I’d want to do the same - mother kills children’s abuser

[HermioneKipper]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sarah-sands-kill-sex-abuse-paedophile-b2231508.html

i think any parent would do the same if given the chance

Define "paedophiles". Is it the whole gamut from those who have abused children regularly all the way to someone who accessed a low level photograph twenty years ago but has never done anything else? If not, where do you draw the line?

And what if someone is convicted wrongly? How do we give their lives back to them?

Which option involves this man not raping children again?

And she did turn herself in - she did a strong thing that this man himself refused to do. She took ownership of her actions.

Onnabugeisha The other option would have been a pathetic sentence (if one at all) and back out to reoffend. People are sick of sick child rapists protected and allowed back into our communities. This is what happens when the justice system isn’t fit for purpose.

*seeing

lagioconda what do you define as a ‘low level photograph?’ That’s an interesting turn of phrase. Photographs of abuse are photographs of abuse. They are pictures of innocent little children being hurt, whatever ‘level’ or category they are placed in. It is also well known that as sex offenders become ‘immune’ to those ‘low level’ photographs, they will seek out more explicit content. Do you know what ‘hurtcore’ is? There can be no grey area for these people. It’s black and white. If you enjoy viewing images of children being sexually abused, you are a paedophile and you must be removed from society. Whether they are physically hurting the child themselves or not, someone is and they are getting off on it.

Or the pubescent children and young teenagers who realise their developing sexual attraction is abnormal but have nowhere to turn to ask for help.

You bloody well do. I'd happily do time to protect my babies.

Well it sort of depends on the severity what they did tbh how long the sentence should be. I would argue life sentence if say their abuse of a child led to that child committing suicide.

Once they’ve done their time, I think they should be chipped like a pet and live under strict restrictions. As in can’t go within 100m of a school or nursery. They should only be permitted to live in adult only communities. Be allowed only minor freedom to go between work and home. Be barred from all domestic and international travel so they don’t do child abuse tourism. The government is quite capable of setting up the software to real time track chipped people and use geo-location so an alarm goes off of they violate this. They should not be permitted to change their name by deed poll so DBS checks work. They should be added to the watch list so their online activity is constantly monitored.

I don’t think a child sex offender should get housing, board, medical care for life on my taxes unless their actions resulted in a child losing their life. I know prison isn’t nice, but I think they should still have to work a job to house and feed themselves. There’s plenty of decent people starving to death, dying of lack of heat, homeless on the streets so why should a child sex offender have it better?
I don’t think the cost to keep them warm and fed and healthy is something I should contribute to.

The justice system is much improved compared to the past. It is a work in progress.

Let's start with those who have a proven conviction for repeatedly sexually assaulting children. See if they can get that right to begin with?

I think there's a chance I would have done the same to my brother's abuser if I had known who he was.
Not now though, because I have kids to worry about.

I have to agree with you but I can see how she ended up doing what she did.
I think for her children, although they say they felt better knowing he was dead, They would have felt better having their mum and knowing he was in prison. They might have even felt guilt that she was in prison which makes it even worse.

In doing what this woman did, she has sunk to his level. Both convicted of incredibly serious crimes. She's no better than he is now.

Why does a child have to have committed suicide for you to deem the actions of that paedophile bad enough that he must go to prison for life? That makes no sense. Google Shy Keenan and Stanley Claridge. Shy is an incredible woman. She suffered horrendous abuse. She didn’t kill herself. Does that mean that Stanley Claridge doesn’t deserve life inside on the basis that Shy was able to try and work through her trauma to help others?

Those microchips you’re referring to. You know that they’d find a way to remove those don’t you? You’re aware we’ve had electronic tagging for years? Plenty of those people disappear off the radar. The police and the government do not have the manpower to monitor these people day and night.

Its interesting that a main concern of yours appears to be how much tax you’d potentially pay keeping a paedophile in prison for life. I’m assuming you are a net contributor? Do you use the NHS? State schools? You’d rather a sex offender was out in the community potentially having contact with children if it meant your taxes were safe?

Onnabugeisha Tell that to the children let down everyday by the justice system.

Yes that’s right learnercook, this woman is no better than a man who has over 20 convictions for sexually assaulting children 🤔 In the nicest possible way, why don’t you go back to looking for those flat shoes you were posting about a couple of weeks ago.

The problem is that we will never know for sure what he did or didn't do in relation to this accusation because he never came to trial.

I so agree its why I don't get the death penelty.

Theres no punishment or suffering in death the suffering is only for the living and death won't undo whats done and fix it it just adds more people too the trauma/grief.

Erm she didn't rape children did she?

She served four years in prison not eight.
In fact, her original sentence was 3 and a half but lengthened to 7 and a half on appeal on the grounds that it was too lenient. Had the original sentence stood, Sarah would have been out and with her boys sooner.
They spent four years with their grandma and weren't allowed out that much.
Nonetheless, one still said hats off to his mum and good, when he found out what she had done.
She did her crime and her time = personally, I think the original sentence was the correct one. Had he been tracked, monitored and not been allowed to change names then her kids would not have been preyed upon.
I am sure research and therapy have shown that you cannot rehabilitate paedophiles or change their mindset, so society should be safeguarding the vulnerable.

A veneer of what? Not wanting it to be legal for men to rape and abuse children?

It isn't legal for men to rape and abuse children, and no-one has suggested it should be. This sort of argument really exposes its own weaknesses.

The problem is that we will never know for sure what he did or didn't do in relation to this accusation because he never came to trial

Pleasted, who also went by the name of Robin Moult, had 24 previous convictions for sexual offences spanning three decades. He served sentences of between nine months and six years for sex crimes that included indecent assaults on a boys aged under 16 and under 14.

I believe her three children.

I’ve already explained this upthread. I wasn’t saying it’s officially legal, I was saying in a system where a man can rape and abuse children as much as he likes then change his name and find new victims, it’s naive to say ‘oh she should have let him suffer for life in jail!’

She set out to threaten him to prevent her children having to stand up in court and give evidence against him.

If all she wanted to do was threaten him, why take a dirty great knife with her? And why not call an ambulance?

lagioconda Did you have any follow up on my post re CSA images?