to think this couple should not be allowed to keep their baby?

[FuckOffWeasel]

How can there be any discussion?

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-woman-having-baby-convicted-7729662

Alis, here

Hmm, rehabilitation...

I can't imagine asking him to babysit, tbh.

I read this earlier as I follow the Echo on FB. I agree with you OP.

Whether or not she is vulnerable (and the story only mentions the report says she is) I think there is too great a risk posed to the child.

I've just looked up on wikipedia what category 4 and 5 images are -
4 Penetrative sexual activity between child(ren) and adult(s)
5 Sadism or bestiality

I don't think he can be rehabilitated.

Thanks AnyFucker.

I do wonder how his partner (one of the girls involved at the time) will feel when their children get to the age she was. Or indeed how they'll explain their relationship to their children.

I'm still wondering what the objective of rehabilitation courses is, if no-one thinks they work.

If a court would find against this man having access to this child (and I think on balance, in the child's interest, a court probably should and hopefully would) then what on earth is the point of the rehabilitation course?

Aren't they a complete waste of public resources? Or are they just an attempt to ensure that men who are convicted of sexual offences find strategies to ensure that they aren't put in situations where they may be tempted to re-offend? In other words, they're not about cure, they're about damage limitation?

I tend to think that if someone has a belief that they are entitled to rape a child (although most of them would not phrase it in that way, they would talk of having a consensual loving teaching relationship or some such vomit-inducing bilge) then they can be cured of that belief, even if they may not be cured of the desire. But the risk to child is so great, that even if they are cured of that belief, we can't take the risk because they may only be pretending to have been cured of the belief that they are entitled to rape the child so we have to err on the side of caution and protect the child at all cost. But why are rapists of adults allowed to be rehabilitated and treated as if they've done their time and everything's OK now? Surely it's the same root - not the desire to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you (we all have that at some level, I'm sure George Clooney has no interest in me whatsoever, regrettably), but the belief that you are entitled to have sex with the subject of your desire whether they want to or not - that is at the root of people's sexual behaviour? Not desire but belief?

I get the argument that desire for children is a perversion like bestiality or necrophilia - but does that mean that raping adults isn't a perversion, it's a continuum of normality? Because you often get rape apologists arguing that it's difficult to tell the difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old and therefore it's OK to rape a 15 year old who has lied about her age and they wouldn't argue that in this case, that means a man should not be allowed to keep his child.

Sorry I've had a huge Sunday lunch with wine so am a bit drunk and incoherent, I'm wondering mostly about the issue of rehabilitation vis a vis sexual crimes here and wondering if there is a massive difference (in terms of rehabilitation) between rape of a young child vs. rape of an older child vs rape of a younger adult who was legally a child yesterday or last wee, vs. rape of an older adult.

I am an ex probation officer, worked with loads of sex offenders. Paedophilia is a pathology. You don't rehabilitate them.. You work to reduce their risk of reoffending through monitoring,controlling and assessing. The courses they attend are an addition to this, a means to help build their own self efficacy and control. They will always present a risk however.

The child needs to be removed.

Cross posted with above but damage limitation is a good description of the sex offender courses. They are useful in terms of managing risk.

Sorry just to add askBasil has it spot on, sex offenders who are not paedophiles are a different kettle of fish and dealt with in a different way.

There are mixed views amongst psychologists who work with paedophiles as to whether they can actually be rehabilitated.

My view is that if there is any doubt, then no child should be exposed to
that specific risk of harm.

We can't protect kids from every danger but where there is a known risk (or in my view, a known danger), such as this man, then the child should be removed. There is no guarantee that the woman would stay away from him, even if she says she will and to be honest, no way of policing it.

Allow a loving couple to adopt the child as a new baby to minimise the negative impact on its life.

askbasil we can't keep all the offenders who should be behind bars, behind bars. So I think we "rehabilitate" them" to make it seem like we've done something. No politician wants to admit they are just sending out child rapists to rape more children.

So strong was his perversion he trained as a teacher yet 15 months in prison and a therapist "cured" him. 15 months with other paedophile who taught him How to hide things better more like.
No way would that man be safe to live with a baby.

No way does that woman deserve her baby if she feels it's an impossible decision. There's no decision to make.

I feel sorry for the families who's children he taught and took pictures of. 15 months must seem like a giant slap in the face.

Ask

That's an interesting point you've raised re adult rapists and rehabilitation.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I think with adult rapists it is more often a weapon of control rather than sexual attraction. I don't know whether they can be rehabilitated either. Perhaps some paedophiles are the same. They are not sexually attracted to children because they are children, they are sexually attracted because of the enormous element of control.

I would not have a relationship with a man who admitted to a rape conviction. if I found out such a conviction had happened and I had been in a relationship with said man, I would end it.

Same if it was a conviction for paedophilia.

And THIS is why pedophiles should be chemically castrated. That child wouldn't stand a chance if left with their parents.

People, can you please stop comparing paedophilia with homosexuality.

It isn't the same Hermione, agreed. I pointed it out upthread that heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality have nothing in common with paedophilia.

It makes me feel uncomfortable when homosexuality is compared to paedophilia. Gay men and women have consenting sexual relationships, as do heterosexuals and bisexuals.

Rapists, paedophiles, necrophiliacs and beastialists (?) are all very different to people with normal sexual desires.

Dirty beast. He should be put down. 15 months. I'd have given him at least 15 years. What the women will be like as a mother. I don't know, but I don't think people should wade in and say she's a bad mum. I mean what if a women is heaven forbid raped and decides to keep her baby should she also have the baby tool off her because the father is also a brute, mind you saying that in them circumstances the father would be n.c.
However back to the case in point. I really do not think this man should be anywhere near this child, but what is the answer you can't force a couple to split up.
This women must have beyond desperate to sleep with a beast like this. I just pray to God that she wakes up and sees sense very soon, and gets rid of this thing for good and then hopefully she can lead a better life with her child.

I know someone whose dp served a prison sentence for knowingly and intentionally putting her toddler son (he wasn't the child's father) in a scalding bath. When he was eventually taken to the hospital, some days later, his skin was literally peeling off.

He served a prison sentence. She was charged with negligent neglect, for failing to take her seriously injured child to the hospital. Served no time though. She stayed with him. They now have children together. She has no contact with her older child. If she had ended it with him then she might have some contact now.

I think she is a revolting human being (there aren't words for him). I stopped speaking to her when I found out.

It isn't strictly related to this issue, but is a real life example (outside of the work I did which is confidential so I can't discuss specific incidents) of a woman choosing a partner over her child.

Horrible situation.

Some really scary comments though - do you really believe in compulsory sterilisation for women desperate enough to sleep with sex offenders?

If he hadn't told her should she still be sterilised or is it just because she knew?

I was a foster carer for 7 years now am an adopter this happens more than you think

Also with mums of do they get told we will move you and kids across the uk to a safe house and we will leave ASAP or your children will be removed they choose the guy

I even had one mum whose partner killed his child to spite his ex she still choose the guy ss were contacted when she was taking her children up to the prison to see him

Sorry I wasn't really comparing homosexuality to pedophillia earlier when I mentioned those ridiculous 'we can cure you of being gay' camps in America.

Being gay is not a perversion. But pedophiles don't really think of themselves as wrong do they? They know society thinks it's wrong, but they get sexually aroused by children.

What I meant was you could no sooner expect to 'cure' them of what they see as a natural urge then you could make those god awful camps work.

She's not comparing gays to paedos, she's making the point that you can't change who you're attracted to. You could just as easily make the point that you can't rehabilitate a straight person to be attracted to the same sex.

Yanbu. The baby should be removed at birth.

Sliced

I know you weren't but generally speaking people often do.

I remember watching a documentary once about paedophiles. One bloke on it was utterly tormented by the fact he was attracted to children. He knew it was wrong and hated himself for it. Did everything he could to avoid children etc.

Perhaps he is unusual amongst paedophiles for thinking that way but it did suggest to me that the ones who do offend do so knowing how repugnant their actions are.

I understand chemical castration doesn't always work....but I still think it should be tried on people like this. An injection regularly or something? If they fail to turn up then cut their balls and dick off.

I know that's an abhorrent idea and not reasonable in decent society but neither is what they do surely? I don't believe in the death penalty but why should innocent children suffer whilst they go about their business merrily?

I agree that no way should they keep the baby. I also agree that she must in some way have been very vulnerable/needy and been taken in by this man.

He was no doubt charming. Presumably as a teacher he was also articulate. He gave the impression of honesty because he was open about his conviction - then declared himself rehabilitated/cured. No doubt told her he was telling her this because he did not want secrets between them, because she was the one, so special. And she fell for it all. To be so desperate to have a partner and a baby that you think "I can change him, he loves me, he would never hurt me or our baby" rather than "not in a million years" is very sad.