There was a question in news where you could throw abuse at Gary Glitter the sick kiddy fiddler pervert, but I wondered if we could have a serious debate about what we should do with sex offenders.
Do they deserve everything the vigilantes can throw at them? Should they be helped? Is there a distinction between those who truly are unwell and those who are just plain bad? Should we lock them all up or should they have a shot at rehabilitation ?
Personally I think this subject is a bit like immigration or Islam, it's emotive and the media can shift a lot of papers by inciting hatred.
I believe that no matter how heinous, repellent, wicked or disgusting a persons crimes are they remain a person, and we must not fall into the trap of designating anyone a monster, however monstrous. I think in many ways it's easier to see characters like Glitter as monsters than face the stark realities.
In my opinion, the consequences of an excessively relaxed approach don't bear thinking about, but the illiberal flipside doesn't greatly appeal either.
I think a useful job can be done in educating the public and stigmatising the act, rather than the inclination. It's irritated me to hear news reports describing Glitter as a "convicted paedophile". Paedophilia may be repellent, but it isn't illegal to find children attractive. I'd prefer "convicted child abuser", as a much clearer statement of his crimes.
I don't think this is a pedantic quibble, either - there have, from time to time, been organisations set up to help paedophiles to combat their inclinations and resist the various temptations they come across. Unfortunately, they usually get closed down by mobs who are less than keen on anyone helping "paedo scum" in any way pretty quickly. Bodies like this could make a real difference to offending rates, but not if they're all closed down.
Mani Hussain Thurs 21/08/08 23:22
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
There are many paedophiles who have never acted out there inclinations, just as there are celibate heterosexuals. They are not a problem - they have never acted inappropriately with children and they never will. Just as not all men are rapists.
There is genuine support groups for paedophiles in that situation and people who need that help can find it through the proper channels.
The problem is that some paedophiles don't see they have a problem , believe their way is the right way and no amount of support will change their attitude.
'Convicted child abuser' is too broad a term and could describe somebody like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/757313 6.stm
And don't forget not all criminal paedophile activity harms a child in a physical way - the child may not be touched, but can still subjected to deviant behaviour by a paedophile.
|
|
|
Let Glitter come back to Britain, but leave his balls in the far east, courtesy of a rusty hacksaw blade.
|
|
|
I used to be quite opposed to the idea of castration as a real option. It smacked too much of Eugenics and sterilisation of the mentally retarded.
Then I looked at some of the research like this
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/16/ T2
It doesn't have a 100% effect but it's in the 90s and that's pretty remarkable.
However I don't think it's the sort of thing that you can sentence some one to but you could do as part of a significant parole reduction.
So someone with a 10 year sentence could be released under supervision after say 5 if they agreed to surgical castration. Along with the normal monitoring and restrictions.
|
|
|
It depends why they offend and don't forget those who have had surgical castration have consented and wanted to lose the ability to 'perform'.
Those who offend as a power trip, to dominate, frighten and debase the victim will not be helped at all by this method. They will simply use another 'tool'.
|
|
|
Why do we have to have him? If he wants to stop in Vietnam, then let him!
And the government wonders why there are so many perverts....
|
|
|
One of the current problems is of course that paedophilia covers a person having sex with a 14 year old in the same way as a 3 year old. One is clearly worse than the other.
Are we talking about a certain age barrier or a maturity age or even a puberty age?
Personally (and again lets not try and get hysterical), I have few concerns about a post pubescent child having sexual relationships. This is of course completely natural - after all that is what puberty is about - the ability to attract a mate reproduce. Quite a few countries have a lower age restriction on sex.
Whilst there is a common cry of "we are making kids grow up too quickly", it wasn't actually that long ago that 'kids' were at work at 12. If anything, we are now trying to delay kids from 'growing up'.
The next issue is of course that (due in part to media hype) people see paedophiles as people in the street with long macs on - and not their neighbours / family.
And finally, there is an assumption of guilt with paedophilia - see here for a good example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7326736.st m
|
|
|
adamhornsby - it is not down to GG where he lives. If the country doesn't want him, and Vietnam certainly doesn't, he is expelled, deported, back to his own country.
Just as our government does every day with people who would rather live here.
|
|
|
I see your point Oneeyedvic but catch-all terms like that aren't uncommon in law and the sentencing is there to reflect the gravity of the crime.
'Theft' for example can cover stealing chocolate bars from Woolworths or taking millions from a pension fund.
Sometimes too many different descriptions and terms can make the law impenetrable and confusing.
|
|
|
Quinlad - agreed.
But if Gary Glitter had stolen something, the papers would state what it was and the reader could ascertain for themselves how bad it was (eg Richard Finnegan bottle of wine from supermarket)
However, all that is reported is having photos of 'underage children' - no age range has been given. If he had photos of 15 year old girls, then I doubt many people would be bothered.
If they were 3 year old girls, then that is something different.
|
|
|
Oneeyedvic - yes, the girls ages have been reported.
The youngest was 11
|
|
|
Oh! Sorry - don't know about the photos, but the two girls he molested, the youngest was 11
|
|
|
Correction, the eldest was 11 and the youngest was 1
|
|
|
Gawd, my fingers aren't working.
The eldest was 11 and the youngest, 10
|
|
|
These people do not need any help they need punishment. So far we are hitting every where but not the target. No wonder people are being branded pervert taking their own kids photos in the play ground, you are supposed to ask for permission from other parents before taking photo of your own child who may be standing within a same frame with as the others.
Rehabilitation; there is no rehabilitation for certain diseases. Paedophilia is a habit, a bad and deplorable habit. 100 lashes or flogs on bare skin and see the result. This is a kind of rehabilitation or dose which you give to one person and it sorts problems of many. Castration might be practical but for only one, who first of all would have to be caught, identified, charged, decided upon and then get the treatment. Lots of money, time and sources wasted on only one person.
Oops ……………barbaric……..
|
|
|
Why do they need punishment keyplus?
To stop them from doing it again?
Surgical castration is over 90% effective - I'll let you show me the figures for flogging.
But you don't have any do you?
Your suggestion is just a knee jerk reaction based on tradition and faith.
Come and join us in the twenty first century
|
|
|
Paedophilia is a habit, a bad and deplorable habit.
What like smoking or drinking?
You really think that finding a minor sexually active, is the same sort of behavioural 'problem' as a 'habit'?
|
|
|
I do not have figures but do have facts. We all know where the kiddie fiddlers are more. Ok I will take your words on surgical castration. I hope ten years after it has been applied, I could ask you the results about diminishing the problem, amount spent on and of course how many are on the waiting list for the treatment.
Smoking, drinking, eating, chucking the rubbish onto the road while driving, and all the other things which leave bad influence on the health of the people or society are deplorable things. Now habit, problem or crime whatever you call it. Until recently drinking was a social activity, now due to binge drinking it is becoming a problem and soon in the future it will become a crime. In certain cases it already is.
|
|
|
I do not have figures but do have facts. We all know where the kiddie fiddlers are more.
Do you understand what a fact is?
Do you know keyplus, I have always defended the right to free speech on this site, and have always defended Muslims and Islam.
Thank God (irony intended) that I firmly believe you are not representative of a 'normal' Muslim (just as AOG is not representative of most old people).
|
|
|
I am not sure about Muslims but I am sure Islam does not need a keyplus or a oneyedvic to defend it. As Islam’s rulings do not depend upon individuals. By the way what would you expect from a Muslim who you would be happy to take as representative of all the Muslims?
|
|
Online Advertising | Bankruptcy Certification | Gabriel Garcia Marquez | Business Credit Cards | Debt Consolidation
