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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
If at some future point drug users were sentenced to castration (which would itself be cruel and unusual punishment not fitting the crime) then there would no doubt be an avalanche of lawsuits and concstitutional reviews to put an end to such flagrant infringements of human rights.
You are essentially comparing apples and oranges in order to justify the unjustifiable.
Are you making a distinction squat_tom between drug users and dependent drug abusers who will commit crimes to finance their addiction?
If not I put it to you that alcohol is a drug a million times more evil and harmful to society than most illegal drugs, and that people who drink should be castrated or otherwise 'encouraged' not to have children. At the end of the day, what difference is there between drinkers and paedophiles eh?
:yes:
i don't see how you can compare them. a drug addict hurts him/herself. that's very different from hurting another person. especially a baby, who has absolutely no defence.
So you tell us how we can stop babies/children from getting raped ?
Lets set a scenario here just for you ok. You have a Daughter shes aged 5 years, someone abuses her, rapes her can you tell me what you think should happen to the offender ? If you were totally 100 % honest with us all here I think we already know the answer. She would be you baby, yes she is 5 but she is still your baby and some bastard has done that to her.
Your not living life in the real world. Long as the *offender* gets all the help and support *stuff* the victim. To be honest im sick of hearing it !!!!
You see, its this sort of comment that I find weird.
Why do people confuse trying to understand the reasons why people do bad things to maybe try and prevent them happening in the future, with not caring about the victim? The two are not mutually exclusive you know.
Because the victims of crime get naff all, the offender now thats another matter :rolleyes:
The crime rate is it falling? We hear about serious crimes so often these days, so when is it going to end?
We hear of cases like this one we are discussing right now and I think the onus is on the courts. Sentences are far too lenient as I know the majority of people here have agreed with. We need to make people realise they will NOT get away with serious crimes and that they will be put away for a very long time. As it stands today you can commit a very serious crime and be out in a couple of years and do something minor and get double the sentence, its pathetic.
So I suggest for downloading child porn from the internet start giving them really harsh sentences, when people realise they will be inside for a long time then I think they will think twice about doing it. I think that people may start off just looking at child porn and they get a kick out of it, that then moves a stage closer when they feel they need to maybe touch a child and from that when they have been doing this stuff for a period of time they end up where they rape. So if we nip it in the bud from the beginning surely it is going to stop people from even downloading/looking at child porn over the internet?
So come on put your ideas down here, dont just keep making comments about what I put...........we all must have opinions on how to stop these horrific crimes so if we all work together then we may be nearer to getting answers.
:yes:
that's what I was trying to say too.
Have you been a victim or serious crime? I have, I know how the system works. I got fuck all with regards to help, sorry but unless you have been there how can you even begin to understand where im coming from.
Ok, I can't understand how you feel but I can inderstand where you're coming from. I agree with both of you. In my opinion we should be punishing the criminals and working to prevent the crimes at the same time.
You really think prison works? It doesn't.
As I said, I'm not a criminal psychologist, but I do think that examining why people do things might be a good way to try and prevent other people doing them.
Don't you?
As I said - the two things are not (at least should not be) mutually exclusive.
I agree there should be more victim support. But there should also be research into what causes people to do things like this. Its not an either/or situation.
I agree with you Becks that there is nothing like enough support for victims of crime. But don't you think that while we sentence criminals for however long they get we should try and rehabilitate them to stop anyone else going through the same experience rather than just leaving them in jail for five years only to release them and have them do it again?
I do think there are certain crimes that should have life imprisonment namely paedophilia, rape and murder for three (I include deaths caused by drunk driving as murder). I am disgusted with the justice system in this country, it seems to value property as more important than human life - you can get more for stealing a video recorder than murdering someone by drink driving. That's just wrong in my opinion. There are a lot of judges who live in the leafy suburbs and don't have to worry about letting these criminals back into their local communities. I think sentencing should be passed by the jury with the judge consigned to an advisory role and keeping order of proceedings in court, punishments are meant to be in keeping with public opinion so why not let the public set them?
I totally see where you are coming from so dont take me the wrong way but, all criminals see these days is what we see, a baby rapist getting 5 years and he will be out in 2 years with good behaviour, is that the right signal to send out?
I firmly beleive that if we send the signal out that you WILL get life for this crime then many years later we will see a fall in the crime rate. Why I think like this is because hypothetically we might have 50,000 people currently in prison for serious sexual offences on children, they must have started off on not so serious sexual offences and then as I said previously moved up to touching and then actually raping like he did to this baby. So from now on if you would get a hefty stint in jail for downloading porn, indecent assault etc then surely we are going to catch these people before they get to the extreme where they rape a baby or child? I think if we stop them early enough then the figures will drop for serious sexual offences.
I hope im making sense, i know what I mean but finding it hard to fully explain. Hopefully you are getting the gist of what im saying.
Read the post ive just made.
Im not really making myself clear am I............if someone can understand what im trying to say, help me
Of course I want them to get help, Id like to see NO sexual crimes committed ever again, unfortunately I know thats never going to happen.
But with short sentences can they rehabilitate someone? Take someone with depression they can have that for many years and be seeing a pshychiatrist and still not be 100% better , so how can someone be rehabilitated in such a short time.
Im not saying totally slam em up and leave them there for 5 years then kick them out without any medical help because that just would not work, we would then not know wether they would be likely to re-offend again.
What I was referring to in general is the rehabilitation of criminals. Prisons should provide rehabilitation and support as well as punishment (although obviously on a case-by-case basis- some people are beyond help).
It is terrible that victims feel they're not getting enough support from the government. They should get as much support and help as possible- but what I was saying is that both groups, victims and criminals, should be able to obtain help. Like Blagsta has said the two are not mutually exclusive... if you get my drift.
I really don't think it works like this. I very much doubt that people ever really think of the consequences when committing crimes like this.
So hypothetically lets use me as a case study here.
I am 21 years of age, I somehow click onto a site and see child porn. At first I just look at it, then I start looking at even dirtier stuff, I then move forward to where I want to touch a child and when I have been doing that for a period of time I may want to actually rape and then go onto rape. Im presuming that people start by doing the lesser crime of just looking and gradually go onto stronger stuff. Id presume that they dont just overnight turn into a rapist.
If from today a new law was passed where even looking at child porn over a period of time, (Im talking like having lots of files on the computer not where someone has gone onto a site and not know it was actually porn) and they were found guilty then give them a sentence of shall we say as an example 6 years, would we not catch them before they get to more serious stuff. Would that not put them off doing it again if they knew they would get 6 years for just looking. If someone actually touched a child could we not sentence them to as an example 10 years and if they raped life.
We may not be able to stop the people who at this moment in time have been through the process of looking, touching and now rape, but the newer generation who may turn into this type of crime MAY be stopped if they know initially they will get 6 years for even looking. These people have not seen some of the horrible stuff and may be helped sooner.
Thats my way of thinking, if we stop them even looking at porn then they wont get a kick out of stuff and try to do it themselves.
Hey im getting somewhere now
You might not think that, but think of it the other way round. What message is 5 years in prison sending out? It's certainly not a deterrent. 'Rape a baby and get 5 years in prison' - it's not even close. What people are saying is that he needs a much longer sentence, even if it's just to show people how seriously his crime has to be taken.
I can't really speak for the case of sex offenders, but I know that in the case of people commiting crimes to fund drug habits, prison doesn't work as a deterrant.
I've known a fair few petty criminals and gangsters in my time, and they don't think "I'd better not burgle this house/mug this person/sell this smack/etc 'cos I might get a long prison sentence". It just doesn't work like that.
tom you know nothing about addiction ...absolute zero so your out of your depth at the moment.
nicotine, gambling, heroin, sex, chocolate ....all can become serious addictions.
addiction is an ilness ...theres no getting away from that FACT.
addicts and addiction have been around since the dawn of time. it's not some new modern ailment.
you can't punish someone for being ill!
you CAN ... punish them for any crimes they commit.
exactly the same as you would and should punish a non addict for whatever crime they commit.
i have been involved in serious crime. i 'thought' about each crime. i knew the consequences if i didn't get it right. i took my chances.
a child rapist must have had the thought in his head ...if i get fucking cuaght i'm in deep shit ....
but he takes his chance.
if things go wrong and your looking at five years there are many types of crime worth the risk.
if i knew that the price could have been life in a real shit hole of a prison like strangeways in manchester ...i doubt i would have considered the odds to be good enough.
the crimes would have gone uncommitted.
all this rehab of prisoners is all very well but it only happens on a tiny scale. i don't think many of you can comprehend the variety of specialists earning specialists wages that would be needed ...for a success rate that wouldn't warrant the massive expenditure. where's the money going to come from ...let alone the expertise. do you think there are loads of people out there with the knowledge and experience of how to change human nature, human frailty, human desires ...madnesses ...psycosis ...etc etc etc.
people who would like to see people who have personal problems castrated may be the ones who need the castrating.
the punishment should fit the crime ...the rape of a baby deserves life in most peoples book. a crime like this has to have a serious deterrent ...
even as mr straight guy now ...which i have been for quite a number of years ...there are certain things which i might just decide are worth the challenge ...worth the risk for the great reward possible ...if i'm only looking at a five year sentence.
I dunno, ive been racking my brain about this one.
if your going to steal something in certain countries theres a good chance your going to have your hand cut off ...people still take the chance ...some people chance it a second time ...risking loosing the only hand they have left.
crime for monetary gain i can get my head round. sexual crime i can sort of understand the driving urges of the likes of steelgate.
but raping a baby is beyond my limits of understanding i'm afraid.
torturing people ...hacking limbs off ...these too are beyond my understanding.
but i believe a convicted peodophile should be castrated to prtect our children. how you prevent it happening in the first place i'm very unsure of.
but giving out five years for raping a baby is no kind of deterrent ...a strong detterent will deter some ...but never all. but if we can prevent some ...with a strong deterrent then we should and this judge in my eyes has virtualy made baby rape legal and acceptable.
Yes but if you read what I said, I asked you to look at it the other way round. i.e 'Baby rape can't be that bad, that guy only got 5 years for it...'
I agree that 5 years is scandalous, he should have got life. But my point is that I really don't think that prison works as a deterrent at all for these sort of major crimes.
So please give us your theory on how you 'think' we can deter people from this type of crime.