to think steralisation should be enforced

[claw3]

on anyone who abuses children?

Rebeklmum?

there is a difference between putting people in prison, they still have control over their bodies , it is different to be forcibly drugged and operated on.

where would the line be drawn? who would police the people doing state sanctioned operations of this nature? it would be a system open to corruption and abuse

there are miscarriages of justice from tiem to time, you cannot then unsterilise or unhang or unmaim someoen if that was the 'justice' meted out to them, but you can take smeone back out of prison.

there are huge moral and ethical implications to what is suggested.

so, abusers are sterilised. then who next? alcoholics? drug addicts? people with SN? with a different skin colour? certain hereditary diseases? and so it goes...

I don;t think we should know where sex offenders are, vigilantes have been known to attack the wrong people, including a peadiatrician in one famous episode.

i protect my children to the best of my abilities, and knowing the man/woman down the road was a sex offender would not make a difference to how i parent as i keep them safe and with me , their dad or a responsible adult etc......

also, a sex offender could be someone who has had a consensual relatinship at the age of 15 with someone aged 17?

And when they've been beaten, and get out of prison, will that make them behave better? Or will that reinforce their own attitude that violence is the only way to deal with situations you don't like? Will the experience of being hurt and terrified turn them into sensitive people with empathy for the children they victimised, or will it just leave them looking for someone smaller and more defenceless to hurt?

"We all know how unefficient SS can be. "

Do we? We only hear about the cases where it's gone wrong, what about the thousands upon thousands of cases that have been handled perfectly well?

I have a friend who is a social worker in child protection. It is one of the hardest, most underpaid, most underappreciated jobs in our country today. They work extremely hard in frequently impossible situations, where the choices they have to make are incredibly complex and will never result in a good outcome either way. And people like you make these glib comments about how inefficient they are.

Personally I'm fed up to the back teeth of all this social worker bashing. They're not the ones abusing children, and yet from some of the comments on here you'd think they'd killed Baby P themselves.

Do we blame the police for the crimes committed by criminals? No. We ask them to do their best to catch the criminals, and we realise that they may not be able to bring everyone to justice. And yet we expect social workers to make the right choice, every time.

We shoudn't blame social workers for child abuse, or expect them to be infallible.

"I don;t think we should know where sex offenders are, vigilantes have been known to attack the wrong people, including a peadiatrician in one famous episode."

this.unfortunately the general public are not intelligent or responsible enough to be trusted with such information. the only thing that will result from making such information public would be to increase the sale of pitchforks and to drive sexual offenders underground. it is much better to have a system where responsible officials know the exact where abouts of such criminals and they have to check in regularly with local police, than to have a vigilante state of affairs which would mean no sexual offender would ever check in woth ppolice.they would go on the run and off the radar from the authorities.

exactly - look at claw referring to baby p's dad instead of stepdad - that kind of error can lead to the wrong person being lynched.

it's not up to us, and it shouldn't be up to us.

lulu - We force feed prisoners who wont eat, thereby forcibly taking control of their bodies. Just seems to me that abusers have more rights, than the victims.

no we don't - didn't force feeding go out with suffragettes?

and what about the IRA hunger strikers who died?

Message withdrawn

so, if we don;t agree with forcible sterlisation we think abusers have /should have more rights thn the abused?

the reason the argument does not work is because it is unenforceable.

it can;t be done

rather than meting out savage punishments, child protection issues need addressing, parents need to be helped , these situations need nipping in the bud.

did you see my post re where would it stop if your forcibly sterilised abusers?

there is so much more to this issue than the perpertrators of the abuse. it is not as simple as kill em/hang em/ batter them/ sterilise t hem

if it was, then the death penalty would have stopped people committing murder decades ago

Whatfresh - Exactly we only hear about cases, when they go horrifically wrong, sometimes SS are unefficient.

i expect sometimes you're inefficient claw. sometimes doctors get it wrong, sometimes we all get it wrong. and sometimes, we try and try and try but the way that the system works doesn't allow us to do what we think is right.

tossing out casual comments like 'we all know how unefficient SS are' is not helpful or constructive.

Whatfresh - no it didnt, prisoners are force feed as voluntary starvation to the point of death is suicide and we dont allow suicide.

Any future children of the mother of Baby P will be taken away thus taking child protection out of the equation.

So, the purpose of sterilizing would be for punishment

Mayorquimby: the majority of abusers are men. Just like the majority of rapists are men, yet most rape-prevention campaigns are about modifying women's behaviour.
It is also true that the majority of men are not abusers, but there is still too much emphasis on women managing men's violence and placating them rather than on condeming the violence and campaigning to change violent men's behavhiour.

CLaw3: in the early 1980s several IRA prisoners did starve themselves to death. ANd what do you mean we 'don't allow suicide'? It used to be illegal to commit suicide (though how the perpetrators were supposed to be punished I do not know) but it no longer is.

It is a human right to have children. Personally I think it should be seen as a privilege, not a right. I am disturbed by the fact that people who have abused this right, can go on to have more, thats all.

Perhaps you should have to apply for a license or something before becoming parents.

hmmmm, and who would adminster the license system, claw? the 'unefficient social services'?

none of us have the right make that judgment about our fellows.

So, claw, how would you administer the system? Would you force all women without a permit to have contraceptive injections, even if it gave them bad side-effects? Or would you force them to have abortions if they got pregnant without a license? Or just withhold benefits from families who sprogged illegaly?

Do you not think that curtailing everyone else's rights in the attempt to "protect" children would end up with us living in a society where no-one's rights mattered?