Glitter's in the Gary

[iranu]

Just listen to yourself will you.

The vertigo must be terrible for you up there on your moral high-ground



And yet another pile of drivel from a self proclaimed intellectual that assumes intelligence stems from reading the Telegraph and voting tory.
I cannot believe that KoolPC is being beaten down by the likes of you when his opinion (and his gang, to which i agree), is as valid as yours.
Some of you even have such a high regard of yourselves that you believe you know what newspapers everyone reads. Before another example of sparkling wit assumes i read the Mail then i dont. I read the Morning Star (thats not The Daily Star for the benefit of the stupid among you).
YOU are everything thats wrong with this 'soft country' and the sooner we become a bit more hard line the better.

You completely missed the point. As usual. The accusation was that us who are saying that we treat Glitter by using the law and not resorting to mob rule and violence are guardian readers/lefties/liberals taken from this post.

KoolPC, you have the reasoning ability of a box of PG Tips, and your ignorance on the subject of recreational drug use still makes me smile to myself to this day, but if I have to pitch in with you, or this limp wristed bunch of appologists and Guardian inspired Liberals, I'd side with you in a heart beat.

A Torygraph reader would not be categorised as such. I was showing that the matter of a humane punishment is not the preserve of those who read certain newspapers or who have certain political leanings. You jumped on the word Telegraph and set off spewing when you should have read my post and the context within which it was written.

[iranu]

But why the desire to protect the human rights of a convicted child rapist? Is that what being civilised boils down to?

I think a society that treats those who are civilised in a civil manner, and treats its animals like animals is more civilised than one that tries to uphold some sort of bull**** Liberal \ Christian ideal of turning the other cheek, hating the sin not the sinner, and all that jazz.

The human right for people to live their lives free from abuse takes precedence over the human rights of abusers to be treated in a civilised manner. Step outside the bounds of a civilised society and you step outside of the protection being a member of a civilised society brings.

Glitter and anyone else convicted of child sex abuse should be detained indefinitely, until he can satisfy a panel of qualified people in that area, psychologists, criminologists, bacteriologists, whatever, that he presents no risk to children. No sentence, no time to serve, you stay removed from society until you either die, or prove you are no longer a risk to children.

And I see no reason for anyone to lose any sleep over it if it were the case. Mob rule is occasionally justified if the failings of the legal system are so great people who can not protect themselves, but deserve and need protection, are abandoned because of some perverse idea that the human rights of the victim come second to the human rights of the criminal.

And it is ensuring their right to this protection, not wringing your hands in concern for the treatment of a convicted child rapist, that would be the mark of a truely civilised society.

I agree (especially the bolded lines) that we should protect the vulnerable and if that does mean that we have to incarcerate criminals that are very likely to offend again then so be it. What we shouldn't do is produce a knee-jerk reaction that aims to satisfy the mobs hate. The problem we find is that the reasons for these people committing these crimes is not straight forward. Should we spent money and resources trying to find out why this happens? Should we spend money on rehabilitation and a view to release if that is possible?

[Rave]

But why the desire to protect the human rights of a convicted child rapist? Is that what being civilised boils down to?

Yes. Perhaps we disagree on what the 'human rights' of that rapist should be. Personally I think that while they have no right not to be locked up while they present a danger to anyone else, I do think they have the right to not be mutilated by a baying mob.

I think a society that treats those who are civilised in a civil manner, and treats its animals like animals

How should animals be treated then? If animals have no rights, is it fine to go around kicking cats to death etc.?

The human right for people to live their lives free from abuse takes precedence over the human rights of abusers to be treated in a civilised manner.

This suggests that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.

As a died in the wool, hardcore liberal, I have absolutely no problem with locking dangerous people up indefinately for the protection of society as a whole. I do have a major problem with mistreating them and treating them as subhuman.

If someone is a rapist- I.E. someone who is prepared to force non-consensual sex on someone- then IMO they should be locked up until there's no chance that they will do it again. To me, morally, it makes no difference whether the person they rape is a child or an adult. They are a rapist full stop, and hence a danger to others.

I've read the entire thread- which was a bloody effort by the way, requiring several cigarettes and musical interludes- and I didn't see anybody suggesting that locking up criminals is a breach of their human rights. In fact, now I come to think of it, I don't think that anyone who isn't a lunatic has ever suggested that.

Step outside the bounds of a civilised society and you step outside of the protection being a member of a civilised society brings.

Again, I totally disagree. The mark of a civilised society is how it treats its 'least deserving members'.

Glitter and anyone else convicted of child sex abuse should be detained indefinitely, until he can satisfy a panel of qualified people in that area, psychologists, criminologists, bacteriologists, whatever, that he presents no risk to children. No sentence, no time to serve, you stay removed from society until you either die, or prove you are no longer a risk to children.

I take it that 'no sentence' means 'no predertermined length of detention time' rather than ' no need to put them before a jury of their peers'?

And I see no reason for anyone to lose any sleep over it if it were the case. Mob rule is occasionally justified if the failings of the legal system are so great people who can not protect themselves, but deserve and need protection, are abandoned because of some perverse idea that the human rights of the victim come second to the human rights of the criminal.

Well, if you can actually find me someone who's gone on record saying that "that the human rights of the victim come second to the human rights of the criminal" then I'd like to see it. The reality is that the ugly incidents of 'mob rule' we have seen in this country have been almost without exception entirely misdirected.

[autopilot]

To me, morally, it makes no difference whether the person they rape is a child or an adult.

O...M.......G..................... you seriously can't see a difference? Both are truly awful, but child/baby rape is a whole different level.

I'm liberal, i'm pretty liberal about most drug use, i read the Guardian daily (), liberal about most things that dont endanger anyone else. But that does not mean i have to be liberal about everything - and i believe you cant be liberal about rape/child abuse. Once you take someone else's rights away you forfeit yours. I dont care about the 'feelings' or 'rights' of a child abuser and they should be punished hard with a long jail sentence. And until you can be proven to no longer be a risk, you should be detained based on sound expert advise (which is what happens to a lot of people already, but only really extreme cases). But when i say i dont care about thier 'rights', i mean on a personal level - the rights of every creature, no mater how horrible, have to be measured on a purely practical level when constructing legislation and policies and procedures for dealing effectively with such things.

In theory, I think that hanging is too good for serial child rapists - but i would never want that to happen. Mob rule is the sign of a broken, backwards society which is out of control and not one i would want to live in. We live in a world where you can get a tougher punishment for fraud than raping a child, but that does not excuse vigilantism. Suggesting cutting of the genitals of a serial child rapist is so wrong, on some many levels (even if i would not feel sorry for them). So is capital punishment. But society really is in the bin if that happens - and the media seem intent of pushing it over the edge with their crazy and cheap scaremongering - playing with peoples emotions in such cynical and dangerous way, just to sell more papers. People seem to be confusing what a hypothetical child abuser "deservers" with the reality of what would actually serve the greater needs of society and the safety of children and adults (innocent ones - accusations continue to cost lives).

For me, it's not a question of whether a child rapist should have the right to not be publicly flogged, but my right to live in a society that does not do that kind of thing any more.

[Splash]

For me, it's not a question of whether a child rapist should have the right to not be publicly flogged, but my right to live in a society that does not do that kind of thing any more.

..because we all know that where such punishments are commonplace there is no child abuse, right?

[directhex]

..because we all know that where such punishments are commonplace there is no child abuse, right?

http://forums.hexus.net/1504511-post29.html

[autopilot]

..because we all know that where such punishments are commonplace there is no child abuse, right?

Did you actually read what i wrote? Or are you just confirming what i said? Or is this a continuation of the trend this thread had taken, where people have completely misquoted each other?

Yes, that exactly what i am saying. One reason why i have clearly stated i am completely against the death penalty (for any crime) is that i doubt it's a suitable deterrent.

That said, i dont know any statistics as to whether some countries believe it has any effect - maybe there is. We are just assuming there is not when there might be some evidence that suggests it does act as a deterrent. But i highly I doubt there is a significant enough amount to justify the death penalty being reinstated here, mainly due do to the fact we have not yet figured out a way to reliably reanimate dead bodies yet.

[aidanjt]

Shrill calls for the death penalty are'nt going to change that, we need a better way to manage the problem.

Nope, but the death penalty itself will. If pedophillia is a 'mental illness' as some are saying, then the dead can't procreate to pass on the defective genes. It'll certainly cost less than keeping them locked up or survaled until they die. Times are tight kids, we need to pull the slack off the belt! Let good ole Darwin do his job.

[autopilot]

Let good ole Darwin do his job.

How trying to get a dead man to write books about the theory of evolution help?

[G4Z]

Nope, but the death penalty itself will. If pedophillia is a 'mental illness' as some are saying, then the dead can't procreate to pass on the defective genes. It'll certainly cost less than keeping them locked up or survaled until they die. Times are tight kids, we need to pull the slack off the belt! Let good ole Darwin do his job.

I don't think anybody really knows exactly what paedophilia is, it could be genetic (but as far as I aware there is no reason to think it is) but then again it might be caused by growing up in an abusive environment or maybe a combo of both. Personally I don't think eugenics is a solution for anything never mind difficult problems like this.