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 ✨
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
Life should mean life, that boys parents are serving life so to speak losing there child.
Is it human nature to do that? Probably. But anyone who trusts what they say implicitly is an utter fool.
What's the matter carlito, you're not a journo are you?
Exactly. Given the fact that criminals who have served their time are treated as second-class citizens, it certainly is an unenviable stigma.
Perhpas he should have been given a heftier sentence but that is not the criminal's fault - it is the judge's.
As far as the criminal is concerned, he has served his time, repaid his debt to society and is free to pursue a life without fear of harrassment from vigilante twats who have been incensed by the tabloid press. As I've said twice before, he hasn't reoffended in 9 years - could there be such a thing as remorse and regret - don't you think he may have changed his ways? The past 9 years certainly suggest that he has.
No I don't.
But it's not the criminal's fault. He didn't decide the sentence.
As far as the law is concerned, he has paid his debt to society and thus has a right not to be harrassed about what he's done in his past.
My thoughts exactly.
None of the general public owes him any favours, and im certainly surprised by the sympathy hes recieving here. Im sure hed be most honoured.
I agree completely.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, leaving aside the obvious emotive and distressing particulars of the case.
Once the individual has been sentenced and seen to serve that sentence with satisfactory behaviour and review, then in my view, they move on to the next chapter of their life. If they re-offend then that is another issue entirely, and of course surveillance is paramount (carried out through proper means, not "neighbourhood paedo-watch"), but the punishment does have to stop at some point - otherwise we might as well just bring back the death penalty. The whole point of a justice system with no death penalty is to allow for the majority of people to come out of the other side of it and hopefully rebuild their life/build a new life, and hopefully also to rehabilitate. We need to look more closely at that, and maybe even trying to understand the actions rather than just shrinking back in fear and horror at the mention of the crimes. Anything is better than encouraging constant finger-pointing, hysterical schoolyard whispering and daubing of red paint on front doors screaming "PAEDO". Though this will never happen of course, as people are so very quickly whipped up into a frenzy by the mention of paedophilia (and understandably so).
Im seeing it per case.
I dont think all criminals are the same.
A sorry situation all round- I can't believe anyone would be happy with him living next door, but he has to live somewhere.
That's because the majority of the public are fucking idiots who, in some Brass Eye way, think that paedophiles have black blood and are the spawn of Satan.
Let me say, I do not in any way condone what he did. I personally think that he should have received a larger sentence but that's not for me to decide.
We should respect the court's decision, the prison service's decision and whilst we don't owe him any favours, neither should we deny him any. He deserves the chance to be allowed to start his life again and not be named and shamed by the tabloid press.
I find the alternative worrying.
So have I. But then I've also seen too many cases of doctors misdiagnosing patients, denying prescriptions that could immeasurably improve people's lives because they want to keep their budgets, or killing them through surgical negligence. I've seen too many cases of airline pilots drunk on the job. I've seen too many cases of policemen fabricating evidence or being excessively brutal. I've seen too many cases of politicians lying to their constituents (alright, maybe this one is a bad example:D ). I've seen too many cases of soldiers disobeying orders, not protecting the helpless but raping and beating them. Or maybe a bit closer to home, I've seen too many cases of lawyers breaching client confidentiality, perjuring in court, and walking out on their clients, or being lying scumbags in general.
What I'm saying, of course, is that you are a fool to judge anyone of a certain occupation by the worst actions of some of its practitioners. And don't assume you are the supreme arbiter of somebody else's motives unless you actually know something about them and their profession.
Of course, anybody who trusts anoyone implicitly is a fool. Which is why you should always think critically and logically. Thus yes, if you trust a journalist implicitly you are a fool, just as if you trust a doctor, a pilot, a politician, a lawyer...
No, I'm a student of history...but I take exception to being called a fucking idiot.
Edited to say: You're a fan of Orwell are you not? Guess what he defined himself as...
That applies to most people with criminal convictions but not to murdering paedophiles and rapists.
Someone who takes part in a sick paedophilic act where a 14 year old is strangled to death is a menace to society. Nobody can say with certainty that this monster will not re-offend, if he's not behind bars he's a danger to children.
Paedophiles, especially with a history of attacking children and rapists do not get cured after a few years behind bars and even expensive attempts at rehabilitation are incredibly unreliable. If these people are going to be allowed back into society where they can re-offend the public has a right to know where they are. (But, this whole Sarah's law should be a non-issue as these people simply should not be allowed out).
I don't care about the cost of keeping paedophiles that have attacked (and even killed) locked up forever because it's basically an issue of child welfare and reducing the likelihood of future cases like the tragic one of Jason Swift.
So we should lock them all up indefinitely, ignoring the basic premise of the English judicial system which is that a person can change, can feel remorse and regret?
I'm intrigued by your terminology. Being a paedophile is somehow a disease? Most of the ancient Romans and Greeks indulged in young children. Does that make them all 'ill' and 'diseased'?
And what do you think are the consequences of the public being informed of where such people are? You think they'll just keep a distance and be slightly wary? No, there'll be mobs and fucking murders you idiot.
A basic premise of any penal system is the protection of the public. And paedophiles that have attacked and rapists are a menace.
A serial rapist might feel remorse and regret - would that be any comfort to the unfortunate woman who gets raped when he's released?
There are sociological considerations but I would call paedophilia a disease. Whatever you want to call it, people like Robert Oliver have shown themselves to be a threat to vulnerable people in society. Do you consider paedophilia a sexual orientation? Does it make a difference anyway? Does it make a 14 year old being strangled to death any less tragic?
If you'd bothered to read my posts you'd be aware that I do not think informing the public is ideal - but if people's children are going to be exposed to unnecessary danger (which is exactly what is being done when the likes of Robert Oliver are let out) I can't see any alternative. Idiot.