Moral Dilemma

[Saracen]

How about this - in this scenario, if possible, would you go to see them live? If not, why not, and how would that be different from listening to their albums?

Additionally, might it make a difference depending upon whether the album was written before or after the bad events took place?

I think this is a question that strongly depends on the scenario and on the person.

On the one hand, if it's a band, there are other members who contributed. On the other hand, that doesn't detract from contribution of the abusing individual.

If said individual gets paid for album purchases, that would seem to play into the question.

Depending upon the abuse/crime, if a person serves a sentence, do you return to their music once "their debt to society has been paid"?

Would I see them Live? Not if a convicted child abuser was still part of the band.

Would it make a difference when an album was written? Not directly, but I wouldn't buy anything, whenever it was written, that benefitted a known child abuser.

As for the "debt to society" issue, well, my view may part company with the norm on that.

For most crimes, personally, I accept the "debt paid" rationale. Even, in most circumstances, for murder.

But for the nastier examples of child abuse, and I mean actual paedophilia rather than a loving parent slapping a naughty child, IMHO nothing, and I mean NOTHING pays the debt for abusing chikdren and, in all likelihood, damaging them for the rest of their lives.

I like a lot of Jackson's music. My guess is that allegations against him were the result of his childhood and stilting of emotional development. I.e. he's misunderstood. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some claims were, erm, financially motivated. And he was acquitted. But had he been convicted, or if I was confident he was guilty even though acquitted, no way would I do anything that put money in his pocket from that point forward. No attending concerts, no buying of any more albums.

Paedophilia is, in my opinion, utterly unforgivable. Ever. Period.

[TheAnimus]

People have this childish notion that some people are 'good' people and others 'bad' people.

This isn't true at all. Lots of great people have terrible aspects and vice versa.

If someone made music you like, it doesn't mean you endorse every aspect of them as a person, the fact he is a nonce is something that should be handled by our legal and rehabilitation system, not by your actions.

If people behaved maturely around artists and the like in the first place, he probably wouldn't have found it so easy to groom the mother in the first place.

[peterb]

And another moral dilemma..

Saville did raise a lot of money for charity, even though his motives were ulterior and designed to bring him into contact with vulnerable people.

But, should those charities that benefited now return the money to - well, another charity dealing with paedophilia, or to the original donors, if they could be found. The last option is unrealisable in practice - but is the money he raised in itself 'tainted'?

My own view is that it isn't - the money was given by the donors in ignorance of his true nature.

[wasabi]

I don't buy 'paid their debt to society'. What debt gets paid by sitting in a cubicle? Reoffending rates prove it.

I don't like Lost Prophets so can't really judge. Not on the same scale, but I'd feel dirty if I ever bought a Billy Bragg album.

[Saracen]

I don't buy 'paid their debt to society'. What debt gets paid by sitting in a cubicle? Reoffending rates prove it.

....

Well, having "paid your debt" and having been utterly rehabilitated and never offending again aren't the same thing, so reoffending rates aren't really the criteria by which to judge. I mean, they are a yardstick of the effectiveness of prison in 'correcting' the mindset of offenders so they become productive members of society, whatever tyat means .... and that effectiveness is pretty poor.

But the principle of a prison sentence includes the notion that if you break society's rules (laws), society expects to extract a price for that, a penalty. And society, via the mechanism of courts, have a scale of charges, and judges that set the actual penalty from the permitted range. That might be a fine, or prison, or something else, like communuty service. But society sets the penalty, and once the offender has paid it, they're debt is done. They can't, generally, then be told to pay more.

Unless you adopt the view that once you've offended, you can never, ever be given another chance, then at some point, society has to draw a line under it and say offence committed, penalty determined, debt paid. End.

For most crimes, I can go along with that, personally .... though I may well have different ideas from the judge on what constitutes an acceptable 'price' to be paid. But personally, I feel no penalty is sufficient that, once met, the debt is paid for serious abuse and violence towards children. The only penalty I feel is adequate for that is the one we can't have in this country, or in the EU - a long drop on a short rope.

[wasabi]

But personally, I feel no penalty is sufficient that, once met, the debt is paid for serious abuse and violence towards children. The only penalty I feel is adequate for that is the one we can't have in this country, or in the EU - a long drop on a short rope.

20 years prison is just a waste of well over a million quid of taxpayers' money that won't change his attitudes or sexual nature, nor remove the long-term threat to society. Chemical castration is an option. Sounds - and in some ways is - horrible, but so is the crime.

[mikeo01]

If you've already paid for the album and these issues do not affect you on a personal level then that is OK.

Going out and paying for albums and accessories by them is a different matter; indirectly supporting and paying him.


That said, personally, if one has done something wrong it usually effects the music in some way. Your conscience tells you and inadvertently you may tend to stop listening to them. Not all obviously but that is how I see it.

I don't see it as completely wrong to innocently listen to an album, but your conscience may think otherwise.

What is wrong is supporting them. Besides what he did was pretty darn horrific.


As my partner always says, he is sorry he got caught.

[Dareos]

hmm, would it be morally wrong to pirate their music and then not listen to it in protest? so you haven't put any money in their pockets and you are deliberately not listening to it!

[santa claus]

Watkins is a disgusting pervert. Locking him up and expunging him and his work from our memory is the least we can do to respect his victims. Same goes for Glitter. I don't wanna be in their gang.

[jim]

So ... if I liked LP, would I continue to listen? Yes. Because me listening to music I like is not me endorsing his child abuse. But would I buy any more or go to concerts? Not if it put money in the pocket of a paedophile, no.

That's my attitude towards this - I did, and still do listen to Lostprophets. But only because I've already got the CD, bought many years ago. I certainly wouldn't search for their songs on Youtube, let alone purchase songs/merchandise.

[Allen]

I decided to listen to Thefakesoundofprogress this weekend... At first I was weary, by the end of the album I didn't remember who I was listening to or why I didn't want to listen to it in the first place and was singing/humming/whistling along merrily.

I still felt a little weird afterwards though. Will try Start Something and Liberation Transmission sometime this week...

[Ttaskmaster]

Playing the liberal card for a second (which is not something I do very often)...

It's often said such people are very sick in the head, with many not seeing/understanding that what they're doing is wrong.

So with that in mind, is arbitrarily exterminating someone for having what is deemed a mental illness really a fitting punishment?
Should the more humane sentence not be submission for mental reconditioning or whatever they do with people like this... or at least locking them up in the loony bin, as we do with other mentally defficient criminals?

Or should we just kill off/chemically castrate/whatever all the other mentally ill people too?


Switching to play the analytical card...
Do you think such people can be mentally rehabilitated? Can their mental condition be realigned so they *do* understand what they did wrong?
If so, would realising just what they they did, coming to terms with it and having to live with the consequences make for sufficient punishment?

[wasabi]

So with that in mind, is arbitrarily exterminating someone for having what is deemed a mental illness really a fitting punishment?
Should the more humane sentence not be submission for mental reconditioning or whatever they do with people like this... or at least locking them up in the loony bin, as we do with other mentally defficient criminals?

Is paedophilia a mental illness? In any sense of the word be it legal / moral / technical / psychiatric?

What if it is just the way they are wired, in the same way as someone else might be heterosexual or homosexual? We don't want to go there as it is uncomforable moral territory, but i don't see why it isn't at least possible.

[peterb]

Playing the liberal card for a second (which is not something I do very often)...

It's often said such people are very sick in the head, with many not seeing/understanding that what they're doing is wrong.

So with that in mind, is arbitrarily exterminating someone for having what is deemed a mental illness really a fitting punishment?
Should the more humane sentence not be submission for mental reconditioning or whatever they do with people like this... or at least locking them up in the loony bin, as we do with other mentally defficient criminals?

Or should we just kill off/chemically castrate/whatever all the other mentally ill people too?


Switching to play the analytical card...
Do you think such people can be mentally rehabilitated? Can their mental condition be realigned so they *do* understand what they did wrong?
If so, would realising just what they they did, coming to terms with it and having to live with the consequences make for sufficient punishment?

Fair points, but punishment has more than just punishment. In no particular order..

First there is the retribution aspect - the punishment bit.

Second is rehabilitation, ensuring that the offender doesn't re-offend

Third is the protection of the rest of society

Fourth - deterrence to others who might commit similar offences.

Fifth - be proportionate to the offence - very difficult to determine.

If paedophilia is a mental illness, can it be cured? If so how? Will the cure protect society, will it prevent further offending, will it deter others and does it have a retribution element?

Locking up and throwing away the key meets two of the five requirements - but doesn't meet rehabilitation or if it is a mental illness, deterrence) - in fact no punishment is likely to meet deterrence if it is an illness. Some may say it is disproportionate - that depends of the severity of the offending.

Chemical castration meets three of the five - but is it proportionate?

Counselling and release into the community under supervision. Is that retribution sufficient? Many would say not - but if accompanied by a custodial term. Does it protect society and rehabilitate -yes - if it works. Is it deterrence - probably not - unless it encourages similar offenders to come forward before they offend. Is it proportionate - again there is likely to be disagreement, some may say it is too lenient.

Difficult questions to answer - and I'm not proposing any answers, just putting an alternative view.

[mikeo01]

Calling it a metal illness is ridiculous. Just like saying using drugs is a mental illness.

The fact of the matter is he knew what he was doing was wrong. End of discussion. He knew the individual and families would be hurt by this and still did it anyway.


Punishment is imprisonment, rehabilitation is a big enough fine or years in jail (give the families justice as they deserve), protection, well keep tabs on suspicious or reported individuals, same as any other crime. Deterrence, years in jail or a hefty fine and enough education to ensure current paedophilia know where they stand. Keep tabs on searching for keywords into search engines and ensure there is a strong system to allow effected individuals to come forward.


If your clever enough to hide it your clever enough to know what you did is wrong. Therefore we shouldn't be lenient on such individuals.

[Ttaskmaster]

Is paedophilia a mental illness? In any sense of the word be it legal / moral / technical / psychiatric?

As I said - Many do not (or claim they don't) see the crime in it. Certainly there is something decidedly lacking in their wiring, be it a mental condition or their moral development.

What if it is just the way they are wired, in the same way as someone else might be heterosexual or homosexual?

What if they are? Is there anything we can do do about it? Would it be right to try and change how people are born?
In truth, they can probably fancy kids all they like... But how they act upon it is what makes the crime.

unless it encourages similar offenders to come forward before they offend.

An interesting statement...
What would/could be done with someone who has not actually offended, though?
There are people I most certainly would love to stab through the face and probably would, if it weren't a crime or if I thought I could get away with it... But I haven't actually murdered anyone (yet), so what would be done with me? Are we looking at Pre-Crime level stuff, here?