to think steralisation should be enforced

[claw3]

on anyone who abuses children?

What about a number you could call if you were a parent or a relative of a child being abused - an emergency immediate help needed. Or just be able to take a child to a police station and hand them over if they were at risk.

But claw you can't say "It would stop at sterilisation". You might think that sterilising child-abusers is a simple straightforward thing which would have no implications for anything else, but the law (and civilised society) just doesn't work that way. To bring in compulsory sterilisation as a punishment would overturn basic principles of law to do with people's rights, and what is acceptable as punishment under international law. It would also completely overturn the principles that doctors claim to believe in.

That's just not going to happen, and shouldn't happen.

We don't have corporal punishment in this country - if you brought in one form of corporal punishment, why not others? There are plenty of people out there who would argue for bringing back the birch, and probably a few who'd want to cut off thieves hands.

And doctors - if you change their role from helping the patient to damaging the patient for punishment, what else would that allow to be done in the name of "society"?

It raises a question about the nature of justice. What is it?

If it is all about retribution, then clearly any sanctions which a court can impose in relation to any particularly violent crime are insufficient. However, I think (and hope) it is about more than that. It is about finding a punishment for a crime whilst at the same time saying that all violence against an individual, even (or perhaps especially) violence sanctioned by authority is wrong. It also acknowledges the possibilty of rehabilitation and that most people are not inherently evil and are capable of change.

Once society goes back to allowing violence to be commited in the name of justice, where does it stop? I don't think that anyone would now argue that the Inquisition was appropriate, yet for many at the time it was a reasoned response to heresy. Who is qualified to make judgements of this sort?

claw3...there is actually a discussion going on

Countess has a good point- what if someone is unjustly accused? There is a good reason why SS are sometimes reluctant to intervene, and that is that they know child abuse is not always that easy to diagnose.

We were suspected of child abuse at one stage, because a consultant paeditrician said dd must have suffered emotional trauma to believe she had joint pains when the x-rays showed there was nothing wrong.

Subsequent investigations showed that dd has a rare genetic joint disorder which means that she will always have these pains and will always be disabled to some extent. There are ways of testing for this condition, but not enough doctors know about it. This particular doctor did not.

It was traumatic enough at the time, but at least we've been able to heal and move on. And the scary thing is that the majority of people who suffer from this particular condition go through a period when they are not believed. Children have been taken into care for this reason. So that would be a lot of parents castrated then.

There have also been cases when parents have been suspected of child abuse when the child has later turned out to have a serious medical condition such as a brain tumour.

So what would you do then? A child can be returned to its parents with an apology (if it hasn't died due to lack of treatment, as did happen in one pubilicised case), but what would you do about the castration? Oh sorry, what a shame.

Life should mean life then these people wouldn't put others in danger once let out early.

re taking a kid to the police station. Well, you can do just that. That is exactly what the (heroic IMO) taxi driver did when he saw Victoria Climbie in such a state in the back of his cab. Drove straight to the police station and refused to be intimidated by her terrifying 'aunt'. I think we should all be proactive if we think a child is in trouble. The problem is, the state can't take a child into care just because someone has brought a kid to a police station, thank God!

But the discussion isn't saying "Oo yes claw you're so right" so it doesn't count

finally! if this poor child had lived his life chances would probably have steered him towards crime, drugs, prison and possible abuse himself... so what would we do with him then?

cupsoftea - but, without the possibility of parole, there's little incentive for prisoners to take part in rehabilitation. And the jails are too full already!

LOL AMIS I missed that salient point

i think a civilised society should always aim for rehabilitation wherever possible...
I very much distrust kneejerk reactions in response to a particular case...partly as so much emotion is involved

Has nothing to do with "oo yes im so right", obviously the whole point of a discussion is to listen to everyones point of view. I have no problem with that.

What im objecting to is people telling me "oh ffs" and thats their whole point!!"you look thick" "DM reader" because im not agreeing with them etc, etc.

Has no bearing on the discussion, i have no problem with people disagreeing me

Lol at this thread, MMJ and CD.

it's because they are a bit thick i'm afraid, lulub.

Amuminscotland said exactly what I wanted to - just didn't know how to put it into words.

I recently read a book about ancient rome, and was staggered by how cruel life was in a supposed civilisation, and then realised that it was due in part to the power held by the state, and that state sanctioned punishments like being sewn into a bag with a cockeral, a snake and a dog before being thrown into a river, simply reinforced the general cruelty of day to day life.

NOt putting it very well, but to me, the introduction of forcible sterilisation, like any form of corporal punishment, is out of the question,

Of course abuse can warp and break children, but not all abuse comes from a position of abuse. Drink and drugs play a big part too, from what I can gather. And of course, the boyfriend factor. This woman's children seemed - and I say seemed because I don't know any more - when she was with her husband and when she was on her own, briefly. The sadism started when the horrendous boyfriend and his horrific mate moved in. This seems to be a common factor in so many of the worst abuse cases - a non-blood relative taking charge of a child. The compliance of the woman is appalling, but is also sometimes caused by violence perpetrated by the boyfriend.

By claw3 on Mon 17-Nov-08 11:06:24
"Has nothing to do with "oo yes im so right", obviously the whole point of a discussion is to listen to everyones point of view. I have no problem with that.

What im objecting to is people telling me "oh ffs" and thats their whole point!!"you look thick" "DM reader" because im not agreeing with them etc, etc.

Has no bearing on the discussion, i have no problem with people disagreeing me "

Good. So will you answer my entirely factual point. What do you do with those who have been unjustly accused? You can always return their children and let them out of prison- but what would you do about a castration?

i don't know much about the facts of the case, it's really just a hypothetical... if the boy had, as often happens, gone on to abuse as well, i take it we'd be lining up to torture him, as is happening on other threads?

Setting to one side the HUGE human rights/eugenics issues raised here....

Stepparents are 60x more likely to be involved in the abuse of children than natural parents, and that rises to 100x in children under five. (Daly and Wilson, 1994) The breakdown of families and the introduction of people who are not the genetic parent to the household is by far the biggest risk factor.

No easy answers then. More support for families in crisis to stop them breaking up?? Extension of 'Megan's Law' to allow parents to check whether prospective boyfriends (for it is usually them) have convictions?

Sorry Cory, missed your question.

Thats a good point, perhaps it should only be used in the most severe cases

Be wary of wailing over the evils of present-day society as the cause of what happened here. Violent abuse and murder of one's own children has happened throughout human history with varying degrees of social indifference (think of kids sent up chimneys, baby farmers,infanticide) - often sentimentality goes hand in hand with ignoring cruelty if it's only happening among the undeserving poor, or foreigners. The Victorians made a big deal about childhood 'innocence' and all that but weren't in that much of a hurry to stop the children of the poor being sold to brothels or sent down the mines.

Present-day society actually does rather better for victims of domestic abuse, because present day Western society no longer really accepts that men own their female partners and their DC and are therefore entitled to hit them, control them and even kill them. WHile the conviction rate for domestic abusers is not as high as it could be, and there are still too many cases of people repeatedly warning how dangerous an abuser is and being ignored, at least the problem is named and recognised, not shunted away as 'private'.

IN general, using state cruelty to stop crime doesn't work. It never has done. So far in human progress, no society has yet figured out a way of stopping violence and cruelty altogether. The usual tabloidy baying for mass executions/mass flower strewing and tear-shedding does no one any favours.

The multiple-partner, fleeting boyfriends set up does seem harmful to children though - lots of studies back this up. In this case apparently the mother was able to hide the fact that the house she lived in was shared with a snake-owning, nazi-obsessed boyfriend, his mate who was living with a 15 year old 'girlfriend' (victim) and I think four other children. I find that baffling. But we are told nobody realised. If they had it should have rung huge alarm bells about the set up.
There seems to be an assumption here that the mother here was abused or that the boyfriends were, but there is certainly so far no evidence of it. They might have been, but they might well not.

actually baby farming is a good example of what happens when babies are looked after by people who are not their parents and have no attachment or commitment to the children (ie not adoptive parents, foster parents, loving step-parents etc)