Paying a debt to society

mr_angry

Hi everyone,

myself and BuffyBot opened up an interesting issue based on a journal entry of his. The entry in question can be found here, under "Mr. BuffyBot and the case of Person X".

Anyway, the jist of this entry was that he had been in a chatroom where somebody claimed to be an Internet paedophile that was caught in a sting operation. This person had supposedly done his time, and was back out "on the streets", for want of a better term. A lot of the chatroom users threatened him with being lynched, etc., but the point that BuffyBot brought up was that since he had paid for his crime, he should be allowed to go about his business.

We began to engage this topic in further detail in the comments. I am by no means in favour of lynching, but I pointed out that crimes based on things like anger, jealousy, or lust are not the same as other crimes. A perpetrator who has carried out such a crime has, in my opinion, demonstrated a lack of restraint on their emotions, and it is impossible to say that they will never do so again.

BuffyBot struck back with the point that while such people can never be cured, if there is no evidence of them re-offending, it is not our place to judge them eternally guilty. That's a valid point, but I felt I wouldn't be able to trust a person convicted of this kind of crime. Does that mean I'm judging them? Can you mistrust somebody without judging them?

I'm really just looking for people's opinions on that particular question. No suggestions of "just lynch the bastards" please.

Lemming

Originally posted by mr_angry

Does that mean I'm judging them? Can you mistrust somebody without judging them?

I would say "yes" to that particular question. Just because you mistrust someone doesn't mean that you've summarily judged them. I wouldn't trust some random stranger on the street with minding my wallet for 5 minutes. Not because I think they're going to steal it, but simply because I don't know *WHO* they are.

By the same token, the person in question who served time for paedophilia is mistrusted around children. Not because they think he's going to do it again. But rather because he HAS done it before and so it's not outside the bounds of reason that he may again.

If that makes any sense?

vibe666

i wouldn't let him babysit if that's what you mean. it's not something you can change in a person, any more than you can change a rapist or murderer. once you've done it, that's what you are, there's no going back.

there's no such thing as an ex-murderer is there?

as for the 'he was convicted and served his punishment' ok fair enough, but i don't want someone like that around me or my family no matter how much theyve 'paid'.

if you steal someone's wallet you can give it back to them. you can't do the same with a child's innocence, so you can't stop being the person who did that can you?

no time served, or price paid by someone guilty of that can ever take it away from the victim and its something they will always live with and carry around in their hearts for the rest of their lives.

i've lived with someone who was raped and she never got over it completely. i've also lived with someone who was molested as a child by her uncle and believe me, that really doesn't go away, and part of the person she is is made up of that terrible thing that happened to her, and it will never ever go away.

BuffyBot

Just to be clear:

The person claims to be was person who has been caught in Operation Ore (of Pete Townsend fame) for downloading pornographic images. This download occured in 1999.

It would be interesting to see what people think about this.

a) Has the guy paid for his crimes and is entitled to do as he pleases (the only thing he is guilty of is being a muppet in the chat room)

or

b) He's guilty forever for a crime of this nature, whether he has re-offended or not.

BigCon

I believe that sex crimes should be viewed differently than all other crimes. Once you commit a rape, or abuse, then you can never fully serve your debt to society. Serving time is one thing, but I think that offenders should be electronically tagged and/or chemically castrated. This may seem extreme, but these are horrible crimes. Of course then the question of punishing an innocent man arises...

Imposter

Originally posted by BigCon
I believe that sex crimes should be viewed differently than all other crimes. Once you commit a rape, or abuse, then you can never fully serve your debt to society. Serving time is one thing, but I think that offenders should be electronically tagged and/or chemically castrated. This may seem extreme, but these are horrible crimes. Of course then the question of punishing an innocent man arises...

I would sort of agree with this. I think most criminals should be electronically tagged for a time after serving a sentence. Call it a form of probation or whatever. The more serious the crime (murder or rape for example), the longer the tagging. That would help police monitor those who are more likely to reoffend and give ordinary people some level of comfort in knowing that these people are being seriously watched. Ok it may not stop them reoffending but it would seriously deter them from stepping outside of the law and it would be far better than just trusting these people outright.

I think the castration might be a bit severe especially on first time offenders but if the offender has reoffended then that might be an idea.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by BuffyBot
The person claims to be was person who has been caught in Operation Ore (of Pete Townsend fame) for downloading pornographic images. This download occured in 1999.

It would be interesting to see what people think about this.

Here's my first impression: why would someone claim that? You'd imagine that someone who was caught and "paid his debt," if he truly believed he'd left his past behind, would keep his head down and not want to bring it up at all?

In other words, what's his motive for publicising his past (even anonymously)?

The Corinthian

I find people start waving torches and pitchforks when the topic sex crimes come up - in particular child abuse.

A man can be convicted of date rape (a rather nebulous crime at times as there have been some rather dubious cases in the past) and his name will be on a register of past offenders for a number of years or even life once he’s served his time. Meanwhile, a murderer can happily get on with his or her life without any such registry. Indeed, the stigma surrounding murder is nothing compared to that surrounding sex crimes, it’s often even romanticized, even though it is the ultimate violation of another’s rights.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but does this discrepancy make sense?

Personally, I’d tend to side with the satire that Brass Eye did on the subject, not to long ago and say that much of what is being discussed here is based upon hysteria an not reason.

ixoy

I kind of have to agree with The Corinthian here. There's way too much insane shrieking and hysteria when these issues arise, particularly in relation to paedophiles (which, by the way, can be entirely different to predatory paedophiles). and hebophiles. The Brass Eye skit was entirely necessary to highlight the sensationalism surrounding it. No doubt they would have found the recent mobile phone indecency picture similiarly worthy of parody. There's a blindspot in people's eyes over this violation and yes it often does seem that murder is seen as a "lesser" crime. A poll on ITV's teletext showed a majority support for the death sentence for child offences.

The register is, in some senses, understandable however. A lot of murders are committed in passion or fright. Few are cold blooded psychotic killers. Other crimes do not show the intent of the criminal to violate the sancticity of someone. Sex crimes are a very personal crime against someone and people fear it. The thing is though that the very publication of the registry automatically disposes a massive prejudice against the offender. How can they reintegrate successfully into society if the burden is over them? How can they readjust when all they get are dark looks from their neighbors once the word is out? Prison should not just be about punishment in these cases - it should be about reintegration and bringing desires under control (which can be done).

Look at it another way: I'm a offender. I feel I've done my time and am ready to join the great unwashed masses. Here I go now into my new home. I apply for a job. Oh look - I've been turned down. It's due to my lack of experience they say, but I can't be sure - I know I'm qualified. I introduce myself to my neighbours: why are they so cold? I seem them chatting together in the mornings. I think I'll go withdraw into myself and let my old desires resurface. There's no point in trying to fit in because I can see clearly I don't. I haven't paid have I? Well screw them then.

... See? If there's an offender, their presence should be on a need-to-know. There should be mandatory checkups and, importantly, social education into what's acceptable. Society currently dictates extreme pariah acts for these folk and it's not working.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ixoy
and hebophiles

...and wha', Gay? What's a hebophile? Surely not someone with an overwhelming urge to go to Hebo, Oregon?

Stark

Never heard of a hebophile. Must be a typo.

Personally in this day and age I wouldn't go near a child unless there was a camera/some kind of witness there at all times.

ixoy

Not a typo. A hebophile is someone attracted to adolescent minors whereas a paedophile is someone attracted to children.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ixoy
Not a typo. A hebophile is someone attracted to adolescent minors whereas a paedophile is someone attracted to children.

Ah, got it: hebephile. I'm surprised none of the dictionary searches I tried offered that as an alternative spelling. Google did, though.

ixoy

I came across both spellings. Didn't know which was the official version so I settled with hebophile as I saw it sourced on ABC News.

mr_angry

Well, that argument brings up the issue: can somebody guilty of such a crime ever pay it off with time in jail? I'm not trying to advocate hysteria - I'm totally in favour of re-integrating people into society - but its not easy to forgive crimes like this. They aren't carried out in the heat of the moment.

The article itself states that psychological counselling doesn't offer a cure for this kind of behaviour, but it can lessen the chances of reoffending. Knowing that, its very difficult to trust a convicted paedophile. Does that mean we've judged them for the rest of their lives? To me, it would seem so, yes. I'd rather that wasn't the case, but I don't think we as a society have developed an alternative way of thinking about this yet.

vibe666

i'm all in favour of lopping off their nuts personally.

someone who has done this sort of thing can't be trusted with their urges, so you have to do something to stop them.

I've also heard about some sucessful chemical castrations in the US which would also do the job. kinda like the male pill, but to curb sexual desire. implants under the skin or uinjections every so often that prevent said offender from having any sexual urges. it would have to be for the more predatory sort who it can be proven are a danger to kids. look at darina allens fella. convicted of downloading stuff on the net, but they have kids and there was never any indication he did anything to them at all as far as I'm aware, so castration would imho be just a tad severe.

but someone who has hurt children in the past would definately be a prime candidate for the chemical castration, and if that didn't do the trick then cut off his balls. it's not like he should be allowed to have kids anyway with that sort of history, so i don't see a problem.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mr_angry
The article itself states that psychological counselling doesn't offer a cure for this kind of behaviour, but it can lessen the chances of reoffending. Knowing that, its very difficult to trust a convicted paedophile. Does that mean we've judged them for the rest of their lives? To me, it would seem so, yes. I'd rather that wasn't the case, but I don't think we as a society have developed an alternative way of thinking about this yet.

Were this a consistent position to take I would concur, but it’s not. Murder, for example, is a worse crime than rape or sexual abuse/assault - however traumatic the former is, it’s idiocy to argue that it is a greater crime than murder.

Yet it does not invoke the same level of emotional response (and as I’ve already pointed out will even be romanticized upon occasion). In the more extreme case of psychopaths or sociopaths counselling is even less effective, due to the nature of the disorder, yet you don’t see a large swathe of public opinion looking to tag them, inhibit their testosterone or burn them at the stake.

So were the argument proposed consistent and logical, I’d respect it - but it’s not. It’s the shrill cry of “cut off his balls” from the back of a mob of angry townspeople and nobody respects a herd of buffoons.

BuffyBot

Here's my first impression: why would someone claim that? You'd imagine that someone who was caught and "paid his debt," if he truly believed he'd left his past behind, would keep his head down and not want to bring it up at all?

Because he's getting attention. Which he seems to like, in some weird way. People probably ignored him before hand. He probably told someone "in confidence" first and it got out that way originally.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Because he's getting attention. Which he seems to like, in some weird way. People probably ignored him before hand. He probably told someone "in confidence" first and it got out that way originally.

I suspected that myself: it's not a sign of someone who's completely normal and well-adjusted, is it?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I suspected that myself: it's not a sign of someone who's completely normal and well-adjusted, is it?

/me gives oscarBravo a round of applause

BuffyBot

it's not a sign of someone who's completely normal and well-adjusted, is it?

No, but if you banned everyone guilty of attention seeking from the Internet, how many would be left?

Specky

Hmm...there is an understandable hysteria surrounding sexually related crimes and particularly where children are involved. The pitch fork/lynch mob/nut chopping attitudes are common.

But I think this issue is more to do with crime in general and our attitudes towards people in general. People make the judgement on whether to trust someone or not all the time. Knowing a persons background simply prejudices you therefore influencing how you choose to judge.

If you were convicted of stealing mars bars would you be the right person for the job of sweet shop security guard?

Criminology is a relatively new science but for centuries science has tried to understand why people commit crimes in order that they may be prevented. Problem is, this approach hasn't really prevented much because it is almost impossible to predict why any particular person will commit a crime before they do it. After they've done it you may be able to rationalise backwards to see what caused it but that isn't a whole lot of use.

For every criminal you will find another person with an identical background and upbringing who chooses not to commit crime. You can't tell that the criminal is a criminal until they've chosen to stray from the law abiding path.

So how can you predict if a person is going to fiddle with your kids until they've done it?

And if they've done it once how can you know whether they're going to do it again? I don't think you can.

If you look at corporate fraud the people who commit it most are in senior positions, well paid, good prospects, well respected. But they throw away everything to steal a few quid from someone else. It's often completely out of character and when revealled is met with shock and disbelief. How could you predict this? And if your strategy for prevention was based on predicting who would commit the crime you would therefore never be able to prevent it.

The approach to reducing crime used more frequently today is called situational crime prevention. It is based on the principle that you cannot predict who will commit a crime or why they will commit it. Instead you identify the item at risk (your kids), you identify what the potential risks are (having someone fiddle with them) and you base your protection around removing or reducing the opportunities for these risks to occur.

To prevent sex crime using this approach it is obviously necessary to reduce the opportunity for potential targets to come into contact with potential perpetrators.

Convicted offenders are seen as a high risk group but you can't lock offenders up forever (generally) and even if you did that wouldn't prevent a first offender committing his crime.

As I mentioned above you can't identify potential perpetrators, I accept you have to worry about those with previous history of this sort of activity (and for this reason these people need to be identifiable via the sex offenders register possibly with electronic tagging to monitor or limit their movements), but because not all sex crime is committed by known sex offenders (ie all people are potential offenders who just haven't offended yet) parents and guardians need to take a more active role in protecting their children...knowing where they are, knowing what they're doing, who they're talking to etc etc...things my parents knew about me when I was small but which a lot of people don't really seem too concerned about with their own children these days.

Whether or not the sex offenders register should be made public is a very difficult point. In fact, you could argue that there should be a national criminal register. If the argument "I have kids so I have the right to know when I have a paedophile living next door" is reasonable then so is the argument "I have a sweet shop so I have the right to know when I have a mars bar thief living next door". But to know this sort of information about people WILL prejudice your judgement of them.

I have come into contact with a lot of people with dubious backgrounds as a result of my work and of course you make judgements on them even if it's just judging whether you like them or not. I have to say though that often these people are a lot easier to judge than the more "run of the mill" average Joe in the street. At least if you're talking to a thief you know he's a thief. When you meet someone in the street they could be anyone and capable of anything.

Capt'n Midnight

Note: haven't read the other posts - any ways..

It's a balance between fairness and protection. For every crime punished there are many undetected. For repeat offenders there is a percentage caught and recorded, there will be others who reoffend and who aren't caught. I'm sure someone could dig up the figures somewhere as to the best guesses on this.

Then there is the severity of the deed to take into account - which is worse - a low percentage chance of re-offending and a new victim OR denial of certain personal freedoms of someone who belongs to a group who are statistically more likely to commit an offence than average.

Maths can't solve the problem - but it will help understand it and then you can make an informed decision since the best predictior for the the future is the past.
eg: if 1 in 10 peadophiles reoffends and only half of those are caught and each would create on averate 1.5 victims then of every 100 released you'd have 15 new victims...
NOW the question is 15 victims vs. the personal freedoms of 85 non-offenders (Real numbers will be different)

There is also the screening to take into account - perhaps make it a condition of parole (judge decides) that any attempt to apply for a postion where there is access to children would warrant an immediate re-incarciation.(SP)

To me the reoffend rates / effect on the victim would suggest to me that you can't ever be considered totally innocent again of certain crimes. (perhaps only those commited in heat of moment - never for premediated ones or those where there is an unwilling victim)

============================
One thing you don't want here is a situation like in the States where (onion field) the penalty for kidnapping across a state line was death (or so one of the kidnappers thought) - and so there was no incentive to keep the victim alive. You might have to give peadophiles hope of redemption. (cringe)

mr_angry

I still get the feeling in this thread that everyone's opinion is "Once a paedophile, always a paedophile". In the case of the mars bar theif, is it "Once a mars bar theif, always a mars bar theif"?

Personally, I think the chances of their being a repentant Mars Bar theif out there is fairly high, but people don't seem to be acknowledging the possibility of a repentant paedophile. Hell, I don't even know if I can do that. But I suspect that its possible. Should this person be forever electronically tagged? Should his/her conviction be made available to the general public forever?

To be honest, I don't know whether murder is a worse crime than rape / child abuse. Admittedly, by committing murder, you are denying that person their right to exist altogether. But sexual crimes can utterly destroy people's lives, and that of their families. I'm not saying that I believe sex crimes are worse, but I find it very hard to compare the severity of them.

Specky

I still get the feeling in this thread that everyone's opinion is "Once a paedophile, always a paedophile". In the case of the mars bar theif, is it "Once a mars bar theif, always a mars bar theif"?

Well I can only speak for myself but I don't think I was trying to suggest that.

There is a flaw in the values system of a person who commits a crime. Sometimes the crime simply exposes an inherent flaw, sometimes there is a breakdown of values.

Mars bar thieves possibly have only a minor flaw (although, as I mentioned, it is impossible to truly know the motivation behind any act so stealing chocky could actually be a part of something much bigger) and it is perhaps reasonable to believe you can fix the problem that causes the thief to pocket the goodies.

Paedophiles have some pretty serious flaws, not only in their values system but also in their comprehension of cause and effect, specifically the effect of their actions on the lives of their victims. Repentant though they may be I have to say I find it hard to contemplate someone with such extensive problems being effectively "brain washed" into a new set of values. I do accept that it may be possible though.

My point was more to do with the problem that you cannot see into people's minds. You cannot predict who is going to be a paedophile before they do, just like you can't predict which kids are going to grow up with sticky fingers....mars flavoured ones that is. You also can't predict who is going to re-offend no matter what the offence but having shown a predilection towards offending once it is perhaps understandable that those with a record should remain under suspision, even if this does seem unfair in some cases. If we were not to monitor those people and they were to re-offend would not the first accusation be that we failed in our duty of protection?

I am in favour of a sex offenders register...just like I'm in favour of the police knowing where all known criminals are...but as much as my own selfish wishes would like to know for my own children's sake if I had a paedophile living next door I don't think that this information should be made public otherwise it will raise local prejudice therefore penalising those who are truly repentant.

If risky individuals are being properly monitored (and this includes not just those who have offended but all people who are in a position where they have the opportunity to offend) and if the penalties for being caught actually do reflect the severity of the crime committed, and there is a system in place that seems to be organised and co-ordinated in a way that systems should be at the beginning of the 21st century so that a known offender and high risk individual can creep out from under the gaze of the authorities simply by moving to another part of the country (or even another country), then I would feel reasonably happy that I and my family are being protected from the outside and I could then make sure we are protected from the inside.

Of course, there are those on the inside of families who actually are the threat, and unfortunately there's not a whole lot we can do about them. As it says in the song "no one knows what goes on behind closed doors". I don't know what the answer to this problem is but I suppose we have to hope that it lies in education both for the potential offender and the potential victim, and in having proper support mechanisms in place so that victims (and those who may have their suspisions) know where to go to get help.

BuffyBot

Paedophiles

But does one (proven) incident of downloading some child porn make someone a paedophile? Or just incredibly stupid?

shotamoose

I think that part of the problem is that 'paedophile' does not equal 'child abuser'. I've seen reports claiming that huge numbers of people have accessed what would be called child porn over the Internet, yet they're not all out there molesting kids. Obviously this doesn't mean that looking at child porn is fine and dandy, but it does raise difficult questions about prevention and presumption of innocence.

For example: There have been cases of people being convicted of possessing child porn where the judge has described the stash in question as being 'particularly vile' or particularly huge or something. Well then, what about someone who has downloaded 'less vile' child porn (which there must be if some of it is particularly vile)? Are they as much of a threat as someone in the first category? Is someone in the first category even a threat to children they might meet if all they do is look at porn?

Like I say, tricky stuff.

Specky

People who look at child pornography are not all paedophiles, people who look at "mainstream" pornography are not all rapists and people who look at violence on TV are not all murderers.

However, people who lead outwardly normal and un-distinguished lives, people we live and work with, people who live next door sometimes are paedophiles, rapists or murderers. That is, if you'll pardon the expression, the nature of the beast...

dr_manhattan

This is an odd thread: as the corinthian says, there's a lot here being said groundlessly and based on emotive ideas:

"there's no such thing as an ex-murderer is there?"

"these things aren't done in the heat of the moment"

"cut their balls off"

And this sort of thing: leaving for the moment aside the issues of castration, etc., there seems to be a lot of people guessing at what are in fact very intimate areas of the criminals thought processes: the idea that darina allen's fella never touched his kids and so therefore shouldn't be castrated whereas "others" should be highlights this flawed way of thinking, and where it brings us - to condemn those we don't know, and make allowances for those we do.

Thus creating a society based on privilege and nepotism... something we are supposed to be moving away from... ahem...

To whoever it was that argued that it is idiocy to say that rape is worse than murder: what about those people who kidnap and keep victims alive while raping them? Is that better than raping them once and killing them?

Fact is, there's no category of crime that's any worse than any other: euthanasia is still murder under the law, but one can imagine that in certain circumstances it could be much "less" of a crime than a mugging (assuming the mugging were to be violent and have awful consequences) - to use terms like "worse" or "better" becomes meaningless in the face of the darker side of the human spirit.

And that's why we have a legal system, because words are not enough (hahaha, so we use loads of words. And really big ones, too)

The fact is that there are two major factors influencing how people judge offenders privately and they are 1) nature of crime, and 2) context of offender. When we know about the perpetrator or victim, it mitigates for or against them and influences our decision: we then use what we feel we understand of the crime to complete the picture.

But in doing so we casually make judgements over things we know not the first thing about. Does anyone here *really* know anything, experentially, about paedophilia? Enough to say whether it's premeditated or not? To say that it's deliberately destructive? For all I know, paedophiles could do what they do because of ice cream addiction: anything else is just what I've guessed, been told or read.

And though darina allen would never have defended a dowloader of child porn, she did defend her husband - and a lot of us would defend those close to us, because they would explain themselves to us and we, as friends, would understand and try to help. I don't know what made her husband act like such a ****ing idiot, but i do know what he did contributed to the financial base of those who abuse children for profit. And the damage to his "reputation" shouldn't change that one bit.

Imagine a junkie from coolock claiming that being done for shoplifting / assault / whatever had damaged his social standing, and as a result walking free? Losing a fight in public could indeed damage a junkie's reputation, even livelihood, yet nobody entertains this. Nobody implies that he's "suffered enough".

In fact, from what the average taxi driver says, nobody seems to think lowlifes such as junkies CAN suffer enough: "jail's too good for them", "shoot them all", and the like are the staples of opinion.

Which is why, IMHO, the only thing it's idiotic to argue in this issue is suggest that people never be able to repay for their crimes. Just because nobody uses the term 'ex murderer' doesn't mean that someone who has done their time is not, effectively, an "ex-murderer".

And yes, I have met sevewral murderers. And yes, I can very clearly say that I thought of them as "ex murderers" because they were sorry. One of them is psychotic and resides in dundrum. I don't think of him as an "ex murderer" because he is sick. If he can be cured, I will then think of him as an "ex-murderer". And yeah, if he runs at me with an axe after that I'll be worried: but that's very different to me saying he should be imited in where he lives, or be tagged, or whatever.

On another tack:

100 years ago, paedophilia didn't matter a bollocks to anyone. But Homosexuality did, so Oscar Wilde died in reading jail: society of the time generally thought of him as a pederast, a pervert. There are parallels with our current, self assured, moral crusades of the time. Nobody forgave Oscar until he was dead, and there are many, many examples of this to take in mind before we jump to judgement on those who have offended our sensibilities.

And what of those who are too skilled and too wealthy to be caught for crimes? Our society unofficially recognises that those who are wealthy recieve far greater protection from the law than the poor, despite our best efforts to be fair: So should we, realising that we punish the poor just for being poor very often, continue to deal out harsh judgements with as much vigour as possible?

I think a society which cannot forgive and try it's damnedest to re-absorb those who trespass (yes, EVEN against the highest social taboos) has lost its way completely. The purpose of society is not to enable a skilled few to achieve greatness, and disqualify all those who do not make the grade: it is to enable all people to flourish and find a common ground between them. I think it's easy to forget this.

But many people don't. When a lot of people hear of overcrowded prisons, they think "well at least we're catching them" or else "build more prisons", or even worse "well at least doubling up cells means it's no longer like a holiday camp". Some people exhibit a curious delight, a zeal when they hear of people being stuck in jail for years on end. I guess that's always been lost on me.

But all I can say is, when it's your brother, your sister or someone close to you, it all seems different. It's all very easy to sit in judgement, but not so easy to feel the judgement of others.

Ah, rant over. Bulletin boards are just made for thoase days when work is too sick to mention ;-)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
To whoever it was that argued that it is idiocy to say that rape is worse than murder: what about those people who kidnap and keep victims alive while raping them? Is that better than raping them once and killing them?

My point was that the greatest denial of human rights is exemplified by murder. As romantic as the term a “fate worse than death” may be, you’re effectively arguing that someone would be ‘better off dead’ than to be raped continually, which is a little utilitarian to say the least. By the same logic anyone having a miserable life, for whatever reason, is equally ‘better off dead’.

so Oscar Wilde died in reading jail

He died in Paris three years after being released from Reading jail.

dr_manhattan

ahem, good point with the paris death thing: ranting is an inexact science. Guess I meant to say 'rotted in reading jail' ;-)

now:

"...you’re effectively arguing that someone would be ‘better off dead’ than to be raped continually, which is a little utilitarian to say the least. By the same logic anyone having a miserable life, for whatever reason, is equally ‘better off dead’."

Turns of phrase versus actual practical points of meaning, you have a point there - but I'm not necessarily arguing that someone would be better off dead than anything really: I was trying to show that "rape", the legal category, and "murder", the legal category, are broad categories in which it's sef defeating to make 'better or worse' judgements... I actually think what we are trying to say is quite similar, now that I understand you better.

What I'm trying to point out is that saying that one crime is necessarily 'worse' than another is introducing an emotive set of judgements to a legal category, if you get me: I believe we should abide by what the legal system says, if we are going to have one at all. Our judgement as citizens is not just clouded, it's irrelevant. And while keeping registers of people is one thing, I firmly believe that people should be allowed the benefit of the doubt.

Otherwise, why appoint judges?

As you say, it IS indicative of a very messed up set of values that murder is romanticised at times, and either way set 'above' rape, abuse, etc. An acquaintance of mine once shared a cell with a man who had strangled his girlfriend in a fit of rage. Every time he saw, heard or mentioned a sex offender, he would fly into vengeful rages, screaming on about how he would "end those rapist scum"

My friend was, naturally, driven to distraction by sharing 6 months with this walking contradiction (not that prison would have been fun without him ;-)), and I always think of this guy whenever I hear people saying "aw man, that's just the lowest of the low"

I know people can't resist making value judgements, it's how we deal with the world, but we surely must recognise that making these judgements (i.e. saying that there's no way for certain people to repay their crimes, yet there is some way for others to do so) is crippling to a system of social rehabilitation which depends on us, its citizens, to give each other a fair chance.

If we refuse to do this, we condemn people to awful lives - fates worse that death, even ;-) on the basis of nothing better than our own unqualified opinions: and often, IMHO, this can be about as fair as marching people to the town square and hanging them slowly.