Unofficial punishment - Right or wrong?

[wasabi]

Lots of fine empathic words can be said, but do you lock them up or let them out? Or do what i would do which is chemically castrate and electronically tag them? Understanding and sympathy and fine words fluff don't make a jot of difference if an unincarcerated adult is attacking a child.

[Saracen]

....

It's also not about rights of the abuser trumping those of the victim - that could never be just or justified. It is about understanding the abuser so that he (mainly, but sometimes she), is known, controlled and treated as much as is necessary so that the vulnerable are always protected. That is the responsible approach.

Also, as previously stated in this thread, it is the rule of law and not of the mob, that underpins the sanity of our society. It's easy to bray, far more difficult to understand.

Umm.

What I was getting at was that IF we accept the premise that abusers abuse because they were abused as kids themselves, then in a legal sense, their guilt is questionable. The actus reas exist, but the mens rea? Not if such behaviour is involuntary, and due to factors beyond their control, be it genetic makeup, childhood abuse, or both.

However, if that premise is true, then in the absence of an effective treatment known to work, do such individuals need to be detained because their abusing is involuntary, and if they do it, innocent kids will become victims?

It is, therefore, very much about the rights of those that have been caught abusing, versus the rights of prospective victims not to be sacrificed on the altar of abuser's rights. After all, if their behaviour is involuntary, even if because they were abused as kids themselves, then if released they will re-offend precisely because it's involuntary behaviour and they can't control it.

So, if their behaviour is involuntary, they ought to be confined, albeit in a secure hospital, because they're ill and a danger to innocent kids if not confined.

If their behaviour is not involuntary, then they need to be confined in prison, because of their disgusting offences, and because they're a danger to innocent kids if not confined.

Either way, protect the kids, and lock these people up unless we're SURE they're not a danger to kids.

[RobbieRoy]

What I was getting at was that IF we accept the premise that abusers abuse because they were abused as kids themselves, then in a legal sense, their guilt is questionable. The actus reas exist, but the mens rea? Not if such behaviour is involuntary, and due to factors beyond their control, be it genetic makeup, childhood abuse, or both.

However, if that premise is true, then in the absence of an effective treatment known to work, do such individuals need to be detained because their abusing is involuntary, and if they do it, innocent kids will become victims?

I'm sorry I didn't spot that in your previous post.

I think the premise true for some abusers - but not all.

If you recall, the Paedophile Information Exchange that was around in the 70s and 80s seemed to be led by people who quite honestly believed that consensual adult sexual relationships with children were acceptable. It was never, to my knowledge, claimed that anyone held that view because they felt they had been abused as children themselves - although some had been and claimed that it had not harmed them. Rather, it was a respectable intellectualised position put forwards by respectable, intellectual people.

We live in different times now, although our innate ethical relativism still lives on, and these sort of views are rightly condemned and taken to be totally unacceptable. We have also learned far more about paediatric psychological and neurological development and understand just how damaging such relationships actually are.

Then we have the debate as to what to do with those who could abuse, either because they are damaged by abuse or are just strange. I was arguing that the former need to be given treatment very early on, as soon as any inkling of that sort of behaviour manifests, and then monitored as closely as possible - for instance any child that has been the subject of abuse should be very carefully handled to minimise the chances of them becoming offenders and consistently followed up thereafter. If they do offend, though, they certainly need to be excluded from society, but seen as sick rather than bad, which is why secure hospitalisation and treatment would be appropriate.

Those that just think it's okay to have sex with kids, who don't accept that they're abusing adult/children relationships for their own pleasure and causing almost permanent damage to the child, I think they should be locked up until sufficient work has been undertaken on them (and I'm not qualified to say what that might be) for them to understand the error of their ways and adopt different ways of living their lives so they are safe. This is likely to take a very long time. (I recently met some of these people in the medical wing of a prison I visited in the line of my work - very polite old men who wouldn't have raised any suspicion if you chatted with them over a pint in the local.)

As for locking people up because they might so something, that's a perhaps a bit too dystopian - if a government had such a law in place, justified by paedophiles, they'd soon get the thought police rounding up those who looked like they might be thinking the wrong thoughts !

[Saracen]

....

As for locking people up because they might so something, that's a perhaps a bit too dystopian - if a government had such a law in place, justified by paedophiles, they'd soon get the thought police rounding up those who looked like they might be thinking the wrong thoughts !

There's a difference between thought police rounding up someone they believe might be going to commit a crime, and the nature and application of the sentence given to somebody already convicted of having committed one.

In the latter case, the expectation of the convicted person being a danger to society is already, and long has been, an essential factor.

Anyone convicted of murder in the UK gets life. Anyone. No exceptions. But .... only a few are on a whole life tariff. The rest get set a tariff, by the judge, before which (which to revision on appeal) they are not eligible for parole. But when they are rligible gor parole, one of the factors that determine if they get it or not is a (supposedly) professional assessment of whether or not they pose an on-going risk to society. anyone with a life sentence has no automatic right to parole, and if they get it, they are released on licence. For the rest of their lives, if they breach that licence, they can be returned immediately to jail to serve their existing life sentence with no need for further trials, convictions, etc. That life sentence hangs over them until the day they die.

And whole 'life' is mandatory for murder if's available as a maximum for a considerable number of other offences. As, for that matter, are commitals to secure hospitals for those judged dangerous, but not criminally liable by virtue of lack of mental capacity, like "insanity".

Being a paranoid, delusionsl psychopath might not get you locked up, but being one 'convicted' of murder will. And, that mental state might get you commited rather than imprisoned, until such time as you can convince doctors it's safe to release you, which may be never.

If, therefore, a paedophile is unable to control themselves, and is convicted, then it is certainly possible to hold them securely, indefinitely, regardless of whether their offending is caused by abuse they suffered as a child, or genetic predisposition, or both or neither. Whether they act out of volition or compulsion, once convicted, the principle gor detaining them until they are no longer deemed a risk to others is well established, and indeed, pretty ancient.

So again, my view is if they're proved themselves unsafe by abusing kids, put other kids safety first and don't release them to victimise and ruin the lives of yet more. Put innocent kids tight to be protected from predators above that of convicted predators. IMHO.

Quite how it's done, personally, I don't much care. Locked up, chemical castration, intense therapy (provided we know it works) or a long drop on a short rope, I don't care. Just ensure kids are protected from these .... people.

[Saracen]

....

If you recall, the Paedophile Information Exchange that was around in the 70s and 80s seemed to be led by people who quite honestly believed that consensual adult sexual relationships with children were acceptable.

....

Those that just think it's okay to have sex with kids, who don't accept that they're abusing adult/children relationships for their own pleasure and causing almost permanent damage to the child, I think they should be locked up until sufficient work has been undertaken on them (and I'm not qualified to say what that might be) for them to understand the error of their ways and adopt different ways of living their lives so they are safe. ...

I very vaguely remember PIE from the 70s/80s, though I didn't pay much attention at the time. I certainly noted more recent revelations, missing dossiers, etc. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of that.

As for "adult" having "consenting" sex with a "child", my only reservation with that is that both adult and child are rather arbitrary lines. And, lines that not only vary from country to country, but within this country, have varied over time.

For instance, the age of heterosexual consent and homosexual consent being different, and certainly the latter changing in relatively recent times .... as indeed did homosexyal activity being legal even with consenting adults. Society changes it's mind over time.

But, child and adult. A boy of 16 and his girlfriend, a girl of 15, who consents but turns 16 in 10 minutes time, is rather different from a 45 year old paedophile abducting and raping an 11 year old child ... boy or girl. In the first case, the girl, being under age cannot legally consent, but it's worlds apart from the second case. I'd suggest, on a superficial look at least, that the first 'offender' is very unlikely to be a risk to society but the second most certainly is.

But the age thing is yet another spectrum. Legally, we're all kids one minute and adults the next. But in terms of the maturity and dapacity to understand what you're consenting to, some mature much earluer than others. Some are probably capable of consenting before it's legal. After all, we don't magically gain wisdom or maturity and the clock ticks past age of consent. Others may still not really be mature even when legally an adult.

About the only thing in favour of our current definitions of child and adult is that it's about the only way a law can work, to draw an arbitrary line.