Heartland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4454486.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2635489.stm

he may have written Ae's fav. song, but he's clearly
up to no good in SE Asia.
"he lived in a coastal Vietamese town for 6 months".
Now, he wasn't there for the rice paper rolls and
the beach, now was he?

I guess the question really is, what do you with
adults who behave like this? their desire to
behave like this isn't going to change is it?

Ocean Moves wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4454486.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2635489.stm

he may have written Ae's fav. song, but he's clearly
up to no good in SE Asia.
"he lived in a coastal Vietamese town for 6 months".
Now, he wasn't there for the rice paper rolls and
the beach, now was he?

I guess the question really is, what do you with
adults who behave like this? their desire to
behave like this isn't going to change is it?

Until proven otherwise, I'll restrict my comments to saying that he's certainly doing his best to bring suspicion upon himself.

One of my friends, who is otherwise against the death penalty, thinks capital punishment is the answer for paedophiles. Arguments about basic human rights, the lunacy of allowing one person to decide on whether another lives or dies, imperfections in even the best legal systems, grey areas etc seem to fall on deaf ears. This is a very, and understandably, emotive issue. Unfortunately that can make normally reasonable people lose their sense of perspective.

Capital punishment is the answer to nothing. Murdering a murderer as punishment is one of the most hypocritical ideas I’ve ever heard of.

It really should rarely be up to another person to decide another persons death. When someone is a brain-dead vegetable, then I think it’s ok for someone else to decide their death, but besides that I can’t think of any other situation where a persons death should be decided by another.

I’ve heard stories of Paedophiles being arrested for child pornography, and then going out into society and never re-offending again. I’ve also heard stories of paedophiles being released back into society and re-offending. The only answer I can think of is separating them from society, which may seem inhumane, but it’s better than having them psychologically messing up a child for the rest of their life.

As for Garry Glitter, I’m not saying anything on the subject of allegations against him until he’s proven guilty or not guilty. But I do have my suspicions about him.

The main thing that worries me about paedophiles is that their problem is mostly one of sexual desire which, I think, can not easily be altered or supressed. I imagine it's mostly a question of will power on the part of the individual. Consequently, allowing them to mix with society after they've been released does seem to be asking for the worst. The question is what degree of separation is appropriate?

Mr. Wah wrote:The main thing that worries me about paedophiles is that their problem is mostly one of sexual desire which, I think, can not easily be altered or supressed. I imagine it's mostly a question of will power on the part of the individual. Consequently, allowing them to mix with society after they've been released does seem to be asking for the worst. The question is what degree of separation is appropriate?

I agree. And although I tend to loose my temper over this topic I still refuse the death penalty for anybody. I'd just lock them away. Have them checked maybe every five years by a psychologist or something to keep in line with human rights, but keep them locked away. Safely. And loose the key.

Eva wrote:

Mr. Wah wrote:The main thing that worries me about paedophiles is that their problem is mostly one of sexual desire which, I think, can not easily be altered or supressed. I imagine it's mostly a question of will power on the part of the individual. Consequently, allowing them to mix with society after they've been released does seem to be asking for the worst. The question is what degree of separation is appropriate?

I agree. And although I tend to loose my temper over this topic I still refuse the death penalty for anybody. I'd just lock them away. Have them checked maybe every five years by a psychologist or something to keep in line with human rights, but keep them locked away. Safely. And loose the key.

Exactly my opinion.

doesn't matter if they reoffend or not, the desire is still there. which must be a form of reoffending..

Eva wrote:

Mr. Wah wrote:The main thing that worries me about paedophiles is that their problem is mostly one of sexual desire which, I think, can not easily be altered or supressed. I imagine it's mostly a question of will power on the part of the individual. Consequently, allowing them to mix with society after they've been released does seem to be asking for the worst. The question is what degree of separation is appropriate?

I agree. And although I tend to loose my temper over this topic I still refuse the death penalty for anybody. I'd just lock them away. Have them checked maybe every five years by a psychologist or something to keep in line with human rights, but keep them locked away. Safely. And loose the key.

I agree too, it's a desire, and it's sheer impossible to shut desires down, IMHO.

Thus, locking people away for good is about the right solution, and not capital punishment. Capital punishment makes you're no better than the ones you send into death, it's revenge and justice should be about justice and never about revenge, however bad the crime comitted was.

What always strikes me is people that are pro death penalty, are mostly 'pro life' or contra abortion, because that's ending someone's life. And they're also more likely to be very religious. Weren't there some commandments which said thou shall not judge and thou shall not kill

emilystrange wrote:doesn't matter if they reoffend or not, the desire is still there. which must be a form of reoffending..

I think you're getting into very dangerous territory there. Take that argument a bit further and it will be quite scary.

However, I do agree that the persistence of that desire is what makes the likelihood of reoffending so high.

i meant that there will probably always be fantasy, so yes

If the death penalty is inhumane, why is permanent incarceration any better?

Surely that also infringes a reasonable human right to liberty?

If you forfeit that right through your actions as a free man, can't you also forfeit your right to life?

Ultimately, is any criminal justice system fundamentally inhumane. Judge not, and all that.

define a reasonable right to liberty...

It would be possible to argue that locking someone up for years (with no possibility of release) is more of an affront to human dignity than merely killing them.

On that basis, imprisonment for the rest of their life could be said to be a "worse" punishment than the death penalty.

I think the best argument against the death penalty is the possibility of miscarriage of justice; the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 et al would have been long dead by the time the justice system got round to clearing their names.

emilystrange wrote:doesn't matter if they reoffend or not, the desire is still there. which must be a form of reoffending..

i've read some pretty stupid things on here over the years but that really raises the bar to a new level of idiocy. the desire to offend should be considered an offence in itself? bring on the thought police and preventative detention. oh, hang on, we've already got that haven't we?

i've been amazed lately at the way the majority of the population seem willing to be led sheep-like into a future where their civil liberties are stripped away layer by layer but reading a statement like that from an allegedly educated member of that population (and even more worryingly, one entrusted with the education of future generations) perhaps illustrates why.

Castration is the only cure for people like that. Some of them would actually volunteer for it aswell! I don't think there is any other way of stopping them, you either lock them away for good, or release them at some point with a risk of them destroying more lives. Prison and being told what they did was wrong wont change the way their minds work

RicheyJames wrote:

emilystrange wrote:doesn't matter if they reoffend or not, the desire is still there. which must be a form of reoffending..

i've read some pretty stupid things on here over the years but that really raises the bar to a new level of idiocy. the desire to offend should be considered an offence in itself? bring on the thought police and preventative detention. oh, hang on, we've already got that haven't we?

i've been amazed lately at the way the majority of the population seem willing to be led sheep-like into a future where their civil liberties are stripped away layer by layer but reading a statement like that from an allegedly educated member of that population (and even more worryingly, one entrusted with the education of future generations) perhaps illustrates why.

In principle you're right, but let me ask you this: What if there lived a peadophile right next door to you (and you got to know it some way or another) and you had a kid right about the age of the ones he offended in the past, what would you do

EDIT: It seems to me the point being made was the peadophile had already offended someone, which means he isn't completely innocent. If he does not do anything, obviously there is no problem at all...

RicheyJames wrote:

emilystrange wrote:doesn't matter if they reoffend or not, the desire is still there. which must be a form of reoffending..

i've read some pretty stupid things on here over the years but that really raises the bar to a new level of idiocy. the desire to offend should be considered an offence in itself? bring on the thought police and preventative detention. oh, hang on, we've already got that haven't we?

i've been amazed lately at the way the majority of the population seem willing to be led sheep-like into a future where their civil liberties are stripped away layer by layer but reading a statement like that from an allegedly educated member of that population (and even more worryingly, one entrusted with the education of future generations) perhaps illustrates why.

because of the future generations. because of. depends how disgusting you think this offence is, in terms of the desire factor. presumably a rapist is assumed to have the capacity to love and have sex 'normally' and twists that, mentally and physically. and perhaps in some cases, can be rehabilitated. it's never normal when the object of an adult's desire is a child.

markfiend wrote:It would be possible to argue that locking someone up for years (with no possibility of release) is more of an affront to human dignity than merely killing them.

On that basis, imprisonment for the rest of their life could be said to be a "worse" punishment than the death penalty.

Ask any prisoner on death row and he will surely prefer life sentence to the grill.
For further reading matter I can recommend Stephen Trombley's "The Execution Protocol: Inside America's Capital Punishment Industry"

Ocean Moves wrote: I guess the question really is, what do you with
adults who behave like this? their desire to
behave like this isn't going to change is it?

If proven guilty I would put all those kind of adults into the same room and make sure they would never get the chance to come back into society.
Depending where that "desire" comes from, I would have a professional doctor get to the core of their evil minds, IMO. Changing someone's way of thinking, with regards to being creatures of habit, in today's sick world, those kind of habits for some will never change and therefore I would keep them out of our "safe world".

Maybe their desire to behave like that can be "taken away" if they are "put away".

canon docre wrote:

markfiend wrote:It would be possible to argue that locking someone up for years (with no possibility of release) is more of an affront to human dignity than merely killing them.

On that basis, imprisonment for the rest of their life could be said to be a "worse" punishment than the death penalty.

Ask any prisoner on death row and he will surely prefer life sentence to the grill.
For further reading matter I can recommend Stephen Trombley's "The Execution Protocol: Inside America's Capital Punishment Industry"

You could always have both, but let the prisoner make the decision between death and life in prison, plus let him decide how he dies.

I'd rather the shooting gallery than the electric chair or lethal injection.

MadameButterfly wrote:Maybe their desire to behave like that can be "taken away" if they are "put away".

can desire be truly taken away, or merely denied?

emilystrange wrote:define a reasonable right to liberty...

OK, I believe it is reasonable to expect not to be detained indefinitely because someone else disapproves of my behaviour.

After all, if _you_ keep me locked up, that's kidnapping and/or wrongful imprisonment and it's a crime. If execution is state-sponsored murder, isn't imprisonment effectively state-sponsored kidnap?

To return to my previous point, isn't the criminal justice system inherently an infringement of human rights?

ok...

so, are you saying two wrongs don't make a right? or is that every person who sets out to commit a crime, infringing someone else's rights, should be secure in the knowledge that their own rights will be infringed in return, if caught?

MadameButterfly wrote: evil minds

I don't like that word "evil."

Good and Evil is based entirely on subjectivity.

emilystrange wrote:

MadameButterfly wrote:Maybe their desire to behave like that can be "taken away" if they are "put away".

can desire be truly taken away, or merely denied?

I think desire is an emotion that cannot be truly taken away, although I think with the right dose of medication it could be controlled, therefore it could be denied.