Trallwm farm Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'm against the death penalty.Most child abusers are family members or close friends. Its difficult enough for a child to tell that something bad is happening to them. Does it make it easier, if they know that their dad will end up dead if they say anything? I dont think so. Probably not but it DOES tell them that the person who tortured them they are safe from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooandboo Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 No human has the right to kill another for whatever reason, dressed up as legal or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kats inc Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 I don't see prison as merely denying liberty, nor inflicting pain but as being there to teach a lesson. Petty criminals I'd agree can be educated / rehabilitated but some of the more heinous crimes - the likes of Brady & Huntley for example I just don't accept you can. Some call it evil, some call it mentally ill, psychotic etc but what credible evidence is there that such people can be cured of that? I saw a programme that talked a bit about this.Reasearch has been done that proved that some people have a vital link in their brain missing in that the neural networks that connect to their emotional processing centre have not formed.We usually call these people psychotic as they appear not to be able to feel normal human emotions appropriate to their actions,but the scary bit was that they can learn to imitate emotions by watching how other people react and copying them.So to all intents and purposes these people can appear 'normal' but actually are far from normal.It also said that the same research showed that after the rehabilitation programmes these prisoners were put through before release their violent behaviour actually increased/worsened.In other words rehabilitation of psychotic offenders is actually impossible and actually makes them liable to be worse. They hope one day to be able to transplant some sort of device that allows the neural networks in the brain to connect to the place where emotions are processed as that looks likely to be the only way these people will ever be cured for want of a better word. Hope this makes sense.It was a very interesting programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyhound pal Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Absolutely! Worked in YOI's for years and that's one of the very saddest things. But what good is it to them in the long run? That's where the system needs an overhaul, the programmes available should be something that will actually help them not just something that can be delivered without costing too much. There should be the infrastructure outside prison to support them when they come out so that they don't see prison as the safe place. Many lads could only get clean whilst inside - how damning is that of the state of things!! Prison should be a last resort and it most definitely should not be a fix for drug, mental health, or housing issues. Tell me about it the system sadly lacks something. Had a conversation with someone today about 'supporting people' money and the liklihood that with the cuts in funding, how likely this funding will be available in say ten years time. Something will replace it and there is more of a move towards actually fitting services round people, though they still haven't 'got it'. But all that money thats goes into rehabilitation of offenders is bollox. It doesn't work. Point of the matter is that when you have someone with a drug habit and you take them away from their 'community', they become clean and begin to deal with whatever issues are around for them. You then toss them back into their community, it stands to reason that they're back in familiar territory therefore likely to return to their 'normal' life. Its so frustrating and such a waste of funding. I suspect that most people wouldn't want a paedophile, rapist or murderer living next door to them. I know I wouldn't want them here in my village, let alone next door & I have neither a wife nor children to worry about. That I suspect is why most politicians wont back such a scheme - they are supposed to represent the public (but sadly often don't) Erm... You probably do have sex offenders in your village... The thing is the term 'sex offender' is a wide label which can be used to describe a 16 year old boy who is classed as an SO because he's had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend to your middle class businessman who has been involved in internet porn. The tabloids have helped us relate the term 'sex offender' with as a man who prays on your children which again is bollox. Most sex offenders pose no risk to the public or people as a whole. Predatory SO's tend to be closely monitored although again, thanks to the tabloids, we're led to believe that there are hundreds of them out there who are watching our children and no one is watching them. What has been missed here is that each and every person who commits a crime has done it for the first time at some point so where does it end? Start bumping people off who are likely to offend? Most child abusers are family members or close friends. Its difficult enough for a child to tell that something bad is happening to them. Does it make it easier, if they know that their dad will end up dead if they say anything? I dont think so. Well said - completely agree! But want to add that there is a percentage of women who commit offences against the child... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happylittlegreensquirrel Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Well said - completely agree! But want to add that there is a percentage of women who commit offences against the child... and often those who abuse have been abused them selves, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staffymad Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 I always said 'Yes' to death penalty when I was younger but now I am not so sure anymore where I stand. In my opinion it is the 'nanny state' that we have created that has taken away a lot of the punishment prison used to be and has taken away a lot of the deterent a court appearance would have been a few years back, think along the lines of 'what would the neighburs say etc'. ASBO & Co are no deterent these days and the soft touch shown to young offenders is no deterent either, if anything they are status symbols and make the young criminal from today. In reality the justice system needs a overhaul and the sentencing, for example life means life and not you are out after 5 years with good behaviour and because you found suddenly god. I am not sure if there is a real answer or a quick fix solution. One thing I do know, years back when I got raped I happy would have killed the git, today I have made peace with myself and have put this chapter behind me. Cindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted October 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 One thing I do know, years back when I got raped I happy would have killed the git, today I have made peace with myself and have put this chapter behind me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 I used to be very pro the death sentence after my aunt was murdered.I truly believe that her killer should have had a much harsher sentence than he did.He was thought to be criminally insane and sent to Broadmoor where he had his own room,TV,access to education etc.The murder of my aunt also cost the lives of both her parents shortly afterwards,one from a heart attack within days so my family had to attend a double funeral and then shortly after that her Dad had a stroke and died. No death penalty but a punishment that fits the crime with no soft option please. I always said 'Yes' to death penalty when I was younger but now I am not so sure anymore where I stand. I am not sure if there is a real answer or a quick fix solution. One thing I do know, years back when I got raped I happy would have killed the git, today I have made peace with myself and have put this chapter behind me. Cindy I feel that there is little of worth that anyone can say to either of you on this but I saw a programme that talked a bit about this.Reasearch has been done that proved that some people have a vital link in their brain missing...................... Hope this makes sense.It was a very interesting programme. Makes a lot of sense to me I only wish I'd seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Erm... You probably do have sex offenders in your village... The thing is the term 'sex offender' is a wide label which can be used to describe a 16 year old boy who is classed as an SO because he's had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend to your middle class businessman who has been involved in internet porn. The tabloids have helped us relate the term 'sex offender' with as a man who prays on your children which again is bollox. Most sex offenders pose no risk to the public or people as a whole. Predatory SO's tend to be closely monitored although again, thanks to the tabloids, we're led to believe that there are hundreds of them out there who are watching our children and no one is watching them. What has been missed here is that each and every person who commits a crime has done it for the first time at some point so where does it end? Start bumping people off who are likely to offend? I find it outrageous that anyone could attempt to link / compare in any way two adolescent experimenting / consenting teenagers with paedophiles. I'm not aware of any offender in the village but should I ever find evidence of paedophile here you may be assured I shall encourage him (or her) to leave. The monitoring you refer to is questionable - not so long back one of these people was bailed to a local hostel which sits within two minutes of a primary school. Quite understandably when it came to light Parents demanded his removal. Where would it end, well if for example somone found guilty of rape were castrated or murderers & paedophiles were hung they couldn't possibly commit that crime again. Would it deter others from the same crime, well that's more a point of debate - some say America proves otherwise. Personally I'd have to look at that evidence, along with historical evidence here before changing my current opinion that it would do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 There is a Paedophile that lives in a flat across the hall from my daughters friend. Despite complaints about children living within feet of this man the council and police say they can do nothing untill he commits an offence. It will be too late then so if he was PTS children would be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyhound pal Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 I find it outrageous that anyone could attempt to link / compare in any way two adolescent experimenting / consenting teenagers with paedophiles. Maybe you do find it outrageous Ian but thats how the law currently stands... A sex offender on the 'register' is there for many reasons including teenagers 'experimenting', as you put it. As the parent of a 14 year old girl, I strongly disagree with the 'consent' part because I'm not wholly convinced that consensual is an option for young girls these days due to other pressures but thats another thread. So where do you draw the line? Accept some 'offenders' of a sexual nature as 'ok' and others as 'not'? I'm not aware of any offender in the village but should I ever find evidence of paedophile here you may be assured I shall encourage him (or her) to leave. The monitoring you refer to is questionable - not so long back one of these people was bailed to a local hostel which sits within two minutes of a primary school. Quite understandably when it came to light Parents demanded his removal. Thats exactly why you wouldn't be aware of it. They have to live somewhere. Most judges (or whatever you call them south) now put conditions on SO's where anyone believed to be any risk at all to children is released (or bailed because not all SO's go to prison at all) on the condition they don't stay within so many miles of a school, play park etc. I can assure you that the majority of predatory SO's ARE monitored heavily and you really shouldn't believe all you read in the press on that issue. We have a high profile SO in this area who is forever in the news. Everytime he returns to visit his family, he is under police survellience. There are lots of ways to monitor SO's and its actually very difficult for anyone to go to ground. Where would it end, well if for example somone found guilty of rape were castrated or murderers & paedophiles were hung they couldn't possibly commit that crime again. Would it deter others from the same crime, well that's more a point of debate - some say America proves otherwise. Personally I'd have to look at that evidence, along with historical evidence here before changing my current opinion that it would do so. But what about those later found innocent? Or what about murders where there may be justification - the abused wife who snaps? Do we start to choose which murder is okay to commit and which one isn't? One carries the penalty of state-murder, the other doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGAR Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 (edited) I am between two minds about this tbh. In some cases I feel that it would be better for the world if the offender would be executed, Brady for example, even after all those years he still sends shivers down my spine for what he did. I think there is more to it than just yay or nay but the problem is: who should decide? I do know one thing for sure and certain, should someone ever touch my son, I would kill for him. Edited to add: I am sick and tired of the *Oh, the poor guy, he's had it tough no wonder he turned to crime/rape/murder - let's cut him some slack*. IMHO that is NO excuse, plenty of people has had it tough but they didn't turn out to be criminals/rapists/murderers. And if I hear one more time: *He/she was a victim of a victim* - I might get sick. Edited October 27, 2007 by EGAR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizzie Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 I'm sick and tired of reading excuses for offenders. They know the difference between right and wrong, just the same as I do. I can understand fraud, shoplifting etc. only if your family is in a state of complete poverty. But to cause physical and emotional harm to others I can't understand or forgive. The sentences handed out to criminals who terrorise and batter victims are laughable, sadly the punishment does not fit the crime in the majority of cases, very often the defendant shows remorse in court to get a light sentence, more often than not they go on to re-offend, knowing that with a clever defence it will probably be another "slap on the wrist". I only believe in the death sentence for crimes that have been absolutely proved. eg. caught in the act. As the law stands at the moment Life should mean Life, no parole, no early release for good behaviour. Again I think the justice system and sentencing needs to be completly reviewed, maybe even looking at "crimes of passion" in a different way than they are seen now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greys mum Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 (edited) No human has the right to kill another for whatever reason, dressed up as legal or not. Exactly what I was going to say. But I do think that a life sentence should mean life. Edited October 27, 2007 by greys mum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathyw Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 Like others my views on the death penalty have changed. I used to believe in it and now I have serious doubts. I can remember people being hung. James Hanratty is one I remember very well. It was talked about at work, at home and on the bus/train to and from work and one of the main reasons I have doubts. I think that the american 'life without the possibility of parole' should be the sentence for murder. Instead of 'time off for good behaviour' wtf is that about? They serve the time meted out by a judge and if they mis-behave then more time is added to their sentence. No tv's in cells, one tv in a common areas. No computors, laptops etc in cells only one in common areas. And if someone re-offends the same crime, the sentence doubles each time. Make prison the punishment it should be instead of 'just a place to keep them from the public'. If a mistake has been made then at least it is not too late. I also think that castration should be compulsary for child abuse/rape/sexual assaults of any kind. when they can safely remove the part of the brain that controls sexual impulses, then this should be done instead of castration. Give the above a try for five years and our prisons will be being sold and turn into luxury flats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts