Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

The law is an ass ( hole )

NozzyNozzer said:
asst_dep_to_dep_asst said:
So the Attorney General is unhappy with the good doctor for getting involved in the case of the paedophile sentenced to life with a 5 year minimum? Good. Maybe you legal types can effect some reasonable changes. This perpetrator has had too many chances already and should go down for his life, with no possibility of remission. Then no group of do-gooders on the parole board will even have the opportunity to let him out to break other parents hearts.

Dr.Reid is a politician and as such is governed by the expedient need to be re-elected, thereby seeking the sort of sound bites the right-wing media just love to replacate. Mercifully the judiciary are not elected are free to be governed not by political expediency, popularism or their hearts but very firmly by their heads!

Let me elaborate. I agree that the minimum sentence appears to be too light, given the apparent gravity of the compound offences that appear to have arisen: a recidivist offender, as one might expect with this pathological condition, throwing the child from a vehicle moving at speed risked killing her, and the depraved assault he carried out on her in his home. I am of course well aware that some police, no doubt a small minority, have a persistent bad habit of misbriefing the local media as to the facts of cases like these, which upon closer inspection often turn out differ in significant material ways!

For the sake of argument however let us assume that the stated facts are correct. The defendent has been given a life sentence. He has already shown remorse for his crimes, which one should not forget, most sex odffenders are in denial about. What the judge has said is that should he exhibit exceptionally good behaviour and, assuming that he agrees to participate in a sex offenders' treatment programme (I am assuming here that he has not participated in one previously) and the the outcome of this is positive, then upon satisfying these conditions he should be considered for parole after serving a minimum of 5 years in what will be a vulnerable prisoners unit, used for prisoners at risk of harming themselves or being harmed, as in this case, by others. The purpose of prison is, rather oddly, both punitive and reformative. For the reformative element to work one must give an offender hope of release as the ultimate reward for cooperation. The question we need to ask perhaps, is whether a particular offender is exhibiting para-psychopathic traits, that is whether their behaviour resembles psychopathic behaviour and in consequence justifies protective custody? In this context however prison is inappropriate. What we would need would be to determine whether the client's behaviour warrants transfer to a closed-psychiatric facility.

Nozzy if you honestly believe that this man has shown true remorse for his crimes, you have led a more sheltered life than I first believed. His remorse is for himself for getting caught. Usually shown, somewhat transparently in Court in order to get a reduced sentance. He is a repeat offender, how many times would he have to offend against Children before you accept that some people have stepped so far out of society that they no longer deserve the right to walk free. Are you advocating that its fine for them to cause untold harm to innocent children just long as they show remorse afterwards?
 
Lingyai said:
Paedophilia statistically runs in families where a child who has suffered repeated sexual abuse goes on to replicate the abuse they suffered, upon others. So in effect you are advocating punishing victims for the traumas of their childhood rather than tackling the offending behaviour itself.
Fcuk them, they still know it is wrong so they should be punished and you have to break the chain. e.g. If I get butt raped one night by some black dudes does that mean I could start butt raping other people? No, regardless of my victim status I would still know that is wrong. A lot of the psy bull these days is just trying to smooth over the fact that some people are just bad eggs and most so called counsellors and trick cyclists are making a pretty penny from it. Kid fiddlers? Get em up against the wall.
Well said
 
Lingyai said:
Paedophilia statistically runs in families where a child who has suffered repeated sexual abuse goes on to replicate the abuse they suffered, upon others. So in effect you are advocating punishing victims for the traumas of their childhood rather than tackling the offending behaviour itself.
Fcuk them, they still know it is wrong so they should be punished and you have to break the chain. e.g. If I get butt raped one night by some black dudes does that mean I could start butt raping other people? No, regardless of my victim status I would still know that is wrong. A lot of the psy bull these days is just trying to smooth over the fact that some people are just bad eggs and most so called counsellors and trick cyclists are making a pretty penny from it. Kid fiddlers? Get em up against the wall.

What they are doing is wrong, but the problem we have is often they simply do not see their behaviour as being wrong! Custody without addressing the cause is a futile exercise in self-deception.
 
janner said:
Nozzy if you honestly believe that this man has shown true remorse for his crimes, you have led a more sheltered life than I first believed. His remorse is for himself for getting caught. Usually shown, somewhat transparently in Court in order to get a reduced sentance. He is a repeat offender, how many times would he have to offend against Children before you accept that some people have stepped so far out of society that they no longer deserve the right to walk free. Are you advocating that its fine for them to cause untold harm to innocent children just long as they show remorse afterwards?

I suspect that he has shown the same remorse as the average psychopathic offender: as you say, feeling sorry for himself and guilty about being caught but no real feelings for the consequences of his actions upon his victims. In both cases of course the offender does not see their behaviour as faulty. The knee-jerk reaction is indefinate custody without hope of parole. The problem I have with this is that it treats an abnormality of mind as unresolvable. I do not believe this to be the case. My preferred solution as I have stated before would be a special treatment order, but this is not politically expedient. Personally I do not believe that Sweeney will be paroled, but I do believe that were he to no longer pose a danger to children or the public in the future, he ought to be seriously considered for release. I'll be long dead before that happens though.
 
Nozzy I suspect that your reaction to the very commonly held views about paedophilia and the more heinous end of the criminal spectrum are driven by your willingness to put yourself in the place of the person on the end of the kind of justice that the majority appears to favour. This is, no doubt, due to your studies in your particular -ology.

Out here, kids are getting raped and killed, sometimes by others who have been abused in their formative years. The fact that they have been abused is no excuse to visit that same abuse on others, or all the abused would abuse and they clearly don't. Stay in your morally aloof cocoon, by all means, but don't necessarily believe all that you have been conditioned to believe. Some things are just too seriously offensive to society to excuse and that is why we have prisons (society does retain the right to execute some criminals. It's just sad that we have got the equation wrong).

I'm very happy that the 2 pieces of sh1t who murdered the homosexual lad on Clapham Common have got a minimum 28 years to serve, but why doesn't the judiciary pass down these sentences more often?
 
come_the_day said:
Nozzy I suspect that your reaction to the very commonly held views about paedophilia and the more heinous end of the criminal spectrum are driven by your willingness to put yourself in the place of the person on the end of the kind of justice that the majority appears to favour. This is, no doubt, due to your studies in your particular -ology.

Out here, kids are getting raped and killed, sometimes by others who have been abused in their formative years. The fact that they have been abused is no excuse to visit that same abuse on others, or all the abused would abuse and they clearly don't. Stay in your morally aloof cocoon, by all means, but don't necessarily believe all that you have been conditioned to believe. Some things are just too seriously offensive to society to excuse and that is why we have prisons (society does retain the right to execute some criminals. It's just sad that we have got the equation wrong).

I agree that it is no excuse in terms of the impact it has upon the lives of the children who are the direct victims, but as you rightly identify, not all abused children go on to abuse themselves. Why is this? That is what interests me and why I do posit the question: can paedophilia be effectivly treated in the future, which I believe in time it can. Yes I do put myself in the position different parties when I am thinking out a problem. I also try to think what kind of society we would become if we retreated into a vigilante culture, either directly or by proxy. Current political moral panic is the variety that arises through proxy. Good legislation is never made this way. This conveniently leads onto your next point...

come_the_day said:
I'm very happy that the 2 pieces of sh1t who murdered the homosexual lad on Clapham Common have got a minimum 28 years to serve, but why doesn't the judiciary pass down these sentences more often?

The offenders were given double life sentences on the grounds that their conduct was additionally reprehensible because of their specific motives. A person who kills someone because of their religious beliefs, race, gender or sexual orientation may now expect to receive double the sentence that would be awarded for killing anyone else, which is legally inequitable. The difficulty in the past has been an unwillingness to treat the murder of women and gay men as murder, but rather it has been treated by the judiciary as manslaughter. The fault lies with the adjudicators. As a matter of principle I feel that murder by an adult of another person should be treated with the same gravity regardless of whether the victim was killed for being a child, a woman, a Jew, a homosexual or a heterosexual matelot on his way home from his ship. So I think this sentence was unjust and disproportionate and hope it is reduced upon appeal.

There is also be the issue of discrimination here, as males and non-homosexuals are being treated less favourably that females and homosexuals. It could also be argued that it infringes the religious liberties of believers to treat women and homosexuals less favourably than others as has been permitted in other legislation - but that's a long shot that may be argued by relgious fundamentalists!
 
[quote="NozzyNozzer .........As a matter of principle I feel that murder by an adult of another person should be treated with the same gravity regardless of whether the victim was killed for being a child, a woman, a Jew, a homosexual or a heterosexual matelot on his way home from his ship. So I think this sentence was unjust and disproportionate and hope it is reduced upon appeal.[/quote]

Can't imagine that it will be very often that we agree on much, but here, we do, although this tariff should be the norm rather than the exception, in my view. Murder, when proved to be murder and without mitigation, is the grossest insult to society. Society, therefore, must take the perpetrator to task and, as it is no longer acceptable to take the purest form of retribution, i.e. to despatch the murderer cleanly, quickly and efficiently, we have to accept that they should remain a burden on society for the rest of their life.

Religion should not enter into this question as it cannot be objective.
 
come_the_day said:
[quote="NozzyNozzer .........As a matter of principle I feel that murder by an adult of another person should be treated with the same gravity regardless of whether the victim was killed for being a child, a woman, a Jew, a homosexual or a heterosexual matelot on his way home from his ship. So I think this sentence was unjust and disproportionate and hope it is reduced upon appeal.

Can't imagine that it will be very often that we agree on much, but here, we do, although this tariff should be the norm rather than the exception, in my view. Murder, when proved to be murder and without mitigation, is the grossest insult to society. Society, therefore, must take the perpetrator to task and, as it is no longer acceptable to take the purest form of retribution, i.e. to despatch the murderer cleanly, quickly and efficiently, we have to accept that they should remain a burden on society for the rest of their life.

Religion should not enter into this question as it cannot be objective.[/quote]

Yes I think we do agree on this matter, though sadly religion does into the equation through the European Convention of Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms and recent British interpretation of the law as permitting unilateral discrimination by theists against others. Other countries have no interpreted it in this selective way! Sound familiar?
 
I think there is a problem in UK law that crimes against property seem often to be treated more harshly than crimes against people. You will almost certainly get more time for a bank robbery than GBH, whilst at least in my opinion the GBH is in fact far more serious.

Peter
 
Will this thread never die?

2 points to keep it alive:

1. 3 bankers extradited to USA under anti-terrorism agreement for being on the periphery of ENRON, despite their own bank not thinking they've done anything wrong. Shame that usury is not a crime in the eyes of British law - we could jail all bankers and a significant number of barristers if that was the case!

2. The Attorney General not insisting on an increase in the sentence visited on a paedophile for kidnapping a child, because the judge apparently followed guidelines. Dear AG, they are only guidelines. We bother to pay you to review sentencing if it is as obviously wrong as in this case.

Standby for the apologists......
 
CTD, what do you expect, Justice? In the (Dis)United Kingdom?
Don't be so fcuking stupid.
Inspite of how the books are cooked, violent, sexual and serious(organised)crime continues to rise. Every major city has no-go areas where police fear to tread. Huge parts of rural Britain have simply been abandoned.
The police are ham-strung by HR legislation and paperwork; if an officer arrests someone, it will take up to SIX HOURS to complete the relevent paperwork. Police officers are outnumbered and out-gunned, sometimes literally, by the sizeable violent minority who do not respect the law or fear imprisonment.
If, against the odds, someone is actually convicted of a serious crime, they will serve only half their sentance, in relative comfort. Sex offenders will be protected form other inmates at tax-payer's expense.
So, we can afford to protect childmolestors, but we can't afford to send soldiers and marines to war with the kit that might keep them alive.
Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?
In answer to your original question: I doubt this Thread will ever die. Not unless we have a root-and-branch reform of all aspects of the criminal (in)justice system, including the Police force. And turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
Our grandchildren will probably Post on this Thread.
 
Resurrected again, but it was a long way down this time. Firstly, can someone sort out the background colour? Second - how come we have a situation where a thug punches an innocent passer by to the ground, the chap dies as a direct result and the charge is only manslaughter? "Yes Guv, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and I meant to hit him, but I didn't mean to kill him, honest!"
 

Latest Threads

Top