9 years for "peadophilia" - too harsh?

[SenoraPostrophe]

here ...am I the only person to think this is a bit harsh? he's only 21. I know a couple of girls who had 20 yr old boyfriends when 13 or 14. and I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been a prison sentence at all then (remember Bill Wyman and Mandy thing?). have we gone over the top?

Or rather sex crimes.

Cod - you there still? I have a question for you on a related thing.

absolutely it makes a difference if he paid for the pics. if he did he's funding a deparaved industry, if not it is far too close to thought crime for my liking.

Looking at pictures of old men having sex with young children is wrong whether you pay for the picture or not.

Infact, looking at pictures of anyone of any age having sex with young children is wrong. Worrying about thought police is irrelevant when it comes to this sort of thing.

I agree Callisto.

Woohhoooo COD

I think it's mistaken to introduce payment as any sort of criteria..merely an encouragement to "keep it in the family"

I mean children are damaged regardless of whether the adults pay

images of children exchanged on the internet are real images after all

grrr! secure wot?
i have to go out soon

No, it's not too harsh.

Paedophiles should get longer sentences, and even more constrictions on their licences once released.

It is very very difficult to "rehabilitate" paedophiles, if indeed it is possible, so the longer they serve, the better protection to ALL our children.

I still think the circle idea for rehabilitation is good

Well, once the offender is out on licence, any positive input will help.

The circle idea may work.
But what precisely do you mean by "work" ?

In an earlier thread you cited a massive improvement in re-offending. Maybe it really works.

So what ?
Exactly how many children rpaed and murdered is an acceptable failure rate ?

Not letting them out at all, ever has zero failure. Reducing re-offending rates to "only" 20% is failure, not success.
Cadburys are withdrawing millions of bars of chocolate because of a much smaller risk to children.
So it's wrong for Cadbury's to sell possibly tainted chocolate, but OK for the government to release known violent sex criminals ?

Letting them out has no rationale except to save money.

I'm with DC on this. Why let them out? They cannot be rehabilitated like drug addicts can be. SOme men find children sexually attractive and I dont see how they can be changed, it's in their psychological make-up, much in the same way I am attracted to men. Lock them up for good.

This week there were warnings on local radio that a apedophile had skipped bail and had been spotted 2x here in Bournemouth. He poses a serious threat to children! WTF is he doing out of prison if he poses a serious threat!!!?

SP, 9 yrs isnt long enough. It just seems alot in comparison to the pathetic sentnecing of other paeds.

There's lots of reasons for the authorities being soft on paedos.
But saving money combines lobbying by a bizarre coalition of religious groups and social workers likes the idea that they can be fixed.
One senior Catholic referred to hostility to paedos as a "witch hunt".

Also many are middle class white men, and as we see in things like causing death by driving the courts don't see them as a group that should be punished.

But actually the sympathisers to paedos have a point, that their reoffending figures are much like any other criminal.

What the courts, social services and churches fail to understand is that people are a lot more tolerant of giving a burglar a second chance than a paedophile. Actually burglary is a structure of crime that many grow out of.

The deeper philosophical problem is that justice has been nationalised, and thus you get what is convenient for you to be given.
It is run for the benefit of those that run it.
Both major parties aren't willing to stand up to the prison officers association, and no social worker is going to stand up and say "we've got no bloody idea how to deal with these people."

Judges are at fault, but sadly the problem is you and me.
Politicians know that crime doesn't actually cause many people to change their voting patterns, and a minister has to actually be caught lying about crime for it to cost him his job. Incompetence seems almost a necessary qualification

Also politicians know that keeping dangerous criminals locked up is expensive, and the British people vote for their wallets above all else.

It's not pracical at any level to keep criminals locked up. The justice system in this country doesn't keep criminals locked up indefinitely. So failing to research methods of rehabilitation and care in the community is negligent and foolish. Because they do come out of prison and with more and more sex offenders being caught there will be more and more of them known about. Of course more paedophiles are not brought to justice at all and so would not be a part of a regulated rehabilitation.

Consideration is being given to "chemical castration".

"the bizarre notion that they can be fixed"

being a peado isn't like being gay. it's not something people are born to. how do you know they can't be fixed?

statements like that do rather make it all look like a bit of a witch hunt.

also like zippi said earlier, the thought of being locked up with no possibility of release ever would add a lot of weight to the motivation for peadophiles to silence victimes forever.

There are plenty of people including me who think it much more pragmatic and safer to consider how to deal with paedophiles rather than baying lock them up and throw away the key. It doesn't make any of us apologists or "sympathisers".

why is it not so bad really to have sex with a 13 yo.

but its veryvery very bad to have sex with a 5 yo

i have two 13 yos. i'm sorry but i dont see the difference.

a 13 yo wants to be grown up - they are a little bigger but esentially its the same as a 5 yo walking in mums high heels.

that's a better argument than many on this thread, custy.

it does depend a lot on the 13 yr old in question - like I say I knew a few who had much older boyfriends when I was that age though. I was also just trying to point out that things have changed a lot in 15 years or so - why wasn't Bill Wyman sent to prison? because, as i recall, it wasn't a prison offence at the time.

i dont know the bill wyman analogy. but back to 13 yos - if a 13 yo has a boyfriend that is 20 ecen if consentual that 13 yo is acting out what she thinks it is to be grown up - but she is taking it too far. it should never come down to the decision - consentual or not - how grown up the individual child is - or not. there should be mandatory sentences for people who engange in sexual activities with girls of this age. and 9 years is not enough imo - out in 4.5 at a guess?

essentially they are taking advantage. if 13 yos could engage in sexual activity and make a clear choice about such then they should also be allowed to buy cigarettes, go to war, and start work and pay tax.

they cant. and shouldnt.

bill wyman because he had sex with mandy smith when she was 13.

I do agree it's not right, but if abducting a 5 yr old or sexually assualting a foster child get 4 or 5 years, then i think 9 years is too harsh for having sex with a 13 yr old and a 14 yr old (even though this guy exhibited other very worrying behaviour, that was ghis main crime).