to think steralisation should be enforced

[claw3]

on anyone who abuses children?

Yes, but you don't have to butcher someone or intrude on their person to prevent them from keeping an animal

It's an emotional reaction, not a solution FGS. Start thinking and stop foaming at the mouth.

I rarely foam at the mouth nowdays!

What would you suggest we do?

Thanks Eleanor

My dad and siblings all turned out not bad not one of them has ever raised a hand to any of their children!

That is why it annoys me when people scream that it should be excused in anyway it doesnt the abused have a choice and when they turn into the abusers they lose my sympathy as with the other ladies on here who were abused, it doesnt ever make it right.

And before anyone says my dad came from a very low class family and we have never been particularly well off so none of the middle class stuff a human is a human regardless of their 'class' we all make our own decisions.

Who decided who belongs to a class anyway? We shouldnt be looking down at the lower classes if thats what some would like to call them we should be giving them more support.

I would suggest a decent level of psychiatric treatment and assessment in prison, coupled with the possibility of permanent incarceration if the risk of reoffending is judged to remain critical. In cases where trained professionals have been properly funded to carry out thorough treatment programmes and judge that the person is safe to be released, I think closer supervision and support in the outside community should be in place. Also a complete overhaul of the training, procedures and admission criteria for people working in social care/family support roles is urgent.

People moan about proper, sensible attempts to devise solutions, because they are mean, myopic and selfish - violence and pitchfork-waving is much cheaper and more gratifying

But I think as a civilised society we should be prepared to pay for measures which provide us with better security and a sounder long-term way of meeting thes problems, which are a feature of the species and are not going to simply go away. Then maybe we too can have safe streets, but without the need to virtually cut people in half with brine-soaked flexible sticks

Green - after they have been to prison, served their time, received counselling and turned over a new leaf and are now deemed 'safe' would you leave your children with them?

I doubt it very much, people who defend the 'under dog' are happy to do so as long as it doesnt affect them.

We wouldnt trust these people with our own kids, but we set them free on the rest of society, bit like passing the buck.

Why on earth would I be in the position of leaving my children with them? Under my proposal they would be under permanent close supervision, on the sex offenders' register and offered the protection they need both to prevent attacks on them and to prevent them from being placed in situations in which they might be tempted to reoffend.

Re: forcibly sterilising female offenders this is an ugly and childish idea which few people would really support [I hope]. Female sex offenders are extremely rare in any case - but in their cases I would want ongoing psychiatric and social supervision and support such that if a pregnancy arose, informed decisions could be made about the future of that child.

I would be happier if they were longer sentences as I dont think 14 years is long enough would be much happier if a life sentence IE full 25 years no parole, ongoing support and tagging for the rest of their lives as well as sex offenders and there should be a child abuse register too that we could check.

hyperthetically speaking of course, would you leave your kids?

Under your proposal would close supervision be 24 hours a day?

How many chances would a women be given?

What do you mean how many chances?

No, I wouldn't leave my children with her.

Supervision and support in the community should be permanent.

If the woman was judged likely to reoffend she would in any case still be in prison.

And if doubts arose in the minds of the team treating/supervising, the child's future with its mother would be in question.

A women abuses her child, goes to prison for what say 3 years, comes out, has another one, abuses that child etc, etc. How many children does she have to harm before enough is enough? bearing in mind, ss like to keep children with their parents.

You wouldnt trust this women with your child, just her own?

have not read the thread just title caught my eye, i think people who abuse neglect their childen should definatly have it enforced as part of a law and also those idiotic dads who sack their kids of and go on to have more who they dont stay to look after either. babies are wasted on these fools

suggest you read the whole thread, hayley!

if you're able

If SS think there is a risk she might harm the child, she'll be supervised closely. If they think there's a high risk, they will probably take the baby from her at birth. The baby is then very likely to be put up for adoption, unless she can argue that she is dealing with the problems and can convince SS to let the child stay in a foster home for a bit longer till she can prove herself able to cope.

i will say again, for all those who do agree with the notion of enforced sterilisation:

would you be prepared to administer the chemicals that could do it? or be involved somehow?

do you want your chidlren brought up in a society with fascist leanings, where woudl it end? would mothers with previous mental illness such as PND, PTSD or puerpural psychosis be forcibly sterilised? or those with SN?

sterilisation is a simplistic knee jerk reaction that solves nothing

I'm not claiming that the current system is perfect in every way, or that the decisions made are 100% correct. Just that this kind of emotional knee-jerk "make them suffer" / "rip their balls off" / "ruin what's left of their lives" reaction to a headline case is not the way that policy should be decided.

i think that believing sterilisation is the answer presumes that people who are abusive/ neglectful are born not made. and that there are no societal influences, such as poverty, drugs, alcohol etc etc etc that conspire to create hideous living circumstances where families are so far removed from normality that this sort of abuse happens.

it is far easier to say hang em/ flog em and forget that even when we had capital punishment, people still committed crimes

Greenselves what do think about Baby P's mother boasting she thought she would be out for Christmas.

Then watch this bearing satire is an absurdity of RL.

oh well i guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Im off now

It's just "make them suffer - they deserve it". Which, so far as I can see, is not much different from the mentality of those who make the children suffer in the first place, for whatever imagined reason they think it's justifiable.

This kind of attitude makes me despair of humanity just as much as the headline cruelty cases do. I'll be joining you in the head-banging I think!

Eleanor watching that really comes into a different light now I used to laugh at that

Abuse a child and you get a cuppa and a nice chat with a counsellor, then go back to your cell to watch tv or the gym to work out!

We have created a nation of hyper sensitive, pc correct crybabies.

Yep im a senseless, mindless thug, who wants to see justice served.

I really am off now for a cuppa.

there is a middle ground to be had between what oyu describe and hang em flog em

you are discounting everythng that has been said on teh thread, so not only are YBU, you are not actually thinking more about this!

so what was the point of asking??

I have not discounted everything, i have already stated that my theory might not be the best and that im just frustrated at seeing abusers literally get away with murder.

There have been lots of good replies, hang em probably being the cheapest!

I really, really am off now

ok then ! it has certainly been thought provoking and provoking generally.