To think people like this should be imprisoned for life

[Judeap]

3 men found guilty of abusing children

There is no rehabilitation for people like this; they'd do it again if they could get away with it

I’d be in favor of physical castration and would expect that would be penis as well as testicles. My hope would be that we could stop many of these from becoming fathers and slowly erradicate whatever diabolical genes they possess from the gene pool. The latter would be a bonus of the castration, not the aim (before I have a pile on with people saying ‘next we would be doing this to bipolar or depressed people).

I have to say I just don’t care what happens to sex offenders. Their victims have to live with their abuse forever, I don’t see why men get to carry on with their lives just fine and dandy after their prison sentences.

@itsgettingweird

People who commit these sorts of crimes are evaluated, and if it's deemed necessary, they are sent to psychiatric institutions.

A lot of the UK's most infamous serial killers were sexual sadists, paedophiles, ephebophiles and so on, and as a result, ended up in Broadmoor, Carstairs, or Rampton.

If you are arguing that anyone who commits a sexual offence should automatically be placed in a secure mental facility, then fair enough, I can understand the viewpoint, but that would have severe ramifications for the entire field of psychiatry, the medical model, how we classify illnesses v's personality disorder, and also open up arguments about sexual offenders not being fit to be tried as criminals in the first place.

What it really boils down to, it is not an offence to simply "be" a paedophile, or feel sexual urges toward children, or have aberrant sexual thoughts about any other group or individual. It only becomes criminal once a criminal act has taken place, whereas you are talking about locking people up simply because they express a behaviour, even if they have not necessarily acted upon it.

It's well understood people who commit CSA often cannot be rehabilitated easily and often through the judiciary system

Which suggests that as yet, we're garbage at rehabilitating them, and simply have not figured out a way to achieve this effectively. The "they can't be rehabilitated" argument doesn't wash with me. First of all, that's crushingly depressing, but more importantly, if it were true then reoffending rates would be 100%. It's clear that we do actually successfully rehabilitate some people who commit sexual offences. The problem is first of all getting rates of offending down to begin with, then lowering the rate of re-offending, and then you put the remaining lot who genuinely can not be rehabilitated and will always pose a risk somewhere where they can not be a threat to the public.

We do need to find a better way. This can't be allowed to keep happening

Indeed, and I've always found it completely bizarre that, in the UK at least, the way we deal with paedophiles is sit around and wait for them to commit an offence, then deal with the aftermath. If your main goal is to protect children, and surely that's unquestionably what it should be about, then it seems to me that you ought to at least attempt to address the issue before children are assaulted. In some other countries people can voluntarily disclose things about themselves and receive treatment without being criminalised, but here there is no real avenue to do that which doesn't involve opening a whole can of worms, disclosures to all sorts of agencies that most people want as little to do with as possible, and potentially landing yourself on registers and so on, all because you happen to disclose something because you are worried about your own thoughts.

There's a lot of "throw away the key" attitudes about, and comparatively little in the way of "how do we prevent this happening", which is bizarre because the first relies on a crime having taken place, the latter aims to prevent it happening at all. We need to have a serious rethink.

I don’t understand that last bit at all…

Labelling something an illness does not mean that the ill person cannot be detained if their actions cause harm to themselves or others.

Even people experiencing mental illness and who are in a crisis, being cared for within secure psychiatric facilities can be charged with criminal offences e.g. arson (for setting fire to their own hospital bed), or physical assault charges (for fighting back and attacking staff when staff are attempting to restrain them) etc.

I can’t think of a single instance where someone is allowed to do anything without repercussions, regardless of the risk they pose, simply because they are ill.

You’re right that there is very damaging stigma around mental illness and the insinuation that mental illness equals risk to others.

However, some people who commit crimes also have mental illness.

And someone who harms another person but is deemed to have diminished responsibility due to illness, may not go to prison… but they do go to forensic secure psychiatric hospitals and they do have their freedom taken away, and they can be forced to undergo treatment against their will etc.

Calling something an illness doesn’t mean no consequences… it just means they are more likely to receive a societal response that incorporates meaningful assessment and more thorough risk management alongside their detention in a locked facility, so we can learn the best way to protect future potential victims.

I’ve never seen someone harm another person and the law respond with ‘oh that’s totally fine because they’re ill so it’s not their fault’ (can you give examples of this?)

In psychiatric services, I’ve never experienced anyone say, ‘oh it’s fine for them to carry on doing x,y,z because they are experiencing mental illness’.

You are in danger of conflating two very different things- mental illness that causes no harm to others versus mental illness that poses serious harm to others. Both exist.

When you've located these genes, and proven there is a genetic cause of aberrant behaviour, then you have some sort of point. Until then, this is nothing more than typical Eugenics nonsense.

I’m beginning to wonder how many people who are posting read the article? This has nothing to do with mental illness.

I’d suggest death penalty but they’d get off lightly so it’s a life imprisonment from me with absolutely no perks at all. No playing pool, no getting a prison job, no rehabilitation. Sit in your room & have a shit life. Just like your victims.

@amoobaa

I suggested that there is an argument to be had, not that "ill" people are invariably not responsible for their actions.

We hold the rights of children paramount, quite correctly so. Crimes against children will always have consequences for those committing them.

The argument part is where and when you consider someone criminally responsible, and where you determine that they genuinely are not fit to be held criminally responsible.

If someone is in the grip of a delusional psychosis at the point where they commit an act, they are undeniably ill and not in a position to be considered to be fully aware of what they were doing. Nobody suggests it's their own fault or that they are somehow responsible for being "ill", so if you reclassify personality disorders as illnesses, you are opening up an argument that suddenly psychopaths are no longer responsible for their own psychopathic behaviours etc.

It's a semantic point really, but it would potentially have consequences for where people committing criminal acts end up, how they are treated, and also potentially see people deemed to be unfit who currently would be deemed fit. It's not just a simple question of changing one or two things, or "throwing the book" at people who commit certain offences. The language is important. Deeming all sexual offenders "ill" and requiring hospitalisation would mean a total re-write of psychiatry, DSM, ICD, and all the things they underpin in Law and Justice. That does not mean letting people go free or ignoring criminal acts.

I’ve never seen someone harm another person and the law respond with ‘oh that’s totally fine because they’re ill so it’s not their fault’ (can you give examples of this?)

No, because first of all, I don't believe I've suggested this either happens currently, or that it would, merely that it would likely change the criterion regarding who is deemed criminal and held in general prison population, and who is deemed to be in need of treatment in a secure hospital. This is what I mean by "criminalised", i.e. whether the offender is regarded and treated as a simple criminal, or whether they are treated as someone requiring psychiatric care primarily. Obviously there are cases where the individual is both simultaneously, but there are from time to time unusual cases where the criminal trial is foregone because the accused is deemed unfit, and they are remanded to a secure facility immediately. i.e. it's clear that a criminal trial is not in the public interest, but immediate, ongoing detainment and psychiatric treatment is. Personally I don't consider these people criminals, even though they may have committed acts that would ordinarily result in a criminal trial.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX I don’t disagree with what you’re saying.

A total re-write of psychiatry, DSM, ICD, and all the things they underpin in Law and Justice would be a good idea in my opinion. There’s so much wrong with so many areas of practice, I think mostly due to our own ignorance- still so much to learn… and of course the lack of investment in research and resources.

It's been repeatedly proven that chemical castration doesn't work.
Basically the cruel streak of paedophiles remains and children are then more at risk of being murdered due to the trauma of internal injuries when being raped with objects. Or murdered out of frustration.
And I don't think most sex offenders can be rehabilitated, I think some don't reoffend out of lack of opportunity.
For example a man with access to a family member who is a child, he he gets caught he no longer has the means to abuse, the desire is still there, just no opportunity to commit these crimes.
I think the sentencing for sex offences, especially to children, is a fucking joke.

I think what also doesn't seem to worry child sex offenders is when they are caught and imprisoned they're segregated with other offenders who have done similar. So there is no shame. Prison isn't tough enough for them and worst case they make contacts on the outside world with other men of the same predilection. So besides their freedoms removed, the actual punishment isn't a tough ride.

They will go to a prison specifically for sex offenders....they will all mix together

Some people shouldn't be out in society. They can't be rehabilitated. Often they seem to have no interest in changing. If they're violent, they need to be kept away from others. Personally, I think some of them should be put to death, but failing that, they should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Frankly, even if mental illness is involved, violent rapists, murderers, and attempted murderers still shouldn't allowed near innocent people, children or adults.