To think this child rapist should have got life?

[pogojojo]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39749153

He raped a 5 year old for fucks sake, I'll never understand the sentencing for sex crimes, that girl's life is ruined, and do they really think he won't reoffend?

Pitbull I am not deluded at all. I have a realistic sense on how the situation actually is.

Saor

Sharing your views (sorry I missed your post as I was responding to the deluded comment).

It is also very difficult when we take into consideration that in some cases these offences stem from (not caused by) learned behaviour.

I posted in the beginning that child rapists should be executed without trial. Then some smartass said it was a ridiculous response. Why would it be ridiculous?

Because until someone is tried and convicted, you do not know whether they are guilty. And because setting up a system where people can be killed without trial is the road to totalitarianism. How is that difficult to understand, Pitbull?

user did you pull,these numbers out of your hat? How can you estimate the number of people who are potential paedophiles? How can you estimate the number of them that has a morsel of conscience and come forward to seek help?
Wake up!

user fwiw I think pitbull is being unfair, you've written very measured responses and I've agreed with most of them.

I guess what this thread has shown me, once I calmed down, is that much as the initial instinct is to lash out, we need to realise that the current and past methods of preventing harm are not sufficient and there needs to be a real concentration on how to protect potential victims and also concentration on helping survivors to process their ordeal and live the life they choose.

Saor, how can you suggest the criminal justice system is not based on the rights of victims? The entire system is based around punishing perpetrators, deterring them from reoffending, rehabilitating them so that they don't reoffend, and where necessary locking them away to prevent them from reoffending. If it were not based on the rights of victims, the system would not exist at all. Yes, it's imperfect, to say the least; but systems where there are more draconian punishments demonstrably are even less successful in preventing crime.

pitbull No, the numbers were not pulled out of a hat.

Abusers = no. of known offenders + no. of people who have come forwards prior to offending (potential abusers).

Ceto
*rehabilitating paedophiles^
Oh, excuse me, I can't stop laughing at this..
You mean like a turning a tiger into a vegan?

The rights of the victims get lost in translation. The perpetrators have the right to completely character assassinate a victim in their defence (sexual history of a rape survivor is one example), they are not given a whole life tariff even when they have proven that a first sentence is not a deterrent nor are they rehabilitated, they are allowed several appeals, each time dragging the whole ordeal back up for the victims and their families, and their sole punishment is loss of liberty.

Pitbull, that quote doesn't come from any post of mine.

Convicted criminals are not automatically allowed several appeals. They have to have permission to appeal, and to do so they have to be able to demonstrate that there is at least an arguable error of law. They can't just keep going back to the appeal courts on a whim.

I sort of feel that sentencing should be about protecting the public and nothing else.

The rest of the criminal justice system needs to be improved in order to protect the rights of the victim (access to support, no medical details being shared apart from those that are relevant to the crime, access to therapy, compensation, witness protection and identity protection).

I don't think the way the system works for "punishing" the perpetrator actually works at the moment, but I guess this depends on what your views on the outcome are. If it's time away from society it works, but, if it's rehabilitation or punishment it doesn't really work.

user1493453415 everything you just said x 100

You are definitely NBU OP, absolutely disgusting. What planet is that judge on, especially as that little girl might not be the only one. It beggars belief.

ceto Appeals is an area I know nothing about - do you know what has to happen for one to be granted?

Saor I think Scotland are currently changing the medical records issue at the moment - at least they were thinking of doing it. Such a huge step forwards.

user I'd read something about that, I was pleased to see it and I hope that it does come into force. Minimising any further trauma to victims/survivors has got to be made a priority, especially in cases of sex offences.

There are many loopholes in the legal system which offenders can utilise to further inflict pain on their victims which desperately need to be closed.

This is the case that prompted the campaign to change the law. All about the victims my arse. And defence solicitors are sadly a necessary evil in society but some of them are absolute pond scum.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35561182

Of course there are people who realise they are sexually attracted to children and hate the fact that they are wired this way and would seek help to ensure that they would never act on their desires. And help should be available for these people. Years ago as part of my job I ended up doing some unrelated work (audit) in a centre that ran intensive courses for people like this. I often wonder with suicides how many are people who have realised they are wired this way and because it is so taboo and really hard to get help if they could see no other way out.

Automatic legal aid for rape victims to fight publication of their medical history became law in 2016 in Scotland. A small but significant step in protecting the rights of survivors.

Sarah is amazing. Her waiving anonymity has exemplified so much of what is wrong with the system, but has also meant that those people sitting thinking it was just them that was going through that, now know that it's in fact the system.

It's not in this article, but Sarah was actually threatened with legal action against her for not wanting to answer a question in court that was totally irrelevant to the case, despite the fact she was severely suicidal at the time. It's diabolical that this can happen in a court room. No person who has been through rape should be left so traumatised by the court system that they end up suicidal.

She is an incredibly determined woman who was needlessly put through a further ordeal by her attacker and his scumbag defence and enabled by the justice system. There are sadly probably many hundreds more women like her who have endured such torture (and I don't use that word lightly at all). The fact she's managed to close that vile loophole is a real triumph. It shouldn't have been necessary in the first place.

I don't agree with capital punishment unless in the case of a mass terrorist for public safety.

However I do think that sex offenders shouldn't be kept away from the rest of the prison population. They chose to do the crime so they have to accept what will be dosed out to them.

I'm sure a father in prison or any man with half decent principles would probably hurt him badly.

You don't see prisons keeping gang members safe in prison from other gangs, so why do sex offenders get specialist treatment?

I'd love to have all these serial killers, serial rapists and paedophiles all on a deserted island and do what they like to each other away from the general public.

If it was my child though I would really hurt them.

As a victim, I don't mind people letting off a bit of steam.

Provided that come the election, everyone doing that votes for a candidate/party who support proper mental health services, domestic violence resources, and disability benefits for those left too badly affected by their ordeal to be able to work.

Anyone who claims to be outraged by the crimes of rapists, but then votes for parties that cut the services and benefits that their victims need to maximise our chances of leading a full life, is just a liar who's using other people's pain to make themselves look more moral than they really are.

"If it was my child though I would really hurt them."

Really? Because I think a lot of people say this, but when they have a child hurting after they've been through a horrific ordeal, it's very unlikely any parent would actually do something that would mean they ended up incarcerated and away from their child at the time they needed them most.