Paedophile: 'I was lucky to escape jail'

A convicted paedophile has been spared a prison sentence due to Home Secretary John Reid's new rules regarding the 'prisons' overcrowding crisis'...



Who do we want roaming our streets? If people like this are 'escaping jail' then in my opinion there should be a reassessment of the word 'danger'. If the prisons are overcrowded then surely those who pose the least threat should be the ones 'escaping jail', tax-dodgers, fraudsters, etc.

Now compare this story to the '17 year old gets 10 years for having sex with 15 year old' thread in the other current events section. Am I missing something???

Related News Links:
www.telegraph.co.uk
news.scotsman.com
icwales.icnetwork.co.uk

[edit on 27-1-2007 by UM_Gazz]

[edit on 29-1-2007 by asala]

No, I do not think you are missing something here, thebox.

IMHO, this is what happens when the Government goes too involved in sentencing policy and giving guidance to Judges.

If a Judge believes that someone needs to go to prison, then that is were they should go. Government is charged with ensuring enough prison places.

Actually, I think this judge was trying to make a political statement and should be reprimanded for it.

The Home Secretary didn't forbid judges from sending people to prison - he simply reminded them to send only those necessary to give the government time to find more prison places. If this particular judge didn't think it was necessary to send a paedophile to prison then he should seriously consider his position and his judgement.

I suppose what Reid meant with his letter is that judges should avoiding jailing people who have committed minor crimes who would usually go to prison for a few weeks or months and save places for those who have committed serious offences.

This strikes me as an odd one, it doesn't add up IMO.

If the guy was given a 6mth suspended sentence I can only wonder how serious the actual crime itself was, if the Judge really thought the guy had committed a serious offence and was a real risk (but felt unable to jail him) then why was the suspended sentence so short?

Wouldn't a 2 or 3 or 5yr suspended have meant the guy would have to be sure to behave himself or risk prison (cos that's the point of suspended sentencing, break the law and you go away for the new offence and the previous offence & term of the suspension is taken into account too.

I agree that this smacks of a political statement being made.

It's hard to say too much without knowing the specifics.

Getting caught at 4am peeing round the back of a shopping centre out of the view of anyone can get you a conviction for 'gross public indecency'.
Guess how the local hysterical mob might interpret that one, eh?

It's a myth that the hysterical mob went after a Pediatrician in Portsmouth but one in Newport was seriously intimidated.
Sadly this is often a subject where people seem to love to 'act (brutally) first' and think later.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

He downloaded dozens ( 24 + ) of pornographic ( semi naked + ) images of children.

Quite what good throwing him in prison would have done I have no idea, maybe he's planning on kidnapping and raping an eight year old, maybe he's just a sad git who got stupid.

If a judge approves of a 6 month suspended sentence ( which depending on the nature, quantity and context of the images could be regarded as a pretty harsh punishment ) Then thats probably what he deserved. A judge isn't going to throw someone who's a danger to the public back out onto the streets just to make a point. By mistake maybe, but not on purpose.

Yes he was a lucky Paedo, and the day afterwards the Courts of Justice released another one onto our streets (who had a history of assaulting small boys).
But never mind, it’s England isn’t it?

I just felt sorry for the News of the World reporter who (was it the same day, or the one afterwards?) was sentenced to several months in jail for spying on the Royals.
Oh and there was that anti war protester who got about a week because she refused to pay a £150 fine. Clearly these are the real threats to the British state; not those who threaten to molest the young of the rich and poor alike.

All I can say is that if hypothetically all 80,000 prisoners had been jailed for invading privacy laws; I would be campaigning for the release of all of them.

The Liberal Threat Within has At Least One Really Good Point…
The extreme liberal left does have a point when they complain about people being given prison sentences for refusing to pay small fines-charges.
1. In my opinion there is such things as bailiffs who instead should be able to seize property of the equivalent value.
2. There is also such a thing as compulsory bank account transfers-closures and for really big fines there is such a thing as the land registry (if the drug dealer or whatever owns property).
What’s meagre stupid about system is that a drug dealer can own property worth several million and be told to hand it over to the state or face several years in jail.
Wouldn’t you choose to just spend a bit longer behind bars? Surely it should be irrelevant whether you give your full co-operation or not, when it’s the state that controls all the public records, and legal protections of property. Surely the state should simply waiver these when a court of law has demanded a financial punishment, and person concerned is being non-cooperative?

Privacy of Absurdity…
3. The News of the World reporter would have been adequately punished if say 10-20% of everything he owned had been confiscated, ether directly, or as a fine based on what he was worth. There is also so a thing as community service for those who own less.

I can’t say I disagree with people going to jail if they have been obsessively stalking someone for psychological reasons, but that’s because these people are frightening precisely because they are psychologically unbalanced.
That said most of the time it would be better if they went to a mental asylum instead; and that can be an ether worse experience than jail, anyway.

Spuggy

Quite what good throwing him in prison would have done I have no idea,

It works like this: If he is in prison he can only molest other adults. If he’s in prison its probably the best thing because there is no reliable cure for paedophiles, even the best physiologists will admit there is only a small success rate, and that depends on both enough resources and the will from the criminal concerned. The fact they have committed crimes against children without seeking help first, or even e.g. killing themselves speaks about their personality.

maybe he's planning on kidnapping and raping an eight year old, maybe he's just a sad git who got stupid.

He was caught with 150 child images on his computer, because his wife had informed police about it. This is not a sad git, this a guy feeding his obsession; which all the research shows tends to make it much worse not better. He was-is therefore a growing threat to children who we therefore need to be protected against.

A judge isn't going to throw someone who's a danger to the public back out onto the streets just to make a point.

Plenty of judges have spared paedophiles and other abusers jail because of they’re own political views on sentencing; alternatively whose to say he’s not making a point on the grounds that “the end” (i.e. tougher action-responsibility) “justifies the means” (a few examples). I believe it’s clear the latter is what motivated this judge.

A man caught with 150 child images on his computer got a 6 month suspended sentence because criminal justice in this country is still bad (depending on your point of view of course) maybe someone here reckons he only deserved a 5 month suspended sentence?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

I believe I will chime in on this one.
Now here is a question for you, keep in mind that this is just a hypothetical question:
Now would you mind having to be in a place where you got your own room, bed, and 3 warm meals a day, an exercise plan, free medical benifits and education. No expenses, all travel paid for, and no job. Yes you do get to watch TV, and movies, read. Yes if you want to work you can, the money will build up.
Or would you want to work 40 hours a week, barely make ends meet, have to buget out everything, from your time to your paycheck, hope that the job you are working has a decent medical plan, cause we all know how expensive hospitals are and pray that you can afford to go out once in a great while.
Prisons are not what they should be, and they are over crowded. Judges have to follow guidelines and determinations for sending a person to jail. But each prisoner costs the tax payer. We pay for them to be in prison.

I suppose sdcigarpig the one advantage about not being in prison is that you can always commit a crime and go to prison (if they can find a space!!). So it would have to be something serious like listening in on the answer phone messages of the Royals; unlike say downloading child porn. Just as well really as I would prefer to listen in the Royals; they don’t interest me much, but at least you could sell the gossip to the press.

From what I here British prisons are not nice places to be in. Lots of violence, sexual abuse even, and the government does indeed have to spend a lot of money on suicide netting.

Idea…
Hay there’s idea; we could give the netting to sports charities and instead spend money on purpose built suicide platforms.
Of course you would need a judge to make sure the person was someone like Iain Huntley or Dr Shipmen, and not say some poor old drug addict who has already been through hell (because drug addiction is hell; especially if it causes you to waist all the proceeds of crime on temporary chemicals to the grain).

This would be a far more civilised approach for countries like America because it means the state would never be guilty of killing anyone, merely not violating the self determination of individuals to end their own blood stained lives.
I think it’s cruel and barbaric that in the U.K and throughout the world there are evil people who are denied the right to free up prison space.
We as a civilised country should lead the world forward in the individuals right to self determination.
If someone wants to be a dead body in a coffin, and they’re sane and sure about what they want; then why should you or me, in the guise of the state stop them?

Sdcigarpig (Regarding your complaints about prisoners not doing enough work) did you know that Dartmoor was once coverd with trees?
People have cut them over the centuries, but there’s a prison there which I think should be expanded. Tree planting would be a great benefit, however I suppose in other places we could always build brick works, or provide labour to the U.K’s troubled manufacturing industry.
Of course the extreme liberal left would never tolerate it. The only argument they might have is one of education. However I think doing light industrial work in workshops could be very educating, in fact it would help fill some labour shortages.

The Defiling of Democracy from Within…
The thing that amazes me is why there are so many liberal left MP’s-advisors and so few of them in the U.K voting population as a whole? I used to think this was some statistical fluke, until I thought about it some more, and realised it’s been like this for at least the last two decades.
1. This political group always talks about human rights, but they argue against the “right” of criminals to end their lives; in fact even those who have done nothing wrong and are dying of some natural degenerative disease.
2. They won’t even let people choose to suspend they’re legal rights say under the Health and Safety act, so that they can visit somewhere without expensive insurance.
3. They talk about democracy; but when it comes down to it they stand in the way of the will of the British-Western people, and they must know that if they’re weren’t so many them in the media-political elite, they’re true democratic support would not provide them enough representation to influence policy barely at all.

The big question is how (in spite of the (said) popular support obstacles) did the extreme liberal left accumulate all they’re power in the first place?
Another question is: For what?
This answer to these has got to be at the roots of some ongoing political conspiracy.

"It works like this: If he is in prison he can only molest other adults. "

So let me get this straight, Because there is no cure for paedophilia ( not really sure where you got that little fact'ette from ) , rather than suspend his sentence and try some form of therapy, your proposal is to lock him up for a few years with no therapy and then put him back on the street in the hope that a few years molesting other men and then re-entering the world as an unemployable, emotionally scarred and very horny paedophile will help... Not quite sure where you bought your logic chip but it wasn't sony.

"He was caught with 150 child images on his computer, because his wife had informed police about it. This is not a sad git, this a guy feeding his obsession; which all the research shows tends to make it much worse not better. He was-is therefore a growing threat to children who we therefore need to be protected against. "

That’s complete speculation. The "facts" contained within that paragraph don't even prove he's a direct threat to children let alone a growing one.

"Plenty of judges have spared paedophiles and other abusers jail "
You really need to stop believing the press hype. There are bad judges out there and there are stupid judges out there but there aren't judges out there who would deliberately put the public at risk just to make a political point, it wouldn't just be career suicide, It's a criminal offence, If there was even a grain of proof these were the judges motivations he'd be disbarred and in prison before you could blink.

"maybe someone here reckons he only deserved a 5 month suspended sentence?"

I don't think he deserved a prison sentence at all, I think he needs long term cognitive therapy and drugs, It might not work but it's got a better chance of sorting him out than locking him in a cell for a few years.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by Spuggy]

Interesting post liberal, if tending to veer a little off topic.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
The Defiling of Democracy from Within…
The thing that amazes me is why there are so many liberal left MP’s-advisors and so few of them in the U.K voting population as a whole?

What makes you think there are so few of "them" around? My experience is that most people are generally compassionate and caring when they're not having a rant in a pub after a few beers or begging for attention down a phone line to a daytime television programme.

This political group always talks about human rights, but they argue against the “right” of criminals to end their lives; in fact even those who have done nothing wrong and are dying of some natural degenerative disease.

Can't say I've ever heard that argument. Prisioners are in the care of the Prison Service who have a duty to protect those who may be particularly vulnerable, whilst on the outside suicide is entirely legal as long as you're not being assisted.

They won’t even let people choose to suspend they’re legal rights say under the Health and Safety act, so that they can visit somewhere without expensive insurance.

Really? I can go and stand on any cliff top I choose as a rule or if that's too tame I can jump out of aeroplanes or off bridges.

They talk about democracy; but when it comes down to it they stand in the way of the will of the British-Western people, and they must know that if they’re weren’t so many them in the media-political elite, they’re true democratic support would not provide them enough representation to influence policy barely at all.

I'm sure you you're correct here. It must be all those Guardian journalists voting in their milions who outweigh the votes of the rest of us. Damn them.

The big question is how [...] did the extreme liberal left accumulate all they’re power in the first place?

Wild stab in the dark here... because lots of people voted for them?

[edit on 2-2-2007 by timeless test]

Spuggy wrote:

So let me get this straight, Because there is no cure for paedophilia ( not really sure where you got that little fact'ette from ) ,

well, here's just one of many sources www.newstatesman.com...

In contrast, a unique study was conducted with a control group. The psychologist J K Marques and three colleagues wrote about the findings for the journal Criminal Justice and Behaviour. They monitored paedophiles who were part of a very extensive programme of both individual and group treatment and, after they were released, of a year-long aftercare programme. These offenders were given the highest-quality treatment known for paedophiles, and it might have been hoped that there would be impressive results.

Yet the treatment made no difference at all. Those who had been through the programme were just as likely to reoffend as those with no treatment at all.

It seems, on this evidence, that Sigmund Freud might have been right after all when he judged paedophilia to be an intractable sexual orientation, entirely unresponsive to treatment. In the mid-20th century, we moved away from this view towards a belief that we could treat paedophiles sufficiently to release them into the community. There were honourable experiments conducted by people like Jan Evans. But judging by the available evidence, these experiments are shown to have failed.

Most paedophiles are, as the child abuse expert Dr W F Glaser of the University of Melbourne argues, "long-term recidivists. The oldest offenders in the clinic where I consult are in their eighties . . . Burglars, car thieves and brawlers all appear to give up in their thirties, but paedophiles just keep on offending." Combine this with the knowledge that sex offences against children have a negligibly low detection rate, and it becomes clear that the stakes, when a paedophile is released, are unusually high.

"He was caught with 150 child images on his computer, because his wife had informed police about it. This is not a sad git, this a guy feeding his obsession; which all the research shows tends to make it much worse not better. He was-is therefore a growing threat to children who we therefore need to be protected against. "

To which Spuggy responded:

That’s complete speculation. The "facts" contained within that paragraph don't even prove he's a direct threat to children let alone a growing one.

Really? Healthy, sexually normal males seek and retain dozens of pornographic photos of children, do they?

To what ends? Because they enjoy looking at children?

Why then don't they simply choose to look at CLOTHED children?

Do you have children, Spuggy?

If so, how comfortable are you with the thought that men are downloading and masterbating to photos of YOUR children?

Do you regard such 'men' as 'harmless', benign?

Would you have any reservations at all about leaving such men alone with YOUR children?

It's a very unpleasant topic that rarely seems to get a calm reasoned discussion.

Of course I'm not advocating 'allowing child abusers' to roam free nor am I saying those who actually buy and pay for child pornography should escape punsihment, that is, clearly, criminal.

I'm wonder just what the account of 'indecent photos' actually means.
Does having pics of children in various states of undress or even nude make them indecent?
Cos if so the that's almost every parent in the country capable of being threatened with being found guilty of some kind of crime along these lines.....and this guy is a father of 2.

Note that the blokes wife believes him innocent and that the images were on the HDD of the PC before they bought it secondhand.

Certainly the icWales (see link) report is a hell of a lot less "sick pictures" etc etc than the Daily Mail's version of events.

wifes says PC was secondhand

Obviously none of us can comment much on this case but, generally speaking, what if the pictures aren't even of actual real children?
What if they're computer graphics and no actual child was ever involved?
Or what if it's an altered photo that now looks totally different to how it was originally?

I'm not entirely sure that if all the person has done (or will ever do) is collect and look at computer images off of the net that that warrants a witch hunt and ritual slaughter.

If they are paying for (and therefore being part of a demand for) child pornography that is obviously different.

But often with these stories I'm not sure we can be sure we're hearing anything that assures us the images were in fact actually pornographic.
'Indecent' can be a very broad term.

These days the easiest thing would be to not involve any real actual children and generate images via a cheap (or even free) CGI/Photoshop program.

Are we so afraid of all of this that we reckon that warrents jail?
Is that even a real crime?
Sounds more like 'thought crime' to me .......and if that is the extent of a person's 'criminal activity' in this isn't it all a bit of an over-reaction?

TBH some of the stuff (especialy the death/gore internet sites) some folks seem to love seem to me to be a lot more worrying and seems to me to be a lot more prevalent.



[edit on 3-2-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

Hi Dock.

You and I are obviously coming from two different angles. Of course I wouldn't particularly want my kid to be locked in a room with a paedophile who had previously demonstrated an inclination to attack children. But that’s really only one sort of Paedophile. In fact that persons defining feature isn't the paedophilia, it's their willingness to follow their desires through to physical fruition which is worrying. They’re a violent psychopath.

Most people who have been caught with indecent pictures of children have no desire to fulfil their fantasy, many are disgusted by the feelings of arousal and often collect images as a way of preventing their urges from becoming physical.
Still more befriend children not because they want to molest them but because proximity enables them to deal with their desires in a non criminal way.

Your kid is as safe with these types as he is with someone who enjoys violent movies or computer games. Occasionally they go over the edge but most don't.

I also have a problem defining what a modern paedophile actually is. You and I are biologically predisposed to be attracted to members of the opposite sex who have reached puberty.

It may disgust you and I to think we are sexually attracted to twelve year olds but we are. Our ability to prevent ourselves from feeling acting on or recognising these desires is an example of our functioning super-ego's and not a negation of the desire in the first place.

The paedophile who is unable to control this desire is demonstrating a fairly common defect in their ability to engage with social behaviour. Plenty of other people experience this concerning less antisocial desires.

You wouldn't lock someone up for "having a temper" unless that temper became out of control. Locking up a paedophile because they desire children is the same.

That’s just my 2 cents from a psychological perspective.

To build more Alcatrazes. Are you really telling me that with all the technology in this day and age. They can't build a prison on a oil platform like structure?

Sure it will be expensive. Beat letting the freaks out after 6months. Also it make you wonder about the average prisoner. When I was a child and some freak got arrested, my dad would always say, "Man, just wait until the guys in prison get ahold of him". What are we teaching are prisoners. To be nice to the freak who abuses children