Just plain creepy....

mike65

http://www.itv.com/news/2081068.html

You can only shudder at what he had in mind....18 months jail!
:eek:

Some may note disaprovingly the use of entrapment as a tactic
but its hard to make a case for not being as devious as the prey.


Mike.

bloggs

Originally posted by mike65
http://www.itv.com/news/2081068.html

You can only shudder at what he had in mind....18 months jail!
:eek:

Some may note disaprovingly the use of entrapment as a tactic
but its hard to make a case for not being as devious as the prey.


Mike.

18 months!!! 18 years wouldn't be enough, scum like this should be locked away for life.

Paddy20

I am now of an age where the levels too which human depravity will stoop no longer surprises me!. This young man is clearly in need of Psychiatric help and behavioural therapy if he is to have some hope of leading any type of a normal life in the future.

Normally , in these types of cases. All the facts of the case are not released. Has this young man a history of sexually related incidents. Did he ever receive Psychiatric help in the past, often the social services are aware of someone with serious personality disorders. Yet they fail to follow up the case, before it is too late and a tragedy has been perpetrated.

Being overly judgmental due to sensationalist Journalism can mislead us. I am not trying in any way to defend this type of depravity. I am just grateful that he was caught and stopped before he caused some young girl life threatening harm, if not worse.

P.

Auburn

This raises the issue (off-topic) : why is there no type of psychological analysis of those, who are training for professions, where they will be dealing with vulnerable sections of society?

I mean careers like teaching, nursing, etc, where the person will eventually be dealing with young/old/sick, etc. (ie. potentially vulnerable) people? Instead, it's decided on what points someone gets in their leaving cert.

Just because someone is reasonably intelligent does not mean that they are suitable for these type of jobs.

bloggs

I think the rights of the victim and other children should out weight scum like this, as they should never be released.

Victor

Originally posted by bloggs
I think the rights of the victim and other children should out weight scum like this, as they should never be released.

So we fill our prisons with half our population - then what?

What scale of punishment would you use for someone who actually obtained a child in the way this guy wanted? Or if he took her home? And raped her? And kept her locked in a wardrobe. And photographed her? And cut her? And then cut her some more just to see where her pain threshold was? Will she pass out or just go into shock? And then he rapes her again ...

BuffyBot

Originally posted by Auburn
This raises the issue (off-topic) : why is there no type of psychological analysis of those, who are training for professions, where they will be dealing with vulnerable sections of society?

I mean careers like teaching, nursing, etc, where the person will eventually be dealing with young/old/sick, etc. (ie. potentially vulnerable) people? Instead, it's decided on what points someone gets in their leaving cert.

Just because someone is reasonably intelligent does not mean that they are suitable for these type of jobs.

I was at a conference not so long ago on this very subject and a clinical psychologist spoke about this - there isn't any adequate way to detect this sort of attraction via psychometric testing yet.

bloggs

Originally posted by Victor
So we fill our prisons with half our population - then what?

What scale of punishment would you use for someone who actually obtained a child in the way this guy wanted? Or if he took her home? And raped her? And kept her locked in a wardrobe. And photographed her? And cut her? And then cut her some more just to see where her pain threshold was? Will she pass out or just go into shock? And then he rapes her again ...

Death Penalty, but sadly we don't have that any more.

Typedef

What a creep.

Give him the chop I say.

Victor

Originally posted by bloggs
Death Penalty, but sadly we don't have that any more.

But where would one draw the line, where would the proportionality of punishment be? And won't it just make the abductors make sure the bodies are never found?

Or do you have a preference for dead 8 year olds, over abused 8 year olds?

Beëlzebooze

it is doubtfull if rehabilitation (prison) works. I don't particularly agree the death penalty (yeah yeah, until it happens to one of my children, I know.....).

Maybe castration would be a viable solution (not intended to shock) as it would remove the ofenders sex drive. Hell, we do it to all other animals don't we?


p.s. I am NOT talking the rusty knife or two bricks method here, but a proper operation.

bloggs

Originally posted by Victor
But where would one draw the line, where would the proportionality of punishment be? And won't it just make the abductors make sure the bodies are never found?

Or do you have a preference for dead 8 year olds, over abused 8 year olds?

Well as they can't be reformed, and will always be a threat, i have to think that either the death penatly or life imprisionment is the only option.

I bet the psychologists who request them to be freed, don't live near the scums new home?

The rights of the victims need to override the rights of the criminal. Surely you don't mean 'ah come on tell us where the bodies are, and we will let you go free a few years early'?

Victor

If a criminal if faced with extreme punishment (execution / long / very long imprisonment) they are more likely to engage in extreme measures to prevent capture. Like making sure there are no witnesses or using extreme force to prevent capture.

I think cooperating in their prosecution is a redeeming factor, insofar as it allows some element of closure for the victim / family and reduces court, prosecution and police time, so enabling other criminals to be caught. However, I meant the comment "Or do you have a preference for dead 8 year olds, over abused 8 year olds?" in the context of the above paragraph.

Whos says people can't reform / rehabilitate? Many sex-offenders are themselves former victims reinacting / perpetuating their abuse. Help is as important as retribution.

Originally posted by Beëlzebooze
Maybe castration would be a viable solution (not intended to shock) as it would remove the ofenders sex drive.

So you end up with a sexually frustrated would be rapist who'll do it with a bottle ...

bloggs

Victor, answer me honestly, if you had kids and a convicted and released child abuser was moved into a house next door to you, would you be ok with it, even if the best psychologist in the world told you he was reformed? Or would you demand they were moved away/do something more drastic to protect your family.

I don't think they can be reformed, but even if they can, i don't think the public expecially children should be put at harm.

bloggs

Originally posted by Beëlzebooze
it is doubtfull if rehabilitation (prison) works. I don't particularly agree the death penalty (yeah yeah, until it happens to one of my children, I know.....).

Maybe castration would be a viable solution (not intended to shock) as it would remove the ofenders sex drive. Hell, we do it to all other animals don't we?


p.s. I am NOT talking the rusty knife or two bricks method here, but a proper operation.

It might be a fitting punishment, but i doubt it would have any effect on them.

Victor

Originally posted by bloggs
Victor, answer me honestly, if you had kids and a convicted and released child abuser was moved into a house next door to you, would you be ok with it, even if the best psychologist in the world told you he was reformed? Or would you demand they were moved away/do something more drastic to protect your family.

Yes, it would obviouslly concern me, just like a bank robber, drug dealer, dangerous driver or an alcoholic moving in next door. We don't execute alcohoics do we? Yet they present a clear and present danger to society with 20+ alcohol related homocides per year, compared to fewer child victims of homocides.

bloggs

Originally posted by Victor
Yes, it would obviouslly concern me, just like a bank robber, drug dealer, dangerous driver or an alcoholic moving in next door. We don't execute alcohoics do we? Yet they present a clear and present danger to society with 20+ alcohol related homocides per year, compared to fewer child victims of homocides.

Hmmm, well if a drunk guy attacks me on the street, i can probably defend myself, (not sure how to defend against a drug dealer, or dangerous driver), if a robber breaks into my house i can defend myself with a golfclub (or in Tony Martin's case a shotgun), but unfortunatly for children they can't defend themselves, so they have to be protected by soceity.

Perhaps you disagree, but i regard crimes by child abusers/murders as much worse than that of 'ordinary' criminals. Where the victim in most cases, either is destoryed for life or their life taken. I know you can make examples where the life was destroyed or taken by the others, but where people go out to destroy a childs life, they deserve the strongest punishment possible.

Victor

Originally posted by bloggs
but where people go out to destroy a childs life, they deserve the strongest punishment possible.

But he didn't. He didn't even get near a child.

Specky

This raises the issue (off-topic) : why is there no type of psychological analysis of those, who are training for professions, where they will be dealing with vulnerable sections of society?

I've come to this thread rather late, (so late in fact, that the original link no longer works and I haven't seen the story but even without the details I can see what the basic point is).

The problem with psychometric (and other forms of personality) tests is that they work on generalisations and accepted practice that doesn't spot the intelligent/motivated offender but does penalise many unfortunate innocents.

I have a huge collection of research papers here on various aspects of criminology and behavioural science that look at offenders of all sorts of different crimes and try to place a reason on why criminals committed their offences.

I have papers that "prove" links between a person's criminal activity and their parent's drinking, smoking and drug abuse.

I have another that shows a link between criminality and instances of serious head trauma at an early age.

I have yet another that shows that babies born "taller" than their peers grow into delinquent teenagers (even if their height advantage does not persist beyond infancy).

I could go on.

If thorough testing is advotated then we must insist that those performing the tests take all of this research into account.

So if you were a long baby, who happened to fall off his bike when young and who's father smoked then does this mean you should be added to some high risk offenders register, placed under surveillence and banned from becoming a teacher, priest, doctor, dentist etc etc?

The problem with criminals of every type (and this is what makes sex offenders particularly scarey) is that they are just like everyone else. They're people who lose the discipline/sense of value that prevents the rest of us from committing the same crimes.

Any test you put in place to try to predict whether a person will become an offender is going to be unreliable.

Obviously there is no rational defence for people who do commit offences but we need to be very careful about even casting the shadow of suspicion on potentially innocent people too. This kind of mud really sticks, you can end up with multiple innocent victims if you blame the wrong person.

As I said earlier I didn't see the original article. I certainly don't want to defend or in any way sympathise with or condone the actions of any sex offender. I'm just as outraged as anyone else by stories of such people, however, I don't think a proper answer to the question of what to do with these people has been found yet.

Capitol punishment is not the answer. I cannot trust the judicial system not to make mistakes and kill innocent people.

Institutionalising offenders has to have a more realistic and long term function than simply "getting them off the streets". Rates of repeat offending after custodial sentences are high and we can't just lock everyone up. It would almost be more practical to lock up all the non-criminals and leave the offenders on the outside.

There are no black and white answers to any of these questions. It's easy to be emotive and the old addage of hard cases making bad laws also applies to many of the measures that get introduced in response to public outcry over events reported in the media.

There are some terrible people in the world. Always have been and always will be. No amount of laws, tests or harsh sentensing is going to remove reports of horrible acts from our news reports.

Victor

Originally posted by Specky
I've come to this thread rather late, (so late in fact, that the original link no longer works and I haven't seen the story but even without the details I can see what the basic point is).

A young man doing a teacher training course tried to "obtain" a young girl. He was arrested, carrying a replica weapon, when he showed up to meet her. There was substantial suggestion in the article that he wasn't the brightest (psychologically and intellectually).