Sex offender release
Discussion
WCZ said:
IvanSTi said:
About people saying that as long as the rapist has done the time it's ok for them to live in our society.
Yes, they have to because of the stupid lenient system we have in place for people like this.
"They have to live somewhere" doesn't cut it.
you believe rehabilitation is possible, others do.Yes, they have to because of the stupid lenient system we have in place for people like this.
"They have to live somewhere" doesn't cut it.
Mistakes can be made, Adam Johnson scenario for example as similarly put in an example above, Millionaire footballer, out in town, pulls a young lass, later finds out she's 15.
Big mistake;
1) He has a stunning OH anyway, so sucks to be him as he's lost her and what was he doing cheating on her?
2) What were her parents thinking about letting her go out on the piss at that age.
3) What was she playing at? I would suspect it more a plan once she saw him.
4) Should he be punished? Most definitely, but he is unlucky all the same. Did he rape her? I don't see how that could be seen as rape. Sex with a minor, yes, but it can't be put in the same bracket as rape.
Unless she was kinky asked to be raped? Who knows. <- I was joking about that last bit, just in case.
IvanSTi said:
Just exactly where did I say that it was OK? Again, twisting my words, well done, at least you're also in keeping with the thread.
Consensual sex is different to rape, you do know that?
And yes, photographing without the consent of the other is molestation/interference/whatever you'd like to call it.
And no I won't stand down on what I believe to be right. It's all been blown way out of proportion, but I do believe a lot harsher punishments should be dealt for rapists/peado's and the like, no matter what level they go to.
Well if you aren't aware of the differences between consensual sex, under age sex, statutory rape and rape then you really shouldn't post on here.Consensual sex is different to rape, you do know that?
And yes, photographing without the consent of the other is molestation/interference/whatever you'd like to call it.
And no I won't stand down on what I believe to be right. It's all been blown way out of proportion, but I do believe a lot harsher punishments should be dealt for rapists/peado's and the like, no matter what level they go to.
TTwiggy said:
Grumfutock said:
Well if you aren't aware of the differences between consensual sex, under age sex, statutory rape and rape then you really shouldn't post on here.
point of order: 'statutory rape' is an American concept. Other than that, carry on! 
Grumfutock said:
IvanSTi said:
This is hardly someone going out to intentionally rape a kid is it, so how is it even close to a similar situation?
There's a bit of difference between a 14/15 year old out on the drink and parting her legs for someone to f
k someone willingly over someone being raped.
And if you don't see the difference between consenting sex (of any age) and rape there's serious issues.
Sorry but are you now saying it is OK to be a nonce as long as the child is a willing participant? And that rape is OK if it is on a nonce but banned in all other situations?There's a bit of difference between a 14/15 year old out on the drink and parting her legs for someone to f
k someone willingly over someone being raped.And if you don't see the difference between consenting sex (of any age) and rape there's serious issues.
Edited by IvanSTi on Thursday 28th May 12:13
In all seriousness though to be fair to Ivan I can kind of see where he's coming from, it is and should be a very emotive subject. The issue is we as a society believe in redemption and second chances - if this should be extended to murderers or nonces is open to debate (but IIRC John McVicar makes a good case for rehabilitation) and if you don't think that this should be the case then you need to campaign for this. One of the issues at this point is that a 21 y/o can be banged up for shagging someone 1 week before their 16th birthday whereas I could go out and shag someone on their 16th with no legal repercussions - who is the predator in this scenario?
Again mr 21 y/o shags his slightly underage g/f but is treated the same as his 20 y/o mate who decides to rape a baby "... they're both pedos innit, both b
hes iz unner age innit..." each case needs to be looked at and assessed carefully before we start breaking out the pitchforksIvanSTi said:
Not in cases such as this no, I don't believe it can be possible. They're wired differently. Take a look at photos of people who've been caught, who've gone out their way to rape, a majority (not all before that also gets blown out of proportion) look like there's a missing piece.
Mistakes can be made, Adam Johnson scenario for example as similarly put in an example above, Millionaire footballer, out in town, pulls a young lass, later finds out she's 15.
Big mistake;
1) He has a stunning OH anyway, so sucks to be him as he's lost her and what was he doing cheating on her?
2) What were her parents thinking about letting her go out on the piss at that age.
3) What was she playing at? I would suspect it more a plan once she saw him.
4) Should he be punished? Most definitely, but he is unlucky all the same. Did he rape her? I don't see how that could be seen as rape. Sex with a minor, yes, but it can't be put in the same bracket as rape.
Unless she was kinky asked to be raped? Who knows. <- I was joking about that last bit, just in case.
Maybe we should just go out looking for anyone that appears to have a "missing piece", preventing crime before it happens. It'd be just like Minority Report only instead of Tom Cruise in one of those Audi TT-looking things, it'd be Ivan in his Scooby.Mistakes can be made, Adam Johnson scenario for example as similarly put in an example above, Millionaire footballer, out in town, pulls a young lass, later finds out she's 15.
Big mistake;
1) He has a stunning OH anyway, so sucks to be him as he's lost her and what was he doing cheating on her?
2) What were her parents thinking about letting her go out on the piss at that age.
3) What was she playing at? I would suspect it more a plan once she saw him.
4) Should he be punished? Most definitely, but he is unlucky all the same. Did he rape her? I don't see how that could be seen as rape. Sex with a minor, yes, but it can't be put in the same bracket as rape.
Unless she was kinky asked to be raped? Who knows. <- I was joking about that last bit, just in case.
IvanSTi said:
They're wired differently. Take a look at photos of people who've been caught, who've gone out their way to rape, a majority (not all before that also gets blown out of proportion) look like there's a missing piece.
I disagree, I think that your sample pool is probably contaminated. If all you judge based on selective photos in tabloid newspapers then you're going to come to a unrepresentative conclusion.IvanSTi said:
La Liga said:
IvanSTi said:
So everything I've said has been blown way out of proportion, so I've tried to get the point across in a different manner.
What point? Yes, they have to because of the stupid lenient system we have in place for people like this.
"They have to live somewhere" doesn't cut it.
Serious sexual offenders are managed quite intensely and often have significant restrictions upon them under their licence conditions and Sexual Offence Prevention Orders. There are obviously different degrees of sexual offending and different risks. No one's going to be happy having the most high-risk stranger child rapist anywhere near them (Ian Watkins, for example). Most aren't like that, though.
You are right to say sexual offenders are often 'wired-up differently'. Imagine if you had your natural, strong desires, but for whatever nature / nurture reason, they were channeled towards something society considers unlawful. It wouldn't be a good place to be mentally and who really knows how they'd behave if they had such desires. We need to develop a better environment for would-be offenders to get help prior to them offending, rather than picking up the pieces after they do. There are often wider mental health issues surrounding offenders, too.
WCZ said:
IvanSTi said:
They're wired differently. Take a look at photos of people who've been caught, who've gone out their way to rape, a majority (not all before that also gets blown out of proportion) look like there's a missing piece.
I disagree, I think that your sample pool is probably contaminated. If all you judge based on selective photos in tabloid newspapers then you're going to come to a unrepresentative conclusion.Judge - "Fair enough, go on your way citizen."
If the criminal justice system deems him to have served his punishment and be safe to re-enter the community then that's that. If a majority of people feel the punishments for sex crimes are inappropriate then they are free to lobby for changes but the absence of this would suggest not.
As the crime of the individual in question is not known then why would anyone feel they are more qualified to dispense 'justice' than the courts? He could have been arse-raping babies, he could have been streaking through a playground or he could have just been seduced by a hot 15yr old who looked 21, the crimes are very different and it's not the job of the public to determine the punishment or whether the individual is a danger.
As the crime of the individual in question is not known then why would anyone feel they are more qualified to dispense 'justice' than the courts? He could have been arse-raping babies, he could have been streaking through a playground or he could have just been seduced by a hot 15yr old who looked 21, the crimes are very different and it's not the job of the public to determine the punishment or whether the individual is a danger.
irocfan said:
One of the issues at this point is that a 21 y/o can be banged up for shagging someone 1 week before their 16th birthday whereas I could go out and shag someone on their 16th with no legal repercussions - who is the predator in this scenario?
Again mr 21 y/o shags his slightly underage g/f but is treated the same as his 20 y/o mate who decides to rape a baby "... they're both pedos innit, both bhes iz unner age innit..." each case needs to be looked at and assessed carefully before we start breaking out the pitchforks
The 21year old who has sex with a girl on the eve of her 16th birthday won't go to jail unless he's a serial offender.Again mr 21 y/o shags his slightly underage g/f but is treated the same as his 20 y/o mate who decides to rape a baby "... they're both pedos innit, both b
hes iz unner age innit..." each case needs to be looked at and assessed carefully before we start breaking out the pitchforksSexual Offences Act 1956, s. 6:
(1) It is an offence, subject to the exceptions mentioned in this section, for a man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16.
(3) A man is not guilty of an offence under this section because he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, if he is under the age of 24 and has not previously been charged with a like offence, and he believes her to be of the age of 16 or over and has reasonable cause for the belief.
Multiple offences against girls aged 13 and 14, dosing them with drugs and taking advantage........ don't think a media link to the original 2008 coverage would stay on this thread long.......would it ? after all it's public information..............Bacup in Lancashire to answer the location questions .....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff