If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Roy Whiting - It should never have happened!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
a) protect society-this is already achieved by a life sentence
b) punish the criminal-do we want to live in a society where violence is puniches by violence?
You sure about that?
And chopping bits off wouldnt work either...if a rapist couldnt use his penis, hed use another implement. Many times its the power trip not the sexual act..which is why in the truest sense of the word the psychologist was probably right to say that Whiting was not a peadophile. It seems that **** is even mroe dangerous because he gets off on dominating the child, not the simple act of sex.
If my mother was kidnapped, bundled into a van, held against her will forced to give oral sex and then raped by someone I would want the person involved to be held for life.
If my Sister was kidnapped, bundled into a van, held against her will forced to give oral sex and then raped by someone I would want the person involved to be held for life.
If my son or daughter kidnapped, bundled into a van, held against his/her will forced to give oral sex and then raped by someone I would want the person involved to be held for life.
as far as I see each victim has been treated the same and therefore the crime is just as bad and deserves the same punnishment and each victim deserves the same sympathy.
Yes - you are right that in most cases women are stronger than a child but that doesn't mean they can stop a man from raping them if he is holding a kife to their throat.
Rape is rape!!
[ 18-12-2001: Message edited by: byny ]
Perhaps the shame of playing football for Arsenal is too much for him?
I think that you may have meant IAN BRADY...
What has happened is that the abuser preys on the victims innocence and uses it against them, they then proceed to strip them of their childhood.
Whilst a rape on an adult is horrific, it still doesn't have the same psychological effect. How many rape victims become rapists themselves? Spot the difference?
I agree that any rape is a horrendous act but there IS a difference.
On a separate point, we are told that a 'name and shame' policy wouldn't work because it would drive the shitheads underground. Can someone tell me where peadophiles operate openly? I thought that they were already underground...
The driving underground thing is definately a serious issue...Obviously the only people that can be named and shamed are those who have already committed a sexual crime and they are known to the police. They can be monitored by the police and these people know they will be the first port of call should a child go missing. Im sure the constant police presence over their shoulder is at least a little deterrant.
If these people were named in public then they would just disappear, change their names, blend into society etc..The police will then have no idea where they are, what they are up to etc..They wont be able to keep tabs on these people..Thats the worrying part.
Gaah, I was tired <IMG alt="image" SRC="tongue.gif" border="0">
But as Balddog said, the police know where these sickos are, and so can keep some sort of tabs on them. Not even this small protection would be there if they were named and shamed.
Besides which, would you trust a population that attack paediatricians for being peadophiles with such information? What happens if the pervert moves, a new family would be attacked.
I do not know the exact details, but "Sarah's Law" calls for restricted access to information on where peodophiles live. I am not sure how this would work.
Going back to the question of whether child rape is worse than any other, I have thought about it more now. I suppose for an adult male to rape an adult female is at least the "natural" form of sexual expression, wheras desiring children is NOT natural.
It doesn't make it any easier for the victims though.
Every rape case is different-to me a "date rape" where the woman doesn't consent but doesn't fight the guy off (which I have had happened to me), is a totally different scenario to someone jumping out of the bushes and raping a stranger.
Most rapes are supposedly by someone known to the victim-I don't think that makes it any better though-it would almost be worse to find out that someone you know is a b***ard and to lose your trust in them.
One final point-in my uni toilets, there is a poster with all the definitions of the word "no". The poster is for raising awareness about date rape. The one that got me was "silence means no". A bit harsh on guys, or is that just me?
Unfortunately, this is not so. I don't know about the UK but here in Ireland sex offenders are sectioned off from the rest of the "normal" criminals in order to PROTECT them from having the life kicked out of them.
If anyone has seen the Panorama documentary on the infamous "Wonderland" network of paedophiles (an international internet "ring") then you will know that these animals will never be rehabilitated. They interviewed one of the guys in this ring who had been caught and was due in Court the following day.. he stated that he did not believe that the sexual acts he performed with young kids was wrong.. to him it was a "mutual relationship.. which would benefit them in later years".. Tell me how do you rehabilitate that kind of mind set.. you CANNOT. This documentary was the most disturbing and spine chilling thing I have ever seen.. The police recovered over 30,000 images of children ranging from as young as 6 months old up to 12/13 years... most of whom they would never be able to identify. There is no punishment suitable enough for these sick evil bastards.. I would agree with peace person... solitary confinement for the remainder of their fiendish disturbed lives..
Ok thats very scarey..Silence means no?? Maybe in the date rape scenario you mentioned if the girls so totally pissed she cant speak properly..If a girl is in a normal condition and doesnt want sex then she should said no. Damn, we aint psychic.
The Sarahs law issue is a very weird one...They have something similar in the US called Megans law where local people are notified by the police when a paedophile moves into the area. This Sarahs law thing is a LOT more extensive. I dont know the details but ive heard that you can just phone the police about any of your neighbours and get all their personal information...even if theyve never done anything wrong intheir life...Seems like a serious privacy issue and it wouldnt even help.
Does anyone else know about Sarahs law?
Yes... but how many children are abused longterm and don't become an abuser themselves?
I know you are talking about ALL kinds of abuse, but if so then you have to recognise that any rape is a hideous crime and any type of abuse however short is likely to have a life changing effect on a person.
What if I was raped and then that rapist was given 3 years, because I'm an adult and the judge thinks I'm OK really, and then the rapist goes out and does it again 'on impulse' to 3 more victims - a 35 year old, a 15 year old and a 73 year old all in the same month. Which is worse. What if the 73 year old was built like a brick shit house and the 35 year old was a 6 stone weakling. For which rape should he get the higher sentence?
The trauma can effect anyone at any age for any length of time. A 3 year old may recover quickly - depending on the support it gets. A 53 year old may not.
I think we're having a silly argument here when the real question is - why are they so easy on people who commit these crimes?
I don't think I agree with anything you have said so far on this topic. I don't think any of us can say with any confidence that being abused as a child means that you will become an abuser as an adult. Not all abusers were abused, and not all abusees will abuse either.
All those rape victims that you mention in your hypothetical case study deserve justice, but without details of each crime we can't judge which deserves the tougher sentence.
And the 'on impulse' part. I don't think rape is ever a crime of passion as such, because the rapist must have some intent in the back of his mind in order to commit the rape. A crime of passion would perhaps be a domestic argument that gets violent, where perhpa the wife grabs a knife and attacks the husband. Whatever, that's a minor point.
To answer your quesion: why are we so easy on these people?
I don't think we are. With new forensic tests and things nowadays, the chances of catching rapists is improving and therefore we are doing more as a society to rid the streets of people like this. The sentences are not life, but I don't think they should be (child sexual abuse excepted).
But with raping adults- of course silence should mean no. You dont have to buy a car if you dont say no to the bloke offering it, so why is rape any different? For sex consent should be stated, or it doesnt count.
But all rapists should be given life, and it should mean life. Until you see the effects it has on a person, or are a victim yourself, then you dont understand just how horrible a thing it is to happen. Ive seen it stop people wanting to go out anywhere, ruining theuir self-confidence. The woman suffers for a very long time, so the creature that did it to her should suffer more.
Yes, rape is horrid. It should never be tolerated. But, there are ways and means of punishing these crimes which do not rely on expensive, long-term prison sentences.
I know I'm treading on thin ice now, but doesn't everyone deserve a second chance? Even rapists? Especially if it is a case of statuatory rape where the 'rapist' doesn't know that the 'victim' is underage.
Are you serious?
Well by your logic I was raping my ex-girlfriend almost every time we had sex...We started kissing and didnt do any talking after that...She said nothing so did I rape her?
Sorry but thats just bloody stupid Kermit..If youre getting off with a girl and she doesnt want it to go any further then she should either tell you vocally or physically(pulling away)...
No...You rape once then you have no moral problem with raping again. Second chances are all well and good until one of those people rapes or kills someone else.
Statuatory rape is a whole different matter.
Shoulda made it more clear <IMG alt="image" SRC="smile.gif" border="0">
basically my opinion is (And I recognise we don't all have the same view)
Rape is Rape be it the rape of a man woman or child.
I Don't think Rape is a crime of passion - never said it.
Yes each circumstance deserves a different view I guess - that's why we have trials with legal argument, jury or judge.
My concern is that we have this attitude that somehow a woman copes better with rape than a child would.
Many a judge has given a lenient sentence because the victim seems to have 'made a good recovery' but is this fair?
On the subject of rehabilitation...
Does anyone think theat there is a general view that a man who rapes a woman is more likely to be successfully rehabilitated than a man who rapes a child?
ie .. it's un-natural to weant to rape a child but not to rape a woman. (this isn't my view - just asking!)
You say you don't agree with anything I have said but then you agree with me with your statement
"I don't think any of us can say with any confidence that being abused as a child means that you will become an abuser as an adult. Not all abusers were abused, and not all abusees will abuse either. "
This is what I was trying to say!
female than a child?
If someone desires a child, then they have serious problems that I imagine would be harder to "cure" than a "normal" rapists desires.
I thought that rape is more to do with power than actual sex in most cases. I don't know whether that is correct or not.
KT is also right about the power thing, most rapes are about control and domination rather than sexual thrills
But I still disagree with: </STRONG>
I still think child rape is much worse. But I guess we should agree to disagree on this. </STRONG>
I took the 'on impulse' part to imply a crime of passion.
On the subject of rehabilitation, I would like to think it was possible to rehabilitate offenders (even rapists). Otherwise, maybe all prison sentences should be life since all offenders are likely to re-offend according to you lot.
Ok then, would you be willing to raise your children while living next to a paedophile who has been deemed 'rehabilitated' by our social workers? The reoffend rate for sexual criminals is horrific and every time they reoffend, another life is totally destroyed.
But I would like to think it was possible to rehabilitate these people, otherwise there's not much hope for us as a society if we have to resort to locking away all offenders indefinitely.
given the choice would you prefer to bring up your children nextdoor to
1. a child rapist
2. a raper of women
is there a difference?
The crime of raping a child is worse in my eyes and the eyes of a lot of people and 99% of parents I suspect.
Of course, I'd prefer to live next to neither of them, but that's not the question. My choice would be a raper of women, since a full-grown woman has a better chance of beating off any attack than a small child. And hopefully ripping the bastard's set off and leaving him to bleed to death...