Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
not just simply behead him?
talk about fucking unethical and SICK.
I do it all the time. Its fun.
Shall I groom you?
What are you wearing?
like a bird grooms an elephant.
she had nits. he ate them. what a bastard!
If they clearly realise that he is likely to do it again, why are they releasing him after 18 months, or less probably....
He'll just do it again, and we'll be hearing about him in about 3 years...
not without his head
castration is cutting off their dick?
It isn't. Its cutting the balls off.
Hence, no sexual drive.
can you get into the head of a castrated man?
surely he'll still crave intimacy on some level.
he wont have testosterone or something?
Castration might be just a TOUCH harsh.
i suppose not...but if i was the father of anyone he had groomed then yes, i would seriously like to take his head clean off
that's why the parents aren't the judges.
thats true. got a thing about my family thats all. i am very protective of them
People just do it when they're ready to do it.
Becuase if she did then surely he shouldn't be charged, sex is sex.
yeah, but castration would clearly be disproportionate
frivilous about paedophilia, but none of them are ever even remotely good looking, are they?
Also, almost all of them are white.
just about to say that. beheading him could actually improve his looks
he got his story played out by jeremy "whoops my cock has fallen out of my dressing gown" irons.
if you'd have said 'almost all of them are white', relating to anything possibly criminal, you'd be lynched.
you really should be looking at YOURSELF and asking some serious questions
isn't really paedophilia, it's more just wrong. And illegal.
I mean, you see some 15 year old girls who easily look 18-19.
Fancing grown up looking women isn't paedophilia. But having sex with a girl of 15 is actually a bit not right.
their 16th birthday, and the day after it.
the law has chosen an arbitrary date which is wrong for some and right for others.
why do you have to have an age of consent?
want to make a jokey comment here, but I feel that I will be acused of taking things to far.
So I shall just sit and giggle to myself at my own 'comedy'.
or at least PM it to me!
yeah, i'm in an inappropriate mood today.
castration is a bit much. I mean this happens with much younger children and castration is never used. Why suddenly start using it just for this case?
way the bloke has gone about it, is the main cause of concern. and anshcul, thats a very good point....where the fuck are the parents when this is going on
Why is it we only hear about people in their 40s doing this? I mean what difference does it make if the person is 48 or 18? it's still illegal. I'd be amazed if it doesn't go on at that age too.
you'd not be surpised if there were 18 year olds having sex with 15 year olds? erm, neither would i
no threats - full consent
parents are the ones responsible (or irresponsible) in this case
a hype about older guys having sex with underage girls, it's not like if you're under 16 and a girl that you are unable to say "Actaully no thanks, I dont' want to have sex tonight"
people seem to think that before you are 16 (or 17 in ireland) you have no mind of your own. So on your 16th birthday you suddenly develop the ability to say no?
im going to go fuck a twelve year old mute
it's not exactly frowned upon, if a guy over 16 has sex with an underage girl, it can be considered as rape, I don't understand how that can be fair, generally both people decide if they want to have sex, it's not the guy forcing himself upon her just because he is older.
a 40something woman MP victimising a 12 year old boy?
You often make me lol.
just pushing this back to the top.
is WAY WAY worse
in principle I'm against the death penalty
I'm prepared to abandon my principles for this case
Are you sure??
and then rapes a 3 year old
unless of course you're being sarcastic in which case I have nothing further to add
and against the idea that everyone who exists has to have a 'use' in society.
No humane society should advocate government sanctioned murder, no matter what the crime.
but in cases like this it rather gives weight to the argument for vigilantism
if it was my kid he did that to....
There is no place in civilised society for a retribution-based post-Christian "eye for an eye" death penalty.
And if someone were to then go and beat the shit out of this guy, then they should be locked away too. Yes, it's an emotive crime and it's shocking and disgraceful, but doing something shocking and disgrceful in retaliation is a sad loss of perspective.
doesn't the very premise of a humane society rest on the concept of justice?
if justice is clearly not being done then it certainly is a call to vigilantism
and it isn't an eye for an eye - he didn't kill his victims - he merely poisoned them for life - the crime he committed will keep on being commited to those children at every moment of every day until they are old and grey or can't stand it any longer and commit suicide
All I am saying is, committing violence against another person is wrong.
And if that simple precept is used in making judgements, then it is possible to contain and deal with things. If you decide to ignore it, and carry out violence yourself for some reason, then things begin to disintegrate, and you are no longer allowed to take any moral high ground. Your opinions of what should happen are then void, because you yourself have carried out violent crimes and should be dealt with accordingly.
how can he possibly let him get off so lightly on this?
you are talking theory
this actually happened - this man kidnapped, raped and tortured a 3 year old
it's quite possible that in less than six years he will be out on the streets and doing it again
in this instance it is arguable therefore that the failure of justice could lead to a vigilante with a shotgun or a baseball bat taking his head off
it might then be argued that this retaliatory action is not a 'crime' as it might be seen as a pre-emptive action upon him in order to safeguard all the other 3 year olds
Myra Hindley was kept locked up precisely to protect her from this kind of vigilantism
i'm not saying it's right - I'm simply saying that it is real
I'm familiar with what vigilantism is.
You were saying that this adds weight and validity to the actions of vigilantes. Which is just not tenable. My position won't change on this. I wholeheartedly think that any argument in favour of the validity of vigilante violence or state approved murder is barbaric.
Look into how long paedophiles actually serve on average, if it bothers you so much that you're advocating vigilante violence. See how soon they actually get out on parole on average. If you don't think it's long enough, approach your MP. Any MP will be happy to take your concerns on, and provide you with a reponse. Most are happy to enter into a dialogue, and these dialogues change positions and influence the direction of policy.
How about if someone who'd lost a relative in Iraq, and considers Tony Blair and Geoff Hoon war criminals, were to come and shoot them, because they didn't feel they had been prosecuted fairly for their actions in Government after the various inquiries and reports? Would that be acceptable vigilante justice by your rationale, to prevent them doing it again?
you're even confusing yourself bringing Iraq into it
vigilantism/terrorism = bad
police/military = good
it all depends on in whose hands justice rests...
the law is designed as an intermediary between the actions of adults and what is defined in society as acceptable or unnaceptable behaviour
but in this specific case the victim was a 3 year old and the perpetrator was a full grown male
in every other area of this child's life it was entirely provided for, cared for, stewarded, educated, shepherded by its parents
suddenly it is the victim of a diabolical crime and its parents are removed from the equation and rendered impotent and the state justice system sits in judgement - this leaves an 'impotence gap' that is ripe for the exploitation of vigilantes - unless of course the system delivers satisfactory justice
in cases like this there will never be any kind of satisfactory justice so one must accept that someone intent on seeking revenge who has the opportunity to do so will be ANOTHER rogue element who presents a danger to society as a whole
what I'm saying is that I'm not so rigid in my principles to rule out that possibility that - for all their righteousness - they just don't work in some cases
this is an intractable problem;
do you kill someone to prevent them killing others? or is it wrong of you to do so?
the sad fact is that if the Police had shot him dead during their pursuit of him no one would care but because the case went through due process the ideals, the principles and the precedents must be applied
It's an example of the application of your formula to another situation.
I have nothing further to add.
you might find this interesting nonetheles
'The criminal justice system is one of the least effective means of reducing and controlling crime'
'The author argues that "most victims never get redress through the criminal justice system", adding: "The cross-party 'tough on crime' consensus is tough on victims too."'
If you fail to make any discursive argument while dismissing any prior points I had made as 'confused', then the discussion becomes your own monologue, and ends.
You seem to suggesting that I've ground to halt in the face of your crushing reason, when actually I've ground to a halt because of your poor debating technique.
Luckily, we're on a message board and not a panel show, so I can stop as soon as it becomes pointless.
the criminal justice system works at all is a can of worms that can wait for another day.
I really don't
I didn't dismiss any of your points - I answered them - I just don't see any point in 'quote'-'rebuttal' when your words and mine are printed alongside each other (or above and below rather)
It did not enter into a monologue at all - I simply stated my position on this singular - and admittedly very rare case
And bringing Iraq into an argument where you are defending the principles of a humane society is certainly a confusing and paradoxical addition to the debate
"why am I not surprised"
Just out of curiosity at what you are on about?
You can't deal the introduction of the Iraq point, that's fine. I have already explained what that was. An example of taking a moral equation that you have set in place, and applying it to a different circumstance to see if it still holds up. I was patently not drawing in all the complexities of the Iraq war in relation to our debate, but using a very specific example in order to further what we were talking about.
Like I said, the discussion has broken down.
"a parent loses a child due to events that are directly attributable to the actions of a prominent politician. This politician is never adequately punished or held to account, so the parent takes matters into their own hands and end this politician's life to try and acheive justice."
I was drawing out an alternative situation in which the moral standpoint you were suggesting, i.e. that carrying out a vigilante act where 'justice' is nor appropriately carried out by any kind of body of authortity can in certain instances be valid, to illustrate the gaping holes in the the argument in a wider context.
But rather than go through the bother of explaining that to you, I decided to say you had shit debating skills and storm off. Because it's frustrating to see someone skim over a complex point and then come back and call your argument 'confused' when it is quite clearly they who have been confused and not able to receive your point.
"and prevent repeat occurences." at the end of the initial hypothetical scenario.
you missed my point - I wasn't advocating vigilatism - I was pointing out that it rears its ugly head at such junctures - and that the last resort is simply closue (see below)
and I rephrased your ethical dilemma in my own post
"this is an intractable problem;
do you kill someone to prevent them killing others? or is it wrong of you to do so?"
I agree with you that if we were to have this debate in a live forum rather than a digital one it would certainly be more productive
advocating the death penalty, and saying these events 'add weight' to the case of vigilantism. I feel you're rapidly backpedalling here.
This is PRECISELY my point - there is no satisfactory outcome to this debate - there never can be, their never will be
both sides can be argued ad infinitum
at least if the guy was sentenced to death or to life without the possibility of parole there would be CLOSURE - but like I said above there will never be satisfaction
on a related note - I have always thought that debate is about finding common ground and building on it - not competing over rigidly held opposite principles to the point at which the principles themselves become subservient to the finesse of debating style
It is frustrating when a point gets dismissed as confused or confusing. It just means you skimmed it and dismissed it, which is fair enough - like I said, it's a message board, and that's why I stopped.
what if he's mentally handicapped?
with the death penalty, I mean. There are children being abused every day by family members but it never gets reported, if you're going to impose the death penalty on one man for that, you'd have to chase down every father and uncle who'd ever touched their children as well. Not very eloquent, I know.
of a humane society
There's nothing wrong with working towards ideals.
"Paedophile Craig Sweeney, 24, was sentenced to life but can apply for parole after five years and 108 days."
Early parole for crimals who've committed crimes of a violent of sexual nature is dangerous.
capmaigning for repugnant vigilante laws such as 'Sarah's Law' probably beat their children with hairbrushes because they talk through Emmerdale.
But let's 'protect' our children. FUCK OFF
handy weapon and don't leave too many scars on your child for when they strip in PE
You have got it toally wrong.
never mentioned any detail of the law, just said that people campaigning against it are sometimes hypocrites, because they may think it's ok to strike their own children, and cause them physical and psychological harm, yet still they throw stones at glass houses. Or paedophile's houses. Or people who aren't even paedophiles' houses
nice one, craig.
can't really remember. Sorry
it will encourage vigilante attacks?
I'd want to know some things before coming out with a decision on this.
Such as statistics of repeat offences by 'reformed' paedophiles. Who would be able to access the information (they have said already that it is 'controlled' and that there are stiff penalties for any kind of vigilante attacks etc). I'd want to know in what way this information could be used, and why it could help.
just pandering to the lumpenproletariat
It's not about that. It's about attaempting to adapt the law to give the best protection and outcome possible to the victims. I think it's a lazy reading to dismiss it as a road to gang violence. Read it more carefully.
some case where a paediatrician's house was attacked by vigilantes because they didn't know the difference between that and paedophilia.
but actually, it won't do that .... it will isolate mentally unstable people and probably make them more likely to offend.
it's a law that could feasibly encourage vigilante attacks. I am sorry you got me wrong
there is one very obvious reason why Sarah's Law won't be implemented. Because it will inflame the mob on the one issue that pisses them off more than paedophiles.
Last week a serail rapist was arrested.
He already had been condemned twice and liberated early !
why doesn't a life sentence actually mean life? as in not being released. ever.
if they sentence you to life, that is exactly what they should take.
do you think he is to be granted parole?
he's going to be locked away for life, make no mistake about it.
is used in some Scandinavian countries
(insert smiley if required to convey tongue in cheek nature of comment)
it doesn't really work
you can let a judge chose than this 12 year old was ready and this 15 wasn't.
The fact that he had already done it prove the guy knew he was doing something wrong ( at least legally ) !
Too much power for a judge !
nor a judge nor the concerned person can decide that...
in what way weren't you "ready" ?
i mean, loads of people are physically able to have sex at about 10/11 so y'know
would an 8-year old not resist?
You think they'll be handing out flyers with pictures of reformed paedophiles' faces on them? Or course not. It's about controlled use of information, with, and I quote "severe penalties" for anyone who misuses the information (i.e. handing it out to facilitate any kind of retributive attacks).
even if nobody attacks them, you don't think they would become isolated?
THE INFORMATION WOULD BE GIVEN OUT FREELY TO ALL AND SUNDRY.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
I've looked into it more, and it seems I'm wrong on this. It would be dished out all to all and sundry after all.
So. Yeah. It says 'controlled' information, but what it means is totally uncontrolled.
So, yeah. I'd have to come out against this campaign specifically. But I definitely still think that some of the wider effects of the publicity it's drawing have got the Government to bring in some excellent reforms and measures in order to placate the campigners - in fact, maybe that's what it's all about.
erm, yes i think i do. my position was that if you keep a paedophile's criminal conviction a secret from their host community then they're more likely to be accepted by it and less likely to offend.
otherwise, where's the incentive to reform?
in that horrid post I wrote.
d'oh @ me.
well, i guessed. unfortunately, there are two types of paedophilia ... the sort that simply needs condemning and punishing and the sort that can be pathologised. people who fall into the latter category can lead normal-ish lives outside prison with medical support.
Paedogeddon continues unabated. I can only agree with what's been said so far about the case initially referred to - would we be calling for castration if the girl had been 16? Of course not. Doesn't change the fact that the guy committed a crime, of course. But all the same, let's keep it rational shall we?
As regards the infamous Craig Sweeney case... the public don't even know what they're getting angry about with this. Partly I blame the media - the guy was sentenced to life imprisonment, the same sentence automatically handed out to murderers. That's not exactly too lenient, is it? The media reports that he "only got five years" are irresponsible and misleading. That was the minimum term he must serve before he can be granted parole (note my phrasing there: he will never truly "get out" as his liberty will always be fundamentally restricted). As Guntrip rightly points out, the likelihood of him actually getting parole at this or any other time looks to me to be miniscule.
Also, I think Lord Goldsmith has done exactly the right thing in risking public wrath by not referring this case to the Court of Appeal. The minimum term was set in accordance with the relevant statutory guidelines, and John Reid was utterly out of line to make such unfounded criticisms of the judiciary. David Cameron was also wrong to criticise the sentencing guidelines themselves, as they are based on those already set up by Michael Howard during his tenure as Home Secretary in the early 1990s.
Besides, the only reason we needed these guidelines in the first place is that minimum terms used to be set by politicians behind closed doors! We only get to know them (and complain about them) now because the European Court correctly identified the fact that letting the Government sentence people is a hurrendous breach of human rights!
"he will never truly "get out" as his liberty will always be fundamentally restricted). As Guntrip rightly points out, the likelihood of him actually getting parole at this or any other time looks to me to be miniscule."
you are aware that he committed this crime after early release from a previous sexual abuse of a 6 year old?
I think there is a lot of media hysteria but I also think that there needs to be media pressure to ensure that he DOESN'T get parole
He should get the appropriate sentence regardless.
Maybe the 'problem' of the media being able to sensationally say "he could be out in 5 years!" would be solved if there was another teir of minimum sentencing for a certain type of crime.
and again, the media have irresponsibly encouraged people to blame the Probation Service because of it. However, when the Government is forcing them to deal with an exponential growth in the number of life sentence prisoners - bearing in mind that they are already critically under-resourced - you can hardly be surprised that they make some mistakes.
And the only reason the PS is so stretched is because of the Government's silly retributive crusades against less serious crime prompted by... yes, media hysteria!
Damaging effects of media hysteria >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful effects
"Productive" in every sense - offenders are forced to give something back to the community, it's better at reducing reoffending and it's much, much cheaper.
Objectification of the criminal, as Foucault would say. An altogether pretty bizarre trend when you actually sit down and think about it.
to all three of the above posts
the present system is quite unmanageable