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?

coconuttella Impotent men just use an object instead. Its actually pretty common during an assault, as the offender doesnt find the reality as arousing as the fantasy.

Impotent men can use objects, emotional abuse, enrol other parties to abuse, perpetrate abuse via taking sexual images or encouraging sexual behaviour, the list goes on and on.

Just because they personally aren't getting an erection doesn't mean they aren't an abuser. It's been proven time and time again not to work.

I understand that some men will abuse irrespective of their sexual impulses, but all of them?! Are you saying that sexual abusers are never motivated by sexual desire in any way? Unless you are, and can demonstrate this, i still think chemical castration is reasonable.

And even if you could prove that, why wouldn't it be reasonable for society to remove thr ability to have sexual pleasure from someone who has sexually abused a child. that's a very reasonable punishment in my view... hardly barbaric.

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.... You don't see prisons keeping gang members safe in prison from other gangs

We keep them away because the punishment is the prison sentence, not exposure to whatever violence other convicted criminals choose to get their kicks out of imposing. And in fact any prisoner who is known to be in danger from other prisoners is entitled to protection, including gang members.

It's astonishing how many people here are perfectly happy to condone the idea of violent thugs in prison being given carte blanche to beat up any fellow inmate they disapprove of. Where does that end? Suppose the person they disapprove of is in fact innocent? Suppose they decide to disapprove of some unfortunate who just happens to get in their way, or who commits the crime of looking a bit different, or who annoys them because they have a mental illness or disability? Suppose the person on the wrong end of a violent criminal assault in prison is someone you love?

Sexual desire doesn't wholly originate in the genitals and castration doesn't eliminate sexual pleasure. Thus the reason castration doesn't work.

The sex bit is only part of it for these abusers - the ones for whom it's just about an orgasm will be a very very tiny minority. For the majority it will be about the entire process of grooming, chasing, controlling, manipulating, enjoying risk, potentialling discussing with other abusers etc etc etc.

The other problem with non physical castration is that it wears off after awhile so they need top up doses, which is a problem if they abscond.

Let's just surgically removed their dicks then Hulder. That should do it.

Of course I am aware that it wouldn't stop everyone, even then but it means everyone gets a pretty good warning about what they are like.

"However I do think that sex offenders shouldn't be kept away from the rest of the prison population".

To be honest, this makes you have some pretty dodgy morals in my eyes. Why anyone would condone physical violence in any situation is beyond me, even against people who have committed crimes.

I do not understand how you can stand up and say "X type of violence is abhorrent, but I'll happily turn a blind eye (and actually hope that it's instigated) in regards to another type of violence".

"everyone gets a pretty good warning about what they are like."

Except for most fondling and inappropriate touching of children starts with fingers. A missing genital is not going to stop that.

What does it mean in the article that the young victim 'wept throughout'? Was the child at the trial? Was she asked to give evidence in the courtroom?

Marmalade Possibly. You aren't always granted permission to speak via video link, particularly in cross examination situations. However, people are usually allowed to be sat behind a screen so the perpetrator / accused can't see them and vice versa.

The other problem with non physical castration is that it wears off after awhile so they need top up doses, which is a problem if they abscond.

Firstly, if there's that level of concern, they shouldn't be out. Secondly, surely if they are out, then better to reduce the risk than give up just because it's not perfect. Thirdly, why do you care about allowing child rapists to continue to experience sexual pleasure? Just why?

Fourthly, of chemical castration isn't effective, then surgically performed physical castration (ie properly and humanely done, not with a meat cleaver and a chopping board).

Cutting bits off offenders is just barbaric.

Physical castration is not going to remove fingers, voices, objects, drugs and alcohol, neglect, cameras, Internet, co-conspirator so and frankly if I can think of all that in under 10 seconds so can an abuser.

"Cutting bits off offenders is just barbaric."

Yep.

user the difference between someone originally committing a crime against someone and then them getting hurt by some who don't like it inside is quite obvious.

If they don't want to risk serious harm they shouldn't be a sex offender. I say the same for gang members and murderers.

You don't see gang members being protected yet they are highly likely to be attacked. I'm sorry but it's still about the poor offender in this scenario.

By the way I'm not recommending that a prison officer shouldn't intervene if someone tries to attack them. Only that they shouldn't be specially protected in the first place.

I don't think that puts my morals into question at all.

Sarcasm My understanding is that anyone who is at risk of being the subject to a violent attack, or instigating a violent attack (in some cases) is segregated. It's not just people who've committed crimes against children.

There are other reasons that people aren't held in with the general populations in prisons.

And no - there is no difference. Violence is violence whether it's the initial act or an instigated act in retaliation.

Both are sickening.

But you can't honestly say in a genuine case of retaliation I.e you punched someone you found abusing your child or beating your daughter / partner is and should be treated the same as if someone punched a random in the street?

Everything is situational, surely?

Violence is violence.

Sorry, but you simply can't say that someone should be violently attacked because they've committed a crime. Where do we start drawing the line? Which crimes is it acceptable that we instigate violence on, when do we decide that there should be no violence. You have to draw the line and it has to be zero tolerance - violence is not OK. Ever.

Various circumstances will be taken into account in retaliation, but those crimes will never, and should never, become accepted or normalised. Violence does not cure violence, whether it's premeditated or occurs randomly on the street.

SarcasmMode, I don't know where you get the idea that gang members aren't entitled to protection in prisons, but you're wrong.

Can you really not see that it is never acceptable to condone violent criminals beating up other prisoners? It's not good enough to suggest that they shouldn't have committed the offence if they didn't want to be beaten up - after all, the people doing the beating are also deeply horrible people, why should they be given carte blanche to enjoy themselves maiming others?

Where does the principle stop - if it's OK to beat up paedophiles, why isn't it OK to beat up rapists, murderers, people guilty of serious physical assaults, kidnappers, hijackers, traffickers, drug dealers, bank robbers etc etc? Should we just thrown people into prison and let them fight it out till several end up dead? Where does that leave people who are wrongly convicted?

^ Said much more eloquently than what I am managing at the moment, but exactly my thoughts.

A lot of abusers of children are known and often loved by the child - killing them would do such damage

I would never have told if u felt I would be responsible for someone's death