Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 56 of 56

Thread: A place for paedophiles

  1. #41
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Haylz View Post
    It's not anecdotal at best it's a fact.
    Its a casual observation not a fact.

    I was made to feel like a criminal by the way I was treated by police.
    Well that is horrible, and they should answer for it.


    You seem to have misunderstood my comments as you repeatedly talk about sentencing. I did not comment on whether I thought sentencing was appropriate or not, merely on the conditions of our prisons.
    You said "The consequences of committing crime are not severe enough" -
    what is that if not a comment on sentencing ?


    I can only assume from your comments that you have no experience or grounded knowledge other than that which you read in newspapers or on spurious websites.
    There you go again - thats twice you've been "willing to bet", and now one assumption. Is this how you normally discuss things?


    a women's prison near where I live which has a nail and beauty salon that the inmates can utilise, they get their hair done, their nails manicured, they have a gym, they have access to more 'facilities' and relative luxuries than I do and I obey the law and pay my taxes to provide it to them. Now you tell me that is an unattractive place to be. why should they be bothered about being caught?
    But you don't know that people WANT to go to prison, you think they do because its cushy. If it is their situation outside prison that causes them to commit crime, the quality, or attractiveness, of the prison is not relevant. Also, if there is more rehabilitation from cushy prisons, then that is enough reason for having them. I'd like to think prisons do make an effort to rehabilitate, certainly more than they did, say 50 years ago.


    Oh, and for information, you can disagree with something and have a contrary opinion without being confrontational about it.
    Splitting hairs really, and why would it matter ? This discussion has a clash of ideas, nothing more.

  2. #42
    Registered User Isis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,398
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    The documentry is still available to watch online for another few days here and is worth taking a look.

    I thought it was interesting and that type of institution is probably the best way of managing the problem.

    The public are kept safe from these people but they are treated humanely and there is at least an attempt at treatment and rehabilitation (even if it's clearly worse than useless). There's also an element of punishment built in, with them having to listen to the non-stop, bland, airy-fairy psycho babble from the Head Psychologist (although that might be too harsh a punishment even for paedophiles!)

    If we don't like the cost, we could perhaps make more effort at building decent societies and raising psychologically healthy people. A lot of child abusers were abused themselves and surely prevention of the development of deviant behaviour is better than trying to manage it when it's firmly ingrained.

  3. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Waltham Abbey
    Posts
    5,534
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    They mostly assume they won't get caught and if they do think about it, they see the possibility of prison as the acceptable risk of a lifestyle which they choose.
    Bit like Norman Stanley Fletcher then? - "you see prison as an occupational hazard"

  4. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Haylz View Post
    I'm not sorry that you disagree with my comments, but I am sorry that your disagreement came across in a very confrontational way. I apologise if mine did also. When emotions run high it's often the way
    Oh, pshaw!!

    You middle classes and your startled horror of confrontation.

    Roll up your sleeves, woman, and start flinging some insults!! It's the only thing we keyboard warriors respond to!

    Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 24th-April-2009 at 08:58 AM.

  5. #45
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Haylz View Post
    In the 1950s crime was a lot lower than it is now, and our prisons were much less privileged than they are now. doesn't that speak for itself?
    I don't know.

    If it does speak, what is it saying?

    Are there any things about the life in t1950s that might seem less attractive?

  6. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    sentencing is clearly wrong, but thats often down to the judges - the actual minimum and maximum sentences that can be handed out for some crimes are often fine.
    1. Most sentencing is done by magistrates - about 80%, I should think. Prison is not involved in the majority of crimes, since it is not amongst the range of options or the crimes do not 'pass the custody threshold'.

    2. There are sentencing guidelines laid down, so that given a particular crime, there are aggravating and mitigating factors that MUST be taken into account. If the 'maximum sentence' was imposed for the common-or-garden instance of a crime, there would be nowhere to go to take account of aggravating factors.

    Take theft, for example. An aggravating factor would be a position of trust - so theft from an employer where you are trusted with the cash to go in the till is worse than a customer nicking a tenner off the bar when no-one is looking.

    Newspapers, as we know and has been discussed herein before, have a vested interest in stoking up a sort of 'moral panic' about crime. The present government - probably because it is a Labour government and therefore fearful of appearing 'soft' on crime - seems to respond to these moral panics by piling up new laws and new crimes to mollify the panicked.

    As a result of which, we have a lot more people being convicted of crimes, and not 'enough' prisons to put them all in a cell and throw away the key (the favourite sentence of your average UK punter).

    Therefore sentencing guidelines at the moment are aimed at reducing the prison overload and sentences passed reflect that fact as well as the desire to punish the offender.

    Here's an example. (Can't remember if it's been discussed here before.)

    The new Sexual Offences Act is based on - essentially - the same age of consent as the previous one: 16. However, there are two important changes.

    Firstly, what I think of as the 'get out of jail free' provision. Persons under the age of 21 accused for the first time of underage sex with a person under 16 but over 13 would have a complete and automatic defence. Persons under the age of 16 and accused for the first time of underage sex with a person under 13 but over 10 would also have a complete and automatic defence. In either case, a the defence would not be available in the event of a second offence.

    The thinking behind this was that it was recognised that young persons are going to be sexually active, and that it is wise to give someone who himself is young the benefit of the doubt on a question of the age of consent. 50 year olds, of course, didn't benefit; neither did a 20 year old charged with a second offence of underage sex with a 15 year old - either it was the same girl, and he knew beyond doubt; or there's a suspicious pattern emerging.

    That's now gone.

    What was also introduced was the rule that for teachers, lecturers and so forth the age of consent is 18 where a pupil or student is concerned.

    Sexual relations with pupils and students has always been a disciplinary matter; in recent years it's been dealt with very firmly (although as the recent re-showing of The history man revealed, it was not always the case...!) It seems to me to be highly undesirable to criminalise such things. If a 17 year old person is capable (in law) of deciding whether to have sex with her best friend's parent, why is he or she not capable of deciding whether to have sex with his or her best friend's teacher?

    Notice all sex with 9 year old persons or younger is and has been illegal whoever you are; sex with persons under 16 is and always has been illegal if you are what was (until the change of the law) an adult (i.e. 21). So the clear instances of paedophilia haven't changed. What has happened is that the grey area of activities which might be illegal but are certainly not 'evil' (I bet a substantial portion of people in this forum were technically offenders when, at age 16, they were involved in some sexual activity with a 15 or perhaps 14 year old) has been made much wider, less certain and been moved slightly upwards in age.

    So: there are now an additional two sets of circumstances (probably more; I don't know the Act well) where human sexual activity - most of which is perfectly understandable - is criminalised. Producing more criminals and potentially more prisoners for the same set of circumstances as existed before.

  7. #47
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Are there any things about the life in t1950s that might seem less attractive?

    No Internet ?

  8. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Haylz View Post
    What about my right not to be victimised or harrassed by a criminal in the first place? They would not pick him up in spite of his history of domestic violence and he was out for near on a week. I was made to feel like a criminal by the way I was treated by police.
    That's grim, and it shouldn't happen.

    However, so is burglary. We haven't got a criminal justice system that allows us to have a watchman posted outside every house - or even every house classified as particularly 'at risk' - to ensure that burglars are thwarted.

    The perpetrator in your case is the individual armed robber. In his case, the rehabilitation aspects of sentencing policy have worked against you, and that is to be regretted. It doesn't mean that rehabilitation of offenders (both before and after discharge) is automatically wrong. It is, at last, axiomatic that the worse thing you can do with offenders is stick them in prison, make them manufacture sacks for 15 years, and then just push them out of the gate. While you have what might be called their 'complete and undivided attention' it's just as well to do what you can to persuade them that their best interests lie in becoming the so-called 'productive member of society' when they leave.

    It seems clear - since what you are alleging this man did constitutes criminal offences - threatening behaviour, harassment, etc - that the police either did not believe you or had insufficient evidence on which to take further action. (Obviously, there's a third option - lazy police force.) These are clearly problems but again, not ones that impeach the overall policy.

    {snip stuff on women's prison} Now you tell me that is an unattractive place to be. why should they be bothered about being caught?
    This is flip, and sarcastic: but if you're so upset about the disparity between the benefits of the prisoner's lifestyle compared to your own, you only have to commit a crime or two and you can be there in a month or two.

    What's that? I can't hear you...? Sounded like "I don't want to go to prison, thank you very much..." But why on earth not? Surely it's no deterrent to you if it's no deterrent to the women already there???

  9. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Trouble View Post
    Bit like Norman Stanley Fletcher then? - "you see prison as an occupational hazard"
    Ah, old Norman Stanley.

    His cell-mate's daughter became a vampire, you know...

  10. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Isis View Post
    If we don't like the cost, we could perhaps make more effort at building decent societies and raising psychologically healthy people.

  11. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Waltham abbey
    Posts
    4,610
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Ah, old Norman Stanley.

    His cell-mate's daughter became a vampire, you know...
    She was a firewoman first

  12. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London & environs'
    Posts
    3,938
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post

    The new Sexual Offences Act is based on - essentially - the same age of consent as the previous one: 16. However, there are two important changes.

    Firstly, what I think of as the 'get out of jail free' provision. Persons under the age of 21 accused for the first time of underage sex with a person under 16 but over 13 would have a complete and automatic defence. Persons under the age of 16 and accused for the first time of underage sex with a person under 13 but over 10 would also have a complete and automatic defence. In either case, a the defence would not be available in the event of a second offence.

    The thinking behind this was that it was recognised that young persons are going to be sexually active, and that it is wise to give someone who himself is young the benefit of the doubt on a question of the age of consent. 50 year olds, of course, didn't benefit; neither did a 20 year old charged with a second offence of underage sex with a 15 year old - either it was the same girl, and he knew beyond doubt; or there's a suspicious pattern emerging.

    That's now gone.

    What was also introduced was the rule that for teachers, lecturers and so forth the age of consent is 18 where a pupil or student is concerned.

    Sexual relations with pupils and students has always been a disciplinary matter; in recent years it's been dealt with very firmly (although as the recent re-showing of The history man revealed, it was not always the case...!) It seems to me to be highly undesirable to criminalise such things. If a 17 year old person is capable (in law) of deciding whether to have sex with her best friend's parent, why is he or she not capable of deciding whether to have sex with his or her best friend's teacher?

    Notice all sex with 9 year old persons or younger is and has been illegal whoever you are; sex with persons under 16 is and always has been illegal if you are what was (until the change of the law) an adult (i.e. 21). So the clear instances of paedophilia haven't changed. What has happened is that the grey area of activities which might be illegal but are certainly not 'evil' (I bet a substantial portion of people in this forum were technically offenders when, at age 16, they were involved in some sexual activity with a 15 or perhaps 14 year old) has been made much wider, less certain and been moved slightly upwards in age.

    So: there are now an additional two sets of circumstances (probably more; I don't know the Act well) where human sexual activity - most of which is perfectly understandable - is criminalised. Producing more criminals and potentially more prisoners for the same set of circumstances as existed before.
    So Dreadful Scathe's arguments against a Sara's List have now been removed?

  13. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Trouble View Post
    She was a firewoman first
    That was the other daughter.

  14. #54
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Northeastern Parts
    Posts
    5,221
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Astro View Post
    So Dreadful Scathe's arguments against a Sara's List have now been removed?
    Personally, I'd say his arguments have been reinforced.

  15. #55
    Commercial Operator StokeBloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent
    Posts
    2,366
    Rep Power
    10

    Cool Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Are there any things about the life in t1950s that might seem less attractive?
    Well let's see... there was rationing... the forced deportation of British orphans to Australia... the increased tolerance of domestic abuse... there was less educational opportunities for women... smoking was shown on the big screen as being cool... industry didn't have to consider the impact on the environment of its processes or products... the Cold War had the world gripped with fear of instant horrific death... occupational health and safety was unheard of which means even today we have people dying of asbestosis and miner's lung etc. not to mention the poor little mites who's Mothers were given Thalidomide when they were in the womb... not to mention the complete lack of Dr Who

    Although it's true what my Father says about being able to leave your home unlocked back then... but that was only because nobody had anything worth bloody stealing!

    Ahhhh the good old days before paedophiles were invented

  16. #56
    Registered User Haylz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cheadle, Cheshire
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: A place for paedophiles

    Quote Originally Posted by StokeBloke View Post
    not to mention the complete lack of Dr Who

    Oh dear...oh dear oh dear oh dear...oh very dear!!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Place to crash after flamingoes freestyle fri or chiswick sat
    By Cornish Pixie in forum Social events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th-March-2009, 01:17 PM
  2. Female place in Club chalet for Storm 2009
    By Classified Adverts in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th-March-2009, 07:30 PM
  3. Oxford this Weekend - where is the best place to park?
    By marty_baby in forum Social events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16th-December-2006, 03:48 PM
  4. Ashtons - This Fri - Whats the place like? 8)
    By marty_baby in forum Social events
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 26th-August-2006, 07:57 PM
  5. Silly place names in Scotland
    By Stuart M in forum Fun and Games
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 22nd-April-2003, 11:32 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •