[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

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.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

- 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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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."

Originally Posted by MTVN

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?

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.

Originally Posted by MTVN

- 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.

Originally Posted by MTVN

- 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?

Originally Posted by MTVN

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

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

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.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

worse than murder.

i will never, ever understand how people can think this

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

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

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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

[Mrluvaluva]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?