Vigilante's..eye for an eye and the like...

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

a former paediatrician.

I hear that those lot can't be rehabilitated....

Assumption is the mother of all feck ups.

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

And that is why we have a detached judicial system.I would quite happily kill someone I found burgling my house,let alone sexually abusing my relatives,but thankfully Im not allowed to take my own revenge.The alternative is to revert to primative blood feuds and complete chaos which would be far worse than what we have now.

Indeed. The idea is that generally speaking, in the heat of the moment (or even just when they are personally emotionally involved) people are prone to overreacting, making bad judgements with regards to culpability, etc.
Either killing or maiming someone for something trivial, or even something someone didn't do. The courts are supposed to provide a dispassionate, more balanced degree of justice. Unfortunately, if the courts' sentences are deemed too lenient, people don't feel justice has been done, so they feel their only way of getting justice is to mete out their own punishment.

I know (generally decent, law abiding) people who've been involved in serious talks about killing someone in revenge. The primary motivator was the feeling that the guilty party (who certainly was 100% guilty) got off far, far too lightly with 6 months served for what was undeniably an attempt at killing someone. It would be preferable for the courts to of dished out a longer sentence (even a still far too short 4 years behind bars), so people's murderous desire for revenge would have abated to some degree.

[Mr Speirs]

Originally Posted by Baph

But just playing devils advocate for a second, where would you stand if the authorities considered it an "appropriate punishment" (sorry, still makes me laugh) for serious crime offenders to be beaten/tortured by a mob?

Not really sure of the rationale behind this question. Its like saying 'Where would you stand if the Authorities decided Peadohila was not illegal anymore?'

You'd still think it was wrong but the fact is it would never happen.

Originally Posted by Mr Speirs

Not really sure of the rationale behind this question. Its like saying 'Where would you stand if the Authorities decided Peadohila was not illegal anymore?'

You'd still think it was wrong but the fact is it would never happen.

I think what he's saying is, "If the authorities decide the sentence for Crime x was y, would you back it, irrespective of what x or y are."
Lynching as 'y' is unlikely (although not impossible, in many countries the state are at best passive to this and at worst encourage it), but it's just one example. Imagine 'y' is the death sentence. Do you have your own views on whether or not it should ever be used (and if so, do you have feelings about which crimes it should be reserved for)? Or, are you prepared to passively accept whatever the authorities decree is suitable?

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by Kinvig

You don't think that someone could be rehabilitated?

No and this is a proven fact. Like alcoholics, sex offenders are that way for life. They are wired up wrong in the head - shrinks like to think they can change them - but for them to change they need to realise what they did is wrong. Sex offenders see nothing wrong with what they did, so to them they did no wrong.

They may appear to be rehabilitated because they know what the shrinks want to hear in order for them to be released.

Originally Posted by Kinvig

You don't think that someone could be rehabilitated?

Originally Posted by Luckypants

Sex offenders see nothing wrong with what they did, so to them they did no wrong.

They may appear to be rehabilitated because they know what the shrinks want to hear in order for them to be released.

+ 1

Originally Posted by Luckypants

No and this is a proven fact. Like alcoholics, sex offenders are that way for life. They are wired up wrong in the head - shrinks like to think they can change them - but for them to change they need to realise what they did is wrong. Sex offenders see nothing wrong with what they did, so to them they did no wrong.

They may appear to be rehabilitated because they know what the shrinks want to hear in order for them to be released.

Surely alcoholics can got to rehab & quit the booze?

I personally would like to punch every slow-walking-tourist on Oxford Street in the back of the head. I can quite easily justify it. However, I don't. I resist that urge. Surely, a sex offender has the same capabilities to resist whatever urges dwell upon them

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

Was this bloke actually a child molester?I dont think we know that yet.I heard one news report this morning that said he had been on the sex offenders register but had been taken off it.Seems we know very little about it,and I suspect those who killed him knew very little too.
Hopefully he wont turn out to have been a former paediatrician.

According to The Times, Mr Cunningham spent four months in jail in 2001 for raping a schoolgirl under 13 and was arrested again in 2002, although no charges were pressed.

And from The Guardian,

Donald Findlater, the director of child protection charity the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, said: "There are some 35,000 registered sex offenders in England and Wales, the majority of whom are being managed safely within our communities, but alleged mob action of this nature will make some of those offenders terrified and I fear it may drive some underground and into isolation which is when they become dangerous to children."

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by Kinvig

Surely alcoholics can got to rehab & quit the booze

They can stop the booze, but never have a drink again. They are addicted to booze forever. Sex offenders are offenders for life in the same way. Maybe some can resist their urges, but they still get those urges and that makes them dangerous.