Category: Let's talk
Yessterday I was watching the local news, and there was a story about a woman molesting an 18th month girl. Of course, I thought that was horrible, but I went on about my business. Well, a bit later my friend called me in rage. When I ask what was wrong, she said the girl on the news used to be her friend. She said she had stop talking to this woman, because every time they went some where, she wanted her to pay for every thing. So she hasn't talked to her in a month or so, but what mad me freak out was that had spoken with this woman. We had only spoken ones, and I did notice she was sexually open, but I didn't imagine her fantasies went that far. I know nothing was my fault, but I still feel disgusting.
My god! That's awful and sick and I hoep she gets what she damn well deserves!!!
That's horrible! I hate people liek that! I beyond hate them, i want them to die! That's so sick and horrible I don't even like thinking about it, but it's there. As for it making you feel disgusting, don't let it hrut you, just hope she gets what she deserves!
Caitlin
She's on 100,000 dollar bale, but I don't think she'll be getting out. The press interviewed her, and she claims it was an acident. Then she said that she was rape as a child and maybe was taking her angrer on the baby. I say no excuses. Just because you life was a mess. Doesn't mean you have to mess with an innecent child.
That's utter crap!!! Abusers always know it's wrong!!!!! I say that because I've had to deal with that in my family and the "I didnt' know it was wrong" excuse, it's absolute bullshit!!! She deserves to fuckign rot in hell for that!!!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! That's God awful! Shoot! I agree witbh all of you. That THING deserves to die.
I agree. That's nonsense. Look at countless people who have been abused and grew up to become fully functional members of society? That's rubbish, what she's claiming. No excuse, none! I say she should be locked up for ever!
Caitlin
if anyone did something like that to my child I'd kill them personally. without even giving it a second thought. people like that deserve to wrot in hell!
Ditto.
Caitlin
That's truly shocking it really is, and I can completely eempathise with why you feel somewhat freaked out by this. Now, wait for it, I'm going to perhaps be more measured in my response even though my gut reaction follows along the lines of all the other posters here. I only want to add that we have never, either in this country or in the US, convicted and punished people for doing something if they didn't know they were doing it, or if they did know, nonetheless din't know it was wrong. For that defence see McNaghten's case, 1843, which you can find on any internet site and which applies across the US and commonwealth. To put this in context, then, some people guilty of acts of child abuse and indeed of crimes as serious as murder will be acquitted by reason of insanity. This defence is very very hard to prove indeed and I'm not saying it will happen in this case, nor am I saying that the 'I didn't know it was wrong' car always works; it often doesn't in fact and there are very few successful pleas of insanity. when they do occur, however, they are often in cases like this, so I might add that everyone should rest assured that if this woman is acquitted on the grounds of insanity, as I'm sure her defence lawyer will try to persuade the judge she should be, she will not walk free. On the contrary, I am pretty certain that the judge will make a life-time hospital order, and by 'hospital' I don't mean hospitals that you and I would frequent, I mean places nastier even than the worst prisons. I don't mean to detract from the feelings of disgust which have been rightly expressed here, and doubtless some of you will feel that I'm being rather anal about this because I'm a family lawyer. That may be true, but I'm a lawyer who believes in harsh punishments, and I think that before we get too carried away we all ought to take stock of the fact that if the 'I didn't know it was wrong' care is played, and if by chance it succeeds, she will most certainly not be walking the streets but will be greeted by a terrible state of affairs for which one day she may admit she would swap a conviction any time.
I heard about that, that is deiffinately sick!
Troy
This creature is a paedophile of the highest order and I have to say that this is a recognised mental condition however horrified we feel this woman wouldnt be able to admit that what she did was wrong! Its hard to comprehend for us as we are so filled with revulsion but she is ill and that may have some bearing on her case and the duration of her incarceration...I'm certainly not making excuses for her, there are none, but the reality of her illness was overlooked ...I would like to be left in a room with this person and several medieval torture devices but what does that make me?.
Quite right, Goblin, it may even have a bbearing as I pointed out on whether she is acquitted or not. I don't think that the defence of insanity operates in the same way in scotts law as in english law by the way, juswt as a point of interest. McNaghten was an english case of course, which has since been applied by US and other commonwealth courts, although I'm not sure how the Scottish courts approach this matter.
The Scottish courts have recently freed several abusers and allowed them to live beside their victims! Some within a few 100 yrds of a school! ..There was a famous case a few years back that of James Cronin who murdered a young lad after abusing him he was tried, freed, re arrested and freed again..And so the trend continues the courts seem unable to agree on the best course of action for these creatures.
Ishould point out that Paedophilia is incurable so the hope of rehabilitating these people is a false 1, I think in these circumstances a lethal injection is the only alternative.
Well the lethal injection would be unconstitutional in Britain, see the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates article 1 of the sixth protocol to the convention into domestic law viz. the prohibition on the death penalty. For similar reasons, we cannot deport anyone, or extradite anyone, to a country that has the death penalty, without an undertaking that it won't be used.
And before the question is asked, that includes the USA. States that have the death penalty must give us an undertaking that it will not be used before we can extradite someone. they can, however, execute a british citizen if the crime is committed within the state's jurisdiction and if the offender does not return to the United Kingdom in the meantime i.e. in the time prior to his apprehension either by the state authorities or by the british authorities on behalf of the state in question.
I agree with LL; if she pleads innocence in not knowing what she was doing, she'll just go to a sort of mental institution, which are bad places to live in, but she won't walk free by any means, I don't think. And good thing, too! And what of the poor child?
Caitlin
What we must remember is that we're a civilized society and we therefore don't punish people in the criminal aanctions sense if they are classified as insane, as many paedophiles have been.
well pedifillia may be a recognized mental condition, but generally pedifiles are very clever, very manipulative, very calculating people who, although what they're doing is an illness, know exactly what they're doing. And yeah, maybe the death penalty is illegal in this country, however, I think that in the case of pedifiles the law should be revised. What is the alternative after all. We know that they get put in jail for a few years, and after that they are released back into society, maybe put on the sex offenders register, and then, if they're unlucky, the locals in the area to which they have been relocated find out who they are and what they've done and they become victims of vidulanti groups, and yet more resources are wasted trying to bring order to their local areas. Now two wrongs don't make a right, and hounding people like that out of their homes after they have served their time is not the answer, so why not just put us all out of our misery and put them to sleep like the animals they are!
Because, Sugarbaby, we are constitutionally unable to allow the death penalty to return. You propose, for instance, the death penalty for all paedophiles if I read your contribution correctly: that would be a wretched and disastrous policy and the judges would find ways of getting round it. You can't have a mandatory sentence of death for any crime, it just doesn't work like that. WE do have mandatory life for murder that is true, but the parole board has a certain amount of leverage of the tariff that prisoners in for murder serve. Now, back to the case of paedophilia: if you want the death penalty for all paedophiles or at least a large number of them, what other crimes would you reinstitute the death penalty for? The other thing you have to bear in mind is that whilst some of these people are manipulative and clever, others are not. those who are will not be let out by the parole board, and even those who are not will be on the sex offenders register for life, and speaking as a lawyer I can assure you that this is a real handicap as they have to admit it almost everywhere they go. Okay, now turning to your suggestion that the law should be revised: I agree, but you can't revise the law on the death penalty without repealing the entire Human Rights Act. article 2 of schedule 1, and article 1 of the sixth protocol incorporated by section 1 of the act, do not permit any derogation from the right to life, not even in wartime, so fundamental a right is it considered. On a par with this right are those of the right to be free from torture, and the right to be free from slavery. do you see what I'm getting at here? It simply can't be done. I must say that I am an advocate of the death penalty in the most exceptional of exceptional cases myself. However, I'm sure that a lot of people in this discussion will be disappointed to here that under the proposal I would make for reimplementing the death penalty, the case we are discussing here, and that rightly provokes this disgust, would nonetheless not be a case worthy of the death sentence. I am happy to go into more detail if anyone wants me to.
To clarify, I would not normally consider one offence of child molestation worthy of a death sentence, but rather a life sentence. under the Lawlordian model, cases of multiple murder, treason, sedition, conspiracy to commit treason, offences under terrorism legislation and espionage wuold be the only offences to carry the death penalty, and only then in the most exceptional of exceptional cases e.g. Dr Harold Shipman would probably have been sentenced to death under my proposals.
are you speaking as a lawyer though? because a lawyer has to be less emotional about it all. If you ever become a parent, you will understand better why people feel that people who molest children deserve to die. Not that I'm saying you are unemotional, but it is only once you have had a child that you can truely feel this way - a child is the most innocent thing there is, and to do something like that to a small baby is unforgiveable, and should, in my opinion, be punished by the highest punishment available. if, however, the death sentence could not be administered, I think that perhaps castration might be a suitable punishment.
and in the occasional cases where women are guilty of such offences ... hmmm ... not quite sure what we could do to them, but I'm sure my fellow zoners could come up with something equally debilitating?
Sugarbaby, if the laws were made on our emotions, then any person entering a property would be shot when the owner got fed up of them, people would be lynched in the streets, people would be hung for all sorts of offences, to say nothing of what we would have done to the right to silence by now! Do you see the point I'm making here? Punishment is meated out not on a gut reaction basis, but rather on the basis of communicating censure that is proportionate to the crime. The desire for vengeance, whilst perfectly natural, cannot under any circumstances whatsoever be allowed to influence the punishment a person gets. I completely understand that until one is a parent, one does not really appreciate the emotions surrounding such a situation toa full extent, but nonetheless one can have a fair idea. I daresay that if any future children I may have were victim of such a crime I would want to kill the perpetrator. that doesn't, however, mean I should be allowed to. Quite the opposite in fact. The object of the criminal law is that it is the state which dispenses justice, and we live, I repeat, in a civilized society where emotions and mob rule are not l'ordre du jour. In short, Sugarbaby, whilst your standpoint is very understandable and whilst you are quite right to note that I am not myself a parent, nor am I likely to be for a good ten to fifteen years I would have thought, I can't agree that emotions should dictate the punishments we meat out to criminals. I forget who it was who said 'if you want to see how civilised a society is, see how it punishes its criminals' but how right they were. This is not a softly softly charter, far from it. It is, however, a conformation that danger to the public, moral censure, incapacitation and proportionality are to be weighed up when deciding how, why and whom to punish. I am not, as it happens, speaking as a lawyer at this moment. I was earlier, RE the death penalty, but here I have sought merely to demonstrate that the state, with its impartial machinery, is best placed to allocate and administer punishments whatever they may be, due to the very fact that it is impartial and separate from the main players in the conflict viz. the abuser and the abused and/or their respective families.
In this connection, it is important to remember that most judges, and indeed many lawyers and politicians - those who make and those who apply the law in other words - are also parents. Whether parent or no, it is important to recognise the rule of law, for only with that do we have justice as opposed to injustice whose only virtue is that it is quick and easy to dispense.
And before I have people on my back saying that because we don't hack body parts off anymore in the name of Her Majesty, or the state or whatever, crime is on the up because the criminals aren't scared, this is wrong I'm afraid. many of the serious offenders are career criminals and will offend regardless of the gruesome nature of the punishment that might be meated out. such a discovery was made about 300 years ago, when the rack and thumbscrews were abolished. The only area where deterrence might be effective would be for petty crime, so if you want to start lopping body parts off shoplifters then the deterrence argument holds good. But nobody wants to gegress that far, do they? Do what you like to paedophiles, make them eat their bollocks once they have parted company with their bodies if you will, but it will not reduce the frequency or severity of the offence.
Wow.
There a lot of horibel things that people do to others. But our loyer buddy is right. Our country wasn't built on that, and it is horible yes. But you can't go and kill someone just because they killed your kid. Sure you want too, but you just can't. I mean, if that were aloud to happen then, what else could we exersize this too? How many other cases should people be killed on? Everything? You can't replace a human life. True. But people can't just go and kill people either. That doesn't make you any better then the merderer themselves. I don't want to think how our country would run if people were aloud to kill for anything at all. .
amen to that, I say. That was very well put. As I say, I may appear slightly inconsistent by supporting the death penalty at the same time as espousing the views I espouse above, but I don't accept that there is an inconsistency.
lol, to make this more extensive I one day, it was a long time ago heard that a 5-year-old gilr was sexually molested by her dad.... I don't know where is that kind of people's mind at?...
Lou
What an earth are you purporting to laugh at, Lou?
This is horrible, i agree with all of you! What is this world coming to!
Agree with Nib. Lol.
Caitlin
And the reason I said lol is because I was thinking to myself, heck, we all agree! This world is full of monsters, and I was kind of laughing wryly because if someone didn't agree, they would be pummeled to an inch of their lives by the zoners, because we all think this is horrible beyond words. SO don't be offended by my lol there.
Caitlin
We all agree up to a point yes, but you'll notice that I'm pulling against the general stream when it comes down to the question of punishment. i wouldn't like our society to regress to lopping off carefully selected parts of the body as I explain above, and I also make it clear that under tha Lawlordian model of the reimplementation of the death penalty in the United Kingdom, this person would not be executed. I note from a post earlier on in this discussion that the suspect in this case has been given bail. Now, that seems to suggest to me that there are very strong mittigating circumstances as normally - at least in britain - the prosecution would in such a case successfully oppose bail. The fact that bail has been granted here is, then, highly significant.
Yeah. I don't care what happens to this person really, as long as they are rightfully punished in a jsut trial and by a group of their peers or whatever. And that they learn, if possible, that what they did is horribly disgusting and cruel.
Caitlin
amen to that, I say.
Yay, LL agrees with me, I'm so special! Lol jk! I've actually said something that he doesn't find something arguable in! Hhaha I'm just teasing I promise.
Caitlin
I honestly thought the extreme punitivism lobby might have another dip at this one as I seem to be in the minority in not advocating death or castration or some other gruesome torture for this particular offender. But alas no.
Well, if it brings any comfort, she pled guilty. Word had it that she'll service about five years. hmmmmm, that doesn't seem very long. It is always nice to know that I live in a country where the justice system is so fair. Notice the sarcasm?
Well, without having before me the facts of the case i.e. mittigation etc. that is to say, things that might count as reasons for provoking a discounted sentence, I am reluctant to pass judgment on the sentence passed. Five years does seem very short indeed though. I wonder if the judgment is made available to the public, and shall keep a look-out. I would be interested to see why the sentence was on the leanient side. In this country the sentence for a first offence of this nature would be at least fifteen years consequent on a guilty plea, and a life-time registration on the sex offenders register. However, note that unsoundness of mind, abnormalities or diseases of the mind can reduce sentence, as well as crimes committed during a blackout or state of amnesia or nervou shock. I'd be very interested to know if this judgment will be on public record.
First 2 stories. First a 10 year old girl gets molested by a 30 some year old man, and when he is questioned he admits it and is let go because do to his condition, "petifilia" he is mentally incompitant of standing trial. He totally admitted to it, and when asked why he touched the child he responded and I quote, "To make myself feel good." Secondly, a petifile was allowed to walk after a hospital stay and move where he wished. He proceeded to molest children and sexually harass vonerable women. He would stand publically and reveal himself to children and say, "Wouldn't you like to feel this?" Or walk up to a woman with children and say things like, "God wouldn't you feel nice..." Now, you might ask why I know so much about these two cases. Because I was that 10 year old little girl, and the police report from when he was questioned was read to me. He got nothing by the way; not even hospital treatment, and I lived in an apartment complex that the second one's mother managed. I was baby sitting at the time, and had to constantly deal with such comments from the second one. So, when we talk about what is "just" for such crime offenders let us consider the effects on the abused and damaged. Yes, damaged!!! I can not stand anyone to touch me without warning. I thought for a long time I was less of a human for what was done to me. I know I'm revealing a lot here, but I don't care. You want to laugh, go ahead, but these are the facts. To this day I have night mares about what was done to me various times, and what do any of them have?
Witchcraft I don't intend to detract from your comments, and doubtless what I say about just punishment etc. will have an entirely different meaning for someone like you who has been the victim of such appalling behaviour. I don't in any way mean to say that sentences that are handed out are acceptable, and in your case although I again don't know the facts, all I can say is that the consequences of the admission of guilt seem very odd and far too leanient. however, apart from that, I stand by what I have said. wE live in a just society, and just because you have a desire for vengeance, or because you have certain feelings towards the offender as to how he should be punished, the state is the one to dispense proportionate punishment because of its impartiality. I repeat, if the rule of law were the rule of emotions then we would have injustice rather than justicde, and it is better to do justice if and to the best extent that we can.
it is true to say that we have to have a justice system run by the state in this country, and in others, I have commented in previous posts about vidulanti groups, and how their actions can do more harm than good and how two wrongs don't make a right, but I think that the reason people feel that not enough is done, is because sentences are not harsh enough, and because it is a known fact that pedifiles cannot be rehabilitated, people feel that they should be incarsorated for life, and not set free into society where they pose a risk to our children. After all, their victims have to live with what was done to them for the rest of their lives, why should the perpitrators of those crimes be free to commit similar acts again in the future.
Sugar Baby I partly agree but here's the crux are you aware of how much it costs to treat and then incarcerate these creatures millions every year.There for I think the lethal injection is a viable and worthwhile option, there can be nothing more frightening for a child or a rape victim to know their attacker is free to walk the streets I have been attacked and the knowledge that he was out there and able to turn up at my door sent me in to a breakdown...to avoid this scenario we could take this path.Once the abuser has been identified thru DNA testing to avoid mix ups and been found guilty beyond all possible doubt, then they can be executed the problem is solved and the rehabilitation of the victims can really begin.
Sugarbaby, you assert that 'it is a known fact that paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated' but you support it with no evidence at all. I'm afraid that statement is manifestly incorrect, which is a shame really as I agree with much of the rest of what you say in your most recent contribution to this discussion at the time of writing. I agree that there should be tougher sentences, I agree that the interests of the victim have been irreparably affected. These are perfectly good points on their own, without having to resort to general statements such as that which you assert as a known fact here. the fact is that research commissioned by Martin Narey, the former director-general of the prison service, shows that the cognative behavioural programmes employed in particular at HMP Grendon Underwood, have dramatically reduced reoffending in sex offenders and other serious offenders. Now, I am not saying that very dangerous offenders should be incapacitated and put beyond the reach of society where they cannot commit any crimes at all, but Sugarbaby, we can't sentence every recalcitrant to life, can we? To put it another way, some offenders at least whom we might find undesirable have to be released at some point, and surely it is better to release them in a state where they will be less likely to reoffend. it is one thing to say that prison sentences are too short, but quite another and indeed quite wrong to say that it is a known fact that an entire category of offender cannot be rehabilitated. The latter option constitutes an admission of defeat which means we must either sentence this offender to life imprisonment, or kill him. There are too many sex offenders to all receive life sentences, and to execute them all without making some attempt at rehabilitation would render the society we live in somewhat morally bankrupt and executing more people than we did in the middle of the nineteenth century. So amen to tougher sentences, but the so-called 'known fact' is misplaced and wrong.
I missed out a pronoun that might have altered the meaning of what I said about incapacitation. I do in fact accept that some offenders are worthy of life-long incapacitation, but for the reasons already given, I cannot advocate the abandonment of rehabilitative methods.
How can a paedophile be rehabilitated if the disorder is incurable there is always the very real danger of a relapse and the consequences of that are unthinkable! No we cant lock everyone up that is ridiculous but the fact remains that the only way of ensuring these creatures cannot reoffend is to execute them to quote a line from a previous post from yourself "do what you like with paedophiles make them eat their own bollocks ect"
Hi All. Well, I don't know what to think. Because like Goblin says, there's no knowing if people liek this will have a relapse and hurt again, so is counseling really safe, and helpful? What do you all think?
Caitlin
Actually there is another option, and I say option because I'm unsure if a males equipment is gone is his sex drive? Touching can and is just as bad to the psychy of a child or woman as actual rape or sottomy. It renders the victum feeling ashamed, helpless, exiled with loved ones and much more, and yet we're worried about these beasts rights?
Look I'm sorry, but what speculative nonsense! Of course there's no knowing whether or not there'll be a relapse, and the consequences of a relapse would be unthinkable. There's noi knowing whether car thieves would reoffend again, and the consequences of their reoffending might result in a fatality. there's no knowing whether a youth who mugs an old lady but is then rehabilitated in prison so that he sees the error of his ways will change his mind on release and relapse into criminality, and the consequences of such a relapse would be unthinkable. There's no knowing whether a fraudster who's brought down a pension company but in prison has done a lot of charity work will relapse on release into his old ways, and the consequences of such a relapse might mean thousands of pensioners on the poverty line. What are you going to do? execute everyone because there's a risk that they might reoffend? There are many good arguments in favour of longer sentences for paedophiles, but this is manifestly one of the worst. the research at grendon Underwood shows, quite clearly, that cognative behavioural programmes work in rehabilitating paedophiles. Of course there is a risk of relapse, but that risk is very much negated first by the aforementioned cognative behavioural programmes, and secondly by a life-time on the sex offenders register. So Goblin, and Caitlyn, I regret to say that I can't see how your argument that we should execute them all on the pure speculative risk basis has a leg to stand on. Witchcraft I note your other option, but I can't support it and using immotive language such as 'beasts' detracts from your argument rather than lending support to it. We must not forget the rights of the victim, but they cannot determine a sentence. This i swhy in Britain and the US we do not allow victim impact statements into court. Nobody can imagine the difficulties you went through as you have told us, but I can't support the gratuitous maiming you seem to be advocating. For a start, what if there were a miscarriage of justice? you can't replace the body part you've lopped off, can you?
so ll I take it you are going to become a defence barrister some day, and as a defence barrister, you might one day be required to defend someone who has committed such an act again ... lets say ... a very young child, how would you propose to offer a defence?
Well, in the following terms: first, one is innocent until proven guilty. it follows from this fundamental premmice of the criminal justice system that the defendant has not committed the crime, as you put it, until he is proven to have done so. The result is that he is entitled to put forward a defence, and as a barrister, I am under a duty to put forward a defence in accordance with my instructions, however difficult I may find that defence to believe, for of course I could be wrong and util conviction, it would be negligent of me not to carry out my client's instructions. ah, you say, but what if you just know he's guilty? The answer to that is, I don't. I don't know he's guilty and I am not the tribunal of fact, the jury are. the bar council's professional code of conduct requries me to act on instructions and put the interests of the client before my own and those of any other person, so that is what I am bound, professionally, to do. Ah, you say, but what if your client tells you that he's guilty but he wants to plead not guilty? Only then may I withdraw from the case, for I am professionally embarrassed and, subject to some exceptions e.g. family proceedings where there is a duty of full and frank disclosure, I must simply tell the client that he must find someone else to represent him. you see, sugarbaby, we are all entitled to representation, however reprehensible we may be: Harold Shipman was entitled to representation and Nicola Davies QC defended him as bes she could in the circumstances. The british National Party are entitled to representation, as was Ian Huntley. it would be manifestly unfair if they were not entitled to representation, and highly unsatisfactory too. surely, if a conviction is to be secured, you would rather it were secured through the observance of due process? Maybe if you're that vengeful you don't care one way or the other, which is all jolly fine until, I repeat, there is a miscarriage of justice. So, to recap, my profession would require me to defend this person you've come up with, and I would do so to the best of my ability, just as counsel for the prosecution would prosecute to the best of his ability. Even if someone is guilty, the defence brief's job is not over, as he is entitled to be heard as to mittigation of sentence. It's very very easy to label every suspect who comes into the police station as 'troublemaker', 'filth', 'scum of the earth', and the like. Don't forget, though, that there are innocent people arrrested and charged by the police. The authorities and even the courts get it wrong from time to time, and that is why defence work is important.
What used to anger me was when people blindly asserted that Michael Stone, the murder suspect who was alleged to have killed a baby girl with a hammer, was guilty as soon as he had been arrested. I wish I had a pound for every time someone said to me, "He's guilty! He's a murderer!" etc. wrong, wrong, and wrong again. he's not a murderer till the jury say he is. He was convicted on a majority verdict at Maidstone Crown Court, but on appeal his conviction was quashed as it appeared some of the evidence had been tampered with. You see, these things do happen. You should, sugarbaby, try and watch 'In denial of Murder' which tells the story of the Matlock Mercury's tireless campaign to overturn the conviction of Steven Downing for the murder of a woman some twenty years ago in Bakewell cemetery.
I think that to say innocent until proven guilty, and, not a murderer until you have been proven to be one in the eyes of the law are two completely different things. Of course you are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, and it annoys me just as much when people say “he must have done it” when someone is arrested in connection with a certain crime. But I think the media has a lot to answer for in those instances, especially in high profile cases where there is a lot of public emotion involved, for instance in the case of holly wells and Jesica Chapman, and Sarah Pane, The suspects were named almost as soon as they were charged. I actually think that the law should be changed to prvent defendents from being named until they have been found guilty, because even if they are found innocent, there will always be people who think they are guilty, and they may be hounded for the rest of their lives for something they potentially didn’t do. It is also the case, unfortunately, that you are seen to be guilty by association, Maxine Carr for instance, although found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice, might as well have been found guilty of murder as far as a lot of the general public are concerned, even though she wasn’t actually there. But to say that someone is not a murderer until they have been proven to be one is wrong I think. You talk about cases where long battles have gone on to correct miscarriages of justices in cases such as that of Steven Downey, who was eventually freed after serving 27 years or so, don’t know the exact time, for a crime which he didn’t commit, but if we can wrongly convict someone of a crime, then it stands to reason that we can wrongly find someone not guilty of one as well. But in those cases the law protects those people, because in this country, you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. So for all the people who are currently in jail and shouldn't be, how many are there who are free, and shouldn't be.
I have to correct you there, Sugarbaby. See the criminal Justice act 2003, and the reversal of the so-called 'double jeopardy rule'. The fact is that now, you can be tried for the same offence more than once if the court of appeal considers that there is enough evidence, in exceptional circumstances, for a good arguable case. so, that's that taken care of. moving on, you talk about the failure of the due process of law system viz. releasing people who have actually in fact committed crimes. I presume that you have in mind the Steven Lawrence five, whom an inquest jury implicated in everything but name as having killed Steven Lawrence after the prosecution case had collapsed and who, I might add, would without question have been tried again under the law outlined above had the criminal Justice act 2003 been in force at the time of the murder of Steven Lawrence on 22 April 1993. That's all very well, Sugarbaby, and you rightly highlight this imperfection of the system, but in response I would say the following: first, it is an imperfection that has been greatly remedied by the most recent change in the law, and its residue represents far less of an imperfection than what the opposite extreme would be viz. convicting people without a fair trial and representation. secondly, a lot of people have been advocating lopping off of body parts and even execution. How do you reverse these sentences in cases of wrongful conviction? You can't. How do you reverse a wrongful acquittal? It's possibly. I understand the problem you have: why does the law protect people wrongfully convicted, but not hound those wrongfully acquitted? it all depends on what you want of course, but if we were to go the way of repeatedly trying the same person without a safety mechanism such as the court of appeal under the 2003 legislation, convictions would be harder to get. take a suspect who has been tried twice for an offence and is now tried a third time: he's in the police station and the police are wearing him down through long interviews etc. he confesses. at trial, defence counsel says simply this: sorry, but this man has been tried twice, acquitted twice, and his confession was brought on by oppression so should be ruled in dmissible under Police and criminal evidence act 1984, section 76(2A). The judge says thank you very much, counsel, I agree. The net result would be that it would be even more difficult to get convictions. add to that the failing memories of witnesses, the troubles over finding unbiased juries (And I don't agree that courts can be a closed shop for justice has to be seen to be done), and the civil liberties problems over being a free man yet a prisoner at the same time, and I think we can see why the law doesn't allow repeated trial for the same offence beyond the limited circumstances I have indicated above. So your utilitarian comparison between the wrongfully convicted and the wrongfully acquitted is intractable to an extent but it is the least imperfect system, and were we to employ an alternative convictions would be reduced, you mark my words.
Would you like to take the risk? Because and does happen right here in Scotland James Cronin was a well known and incurable pervert, who consistantly offended and was released time and time again at great risk to the public a monster like him would be better off executed...as I have said before the knowledge that your assailant can turn up at your door any time he/she chooses and ask for you by name, or follow you home from school ect, is enough to drive some to suicide and the idea of a child or a rape victim taking his/her life due to abject fear is not something I want to hear about on the news.There is only 1 answer to this crime and that is to ensure these creatures never exploit the legal loopholes and out of touch judges, who allow them the luxury of freedom if the lethal injection is too much for the do gooders to swallow then enforced castration is an option and if they start bleating about their rights we'll bloody well throw the book at them!
............................................................
How is a victim of sexual abuse supposed to recover when their attacker is walking the streets reoffending and getting off scot free.
Out of touch judges? what stuff of nonsense I'm afraid. i don't know what the situation is in scotland, but in england we now have judges who are appointed in their thirties and who practice at the same time, and who have practised at the criminal bar all their life so therefore done cold Saturday mornings in magistrates courts, both prosecuting and defending these people. but I want to move on as that, after all, wasn't the main point about which I wanted to take issue with you. It's obvious that you haven't listened to a word that I've said above. Your post is, in fact, a reason why we shouldn't put people like you in charge of sentencing. It seems to me, Goblin, that you're one of those people for whom everyone who walks through the police station door is a lost cause, guilty as charged even before they are charged. that's a dispicable attitude to have. now, I agree that it's very annoying when certain prisoners incarcerated for terrible crimes bleat on about their rights and try to exploit legal loopholes to get released such as the incompatibility of their sentences with article 6 of the European Convention or something like that. With respect, however, that's quite another issue. You can rant on about castration and lethal injections and all that sort of carry-on until the cows come home, but the more you do, the less likely you are to be taken seriously. It's just not a constructive suggestion and notwithstanding the perils we face from reoffenders etc. you can't resort to the extreme of lopping off body parts. I repeat, were we to go down the Goblinian blood and gore strategy, we'd be maiming and executing more people than we did about 200 years ago, and was the crime rate any lower then? Official figures tend to indicate not, and chroniclers certainly document a higher rate of crime. If you want to base the whole thing on risk, you ought to note that it is not sex offending of which we are most at risk, but petty theft, robbery, car theft, burglary and various types of assault. aRe you going to hang all of those people too? or castrate them? Or chop their hands off?
Hmm, this just goes to show that the fewer body parts you have the less likely you are to commit a crime, let's just chop arms and legs off at birth and people won't be able to do this, well also the cym card will actually help to solve this problem of horendous crime.
You demonstrate the problem with this logic very well old lad.
This discussion could be extended infinitely to e.g. try to uncover the cause of the abnormal behaviors that lead to such tragedies being afflicted on people ruining their lives. Just as an example, those anti- abortion, what about the kids that are born into a drug addict family, whose brains have been messed up by smoking or alcohol or drugs during pregnancy and/or have parents who don't care and are cruel to them, bringing them up with twisted idiology or substance abuse, perhaps by making it easier for people who don't want kids to get an abortion we could remove many of the would-be offenders but is that ethically something we'd at all want to do, isn't that almost like trying to bread peole with certain qualities (well people of a certain class in this instance, i.e. all of those who can afford to have kids and are not too plauged by deseases or drugs). I think our independent thinking and ability to plan and execute things is our biggest gift, like anything else it can be absued, sometimes with horrible conseuqneces, but even more horrible would be to inforce justice by taking the freedom and what little justice we have from one another. There is a price to freedom, this is just an example thereof, a horrible one and I just can't believe some of the storeis I've read here, I've seen other examples really bad, my dad's friend had to quit his job after his son raped his sister in some weird Ecstacy/lsd trip, she was 12 .. well she is still alive but shocked and the entire family is in ruins. How people can do this is beyond my understanding but I still think we have to give them what justice they might deserve however monstrious this all looks.
cheers
-B
Excellent. Let me tell y'all a little story to further mine and Wildebrew's argument here: last March I was at a law dinner at which the speaker was Mr geoffrey Nice QC, the chief prosecutor of president Millosovic at his trial in The Hague. He told us of the evidence he had heard: of boys brought up on farms now indicted for genocide; of shopkeepers who had gone on plundering escapades as hte enemy's villages were destroyed; of children brought up to love farm animals and be good to the environment complicit in the destruction of villages in the former Yugoslavia. He concluded by saying that however well off we think we are, however comfortable and happy we are, and however good a person we might consider ourselves to be, we all have the potential to be a criminal or a war criminal one day. He spoke as someone who had clearly seen it happen to the most unlikely of people, and how right he was. all right, we don't live in a war-torn country at the moment, and I daresay many of you would blanch at the thought of yourselves as criminals. That doesn't alter the fact, however, that we all have the potential to offend, even to offend seriously. it is therefore very wrong to think that we can eliminate all risk by going on a bloodthirsty crusade as some advocate here, and wrong to think of a them and us mentality. You can't just give up on people in other words. What if our hypothetical sex offender had children who had already been innocently complicit in their parent's activities? Would you eliminate them too to get rid of any possible genetic cause of the parent's criminality in future generations? That's very dangerous, very dangerous indeed, and born once again of the them and us mentality.
So, you think you have the offenders rights covered, but what about the victums rights? What are you going to do about them? With your offender walking free; I'm not saying all are guilty, but if you have one that is, what do you propose to do to help his/her victum(s)? Nothing as everyone else does?
Witchcraft, isn't that outside the realm of the law? If a sex offender has, in fact, been acquitted that's the end of it as far as the law is concerned, he is innocent since he hasn't been proven guilty (he in most cases, of course there are women there too but a lot less common).
Trust me, I think I understand your pain, I've witnessed how sexual abuse can change people and it's a frightening and angerring experience. But the only thing that I or anyone else could do at that point is to try and help the victim overcome his/her past and may be sometimes it's impossible, in those instances the law has failed to punish the criminal and even if the sex offender had all his bits chopped off will it really cure the victim, will it make it better, if the law fails should I have gone out and killed the guy who abused a person I cared so much about, sure I would want to do that, but where would that lead us, it would land me in prison, would further mess up the person's life and mine as well. I mean, it's a tricky situation really.
w/b is right. I have said before that two wrongs don't make a right. Yes it is true that if someone hurt my child I would want to kill them, but in the long term that wouldn't make things better for my child. The harsh reality is, that once such a horrible crime has been committed, the act has been done, and nothing can compensate for that, so whether the perpitrators of that crime are in jail or free, the victim still has to live with it.
I think we are reaching a consensus. Witchcraft as a family lawyer I also know how abuse can change people's lives. However, like others, I don't know whether chopping off the offender's goolies is going to make a difference to put it bluntly. Indeed, some victims even plead for clemency towards the offender. I can think of at least four examples in the last couple of years that have reached the court of appeal where this has happened. Rightly, the court of appeal has ignored such pleas for clemency as this would lead to inconsistent sentencing, but just as it should ignore mercy, it should also ignore vengeance. The rights of victims must of course be protected, but as wildebrew says, this lies outside the province of the law. I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in britain there is a criminal injuries compensation scheme which helps, as well as a victims of crime trust, and victim support officers in the police, who continue to liaise with those affected long after the trial. There is also the possibility of civil redress in the form of damages, and although it's not the same at all, the combination of such factors in my view does more to help the victim than any maiming or killing ever would.
she is sick in the head. she should be left as food for the vaultures. I think that is what she deserves. do you think?
No, I don't thik that at all, as will be obvious from my responses above. That reaction is understandable, but from a point of view of shaping penal policy, it is manifestly primative and not at all a constructive response.