Multiple sex offender to be released from prison given access to sex workers in an attempt to rehabilitate

[Grimbles]

This is... I'm just lost for words to be honest...

So he is a danger to the 'community' but not a danger to those who are obviously a subset to the 'community' i.e. prostitutes. Well those women know now exactly where they stand.

WTF did I just read!! So angry at this judge's decision.

Latimer still refused to accept he was a sex offender

Despite carrying out multiple sexual assaults, wilful exposure, propositioning women and an attempt to rape a sleeping man! He still despite all this (and I'm sure there'll be lots more he's done and hasn't been caught/prosecuted for) believes he's not a sex offender - he's 61 years old, for a lifetime he has sexually assaulted people, he is not going to change, especially when he doesn't think he's done anything wrong!

Derrick said if he did reoffend it would likely be a non-contact crime rather than a serious sexual attack.

How the fuck does the judge know this! He's been released before and broke his conditions, he has proved time and time again that he is dangerous and not to be trusted, what makes the judge think he's going to act any differently now?!

“He is now able to identify some of the triggers for his offending, most specifically boredom, loneliness and talking to women that he does not know,”

This is going to be impossible to police in the community. If only there was a place this man could be where he couldn't come across women he doesn't know 🤔

And don't get me started on the government foisting him on poor sex workers.

Sorry I keep on saying this everywhere, it's not sex work, unless and until you want your mother, sister, daughter, niece, you, sanctioned at the job centre for not taking this "job"
It's either prostitution or sex slavery.

Sometimes I come on to this board and I despair for humanity. To-day is one such day.

This does seem to be the key here:

In 2005, Latimer was sentenced to almost three years in prison for trying to rape a drunk man who had fallen asleep in a park.

Trying to rape a man, now that's bad. Any solution, even the paid rape of women, is better than that happening again obviously.

It cannot just be us though that see how fucking bad this is?

Can it?

Michelleoftheresistance

I'm starting to think it's basically always been like this and women are only getting to learn of it now because of the internet

I honestly think every single legal, social, and political decision should have to be run past radical feminists for approval before being permitted. This world is a disgrace.

If the consensus is that men cannot control themselves. That rape is not about power but instead about the natural sexual urges of men..... then why the fuck do we not seriously consider curtailing the freedom of all men?

I've asked myself this question a lot. But, like most women, I have a son, brothers, partner, male friends etc, men that I love and trust and respect. I have to believe that this behaviour is learnt and not innate. If I let myself believe that it's natural and not socialised then I'm not sure I could keep going.

Wow.

Him having access to porn is a problem, but paying women to sleep with him is prescribed.

Right-o Australia.

If the consensus is that men cannot control themselves. That rape is not about power but instead about the natural sexual urges of men.....

This is nonsense and everyone knows its nonsense. Every woman knows dozens of men, is often married to one, the daughter of one, the granddaughter of them, the sister of them, the mother of them, the friend of them - who would never dream of behaving in this way.

This is about a small group of men trying to avoid having to accept boundaries and control their behaviour or take responsibility for it. They can help it. There is such a thing as right and wrong, they are capable of comprehending this and so being free in society, and so need to be held strongly accountable for their actions. And will be rightly despised by decent people wherever they go, prisons included. Shame and taboos and basic standards and boundaries have a place in society, and there are laws against this kind of behaviour. Currently being very badly enforced, but there are laws.

I'd like to thank liberal thought leaders who have made careers for themselves defending every rapist's right to (ab)use the bodies of women who aren't them.

“I do think men who get off not just on sex but on exploitation are irredeemable shitholes, though. And yeah, they should have a legal right to access porn and to pay for sex (with people who are above the age of consent). -Jill Filipovic

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/15/outsourcing-porn-sex-work

This is a punishment for innocent women basically. How is this OK?

Australia is a terrible place for women, but this is shocking even to me.

Rape is not about sex or sexual urges.

The state is encouraging rape. That’s all there is to it.

It must be just awful for someone who is trying to "manage their sexual urges".

Extra massive sarcasm smiley.

If the consensus is that men cannot control themselves. That rape is not about power but instead about the natural sexual urges of men..... then why the fuck do we not seriously consider curtailing the freedom of all men?

Great idea.

Let's also lock up all the black people as it's clear from statistics that they can't contain their criminal urges.

Let's also lock up all the black people as it's clear from statistics that they can't contain their criminal urges.
if black people committed 98% of crime, I would not be against this tbh. But they don't, nowhere near.

if black people committed 98% of crime, I would not be against this tbh. But they don't, nowhere near.

I understand your point and was being a little facetious.

However, I think that the frequency of crimes needs to also be considered alongside the percentage. For example, if 100% of all cases of a particular crime had been committed by one group but the crime had only happened once in human history, would it be a huge cause for concern?

It's like the 'two women a week' statistic. I think I remember reading that this is 0.000006 of the UK female population, so one could truthfully say that '99.9% of women don't need to worry about being murdered' and it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that they focus on things that are much more likely to kill them.

I certainly don't think it's a huge issue for the average woman in the UK, which is likely why most women seem to just get on with life and not worry about it.

(Prepared to be shouted down but I've not yet seen a convincing argument to the contrary).

Australia does seem bad for women. Fathers rights groups have a lot of power there over mothers, the prostitution industry seems out of control. The men there do seem pretty misogynistic

What the actual fuck?

Sex workers are already at increased risk of violence as it is.

Horrifying

I thought that PIE enthusiast Tuppy Owens had taken the biscuit with this kind of thing

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170708165434/tlc-trust.org.uk/?page_id=1095" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20170708165434/tlc-trust.org.uk/?page_id=1095

but it seems that she has been outdone by the Australians

a dubious honour of ever there was one

One sex worker reported that her client’s care team refused to wash him after a session! Please note: spunk is not disgusting or dangerous, in fact it is quite nutritious!

Surely if everything is as wonderful and natural as Tuppy makes out cleaning up afterwards should be part of the service provided by the prostitute.

Vile woman

I didn't read the article as saying that anyone in particular was going to be forced to take him as a client, I think that it's not helpful to say that they are unless we know that from somewhere else.

My understanding is that under normal circumstances he would be allowed to hire a prostitute just like any other person, so they question came down to whether they going to prohibit him from doing so, like they are prohibiting him from purchasing or using pornography. They seem to have decided to let him, but only if he first secures permission, and I thought it suggested that would mean they would have some details like place and time. Presumably to protect the woman and maybe keep tabs on his sex life generally.

It's reasonable, and in my opinion correct, to argue that sex shouldn't be an accepted economic exchange in the first place, so this situation shouldn't arise. I get the sense though that some people are imagining a scenario that is a lot different than what seems to be the case.

This is nonsense and everyone knows its nonsense. Every woman knows dozens of men, is often married to one, the daughter of one, the granddaughter of them, the sister of them, the mother of them, the friend of them - who would never dream of behaving in this way.

I think this is completely true in general, and about most crime. Most people are not criminals, and most of the time don't commit crimes.

That being said, I also think many people, most people, have at one time another done something that is either a crime, or that they themselves consider to be immoral and wrong. Maybe when they were young, or under weird circumstances. And I think given the right circumstances a lot of people who would never dream about it will commit even quite serious crimes.

So I would not put as much distance between control and lack of control. I think we are mostly a lot closer to the latter than we think.

There are people who really struggle with control and crime in general. People with impulse control, people with serious executive function skills, people with low IQ or other problems in understanding, and of course people with serious addiction issues. It can manifest in different ways, but the extent to which they understand and can conform to social rules is more limited than the rest of us. Prisons are full of these people, they go in and out their whole lives.

It doesn't mean they aren't legally culpable, and it doesn't necessarily mean they have no moral culpability either. But I really dislike this tendency to see people like this as just evil people who absolutely could do what they should but choose no to out of malice.

I don't know if it's caused by having few behavioural struggles oneself so it's difficult to imagine, or never being exposed to people with these kinds of problems, or what, but it simply isn't true. Maybe its because it puts us in a real difficulty once we admit that there are people who aren't evil but still we know will struggle to exist in society and there is only a limited amount we can do to help them do so.

@Goosefoot

My objection to the article are in relation to this (emphasis mine)

WA supreme court justice Anthony Derrick said in his decision handed down on Tuesday that while Latimer remained a serious danger to the community, the risk could be managed in the community.

“There are adequate safeguards contained in the supervision order conditions to ensure that if the respondent begins to regress this will be quickly noticed by those responsible for his supervision and ... he will [be] brought back before the court,” he said.

Access to sex workers will not of itself resolve the issue of the respondent’s ability to manage his sexual urges ... [but] the option for the respondent to engage in regular, albeit infrequent, sexual contact should serve as an additional protective factor.”

WA supreme court justice Anthony Derrick is claiming that allowing this dangerous offender to have access to sex workers will protect wider society from his dangerous urges.

Personally I believe that whatever consenting* adults get up to in private, including commercial sex, is nobody else's business. However WA supreme court justice Anthony Derrick has posited the worst possible reason for allowing a dangerous rapist access to sex workers - that it will protect the non-sex workers.

This is a) not based in rational fact or evidence and b) speaks volumes about WA supreme court justice Anthony Derrick's perception of se workers as a relatively unimportant protective category of shield to protect non sex workers.

This is outrageous. Obviously

• obviously the consent issue is complex and nuanced especially when vulnerable people have limited choices and are vulnerable to coercion