egafd.com

Marcusallen's rant perhaps belies that opinion which was abound in the days of the Kray's, that of the "hangings to good for 'em".

I agree that there should be longer sentences for such crimes but the word crime belies the fact that you must attempt to rehabilitate, and this to protect society at large, that they should be "cured", and prisons should do everything in their powers to do this.

The outcry over the closing of Peterhead prison, which has a very good record of rehabilitation of paedophiles, suggests that many people regard this as a necessity in a humane society.

The fact that I am a parent, and have clinical knowledge of behaviourist theory behind such crimes, and mental illnesses, which cause others to offend; gives me some insight into this theory.

As the previous poster suggested, incarcerating those with severe psychosis, or a deranged view of society?s norms, without attempting treatment, is something that the regime of Iraq would countenance, not the 4th largest economy in the world.

I here endeth the lesson on this Sabbath.


Zipper

i agree with you, zipper. wise words.

(altough,i doubt this post will last longer than 2 mins)

No Jason, it was directed at Chrisporn, or something like that.

Zipper, your social observations are wonderful but somewhat misguided. What the hell the Kray era has to with all this is beyond me.
As for this Nick or that having "a good record of rehabilitation" It only takes ONE FUCKING NONCE to "re-offend" and a childds life is ruiuned. Dont give me your moral platitudes and political correctness.

Carl
What you agree with??

It was in 2 parts

Whilst I'm my high horse about this subjct, I apologise to WOODY for not giving it the O.T tag. I'm goin to say it anyway.
I

You can tell it,s raining outside

I,ll fetch me cup

Zipper; A pity then that the 'rehabilitation' process failed so spectacularly in the case of Roy Whiting, who took away the life of Sarah Payne, following his kidnap and indecent assault of another child previously.

You speak as though our status as the 4th largest economy in the world imparts upon us a duty to 'be above' incarcerating those with "a deranged view of society's norms". I would say that, as was discussed in an earlier thread, 'society's norms' can encompass a wide range of subjects, for instance the 'what IS pornography' issue. As far as paedophilia is concerned, if you truly believe that a person inclined towards this nature should not be kept well and truly within the confines of our correctional facilities then I hope your 'clinical knowledge of behaviourist theory' doesn't place you in charge of the sentencing of those convicted of such crimes.

Before the PC brigade leap upon me, and again, with reference to the Sarah Payne case, please note that the Trial Judge specifically stated that Whiting should never be set free again.

A true shame - a crime, in fact - that the life of a child be taken in order to arrive at this conclusion.

Woodgnome - I've written this whilst being mindful of your post a few days ago concerning the effects of the media in such cases, but thought I'd say my piece anyway.

I must also conclude by commending the small satisfaction Whiting's fellow cons achieved in blessing the twat with a 'chelsea smile'.

Ted.

Of course, Paedophillia is a disgusting, unforgiveable heinous crime. However, the point is this _ some argue that without customers, the suppliers would stop abusing children. This is possibly true, but highly unlikely. These vile people would probably just stop PHOTOGRAPHING their abuse. Anyway, it is not a rational and coherant philosophical viewpoint. If you subscribe to this viewpoint, then those interested in owning material goods are ENCOURAGING people to steal them. After all, if you did not own material goods, the burglars would have to give up - Therefore you are as guilty as they are for tempting them.
By similar logic, off-shore banks are guilty and should be prosecuted, for ENCOURAGING people to launder money, comit crimes and evade tax. Without a supply of customers, they would have to close their doors. Girls in short-skirts are ENCOURAGING rapists and are just as guilty as the rapist (this used to be the legal viewpoint a few short years ago!). Producers of action movies are ENCOURAGING reckless driving and violence, producers of porn films are ENCOURAGING immoral sexual behaviour, and (often) illegal sexual acts.
Abusing a child should be a crime, owning pictures of such abuse or posting them throught the mail system should not.
We must be vigilant and not destroy our vital philosophic principles for certain "Special" classes of behaviour we all find distasteful. For example, the arguments against child porn would not be used against anything else: people believe this to be a unique case which justifies the suspension of all ethical principles. Using a "Triangle of Ethics" analogy, such a philosophy has "The Elimination Of Paedophilia" sitting at the VERY TOP of the triangle - in other words THIS SHOULD BE MANKINDS OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE and all other ethical principles and desires should be subordinated to this goal: a clearly ludicrous position. Desirable though it is "The Elimination Of Child Abuse" ahould occupy it's rightful position in the pecking order of problems to be addressed, and certainly WELL BELOW the principles of privacy, induividual rights and property rights.
The final argument that is used is that some child somewhere has been hurt and so a crime has been committed, albeit ten times removed from the peson receiving the pornography.
We can test the rationality of this arguement by suggesting that ALL pornography, childs or otherwise, be computer generated. This is now easily possible and no real people would be used in the making of it. This SHOULD destroy the argument, but it only highlights teh willingness of people to make a "Special case" because this would not satisfy them. The only argument left is that even if no children were hurt, and the porn was computer-generatedm this encourages people to hurt children - like James Bond movies ENCOURAGE people to drive recklessly, MUrder Mysteries ENCOURAGE people to murder their wives and short skirts ENCOURAGE rapists. At best, the argument has reuced again to the ruthless general control of citizens "in case" they commit a crime.
My commitment to intellectual honesty prevails here, there are not many people who even DARE mention this subject, so virulent and irrational is the response whenever it is raised. If a priciple you have crumbles when faced with something so distasteful, it had no business calling itself a principle in the first place. If you make a "special case" for child porn, which is what's happened, then you must allow other special cases in other situations.
THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIVACY RAPIDLY CRUMBLES AS THOUSANDS OF DO-GOODER PRESSURE GROUPS CLAMOUR FOR THEIR "SPECIAL CASE" TO BE HEARD AND ACTED UPON. THIS, OF COURSE, IS IS THAT THE STATE OF JUSTICE IN THE UK TODAY.

Another thing, define "child abuse". The law defines any sexual act with a minor as such. This of course includes the seduction of a womanly nearly-16 school girl, and the buggering of little boys. One of these cases is clearly repellant, the other understandable. Are producer of porn such as "Class Action" therefore ENCOURAGING child abuse? Many lesser folk would say they are, and certainly many rent-a-quote politicains would take up that case. So, when argueing for "special cases" remember this - the yardstick by what measures a "special case" changes and you find yourself in the dock, simply due to a change in "public opinion". Principles, my friend, have been eroded from most people. Papers, politicians, public... all devoid of true principles....

are you really a pornstar?

Chrispornstar wrote:
> My commitment to intellectual honesty prevails here, there
> are not many people who even DARE mention this subject, so
> virulent and irrational is the response whenever it is
> raised. If a priciple you have crumbles when faced with
> something so distasteful, it had no business calling itself a
> principle in the first place.

so true! even proposing that peadophilia should be treated as a legitimate illness is enough for you to be classified as "sicko".

Chrispornstar wrote:
> Abusing a child should be a crime, owning pictures of such abuse or posting them throught the mail system should not.
Rubbish: In current Law, if I do not take part in a robbery, but benefit from the fruits of such a crime, I am still culpable, although to a lesser degree.

> Elimination Of Child Abuse" ahould occupy it's rightful position in the pecking order of problems to be addressed, and certainly WELL BELOW the principles of privacy, induividual rights and property rights.

Chrispornstar wrote:
> Abusing a child should be a crime, owning pictures of such abuse or posting them throught the mail system should not.
Rubbish: In current Law, if I do not take part in a robbery, but nevertheless benefit from the fruits of such a crime, I am still culpable, although to a lesser degree. Your later theoretical argument against this point is at present untestable, even as a thought experiment, and therefore irrelevant.

> Elimination Of Child Abuse" ahould occupy it's rightful position in the pecking order of problems to be addressed, and certainly WELL BELOW the principles of privacy, induividual rights and property rights.
......not forgetting the privacy and individual rights of children, eh? Or are you saying that some individuals are more equal than others? Please don't use the Straw Man of an Hegelian Triad to propagate that pernicious piece of false logic....

I agree that the Law at present fails to distinguish marginal offences ('jailbait' for want of a better term) from the more extreme cases, and that the whole thing seems tied up with an impossibly unrealistic and romanticised view of 'childhood innocence' inherited from the Victorian bourgeoisie (who, of course, were quite happy for working-class children to be abominably exploited.....).
We forget that, in the most parts of the World (and not exclusively the less-developed nations, either), children not yet in their teens are working members of their family, and may well be married in early adolescence: there may be some anthropolgical/ethological basis for this in the relative differences in life-expectancy, although such differences are far less than is commonly imagined, and indeed are shrinking more rapidly every decade. Only in the last 50 or so years has this pattern been deviated-from even in the UK.
The real issue in all of this is that of 'informed consent', which is clearly lacking where a child has not had the requisite experience (i.e. a LOSS of such 'innocence', or is being coerced.
Where such infringement of personal liberty obtains, the perpetrator deserves the fullest punishment.