Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Paedophile support group.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Diogenes wrote:
Personally I think they're a good idea, there's no way to lock them up forever, its a way of checking up on paedophiles, and its certainly a better step then setting up the pub lynch mob to set upon the local pediatrician.
Why to the paediatrician?
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
InFront wrote:Are you actually reading what others say? Ive already stated this twice - castration or death for an offender who has been proven to have had raped or gravely sexually assaulted a child or infant. There is far, far less scope for a miscarriage of justic e because of the lack of a motive for accusation,
For starts InFront I was not specifically to you but refering the vast majority of rebuttals posted on this thread. Hagar and a few others have just suggested the death penalty but have failed to elaborate about what offense justifies the death sentence. Child porn etc.
I would strongly recommend you watch "capturing the freidmans" a disturbing and harrowing documentary about a father and son accused of raping a group of children in New Jersey in the early 80s. The most horribly memoriable moment for me is when a child therapist who deals with abuse victims states "when dealing with a child who may have been sexualy assaulted you must not ask leading questions, as a child responding to a authority figure like a social worker or policeman, will always respond in the affirmative, in a desire to please" Directly afterwards it shows the police officers who interogated the children involved and they stated "the best tactic in interviewing children over alledged rape or abuse is to ask leading questions and to draw an answer out"secondly the fact that medical confirmation is easier than it is with adults, and thirdly, because there is no blurry line of 'legal consesnt'.
But are you in favour of death for someone who rapes a 15 and 3/4 yo and not a 16 yo? And what difference does a few weeks make? You, among others, have setfastily avoided the question. I mean a guy just turned 17 having sex with a 15yo should be killed?
Furthermore if the rape happened six months ago? a year ago? is medical confirmation still as easy after innumerable baths and showers by the victim? It becomes the "victim" verus the "accused" word. In such a situation do you adovacate the death penalty?Courts dont doubt themselves in their judgements, and so the consequences of a miscarriage of justice should not be something they concern themselves with while handing down a sentance - for any crime!
Whut seriously? Courts doubt themselves all the time, judges direct jurors, sentences are overturned. A court is the exact place to worry about a misscarriage of justice, where else do you propose someone worries about a misscarriage of justice???? 0 -
Diogenes wrote:But are you in favour of death for someone who rapes a 15 and 3/4 yo and not a 16 yo? And what difference does a few weeks make? You, among others, have setfastily avoided the question. I mean a guy just turned 17 having sex with a 15yo should be killed?
Have I avoided this? I dont remember being asked. I am talking about child rape, not a 16 year old having sex with a 17 year old.
Any person having sexual intercourse with an individual whom the judiciary judge not to have been in a position to consent to sexual relations due to conditions of age and mental development, and not understanding the meaning of consentual intercourse, is what I would personally describe as a a paedophile. I dont think that it can be bounded up in a question of legal age.Furthermore if the rape happened six months ago? a year ago? is medical confirmation still as easy after innumerable baths and showers by the victim? It becomes the "victim" verus the "accused" word. In such a situation do you adovacate the death penalty?
I have already said I only advocate the death penalty or castration in cases where clear medical proof exists that sexual relations occured and there is preferably a victim account to back this up. The latter of course is not possible with very young or murdered children. If there is no forensic proof or a pathology report confirming sexual relations, then I dont see how the death penalty or castration could be defended. DNA is a long term forensic resource that could be made use of for years after the alleged abuse.Whut seriously? Courts doubt themselves all the time, judges direct jurors, sentences are overturned. A court is the exact place to worry about a misscarriage of justice, where else do you propose someone worries about a misscarriage of justice????
I presume you have misunderstood my comment. Courts do not doubt themselves at any single moment in time. Retrospectively, a judge may doubt another member of the judiciary or court which has previously sat, but there is no room for doubting a current judgement that one is passing down.
That is to say, if a judge convicts you of assault and battery on your wife, he cannot give you a leniant sentance because although he has convicted you he feels that he *may* be wrong. That simply doesnt happen, nor should it. If there is a conviction, then the consequences must be upheld. If that consequence were castration, for example, the judge could not say "well we convicted him, but we might not be right, so dont castrate".
He could only decide this in a court of appeal where further information on the case would have to be provided.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement