13 Year Old Rapist.

That is a tragic case and,as the judge said, all too common unfortunately. What can be done about "parents" like this??
 
What can be done is to have them forcibly sterilized so they stop breeding more suicides, mental cases, murderers and rapists of the future. Then lock them up for the paedophiliac acts, sexual battery, etc., etc. and clean them up while they're in, with the proviso they're re-jailed if they default on the drugs, and (using the 'three strikes and you're out' system in the USA) put them away for life in they won't keep straight.

(Yes, I know, we've done the sterilization argument before, and Brian, for one, supports the rights of adults to continue breeding, regardless of the evil they visit on their offspring.) At the least, they breed dreadfully damaged children who find relationships in later life difficult or impossible to enjoy; at worst, children whose rage at their impotence to stop the abuse against them (in this poor nipper's case physical, sexual, and psychological - pure, real torture) eventually manifests itself in either self-harm or harming others. It's usually a straight choice, in these cases, between eventual suicide or harming someone else.

If so many villagers knew there was so much awful stuff happening, though, how come no-one had hauled in 'the Social' AND the police long before the child was used as a sex toy at the age of nine?
 
I happen to agree with you there, Jon....unfortunately, it'll never come to pass. To paraphrase Keanu Reeve's character in Parenthood - "You need a licence to own a dog, hell, you even need a licence to catch a fish. But any asshole can be a father".
 
I'll say it again - who decides on which people should be sterlilised? And how long before it spreads to those of a different race, religion or culture? Or the physically and mentally disabled? And you'll be awre that there is a precedent.
 
Ok, it's not something that could ever be implemented - maybe it would be better to say "in an ideal world, these people would be sterilised & not allowed to breed". It is a very emotive subject Brian, & I certainly feel that (rightly or wrongly) people such as the mother in the case highlighted above should not be allowed to have children. I realise that it is impossible to actually sterilise people or disallow them to have children but there are plenty of people that personally, I do not think should be allowed to produce offspring.
 
Brian, I'd say it would be part of the sentencing procedure handed down by the court. Just as people are banned for life for certain driving offences, imprisoned for life for certain types of murder, people who have treated their children in this manner will forfeit the right to produce more. If a 'stranger' paedophile rapes a 9 y.o. child, the world is filled with revulsion and he (as it usually is) is banged away for years, but can be free to be released after time served.

I'd argue that there's no such thing as 'time served' for his tiny victims, though, and when the horror has been perpetrated upon them by the people who should be most protective of them, their own parents (male and/or female), these people have shown themselves unfit to care for their own procreations. Not because they're disabled, not because they're mentally unfit, not because they're of a certain race, religion, whatever, but because they're completely out of control and have proved themselves unfit to parent. They can go to jail, as punishment, sure, and like the stranger paedo they're out in a while, but, unlike the stranger paedo, their object of torment will be out of their reach and no more can be made to replace him or her.

I don't see this as being enacted in the sort of case where someone's momentarily lost their rag with a bolshie kid and belted it. We're looking at years of systematic and KNOWING violation of YOUR OWN CHILD. I think the least one can do for the surviving kids is for them to know Mommy and Daddy won't be focussing their perversions on a replacement batch in future.

I don't think all humans have an automatic right to wanton reproduction, no, to be honest, I don't. It's got nothing to do with master races, it's got everything to do with ensuring that, as much as possible, children will come into as welcoming and caring an environment as possible. I can't imagine why anyone would allow lives of degradation and cruelty to be just the luck of the draw for them, whether it's through bottomless poverty or predatory parenting, because of some over-intellectualized concern based on a misunderstanding of eugenics, itself the subject of vile abuse by the Nazis in a perversion of its' original intent, which is to genetically modify OUT the causes of crippling diseases and genes which pretty much ensure a short, agonizing life for many thousands of babies worldwide. I know the Nazis sterilized those they considered unfit to breed, as part of their master race programme, which has nothing to do with ensuring criminal parents are not permitted the further joy of parenthood in order to violate their children.

The evil of the Nazi abuse of genetics (including the forced sterilizations) paralyzed what would have been a continuing programme of research, working towards healthier babies with an expected decent life span. This was hijacked, as we know, and sadly there are thousands of parents today who have to watch their babies die, when gene replacement may have saved their lives. Again, nothing about master races in this, just what is plain good sense, from the child's view, and from the economic standpoint.

Unfortunately, mention 'genes' and you pretty much get the sort of reaction you've given, which is what kept the influence of Nazism going over the past 50-odd years, by denying rational examination of genetic modification and advancing the cause of, especially, paediatric health. It's the reaction which means parents have to take lengthy, financially and mentally exhausting cases for review by the court of Human Rights in order to be allowed to produce another baby to help (through its' genes) its' sibling survive. It's honestly time we all grew up a bit about the issue, especially as there are already in place plenty of edicts to prevent it falling into the abuses you mention.
 
I'd agree totally over the genes issue, Jon - one of the most exciting, & one of the most revolutionary, new concepts of modern times is that of stem cell technology & it's use in curing diseases and/or medical conditions & defects. It is a real shame that the largest obstacle this new technology faces is that of being accepted morally as a vital tool to help curing previously incurable diseases & conditions. It's not just stem cell cultivation but also genetic manipulation & cloning that have created such an uproar - I can understand why, but as you say, Jon, there are plenty of edicts in place already that will at least help prevent it being abused for the wrong purposes. Unfortunately you cannot eradicate the possibility of such things being manipulated & being abused as the human race can be terribly evil when it wants to, but we have that problem anyway & regrettably we always will. It is certainly a very emotive subject but I do agree with you Jon, as a race we should address it in more intelligent way. Ok, a bit off-topic I know, but the subject makes for a very interesting issue.
 
This seems to be another case of lack of co-ordination between statutory agencies and failure to intervene by social services .

Then again when they are badly paid , appalling overworked , massively underfunded and subject to constant public abuse should we be all that surprised .

I find this topic very difficult in my early days as a local authority solicitor I did a number of care cases . The things people could do to their children whether by evil intent or neglect filled me with hate for them and a number of times i could not sleep. Most social workers I admired enormously , some less so and one or two were wankers of the first order capable of letting their politically correct principles stop them taking action to intervene .

Had to get out of it .
 
But, Ardross, doesn't intervention start with the people who know that a certain level of abuse is going on, but do nothing to flag it up? It seems that after these cases, neighbours, relatives, friends, etc. come out of the woodwork to say they all knew something bad was happening, blah, blah, but not to the degree revealed.

I think there should be tangible rewards for people who blow the whistle, when leading to successful prosecutions. There might be a number of hoaxers or people with axes to grind at first, but of course they'd be prosecuted themselves if found out to be making malicious accusations.

Why is it always Social Services taking the flak? Why do we still need major charities like the NSPCC and all kinds of peripheral ones - surely children shouldn't need to rely on the kindness of strangers donating or not? There surely must be a more effective and aggressive way to deal with these unforgivable cases?
 
Back
Top