UK pedo caught by DSi. Confesses to sex (multiple times) with girl (9-11), Gets 3.5 years. Wat.

[Relish in Chaos]

Again, I pretty much operate by an ?eye for an eye? justice system, so I believe he should be castrated and then raped himself, whether or not by other prisoners. It?d be the most approximate revenge for such a traumatic offence as this, and I don?t care if it ?makes me as bad as them?.

Bit of a lack of understanding what 'eye for an eye' means. Did not see where he castrated the victim. Yours seems to be 'two eyes for an eye'.

No, I understand what it means, but I think that punishment would be the closest to the most equal revenge to balance out the justice/injustice scales. The man stole a prepubescent girl's childhood by sexually violating her for two years, which would subsequently torment her for the rest of her life and potentially destroy future relationships.

Because he's not a child (and it would be barbaric to, I dunno, go back in time and molest a child for something he'd do to a child when he's older) and it's almost impossible for an exact revenge, I see chemical castration (to protect potential future victims) and his own sexual violation was an approximate punishment.

Taking away someone's human rights means you should automatically lose yours. I.e. if you deprive another person of the right to life, then I don't see why you should deserve your own.

 

[Vegosiux]

No, I understand what it means, but I think that punishment would be the closest to the most equal revenge...

And this is where you trailed off. Punishment is not supposed to be revenge/retribution. It does not exist to hut those who have hurt others, it exists to protect others from being hurt. Its purpose is protection, not "pay evil unto evil".

Taking away someone's human rights means you should automatically lose yours.

The Geneva convention would like to have a word with you.


As I said, 3.5 years is an egregiously low sentence, but I do not have enough information about the circumstances to judge whether or not it was appropriate. My first reaction when seeing this was not "BLOODY HELL HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMEMBERED AND THEN FED THROUGH A PAPER SHREDDER!" but. "Okay, just what happened there, why was such a sentence passed?"

I've also got no more sympathy for blood-crazed vigilante wannabes than I have for child molesters.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Again, I pretty much operate by an ?eye for an eye? justice system, so I believe he should be castrated and then raped himself, whether or not by other prisoners. It?d be the most approximate revenge for such a traumatic offence as this, and I don?t care if it ?makes me as bad as them?.

Bit of a lack of understanding what 'eye for an eye' means. Did not see where he castrated the victim. Yours seems to be 'two eyes for an eye'.

No, I understand what it means, but I think that punishment would be the closest to the most equal revenge to balance out the justice/injustice scales. The man stole a prepubescent girl's childhood by sexually violating her for two years, which would subsequently torment her for the rest of her life and potentially destroy future relationships.

Because he's not a child (and it would be barbaric to, I dunno, go back in time and molest a child for something he'd do to a child when he's older) and it's almost impossible for an exact revenge, I see chemical castration (to protect potential future victims) and his own sexual violation was an approximate punishment.

Taking away someone's human rights means you should automatically lose yours. I.e. if you deprive another person of the right to life, then I don't see why you should deserve your own.

If you gave him the punishment of castration, he would just turn around and appeal the sentence on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment. Should he do that, the case becomes a lose-lose. Either the judge sees that it is cruel and unusual punishment and the criminal gets a much much lighter sentence (Which would probably also count for however long he has been waiting in prison during his appeal) or the sentence is upheld, but appealed again (No man is gonna sit there and take castration lightly), in which case, the state will be funding this entire thing up until it becomes impossible to appeal the case. So in short, you turn a simple open-shut case and drag it out into this big deal.

Trust me when I say that giving him jail time and psychiatric help is far cheaper, far less time consuming and doesn't make us come off as a bunch of fucking dick chopping assholes.

 

[Superbeast]

One thing which is annoying me is everyone saying that he raped this girl.

No, he did not. He's been sentenced for a variant of a sexual assault charge, because under the British legal system "rape" is defined as penetration with a penis. So he has most definitely sexually abused this girl for two years (apparently with only his hands, based on what he pleaded guilty to) but never actually fucked her. To you and I that may still be rape, but legally it is not.

Is it still screwed up? Yes. But that is why he has a lesser sentence (even though it is longer than the national average for what he has been charged with, and he also has a lot of therapy and after-sentence rehabilitation as well as permanent monitoring too, don't forget) - because he couldn't be charged with rape.

Hopefully this girl will get all the help she needs to recover from her ordeal, and hopefully her mother is not as blind as the news reporting implied (she had to take photos to her mother before anything was done?). It is a terrible thing that happened to her, and all of this furore sidelines the victim.

Though I am not surprised many Escapists are out for blood - I've been here a while and this is the standard response to this kind of thread. Thank the gods that none of you are in charge of a national judicial body, is all I will say to that - I enjoy living somewhere that is not comparable to the Middle East when it comes to law and order.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Again, I pretty much operate by an ?eye for an eye? justice system, so I believe he should be castrated and then raped himself, whether or not by other prisoners. It?d be the most approximate revenge for such a traumatic offence as this, and I don?t care if it ?makes me as bad as them?.

Bit of a lack of understanding what 'eye for an eye' means. Did not see where he castrated the victim. Yours seems to be 'two eyes for an eye'.

No, I understand what it means, but I think that punishment would be the closest to the most equal revenge to balance out the justice/injustice scales. The man stole a prepubescent girl's childhood by sexually violating her for two years, which would subsequently torment her for the rest of her life and potentially destroy future relationships.

Because he's not a child (and it would be barbaric to, I dunno, go back in time and molest a child for something he'd do to a child when he's older) and it's almost impossible for an exact revenge, I see chemical castration (to protect potential future victims) and his own sexual violation was an approximate punishment.

Taking away someone's human rights means you should automatically lose yours. I.e. if you deprive another person of the right to life, then I don't see why you should deserve your own.

The problem is that is no longer an 'eye for an eye', it's a 'hand and an ear for an eye', or a 'leg for an eye'. Is a hand and an ear worth the same as an eye. This is where this 'eye for an eye' business breaks down.

I am not against chemical castration to protect the rest of society, but don't try to give it this 'eye for an eye' cover like it is some biblical commandment. It's isn't, if chemical castration is going to be used, it is as a way of protecting the public, not as some kind of equivalent punishment to this crime. If you do that you may as well bring in the barbaric punishments of having hands chopped of for stealing etc like they do in other countries. As to them that's and 'eye for an eye'.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

No, I understand what it means, but I think that punishment would be the closest to the most equal revenge...

And this is where you trailed off. Punishment is not supposed to be revenge/retribution. It does not exist to hut those who have hurt others, it exists to protect others from being hurt. Its purpose is protection, not "pay evil unto evil".

I want to take the victims into account. Of course, they may not always necessarily agree with my measures, since the victim may not desire revenge and just for the abuse to stop or whatever, but too many times have criminals been allowed to get away with shit like this, to the point that it almost seems if the justice system favours the perpetrator rather than the victim.

Taking away someone's human rights means you should automatically lose yours.

The Geneva convention would like to have a word with you.

I don't understand. If you're talking about war, that's different.

I already know that I have a justice system that I percieve as "an eye for an eye" and is warped to some people, so you're wasting your time if you're trying to change my opinion. I don't care if my punishment would make me as bad as the criminal, as long as they properly pay.

I don't necessarily agree with the hand-chopping for thieving, as that's also different. The thief didn't chop off the person they were stealing from's hand. But I'd rather not talk about Shari'ah Law and all that. Everyone knows it's retarded Dark Ages nonsense. And yes, I know I sound like a hypocrite, but whatever.

 

[LilithSlave]

3.5 years?

Our justice system is truly, truly myopic.

People charged of victimless crimes get more time. A man takes away a person's entire mentally healthy childhood, and he only gets three years of his life taken away?! The UK I hear apparently talks about paedophilia a lot. Or that's what apparently some people believe. So much that apparently comedians have this to say about the matter.
SO THEN WHY AREN'T THEY GETTING PROPERLY SENTENCED? WHERE'S THE PAEDOFINDER GENERAL NOW?!?

If this satire makes any point at all. Then it's obvious that people talk too much about it, and don't do jack. Come on, crucify this guy. Why on earth is he getting less than 4 years?