ans Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 And I wouldn't put it past people beating someone up because they are tagged when they might just be petty criminals. And who can forget the illiterate vigilantes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-Drift.com Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 ...begs the question, what section of society do people come from who go round beating up others they take a distinct dislike to? These are also the type of mentality I'd like to see off the streets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 ...and isnt it nice to have Rog back - forums have missed his even handed approach to life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 ...and isnt it nice to have Rog back - forums have missed his even handed approach to life Without conflict of opinion, forums gets dull fast and start to fill up with useless quizzes, jokes and mutual backslapping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 ...begs the question, what section of society do people come from who go round beating up others they take a distinct dislike to? These are also the type of mentality I'd like to see off the streets <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I would want to know the whereabouts of these people, I would not want to beat them up. I suppose the smaller, pack mentality, spoils things for the rest of us as usual. I still say though, why is protecting the lives of these people more important than protecting the lives of their next innocent victim? I largely agree with Rog, as extreme as he may sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Ans, you're fantastic man - just the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Come on Obs, it's not a case of protecting them over their next victim - it's about being able to keep an eye on them without risking such vigilantism. And you can't truly protect the 'next victim' when that next victim is unknown. Paedos picking up kids off the street is extremely rare - they're more likely to be relatives or leaders of a kids' club or they've been groomed on the net, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 ....or endless comments about local politicians..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 One offence of that nature should be enough though - they should not be able to re-offend. We're a funny lot aren't we? If a dog mauls a child we have no hesitation in finishing it off lest we have a repeat performance. But when it comes to weirdos who spend months and months calculating how and when they can violate our children, it seems we can't do enough for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I'm against capital punishment full stop. And comparing humans to animals present a whole new set of problems and arguments. (yeah, yeah, paedos are no better than animals, in fact their worse.......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 We've been here before. The argument to me eventually creeps around to custodial sentences rehabilitating offenders or simply out of sight is out of mind. I suspect it is both depending on the nature of the crime. I also think that you have to be insane to commit crimes like Huntley and the Moors Murderers. Because of the high re-offend rate of paedophiles and their obvious insanity I would set a time limit on how long it would take to cure them, say 100 years, and send them to a secure mental institution not only to cure them but for their own protection. "Job Done" sticker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Sorry, but I have real problems with incarceration in 'anticipation' of a crime. Look at Guantanamo Bay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 On conviction. A mental institute saves all that messy moralising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 RC Drift........ rape, wife beating and mugging - all pretty horrendous crimes, but I'm sorry, I just don't believe they come close to being as horrific or stomach churning as crimes against innocent children, there's just no comparison in my eyes. In a way paedophiles are being protected over children. They are let back into society and allowed to get on with normal life, mixing with children whose parents are completely unaware that a paedophile is in the area. I think it's mostly agreed that the majority of convicted paedophiles will go on to re-offend again and again. It is impossible to keep track of their movements 24 hours a day. If this is the case then society is not safe until they have been taken completely out of the picture and to be honest if that means bringing back capital punishment or locking them away for the rest of their lives then so be it - I don't care which way its done as long as they can no longer be a threat to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Is this lad really a "paedophile" though? Reads to me more like a young lad who tried to have sex with another young lad who was under the age of consent but still near to his own age. This lad is only 22 now, and assaulted a teenager. True paedophiles target pre-pubescent children - not teenagers. Would the paper still be screaming "paedo" "pervert" if the person he assaulted was a teenage girl I wonder. Young lads over 16 often have sexual relationships with girls under 16 - it is illegal obviously, but it doesn't make the lad a "paedophile"... Obviously it makes sense for the police to have powers to stop known child molesters from hanging around schools/parks etc - but if this case is the worst example they've got it hardly seems like a big problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.