I've just read two things that I can't reconcile.

From the BBC news site:
Pop mogul Jonathan King has been freed on parole after three-and-a-half years in prison for child sex offences, still claiming he is innocent of the charges against him.

From Minette Walters' book 'Disordered Minds':
It is a cornerstone of the UK penal system that remorse is a precondition for parole, so an IDOM (in denial of murder) prisoner will not be considered. To innocent men and women who are prepared to put their good name above a lifetime in prison, this rule is a catch-22.

Doesn't make a lot of sense does it SF. What do you reckon happened there? Is it a case of fame, money? I'm not sure what happened, it would be interesting to know the real story.

the Law is an ASS!!!!!...........unless you have stolen money or property of a vast value from someone with money - then you may get a life sentence and serve it!

Im darn sure that JK wouldnt have been sentenced without the evidence to support the charge!

the Law is an ASS!!!!!...........unless you have stolen money or property of a vast value from someone with money - then you may get a life sentence and serve it!

Im darn sure that JK wouldnt have been sentenced without the evidence to support the charge!

What I'm querying is how come he was released on parole while protesting his innocence if what Walters says is true.

What I'm querying is how come he was released on parole while protesting his innocence if what Walters says is true.

Which is why I said that the Law is an ass SF, would he have been released if he was a billy no mates no one??? Doubt it!

I said exactly the same thing to my hubby last night when saw this on the news.

One condition of getting parole is to offer some remorse of your crimes, and it's obvious that King is still denying all the crimes.

What about all these women who have recently been released from prison after having the murder of their babies overturned.
They probably never showed any remorse because they were innocent, but they never got parole. I know they are now out of jail, but I wonder how many people are in jail, not showing any remorse because they are innocent, and therefore unable to apply for any parole.
Yet King gets his.

I don't know, maybe King knows some people in high places.

Does he know like minded people in high places as these traits seem to be spread throughout society. Could he name names and cause embarasment.

What I'm querying is how come he was released on parole while protesting his innocence if what Walters says is true.

Maybe it only applies to murderers SF.

SF, I think Minette is wrong. The Parole Board say,

The Board looks at the person as a whole, how they may have changed, and how they are likely to cope on release. No one factor is decisive. Remorse, for instance, is often part of the process of change where it involves understanding the offending and a desire not to continue. But remorse is certainly not essential for parole. The Board often grants parole to those who maintain their innocence completely. This is because the one essential thing the Board are looking at is risk – and whether there is a risk of any offending during the time in which the individual would otherwise be in prison. Even so, the Board will also consider the benefit of a longer period of supervision where this would reduce risk further. The bottom line however is, and always has to be, the safety of the public.

Whether you agree that a paedophile can present no risk to the public or release is another question. My feeling is that paedophilia is a psychological illness; unless it is "cured" in some way I don't see how a paedophile can ever stop being a risk to children - unless his sexual urges are no longer present.

It is interesting to look at the psychological/psychotherapeutic interventions in prison to see if they are taken up. As far as I know, it is voluntary. One significant avenue of change.
I dont know much of this story except that there were a no.of young boys in compromising positions.
I think, society, needs to re-look this trend and come up with some positive solutions.

I have often wondered about treatment tonee. My own theory is that a significant part of the attraction of children is their innonence, possibly because the paedophile views "adult" sexual relationships as threatening in some way. An adult female can take on other sexual partners, she can compare, she can criticise, and she can leave. A child can do none of these things; a child's love is "pure". I doubt whether most paedophiles are able to objectively question their motivations, and it seems to me that locking them in prison does not address the issue of WHY they want to have sex with children in the first place.

You COULD say the problem was "solved" if they remained in prison for life, but few do, so what is the point of locking them up and then letting them go without treatment? It seems an unproductive exercise to me.

I have often wondered about treatment tonee. My own theory is that a significant part of the attraction of children is their innonence, possibly because the paedophile views "adult" sexual relationships as threatening in some way. An adult female can take on other sexual partners, she can compare, she can criticise, and she can leave. A child can do none of these things; a child's love is "pure". I doubt whether most paedophiles are able to objectively question their motivations, and it seems to me that locking them in prison does not address the issue of WHY they want to have sex with children in the first place.

You COULD say the problem was "solved" if they remained in prison for life, but few do, so what is the point of locking them up and then letting them go without treatment? It seems an unproductive exercise to me.
First of all, this is not my area. And, to be honest. I wouldnt want it to be.
Power can be an issue. Choice. Immaturity/maturity, themes of innocence. I really dont know to be honest. I do think that turning the key is a highly limited option and we, as a society, need to rethink that.

I suppose what I am saying is, I think it is a psychological disorder of some sort, and it COULD be solved, with work on the part of the client and the therapist. I just don't think there is much interest in this approach.

I suppose what I am saying is, I think it is a psychological disorder of some sort, and it COULD be solved, with work on the part of the client and the therapist. I just don't think there is much interest in this approach.
There is interest but not necessarily compliance which is a cornerstone to treatment. A very difficult scenario. I remember when i was doing role plays in this scenario, it was very difficult to reflect the reality against someones stance of "what did i do wrong?" For me, mostly uninformed, I think a review of this area is needed. I take my hat off to anyone who does this work because it is difficult, with little thanks at the end of the day.

I was about to say forgive me for my following post - but on second thoughts don't. I don't want forgiveness for something I beleive in.

I will explain - I read sf's initial post - and it made absolute utter sense to me. I have not read any other posts.

I have followed this case from its beginning, as I do a lot of similar cases. And my thoughts on this are - this man is a predatory peadophile, his behaviour pre and anti offences, his behaviour pre and anti trial and his behaviour anti release are so utterly typical [and that comment 'so utterly' I want to reinforce deeply] of this sort of person.

How dare he be released so many years short of his sentance? How dare they, the justice system and the reform system allow men like this back on our streets!

I will now go back and read other posts.

Nothing I have read makes me question my committment to prisoners serving their alloted sentences.

I have had quite a lot of experience with sex offenders, from two juxtopsotional POV, locking them up and treating them. And quite honestly the former was more satisfying. And in all honesty that was the easy part, and I make no bones that the latter was difficult, I say this because it was, but I wonder whether I should be saying impossible!!

I suppose it depends whether you see the criminal justice system as being about punishment, or about reducing crime.

It is true that SOME punishments will reduce the likelihood of re-offending; however it is fair to say that in a significant number of cases, it does nothing of the sort. A lot of criminals have a "victim" mindset to start with (e.g. "Life has been rotten to me, so now someone else will pay) and putting them in jail will actually reinforce that belief.

I am not saying they should be free to roam the streets by any means; but I think the focus should be on addressing the cause of the behaviour, rather than merely retribution.

I think that too often, mental health patients are being admitted to Prison, when really and truly, they need severe psychiatric help - and I would say that a paedophile should be at the top of that list!

But thats good old "care in the community" for you - mental health units have diminished over the years, so the only option there is now is Prison - Prison Officers are NOT Psychiatrists or Psychologists - they are PRISON OFFICERS - who have a tough enough job to do as it is!

I suppose it depends whether you see the criminal justice system as being about punishment, or about reducing crime.
.

I suppose what I am saying is that in cases of peadophilia recidivism is near enough topping 100%. And in the absence of any known 'cure' - then prison is absolutely the best place for them.

Flip...I don't know what "recidivism" means......!! :blush:

Flip...I don't know what "recidivism" means......!! :blush:

ooops have I spelt it right?? Anyway it means 're-offending after custodial sentance'.

Ah! I thought it was probably something of that sort but I wasn't sure!! :laugh:

I am not sure there ISN'T a "cure" for paedophilia....I am not suggesting you could get a cure "off the shelf" but I wonder how much time/energy has been invested in studying this area. It's odd, you never hear it mentioned do you?

It's something I am generally interested in though...to an extent, you could argue that all "serious" crimes are committed by those who are technically "insane" as a sane person would not risk prison - couldn't you?

And if paedophilia CAN'T be cured, there is no point in locking a paedophile up, as they will still be a paedophile when they come out! So are we then suggesting that the death sentence is an option? After all, what is the point of paying to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life, if they are never to be released?

Ah! I thought it was probably something of that sort but I wasn't sure!! :laugh:

I am not sure there ISN'T a "cure" for paedophilia....I am not suggesting you could get a cure "off the shelf" but I wonder how much time/energy has been invested in studying this area. It's odd, you never hear it mentioned do you?

It's something I am generally interested in though...to an extent, you could argue that all "serious" crimes are committed by those who are technically "insane" as a sane person would not risk prison - couldn't you?

And if paedophilia CAN'T be cured, there is no point in locking a paedophile up, as they will still be a paedophile when they come out! So are we then suggesting that the death sentence is an option? After all, what is the point of paying to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life, if they are never to be released?

I am neither sure there is not a cure for peadophilia? In my experience it hasn't happened.

What is so wrong with locking these people up for life?

After all, what is the point of paying to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life, if they are never to be released?

I think the only important issue here is protecting innocent children from evil men, and locking the evil men up for the rest of their lives performs that function.

By coincidence i am three quarters of the through 'Disordered Minds'. (What did you think of it SF - and have you read 'the ice house'?)
Schizophrenia fascinates me too.

The law is an ass!!
Whatever you believe is fair as regards punishment for a crime, there is no consistency.
Two prime examples are these:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4366177.stm 35 years.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/02/nchis02.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/02/ixhome.html
8 weeks

There is no rhyme or reason to it?
I am not against the former incidentally, rather bemused by the later.

I think the only important issue here is protecting innocent children from evil men, and locking the evil men up for the rest of their lives performs that function.

I would prefer my taxes being spent keeping these monsters OFF the streets to be honest.......but Im still not sure if a "normal" prison is the place for them - a high security psychiatric unit is required!

It never ceases to amaze me that paedophiles are let back into society, where more often than not they will re-offend, and if the innocent public have concerns they are told "well, we cant really do anything until he/she has actually done anything" :wallbash: Which in turn encourages "vigilante" thugs to rouse up the locals into a frenzy......and thats JUST what we want isnt it :glare:

I think that if convicted of this crime they should be locked away forever. One child damaged by a paedophile is one child too many, they should never been given the chance to damage another one again.

How many paedophiles have been released from prison only to re-offend? I am sick of the PC, human rights brigade saying that these sort of deserve a second chance. You only have to read about that scum-bag over in Australia to realise that paedophiles just don't get "cured"! Now money has to be spent of King to watch his every move, keep a detailed account of where he is and who he is with, shouldn't oru resources be put elsewhere?

And there are occassions where you can't really blame the vigilants (as much as I am against them), I wouldn't want a paedophile living next to me.

As Isis says The Law is an ASS!

There is a bloke back in the Midlands that has been convicted for child molestation, he served his time, he is now in his 60's I guess, and every day, he stands in the garden of his block of flats and watches the kids coming out of my neices school - he hasnt to my knowledge ever done anything, but I find the fact that he is stood there watching children at a JUNIOR school VERY unnerving - my sis or mum picks Aly up from back entrance to the school now - sis says she cant bear the thought of the "sick perv" (her words) looking at my baby "in that way" and I dont blame her!

The school and my sis have spoken to the police about him, but the standard "we cant do anything until he has commited a crime" is the reply from the police - Im not knocking the Police - their hands are tied too!

What is so wrong with locking these people up for life?


Firstly, they are hardly ever locked up for life. What actually happens is that they go to prison for a few years, then come out again, having received no treatment whatsoever. Prison is not going to stop somebody having sexual urges towards children...in fact the man concerned is probably going to be desperately frustrated after spending all that time incarcerated.

Secondly, what is the point of locking anybody up FOREVER? It is a total waste of money. If they are never coming out again, why not kill them? It's cheaper isn't it? Putting them in jail just means that money that could be spent on education and health is being wasted on paying for them to watch TV and eat all day. I don't understand the point of that at all. Surely a lethal injection would be money better spent?

Ceri

'Secondly, what is the point of locking anybody up FOREVER? It is a total waste of money. If they are never coming out again, why not kill them? It's cheaper isn't it? Putting them in jail just means that money that could be spent on education and health is being wasted on paying for them to watch TV and eat all day. I don't understand the point of that at all. Surely a lethal injection would be money better spent?'


I do so agree with that.
M

I can see the financial sense in that, but I wouldn't feel comfortable in a society that executes people.

I agree with Dab - a civilised society simply can't kill off the people it doesn't like.I don't know what the answer is, but my understanding is that paedophilia is a mental illnes - a misfiring of the sexual and affection areas of the brain - not something that is a choice.

Personally I'd like to see more money spent of trying to find a cure, although I think I would support a cause for chemical castration in these cases.

I can see the financial sense in that, but I wouldn't feel comfortable in a society that executes people.

But why is it more comfortable to deprive them of their liberty, at the expense of other vital public services such as health? As things stand, law abiding citizen's money is being spent on punishing people who have no quality of life in any case.

If we executed these prisoners instead of incarcerating them, how many lives could we SAVE if we invested that money in improving the health service for example?

Hell, Ceri, none of it's comfortable. :unsure:

I'm not suggesting permanent incarceration as a punishment, though, but as protection for kids in the absence of any other trustworthy method.

I'm not squeamish about death, but the thought of strapping a person down and killing them just fills me with horror.

If paedophiles always re offend then are they born paedophiles?
Do they not have the ability to choose not to be? So in other words is it genetic?
If so we should be trying to find out what causes it.
They are still humans too and I don't agree with just killing people because we don't know what else to do with them. Prison keeps them off the street, but unless it is a life sentence they are always going to re offend.
I'd be interested to know if there are any paedophiles that actually feel remorse for what they have done.

I am not a fan of the death penalty either. Although in some cases I could feel it being justified. Paedophilia is not one of them, and in the absence of anything else that can protect children then lifelong incarceration seems the most sensible thing.

I have had an idea for years and years which I don't see why it wouldn't work, And that is rather than taking a peadophiles liberty away ad infinitum and completely. Is to take some of their liberty away - the part that gives them access to children. Put all convicted peadophiles onto an island somewhere than can only be accessed by sea or air - there they can live with their partners [if they chose], their families [if they chose], they have liberty on an island, with all the advantages of island living [peace, tranquility, scenery] but with the disadvantages of a limited liberty [no pc access, strict conditions about leaving the island].

I know it sounds a bit idealistic - but it has been done before, Australia!! I am not suggesting we send them off to somewhere as far away as that - but perhaps one of the more remote and presently uninhabited Scottish Isles. At least doing this would lower the cost of keeping them in prison for their lives, yes there would be an initial outlay to build some houses, shop, community etc - but that would be it, they could do some meaningful work, sheep farming, organic veg growing, art work, writing, creative crafts. And the control would only need to be 1 or 2 guards [border control] as opposed to the hundreds needed at the moment.

Presumably you would also recommend compulsory vasectomy so they did not produce offspring of their own?

Presumably you would also recommend compulsory vasectomy so they did not produce offspring of their own?

That would be good but they still want to have sex with that

I think they should just be castrated and realised

No hormones no sex drive no more abuse

And they can become useful members of society

I think they should just be castrated and realised
With no option of anaesthetic whatsoever...

With no option of anaesthetic whatsoever...
OUCH

you have give me the willes now

I favour castration (with no anaesthetic) and then locking them in a room with the victims family for say 4-6 hours.

Castration would actually help as it dramatically reduces the production of testosterone. One presumes paedophiles abuse children purely for sexual gratification (and not for power or control), otherwise there would be more female paedophiles wouldn't there?

Or are we missing something? :unsure:

Castration would actually help as it dramatically reduces the production of testosterone. One presumes paedophiles abuse children purely for sexual gratification (and not for power or control), otherwise there would be more female paedophiles wouldn't there?

Or are we missing something? :unsure:

Ceri I wondered about this too. I don't know much about women paedophiles, but i'm sure they exist. I thought it was the power. Power and control and over children becasue they are helpless and innocent and pure.
It can't all be down to hormones otherwise they'd be able to control it.
I'm sure it's genetic.
Flip, you couldn't stick them on an island and let them have families! The idea of all children been born into that kind of environment.
I'm not sure it would work if people were forced to go there. Maybe give them a choice of life in a normal prison or life in isolation.
reminds me of several films I have seen. All ended up in gory bloodshed.

http://www.answers.com/topic/myra-hindley

http://www.innocenceindanger.org/innocence/faq_paedophilia.html#8

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/articles/article.asp?liarticleid=35468&liSectionID=22&liParentID=26

Flip, you couldn't stick them on an island and let them have families! .

No I realised that when I typed it - I meant Mum's and Dad's, or caring Aunties and Uncles or even Grandparents - those members of their families who wished to care for them.

secrets, just read your links. Interesting info and sick too,
Re Myra Hindley there are more evil people in this country who are walking the street, she was sentanced to spend the rest of her life in prison so we'll never know if she would have re offended if released.

secrets, just read your links. Interesting info and sick too,
Re Myra Hindley there are more evil people in this country who are walking the street, she was sentanced to spend the rest of her life in prison so we'll never know if she would have re offended if released.

Yes Bob we never will know about Myra, there are those as you are probably aware, that advocated forgiveness and an early release, they may well be right.

Personally i would rather not take that chance. But as you say there are more evil; people in this country walking the streets.
It galls me to read, more and more as time goes by, of 'sick' people who are released into the public domain, (WHERE MY CHILDREN ARE) where they are expected to lead 'normal' lives and integrate into society as we know it, that rape, mutilate, and murder - again and again.
You cannot always blame these people for being what they are, they are sick.
But even allowing for the difficulties of diagnosing certain sicknesses, you can blame the 'experts' for their lack of understanding and their erring on the side of negligence?

I favour castration (with no anaesthetic) and then locking them in a room with the victims family for say 4-6 hours.
lmao. This is exactly my dad's take on what to do with paedophiles. Must say though, I agree!