to think steralisation should be enforced

[claw3]

on anyone who abuses children?

Are you for real?

Ascotmum - You seem to have me all wrong, no one is actually getting castrated or anything else. Just discussing the possibilities

Yes, but you are seriously discussing the possibility of castrating non-sex offenders. I repeat my question - are you for real?

claw3 on Tue 18-Nov-08 10:02:53
"Cory - In baby p's case, a woman would ask questions if his testicles had been removed, surely even the most vulnerable of women wouldnt want to knowing have anything to do with a child abuser?"

You could say the same of a prison sentence. Why would a woman want anything to do with a man who's been to prison for child abuse? Yet women do take up with these men. It's a fact.

They may of course lie about a prison sentence-but then they could equally well lie about the reason for the missing testicles (cancer).

And as I said before- what about those unfortunate cases where it turns out the sentence was a mistake in the first place?

Of course im for real, why would you ask, because im discussing something not everyone is comfortable with?

You must be a pretty inadequate person, Claw3. This level of vindictiveness and stupidity is nearly always found in people who have pretty much failed in life but think it's everyone's fault but theirs.

Another problem with irreversible punishments IMO is that it would make the burden of proof so impossibly high that no jury would be willing to convict. This was a problem in the old death penalty days- people who were probably guilty got off because the jurors were terrified of condemning an innocent man to death. At least if it's only prison you can let them out and apologise.

Cory - If it were known that severe child abusers would be missing a testicle, women would be suspicious, you can lie about a prison sentence, you cant dispute that.

No, because you are coming out with such ill-thought-out ideas which seem to have no relevance to what you claim is important - ie protecting children. Children grow up to be adults, who will have to live in a country where their goolies can be cut off if they are found guilty of harming a child, which as cory has pointed out can happen even when the adult is innocent. Does that seem to be a reasonable and rational response to the actual situation we have in this country? I don't think so!

Why not just tattoo it across their forehead then? And then all the vigilantes will know exactly who to kick in, and all those who want "meagan's law" will have it nice and clear, and we can all keep our children away from the bogeymen.

My dad was the 2nd of 4 children, he was badly beaten and so was his eldest brother had the side of his face grated, his mum tried to break both their kneecaps with a hammer for running in the house.

SS saw this and did nothing (this was the 70's)she went on to have another child who again was badly abused was born practically blind so she used to lock him in his room because he would hurt himself and she was too pissed to do anything about it, then again another until finally SS had to get involoved when after a week they were found in the house filthy aged 6, 4, 3 and 6 months she had pissed off down the pub and went to her mates house and just stayed there. There was no food they said the baby ouldve died if they hadnt fed him water

People seriously need to consider how best to deal with these people personally I think preventing them from having children is better than putting them into care because what's the point in allowing someone who obviously shoudnt have kids to hav one just for that child to have to grow up in care homes being passed from family to family, it's putting the rights of the adult before the rights of the child!

Im not saying I agree with forcible sterilisation I dont know what would be suitable if anything TBH but I wish there was something but I know there are innocents out there, what about the likes of tat 'mother' who quite gleefully admits what she done and laughed when they were reading out Baby P's injuries in court people like her should be, no remorse and not an ounce of care for her child at all!

Can we steer off the name-calling and get Claw to consider a couple of practical questions instead:

there is no evidence that a harsher punitive system makes for a less violent society- all the evidence so far suggests the contrary

innocent people do get convicted under any system. It would be difficult to undo the harm of castration- not only to the innocent victim but to the whole of his family

a punishment that revolts most jurors would almost certainly result in fewer convictions- so more people getting off scot free

castration would not stop a stepfather from beating his step children to death

Solid - This is a public discussion board, people are allowed to give their opinions, thats the whole point of it!

People who dont actually put an opinion across but choose to insult are usually not very open minded and arrogant

claw3 on Tue 18-Nov-08 10:15:56
"Cory - If it were known that severe child abusers would be missing a testicle, women would be suspicious, you can lie about a prison sentence, you cant dispute that."

Right, so that means survivors of testicular cancer will then get mobbed as supposed child abusers. Nice.

And how would you prevent someone from saying they'd had the operation from medical reasons?

Really, you have not thought this one through.

And if somebody was innocently punished, they would carry a sign that would label them as child abusers at every medical check-uop throughout their lives. Can you rebuild a testicle?

Could i just make it clear what a discussion is for those who are wishing to jump on the insult band wagon! A discussion is when people who have opposing views, discuss

and your calling me stupid

It is onnlya discussion it will never happened and I think OP knows that it's just one iof those things we feel strongly about and then realise it is never going to be reality but if youve posted on here you kind of have to keep fighting your corner.

We've all done it well I have

Cory - IMO in the most severe cases of child abuse, there is no medical reason for those injuries ie pulled out nails, broken bones, cigarette burns etc. I know there are some disorders that can cause broken bones, skin problems etc. But im sure no children would be affected with all of these disordered and had not sought any medical intervation for it?

Claw, can't you just concentrate on discussing things with those of us who do want a discussion.

I have made 5 objections to your argument in recent post (castration no bar to violence, irreversibility=equals fewer convictions, harsher punitive system=more violence in society, irreversible punishemnt=fewer convictions, lots of sound medical reasons for missing testicles)- could you just please meet those?

I would be horrified at the thought of living in a society where anyone missing a testicle would be branded a child abuser. Have you any idea of how many men that might involve?

Mama - thank you, a ray of light shines on the thread

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

I think Claw3 is getting a bit of a hard time here. It is fairly natural imo to want someone to be punished for what has happened to this poor child. Even if you filter through the tabloid sensationalisation what happened to this baby is abhorrant and it is a sad indicaton of our present judicial system that a lot of people feel that the punishment those responsible are likely to recieve won't fit the crime.
I don't personally think castration or sterilisatin is the answer but I can understand what might motivate someone to suggest this. The majority of us can't comprehend how someone could do those things to a child or stand by and watch it happen and then cover it up. Knee jerk reactions are inevitable and name calling doesn't really help.

Cory - Baby P for example, are you suggesting that he might be innocent? or baby P had another medical reason for his injuries?

I dont think there is any doubt in anyones mind about it?

Well, if claw would like to say something like "I know it won't happen, and it's actually a bad idea because of all the valid points people have made, I just want something to be done" then I'm sure we'd all be happy to accept that it's an emotional reaction to a child being hurt rather than a serious suggestion. The problem for me is that there are a lot of people out there baying for blood and not thinking through the very real consequences of this kind of policy, and a lot of politicians who are so keen to do what the public wants that they would listen and seriously consider this kind of thing.