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.
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
You said that prison doesn't work - yet also state that people who view images of child abuse should be locked up.
You said that someone who has committed a criminal act has the potential to commit another. That "potential" is enough to keep them locked up.
Even though, in the UK, we have this whole pesky system where someone has to have actually committed a offence to even face the possibility of being locked up for it. We tend not to send people to prison for what they might do.
And of course [apparently] prison doesn't work anyway, so locking them up achieve nothing.
Now, which one of us is talking shite?
Erm...no I didn't. I said in this particular case it won't work, then I gave reasons what I think they should do. Quite simple really, try reading what I actually wrote first.
No, not potential alone, their crime shows their potential. You get off on pictures of children, you're a threat to children. A heafty fine or suspended sentence won't keep you away from children. A stint inside will and maybe give you enough time to think and re-consider your actions.
Yes and Mr Langham commited a crime. Want me to draw a picture for you?
In this thread, you mate.
Your actual words were:
So I asked, why we lock anyone up then, if prison doesn't work.
Not for other crimes, just for the one they have been convicted of. Unless, as I said, you think that anyone serving time has the potential to commit that same crime on release and should therefore be locked up indefinately.
In which case you include these vandals because not only have they committed a crime, but they have the "potential" to repeat offend - purely on the basis of previous actions.
Crap. You are talking about one of the most basic urges known to men. Sexual sdesire. A stint inside will not change that desire.
You should also consider that looking at images of abuse is not, in itself, abuse nor a threat to children.
In the specific case mentioned the person involved was acquitted of abusing a child - yet you want to lock him up permanently because he might do that. What kind of screwy justice system do you want to see?
One for which he was convicted and is serving time for. But that isn;t what you just argued, is it?
You argued for imprisoning him for a crime he might commit in the future.
Seriously, you really need to learn to follow your own argument Scrote.
You didn't have to read it
There are more boring threads than me and the Scrote arguing?
I said "them," not "everyone in the world who commits a crime".
Who said anything about when they got released?
Of course, but this is where the punishment will help encourage them not to do it. It's finding out the proper punishment that's the key.
It will make them reconsider their actions, I'm sure there are also rehabillitation programs for paedophiles in prison to help them change. Rather them inside than out.
:banghead:
Lock him up permanently? WHAT THE FUCK! Where did I say that? I'm saying his punishment should also reflect his potential threat to children as well as the crime he committed, therefore a fine or a suspended sentence would not suffice.
No I didn't, I said his potential threat to children. You can't lock up someone who hasn't done something, you can keep someone away from society if you see them as threat and where a thing like a suspended sentence, community service or a fine won't suffice. It's a preventative measure. It's the same with murderers, rapists and other people who commit crimes.
Oh the irony.
So, I ask you this Mok. If looking at child pornography isn't actually abuse, or makes you a threat to children then it's ok, should be legal and people like Chris Langham should be walking the streets right now? I mean, what's the harm? :rolleyes:
Thank god, finally some clarity
Jeez, that's a whole different debate. Do you really want to get into that one?
NB Nowhere have I said that Langham shouldn't be inside. I;ve been very careful about that. My comments about him was to question your assertion about prison not working and therefore I was asking what the benefit of any prison sentence should be.
I think that it's wrong to argue that someone who looks a child porn is, themselves, a danger to children. It also means that we focus on the viewer and not on the person who takes the photso or the one who abuses the child. The only thing I can think of to liken it to is going after the drug users but not the dealer, importer and growers...
I also don't believe that locking Lagham up actually achieves anything more than punishing him for his actions. It offers no real rehabilitation and once out there is nothing to stop him looking at porn again.
The difference with the vandals is the motivation behind the crimes. Their was wanton. You cannot rehabilitate that, you can only punish it harshly. IMHO. Make the fear of implications greater than the fun of the wanton act.
i say we give them all a bullet in the head
Update: The two people in question have had their sentences overturned.
In my opinion the comments of the overturning judge reflect a degree of proportionality that was missing in the original sentence. Putting them to work in the Community would, in this case, have been a much more productive sanction.
The UK forbids capital punishment.
And I'm sure a two-year suspended sentence will do that fully :rolleyes:
Fucking joke, letting them out.
The law should be changed for criminal damage- one hour's work for every £1 of damage you commit.
I agree completely, they shouldn't have been released in the first place. It's all well and good bleating on about rehabilitation and whatever, prison is there as a punishment. Causing £23,000 worth of damage that will ultimately be footed by the public is a crime worth of a prison stay.