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

Hi Princess, please come over to my space if you want to talk. I was sexually abused by my father between the ages of 11 and 16. I used to be very fired up in convos like this, but I feel they are not safe anymore for emotionally raw people. Its better to come and talk elsewhere, with people who understand. I do not wish to insult anyone here, but I have had some unpleasent experiences when talking about my past on convos like this. Its better to leave this talk to them, unless you feel very very strong and can cope with people picking on what you say.

That goes for any lurkers who feel upset by this discussion.

BTW I am 34 and although I have been asking the nhs for help with health problems resulting from the abuse, I was always ignored. Finally I have met a new doctor and my treatment begins soon. I have already served my life sentence.

Damn, sorry Princess and others, I posted that under my old name. I had to change accounts after people had a go at me for talking about the abuse. Please come to either one, I'll keep an eye out! This is my current one though and the fact I had to change accounts shows that isn't always such a safe place to talk about things.

I'm sad that you've had such a bad experience in convos here, Kaz. I guess it reflects the mix of people you might encounter in the real world.

In a thread like this, I feel it is valuable to have opinions from people with relevant insight. However, it is inevitable that people so traumatised will have a strong viewpoint & may be unable to stand back to see a wider perspective. This can also make them vulnerable to sharp comments from posters who are perhaps insensitive to the feelings of others.

Thank you princess, for your contributions. When you say your abuser 'took the coward's way out' do you mean that he was never arrested & brought to trial?

Hi kaz i will be over your space in 3 minutes i know what you mean these people here do not know what it is like or us victims all they go on about is nothing as they do not the whole if and why these child molesters do these things in first place i had a lucky escape and i feel better for saying im glad he hung himself, which i am
as i see it he went to the not to heaven.

Tess

yes he was arrested by the police and the socail workers and my parents sent me to live in canada to be away from it all,

the abuser was put in a sick mental prison as he told everyone that the devil told him to do it, then when it came to trial he hung himself in his sell, and my father said he'd took the cowards way out, and that he has gone to the devil for what he did to me and his own children.

i'm glad my parents sent me away to canada to have the baby i'm glad i left her in canada with my uncle and auntie as guardians.

In terms of safe convictions, it's possibly worth considering the recovered-memory issue, which is possibly of the greatest relevance in the case of child abuse.

Whilst fully accepting that a great deal of abuse does actually happen, and not wishing in any way to be seen as trying to ignore that abuse, it seems that in at least *some* cases of recovered memories, very serious charges have been laid, and people convicted, for things which it later turned out they couldn't have done, or where an accuser later withdraws their accusations.

In any case of past crimes of a nature where witnesses and forensic evidence are both unlikely, it comes down to competing versions of events, much as in the case of accusations of rape where there is no forensic evidence, or where the issue is one of consent.

However conscientious police, prosecution or jurors are, in that kind of situation it is not difficult for a few people to be wrongly convicted, just as many guilty people may go free due to people being unable to be sure whose evidence to believe.
Deeply sad as it is for victims when guilty people go free, there isn't any obvious place to draw a line regarding relative qualities of testimony which would ensure a high conviction rate of the guilty and yet ensure that no-one is wrongly convicted.

There may be situations where one can be much more sure (even effectively certain) of the guilt of some abusers, but if one allowed execution in such cases, it would be an odd situation where the punishment for a crime depended partially on how confident people were about the conviction.
I can imagine that just as some victims may take comfort from their abuser being executed (though others may find the idea horrific), other victims might feel their suffering is being minimised if their abuser is convicted but not executed since the state isn't *absolutely* sure of their guilt.

SoRB - "You bizarrely picked a really, really BAD example, because as you say, a high profile do-gooder did come along in Myra Hindley's case, and agitated for YEARS for her release. Result? She died in prison." I'm well aware that Lord Longford failed on this occasion.

There are other cases where people do get murderers freed - off the top of my head there was the woman who knifed her husband - she got off on PMT. There was a woman from Nuneaton who was released because her husband had abused her previously.

I will try and find some names of others for you.

Are you saying that you think those particular murderers should have been locked away for the rest of their lives? You seem to have been favouring execution - where do you draw the line between those who should be executed & those who aren't?

I don't know enough of the details of the individual cases to say if they should have been locked up for life or not - I do know they got a life sentence, which was later reduced and they were allowed to go free.

However I find a mental condition a strange reason for setting someone free.

<cider?

That highlights the flaw in current sentencing - 'life' does not always mean until death. The judge may say a minimum of x years, leaving open the possibility of release.

Released because of a permanent or ongoing mental condition - I agree that should not necessarily mean unconditional discharge. I wouldn't like to say that was the situation in the cases you mentioned.

In cases of incontravertible proof I do favour death. This guy who's filmed himself for example. I 'd also like to see the death sentence for people dealing in class A drugs.

In terms of public protection, I see 4 of the 6 murderers of Mary-Anne Leneghan were on probation, because they weren't high risk. These judgements, like those of freeing prisoners, are made by people who are educated and socially aware.

They really have no concept of the people they are judging.

Class A drugs include - ecstacy, hash oil, LSD and magic mushrooms (once they are picked) - I do think that a death sentence is a tad harsh for having a load of mushies. Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

If people are *freed* before serving the relevant portion of an original sentence, it's usually because there are reasonable doubts which makes the Court of Appeal view their conviction as unsafe, or reasons for changing the offence they were convicted for (murder to manslaughter), or their sentence is reduced on appeal as being unduly harsh.
One could view any of those situations as justice actually being done, rather than someone 'getting off'.

http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod4/4_09_voluntary/03_vol_mans_dim_res_bws.htm

contains information on four successful appeals linked to domestic violence. It would seem that of the four cases mentioned, three involved the ultimate consideration of evidence not given at the original trial, two involved an appeal succeeding due to the original judge's directions to the jury being incorrect, and three of the four appeals resulted in retrials where the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter instead of murder (with the other appeal resulting in the verdict being quashed).

I didn't say having them - I said dealing in them.

Yes the should be executed,if not sent to a deserted island somehwhere.
The vast majority of humans have a sexual preferance,be it hetrosexual gay bi or lesbian etc unfortuanly a pedophile choice is under aged kids and minors.
There is no cure for this,and the only way to keep our children safe is by either execution or removing this person from any contact with children.

Mckay: "I'm well aware that Lord Longford failed on this occasion."

Were there occasions where he succeeded? (Not facetious, I have no idea whether he had a history of successfully getting people released or whether he was a daft old fart with an obsession).

Also that's a strange way to put it - he failed. You might have said "the justice system succeeded." You seem to have it in for the system.

"There are other cases where people do get murderers freed - off the top of my head there was the woman who knifed her husband - she got off on PMT. There was a woman from Nuneaton who was released because her husband had abused her previously.

I will try and find some names of others for you."

Finding the names of "others" implies you've found one name. You appear not have done.

"she got off on PMT"?? I doubt it. It's not hard, if this is an issue you care at all about, to find at least the name of the woman involved - these cases get a LOT of publicity. Give me a name I can google for.

I'm not familiar with the Nuneaton case - again, a name would help - but previous abuse is, I put it to you, potentially reasonable cause to reduce a murder sentence to manslaughter on grounds of self-defence. Spousal homicide is rarely simple premeditated murder, and you seem to imply you only suggest execution for the true psychos. But then...

"I 'd also like to see the death sentence for people dealing in class A drugs."

Yeah, right, because there's no chance that police or justice system corruption could lead to false convictions there, eh?

If class A drugs, why not class B? Why not tobacco, or alcohol, both provably more harmful to society than all class A drugs combined?

You seem to subscribe to the common middle class myth that there is such a thing as a drugs "pusher". Nobody "pushes" drugs. Drug dealers exist because there is a rampant demand from people whose lives are otherwise empty or intolerable or just plain dull. They don't *need* to "push" drugs on anyone.

All drugs - class A to Z - should be legalised and subsidised so that you could get a rock of crack, a line of coke or a big fat bifter for £1 from any chemist's shop, 24/7. Drug use would rocket overnight, for about seven days, then everyone would realise there are better ways to have fun, burglary and mugging numbers would drop through the floor, and all the police who waste their time on the "drug war" could be redeployed fighting the real criminals... people who drive down the middle lane of the motorway.

SoRB

So, you are saying that it is the way nature made them that they are sexually attracted to young children? i.e. it is not thier fault but in todays society the way they satiate their needs is socially unacceptable?

Should we then not help them to reorientate their sexual preferences or make them asexual? This has of course been mooted by various religious groups wrt gay people and it has been pretty universally rejected by normal sane people - they used to lock up gay people as it was seen to be a perversion.

So, should we execute people for something drives them to do things that they should not do but, possibly, cannot actually help themselves?

In todays enlightened society should we not try and help them and realise there may be deep natural (and yet un-natural) urges that drive them to do what they do.

I am not saying leave them out in society or treat them any less leniently as it is not acceptable what they do but they have two choices 1) repress those sexual urges (which we ALL know is difficult even for normal people!!!!) or 2) satiate those urges by become a predator and abuser.

By understanding why they are driven to do what they do we could then help them. Heck, these days there must be drugs that could negate the needs that drive them.

But then we get into the realms of social engineering and have we ‘the right’ to chemically alter a person but we are also discussing stringing the b*ggers up so is it that radical a suggestion.

Mckay, if you just happen to have a lot of them then you will be charged with dealing - whether you were dealing or not....
BCNU - Crescent

I suppose Nelson Mandela is a good argument for rehabilitation. How long has he been out now without re-offending?

Yes im saying its nature,In the past gays were locked up for comitting what was classed as a crime.Thankfully people views have changed,If 2 men 2 women want to have sex,Thats perfectly acceptable.Its beetween consenting adults.

Now People who abuse children is quite different,As for trying to help them overcome there weakness.You'll find its pointless.You ask any psychiatrist who have to deal with pedophiles.Theres no rehabilitating them.