by Swan 58 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
TraumaHound
I wasn't talking about your uncle. I wasn't trying to convince you of anything.
You will never convince me there is anything good about my uncle, who raped my sister, and 6 of my cousins. If I could legally get away with it, I would kill the man myself.
If you do find a way to legally get away with it, I wouldn't judge you for it.
Tammy
Yep -- a little compasion kicks in from me too---very little. But I know that something went terribly, terribly wrong in anyone who would commit a crime against children. My human side tells me to hate and kill them but my human side tells me that keeping them alive and incarcerated makes me a better person.
I had a guy try to attempt to molest me at 16. Bad move on his part-- I let him know that I would kill him where he stood if he went any further, and I was big enough to back it up. Had means available too. Within two years he did sodomize a very young boy in another state and because of Witness non- involvement he's still on the street today. I struggle with that every day. If I would have killed him- it would have been all on me. If I would have complained and pressed it myself I would have been DF'ed for no witnesses to my event.
So I say cover all the bases and let Ceasar do his part. That way God gets to his, once in court and punishment and second for eternity. Hate is good ( to a point) but it will consume you if you dont deal with it in a constructive way.
Edited to add: by the way, I have no problem with the Death penalty aginst sexual criminals. I will even pull the switch after all appeals have been fairly heard by a court. No problem!
Edited by - hillbilly on 1 January 2003 18:37:24
Mulan,
I agree with you.
I also find it hard to say anything positive about the molesters I know of. They are all sick men, and in my opinion, the world would be better off without them. If they could legally be put out of their misery, it seems like a good solution for all involved. I believe they are incurable.
I wish they had a cure. I wish they had a cure for the victims too.
Tammy
It's easy and tempting to want to isolate child molesters from society, as a parent I would be the first to object to anyone even living nearby (although I'm not likely to know).
However, if we really are serious about preventing future abuse then we have to admit that isolation is not the solution and may be part of the problem.
Some abusers are themselves victims. Others have had strange upbringings and are certainly troubled and outcasts from society. These people need help and, yes, support, so that they do not re-offend. Yes, victims should come first but to prevent future victims, a more effective approach is required.
I believe Canada has a programme called 'Circle of Trust' (or something similar) that is also being trialled in the UK where a group of people work to form a social support group for an ex offender to help prevent them being isolated from society and re-offending. They have the person rounds for meals and other social occasions on a rota basis so that the person is not so alone .. and unmonitored.
I heard about it on the radio several months ago and apparently it has around a 70% success rate at preventing reoffending which is massively better than any other programmes.
Would I want to do it? No. Will it make the world slightly safer for my kids if other people who can do it? Probably.
That has to be the most laughable thing I've ever heard, in my entire life, so letting these freaks socialize, is going to make things more safe, then keeping them off the streats? What crack smoking moron, came up with this?
Edited by - Trauma_Hound on 1 January 2003 18:44:35
Simon,
The Circle of Trust..isn't that a Native institution? I read about that (or something similar, can't recall the name) that Native peoples in Canada had adopted and had relative success with. And I agree that current mainstream ways of dealing with molestors aren't effective. Be a bit difficult for me to get behind, actually, but I am open minded enough to realize and support that the main objective is to protect future victims. If that can be done through support, etc, then I think it's definitely worth a try.
From what I recall of the reading, it was a pretty involved and intense series of steps, with the victim and the victim's family very involved, along with professionals and members of the community as well as previous offenders (because, as is so often true, it's hard to bullsh$t a bullsh$tter). Also, I believe that throughout the entire process, the option of jail time is still viable if it's thought that the offender is not sincerely aware of and remorseful of the harm done.
Dana
TH: Well, if you measure the effectiveness, which is what counts, then yes, it makes things more safe.
Sure, keeping people in prison for the rest of their lives or executing them is safer but since neither of there are options in our society we need to look at next best options.
Some of the mass media treatment of abusers sounds good and 'plays to the mob' but ultimately does little to help children.
Case in point / Example:
In the UK, there were several mob attacks on housing estates where law and order broke down; people thought they had identified pedophiles living nearby and stoned houses, attacked people etc. It was mob mentality and innocent people were hurt
Within this climate, one of the 'newspapers' decided they were going to run a name and shame campaign and publish the names, photographs and details of known offenders. Great for headlines and selling papers ...
The result?
Ex Offenders who were known and being monitored of course went into hiding and their whereabout are now unknown as they don't report to anyone anymore.
Now, are they more or less of a risk to children now that they are isolated and unmonitored?
Calling them freaks, while very, very tempting is not going to help stop them do it again or make them get the help they need to stop them doing it again.
Edited by - Simon on 1 January 2003 18:59:35
I may have the name of it wrong safe ... all I remember was that it was Canadian and that seemed to be the gist of it. It was having very good results and was much more effective than any of the other things that had been tried so in terms of "does it help protect children" then it sounded good.
Of course it is bound to be a controversial approach as, quite rightly, everyone's instinct is to 'grab the nearest weapon'.
I've been looking for a link / website but haven't found anything yet so may have go the name mixed up.
Edited by - Simon on 1 January 2003 19:1:48
Mob justice is a handy bandwagon for societies deviants to jump upon at times. The Portsmouth mobs were so stupid that they were attacking paediatricians!
Englishman.
Guess who get's to pay for this "Treatment", yep the tax payers, and the victims. 70% isn't good enough simon, that means another 30% get to victimize more people. Show me proof of these stastics, this seems kind of new, how could you have an accurate number for something this new? I hope you never have to deal with this Simon, it's terrible, and this pansy ass liberal retoric, just pours salt in the wounds.
