nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

should the media be allowed expose child killers new life?

100gSoma

Is it right for the media to expose the 'new lives' of citizens after they have served their time for a crime and been released and rehabilitated?
Can it be argued its "of public interest" to know the new life and identity and whereabouts of someone who has served a sentence and been released.
In many cases this 'prevention of allowing the person to move on' could lead them to suicide at worst, or ruin any chance they have of a normal life at best.
I say this as the star had an 8 page spread on the new life of an Irish killer including photos of him with his new GF and friends etc. Is that unfair or justified.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

100gSoma

orourkeda wrote: »

Why do you have the right to Know?

I suppose some people would think that if their child was abducted and murdered by a neighbour, and then it turned out the state knew this person had been released for a crime against a child and re-settled there with a new identity, well maybe it could be argued the state did not protect the other citizens who lived close by. I suppose it just means added vigilance against the former offender. I don't know if I would call it a "right" to know though.

seamus

Dudess wrote: »

He's not talking about his ability to father children, he's talking about actually being a father.

My point being that he proclaimed, "As a father I have a right...."

No, as a father you have a child and nothing more.

monkeypants

Joey the lips wrote: »

jamie bulger

A good example when discussing the media. James Bulger was never known as 'Jamie'. The media changed his name to make it sound more vulnerable. Apparently the two-year-old needed that.

actuallylike

carlybabe1 wrote: »

1) if a child molester has been caught, then its highly unlikely that he was caught on his/her first time and
2) they certainly dont get rehabilitated in jail, the resourses just aren't there,and the legal system is just giving the public what they think the public wants. A lot of these sentences are ludicrously low because theres just no room for them in prisons.My opinion of course.

I agree that jail will not help the individual, it will only help the public that he/she is locked away. My solution to something other than jail?
Honestly I don't know, ideally a psyche ward to help treat him or her but I know that this is not popular and I know that the resources may not be there, I'm stumped on this one but I think we should all respect the law, if someone has been let out and is deemed no danger to society, I would accept it as I feel they know more about his well been than I do.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Im pretty sure that witch hunts dont encourage these people to offend, in fact I would bet that they have offended before they have been caught, so this doesn't really make sense to me

Witch hunts don't cause these people to offend but they may force these people to keep their problem a secret and not feel comfortable seeking advice. Sitting on it and trying to sweep it under the table and forget about it won't put the urges away and will only make them stronger as you fight them imo. If it was a condition that people accepted and understood then maybe these people would come forward but while there is still this stigma of 'castrate him and kill him' then would anyone here come forward to admit it?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Im trying not to be offended by this, I was a smoker, I seriously doubt that my urges could be placed on the same level as paedophile.
I doubt a lot of these people go for help before they damage a child in some way shape or form, I can kinda understand that, with the way society feels about them

I wouldn't say your urges are remotely the same. I'm a smoker myself but it's an entirely different kettle of fish. Take a chronic gambler or drinker for instance. With a severe addiction, they will re mortgage their house and possibly destroy their family for their addiction. I can only imagine what goes through the mind of a paedophile!

I think it should be said here that the thread is not about a paedophile.

bSlick

All this crap about rehabilitating paedophiles is pure nonsense. They can't be rehabilitated and hence they should be chemically castrated. How in the name of god do you 'rehabilitate' someone's sexuality? Most people would laugh at the idea of rehabilitating a homosexual person to make them normal, ie heterosexual, and say it's just not possible, your born with your sexuality and that's it. And yet they go on about how paedophiles should be rehabilitated in jail so they are no longer a danger. You can't change someone's sexaulity, you'd think people would have realised that by now.

bSlick

And as for O Donogue, from the pictures in the paper I saw he seems to be having the time of his life. How would people here feel if it was their brother or son who had been killed by this guy in shady circumstances, then hid the body, and in the end only served 3 years for it. And then you see pictures of him living it up over in England while your son/brother is dead and buried. I don't have much sympathy for him tbh, if anyone deserves sympathy its the family of his victim.

actuallylike

bSlick wrote: »

All this crap about rehabilitating paedophiles is pure nonsense. They can't be rehabilitated and hence they should be chemically castrated. How in the name of god do you 'rehabilitate' someone's sexuality? Most people would laugh at the idea of rehabilitating a homosexual person to make them normal, ie heterosexual, and say it's just not possible, your born with your sexuality and that's it. And yet they go on about how paedophiles should be rehabilitated in jail so they are no longer a danger. You can't change someone's sexaulity, you'd think people would have realised that by now.

Chemical castration? Ladies and gentlemen, my point proved!
I could agree with you on the fact that there's no treatment though so anyone have any other idea on what to do (without castration). Basically what, within human rights laws, can you do?
Also I think you don't need a penis to download child pornography and I don't think castration lowers the urges.

bSlick

actuallylike wrote: »

Chemical castration? Ladies and gentlemen, my point proved!
I could agree with you on the fact that there's no treatment though so anyone have any other idea on what to do (without castration). Basically what, within human rights laws, can you do?
Also I think you don't need a penis to download child pornography and I don't think castration lowers the urges.

It certainly does lower the urges, I would have thought that was obvious. That's why it is practiced in various jurisdictions.

I'm not saying use chemical castration for relatively minor paedophilic offences but if someone lays a finger on a child then they should most definitely be castrated. Whatever about the rights of a scumbag who messes with kids, I'd be more concerned with the rights of children not to be interfered with. Why risk harm to another child from a person who has already shown themselves capable of doing it? Paedophiles have a very high reoffending rate.

actuallylike

bSlick wrote: »

And as for O Donogue, from the pictures in the paper I saw he seems to be having the time of his life. How would people here feel if it was their brother or son who had been killed by this guy in shady circumstances, then hid the body, and in the end only served 3 years for it. And then you see pictures of him living it up over in England while your son/brother is dead and buried. I don't have much sympathy for him tbh, if anyone deserves sympathy its the family of his victim.

I don't think he's looking for sympathy, seems like he's just trying to get on with his life which The Star obviously doesn't want. Everyone has sympathy for the family of the child but what's your solution to O'Donoghue? He's served his time, he's left the country, doesn't want to be a burden on anyone. If it wasn't for The Star, you'd have never known where he is or what he's doing so what's it to you? What do you expect him to do?

monkeypants

actuallylike wrote: »

seems like he's just trying to get on with his life which The Star obviously doesn't want.

Man commits crime, serves his time and gets on with his life. Where's the story in that?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bSlick wrote: »

All this crap about rehabilitating paedophiles is pure nonsense. They can't be rehabilitated and hence they should be chemically castrated. How in the name of god do you 'rehabilitate' someone's sexuality? Most people would laugh at the idea of rehabilitating a homosexual person to make them normal, ie heterosexual, and say it's just not possible, your born with your sexuality and that's it. And yet they go on about how paedophiles should be rehabilitated in jail so they are no longer a danger. You can't change someone's sexaulity, you'd think people would have realised that by now.

Got any evidence to back that up? Not saying your worng, just want to hear what your basing it on.

Also, paedophilia is a fetish not a sexuality. You can be gay or stragith and still be a paedophile. And before you answer that, perhaps you can tell me what paedophila has to do with the Wayne O'Donoghue case?

bSlick wrote: »

It certainly does lower the urges, I would have thought that was obvious. That's why it is practiced in various jurisdictions.

Again, evidence please, as it is far from obvious. Scientifically speaking. ANd the idea that it is right simply because various jurisdictions use it is laughable. Are we to bring back whipping and other bodily modicfications because various Islamic jurisdictions use them?

I'm not saying use chemical castration for relatively minor paedophilic offences but if someone lays a finger on a child then they should most definitely be castrated. Whatever about the rights of a scumbag who messes with kids, I'd be more concerned with the rights of children not to be interfered with. Why risk harm to another child from a person who has already shown themselves capable of doing it? Paedophiles have a very high reoffending rate.

Statistical evidence, please.

GrizzlyMan

Child killers should NOT get a new life, infact they shouldnt even have the right to Live!!:mad:

monkeypants

Are we advocating the death penalty for all murderers or just people who kill kids?

actuallylike

GrizzlyMan wrote: »

shouldnt even have the right to Live!!

There's an oxymoron in there somewhere!

GrizzlyMan

monkeypants wrote: »

Are we advocating the death penalty for all murderers or just people who kill kids?

im a believer in eye for an eye!

actuallylike

GrizzlyMan wrote: »

im a believer in eye for an eye!

and we all go blind!

Revenge has no place in a working society.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

GrizzlyMan wrote: »

im a believer in eye for an eye!

So why do we not have a Department for Vengence instad of a Department for Justice? Because that IS what you are suggesting. That and anarchy.

GrizzlyMan

actuallylike wrote: »

and we all go blind!

Revenge has no place in a working society.

Killers dont have a place either!!

LordDorington

wudangclan wrote: »

I think people,esp. the people around him, should be entitled to know about his past.

Agreed. And a lot of crimes that are committed are by repeat offenders. Look at that poor little five year old boy who was raped by a teen boy not so long ago - that teen was out after serving community service for raping a seven year old.

robinph

LordDorington wrote: »

Agreed. And a lot of crimes that are committed are by repeat offenders. Look at that poor little five year old boy who was raped by a teen boy not so long ago - that teen was out after serving community service for raping a seven year old.

...and do you think the problem with that case would be best solved by letting the papers lose on him or by sorting out the sentences that are given out to offenders to prevent them from re-offending?

DOC09UNAM

GrizzlyMan wrote: »

Killers dont have a place either!!

Then your theory of eye for eye cease's to exist.

someone kills someone, and by your logic, he should be killed.

who kills him, if killers dont have a place??

whoever kills him, will have to be killed by someone else, because he killed.

Never-ending cycle.

stovelid

seamus wrote: »

My point being that he proclaimed, "As a father I have a right...."

No, as a father you have a child and nothing more.

I don't normally like the As a parent brigade but I can understand the fears here. If you have a kid, you are going to be less able to view the presence of this man in your community in a rational way without some amount of fear.

That doesn't make your view more correct than people with no kids, just that you may have more practical ground for fear.

Personally, as I said already, I'm for punishment ending with the sentence but obviously I would greet the news that a convicted child molester or killer is living in the neighborhood with more fear than I would have before I had a child. It might not be entirely rational, but it would certainly be there.

LordDorington

robinph wrote: »

...and do you think the problem with that case would be best solved by letting the papers lose on him or by sorting out the sentences that are given out to offenders to prevent them from re-offending?

I'm just saying, statistically, a lot of crimes ARE committed by repeats, and this is arecent example, thats all. Certainly his community "service" left a lot to be desired dont you think? I am not suggesting for a moment that we "set" anyone on anybody else, as people have a right to be prtoceted. But do we not also have a right to protect our babies and children?

Kipperhell

GrizzlyMan wrote: »

Killers dont have a place either!!

Yes they do. Armed police have killed people in this country and we also have an army which is prepared to kill people.

Accidental deaths happen all the time but often individuals are still responsible. Should the state have killed Matthew Broderick? Not many murders commit more than one is the general belief. How about the guy who killed his brother should he be killed too? I am sure their mother would be delighted with that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

]

LordDorington wrote: »

Agreed. And a lot of crimes that are committed are by repeat offenders. Look at that poor little five year old boy who was raped by a teen boy not so long ago - that teen was out after serving community service for raping a seven year old.

Linky, pls.

LordDorington wrote: »

I'm just saying, statistically, a lot of crimes ARE committed by repeats, and this is arecent example, thats all. Certainly his community "service" left a lot to be desired dont you think? I am not suggesting for a moment that we "set" anyone on anybody else, as people have a right to be prtoceted. But do we not also have a right to protect our babies and children?

Linky, pls.

I love the way some people make something up and then assume we're all going to be bluffed into think it's a well though-out logical argument.

This isn't Adrian Kennedy, folks. There are standards.

LordDorington

I am sure everyone remembers Sarah Payne, the little girl who was brutally assaulted and strangled at the young age of eight. An opportunistic killer, Roy Whittaker snatched her as she made her way home with her siblings, and she was snuffed out.

Her mother has capaigned tirelessly for Sarah's Law which basically would allow parents to know if a convicted child sex offender was living in their area. As she quite rightly said, had she known that Roy Whittaker was in the area...her choices that day (to allow the older kids to mind the younger ones) would have been very different. Perhaps Sarah would still be alive today.

Incidentally when he killed Sarah, he had been released after serving just over half of a previous sentence for assaulting another girl.

I am not in favour of mobs of angry parents targetting and burning down houses of offenders, but in the absence of a decent justice system, they should at least be able to protect their children.

LordDorington

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Linky, pls.

Linky, pls.

I love the way some people make something up and then assume we're all going to be bluffed into think it's a well though-out logical argument.

This isn't Adrian Kennedy, folks. There are standards.

what exactly do you think was made up?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

LordDorington wrote: »

what exactly do you think was made up?

The bits in bold. And I'm not saying they're nessecarily "made up" - that bit was general - but I am saying you are assuming something that may not be true and presenting it as fact.

LordDorington

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The bits in bold. And I'm not saying they're nessecarily "made up" - that bit was general - but I am saying you're making assumptions.

I dont have time to find you links to that which is in fact quite obvious though if you are concerned then please feel free to argue to the differ. or, just ignore my posts if you are worried about their content.

I am not making assumptions, you only have to read the news to see that the majority f crimes (particularly those against children might I add) are committed by people who are out on bail or who have served only some of their sentence.

LordDorington

"I love the way some people make something up"

was that not you accsuing me of making something up? I am confused. Sorry I thought that was your intention?