Xandra Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 (edited) Is there such a thing as rehabilitation of a paedophile though? When you think that when you get down to basics, disgusting as it is, paedophilia is a sexual preference, and when you think of how (for example) the US used to try and "rehabilitate" homosexuals saying it was a mental illness (and giving electric shocks to the testicles, but that's a whole other story), is there any way to safely "rehabilitate" paedophiles? That preference will always remain, it isn't "cured" and therefore the risk is greater allowing them back into the community sooner, especially seeing as paedophiles by nature tend to have to be very devious to get what they want. Saw somewhere that it's only about ten procent that are ever rehabilitated, but can't remember exact number. And they are the offenders most likely to recommit a crime. Muderers where the least likely to recommit. Edited July 9, 2007 by Xandra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Article on the BBC News site says the attorney general is appealing against the sentence, stating it's unduly lenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Article on the BBC News site says the attorney general is appealing against the sentence, stating it's unduly lenient. I should think so & can only hope it will be massively increased (although I doubt it). There seems to be so many things wrong with the system to me 2 years (or was it 18 months) for having sex with a 10 year old child? Early release - How can 2 years less 8 months on remand equal 4 months to serve? To me if you get sentenced to something that is what you should serve, no time off for good behaviour - that should be a given expectation or be punished for that too. Concurrent sentencing in any case - it makes prison like buy one get one free - To me if you do two crimes you should serve 2 consecutive sentences otherwise you are in reality never really punished for one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickychoo Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) I found some more details about this the other week and I now fully support the judge. In the context the media has taken this, and with the limited details that they can reveal, it seems so disproportionate and people will of course be angry. I don't think the men are really bad, just a bit thick to have done what they did. I don't think they deserve to be locked up for years and years, they weren't predatory paedophiles, they were slightly simple blokes who were not able to tell her true age. The victim in this is the girl, who like Jackie says about some of the foster kids she's seen, has been groomed by those who should have protected her and only knows how to show love and get attention by acting out sexually, taught to act like that by those who should never have been her carers. It breaks my heart, it seems like she's one of the few who slip through all the safety nets. What sort of life can she have now with all the stuff that's happened to her? Edited to add: this was part of the same case. The bloke apparently vomited in the cells when they told him her real age. Edited July 23, 2007 by wickychoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raiye Posted July 24, 2007 Report Share Posted July 24, 2007 Mr Clee said Edgecombe, a painter, raised the subject of the girl's age but she asked him: "Does it matter?" and the pair had intercourse twice. He questioned her age. Enough for me to think that he wasnt sure she was of age. Her reply shows lack of immaturity too. And then he went on to show her that no - it didnt matter. TWICE. And now the judge has shown it didnt matter also. I just see a poor girl that has been let down by the "system" and her peers repeatedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kats inc Posted July 24, 2007 Report Share Posted July 24, 2007 He questioned her age. Enough for me to think that he wasnt sure she was of age. Her reply shows lack of immaturity too. And then he went on to show her that no - it didnt matter. TWICE. And now the judge has shown it didnt matter also. I just see a poor girl that has been let down by the "system" and her peers repeatedly. Quite.The judge has now given permission for men to go out and have sex with underage girls and give the excuse 'how was I to know,I thought she was 16 m'lord honest I did' and get away with it all Bloody disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheryl33 Posted July 24, 2007 Report Share Posted July 24, 2007 Just a thogught about girls should be able to wear what they want without worrying: so if you're 10 year old/12 yearold/14 year old daughter came home wearing hotpants and a skimpy top, you wouldnt say anything because she has a right to wear what she wants?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 24, 2007 Report Share Posted July 24, 2007 Just a thogught about girls should be able to wear what they want without worrying: so if you're 10 year old/12 yearold/14 year old daughter came home wearing hotpants and a skimpy top, you wouldnt say anything because she has a right to wear what she wants?? Everyone should be able to wear what they want, or as little as they want, without being at risk of sexual assault. That doesn't mean parents will want their children to wear skimpy stuff, I wouldn't want my kids to if I had any, it just means that wearing them does not give anyone else the right to harm those children (or indeed adults wearing skimpy clothes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackin Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 (edited) to really understand these poor girls is difficult unless you have dealt with them.It breaks your heart to see little girls acting like sexy women they are not your normal children and need a great deal of work to help them overcome taught behaviour . The youngest child I had was three years old and even know it scares me to think of her and pray the adoptive parents looked after her and her brother also abused and they grew to adulthood free of the past. Edited July 27, 2007 by jackin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amanda72 Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 Everyone should be able to wear what they want, or as little as they want, without being at risk of sexual assault. That doesn't mean parents will want their children to wear skimpy stuff, I wouldn't want my kids to if I had any, it just means that wearing them does not give anyone else the right to harm those children (or indeed adults wearing skimpy clothes). I agree!! to really understand these poor girls is difficult unless you have dealt with them.It breaks your heart to see little girls acting like sexy women they are not your normal children and need a great deal of work to help them overcome taught behaviour . The youngest child I had was three years old and even know it scares me to think of her and pray the adoptive parents looked after her and her brother also abused and they grew to adulthood free of the past. It's really sad that some children have to go through this, I tried to get into fostering, but as my house has not got enough bedrooms, they would not let me, but I will start fostering once my boys have flown the nest, they need all the help love and support they can get. As for that bloke, words can not describe what I would want to do to him, and also the "justice" system!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts