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?

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.

This too!

^^

Yes, yes. Definitely.

I like user1493453415's suggestions and this point:

Sat 29-Apr-17 09:28:58
"I'd also like to see a rehabilitation system in place (if we go down that route) that is kept separately to those who have been abused."

is important. I'm constantly amazed that we're expected to go anywhere near sex offenders in places that should feel safe. But we need more money investing to change it, and that's not going to happen until there's the political will to actually support us.

Just on the note of life, but 9 years. It really doesn't necessarily mean 9 years. Someone imprisoned for a crime relating to DHs family is currently still in after 14 years, despite being originally up for parole after 11 (life sentence). No sign of him being out any time soon either.

Oops, sorry, things moved on a bit by the time that posted! Didn't mean to sound quite that ranty. I just get wound up.

WesternMeadowlark you didn't sound ranty at all, you're absolutely right.

Westernmeadowlark Definitely didn't read as ranty!

My other big issue is that Gloucester House and the Portman Clinic are located so close together - and two blocks away from the Portman Clinic is a 3 - 18 school.

Thank you both

And at the proximity to the school.

No it doesn't seem like a long time but the judge can only sentence on the basis of the sentencing guidelines.

The UK already has the largest prison population in Western Europe. And forget all this crap about him having a horrible time being beaten up by other prisoners - the reality is there are so many sex offenders in prison that there are whole prisons where the only prisoners there are sex offenders. So that doesn't work either plus is arguably torture and we aren't supposed to sink to their level And there is copious evidence that chemical castration doesn't work.

So you need a better solution. Currently the solution we have is that he is removed from society for a long period of time. Any release he does have will be highly monitored - sex offenders don't just get out once their tariff is up, but on a risk assessment. It's not ideal but it's the best we have.

If you can think of a better one, please do.

I've googled both those places and I'm also stunned at the proximity to a school.

I think Gloucester House has moved - it's actually a lot closer than the google maps show (unless there are two units).

It's scary though. It's like putting heroin in front of an addict.

This is the problem, all those kids walking past predators every single day. Even if we go with the idea that these people are seeking help because they don't want to offend (which is to be lauded imo) putting it so close to a school is, as you say user, akin to placing heroin in front of an addict. Very very dangerous.

"these people are seeking help because they don't want to offend"

That clinic treats people who have offended, it's not just people who haven't offended. Portman Clinic takes the more serious cases, but I was told that offenders are also seen in the Tavistock Clinic. I have no idea what the weighting is for who goes where.

I didn't realise that, sorry I must have got mixed up. That's even worse!

Saor No, it's ok, I only know as I have therapy through the Tavistock and I started to question the proximity of the Portman (and I also worked out that children were taken to a different waiting area).

The fact that survivors and offenders are even placed within a mile of each other is just awful. I hope that your therapy is helping you, for what it's worth, I think you're very brave and the ideas you've proposed are very measured and also coming from a person that needs to be listened to!

Thank you Saor

Well user when your heart is broken and see see your child afraid and possibly never be able to feel comfortable with a man again all because one sicko decided to rape them I can't say I'd be thinking about punishment. I'm referring to if I knew/had some form of contact with the man. A complete stranger would take premeditation and I'm not on about that, I'm on about someone you/your child knew and them ruining your child's life.

But no I can't see myself killing them (hopefully not anyway) but punching them or some such knee jerk reaction isn't likely to get me imprisoned at any rate.

I don't believe for a second that anyone who violently attacks a child is ever going to be rehabilitated.
I don't think anyone convicted of the rape of a child should ever be allowed back into society. They will re-offend almost certainly.
Yes sentencing is a fucking joke. I've read case after case where these monsters attack really young children, often to their severe physical injury, and they get seven, nine, ten years and that's it.
As someone else pointed out, you'd get as much for fraud.

From interviews with "regular" rapists, even they are disgusted with paedophiles. Not quite sure if the logic there.

I honestly don't know what the solution is though.

user1493453415 I'm aware my words are utterly inadequate, but you are very inspiring.

"From interviews with "regular" rapists, even they are disgusted with paedophiles. Not quite sure if the logic there."

I think there are two completely separate mechanisms of the crime: One is an infatuation with sexual acts and small children, the other is an infatuation with control and power.

I hate the phrase 'mechanisms of crime' but I can't think of another way to describe it at the moment.

removing trials for certain offences you begin down a very slippery slope.

I agree removing trials is stupid...a trial is needed to prove guilt. However, I stand by my view that permanent chemical castration is an appropriate response by society, alongside other measures such as an extremely long, or life, term. To say chemical castration will have no impact implies there is no sexual component to the crime in all cases, that they are all purely driven by sadistic non-sexual motives... I just don't buy that.