Father executes his teenage son for sexually abusing his 3 year old sister

vonhelmet said:
60% of sex offenders? Got any stats for paedo's alone?
Click to expand...

And also non sexual offenders. I'd guess all will be around the same percentage TBH.

EDIT:

General reoffend rates:

In 2004, 65 per cent of those leaving prison were reconvicted.
Click to expand...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-as-the-prison-population-expands-872411.html

However

Criminals released within the first three months of 2007 committed almost 74,000 new offences within a year of release - a rate up almost two per cent on the previous year.

It meant 39 per cent of prisoners returned to crime after release compared to 38.6 per cent the previous year - the first time the rate has increased since 2002, figures from the Ministry of Justice showed.
Click to expand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...g-rate-rise-for-first-time-in-five-years.html

:confused:

EDIT 2: Far more useful I think, official stats from 2000-2004
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....tice.gov.uk/docs/re-offending-adults-2006.pdf

Page 21 appears to show the general reoffend rate is around 40%

For sexual crimes - ~21%
For sexual crimes (child) - ~ 10%

Compared to:

Robbery - ~40%
General Violence - ~35%
Theft - ~65%

Now assuming Sexual (child) means sex offences against a child it makes sense as most sex offences against children are carried out by someone they know, which means most will probably just be opportunists and not necessarily a danger to other children?
 
Last edited:
Nickg said:
source says - "statistics show that 60 per cent of sex offenders are normally likely to re-offend"
Click to expand...

Where are the stats saying that 60% of "sex offenders" have reoffended?

On the home office website there is a study showing that over 3 years 16% reoffended iirc, but it's being a long night and an early start :(
 
Amp34 said:
Not in the slightest. I was pointing out that Hitman_Leon's single word ("Children") was rubbish. His argument seems to be that child porn is considered so bad because it affects children apparently unlike the other things I mentioned that also had victims. I was just pointing out that these can and do affect children as well, yet there is no uproar about it and arguably has less affect on the child.
Click to expand...

Utter garbage, that is not my argument, you simply compared criminal events, child porn would be the most repugnant.
 
Hitman_Leon said:
Utter garbage, that is not my argument, you simply compared criminal events, child porn would be the most repugnant.
Click to expand...

Ok then, however

Child pornography is wrong, its existence is testement to a child suffering abuse no matter how far removed from the production the person who obtained the image is.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that other crimes are just as wrong and are also testement to child suffering abuse (abuse can be physical and verbal).

Your word "repugnant" shows it for what it really is, emotion. There is no difference between all the crimes except your own emotion...

EDIT: So you believe that beating up a child and stealing their money/phone/bike is the better option than somebody looking at a child porn image having not paid for it or created it?..

Now I may be just out of my teens but to me but if I had the choice of someone beating the living **** out of me and stealing my stuff or someone looking at a photo of me without my knowledge of something that happened a long time ago, I know which one I would choose, and it doesn't involve being beaten up...
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
I was just pointing out that other crimes are just as wrong and are also testement to child suffering abuse (abuse can be physical and verbal).

Your word "repugnant" shows it for what it really is, emotion. There is no difference between all the crimes except your own emotion...
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree.
 
Amp34 said:
Now I may be just out of my teens but to me but if I had the choice of someone beating the living **** out of me and stealing my stuff or someone looking at a photo of me without my knowledge of something that happened a long time ago, I know which one I would choose, and it doesn't involve being beaten up...
Click to expand...

Bruises will heal.

You reach your 30's, have a wife or husband/long term partner, photo's adorn your walls, albums ect. One afternoon a person you know asks you why a picture they came across by accident is a dead ringer for you, cue flashbacks, shame, memories of things not being right, people taking pictures that were wrong, you can never erase all those pictures, so many disgusting people have copies it would be akin to trying to eradicate a disease.

I would take the bruises.
 
Hitman_Leon said:
Bruises will heal.

You reach your 30's, have a wife or husband/long term partner, photo's adorn your walls, albums ect. One afternoon a person you know asks you why a picture they came across by accident is a dead ringer for you, cue flashbacks, shame, memories of things not being right, people taking pictures that were wrong, you can never erase all those pictures, so many disgusting people have copies it would be akin to trying to eradicate a disease.

I would take the bruises.
Click to expand...

However I was talking about viewing, not distributing so that argument is not comparable. Not that it makes things any better but a large proportion of child abuse is actually done with the childs "consent" as such, only finding out that it is wrong later on in life.

You can also use the same argument about rapists, yes they are stigmatised but not in the same league as "paedos"...

Hitman_Leon said:
As for any other forms of child abuse, all is repugnant, choosinjg those who cannot defend themselves is cowardly.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said earlier. IMO ALL forms are as bad as each other, viewing an image is not any worse than physical or verbal abuse.
 
In one breath you in a way seek to excuse their actions with the they can't help it kind of argument and in the 2nd you condemn, I can't help needing money but I will not steal, they should seal their thoughts away because it is wrong, no excuses, ever.

Child abuse dose fall into degree's of seriousness, full on physical sexual being the worse case, I never excused or tried tio justify any of it.

Later in your life you will find either from having children of your own and finding your protective feelings come to the fore or from the discovery that a person you know has been abused the mavity of the debate you have been taking part in.
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
no im deadly serious, if he was a full on pedo who tried to have sex with a 3year old and he was my son i would kill him aswell before he did it to someone elses child, you realise pedo's dont simply change.
Click to expand...



he didn't shag her for crying out loud. more than likely just a messed up kid with too much curiosity due to the school yard knowledge imparted on him and a brief lack of moral grounding. From the news reports it only happened the once too. He told his father because he knew what he did was wrong and in my book as bad as what he did was, that took bravery to stand up and admit which to me shows a truly redeemable character. Also take into account the human brains moral centre doesn't develop fully until adulthood.

sexual assault certainly, a paedophile, doubtful. very very doubtful.

A truly tragic case for all involved.
 
Last edited:
At first I was on the fence when I thought rape, then I read the article instead of just the headline and I'm disgusted at what happened. The kid knew he'd done wrong and it appears he tried asking for help, only to be killed for it, beggars belief...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom