Forced sterilization

[Niall]

18 months is a ****ing joke though

And on release she should be sterilised to stop this happening to another innocent child. Unfortunately that would be against the womans human rights though...noone cares about the human rights of kids it seems.

Thats far too extreme Vicky. D:

[Vicky.]

Thats far too extreme Vicky. D:

I dont see how it is tbh

She will come out of prison (hopefully the children she already has have been took into care or something) and can just have more kids to abuse.

[Samuel.]

Thats far too extreme Vicky. D:

Why though?

You would trust her with another baby?

[Niall]

I dont see how it is tbh

She will come out of prison (hopefully the children she already has have been took into care or something) and can just have more kids to abuse.

Because if you start sterilising people like that, then its just the start of slippery slope. Infringing human rights like that should never be considered.

Keep her in prison for life maybe, but to sterilise someone? That's something the Nazis did!

[Vicky.]

Why though?

You would trust her with another baby?

This is it. Its too extreme to stop her having any more kids.

But its fine to take the chance of her doing this to another child.

I said the same about Baby Ps parents too. Some people simply dont deserve to have children. if thats affecting their 'human rights' so be it, the child has the right not to be abused.

[Niall]

Why though?

You would trust her with another baby?

I know why in my head but I just find it really hard to put it into words.

I wouldn't trust her with another baby but forcibly altering someone else's body without their consent just crosses a line for me. I could never agree with anything like that no matter the magnitude of a person's crime.

[Niamh.]

This is it. Its too extreme to stop her having any more kids.

But its fine to take the chance of her doing this to another child.

I said the same about Baby Ps parents too. Some people simply dont deserve to have children. if thats affecting their 'human rights' so be it, the child has the right not to be abused.

Exactly.

[Vicky.]

Because if you start sterilising people like that, then its just the start of slippery slope. Infringing human rights like that should never be considered.

Keep her in prison for life maybe, but to sterilise someone? That's something the Nazis did!

Do you not consider the children to have any rights then?

I would consider a baby knowingly being born into violence like that an infringement of the childs human rights.

[Niall]

Do you not consider the children to have any rights then?

I didn't say that. Of course the child has rights, but I fail to see what you're trying to say. That every child who is wronged by an adult has a right to have them sterilised? :conf2:

[MTVN]

I agree with Niall, I don't think we should ever give someone the power to decide who's fit to be a parent and who isn't, and forcibly sterilise the latter, that's never ended well historically and the sort of power that is very open to abuse

[daniel-lewis-1985]

I didn't say that. Of course the child has rights, but I fail to see what you're trying to say. That every child who is wronged by an adult has a right to have them sterilised? :conf2:

No just in extreme curcumstances such as this.

[Niall]

Do you not consider the children to have any rights then?

I would consider a baby knowingly being born into violence like that an infringement of the childs human rights.

Didn't see this edit.

But yeah I suppose thats true, but just because the child's human rights are infringed doesn't mean the adult's rights should be voided. Criminals are humans too and they deserve to be treated with a decent amount of respect, no matter how heinous their crimes.

[joeysteele]

I go with Vicky on this one, this woman shouldn't be anywhere near children, some people crave having children and cannot but they would give total devotion and love to them if they had any.
This woman will I am sure in prison once it is known what she is in for,get some really rough treatment,it's sad to think there are better morals from some of the worst criminals behind bars than there are from some parents and adults with responsibility towards babies and children.

I agree with Vicky, it's a pity the law doesn't cater for making sure she doesn't have any more of her own. Totally disgusting behaviour and wholly unacceptable treatment of that baby in this incident.

[Vicky.]

I didn't say that. Of course the child has rights, but I fail to see what you're trying to say. That every child who is wronged by an adult has a right to have them sterilised? :conf2:

Depends how you define wronged really. Not an occasional smack..though I dont agree with smacking kids at all...but when its purely for the pleasure of the adult dealing the pain, and they seem to enjoy doing it, and its to extremes such as this, yes.

People get banned from keeping pets for less. And I see a child as a bit more important than a pet.

[Niall]

I agree with Niall, I don't think we should ever give someone the power to decide who's fit to be a parent and who isn't, and forcibly sterilise the latter, that's never ended well historically and the sort of power that is very open to abuse

Exactly.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

im actually surprised the forced sterilization thing hasnt happened yet in certain countries

[Mrluvaluva]

Because if you start sterilising people like that, then its just the start of slippery slope. Infringing human rights like that should never be considered.

Keep her in prison for life maybe, but to sterilise someone? That's something the Nazis did!

I agree with Vicky. Parents like that do not deserve to have children, and should not be allowed to have any more of their own. It's not a god given right to have a child, it's a privilege for most people. There are people out there who would dearly love to have a child, while people like this bitch do not appreciate what they have, and think they can do what the hell they want.

Why should she be able to have more children? She could never be trusted again as far as I am concerned. Would you ever trust her with yours?

[Niall]

Depends how you define wronged really. Not an occasional smack..though I dont agree with smacking kids at all...but when its purely for the pleasure of the adult dealing the pain, and they seem to enjoy doing it, and its to extremes such as this, yes.

People get banned from keeping pets for less. And I see a child as a bit more important than a pet.

There's a difference between a ban and a surgical operation though. You could easily ban someone from having kids and monitor them to make sure they're abiding by such restrictions.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

bc of niall~

what are your views on this :suspect:

[Mrluvaluva]

im actually surprised the forced sterilization thing hasnt happened yet in certain countries

It does happen (not just in cases like this). And not always with their knowledge.

[Vicky.]

There's a difference between a ban and a surgical operation though. You could easily ban someone from having kids and monitor them to make sure they're abiding by such restrictions.

The ONLY way to do that would be to lock them up for life.

Which I would also be happy with. Unfortunately we dont do that and give them paltry sentences like 18 months.

[Mrluvaluva]

I agree with Niall, I don't think we should ever give someone the power to decide who's fit to be a parent and who isn't, and forcibly sterilise the latter, that's never ended well historically and the sort of power that is very open to abuse

Would you allow a convicted paedophile the right to have children?

[Niall]

im actually surprised the forced sterilization thing hasnt happened yet in certain countries

It has. The Nazis used to sterilise disabled people (and gays I think?) because they thought they thought they were genetic dead ends.

[MTVN]

I agree with Vicky. Parents like that do not deserve to have children, and should not be allowed to have any more of their own. It's not a god given right to have a child, it's a privilege for most people. There are people out there who would dearly love to have a child, while people like this bitch do not appreciate what they have, and think they can do what the hell they want.

Why should she be able to have more children? She could never be trusted again as far as I am concerned. Would you ever trust her with yours?

How is it not an inherent right to have children when it's something that happens 100% naturally?

[Vicky.]

I would be all for this only in cases where it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the parent is unfit and the child would suffer because of it.

[Niall]

The ONLY way to do that would be to lock them up for life.

Which I would also be happy with. Unfortunately we dont do that and give them paltry sentences like 18 months.

I disagree that its the only way but fair enough if thats your view.

Yeah I agree sentences should be harsher but with prisons as overcrowded as they are I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Doogle]

I wish they'd do this to all the people in my area, I swear 90% are not fit to be parents :bored:

But no I think in extreme cases maybe, but only extreme cases.

[Samuel.]

I would be all for this only in cases where it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the parent is unfit and the child would suffer because of it.

[2]

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

my sister used to foster and the mother of the kid she was fostering at the time was determined to have 10 kids, she already had 6 kids and all of them were in care but she carried on knowing that as soon as she gave birth the child would be taken away from her :conf2:

she was obviously retarded or something idk /relevant

[daniel-lewis-1985]

I agree with Niall, I don't think we should ever give someone the power to decide who's fit to be a parent and who isn't, and forcibly sterilise the latter, that's never ended well historically and the sort of power that is very open to abuse

Even when theres video evidence of her beating the **** out of a defencless chilld?

Surely that video proves she is not fit to look after a child? lol

[Niall]

Like I said in the other thread, never should it be done. Not only is it an infringement on human rights, but its also the start of a slippery slope. I mean after passing a law that allows forced sterilisation, who's to stop us say, lobotomising those who don't comply with the law? Or (like in Sharia law), chopping off someones hand for theft?

[MTVN]

Would you allow a convicted paedophile the right to have children?

It isn't my place to "allow" people to have children

[Vicky.]

my sister used to foster and the mother of the kid she was fostering at the time was determined to have 10 kids, she already had 6 kids and all of them were in care but she carried on knowing that as soon as she gave birth the child would be taken away from her :conf2:


I know someone like this. I think shes onto her 8th child now(she looks about 7/8months pregnant at the moment...I dont speak to her, but I know her) and each time she has them they are took into care. Why keep having them and putting strain on an already bursting system?

She doesnt even take care when pregnant either, she smokes like a chimney, drinks like a fish (and I mean drinks HEAVILY) and eats a load of ****e. I have seen the drinking and smoking first hand the other night(went through around 20 tabs in 3 hours, and drank approx 6 pints of snakebite)...the eating is just what people say :laugh:

[Mrluvaluva]

How is it not an inherent right to have children when it's something that happens 100% naturally?

Not in that way. In the way that there are certain ways to bring up a child. You cannot just treat a child in any way you see fit. Many parents have their children taken away from them by social services due to neglect etc. A parent has a certain responsibility towards a child.

[Mrluvaluva]

It isn't my place to "allow" people to have children

That is quite obvious. I shall re-phrase for you then. Would you be happy with the fact that convicted paedophiles were allowed to have children.

[MTVN]

Not in that way. In the way that there are certain ways to bring up a child. You cannot just treat a child in any way you see fit. Many parents have their children taken away from them by social services due to neglect etc. A parent has a certain responsibility towards a child.

I agree, I just don't think we should use videos like this to try and justify introducing something such as forced sterilisation

[Marsh.]

There was a girl who lived on our street a few years back, she casually still went and got hammered with her friends every weekend despite being pregnant. It's just selfishness.
You see all the children at my little brother's school for the disabled and it's filled with children with serious conditions a lot of which are caused by heavy drinkers or smokers.

That's something that needs looking at from the law, prosecuting those who are entirely at fault for their child's conditions.

[Mrluvaluva]

I agree, I just don't think we should use videos like this to try and justify introducing something such as forced sterilisation

I don't think it's going to happen tomorrow. People are just giving their views and trying to explain them. Incidents like this spark debate.

[Vicky.]

I disagree that its the only way but fair enough if thats your view.


I'm actually intruiged...what other ways could you ban someone from having kids and monitor them to make sure they are doing it without having them under 24 hour surveilance?

[Shaun]

Sounds like a nice idea of getting rid of wicked parents but:

a) how the hell would it even be carried out? The road it would take to make it okay to capture someone and sterilise them is ridiculous.
b) what are the boundaries? Hitting a child a couple of times? Being a paedophile (but never actually acting upon your paedophilia)?

It's just never going to happen and rightly so. It reeks of the Middle Ages.

[MTVN]

That is quite obvious. I shall re-phrase for you then. Would you be happy with the fact that convicted paedophiles were allowed to have children.

Not "happy" as such but if you're asking me should all paedophiles be forcibly sterilised my answer would be no. This article (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2010/11/sexOffenders.aspx) here makes some interesting points about this

I'll ask you, would you draw the line at paedophiles? Why not drug addicts, alcoholics, people convicted of assault etc. etc. who might also constitute a risk to a child?

[Niall]

I'm actually intruiged...what other ways could you ban someone from having kids and monitor them to make sure they are doing it without having them under 24 hour surveilance?

Send a social worker (or someone of a similar occupation) a few times a week unannounced?

[Vicky.]

There was a girl who lived on our street a few years back, she casually still went and got hammered with her friends every weekend despite being pregnant. It's just selfishness.
You see all the children at my little brother's school for the disabled and it's filled with children with serious conditions a lot of which are caused by heavy drinkers or smokers.

That's something that needs looking at from the law, prosecuting those who are entirely at fault for their child's conditions.

I agree with this totally.

Its a form of child abuse before the child even enters the world D:

I feel a bit of a hypocrite saying that though, as I am currently still smoking but have cut down to about 3 a day before cutting it out totally...but I cut a LOT the second I found out I was pregnant. I also no longer drink, at all. And now eat relatively healthy.

[MTVN]

Might move the posts over, hang on

[Vicky.]

Send a social worker (or someone of a similar occupation) a few times a week unannounced?

How would that stop them? They could just have sex with some randomer while the social worker wasnt there...

[Marsh.]

Send a social worker (or someone of a similar occupation) a few times a week unannounced?

How is that stopping them conceiving a child though?

[Niall]

Sounds like a nice idea of getting rid of wicked parents but:

a) how the hell would it even be carried out? The road it would take to make it okay to capture someone and sterilise them is ridiculous.
b) what are the boundaries? Hitting a child a couple of times? Being a paedophile (but never actually acting upon your paedophilia)?

It's just never going to happen and rightly so. It reeks of the Middle Ages.

This.

[Niall]

How would that stop them? They could just have sex with some randomer while the social worker wasnt there...

Well if it were a woman it'd be easy to see if she was pregnant or not and had violated her ban. She's start showing eventually.

If its a man? Well I'm stumped. :laugh:

[Vicky.]

Well if it were a woman it'd be easy to see if she was pregnant or not and had violated her ban. She's start showing eventually.

If its a man? Well I'm stumped. :laugh:

So what would be done if they had 'violated the ban'?

I thought this was a way to stop them conceiving in the first place?

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Send a social worker (or someone of a similar occupation) a few times a week unannounced?

Pfft what an un thought out simplified way of thinking.

Sending a social worker around a few times a week is not good enough as seen in the Baby P incident.

Yes she has the right to get pregnant but then that baby should be taken away from her as soon as its born for its own safety. In my opinion she has no right to have full custody of any further children as she is a threat!

[Niall]

So what would be done if they had 'violated the ban'?

I thought this was a way to stop them conceiving in the first place?

Allow her to carry the pregnancy to term, remove the child, and then place it in state care. Simple.

And yeah I guess, but you can't do that in everyday life and I know that but its the best - and most humane - alternative.

[Vicky.]

Allow her to carry the pregnancy to term, remove the child, and then place it in state care. Simple.


Well this is what (technically) happens now. And I think thats a totally flawed system too. The social services dont seen to give a stuff about the actual kids (as already mentioned, baby p was mostly the failing of the social) and from what I have heard from people who grew up in state care...its not a life.

[Niall]

Well this is what (technically) happens now. And I think thats a totally flawed system too. The social services dont seen to give a stuff about the actual kids (as already mentioned, baby p was mostly the failing of the social) and from what I have heard from people who grew up in state care...its not a life.

Very true, but I'd rather that to happen then the government performing operations on people against their will.

[Vicky.]

Very true, but I'd rather that to happen then the government performing operations on people against their will.

Meh. I would rather we ensured as many children as possible get a good life without fear of violence or anything...and **** the rights of the people who abuse them.

But each to their own.

[Mrluvaluva]

Not "happy" as such but if you're asking me should all paedophiles be forcibly sterilised my answer would be no. This article (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2010/11/sexOffenders.aspx) here makes some interesting points about this

I am not aware of your views, but I would quite happily allow for the sterilisation of all convicted paedophiles in extreme cases.

With regards to the article, there are so many flaws in that:

1. "Ms Reece, a barrister and leading expert in her field, argues that strict regulations surrounding sex offenders adopting or fostering children should be relaxed to enable cases to be judged on their individual merits. A blanket ban, she argues, contravenes Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and therefore the government could be open to legal challenge if it does not recognise this."

As far as I am concerned, they do not have, or deserve the same rights as everyone else. Same as anyone convicted for a serious crime.

2. Ms Reece says that Parliament has already recognised that some sex offenders are suitable to look after children. This recognition has so far only applied to sex offenders who are related to the children or are pre-existing foster carers.

I still would not be happy with that. Is she saying that children are at less risk of being abused by someone they are related to? I think we all know that is not true.

3. Ms Reece argues that there is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.

I regard that as totally ridiculous.

She goes on to say "When someone has served a sentence, as far as you can, you should treat them the same as anyone else." I don't actually think most people can. The trust is not there. And I agree that all cases should be decided on their own merits, as should be the norm in most aspects of life.

"Three-quarters of sex offenders are never reconvicted." - not necessarily true. Statistics only come from known incidents.

Most of it is personal opinion.

What are the points you are referring to as particularly interesting?

[Vicky.]

1. "Ms Reece, a barrister and leading expert in her field, argues that strict regulations surrounding sex offenders adopting or fostering children should be relaxed to enable cases to be judged on their individual merits. A blanket ban, she argues, contravenes Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and therefore the government could be open to legal challenge if it does not recognise this."

3. Ms Reece argues that there is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.


What an absolute pile of steaming bullsh*t that is :bored:

[Mrluvaluva]

I'll ask you, would you draw the line at paedophiles? Why not drug addicts, alcoholics, people convicted of assault etc. etc. who might also constitute a risk to a child?

I would not draw the line. It was a question about one specific. ANYBODY that abuses a child should not be entitled to look after one. There are no exceptions in my view.

[Ninastar]

I agree with Vicky

[Marsh.]

So, hang on, they can violate someone else's rights. But to violate their own as punishment is too far? I find that logic quite disturbing.

[Mrluvaluva]

Sounds like a nice idea of getting rid of wicked parents but:

a) how the hell would it even be carried out? The road it would take to make it okay to capture someone and sterilise them is ridiculous.
b) what are the boundaries? Hitting a child a couple of times? Being a paedophile (but never actually acting upon your paedophilia)?

It's just never going to happen and rightly so. It reeks of the Middle Ages.

If they were convicted of a serious crime then it would not be so difficult, and obviously crimes have to have been committed for them to be acted upon.

Why does it "reek of the middle ages"?

[InOne]

I guess it's a tricky one, as every case is unique. But "forced" sounds pretty out there. They could always be strongly advised not to have children, and if they did the child would be taken away from them straight away.

[MTVN]

I am not aware of your views, but I would quite happily allow for the sterilisation of all convicted paedophiles in extreme cases.

With regards to the article, there are so many flaws in that:

1. "Ms Reece, a barrister and leading expert in her field, argues that strict regulations surrounding sex offenders adopting or fostering children should be relaxed to enable cases to be judged on their individual merits. A blanket ban, she argues, contravenes Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and therefore the government could be open to legal challenge if it does not recognise this."

As far as I am concerned, they do not have, or deserve the same rights as everyone else. Same as anyone convicted for a serious crime.


Well that's kind of entering into another debate but are those who have been guilty and served their time not deemed to have repaid their debt to society? Either way the point she's really making in this bit is that it's not really feasible to implement a blanket ban which relies on treating all incidents the same and not recognising important differences between cases, when there are so many things to be taken into account

2. Ms Reece says that Parliament has already recognised that some sex offenders are suitable to look after children. This recognition has so far only applied to sex offenders who are related to the children or are pre-existing foster carers.

I still would not be happy with that. Is she saying that children are at less risk of being abused by someone they are related to? I think we all know that is not true.

I don't think she's saying that, she's saying that if some sex offenders have been deemed capable of looking after kids, and presumably this has been backed up by practice else it would not be the case, then who is to say that other sex offenders would not also be suitable parents?

3. Ms Reece argues that there is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.

I regard that as totally ridiculous.



She goes on to say "When someone has served a sentence, as far as you can, you should treat them the same as anyone else." I don't actually think most people can. The trust is not there. And I agree that all cases should be decided on their own merits, as should be the norm in most aspects of life.

"Three-quarters of sex offenders are never reconvicted." - not necessarily true. Statistics only come from known incidents.

Most of it is personal opinion.

What are the points you are referring to as particularly interesting?

She isn't just making a baseless claim with that third point though she's backed it up with several arguments, the points she makes that I found interesting were (a couple of which you've touched upon):

- Co-habiting couples are much more likely to split up than married couples, with potentially harmful emotional consequences for children, yet they are not banned from adopting and fostering - like she says "if blanket bans are an effective and legitimate means to protect children then we should no more allow cohabiting couples to adopt or foster than convicted sex offenders."

- Parliament has already recognised that some sex offenders are suitable to look after children

- Sex offenders have relatively low reconviction rates compared to other types of offenders. Three-quarters of sex offenders are never reconvicted. Despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low and have remained virtually unchanged for 40 years - ok so there might be incidents not known about but that is the most accurate information we have at hand

I guess an important point here is that there's so many things that need to be taken into account and so many possible ways in which children can be negatively affected by parents that blanket bans are not a fair solution. Yes, a convicted paedophile might pose a risk to their child but going by the only facts we have available here that is a unlikely. You might say it's better to be safe than sorry and prevent a risk if at all possible, but like the article says if that's your logic then why not ban co-habiting couples from having children too. Why not also stop alcoholics, why not stop drug takers, why not stop people convicted of assault or any other crime? This is why I'm against forced sterilisation because it starts you going down a very slippery slope

[Vicky.]

- Co-habiting couples are much more likely to split up than married couples, with potentially harmful emotional consequences for children, yet they are not banned from adopting and fostering - like she says "if blanket bans are an effective and legitimate means to protect children then we should no more allow cohabiting couples to adopt or foster than convicted sex offenders."



Sorry this sounds utterly ridiculous to me. There is a massive difference between your parents potentially splitting up and you potentially being abused. To even attempt to draw a comparison between the two is ludicrous :S

As for a low amount of sex offenders being re-convicted...well...I would think thats more because they are more careful not to slip up again and get caught than anything else. Like shoplifters, get caught once, up your sneakyness next time. But I guess this part depends on if you believe rehabilitation works...I do not. As I think something is just wired up wrong in paedophiles and nothing will change that.

[MTVN]

Sorry this sounds utterly ridiculous to me. There is a massive difference between your parents potentially splitting up and you potentially being abused. To even attempt to draw a comparison between the two is ludicrous :S

As for a low amount of sex offenders being re-convicted...well...I would think thats more because they are more careful not to slip up again and get caught than anything else. Like shoplifters, get caught once, up your sneakyness next time. But I guess this part depends on if you believe rehabilitation works...I do not. As I think something is just wired up wrong in paedophiles and nothing will change that.

It's more the principle though, and asking the question of "what constitutes a suitable parent" and how you can really decide this and be confident enough to start a program of forced sterilisation based on it, especially if you're using blanket judgements to create this criteria which are insufficient because they don't take into account individual differences in cases. I don't think they're trying to say the two are at all equal and I'm certainly not saying that

[Mrluvaluva]

Well that's kind of entering into another debate but are those who have been guilty and served their time not deemed to have repaid their debt to society? Either way the point she's really making in this bit is that it's not really feasible to implement a blanket ban which relies on treating all incidents the same and not recognising important differences between cases, when there are so many things to be taken into account.

They may have paid their debt (even though I don't necessarily think that in this day and age, the punishments given, or the length of sentences served particularly are in accordance with the crimes committed), but as I said, I don't think that people are, and in my opinion should be, trusted implicitly after they have shown that they are capable of committing such crimes. Of course all cases are different, and again, as I said previously, "I agree that all cases should be decided on their own merits, as should be the norm in most aspects of life."


I don't think she's saying that, she's saying that if some sex offenders have been deemed capable of looking after kids, and presumably this has been backed up by practice else it would not be the case, then who is to say that other sex offenders would not also be suitable parents?

I would not have thought that refers to those who have been convicted of serious crimes. Correct me if I am wrong. In what cases do you deem that it is ok for sex offenders to look after children?


She isn't just making a baseless claim with that third point though she's backed it up with several arguments, the points she makes that I found interesting were (a couple of which you've touched upon):

- Co-habiting couples are much more likely to split up than married couples, with potentially harmful emotional consequences for children, yet they are not banned from adopting and fostering - like she says "if blanket bans are an effective and legitimate means to protect children then we should no more allow cohabiting couples to adopt or foster than convicted sex offenders."

There is no comparison in those and that just is nonsensical to me. The concern here is about re-offending. Not whether a couple have a strong lasting relationship. You could use that argument against absolutely anyone at all.


- Parliament has already recognised that some sex offenders are suitable to look after children

In which cases? And just because it has been deemed acceptable by parliament in some cases, does not necessarily make it right.


- Sex offenders have relatively low reconviction rates compared to other types of offenders. Three-quarters of sex offenders are never reconvicted. Despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low and have remained virtually unchanged for 40 years - ok so there might be incidents not known about but that is the most accurate information we have at hand.

I would imagine most people who had been punished for a crime would hopefully be deterred from re-offending (although not in all cases). This is totally different though. This is not the same as, for instance, stealing one time because you were short on money. There is a desire in these people that is not necessarily quenched. Would you not say that there was actually a stronger possibility of an offence being made by a convicted paedophile to one being made by a seemingly normal average person?


I guess an important point here is that there's so many things that need to be taken into account and so many possible ways in which children can be negatively affected by parents that blanket bans are not a fair solution. Yes, a convicted paedophile might pose a risk to their child but going by the only facts we have available here that is a unlikely. You might say it's better to be safe than sorry and prevent a risk if at all possible, but like the article says if that's your logic then why not ban co-habiting couples from having children too. Why not also stop alcoholics, why not stop drug takers, why not stop people convicted of assault or any other crime? This is why I'm against forced sterilisation because it starts you going down a very slippery slope.

"Yes, a convicted paedophile might pose a risk to their child but going by the only facts we have available here that is unlikely", you say. How do you derive at that conclusion? And I re-iterate the fact that I would not exclude any member of society. Abuse of a child is wrong, and they should be protected by any means possible and beyond all reasonable doubt.

[MTVN]

I feel like we're kind of moving away from the original topic here because we're talking about adoption now instead of sterilisation, I guess that's my fault but what I was really trying to do is show the insufficiency of using blanket judgements to create the criteria for what a "suitable" parent is, and how it could possibly be decided who should be forcibly sterilised and who shouldn't, and that's before you even get into the morality of giving any government/state the power to take away an individuals ability to conceive, an area I think they have no right to get involved in. But anyway I'll try and respond to some of the points you made


I would not have thought that refers to those who have been convicted of serious crimes. Correct me if I am wrong. In what cases do you deem that it is ok for sex offenders to look after children?

If you can be confident they are not likely to pose a threat to the child, like you said "all cases should be decided on their own merits"

There is no comparison in those and that just is nonsensical to me. The concern here is about re-offending. Not whether a couple have a strong lasting relationship. You could use that argument against absolutely anyone at all.

Like I said in my reply to Vicky and above, it's more the principle of it; how you can't use blanket judgements to answer the question "what constitutes a suitable parent". Of course it would be ridiculous to impose a ban on all co-habiting couples being able to adopt, that's the point


In which cases? And just because it has been deemed acceptable by parliament in some cases, does not necessarily make it right.

In cases where they are "are related to the children or are pre-existing foster carers"

I would imagine most people who had been punished for a crime would hopefully be deterred from re-offending (although not in all cases). This is totally different though. This is not the same as, for instance, stealing one time because you were short on money. There is a desire in these people that is not necessarily quenched. Would you not say that there was actually a stronger possibility of an offence being made by a convicted paedophile to one being made by a seemingly normal average person?


This is taking us into the territory of what paedophilia really is, I believe it's a mental illness so maybe you can't eradicate it fully but many paedophile's go their whole lives without acting on their urges, just as psychopaths are not necessarily murderers. I don't think deterrence is that effective though, I'd rather they were given help and support, controversial as I know that sounds

"Yes, a convicted paedophile might pose a risk to their child but going by the only facts we have available here that is unlikely", you say. How do derive at that conclusion? And I re-iterate the fact that I would not exclude any member of society. Abuse of a child is wrong, and they should be protected by any means possible and beyond all reasonable doubt.


I derived at it by the statistics saying 3/4 of sex offenders do not reoffend. And I don't really get what you mean, you would also want smokers, alcoholics and drug takers forcibly sterilised?

[Vicky.]

I derived at it by the statistics saying 3/4 of sex offenders do not reoffend.

25% is still a LOT. I dont think its worth esentially playing roulette with the lives of children...just because there is a 3 in 4 chance nothing would happen to them.

(and thats not even taking into account those who simply dont get caught re-offending, which I think may add greatly to the figure...but lets assume the 3/4 thing is absolutely accurate...1/4 is still a huge amount)

[MTVN]

25% is still a LOT. I dont think its worth esentially playing roulette with the lives of children...just because there is a 3 in 4 chance nothing would happen to them.

and thats not even taking into account those who simply dont get caught re-offending, which I think may add greatly to the figures.

But my point is if you don't think it's worth the risk then should we not also sterilise alcoholics, drug addicts etc. who also might put children at risk?

[Mrluvaluva]

If you can be confident they are not likely to pose a threat to the child, like you said "all cases should be decided on their own merits"

I don't know about you, but personally I would never be confident about that situation.


Like I said in my reply to Vicky and above, it's more the principle of it; how you can't use blanket judgements to answer the question "what constitutes a suitable parent". Of course it would be ridiculous to impose a ban on all co-habiting couples being able to adopt, that's the point.

I think we have established we have agreed that blanket bans are not an option.


In cases where they are "are related to the children or are pre-existing foster carers"

This goes back to my previous comment earlier. Just because they are related, does not make them any less of a risk.


This is taking us into the territory of what paedophilia really is, I believe it's a mental illness so maybe you can't eradicate it fully but many paedophile's go their whole lives without acting on their urges, just as psychopaths are not necessarily murderers. I don't think deterrence is that effective though, I'd rather they were given help and support, controversial as I know that sounds.

I believe they are given help and support along with medical depressants etc. I am not a believer of rehabilitation though.


I derived at it by the statistics saying 3/4 of sex offenders do not reoffend. And I don't really get what you mean, you would also want smokers, alcoholics and drug takers forcibly sterilised?

We are talking about abuse of children here. If an alcoholic or a drug taker abused a child badly, then I would support such matters. Why would I want somebody forcibly sterilised for the crime of smoking? We are talking about people who have established themselves as offenders here, not potential. Preemptive measures though do have to be taken for children possibly at risk. Although it is far better to lower the potential risk in the first place no?

[Vicky.]

But my point is if you don't think it's worth the risk then should we not also sterilise alcoholics, drug addicts etc. who also might put children at risk?

Its a good question..and one I cant really back up my opinion to. But no. I think the cases are entirely different.

I just think once you interfere with a child, you should be kept away from them for life.

IDK. I may be having a kneejerk reaction to that horrible video (that i still havent even watched but know how horrid it is from just reading other peoples responses)

And I KNOW I always have a kneejerk reaction to paedophile stuff. Mostly because I view it as the worst crime ever, even worse than murder.

[Marsh.]

TBH though "sex offenders" is a pretty broad term. All different kinds of people are forced to sign the sex offenders register, so who precisely are we discussing?

If it's crimes against children like pedophiles, whether they've physically acted upon their desires or not shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.

I think Ian Huntley is a big example of what could happen. He should never have been allowed near a school after the number of times he was arrested over rape and abusing underage girls.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

worse than murder.

i will never, ever understand how people can think this :conf2:

[MTVN]

I don't know about you, but personally I would never be confident about that situation.





I think we have established we have agreed that blanket bans are not an option.

I'm a bit confused about this then, if you think you can never be confident a sex offender could look after a child then wouldn't you support a blanket ban?

This goes back to my previous comment earlier. Just because they are related, does not make them any less of a risk.

True but I'm presuming such a law was only passed because it's been backed up by practice and sex offenders have successfully looked after relatives else it wouldn't be made legal. Might be wrong in that presumption though

I believe they are given help and support along with medical depressants etc. I am not a believer of rehabilitation though.

Fair enough, I'm of the other view though and think the balance should be far in favour of rehabilitation and not retribution

We are talking about abuse of children here. If an alcoholic or a drug taker abused a child badly, then I would support such matters. Why would I want somebody forcibly sterilised for the crime of smoking?

But is what we're talking about not the attempt to legislate against the possibility of harming your child? I'm not just talking about physical abuse either

Its a good question..and one I cant really back up my opinion to. But no.

I just think once you interfere with a child, you should be kept away from them for life.

IDK. I may be having a kneejerk reaction to that horrible video (that i still havent even watched but know how horrid it is from just reading other peoples responses)

And I KNOW I always have a kneejerk reaction to paedophile stuff. Mostly because I view it as the worst crime ever, even worse than murder.

Fair enough, I can understand your view, I just can't ever agree that forced sterilisation should ever be an option

[Vicky.]

i will never, ever understand how people can think this :conf2:

Dunno actually, just have always thought this :S

I would sooner forgive a murderer than someone who molested a child. This may be wrong, but its how I am.

[Mrluvaluva]

TBH though "sex offenders" is a pretty broad term. All different kinds of people are forced to sign the sex offenders register, so who precisely are we discussing?

If it's crimes against children like pedophiles, whether they've physically acted upon their desires or not shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.

I think Ian Huntley is a big example of what could happen. He should never have been allowed near a school after the number of times he was arrested over rape and abusing underage girls.

If they are a known paedophile then I agree that they should be kept away from children where possible.

[Mrluvaluva]

I'm a bit confused about this then, if you think you can never be confident a sex offender could look after a child then wouldn't you support a blanket ban?

No. As 08marsh stated, people are on the sex offenders register for different reasons. I am not talking about the bloke who slept with the 15 year old believing she was 18. I keep re-iterating, in serious cases only. We can all have our different views on what those are.


But is what we're talking about not the attempt to legislate against the possibility of harming your child? I'm not just talking about physical abuse either

The whole debate was sparked off by somebody actually abusing their child. Should we not learn from such actions and stop them from happening again? You could never guarantee a child would not be abused by anyone, but you could definitely try and lower the risk.

[Mrluvaluva]

i will never, ever understand how people can think this :conf2:

Murders are reported about every day. We read about them in the news and are a part of every day life. It doesn't make them any less serious, but ask yourself this. What outrages you more? When you read about someone being murdered, or when hearing about a horrible abuse case?

[Kizzy]

I agree with vicky, anyone convicted of serious assault on a minor should be sterilised.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Murders are reported about every day. We read about them in the news and are a part of every day life. It doesn't make them any less serious, but ask yourself this. What outrages you more? When you read about someone being murdered, or when hearing about a horrible abuse case?

well the murder case would probably upset me more

abuse victims can get over what happened to them dead people cant

i just think to take somebodies life away from them is in a different league to everything else and there is nothing worse

[Vicky.]

well the murder case would probably upset me more

abuse victims can get over what happened to them dead people cant

i just think to take somebodies life away from them is in a different league to everything else and there is nothing worse
Quite the opposite. Serious abuse stays with you for life.

[Mrluvaluva]

well the murder case would probably upset me more

abuse victims can get over what happened to them dead people cant

i just think to take somebodies life away from them is in a different league to everything else and there is nothing worse

Fair enough. I don't think most people would retort in the same way though.

I'm not getting into the rest of your post though. That's would take the thread on a different tangent, and it's not a view I necessarily agree with, but we all have our different opinions, and it's good to discuss them sometimes.

[Kizzy]

Murders are reported about every day. We read about them in the news and are a part of every day life. It doesn't make them any less serious, but ask yourself this. What outrages you more? When you read about someone being murdered, or when hearing about a horrible abuse case?

I would say they both appal me in equal measure, especially when there is more than one person present. One deviant is hard to comprehend, but when they are mulitplied its frightening.

[Kazanne]

I go with Vicky on this one, this woman shouldn't be anywhere near children, some people crave having children and cannot but they would give total devotion and love to them if they had any.
This woman will I am sure in prison once it is known what she is in for,get some really rough treatment,it's sad to think there are better morals from some of the worst criminals behind bars than there are from some parents and adults with responsibility towards babies and children.

I agree with Vicky, it's a pity the law doesn't cater for making sure she doesn't have any more of her own. Totally disgusting behaviour and wholly unacceptable treatment of that baby in this incident.

Agree with you yet again Joey,that video upset me, that woman clearly is a liability around children and the children should be protected from that sort of scum.

[Jack_]

Wow, you lot are certainly creating some threads that are more than likely going to rile me up (this and that smacking thread).

Anyway...no I don't agree with forced sterilisation of women. It's inhumane and not the kind of way we should be going about things. Human rights are a fundamental element of a civilised society, and they should never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, be compromised for any reason (I am of course referring to the serious ones). They should be set in stone and nobody should be above them, and we should count ourselves very lucky that we have them and that we live in a society where on the whole, people's human rights are abided by in the eyes of the law and justice.

If we lived in a society where we could freely tamper with human rights and compromise with certain cases willy nilly, we'd be leaving ourselves open to all kinds of abuse. Sounds just like a fascist government policy to me, not the kind of place I want to be living. As disgusting as this video was (from the parts I watched), and as infuriated as I get at certain crimes, at the very basic level we should always ensure that the human rights of all involved are upheld.

Capital punishment, torture etc are all disgusting concepts that need to be abolished as soon as possible, and we really don't need to start going down this kind of road. We want to try and aim to get to a stage where there is practically no violence or inhumane treatment whatsoever (especially coming from those in control of the law), and things like this would only promote such behaviour if you ask me. Almost hypocritical in fact.

[Kizzy]

Wow, you lot are certainly creating some threads that are more than likely going to rile me up (this and that smacking thread).

Anyway...no I don't agree with forced sterilisation of women. It's inhumane and not the kind of way we should be going about things. Human rights are a fundamental element of a civilised society, and they should never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, be compromised for any reason (I am of course referring to the serious ones). They should be set in stone and nobody should be above them, and we should count ourselves very lucky that we have them and that we live in a society where on the whole, people's human rights are abided by in the eyes of the law and justice.

If we lived in a society where we could freely tamper with human rights and compromise with certain cases willy nilly, we'd be leaving ourselves open to all kinds of abuse. Sounds just like a fascist government policy to me, not the kind of place I want to be living. As disgusting as this video was (from the parts I watched), and as infuriated as I get at certain crimes, at the very basic level we should always ensure that the human rights of all involved are upheld.

Capital punishment, torture etc are all disgusting concepts that need to be abolished as soon as possible, and we really don't need to start going down this kind of road. We want to try and aim to get to a stage where there is practically no violence or inhumane treatment whatsoever (especially coming from those in control of the law), and things like this would only promote such behaviour if you ask me. Almost hypocritical in fact.

Including those of any future children of convicted abusers?...

[Jords]

I disagree with forced sterilisation because like others have mentioned its open to abuse and similarly to capital punishment what if they have a false positive? Its irreversible and somebodys life could potentially be ruined.

These sort of people that some would deem "deservable" of it should be locked up for a very long time that they wont have chance to get pregnant anyway.

[Jords]

Also what in the cases of these offenders that are already pregnant? Would that deem them deservable of a forced abortion?

Its just not something I think should be explored because all sorts of ethical issues are flung about.

[Marsh.]

Also what in the cases of these offenders that are already pregnant? Would that deem them deservable of a forced abortion?

Its just not something I think should be explored because all sorts of ethical issues are flung about.

I don't think they're suggesting any child from them should be killed but they should be prevented from conceiving full stop.

[lostalex]

i think it's okay to sterilize people, but i think their eggs or sperm should be taken and frozen so that in the future they could stil have possibility of using them.

Actually i'd like to see a world in the future where all people were sterilized, and the government then could say who could procreate or not. I think after we are born sperm and eggs should be taken from all boys and girls, and then we are all sterilized, and then we should have to apply for some sort of permit to actually use them.

The idea that any idiot with a dick or vagina can make babies now is a huge problem. i don't think that procreation is a human right.

[Jords]

i think it's okay to sterilize people, but i think their eggs or sperm should be taken and frozen so that in the future they could stil have possibility of using them.

Actually i'd like to see a world in the future where all people were sterilized, and the government then could say who could procreate or not. I think after we are born sperm and eggs should be taken from all boys and girls, and then we are all sterilized, and then we should have to apply for some sort of permit to actually use them.

The idea that any idiot with a dick or vagina can make babies now is a huge problem. i don't think that procreation is a human right.

wow

[lostalex]

wow

elaborate.

[Mrluvaluva]

Oh my. I'm just not getting into that one..

[Mystic Mock]

So, hang on, they can violate someone else's rights. But to violate their own as punishment is too far? I find that logic quite disturbing.

I was thinking this.:joker:

I can understand Niall and MTVN's views but if they don't want there human rights taken away when concieving children then they shouldn't have abused the children they've already got imo.

[Marsh.]

i think it's okay to sterilize people, but i think their eggs or sperm should be taken and frozen so that in the future they could stil have possibility of using them.

Actually i'd like to see a world in the future where all people were sterilized, and the government then could say who could procreate or not. I think after we are born sperm and eggs should be taken from all boys and girls, and then we are all sterilized, and then we should have to apply for some sort of permit to actually use them.

The idea that any idiot with a dick or vagina can make babies now is a huge problem. i don't think that procreation is a human right.

:shocked:

[Jack_]

i think it's okay to sterilize people, but i think their eggs or sperm should be taken and frozen so that in the future they could stil have possibility of using them.

Actually i'd like to see a world in the future where all people were sterilized, and the government then could say who could procreate or not. I think after we are born sperm and eggs should be taken from all boys and girls, and then we are all sterilized, and then we should have to apply for some sort of permit to actually use them.

The idea that any idiot with a dick or vagina can make babies now is a huge problem. i don't think that procreation is a human right.

Are you ****ing serious?

Sounds like some fascist dictatorship which is attempting to engineer some sort of 'super race'. Having flashbacks to the 1940's here.

[arista]

Because if you start sterilising people like that, then its just the start of slippery slope. Infringing human rights like that should never be considered.

Keep her in prison for life maybe, but to sterilise someone? That's something the Nazis did!


Yes but the Nazi's were at War with the World.

Criminals
can have some human rights stopped
thats fair

[arista]

i think it's okay to sterilize people, but i think their eggs or sperm should be taken and frozen so that in the future they could stil have possibility of using them.

Actually i'd like to see a world in the future where all people were sterilized, and the government then could say who could procreate or not. I think after we are born sperm and eggs should be taken from all boys and girls, and then we are all sterilized, and then we should have to apply for some sort of permit to actually use them.

The idea that any idiot with a dick or vagina can make babies now is a huge problem. i don't think that procreation is a human right.


That will never Happen, though

[arista]

I agree with vicky, anyone convicted of serious assault on a minor should be sterilised.


I also agree with Vicky.
on that.

[Niall]

I agree with vicky, anyone convicted of serious assault on a minor should be sterilised.

You do realise what you're saying right?

What if a case was misjudged and a person was sterilised because it appeared that they were guilty of an assault on a minor, but it wasn't actually true? A whole bodily function and ability to carry on their family would've been snatched away. They'd never be able to have a child of their own and thats all through a failing of the legal system. How would you help them? How could you even begin to consider how to compensate them for such a thing? Its just wrong to my mind..

Its an absolutely terrible thing to consider in my opinion and the fact that it was openly used by the Nazis against the disabled for example on serves to highlight that.

[Vicky.]

I dont think its fair to say everyone 'convicted' of anything. Some paedophiles get convicted on only the words of the victims.

Thats why I said earlier on only if it can be actually proven beyond all reasonable doubt...and that it would be very much on a case by case basis.

[Niall]

I dont think its fair to say everyone 'convicted' of anything. Some paedophiles get convicted on only the words of the victims.

Thats why I said earlier on only if it can be actually proven beyond all reasonable doubt...and that it would be very much on a case by case basis.

Yes but having such a authoritarian and dictatorial punishment in todays society is backwards and quite barbaric.

And even though such sentences aren't given out that much nowadays, life imprisonment can be far more punishing.

[Marsh.]

I've got to say, after lostalex kicking up a fuss about parents "beating up" their children and then to come out with that, I think he just says whatever is most likely to get a reaction.

[Vicky.]

Yes but having such a authoritarian and dictatorial punishment in todays society is backwards and quite barbaric.

And even though such sentences aren't given out that much nowadays, life imprisonment can be far more punishing.

I agree with this totally. Unfortunately our 'justice' system is absolutely ridiculous and allows people such as the chinese woman who beat her baby to do a years worth of time...and then says her debt to society is paid...and she can go back to her normal life, have more kids to abuse...maybe get another year somewhere down the line...its just not right at all.

I would be all for life meaning life. And all serious crimes against kids getting life. But its just never going to happen. I know the sterilisation thing will never happen either though. But something really has got to be done about stuff like this. I mean, the guy who made a racist tweet...is likely to be in prison for longer than that woman is. How the **** is that fair?!

I honestly think that our justice system being too damn soft and inconsistent is the main reason so many offend in the first place. You can murder someone and be out in 5 years or so.

[Ninastar]

I agree with this totally. Unfortunately our 'justice' system is absolutely ridiculous and allows people such as the chinese woman who beat her baby to do a years worth of time...and then says her debt to society is paid...and she can go back to her normal life, have more kids to abuse...maybe get another year somewhere down the line...its just not right at all.

I would be all for life meaning life. And all serious crimes against kids getting life. But its just never going to happen. I know the sterilisation thing will never happen either though. But something really has got to be done about stuff like this. I mean, the guy who made a racist tweet...is likely to be in prison for longer than that woman is. How the **** is that fair?!

I honestly think that our justice system being too damn soft and inconsistent is the main reason so many offend in the first place. You can murder someone and be out in 5 years or so.
:worship:

[Niall]

I agree with this totally. Unfortunately our 'justice' system is absolutely ridiculous and allows people such as the chinese woman who beat her baby to do a years worth of time...and then says her debt to society is paid...and she can go back to her normal life, have more kids to abuse...maybe get another year somewhere down the line...its just not right at all.

I would be all for life meaning life. And all serious crimes against kids getting life. But its just never going to happen. I know the sterilisation thing will never happen either though. But something really has got to be done about stuff like this. I mean, the guy who made a racist tweet...is likely to be in prison for longer than that woman is. How the **** is that fair?!

I honestly think that our justice system being too damn soft and inconsistent is the main reason so many offend in the first place. You can murder someone and be out in 5 years or so.

Yeah it is quite disgusting how lenient it's become. I mean if we could imprison people for life, and life meaning life in prison (not 25 years or some sh!t), then that would be ideal. There just isn't the space for it I suppose..

About the racist tweet thing: I think that was way over the top too. It could have been to set an example to others though not to be offensive like that online? I don't know really. It was ridiculous though. That was the one who was really offensive about the footballer, right?

[Vicky.]

Yeah it is quite disgusting how lenient it's become. I mean if we could imprison people for life, and life meaning life in prison (not 25 years or some sh!t), then that would be ideal. There just isn't the space for it I suppose..

But if we did imprison people for life...Im pretty sure there wouldnt be so many offenders in the first place. So the overcrowding would solve itself really...as less people would be committing serious crimes.

But yeah, there isnt the space to even try it...because of how **** the system has been so far :laugh:



About the racist tweet thing: I think that was way over the top too. It could have been to set an example to others though not to be offensive like that online? I don't know really. It was ridiculous though. That was the one who was really offensive about the footballer, right?
I didnt read the tweets myself, but yeah. It might have been to set an example...but even so. Someone purposely torturing a child, should get way harsher punishment than some idiot keyboard warrior thinking he was clever :S I dont personally think his sentence was too harsh really...but there should be some consistency. And I think in anyones eyes what this woman did is way worse than what that man did. And this should be reflected in the punishment.

[Niall]

But if we did imprison people for life...Im pretty sure there wouldnt be so many offenders in the first place. So the overcrowding would solve itself really...as less people would be committing serious crimes.

But yeah, there isnt the space to even try it...because of how **** the system has been so far :laugh:

I never thought of it that way before. :shocked: I suppose that makes sense. But like you said, the prisons are already fit to burst so we can't try it now. :laugh:

I didnt read the tweets myself, but yeah. It might have been to set an example...but even so. Someone purposely torturing a child, should get way harsher punishment than some idiot keyboard warrior thinking he was clever :S

Hmm I think its quite worrying really. Jailing someone for being verbally offensive? He was exercising his right to free speech I think. I would've just fined him.

[MTVN]

But if we did imprison people for life...Im pretty sure there wouldnt be so many offenders in the first place. So the overcrowding would solve itself really...as less people would be committing serious crimes.

But yeah, there isnt the space to even try it...because of how **** the system has been so far :laugh:



Is there really gonna be that significant a difference between the effectiveness of the deterrent for a prison sentence that lasts 25 years and one that lasts 50 (assuming after the time they're probably pretty close to death)? And if the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent why would other tougher punishments be any more of one?

I think if someone is in the frame of mind to kill another person, than whether the punishment is 25 years, 50 years, or death, it won't have that big an impact on their decision

[Vicky.]

Is there really gonna be that significant a difference between the effectiveness of the deterrent for a prison sentence that lasts 25 years and one that lasts 50 (assuming after the time they're probably pretty close to death)? And if the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent why would other tougher punishments be any more of one?

Well a 25 year sentence would generally result in someone being out in like 12. Say you killed someone at 20 year old, you would be out just in time to enjoy the prime of your life. Even doing the full sentence you would be out by 45....likely under a new identity and everything too (as only really high profile cases get sentences like that). Life meaning life would mean you never saw the real world again...I would imagine thats a pretty big deterrant...for younger people at least.

I would personally say that spending my life locked up is worse than the death penalty.

[Mystic Mock]

I've got to say, after lostalex kicking up a fuss about parents "beating up" their children and then to come out with that, I think he just says whatever is most likely to get a reaction.

Again I agree with you.

[Vicky.]

Oh and I dont think that everyone who murders is gone in the head. I think a lot of them seriously plan what they are going to do, how to get away with it and everything. Then just try to plead insanity at court because a lot of people seem to think only insane people would even consider murdering someone.

[Jack_]

Oh and I dont think that everyone who murders is gone in the head. I think a lot of them seriously plan what they are going to do, how to get away with it and everything. Then just try to plead insanity at court because a lot of people seem to think only insane people would even consider murdering someone.

Maybe it's just me but I think that someone that plans a murder has something seriously wrong with them, they're definitely not right in the head.

No sane person does that.

EDIT: Bit like that teenager a few weeks back that killed his mum with a hammer, and had plotted it for months and months in the form of little stories. There's clearly some kind of issue there if you ask me, even more so than those who just murder at the heat of the moment.

[MTVN]

Well a 25 year sentence would generally result in someone being out in like 12. Say you killed someone at 20 year old, you would be out just in time to enjoy the prime of your life. Even doing the full sentence you would be out by 45....likely under a new identity and everything too (as only really high profile cases get sentences like that). Life meaning life would mean you never saw the real world again...I would imagine thats a pretty big deterrant...for younger people at least.

I would personally say that spending my life locked up is worse than the death penalty.

Even in cases when they only get out after 12 years or so (and I'm not sure how frequent it actually is that prisoners only serve half their sentence), I wouldn't say they're in a position to "enjoy the prime of their life". It's forever known that they were a murderer, that will place huge limitations on everything they do and they have to try and accustom themselves back to the real world and (if they do feel this way) always have to live with what they've done. I'm not saying this to try and make you feel sorry for them, or make out they deserve any sympathy because they don't and those are the consequences of what they've done, but I just don't think it's the case that murderers get a really easy ride in life after being released

And I'm not sure I agree that being killed is better than spending your life in prison, but either way I still thinks it's the case that however much you try and toughen the punishment it probably won't stop someone killing another man if they were already going to do it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the countries with the most brutal justice system often have the most crime, and those with the most liberal have the least

[Ammi]

Maybe it's just me but I think that someone that plans a murder has something seriously wrong with them, they're definitely not right in the head.

No sane person does that.
EDIT: Bit like that teenager a few weeks back that killed his mum with a hammer, and had plotted it for months and months in the form of little stories. There's clearly some kind of issue there if you ask me, even more so than those who just murder at the heat of the moment.


Yes I agree..the horrific case that's been on the news all day today of Shane Jenkins who gouged his ex's eyes out..apparantly he'd watched a dvd of eye gouging fgs...there was no 'spur of the moment' thing going on there..that man is seriously disturbed...
..he's been sentenced to life imprisonment..but I don't know how these things work..will they just leave him disturbed or will he ever get any help to fully realise what he's done..because I'm presuming someone who is capable of doing that can't possibly fully grasp it

[Mystic Mock]

Even in cases when they only get out after 12 years or so (and I'm not sure how frequent it actually is that prisoners only serve half their sentence), I wouldn't say they're in a position to "enjoy the prime of their life". It's forever known that they were a murderer, that will place huge limitations on everything they do and they have to try and accustom themselves back to the real world and (if they do feel this way) always have to live with what they've done. I'm not saying this to try and make you feel sorry for them, or make out they deserve any sympathy because they don't and those are the consequences of what they've done, but I just don't think it's the case that murderers get a really easy ride in life after being released

And I'm not sure I agree that being killed is better than spending your life in prison, but either way I still thinks it's the case that however much you try and toughen the punishment it probably won't stop someone killing another man if they were already going to do it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the countries with the most brutal justice system often have the most crime, and those with the most liberal have the least

Wrong because what about over here?:joker:

[Mystic Mock]

Yes I agree..the horrific case that's been on the news all day today of Shane Jenkins who gouged his ex's eyes out..apparantly he'd watched a dvd of eye gouging fgs...there was no 'spur of the moment' thing going on there..that man is seriously disturbed...
..he's been sentenced to life imprisonment..but I don't know how these things work..will they just leave him disturbed or will he ever get any help to fully realise what he's done..because I'm presuming someone who is capable of doing that can't possibly fully grasp it

They do but they just don't care.

[MTVN]

Wrong because what about over here?:joker:

I don't think our justice system is particularly liberal, no more so than most Western countries. I think Norway is a very good example of a successful liberal justice system, their reaction to the atrocities committed there last year have been a testament to this

[Ammi]

As much as I am as shocked as anyone about certain crimes I would worry about these type of punishments....
..if it was that say someone committed a murder and they got the death penalty..a life for a life..or a paedophile say castrated..someone who was deemed to be disturbed..maybe lobotomised..and the forced castration on anyone that it is deemed shouldn't have anymore children.....
...that sounds like a completely violent and barbaric world to live in..like something out of a horror movie..almost completely lawless..and would there ever be any extenuating circumstances and how would they be decided..it seems to be playing around with people's lives as much as the people who commit these crimes in the first place....
..it would be better if the sentences were longer in some cases or that they served their full term..but when they're doing that..these people need help also

[Kizzy]

Im standing by what I suggested, it is being trialled for peadophiles ...Voluntary chemical castration. It would be discrimination if the same soloution was not offered to women?...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9139845/Paedophiles-chemically-castrated-in-British-jail.html

[Pyramid*]

well the murder case would probably upset me more

abuse victims can get over what happened to them dead people cant

i just think to take somebodies life away from them is in a different league to everything else and there is nothing worse

You think it's that easy do you Scott? They just get over it?

what about young children who recall the memories, the pain, the hurt, the fear: and have to live with that every single day for the rest of the lives - many who have been phsyically damaged to the point that they cannot have children anymore: or are unable to have a normal sex life.

If only child abuse was as simple to get over as you appear to think it is.

[Pyramid*]

Yes but having such a authoritarian and dictatorial punishment in todays society is backwards and quite barbaric.

And even though such sentences aren't given out that much nowadays, life imprisonment can be far more punishing.

How many people in the UK these days are imprisoned for the rest of their natural life........ life imprisonment isn't life.

[Pyramid*]

I wish they'd done a poll on this : but split it into males /females: reading through the thread: it appears that it is mostly males who are against sterilization - with mostly the females being 'for it'.

[Kazanne]

i agree with this totally. Unfortunately our 'justice' system is absolutely ridiculous and allows people such as the chinese woman who beat her baby to do a years worth of time...and then says her debt to society is paid...and she can go back to her normal life, have more kids to abuse...maybe get another year somewhere down the line...its just not right at all.

I would be all for life meaning life. And all serious crimes against kids getting life. But its just never going to happen. I know the sterilisation thing will never happen either though. But something really has got to be done about stuff like this. I mean, the guy who made a racist tweet...is likely to be in prison for longer than that woman is. How the **** is that fair?!

I honestly think that our justice system being too damn soft and inconsistent is the main reason so many offend in the first place. You can murder someone and be out in 5 years or so.

this 100%

[Marc]

Why has Vicky's post been used to start a thread.

Could've kept this in the originaly thread or just PMed each other to debate it :pipe:

[Pyramid*]

Why has Vicky's post been used to start a thread.

Could've kept this in the originaly thread or just PMed each other to debate it :pipe:

Given that at 124 comments, before mine here have now been posted, it's a bit late in the day for your question & suggestion.

I don't see the issue to be honest - people are still discussing it.

[Marc]

Indeed they are.

[Mrluvaluva]

Why has Vicky's post been used to start a thread.

Could've kept this in the originaly thread or just PMed each other to debate it :pipe:

A moderator moved it to a new thread. :spin:

[Pyramid*]

A moderator moved it to a new thread. :spin:

:laugh2:

[MTVN]

Why has Vicky's post been used to start a thread.

Could've kept this in the originaly thread or just PMed each other to debate it :pipe:

Because it was being discussed in the video about the woman beating her baby thread, and then Scott made a new thread and people started discussing it in there too, so I moved all the posts here so we weren't having the same debate in different threads

[Marc]

Jesus Matt :bored:

:tongue:

[MTVN]

It's just common sense moderating, try it sometime Marc :idc:

[Pyramid*]

Because it was being discussed in the video about the woman beating her baby thread, and then Scott made a new thread and people started discussing it in there too, so I moved all the posts here so we weren't having the same debate in different threads

Sensible Mod.

[Pyramid*]

It's just common sense moderating, try it sometime Marc :idc:
:joker:

[Marc]

:shocked: Maybe I will

[Jack_]

Im standing by what I suggested, it is being trialled for peadophiles ...Voluntary chemical castration. It would be discrimination if the same soloution was not offered to women?...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9139845/Paedophiles-chemically-castrated-in-British-jail.html

I was about to launch into a fit of rage before I saw 'voluntary'. I hadn't thought about that and didn't even see the option on the poll, so mistakenly voted to prohibit it completely. But absolutely, so long as they're volunteering and willing for this to happen, I've no problem whatsoever. In fact I think it's quite commendable.

But forcing people to face this kind of treatment - never.

[Pyramid*]

I was about to launch into a fit of rage before I saw 'voluntary'. I hadn't thought about that and didn't even see the option on the poll, so mistakenly voted to prohibit it completely. But absolutely, so long as they're volunteering and willing for this to happen, I've no problem whatsoever. In fact I think it's quite commendable.

But forcing people to face this kind of treatment - never.

You honestly think that the mother of Baby Peter for example, should be allowed to have another child after the hell that she and her cronies put him through?


You seriously think that the mother who killed her child for a human sacrifice should be allowed to bring another child into the world?

I cannot and will not ever comprehend why anyone would not agree such women should not be forcibly sterilised, legally.

[Mrluvaluva]

And so far the results in that poll are:

It isn't a suitable treatment and shouldn't be used 7.91% (124 votes)

It should be used but only on those who volunteer 26.04% (408 votes)

It should be compulsory for child sex offenders 66.05% (1,035 votes)


Total Votes: 1,567

[Marc]

Not sure we can physically sterilise anybody, that's just an extreme violation of human rights. Unfortunately life's a bitch

[Jack_]

You honestly think that the mother of Baby Peter for example, should be allowed to have another child after the hell that she and her cronies put him through?


You seriously think that the mother who killed her child for a human sacrifice should be allowed to bring another child into the world?

I cannot and will not ever comprehend why anyone would not agree such women should not be forcibly sterilised, legally.

No, simply because I think both should be imprisoned for life. At least most of it anyway, if not indeed all of it.

As I've said in this thread already, forcing people to be sterilised just seems very authoritarian and quite fascist to me. Not the kind of place I think we should be living or endorsing in 2012, seems pre-historic. We should all count ourselves very lucky that we have human rights that protect us, and as I have already made clear, I don't think, no matter what, those human rights should ever be compromised on. Nobody should be above them, or else we open the doors to potentially all sorts of abuse.

[Pyramid*]

No, simply because I think both should be imprisoned for life. At least most of it anyway, if not indeed all of it.

As I've said in this thread already, forcing people to be sterilised just seems very authoritarian and quite fascist to me. Not the kind of place I think we should be living or endorsing in 2012, seems pre-historic. We should all count ourselves very lucky that we have human rights that protect us, and as I have already made clear, I don't think, no matter what, those human rights should ever be compromised on. Nobody should be above them, or else we open the doors to potentially all sorts of abuse.


Women can get pregnant in prison you know. There are male staff in female prisons.

[Pyramid*]

Not sure we can physically sterilise anybody, that's just an extreme violation of human rights. Unfortunately life's a bitch

What other way is there to sterilise anyone other than physically?

[Marc]

Mentally

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a132/moopenis/gifs_Ace_Ventura_dancing.gif

[Jack_]

Women can get pregnant in prison you know. There are male staff in female prisons.

Yeah, I am aware love. No need to state the obvious.

I'm not entirely sure what happens should a female prisoner become pregnant anyway (if anyone knows and could explain I'd be grateful) but I'd imagine, and hope that it'd be left with the woman's family/partner who are outside of prison, should they accept the responsibility of course. If not surely they're put into care/up for adoption? In which case I'd support such action.

[Marsh.]

Yeah, I am aware love. No need to state the obvious.

I'm not entirely sure what happens should a female prisoner become pregnant anyway (if anyone knows and could explain I'd be grateful) but I'd imagine, and hope that it'd be left with the woman's family/partner who are outside of prison, should they accept the responsibility of course. If not surely they're put into care/up for adoption? In which case I'd support such action.

I'm sure mothers (not all of them) get put on a special wing where they can have the child with them.

[Jack_]

I'm sure mothers (not all of them) get put on a special wing where they can have the child with them.

So the child has to grow up in a prison alongside the mother? Not quite sure if I'm comfortable with that, assuming they're there for quite a bit of time.

[Mrluvaluva]

Have you never seen "Bad Girls" Jack? Or even Corrie...

[Kizzy]

So the child has to grow up in a prison alongside the mother? Not quite sure if I'm comfortable with that, assuming they're there for quite a bit of time.

Im sure they are fine jack...

http://www.toysit.com/bratz-fashion-dolls/babies.jpg
We as bin in prizon innit?...

[InOne]

BB's Chanelle was born in a prison and she turned out just fine...

[Mrluvaluva]

BB's Chanelle was born in a prison and she turned out just fine...

:conf2:

[InOne]

:conf2:

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/21/2142/IQRED00Z.jpg

[Marsh.]

So the child has to grow up in a prison alongside the mother? Not quite sure if I'm comfortable with that, assuming they're there for quite a bit of time.

I'm not quite sure about the exact rules and regulations surrounding it, but yes they have a wing for mother's to have their babies with them. I would like to think that it is only small/newborn babies who are really dependant on having the mother with them. But once they've reached a specific time they would be told to hand them over to family members on the outside or something.

[Pyramid*]

Mentally



How does one sterilise a person mentally then? After all, this is a serious discussion Marc.



Yeah, I am aware love. No need to state the obvious.

I'm not entirely sure what happens should a female prisoner become pregnant anyway (if anyone knows and could explain I'd be grateful) but I'd imagine, and hope that it'd be left with the woman's family/partner who are outside of prison, should they accept the responsibility of course. If not surely they're put into care/up for adoption? In which case I'd support such action.



Quit with the patronising 'love' patter. It's tiresome. Clearly I did need to state the obvious....because of your next comment below.....

So the child has to grow up in a prison alongside the mother? Not quite sure if I'm comfortable with that, assuming they're there for quite a bit of time.


Given that as I pointed out, that women do get pregnant in prison too: and that you are not comfortable with a child growing up in prison:...... what are you thoughts now then on unfit mothers or mothers who have abused their own children being sterilised: since your preferred option of 'being put in prison' does not rule out them bearing more children?

[Pyramid*]

BB's Chanelle was born in a prison and she turned out just fine...

She may have turned out fine on the physical level but she has very clear issues: of the dangerous bunny boiler type IIRC. Doesn't mean to say that was as a result, but I'd hardly say she was the best example of what you are trying to argue.