To think this petition is not ok

[NotInMyBackYard1]

Just that really - a man convicted of possessing indecent images of children has returned from prison and gone back to live at his parent's house. The locals have got hold of this information and have now set up a petition to get him 'rehomed' somewhere with no children. Outer Hebrides?
My view is he's done his time, he wants a fresh start, as long as he keeps himself to himself then just let him be? This petition doesn't sit well with me at all.

"I was raped repeatedly as a child - and photographed - for the pleasure of these sickos."

Those who were personally subjected to such utter horror as children, like PennyPickle, deserve a far, far, louder hearing in all the official decision-making re society's treatment of child sex offenders, IMO.

The cold, hard facts are absolutely brutal as to how deeply that trauma impacts upon the child themself, for the rest of their lives.

Would any of us adults truly feel anything other than completely violated, knowing that explicit images or film, taken against our will, were who knows where, out forever in the public domain, that we could never again be sure of who had/ hadn't watched our distress, and who could repeatedly do so for years...?

But, hey, according to some, that at least meant we didn't have to encounter them face-to-face, right?

Amongst all the public debate, when those in positions of power can safely deal at one remove with faceless numbers of 'victims' (survivors), let's put more emphasis on listening to those who, tragically, do have first-hand experience.

And, yes, I do agree with PPs saying the whole approach needs a major re-think. I've read so many in-depth papers on conflicting approaches to rehab/ punishment/ reintegration etc. Am none the wiser.

My basic instincts are, frankly, that any bastard abusing a child automatically forfeits his/ her 'rights' (though disagree with capital punishment: far too easy a way out for them), and that I'd willingly tear them limb from limb instead, but I know that's unhelpful .

I don't know what the answer is, though.

YouHadMeatCake

I'm pretty surely that poster was referring to moors in the Outer Hebrides. It's quite clear if you reread the post!

From what I have been told, he wants to keep away, keep to himself, not get into trouble

Told by whom OP? Do you have personal interests here?

And if he wants to 'keep away' what's the issue with the petition? I thought he was going back to the community he is from, that doesn't suggest he wants to keep away.

I read the OP as that he wants to keep away from people in general, ie he's not going to be out in the community being highly visible, but he wants to live with his family and have their support. And why shouldn't he? He's served the sentence given him by the legal system.

But how does OP know what this paedophile wants?

Interesting to see the spread of views between "kill them all" and "they're victims who need help" ... what's wrong with simply handing down a genuine life sentence, where for the sake of the bleeding hearts they could at least receive counselling? For all the things wrong with prison, at least where paedophiles there's this to be said: it 100% guarantees they won't be attacking children while they're in there

Oh, and interesting too that said bleeding hearts, who have been so keen to insist "they'll never walk freely again" and all the rest, seem to have no answer to those who've pointed out how utterly inaccurate this is

For all the things wrong with prison, at least where paedophiles there's this to be said: it 100% guarantees they won't be attacking children while they're in there - Do you propose this for ALL paedophiles or only those who have committed an offence? If we were to lock up paedophiles purely on a 'thought' crime basis then how far do we go with that? any other 'thoughts' that should be a crime? how about others who statistically may pose a risk to other groups of people? lock them up just in case too?

I wonder what peoples reactions would be if their child told them they were sexually attracted to children but had no desire to act upon that attraction but would like help/support/therapy to deal with it? would people report their children or would they move heaven and Earth to try and get them the help they ask for?

Do you propose this for ALL paedophiles or only those who have committed an offence?

The second group - no matter how repulsive the thoughts may be, we don't have thought police in the UK (or at least, not yet )

And while it's quite true that counselling, etc, has an important place in the prevention of such crime, many of us would prefer priority to be given to protecting children from those who've already chosen to actually commit them

The trouble with having a whole life sentence for all child sex crimes is that it might lead to an escalation. The person viewing child pornography is going to be sentenced the same as the child rapist. So they might as well rape. The rapist might as well murder.

It's also financially unsustainable. It costs, for a male, £25k per year in prison. If they live another 50 years that's £1.25m. For a female the cost is nearly double that.

I appreciate what you're saying, user14788, but it's always possible to find a reason not to do something. I'm afraid that, for me, both caveats fail - firstly in that it's perfectly possible to find the money if the will exists, and secondly that the "nothing to lose" analogy is the same one which would downgrade sentences for absolutely everything (something which I'd argue would be unacceptable to the majority, even though it's already happening far too often)

One major problem is, of course, that all the tired assurances that such-and-such will work to keep children safe have been shown through recidivism not to work, or at least, not well enough (an issue that still hasn't been addressed on here, I notice)

I'm the first to agree that this isn't a simple or easy subject, but I really believe there are some crimes which are so foul that, in the interests of an ordered society, the absolute prevention of further offending must come before any other consideration - and for me, in the case of a convicted paedophile, this means a true life sentence

puzzled why do you feel so much more strongly about this type of crime than any other that leads to the injury or death of children? As I posted earlier, noone seems to care if someone who killed a child via drunk driving moves in next to them, even though this is another crime with high rates of repeat offending. Why shouldn't a death by dangerous driving conviction mean life in prison to prevent any possibility of re-offending?
Why would you have the possibility of rehabilitation allowed in all other cases but paedophilia?

im confused. all this concerned "oh but you risk them being alone, shunned which may make them commit the crime again"

i always thought that the only person responsible for a crime is the criminal? is this not true now? so if a rapist is shunned by the community and rapes again he was forced to do it because the orrible neighbours made him?

Bullshit with bollocks on.

Because morphene in many other cases there's at least a hope that the offender will learn from the sanction for what they've done. Granted it may not always work, but if the sanction is strong enough it seems reasonable to hope that the offender might prefer to avoid another, possibly even more draconian one

With paedophilia that seems not to be the case, since the innate behaviour may always be there. I'm aware that some claim therapy may have an effect, but until this can be proved to work (and I do mean proved, rather than just wishful thinking) I'd really rather the risk wasn't taken

GahBuggerit - no one is saying "the neighbours made him do it". We are saying that the force of social conformity, the need to belong, to fit in with society is a major one and a major 'anchor' which keeps people away from socially deviant behaviour. If they don't have that anchor, they are more likely to behave badly.

It isn't spreading blame. It's just something that studies show is far more likely to happen.

sorry that still sounds like "if we make their lives shit they will do it again" which doesnt sound like "only criminals are responsible for their crimes"

therss probably images of me somewhere out there. their lives should be fucking shit. so shit infact that they do the onky decent thing and remove themselves from the world.

On a vaguely related note, btw, I also read an interesting article on the system in Louisiana, I think, where child rape does carry the death penalty, and in general, child sex offences carry far longer sentences.

A side effect no one registered when putting that legislation through is that it makes a lot of victims far more scared to report and can be massively more traumatising later on as many victims (who are massively more likely to be being abused by someone they know, probably a family member) were very unwilling to take responsibility for daddy, or Uncle Joe etc having that kind of thing happen to them, and carried a massive weight of guilt about it afterwards.

The other very unpleasant side effect, of course, of the death penalty being attached to any crime except murder is that it encourages criminals to ensure that witnesses are not left alive, which is why very few systems carry the death penalty for anything else. If you execute a child rapist, the child rapist becomes a rapist and murderer much more frequently. It's really difficult and horrible.

GahBuggerit - I'm really sorry this happened to you, by the way. I know it's a horrific thing to deal with. Someone very close to me in my family was also abused as a child.

I'm sorry if I sound cold about it. I really don't feel it.

I just started trying to find out about the most effective ways of stopping this happening a while ago because my own family's experience was so bad.

sorry that still sounds like "if we make their lives shit they will do it again" which doesnt sound like "only criminals are responsible for their crimes" - I study criminology and psychology and this is one of things criminology tries to determine, who is responsible for crime? Unfortunately the real answer isn't 'just' the criminal. Society plays a huge part, as does upbringing, possibly genetics and a whole host of other things, which is why crime prevention is so difficult, what stops one person offending may not stop another person - because their reasons for offending may be vastly different. That's not to say that a criminal isn't responsible for their crime, but to what extent they are responsible is dependent on a host of other factors and something that everyone will feel differently about.

Different crimes would also require different crime prevention techniques. It's not as simple as throwing people in prison, which in most cases doesn't serve as a deterrent from others offending. It's not cost effective and it's not sustainable long term. There are already very few prison spaces available meaning that fewer and fewer people are being locked up for lower level crime and some sentences are being shortened. Personally I feel that we need to work on the root causes of crime to try and eradicate crime before it happens, rather than waiting until someone offends to then 'deal' with them. Wanting to help people to not offend doesn't mean that I don't care about people who are already victims of crime, it simply means my particuar focus is on preventing other people becoming victims, both are important.

puzzled I don't think the re-offence rate is very high for downloading child abuse images though, no higher than for the average of other crimes.

Apparently the rate is very high only for those who attack male children they don't know, and this skews the data.

So there may well be people you have to lock up forever or medically castrate, but the evidence doesn't suggest it is people who view child abuse images.