Garry Glitter - I don't get it?

[expatinscotland]

here

Can't Thai authorities cuff this scumbag and force him on a plane back to the UK?

I thought when you were deported from somewhere that means authorties put you back on a plane for your home country and you didn't have a choice about going there?

I agree with expat about lifelong incarceration for repeat violent sexual offenders/rapists - recidivism rates are so high, and the consequences for the victims are so great, that I think preventative detention is warranted. Indeed, if women ruled the world I can't help thinking that such measures would have been in place a long time ago.

Expat that's my point, if there is a risk to the public, which in my view there is with serial offenders, they shouldn't be released.

But they are, and if they are, they should be watched, constantly.

But they aren't. So this is where it all falls down.

And bearing in mind that a tiny proportion of sex offenders ever end up in prison in the first place, gives a pretty bleak picture.

Absolutley Chukky. There is a huge tolerance for this kind of thing. I hope the Glitter case proves to be a turning point and that men who go to the Far East to have sex with prostitues are shunned and treated as pariahs.

He has a reported history over quite a considerable period of time wasn't he also asked to leave/deported from Cambodia prior to this conviction for similar reasons? Does his actions since his release indicate someone wishing to be rehabilitated?

'These people need to understand how socially unacceptable their crimes are'

err do you think these people are really bothered what society thinks?

I agree with policy. The naming and shaming is pointless. Drives people to run. Far better to let those who need to keep tabs on them.

statistically, perpetrators of certain crimes have a very high rate of reoffense. therefore, it stands to reason that those found guilty of such crimes should be incarcerated indefinitely until such time as science can come up with a well-proven method of rehabilitation.

because i certainly wouldn't want to be the guinea pig they perpetrated their crime on when they were released on the grounds that well, maybe they'll reoffend, maybe they won't.

I think that if it became socially taboo to go to Thailand/Vietnam/Cambodia on holiday to have sex with prostitutes or rape kids, then yes, that would help the people of those countries. Because right now it is horribly acceptable.

The reason that these men are released to abuse again is because we live in a patriacal society still, and crimes against the bodies of women and children are still not taken seriously.

I don't want to come across as a man hater, but please bear with me.

The incidence of rape and child sex abuse in this country is epidemic. The stats for reports of these offences (very very low) combined with the low conviction rates (again very very low) mean that understandably most victims do not report it.

For women this means "well he wasn't violent when he did it/well I suppose I had had a drink etc etc" means very few attacks reported.

For children, well look at Jersey, and at that girl who came forward repeatedly to say GG had had sex with her when she was 12/14. No-one did anything.

The problem is that if all men who rape/abuse were put away I wonder how many there would be left. It is still culturally acceptable to rape in this country.

Rant over.

agree msdemeanor

Well put, dittany.

I would agree with you there completely.

In fact do you know what. Delete the bit about being a man hater. This is what DH and my dad say when I go off on one about this.

DH because he would never ever do anything like that. can't understand it at all, and hates being tarred with the same brush.

My dad because he is old fashioned and won't hear criticism of men as a gender.

Yet this is a gender problem I think. It's silly to pretend it isn't.

I think that's a dangerous precendent to set. That means no-one will get a chance at rehabilitation (I'm not only talking paedophiles here but other crimes with high reoffending rates too).

We already incarcerate the most dangerous people in places like Broadmoor.

And practically, where do we put them all? Or find the money to keep them incarcerated for life?

Remember Glitter was never charged with rape. The charges were dropped.

he has not been convicted of raping children dittany.

Why do they have to be released from prison in order to be rehabilitated?

I don't see what is so dangerous about protecting the public from people who have proven themselves very dangerous to it by committing offenses that are egregious or have a high rate of re-offense.

Take Peter Tobin, for example.

This man was convicted of the rape and attempted murder of a 14 and 15-year-old girl in Plymouth. He RUINED their lives. One is a heroin addicted prostitute and the other an alcoholic.

Yet he was let out of prison. He went on to rape and murder at least three other women.

Why should his chance to be rehabilitated take precedence over the danger he posed to society by the very nature of the crimes he committed?

Yes he has! You can't have consensual sex with a ten year old! It IS RAPE. And thinking it isn't is really dangerous stuff. Gary Glitter rapes children. And he loves to watch little girls being raped and tortured.

I should add that when he murdered 23-year-old Angelika Kluk he was officially on parole.

I think there should be a way to keep these people (those who have been repeatedly convicted of violent sexual offences) incarcerated unless a panel of extremely well-qualified people believe the offender to have been genuinely rehabilitated. I'm sure rehabilitation is possible for some, but at the moment at least it seems to be a very small proportion.

It's not something I'd argue for for any other category of offence (given that serial murderers are usually incarcerated for life anyway) - I think violent sexual crimes should be treated differently. I take your point (oi) about expense, but proper rehabilitation schemes are expensive too. Dealing with this problem is going to involve expense one way or the other.

he was never charged with that msdemeanour. The evidence was dropped. It was never proven in a court of law.

I think this hysteria is just awful. People jump on the bandwagon like nothing else. Like that woman who got branded a paedo (spray painted on her house) because she was a paediatrician not a paedophile. Madness.

Panels of people already have the option to incarcerate people in places like Broadmoor. There have been numerous cases of people being let out and then reoffending (one v nasty one near here involving schitzophrenic) and afterwards, v often the specialist will say how difficult it is to tell whether someone can be rehabilitated or not or how well they are faring in society.

None of us have the facts to say how many have gone on to reoffend and how many haven't but where there is a chance of rehabilitation, I believe it should be offered.

The problem with incarcerating all violent sex offenders indefinitely, is that there wouldn't be room enough for all of them.

It is epidemic in our society.

All the women I know have had a nasty run-in with a man in some way.

But for a start, yes, the ones who have commited this type of offence should be locked up indefinitely. People can't easily change what turns them on.

chances of rehab being successful very low oi

worth the risk?