Quote:
Originally Posted by MTVN
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTVN
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTVN
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTVN
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTVN
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?