.....re the Baby P case and others like...

[JimJammum]

I realise that, as the death penalty is no longer in effect, and assuming someone doesn't get hold of those scums and d the job we all want done....Is is unreasonable to expect that anyone male or female found guilty of child abuse should be sterilised??? At least then they wouldn't be able to have any more kids themselves to neglect, seeing as SS are unable to protect them.

While I'm ranting on the subject, I give money every month to NSPCC and have been called today by fundraisers for Save the Children....where are these charities and their support in cases such as this?? Can't SS use them and their funds/workers/whatever to assist them if necessary? Am I being too simplistic?

runs away and hides from Gillyan who seems a bit loopy

and Of course people behaved so appallingly 100 years ago - in fact institutional abuse was much more acceptable, think about poor houses, the numbers of children who dies before they were 5, lack of education etc etc.

Re "out and Out" cases - who decides what an "out and out" case is?

Hmm out and out cases, baby lying in a blood splattered cot with a broken spine?? Surely SOMEONE somewhere can decided what is obvious abuse, surely we can use common sense where appropiate.

As i said I do realise abuse has always gone on I just mean that there is no fear of authorities anymore, like with all the gangs etc.

I am not 'loopy' just expressing my opinion.

The only thing that I have to say on the baby P case, is why the hell has this specific case gotten so much attention? What about the other children that die in similar circumstances every week?

As for the OP. Yes you are being very simplistic, and pretty stupid.

I really don't think I'm loopy for thinking we should experiment/execute on these monsters, I'm sure you's feel the same yourself if something (god forbid) ever happended to a child of your own.

I just can't imagine how I would feel if something happended to my DD if her perpetrator was caught..and then what...put in prison and rehabilitated back into the commmunity?

I just think if our justice system was more harsh 'maybe' people wouldn't behave so recklesly.

I am talking about people that have been found guilty of awful crimes.

Gillyan on Fri 08-May-09 11:49:38
"Hmm out and out cases, baby lying in a blood splattered cot with a broken spine??"

doesn't prove that this one particular person did it

and btw there are medical conditions that cause broken bones

there are medical conditions that cause great big open wounds for no apparent reasons
(Ehlers Danlos syndrome is one of them)

as they are often undiagnosed until something happens, the parents will then be in a situation where they have to explain "he did it by rolling over in his cot"; "he got this wound through crawling on the carpet"

obviously, if you only apply common sense, they won't have a hope in hell

we all know that you can't get broken bones or great gaping wounds in this way

except of course- if you can

Gillyan on Fri 08-May-09 11:53:51

"I am talking about people that have been found guilty of awful crimes."

Gillyan, what we are trying to explain is that some people are found guilty of awful crimes because the jury has made a mistake. It happens!!! Think of the Birmingham Six. Terrorism is a dreadful crime. They just happened to be innocent. They were still found guilty.

FGS I wish you people would read what I've said properly before commenting. I never said I don't believe child abuse never happened 100 yrs ago. I said " I realise abuse has always gone on but just can't get my head round people behaving so appaulingly 100 years ago" as in just people in general beahaving so appaulingly like with the gangs etc. And the way people are so brazenly bad. I'm not explaining this very well. For instance kids doing this happy slapping thing. We have now and the culture that seems to evolved where the law doesn't seem to be a thing to be scared about.

"out and out cases" - the majority of child abuse is not obvious, doesn't make it any less serious.

And of course if it someon abused my child then personally I would want to do all sorts of horrible things to them - but thats what we have laws for, in a civilised society we can't just base punishment on raw emotion.

Gillyan - you also contradict yourself by saying on one hand maybe these people can't help themselves, but thatn suggesting that they might be influenced by more strict sentencing?

I stick with my "loopy" comment - its my opinion that you are loopy.

cory I have not said once that i don't think people can gave a medical conditions that can cause broken bones. Why are you trying to argue with me on things I haven't said?

point re broken bones is that what might seem to be na out and out case might not be.

Sorry Gillian I really don't understand your point re behaviour 100 years ago - are you saying that you know it was just as bad then, but that people hid it better because they were afraid of getting caught? Or are you saying that you don't think that people behaved so badly 100 years ago?

cory my comment about the wiring being wrong and not being able to help it is something I read somewhere, sorry not my personal opinion. I should of " it. I mean people make excuses for people that abuse kids and all sorts of other things, I know some pedophiles want to help themsleves and say 'lock me up' kind of thing, but they are rehabiltated back into society and I don't think they should be. If they are known offenders etc. They seem to have more rights for example wasn't there soemthing in the news recently about the general public not being told where pedophiles were living, to protect their rights?

There was plenty of open and unashamed violence in the past, Gillyan. Plenty of historical records about parents who thought it was their duty to flog sin out of their children, even at the risk of their lives. Lots of drunkenness, lots of drug taking (opium), with all that entails.

And bullying and kids beating others up was far more accepted in 19th century than it is now. Plenty of areas in London where people simply didn't enter if they didn't belong; huge gangs of feral children and teenagers roaming the streets.

Institutionalised violence in schools was rife- and sometimes children died at the hands of by older children. Or were permanently crippled by flogging by sadistic teachers. Sexual abuse is well known to have been rife at public schools: virtually all memoirs from the early 1900s who discuss school life mention it.

Happy slapping is awful- but not that different from the situation recorded in Tom Browne's Schooldays (a child held and roasted over an open fire until he lost consciousness iirc): and that was some of the most privileged boys in society, not feral children.

There was little the law could do, or wanted to do about it. People expected less of the law in those days. The law did not interfere between husband and wife, very rarely between parent and child, and hardly at all between child and child.

Boys were expected to fight, and that was just tough on the weaker ones.

From my own studies I'd say open and unashamed violence was far more common in the past.

Gillyan on Fri 08-May-09 12:06:09
"cory I have not said once that i don't think people can gave a medical conditions that can cause broken bones. Why are you trying to argue with me on things I haven't said?"

I am not claiming that you have ever said that.

I am pointing out that at the time of sentencing the judge may not know that the child had such a condition. This has happened in the past and is likely to happen again- all evidence will not necessarily be at hand at the time of trial. The parents may not know, and may be totally bewildered by what has happened to their child.

The judge may well sentence in good faith: but the severity of the sentence should always take into account that not all guilty verdicts are 100%.

The conclusion must be: yes, we should punish, but punishments should be designed so as not to be irreversible.

lal123 I know, I'm not articulating myself very well, few too many glasses of wine at a wedding last night!

I mean that our society seems to of lost the respect. Does that make sense? Awful things have obviously always happened it just seems to be happened a LOT more which I thought was down to a basic lasck of respect, wether it be respect of your parents as you're growing up, or respect of the law etc. I think people have less fear of the consequences of their actions and I think that maybe if tougher measures were brought in some of that fear may come back.

It is just my opininon that people should be executed for heinous crimes. It seems to me everyone is too worried about what might happen if someone got it wrong.

I have no answer as to how we could make sure for definate that the guilty verdict was correct.

I think we hear less about miscarriages of justice than we do about cases of child abuse.

btw wasn't me that said anything about your remark about the wiring of the brain, Gillyan, it was another poster

I have no particular opinion on this subject

but as someone who has been suspected of a heinous crime, I would rather- if it had come to trial- that any sentence would not be irreversible, not just for my sake but for the effect it would have on my equally innocent children

Can I just point out that it's quite right to say that a person found guilty by a jury might not always be guilty. But equally anybody freed on appeal isn't always innocent either - two recent and very high profile cases spring to mind here.

I understand it would be awful for someone to be found guilty if they weren't but really how many times does that happen v's getting right I wondrer

Isn't that why they have death row, to allow a time period for appeals etc.

I just think that surely in this day and age medical conditions along with assessments of the people involved should be able to identify a true case of abuse or not. Again, just my opininon, and it obviously doesn't happen like that all the time, I just think it should. And anyway I am talking about severe punishment for those we KNOW have done something awful.

I was raped and beaten when I was 16 years old and what the person got for doing that was not long enough IMO, that person chose to go out and do that to someone, he didn't know I wasn't go to die as result. Therefore he wasn't afraid of the consequences. IMO he should either be in prison for LIFE or executed. Whats to say he won't do it again?

I think 'maybe' if he grew up knowing that if you do that someone you lose the rest of your life either by being nehind bars or the death penalty, then 'maybe' he wouldn't of done.

Does that make sense at all?

Moving off the original subject I know but this must be where I get some of my loopy ideas from.

Gillyan I am one of those boring people who is interested in family history. I have researched my family through local newspapers of 100-150 years ago. In my own family, people I am directly related to, there is a man who threw his baby son onto a fire and tried to stamp on him, a couple whose 8 month old son died due to being fed a completely inappropriate diet including salted fish (and horrifically, 10 of their 11 children had die at a similar age according to the report) and a man who beat his pregnant wife to the ground and then drove over her several times with a donkey and cart.

I just want to clear up the myth that people were somehow better in the past. The only difference is that today at least two of those men would have gone to prison for life, rather than being fined a few shillings.

Very sorry to hear of your experiences Gillyan.

cory it must be awful to be accused of something you've not done especially whilst having a poorly child.

My opinions are not aimed at people like you.

What about if someone is caught red handed or confesses, can we go down the death penalty route then? Surely this would send messages out about how serious the crimes are then?

having the death penalty in the US doesn't seem to stop criminals there?

I would question the assertion that there is more violentcrime about etc these days - I think we're just more aware of it.

TPL I know what u mean, I wish I'd never said that now. I think I meant it more to do with the social problems some places have now with the gangs and stuff. And also things like teen pregnancy. Did anyone watch the program about it? Like the doc on there said, she wouldn't of dreamt on planning to get pregnant at such a young age becuase her mum would of killed her! And before anyone starts, I am not talking about accidental PG etc and I knew a girl who had a baby at 15 and she's a brilliant mum. But these scum bags who plan to have a baby so they can have a council house and live with their boyfriends who live off DSS. It has been proven that kids from homes like this are more likely to be put in situations of abuse or grow up without the social skills needed to know right from wrong.

lal123 maybe thats true about being more aware of it what with the media these days and access to it.

I just get so incredibly upset and angry about some of the things to happen to people especially kids, it just makes my reaction want to be so severe. Everyone is just so tied up with PC and red tape etc.

I also get just as upset about stories where families have had kids taken off them when they shouldn't of been, I remember a story about a family who had 3 kids taken off them and they were put into foster care then adopted...THEN it was proved that it was the wrong decison.

So I don't know what we do..I just don't think people that have been proven guilty should be allowed to either carry on living or be pit back into society.