h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Re Az and Ictoan's posts....

I think there's a great deal of merit in what you both say, and I think there's some kind of middle way. I have no personal experience of the kind that Az has, so I make these comments in general and in the abstract.

What is the main reason why I don't do terrible things? If I'm honest, the main reason is because I don't want to do those things. I'd take no pleasure from them, and in fact such doing such things would make me very unhappy because of my own guilt. I know doing terrible things is wrong, but that's not why I don't do them. I don't do them because I'm not tempted to do them.

So when I hear about a sadistic murderer, or a child abuser, and think about what the main difference between that person and me is, I must conclude that it's not that that person is 'evil' and I'm 'good', but that that person has drives that I do not have, and is not able to control them. This I take to be along the same lines as Ictoan's point.

Of course, we do exercise some level of control over what our desires drives are (e.g. it's possible to quit smoking or to remain celebate etc), and it's possible to be better or worse at controlling those drives and desires - willpower. It's also possible to be more or less reflective about drives and desires, and be more aware of which ones are *wrong* and should be resisted - conscience.

If this is true, there must be people out there who have drives and desires they know to be wrong, and so supress them. They try not to have them, and certainly never to act upon them. It must be very hard to live like that, but I think people can and people do.

So it's not an excuse to say that "I have these drives and I'm a slave to them". I think this is something like Az's point?

I'd agree with both.

Fair summary?

indeed so.

As I said, there's a large degree of the nature vs. nurture to this. I do not think that any decision we make is unaffected by our life experiences. Indeed I think that a large part of who we are is made up of our life experiences. We act according to them. There are also genetic parts to who we are, the one modify and changing the other and so forth.

What I am trying to say is that I think there are reasons for peoples behaviour, reasons for their decisions. I don't think that excuses the behaviour necessarily, but external influences change us.
And if we understand how this works then we may be able to forestall such events in the future. I don't see how you can understand a person and their actions without understanding the life journey they made that has created the person standing in front of you.

Az:

"Ictoan, you edited my comment about not letting 'even supposed rehabilitated' paedophiles out - you left out the chip thing, which I thought was the main thrust of my point. Thereby changing the entire meaning of what I had said."
No, I was responding to the assumption underlying the statement. The bit about the chip did not alter the assumption in anyway, therefore it was perfectly valid for me to leave it out.

>
"Did I really? Where, exactly? "
The assumption I mentioned above. You only need to lock up for ever, or chip someone, if you think they can't change.

<<"You only need to lock up for ever, or chip someone, if you think they can't change".>>

I disagree. Given that there is a significant re-offence rate (I suspect this is true, challenge it if you like), we can say that even if we assume that all of these people can change, some of them simply don't. So we choose between keeping convicted but reformed criminals locked up, or having those who didn't reform go on to commit more crime.

Well the thing is that if someone is likely to re-offend then by definition they haven't been rehabilitated. In which case you keep them locked up safely.

<>

They can change within custody. And stay changed there. Never be allowed to repeat their crimes. Ever.

Or do you think they have some sort of 'right' to test out their personal changes in the public sector, where small children are involved?

Well, I don't.

You seem to think I don't understand all you are putting forth. As if I have not thought about all of this, many many times, and many many times again over many years - especially as it involved my family. You think I had no difficulty having to deal with a brother who is a paedophile? Like I just found the 'first easy solution' so I didn't have to worry about it anymore? You think it doesn't take everything inside me *not* to hate him and try to *understand* him? To still call this person my brother? And also deal with the bits of me that still loves him, for him not always having been so?

But none of this changes the fact that he sexually abused all his young daughters (three of them).

So when I say that these people should be locked away for all time I am also including my own brother whom I've never been able to hate for what he has done. Just that I don't ever want him, or anyone like him, to be able to do this sort of thing again.

<> (Ictoan=

What? How does *anybody* really know how likely someone is capable of 're-offending'? How does anybody really know that someone has been rehabilitated? Without tossing them out back into society to see what they do next?

Oh, I give up.


az

<...if someone is likely to re-offend then by definition they haven't been rehabilitated. In which case you keep them locked up safely.>

The hard part is deciding that someone is sufficiently rehabilitated to take the risk of releasing them.... On the one hand, there is a very clear duty of care to society at large[1]. On the other, there's no point keeping someone locked up if they've learned their lesson, and could become a contributing member of society once more. Difficult decision!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

[1] I've always been of the opinion that the over-riding criterion for releasing someone (or not) is the protection of potential future victims. Future crimes can still be prevented; past crimes can never be undone.

I guess this was the problem with the clinic GD mentioned above - and 80% success rate sounds quite good until you think about the 20% of cases where they fail. Failure to rehabilitate here has pretty devastating consequences - I'm not surprised the locals didn't want that in their community.

I don't care if people can change, I don't want to take the risk that individual A didn't change and as a result is allowed to commit further paedophile crimes.


People make life-shattering decisions all the time, from which they never recover. Those decisions can be the results of all sorts of environmental, mental, social factors. E.g. reckless self-endagerment. In this case, rather than the laws of physics making the situation unchangeable, it's the laws of man. I see nothing wrong with that, for this type of crime.

Luckily, the rest of society sees that it is possible for someone to have made a mistake early in life or made a bad choice and change.

Actually, I meant that for non-paedophile and certain other sex-related crimes. With the exception of the programme mentioned earlier, in the past experts have agreed that this sort of crime has little or no "curability". If this program IS as success I suppose that would change my mind.

agreed, absolutely. What cure success rate would you (or I) demand though? That's the next question.

I don't care if some of them might have been rehabilitated, I care that some of them won't have been.

I would be happy for resources to be prioritised* for better rehabilitation of criminals, and if the [numbers of risk of reoffence] x [a multiplier because reoffending rates are only the ones they catch] x [the grievousness of the offence] comes within a range similar to other things society deems an allowable freedom then release them. But at the moment its not. So don't.

*Obviously not top priority. It could come from within police budgets if it were thought such a thing might reduce overall costs, alternatively it might come from some of the more frivalous government expenses. Shh, don't mention the wars. Still, I remain firm in the belief that money spent on primary education is worth more to law and order, let alone society in all its aspects, than on the police force.

Impersonal mtext only media is not the place for me and az to continue our discussion. I can't directly meet your comments without sound condescending or inconsiderate and unfeeling.
As such I feel I can no longer contribute to this thread as it appears some subjects cannot be approached objectively.

Nah, don't worry about me, Icky. Carry on as you were. I'll just go hang out somewhere else.


az

Brief answer to the first question (no backlog reading - life's too short. I've a good idea what's probably gone on).


No.

Yes kelli, that is *exactly* what happened. The sad thing is that you lose a facility with an 80% success rate where you know where the pervs are staying, in exchange for a poorer or no treatment for these people and the public don't know where they are living. Nimbyism strikes again.

I think that is unfair GD, to dismiss real and well founded concerns as nimbyism. I wouldn't want the 20% failures living next to the park where my kids play. Ok so I'd know they were there - what do I do about it? How do I ensure my kids are protected?

It's an outpatient clinic - not an inpatient clinic so it's not although they'd be living there. They'd be living in the community where they'd be living anyway, and just visiting the clinic maybe every so months.

Was there any evidence that the there were more sexual assults near the clinic than anywhere else?

The most risk to children is from people within the family - but people prefer not to look at it, just looking at the risks from 'nasty man outside'.

I think that is unfair too, is there anything I've said to suggest that I only think children are at risk from 'the nasty man outside'?

You paint a different picture than the one GD did Z, where they don't all live near the clinic. If paedophiles are concentrated in one area, and 20% of them cannot be rehabilitated, wouldn't there be increased risk to the children in that area?

Why don't the authorities know where these people are if they aren't being treated at the clinic? If GD meant that the community knows where they are then that isn't necessarily the case if they come from all around to attend. And, as I asked before even if people do know where these people are, what can they do about it? Who is responsible for keeping them away from children?

I think these men who do this to children should be put in a huge cage with lion's and ate alive for the all the sick thing's they do to children they are just all plain in head.

as to the person who made this thread yes they should be executed as you have no idea what the trauma a victim has as i am one but thankfully he hung himself took the cowards way out