- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree, but such heinous crimes are dealt with too lieniently. Our sentencing guidelines are too limp.
and please use their services
REPUGNANT - The End!!
- Thread starter BRASH
- Start date
I agree, but such heinous crimes are dealt with too lieniently. Our sentencing guidelines are too limp.
CanonLady
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 453
- Name
- A
- Edit My Images
- No
Some people might think this is extreme but I think child molesters/rapist should stay in prison for as long as the victims are alive. The victims will have to live with the consequences forever and the actions inflicted on them will no doubt affect their lives in many different ways.
Just what I think.
- Messages
- 11,487
- Name
- T.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Totally agree
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Steve
So it is retribution, motivated by emotion, which has been my point all along.
Yes, it's repugnant, and 14 years reflects that as a sentence. OK, you don't agree with it, thats fine, but it actually has nothing to do with you. The reasons for that, and why it shouldn't are clear in the vitriol in your post, emotion and anger.
An independent Judge has sentenced knowing al the facts, the reasons for the tarriff he decided on are a matter for him, not for you to second guess having read nothing more than a few paragraphs on the internet which may or may not be accurate.
This outrage by proxy as well as trying, judging and executing by virtue of knowing very little is I suppose a sign of the time, but guess what it's not an entitlement. Just as you choosing what laws you want to obey isn't.
These topics always end up in a bun fight, simply because people can't separate their emotions from what is and has to be used when passing sentence. Not to mention it all being based on a few lines of dubious information.
If you want to discuss sentencing in general, then you should start a stand alone topic, where perhaps some of you wont feel obliged to dictate based on what you think you know about a specific case.
So it is retribution, motivated by emotion, which has been my point all along.
Yes, it's repugnant, and 14 years reflects that as a sentence. OK, you don't agree with it, thats fine, but it actually has nothing to do with you. The reasons for that, and why it shouldn't are clear in the vitriol in your post, emotion and anger.
An independent Judge has sentenced knowing al the facts, the reasons for the tarriff he decided on are a matter for him, not for you to second guess having read nothing more than a few paragraphs on the internet which may or may not be accurate.
This outrage by proxy as well as trying, judging and executing by virtue of knowing very little is I suppose a sign of the time, but guess what it's not an entitlement. Just as you choosing what laws you want to obey isn't.
These topics always end up in a bun fight, simply because people can't separate their emotions from what is and has to be used when passing sentence. Not to mention it all being based on a few lines of dubious information.
If you want to discuss sentencing in general, then you should start a stand alone topic, where perhaps some of you wont feel obliged to dictate based on what you think you know about a specific case.
dejongj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
And that is exactly how you'll end up with wildly varying sentencing. By all means lobby for tougher sentencing guidelines but let's keep it factual and emotion free as far as that is possible.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Who are you to decide whats deserved? Should people be sentenced purely on the basis of someones high horse attitude? Or should that sentence be measured?
And why draw the line there. I have met people who get just as emotional about most sorts of crime. Take speed as an example, do you want people to be sentenced to life inside simply because parent X's child was killed by someone speeding, so in their opinion everyone speeding is potentially a child killer?
Take a burglary victim, should every one convicted of burglary be banged up for life? Talk to some victims and they would say yes.
And so it goes on. Which is why you and the public don't have any part in sentence. People get bent out of shape and think that prison is there simply as a punishment. It's not, like it or not the primary function is to reform, punishment comes as a second. You can claim it doesn't change people, and while no, not everyone is changed for the better, some are. Again, in this specific case, you don't know that he isn't someone that will reform.
Lastly, and JP touched on it, sentences are now from guided tariffs. The reason being that in the past person A in London has been sentenced one way. Person B in Wales was sentenced in the same circumstances differently. You, the public complained bitterly using the "It's so unfair" principle. Mostly in relation to traffic offences, which as we all know, apply to everyone else, not you if you are summonsed. The result is of the public making, Judges without the discretion to impose higher sentences.
- Messages
- 11,487
- Name
- T.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 11,487
- Name
- T.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The tariff is too weak. Emotion IMHO isbt the answer but tougher guidelines for the judges. Like the Texan system. They do justice properly. Lethal force allowed in your own home etc
- Messages
- 11,487
- Name
- T.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
)
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Be careful you two, Ruth will be of the opinion that you have a whole different set of personal issues
Sarcasm really doesn't become you.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm not sure that the complaining about a sentence is disagreeing with me at all. It's simply giving the public a way of whining. The CoA wont vary a sentence if it has been properly applied. As they have shown numerous times.
- Messages
- 11,487
- Name
- T.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
14 years isnt anywhere enough imo - but that aside thers also the issue that 14 years means out in 7 or less , which definitely isnt enough.
I still lean to hoping that an ODC shanks him in year1 - yes this is retribution not rehabiilitation but tbh you can't rehabilitate someone who thinks raping children is olkay
I still lean to hoping that an ODC shanks him in year1 - yes this is retribution not rehabiilitation but tbh you can't rehabilitate someone who thinks raping children is olkay
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not like you and I to agree. With para 1
I have to say I won't feel saddened if an armed robber called Vinny gives him a seeing too, not just for retribution as it adds to the sentence for the armed robber.
However the vigilantism isn't something I could condone or would desire but in this case I'd get it.
No emotion here,its simple to me somebody who rape a child life, the risk in this case are to great of him reoffending,see simple.
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Don't knock it.
I thought I was going to have trouble sleeping tonight.
I'll be fine now
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I tend to concur except that i'd say death penalty - if you give him life theres always thechance of some f***wit deciding he's rehabilitated and letting him out
I not sure about the death penalty,life without any chance of parole.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Trouble is treatment for nonces is a complete joke - they learn what to say to convince social workers that the 'treatment' is succesful from other nonces inside, repeat it by rote and then get released to reoffend, and they often arent effectively monitored on release even though they are supposed to be.
Personally I'd solve both problems by forgetting about "treating" them and just locking them up and throwing away the key (or shooting them in the head)
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thats fine - except that while they are alive theres always a chance of parole.
As ruth said earlier - life in the general population with no special protection ... essentially its a death sentence, but save the state the guilt of actually killing them
Peter69
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
Death sentance is just murder by the state.
For this person I feel a very long sentence is needed. Remember that a sentence should be a punishment, rehabilitation and protection to the general public. Given that, without ECT to retrain the mind, pedophiles can not be rehibilitated and thus always are a threat to the public, there should be no release.
Pedophiles are normally sociapaths too, so only the highest trained psyc should ever be allowed to 'treat' them.
For this person I feel a very long sentence is needed. Remember that a sentence should be a punishment, rehabilitation and protection to the general public. Given that, without ECT to retrain the mind, pedophiles can not be rehibilitated and thus always are a threat to the public, there should be no release.
Pedophiles are normally sociapaths too, so only the highest trained psyc should ever be allowed to 'treat' them.
archangel
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,024
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
It's all in black in white......and these were only the ones that were caught...... https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-april-2011-march-2012
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, it is.
Have a look at Adult re offending (tab 5a) in the proven re offending spreadsheet. Line 19 refers.
The re offending rate for sexual offences is 13.2%. so the vast majority of offenders don't re offend. Probably due to the close monitoring they get. The only better re offending rates are traffic offences (and that refers to recordable offences not things like excess speed), and fraud, usually a one off crime anyway.
So really statistically, all you have done is prove that the 'public protection' theory isn't a particularly valid argument. Although I have to say that I'm sure if you looked you could have found a better breakdown for Sexual offences against children.
The problem is that yes, you've disproved in general, but a Judge doesn't sentence that way, he looks at all of the circumstances and then passes sentence. So he will have looked at everything available to him, reports from psychologists, social services and then passed a sentence tailored to that defendant. If he felt that given all the circumstances there would be a danger to the public he could have imposed a different sentence. He didn't.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Like in the face :O
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its a different discussion but my feeling is that if its alright for our soldiers and armed police to kill those who threaten safe society in armed action before or instead of arrest, then theres no real difference with killing them after fair trial .
In both cases Its not muder because its carried out with due process of law
Peter69
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
I will try to find the psychological paper for you.
Without wanting to give an excuse for the behaviour, it is a condition. America did many experiments in the 50s and the only proven cure was ECT. Basically flashing images up of random items until a child's image was shown mixed with the shock.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Can you think of any therapy which would persuade you to stop being sexually attracted to women (assuming you are straight - men if you're Gay) ?
The answer is of course, No
This is why therapy doesnt stop paedophiles being attracted to kids and why there is always a risk of reoffending unless they are kept locked up
dejongj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh I most definitely can. Not even a double bag would be worth it. Damn yes I can.
Russ77
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Rapists are one thing, sick <insert the C-word here> who do it to defenseless children/babies don't deserve to live IMO, how can they ever be rehabilitated?
I don't care what the rule book says about how long they should be imprisoned for, they're not wired up properly and it's fairly apparent that the law doesn't cater for that.
What could possibly be used in mitigation for such a terrible act? This particular instance is made infinitely worse by the fact the guy has shown no remorse.
I sincerely hope he gets whats coming to him, for the victim's and the victim's family's sake if nothing else.
My daughter is 7 months old and I can guarantee one thing, I wouldn't be able to rest until I was satisfied proper justice had been carried out.
I don't care what the rule book says about how long they should be imprisoned for, they're not wired up properly and it's fairly apparent that the law doesn't cater for that.
What could possibly be used in mitigation for such a terrible act? This particular instance is made infinitely worse by the fact the guy has shown no remorse.
I sincerely hope he gets whats coming to him, for the victim's and the victim's family's sake if nothing else.
My daughter is 7 months old and I can guarantee one thing, I wouldn't be able to rest until I was satisfied proper justice had been carried out.
The grounds are simple to me,the risk is to great and the crime in the first place deserve a much tougher sentence,plus being in prison does not make you lose your sexual desire,and you cannot watch him 24 hours and day,the chance are he will be a lot more careful in the future about being caught.
That to me make any risk to great.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
because thats the reoffending rate for sexual offenders generally - which includes 16 year olds boffing their 15 year old girlfreind, date rape , flashers and a whole host of other tpyes of offences.
I strongly suspect that the reoffending rate for paedophiles is higher, although also its a flawed measure because by definition it only includes those caught reoffending , not those who get away with it
you keep talking about "the crystal ball" and people not being able to predict the future .. but i'd say that that is the same in the other direction - if you release a paedophile, without a crystal ball you can't guarantee that he'll not reoffend , which imo is sufficient justification for keeping them locked up or shooting them in the head
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You suspect? Not know? You've produced no evidence supporting your view, so it's in your view only. Come back with some supporting evidence please.
Simon
Sentences are not tough any more. For murder you'll be lucky to do 14 years, let alone life. You can't though assume, because that is all that you, and to be fair others (albeit your assumption you have at least explained!) are doing.
You cannot know what someone will be like in the future. You might be right, he may still be depraved enough to want to try again. He may not. The same could be said for any other offence as well, yet we don't bang up muggers for life, and it's a dead cert most of them will re offend.. We don't bang rapists (of an adult) up for life either. But again, we are back at the same point, you, we don't know the full circumstances and this is being judged on dubious sources of information. The person who had all of the information needed to make a rational and reasoned decision is the Judge. He has, so who are we to second guess him without that?
Simon
Sentences are not tough any more. For murder you'll be lucky to do 14 years, let alone life. You can't though assume, because that is all that you, and to be fair others (albeit your assumption you have at least explained!) are doing.
You cannot know what someone will be like in the future. You might be right, he may still be depraved enough to want to try again. He may not. The same could be said for any other offence as well, yet we don't bang up muggers for life, and it's a dead cert most of them will re offend.. We don't bang rapists (of an adult) up for life either. But again, we are back at the same point, you, we don't know the full circumstances and this is being judged on dubious sources of information. The person who had all of the information needed to make a rational and reasoned decision is the Judge. He has, so who are we to second guess him without that?
Last edited:
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
BSM
To save you the trouble of going and looking.
In 2012 there were 29,837 pedophiles on the sex offenders register. All those with a conviction are automatically placed on it.
Of those 941 re offended, thats 3.1%. Far less than sex offenders in general.
So, it seems that your guessing doesn't hold any water.
The figures come from the NSPCC.
To save you the trouble of going and looking.
In 2012 there were 29,837 pedophiles on the sex offenders register. All those with a conviction are automatically placed on it.
Of those 941 re offended, thats 3.1%. Far less than sex offenders in general.
So, it seems that your guessing doesn't hold any water.
The figures come from the NSPCC.