the Fred West, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady should not have had their names revealed?
Hard cases make bad law. In any case, Brady and RoseWest were imprisoned for the rest of their lives with no possibility of parole, and Fred would have been if he hadn't topped himself, so the vigilante aspect doesn't apply.