Neil Duncan Robertson v. Her Majesty's Advocate
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, in this case the defendant was "only" given 7 years (ie will serve a maximum of 3 1/2) despite the fact that "on the face of it" it is a more serious case, which shows the value of pre-sentence reports.
Timothy
Timothy
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear that statistics show that the most likely thing that abuse victims will achieve in their lives is to abuse others.
Statistics about the frequency of abuse are rather dodgy. I know a woman who is a clinical psychologist who specializes in sexual abuse. IIRC, she told me that something on the order of 1/4 of woman have been sexually abused and something on the order of 1/10 boys have been sexually abused.
Yes, the scars do last forever. No, it doesn't necessarily mean that they can't live relatively happy, productive lives.
A life sentence should mean a life sentence, not five years off there for this & ten years for there for that, that makes a joke of the whole Judicial system IMHO.
Here in the colonies, at least in my state, a life sentence is simply that, life behind bars with no parole: the only way out is in a box.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that they can't live relatively happy, productive lives.
Timothy
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy:
I disagree. We tend not to see the counter examples because we don't know they were abused in the first place. Sexual abuse is grossly under reported and many survivors do live happy and productive lives.
I disagree. We tend not to see the counter examples because we don't know they were abused in the first place. Sexual abuse is grossly under reported and many survivors do live happy and productive lives.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that we see only the tip of the iceberg, but that goes for both the preceding generation as well as the one that follows.
Let's face it, the stats aren't conclusive either way, and can easily be twisted to confuse cause and effect. But whatever the majority, we both agree on two things:
1) It is perfectly possible and reasonably common that abused people go on to have healthy and happy lives.
2) It is unfortunately also common for those who are abused to go on to abuse others in a similar manner.
I guess it doesn't matter whether it is 70/30 or 30/70, there's a lot of both.
I worry for and about the second bunch.
Timothy
Let's face it, the stats aren't conclusive either way, and can easily be twisted to confuse cause and effect. But whatever the majority, we both agree on two things:
1) It is perfectly possible and reasonably common that abused people go on to have healthy and happy lives.
2) It is unfortunately also common for those who are abused to go on to abuse others in a similar manner.
I guess it doesn't matter whether it is 70/30 or 30/70, there's a lot of both.
I worry for and about the second bunch.
Timothy
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a separate, but related matter, whilst the government is keen to limit access airside to all those with any sort of regular criminal past (theft, tax fiddling! etc), it doesn't seem quite so fussed about pedophiles.
One such pedophile pilot, recently convicted of making/possessing pornographic images of children, resigned immediately following his guilty plea and sentencing. He had until that time been working for a major British airline. A few months later, however, he is known to have been employed by another British company in a similar role. One can only assume that his conviction and entry onto the sex offenders register is of no consequence as far as obtaining a CRC at basic level. Should someone with this history be permitted to work in a capacity where there will inevitably be the potential for contact with minors and which (rightly or wrongly) is generally regarded by the public as respectable and trustworthy?
Funny old world :-(
One such pedophile pilot, recently convicted of making/possessing pornographic images of children, resigned immediately following his guilty plea and sentencing. He had until that time been working for a major British airline. A few months later, however, he is known to have been employed by another British company in a similar role. One can only assume that his conviction and entry onto the sex offenders register is of no consequence as far as obtaining a CRC at basic level. Should someone with this history be permitted to work in a capacity where there will inevitably be the potential for contact with minors and which (rightly or wrongly) is generally regarded by the public as respectable and trustworthy?
Funny old world :-(
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
concernedone
Although it is, of course, a worry that a paedophile should ever, under any circumstances, be near children unsupervised, you can take some comfort from the fact that nearly all paedophilia follows an extensive period of grooming, over several encounters, during which the child is made to feel safe with the paedophile, and the paedophile persuades the child that it's "their little secret."
Although brutal attacks on random children on first meeting do take place, they are very rare and are perpetrated by a different personality type to the "groomers." (odd though it may seem the groomers, on the whole, seem to be very gentle, non-violent types.)
All I am saying is that you have to multiply the risk of a paedophile being employed in a position where he doesn't have ongoing exposure to the same child with the small risk that that particular one is an attacker rather than a persuader.
Timothy
Although it is, of course, a worry that a paedophile should ever, under any circumstances, be near children unsupervised, you can take some comfort from the fact that nearly all paedophilia follows an extensive period of grooming, over several encounters, during which the child is made to feel safe with the paedophile, and the paedophile persuades the child that it's "their little secret."
Although brutal attacks on random children on first meeting do take place, they are very rare and are perpetrated by a different personality type to the "groomers." (odd though it may seem the groomers, on the whole, seem to be very gentle, non-violent types.)
All I am saying is that you have to multiply the risk of a paedophile being employed in a position where he doesn't have ongoing exposure to the same child with the small risk that that particular one is an attacker rather than a persuader.
Timothy
