Ethical question about a convicted paedophile.

wing52

Dont.Even.Think.About.It full stop!

Johnny Utah

invalidusername wrote: »

I didnt tell him however that his fate was decided by poll in AH!

Ive had a student and a lativan woman look at it today, both want it.. i will start a new poll and let you guys decide!

Please do.
I'm looking forward to this already!

kumate_champ07

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Not true. I saw a programme with Louis Theroux recently where he visited a centre for paedophiles. There were a number of men there who had reformed and would pose no risk to society.

yes but they are still attracted to kids, they just wont act on it.

tech77

invalidusername wrote: »

My fiance knew of him, and after finding out this we asked her her mother, she grew up with him and knew his family and the details of what happened.

The deposit has being returned. Excuses were made. He was never getting the flat, i think its safe to say.

I didnt tell him however that his fate was decided by poll in AH!

Ive had a student and a lativan woman look at it today, both want it.. i will start a new poll and let you guys decide!

Student?
Latvian?
Oh jaysus, what have we done...

Johnny Utah

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

yes but they are still attracted to kids, they just wont act on it.

No, some of the individuals on that show were completely reformed and had no attraction to kids whatsoever. Did you watch the programme?

kumate_champ07

Johnny Utah wrote: »

No, some of the individuals on that show were completely reformed and had no attraction to kids whatsoever. Did you watch the programme?

I think its on youtube, cant watch it yet, only get 2gb a week and its too low now.

I did here about the docu but I wasnt aware that there were success stories. People wont give a damn tho, they'll still be feared of around young children.

time will tell if it actually works

kumate_champ07

Johnny Utah wrote: »

No, some of the individuals on that show were completely reformed and had no attraction to kids whatsoever. Did you watch the programme?

also how do they know for sure? because the pedo said so?

Mat the trasher

I see minds have yet to expand at home.

AckwelFoley

Mat the trasher wrote: »

I see minds have yet to expand at home.

nice soundbite. Do expand on your nugget wisdom..

ANXIOUS

Adriel Screeching Person wrote: »

OP, you have two issues... this man has served his time, for a crime he commited. It would be unfair to continuely (sp?) punish him.

I don't see why someone should have to live with their actions for the rest of their lives. The kid(s) will have to live with it and be punished for something that they couldnt prevent.

No way in hell, would i rent to someone like them

Johnny Utah

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I think its on youtube, cant watch it yet, only get 2gb a week and its too low now.

I did here about the docu but I wasnt aware that there were success stories. People wont give a damn tho, they'll still be feared of around young children.

time will tell if it actually works

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

also how do they know for sure? because the pedo said so?

It was a centre where paedophiles lived after they served their prison. I doubt the constitutionality of such an arrangement, as most of these men were kept in this centre until they died for two reasons. (1) Most men were deemed to be unsuitable for reintegration into the community, and (2) those that were suitable, found it next-to-impossible to secure suitable accomodation. However, there were a number of men released into the community and had not re-offended. One man in the documentary was deemed to be suitable for reintegration and was actually looking for accomodation during filming. This man had decided, on his own volition, to undergo castration to prove that he was no danger to children in the future. That sort of gesture makes it pretty clear imo that this particular man poses no risk to society.

not bakunin

i wouldn't........the man has committed a grievous crime against society, and it's up to society to ensure that, in return, he is punished.


ok yeah, sorry, a bit late there......

Dan I Am

This situation could potentially cause you all sorts of hassle with angry neighbours if you rent it to him.

Why not tell him you feel morally obliged to inform the neighbours of the situation. I doubt he would want to rent it then anyway. I'd just say no though, and give him his deposit back.

What's he doing looking to rent a place that's surrounded by young families anyway. Shouldn't he be looking to live somewhere aimed at singles and childless couples, like an apartment block, or maybe a town centre etc.

Rebelheart

brownbinman wrote: »

They should always be punished for abusing a child.There is no excuse

Excellent. Now we are talking. Despite paying his punishment and then being lawfully released, he should continue to be punished - "always" - by some self-appointed judge, jury and executioners.

How about we all take turns to whip this evil human being until he is no more? Then get all the rest of them and purge the world of this abject evil. We would all feel so morally superior and pure then, wouldn't we.

G_R

Rebelheart wrote: »

How about we all take turns to whip this evil human being until he is no more?

that sounds good, i'm going first

Rebelheart

herya wrote: »

I'd find this type of naivety disarming if it wasn't so dangerous.

They should feel unsafe already because there are paedophiles and rapists around and loads of them, including all those nice fathers, uncles and neighbours from the estate who go out to work and pay for their homes, then return to molest each others kids or to rape their neighbours daughter on a night out.

It's this type of thinking - that kids should be scared of strangers only - that puts them at risk once uncle Kevin next door wants to go play Wii with them.

Very well said, and necessary that somebody said it. The enemy is within, people. Sad, but there is an awful amount of evidence on sexual offenders' crimes confirming that family members were/are the primary victims. Beware of the real motivations of the zealots and lynch mobs everywhere.

Ickle Magoo

Rebelheart wrote: »

We would all feel so morally superior and pure then, wouldn't we.

It's really not that difficult to feel morally superior or purer than someone who gets their rocks off abusing children, tbh...I don't have to wipe them out to feel that.

People defending paedophiles against universal condemnation & vitriol is something I don't get tho.

galwayrush

Rebelheart wrote: »

Excellent. Now we are talking. Despite paying his punishment and then being lawfully released, he should continue to be punished - "always" - by some self-appointed judge, jury and executioners.

How about we all take turns to whip this evil human being until he is no more? Then get all the rest of them and purge the world of this abject evil. We would all feel so morally superior and pure then, wouldn't we.

We'd also feel a lot safer knowing our kids would be in a safer world. Sigh, pity we can't do it.

ronbyrne2005

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's really not that difficult to feel morally superior or purer than someone who gets their rocks off abusing children, tbh...I don't have to wipe them out to feel that.

People defending paedophiles against universal condemnation & vitriol is something I don't get tho.

Paedophilia doe not neccesarily lead to abusing and not all absers are paedophiles. Paedophilia is as natural as homosexuality but obviously more taboo. It's more complex than "all paedos are evil b4stards".

Rebelheart

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I think scaremongering is no help to anyone but if there is a convicted paedophile living next door to me I'm alot less likely to let my child out to play.

I'm sorry but your idea of society is f*cked up.

He is not scaremongering: most child abuse is perpetrated by family numbers or family friends. In contrast, according to a Barnados report between 20% and 24% of abusers were strangers. Moreover, because much if not most abuse within families never gets reported, it can be very safely assumed that the true figure is considerably higher. These essential facts about who abusers are is from the following report on the Barnardos' website:

[font=&quot]Who are the Perpetrators of Child Sexual Abuse? (SAVI Report 2002)[/font]

• [font=&quot]Girls: [/font][font=&quot]A quarter (24%)of perpetrators against girls were family members, half (52%) were nonfamily but known to the abused girl and a quarter (24%)were strangers.[/font]
• [font=&quot]Boys: [/font][font=&quot]One in seven perpetrators (14%) was a family member with two thirds (66%) non-family but known to the abused boy. One in five (20%) were strangers.[/font]
• [font=&quot]In four –fifths of cases of CSA the perpetrator was known to the abused person.[/font]
• [font=&quot]The perpetrator was another child or adolescent(17 years or under) in one out of every four cases.[/font]

Source: http://tinyurl.com/mxocdc

Rebelheart

galwayrush wrote: »

We'd also feel a lot safer knowing our kids would be in a safer world. Sigh, pity we can't do it.

I'd imagine if we went down the road of carrying out punishment under the guise of justice we, as a society, would lose sight of the world of difference which often exists between both concepts and become inured to the immorality of our own punishments. Ultimately, we'd become little different to the people we initially claimed to be morally superior to.

The only reason we have 'good' people is because we know what 'bad' people are.

Rebelheart

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

There isn't a part of the country where there are no children 'nearby'.

This sex offender's risk of reoffending doesn't increase/decrease depending on where they live. Children will always be within walking/driving distance no matter where he is.

Things to consider:
1. Has he shown remorse for his actions?
2. Has he, or is he receiving treatment from either the Lighthouse Centre or Granada institute?
3. Does he have the support of his family and/or friends?
4. Do you live on/near the property as well?
5. Does he have a reliable job/income?
6. Is he receiving assistance from the Probation Service?

As someone who has studied treatment methods for sex offenders, I can tell you that it's not as clear cut as many people would think. Some offenders are at a very high risk of committing another offense. Others pose practically no risk. The answers to the 6 questions I mentioned above will help you determine the level of risk.

One of the most effective methods of preventing reoffending is to give the person every reason NOT to do so. If you take their friends/job/family etc away from them, then they have nothing to lose...they have little reason to be lawful.

My advice thus is: Check if he has had or is getting treatment and speak with him about your concerns. Keep a close eye on him, and warn him that he is not to interact with any child.

Would you rather he lived where you can keep an eye on him, or have him live somewhere else where nobody knows his background?

The most thoughtful, balanced and fair-minded post yet.

Ickle Magoo

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Paedophilia doe not neccesarily lead to abusing and not all absers are paedophiles. Paedophilia is as natural as homosexuality but obviously more taboo. It's more complex than "all paedos are evil b4stards".

As a parent, I'd have to disagree.

In legal terms a paedophile is someone who has been convicted of having sexual relations with a child. I appreciate not all abusers are sexually attracted to children but a paedophilic act is the term that would be used to describe their behaviour - it all comes down to definition and context, I suppose - all of which make my skin crawl.

It doesn't have to be direct abuse, a paedophile who uses child pornography is propagating the abuse of children by someone & it's just as abhorrent. I have no idea if each and every paedophile has abused or not, indirectly or directly - how would anyone know that? It's not a subject I'm happy to make assumptions about.

Whatever about it being "natural" - it's immoral and sickening in modern society - I'm sure you could argue psychopathic mass-murderers are "natural" - it doesn't mean they should be free or their behaviour excused. I don't think it can be claimed that being attracted to someone of the same sex and being attracted to someone who may not even know what sexual attraction is yet, is of the same ilk either.

Rebelheart

galwayrush wrote: »

OP, you have asked the audience and the verdict is over 87% saying no.

There is something to be said for being sceptical about the thinking of that 87% particularly when some of them come out with sentiments such as:

'If it was my street, ... i could see me and other neighbours burn the bastard out even if he owned the house.'

Imagine a justice system, or even a legal system, that made judgements based on such emotive responses.

galwayrush wrote: »

You know he is a sick pervert

Actually, she knows he has a conviction for child abuse in his past. Neither the details of that conviction nor the erstwhile offender's present disposition is known.

Corkfeen

Don't rent it to him. If he re-offended because of living in the place you rented out to him, you'd probably feel guilty for the rest of your life.
You're obviously afraid of it happening and it'll stress you out all the time thats hes renting it.

Ickle Magoo

Rebelheart wrote: »

Actually, she knows he has a conviction for child abuse in his past. Neither the details of that conviction nor the erstwhile offender's present disposition is known.

Did you even read the original post before jumping in on the defensive?

invalidusername wrote: »

... It was also made clear to me what the offence included, it involved a very young child, and frankly i felt ill...

My concern is more for the neighbours, this man has offended before, not in the distant past ...

Rebelheart

Berkut wrote: »

Forgiveness for a paedophile? Are you fcukin nuts? Do you have any idea of the impact they have on kid's lives?

I do have an idea of how denying forgiveness invariably effects the person who cannot forgive more than anybody else. It stunts them, restricts them and eats away at them and who they could still become. It imprisons them, and nobody else. Forgiveness is essential for them to free themselves. It is only when they can forgive that they start to get beyond it. That is harsh and deeply unfair. But it is also true.

Rebelheart

My name is URL wrote: »

It's kind of sweeping the problem under the rug though, there should be proper post-release counseling and monitoring for these guys, in a half-way center or something. That way when they're released they'll have proven that they can be trusted to some extent and there'll be no reason to cut the micky off them or put a bullet in their head.

At the end of the day it's an illness, and should be treated as such

Call me a bleeding heart lefty if you want but I'd sooner be one of those than a hot-headed eejit saying that they'd have no problem in killing the guy.

+ 1.

Sharpshooter

invalidusername wrote: »

My fiance knew of him, and after finding out this we asked her her mother, she grew up with him and knew his family and the details of what happened.

The deposit has being returned. Excuses were made. He was never getting the flat, i think its safe to say.

I didnt tell him however that his fate was decided by poll in AH!

Grand, a good outcome for After Hours.