Undermining Justice (fwd)
Gary Dale
LM COMMENTARY
Undermining Justice
Helen Reece, from Freedom and Law, takes issue with suggestions that the UK
needs a paedophile register. The result she says, will be to undermine a
basic principle of justice
According to a draft Home Office report released this week at least 110,000
convicted paedophiles are living in England and Wales. A High Court
decision which will make life more difficult for one convicted sex offender
directly, and an unquantifiable number indirectly, was also reported
widely. The London Borough of Hounslow gained the High Court's approval for
their use of a man's record of assaults against children as a reason not to
rehouse him. Both of these news items come in the wake of the publication
in Australia of a 'paedophiles' register' containing hundreds of names and
some photographs of convicted paedophiles. The author has promised a
similar book for Britain.
The High Court's decision strikes a severe blow to a fundamental principle
of justice. Namely, that people can pay for their crimes and once they have
paid their debt to society, normally by enduring a period of imprisonment
or paying a fine, they can move on. Basically, that they can be accepted
back into society on the same terms as other citizens. In undermining this
basic principle, this decision is very much in tune with the thinking in
the Sex Offenders Bill, which is being debated in the British Parliament
and which proposes a register of convicted and cautioned sex offenders.
Anyone on the register will have severe limitations placed on their
subsequent freedom of action, including a requirement that they notify the
police of any change of address and a prohibition on attempts to gain
employment involving access to children.
The thinking behind the Sex Offenders Bill is based on the widely
promulgated myth that sex offenders are so likely to reoffend that the
principle by which a punishment can be spent must give way to the
protection of the vulnerable, i.e. children. There is absolutely no
evidence that sex offenders are particularly likely to reoffend. In fact,
even the Home Office draft report itself recognises that the reconviction
rate for sex criminals is lower than for other types of crime.
Because there are no facts to support the recidivism myth it has to base
itself on the "hidden crime" argument, that a vast number of sex offenders
reoffend but are not caught. This argument is always trotted out to support
panics about crime, primarily because it is impossible to falsify. However
when sex offenders were asked in interviews whether they had committed
undetected crimes, the overwhelming majority replied that they had not
(Abel et al, 1987). Interestingly, other research also reveals that sex
offenders who had previous convictions were more likely to have been
convicted of burglary or theft than offences against children (Canter and
Kirby 1995).
The issue of child abuse arouses deep-seated fears. Sex offenders seem to
be from another planet altogether. The sorry truth is that the few people
who do commit sex offences are just ordinary people who err in a moment of
depravity. Nothing is gained by pretending that 'paedophilia' is some kind
of medical condition. On the contrary, by playing along with the idea that
people cannot prevent themselves from abusing children, it becomes
impossible to condemn the act when it does happen.
None of this would be of any account were it not the case that the
government is using the paedophile issue to undermine a basic principle of
justice: that people are punished for the crimes they do commit, not for
the crimes they might commit in the future.
The importance of Canter and Kirby's research and more broadly the
importance of upholding the principle of justice that a punishment can be
spent is that it recognises that people can and do change, that we can
learn from our mistakes. This is a fundamental part of what makes us human.
+++
If you are not on this mailing list and would like to join, create a mail
from the address you would like to receive the commentaries:
To: macjo...@www.junius.co.uk
Subject: <none>
Body: Subscribe LM-commentary Yourfirstname Yourlastname
You should receive a confirmation explaining the commands understood by the
list.
+++
To unsubscribe, create a mail from the address at which you are subscribed:
To: macjo...@www.junius.co.uk
Subject: <none>
Body: Unsubscribe LM-commentary
+++
Back issues of LM-Commentary can be accessed at:
<http://www.junius.co.uk/LM/discuss/commentary/>
Gary Dale
In <33266e36...@news.qmw.ac.uk> D.S....@qmw.ac.uk (David Toube) writes:
>:Helen Reece, from Freedom and Law
>What is 'Freedom and Law'?
Probably an ad hoc group of people who want to take
some initiative in alerting others to the dangers
evident in various legal reforms.
abelard
On 22 Feb 1997 14:22:27 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale)
typed:
>
>LM COMMENTARY
>
>Undermining Justice
>
>Helen Reece, from Freedom and Law, takes issue with suggestions that the UK
>needs a paedophile register. The result she says, will be to undermine a
>basic principle of justice
first class post...
not a single logical wobble that i can detect....
highly unusual...
regards.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
socratic gadfly - please e-mail if response required
abelard @ abelard.demon.co.uk
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Toube
n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) wrote:
: In article <5es7qh$p...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, Gary Dale <g...@ee.ed.ac.uk>
: wrote:
: > In <33266e36...@news.qmw.ac.uk> D.S....@qmw.ac.uk (David
: > Toube) writes:
: > > :Helen Reece, from Freedom and Law
: > > What is 'Freedom and Law'?
: >
: > Probably an ad hoc group of people who want to take some initiative
: > in alerting others to the dangers evident in various legal
: > reforms.
:
: http://www.ednet.co.uk/~flawman/
:
: I'm not connected with them in any way, but I do know how to do an
: Alta Vista search for "Helen Reece". I think the text on the web
: site will be strangely familiar to people who have read Gary's usenet
: postings. Coincidence? Although F&L are based in London, Ednet is an
: Edinburgh internet access provider, and Gary is in...
But Gary is not a member of the RCP.
: The Living Marxism web site is down at the moment, so I can't check,
: but does the address 14 Theobalds Rd, London WC1 have any connection
: with Gary's favourite magazine?
:
Having looked into it my impression is that F&L are an
RCP-associated organisation - I think that people associated with
F&L members certainly have contributed to Living Marxism.
I should say that this does not, in my view, disqualify them from
saying anything sensible. I find myself increasingly agreeing
with a great deal of what the RCP says (the specifics, rather
than the 'Grand Theory') - but then, as David B once put it, this
is something which one does by accident rather than by design. .
.
Best of luck to them.
----
David Toube
Lecturer in Law
QMW, University of London
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugtl027/index.html
David Boothroyd's British Elections Home Page
WWW: http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
David Toube
g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
:
:LM COMMENTARY
:
:Undermining Justice
:
:Helen Reece, from Freedom and Law
What is 'Freedom and Law'?
----
A.J. Norman
In article <5es7qh$p...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, Gary Dale <g...@ee.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
> In <33266e36...@news.qmw.ac.uk> D.S....@qmw.ac.uk (David
> Toube) writes:
> > What is 'Freedom and Law'?
>
> in alerting others to the dangers evident in various legal
> reforms.
http://www.ednet.co.uk/~flawman/
I'm not connected with them in any way, but I do know how to do an
Alta Vista search for "Helen Reece". I think the text on the web
site will be strangely familiar to people who have read Gary's usenet
postings. Coincidence? Although F&L are based in London, Ednet is an
Edinburgh internet access provider, and Gary is in...
The Living Marxism web site is down at the moment, so I can't check,
but does the address 14 Theobalds Rd, London WC1 have any connection
with Gary's favourite magazine?
--
Andrew Norman, Leicester, England
n...@le.ac.uk
http://www.engg.le.ac.uk/home/Andrew.Norman/
Gary Dale
In <5esg7e$r...@hawk.le.ac.uk> n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) writes:
> http://www.ednet.co.uk/~flawman/
Well there you go.
Maria, who tells us she is studying law, should see this website.
> I'm not connected with them in any way, but I do know how to do an
> Alta Vista search for "Helen Reece". I think the text on the web
> site will be strangely familiar to people who have read Gary's usenet
> postings. Coincidence? Although F&L are based in London, Ednet is an
> Edinburgh internet access provider, and Gary is in...
> The Living Marxism web site is down at the moment, so I can't check,
> but does the address 14 Theobalds Rd, London WC1 have any connection
> with Gary's favourite magazine?
The truth is out there, as they say.
Great programme on C4 last night. A discussion amongst people who
claimed that the Apollo moon-landing was faked for the cameras.
Apparently the technology wasn't up to the job to get a moon
landing in the late 60s, and the stills released by NASA are
inconsistent. Not to mention Kennedy's promise and the political
will borne of the Cold War. Coincidence? Or is it?
Gary Dale
>But Gary is not a member of the RCP.
But a good insult, though. Not.
>: The Living Marxism web site is down at the moment, so I can't check,
>: but does the address 14 Theobalds Rd, London WC1 have any connection
>: with Gary's favourite magazine?
>:
>Having looked into it my impression is that F&L are an
>RCP-associated organisation - I think that people associated with
>F&L members certainly have contributed to Living Marxism.
I think that anyone can contribute to LM.
>I should say that this does not, in my view, disqualify them from
>saying anything sensible. I find myself increasingly agreeing
>with a great deal of what the RCP says (the specifics, rather
>than the 'Grand Theory') - but then, as David B once put it, this
>is something which one does by accident rather than by design. .
Ah, but perhaps the 'design' is done by others to ensnare the
likes of you. Dangerous ideas that appeal to people's positive
instincts. There ought to be a law against this sort of thing.
>Best of luck to them.
Serious point: what about the idea in the new legislation which
restricts access to the alleged victim's statement? How will this
work in practice?
For some reason I've got the two words 'Bridgwater Four' ringing
in my ears.
Because 'sex-offences' against children are seen as a 'more serious'
offences then it seems that it is more legitimate to erode our rights.
But surely, if people are to be charged by the state with 'more serious'
offences it is all the more important to see that our rights
are defended?
David Toube
g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
:>I should say that this does not, in my view, disqualify them from
:>saying anything sensible. I find myself increasingly agreeing
:>with a great deal of what the RCP says (the specifics, rather
:>than the 'Grand Theory') - but then, as David B once put it, this
:>is something which one does by accident rather than by design. .
:Ah, but perhaps the 'design' is done by others to ensnare the
:likes of you. Dangerous ideas that appeal to people's positive
:instincts. There ought to be a law against this sort of thing.
Perhaps :)
:>Best of luck to them.
:
:Serious point: what about the idea in the new legislation which
:restricts access to the alleged victim's statement? How will this
:work in practice?
:
Indeed. Other interesting developments in the law include the
imposition of an additional penalty for casting aspersions on the
complainant in mitigation.
mar...@zetnet.co.uk
On 22 Feb 1997 14:22:27 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
[...]
>The thinking behind the Sex Offenders Bill is based on the widely
>promulgated myth that sex offenders are so likely to reoffend that the
>principle by which a punishment can be spent must give way to the
>protection of the vulnerable, i.e. children. There is absolutely no
>evidence that sex offenders are particularly likely to reoffend. In fact,
>even the Home Office draft report itself recognises that the reconviction
>rate for sex criminals is lower than for other types of crime.
I'd be interested to see this. Any idea where I might find it?
[...]
thanks.
Maria
mar...@zetnet.co.uk
On 25 Feb 1997 10:27:11 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>In <5esg7e$r...@hawk.le.ac.uk> n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) writes:
>
>
>> http://www.ednet.co.uk/~flawman/
>
>Well there you go.
>
>Maria, who tells us she is studying law, should see this website.
Ta!
Maria
abelard
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:14:27 GMT, D.S....@qmw.ac.uk (David Toube)
typed:
>Indeed. Other interesting developments in the law include the
>imposition of an additional penalty for casting aspersions on the
>complainant in mitigation.
does this mean stating that your accuser
is making a false accusation...means that you are guilty?
what next...an enabling 'law'?
****
the security regulations....
1. you must answer accordingly to my questions...don't turn
them away.
2. don't try to hide the facts by making pretexts this and that.
you are strictly prohibited to contest me.
3. don't be a fool for you are a chap who dare to thwart the
revolution
4. you must immediately answer my questions without wasting
time to reflect.
5. don't tell me either about your immoralities or the essence
of the revolution.
6. while getting lashes or electrification you must not cry at all.
7. do nothing. sit still and wait for my orders. if there is no order
keep quiet. when i ask you to do something, you must do it
right away without protesting.
8. don't make pretexts about (word removed by me) in order to
hide your jaw of traitor.
9. if you don't follow all the above rules, you will get many lashes
of electric wire.
10. if you disobey any point of my regulations you will get either
ten lashes or five shocks of electric discharge.
****
the source will be posted after any guesses....
regards...
ps i have responded to your post on LAW and the INDIVIDUAL
just in case you missed it....
David Toube
n...@le.ac.uk (A.J. Norman) wrote:
: > I think that it means that if you are convicted of, say, rape, you
: > cannot suggest that the complainant is a woman of easy virtue.
:
: Surely that if accused of rape, and you choose during the trial to
: make such suggestions, you will be clobbered harder if you are found
: guilty? It wouldn't make you more likely to be found guilty, or have
: any repercussions if you weren't found guilty.
Certainly, you will not get the benefit of 1/3 off for an early
guilty plea
: Does this wonderful proposal come from Michael Howard (or his wife)
: by any chance?
I have no idea whose idea it was. In fact, I ought to know the
source of this new provision: I understand it to be a provision
of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
Wayne Carter.
g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>Undermining Justice
What Justice?
>Helen Reece, from Freedom and Law, takes issue with suggestions that the UK
>needs a paedophile register. The result she says, will be to undermine a
>basic principle of justice
I've been sat at my computer screen for the last few hours reading the
various postings in another thread relating to the proposed Paedophile
register. - After some hesitation, I have decided to put forward my
own opinions based on personal experience of being a victim of Child
Cruetly and abuse for over ten years and on my experience of trying to
bring about changes to the Child Care and Legal systems for over
eighteen years! - Many of the mistakes that were made twenty years ago
are still being made today with devestating and often fatal
consequences. In 1989 there were an estimated 40,000 children in need
of protection from abuse in Britain. Today there are an estimated and
undesputed 70,000 children in need of protection from abuse.
<!--Snipped-->
>The High Court's decision strikes a severe blow to a fundamental principle
>of justice.
There is obviously some concern for the 'Rights' of the Criminals but
who is concerned with the 'Rights of the Children' to Protection from
the Parasites who prey upon them?
>Namely, that people can pay for their crimes and once they have
>paid their debt to society, normally by enduring a period of imprisonment
>or paying a fine, they can move on.
Firstly, convictions against Child Abusers are extremely rare because
the alleged offender has 'Rights.' The child has the 'Burden of Proof,
and Lack of communication skills.' A child abuser may spend a 'little
time' in prison but the victim spends the rest of their lives with the
consequences of the crime(s)
>Basically, that they can be accepted
>back into society on the same terms as other citizens.
Child abusers of any type are not like 'other citizens' and even after
so-called 'treatment, ' over 85% of them will re-offend. A point to
note here is the 'fact' that it is the abuser who gets all the
'support' they need, while the victim is left to survive or in some
cases, die.
>In undermining this
>basic principle, this decision is very much in tune with the thinking in
>the Sex Offenders Bill, which is being debated in the British Parliament
>and which proposes a register of convicted and cautioned sex offenders.
The register won't work for several reasons. Firstly, and most
importantly it only sees' a tiny part of a massive problem and focuses
on a single crime. There are Four main forms of child abuse, not one!!
Another reason why it won't work is that the information is unlikely
to be kept upto date and shared with those who most need the
information such as schools, nurseries, the medical profession etc.
To highlight this point, the Police and Social Services both had
records of 'suspicious injuries' to my sister from just ten months
before she was beaten to death by my mother.
<!-- Full Story available on the web - address below -->
>Anyone on the register will have severe limitations placed on their
>subsequent freedom of action,
Aaahh. Isn't that a damn shame. . .
>including a requirement that they notify the
>police of any change of address and a prohibition on attempts to gain
>employment involving access to children.
And do we really believe that some perverted Parasite who preys on
innocent young helpless children is going to keep in contact with the
Police and be honest and open about their actions? I think not.
<!-- Cut -->
>The issue of child abuse arouses deep-seated fears.
Yes, because most 'Adults' find it embarrasing or difficult to face or
speak about. So, how the hell can we teach our children right from
wrong and about their 'Rights to Privacy and Protection? '
<!--Snipped-->
Before we can attempt to find a solution or an answer to a problem, we
must first understand and fully comprehend the problem itself. . .
Sadly most of the people attempting to address this issue, simply
don't even understand the full extent of the problem.
Those who are interested in further information are most welcome to
visit my web-site for the Full Horror Story and a Lesson you may never
forget. . . May God give you the strength and courage to read it.
Wayne Carter.
--
Author of: "A Reason for Living"
An Online Story that Shocked the World!
==========================================
Web http://users.powernet.co.uk/survivor
Email wa...@survivor.powernet.co.uk
==========================================
M.S. Robb
In article <33124955...@znews.zetnet.co.uk>,
<mar...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>The thinking behind the Sex Offenders Bill is based on the widely
>>promulgated myth that sex offenders are so likely to reoffend that the
>>principle by which a punishment can be spent must give way to the
>>protection of the vulnerable, i.e. children. There is absolutely no
>>evidence that sex offenders are particularly likely to reoffend. In fact,
>>even the Home Office draft report itself recognises that the reconviction
>>rate for sex criminals is lower than for other types of crime.
>
>I'd be interested to see this. Any idea where I might find it?
So would I, AFAIK for paedophiles the reoffending rate is about 70%, for
most normal crimes ISTR is is nearer one third...
Anyone know better than these guesses?
--
There is no excuse UK POLITICS LINKS
There is no accusation. http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/geoff.riley/
What is the sound http://sun1.bham.ac.uk/turnersj/pollinks.html
Of one hand clapping? http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/po/table/brit/brit.htm
Gary Dale
>Those who are interested in further information are most welcome to
>visit my web-site for the Full Horror Story and a Lesson you may never
>forget. . . May God give you the strength and courage to read it.
It wasn't for the lack of courage I gave up reading this.
It was through my dislike of the author's evident self-fascination
writ at large.
Alan Reekie
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) writes:
> In article <33124955...@znews.zetnet.co.uk>,
> <mar...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>The thinking behind the Sex Offenders Bill is based on the widely
> >>promulgated myth that sex offenders are so likely to reoffend that the
> >>principle by which a punishment can be spent must give way to the
> >>protection of the vulnerable, i.e. children. There is absolutely no
> >>evidence that sex offenders are particularly likely to reoffend. In fact,
> >>even the Home Office draft report itself recognises that the reconviction
> >>rate for sex criminals is lower than for other types of crime.
> >
> >I'd be interested to see this. Any idea where I might find it?
>
> So would I, AFAIK for paedophiles the reoffending rate is about 70%, for
> most normal crimes ISTR is is nearer one third...
>
> Anyone know better than these guesses?
> --
According to The Times, 24 January 1997,
"The proposed paedophile register demeans us all and will protect no one"
(By Matthew Parris, parliamentary sketch-writer, former tory MP and openly gay):
All-party witch-hunt
There are times when, struggling against the swell of public alarm, one
begins to doubt one's own sanity. Is it really the rest of the world that is
mad? This is how it must have felt to be a sceptic in Salem,
Massachusetts, at the time of the witches.
Bernard Levin expressed that sense of exasperation in the 1960s, during a
wave of press and public anxiety about decadence in high places. Lord
Denning was hearing a government inquiry into such mysteries as the
identity of the "headless man" in a Polaroid photograph of the lower half of
a socialist partygoer, aroused by the attentions of the then Duchess of
Argyll. One minister was persuaded by Lord Denning to submit his penis
for examination in Harley Street. "Even in years so copiously provided
with material on which madness could feel fat," wrote Levin, this was
"something so extraordinary, and in many ways so significant, that it
deserves examination as detailed as that which the Minister underwent."
How, then, may we spot these madnesses early? Look out for the
existence of an early telltale: all-party support.
And so to the Government's proposals for a "paedophile register",
contained in the Home Secretary's Sex Offenders Bill, a slim tract of
which the second Commons reading comes on Monday. Such is the
offender-bashing imperative now gripping Britain that Michael Howard
announced it to cheers at the Tory conference, his proposals have
encountered quibbles but almost no principled opposition from any
quarter. Someone has to blast this idiocy out of the water.
The plan is to force convicted or cautioned sexual offenders to register
their addresses with the police, whenever and wherever they move, for a
period varying between five years and the rest of their lives. The declared
aim is to allow the police to keep an up-to-date register of the
whereabouts of sex offenders. It will be available for consultation by
prospective employers in cases where a job involves (for instance)
contact with children. The Bill looks set to secure a speedy passage
through the Commons, virtually unopposed.
There are concerns about details. As the declared aim is the protection of
children, it appears strange that the crime of gross indecency a
consensual offence involving homosexuals over the age of consent and
caught together in public places should be included among the sex
offences subject to registration. The Stonewall Group is taking this up. It
seems odd that an offence of which the police take so light a view as
merely to caution the culprit nevertheless puts him on the list.
But these are secondary concerns. Few voices and certainly not the
Opposition's have been raised to confront the central principle: that a
great swathe of offenders who have served their sentences and returned
disgraced at the workplace, disgraced with landlords, disgraced among
their families and their friends, and almost certainly unemployed to try to
begin their lives again, should now be bound to the 20th-century
equivalent of the leper's bell. This is primitive nonsense. Will nobody say
so?
Look first at an idea put to Mr Howard which David Maclean, his
Minister of State, says is for consideration. The police might be authorised
American-style to notify local residents when a sex offender moves
into the neighbourhood. One is left gasping in disbelief. Has Maclean read
what happened recently to a man on the Garretts Green Estate in
Birmingham when a housing officer allegedly tipped off neighbours that he
had a conviction for sexual assault? The officer was suspended, and the
Liberal Democrat councillor who supported him became a local hero. A
lynch-mob atmosphere blew up. The man and his mother were forced to
move. Where, Mr Howard? Where are they supposed to go?
Look at what happens to sex offenders in prison at the hands of other
prisoners. The instinct to stigmatise and hurt such people runs deep. Is it
to be whipped up beyond the prison gates too?
Labelling people is always hateful. Judged even against the crude horror
of the gas chamber, there was something uniquely nasty about forcing
Jews and homosexuals to display conspicuously and at all times the
badges they were forced to sew onto their clothing. It is chilling to force a
man to drag around with him an advertisement for something that others
hate and he cannot change.
Apologists for the Home Secretary will object that although sex offenders
are victims, they create victims of their own. Are these not our first
concern? There is a clear answer to this. If we judge a person so
dangerous that his neighbours must be warned about him, he should not
be allowed back into the community. Telling neighbours hardly adds to
their safety, but it does add to their anxiety, brand the individual, and
breed horrific problems of its own.
The Bill places no limits on the use the police may make of the register,
though the Home Secretary may. But let us assume the Government
recoils from Maclean's journey back into the Middle Ages. We are still
left with the idea of local registration with the police. What of this?
I am mystified as to its purpose. There is no practical possibility that
police officers could in any meaningful sense "keep an eye" on all these
people. These are some of the most private of crimes, rarely committed in
the street. A better case could be made for letting the local constabulary
know when a former mugger, door-to-door conman, drink-driver,
drug-dealer or inflicter of grievous bodily harm moves into their area: here
the information might just prove useful in the panda car or on the beat.
And an untruth is being put about by enthusiasts for the Bill, which ought
to be nailed. It has been suggested that sexual offenders are particularly
prone to reoffend. This is not the case. Here are some Home Office
figures (for England and Wales) for prisoners reconvicted within two
years of discharge from prison during 1992. They are expressed as
percentages of the total number discharged in each category.
All offences, 51%;
burglary, 70%;
theft and handling, 62%;
robbery, 45%;
violence against the person, 41%;
drugs offences, 26%;
fraud and forgery, 25%;
sexual offences, 16%.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^No category of offender has a lower percentage of
reoffenders than that covering sexual offences. You can nudge the figures
up by speculating that sexual offenders are uniquely unlikely to be caught,
or by excluding elderly offenders, but no minister can find honest support
for the assertion that sex offenders are less likely than others to mend their
ways.
What, then, of Mr Howard's declared aim of helping employers to check
up on jobseekers for instance, when jobs involve work with children?
He does not need this Bill for that purpose. The register will be centrally
held and compiled (as it already can be) from court records. This measure
can only usefully add the individual's latest address, and this depends upon
the offender's word. No less, or more, reliable as a double-check would
be requiring a signed assurance that the applicant has no relevant
convictions. A one-clause Bill could make a fraudulent assurance to that
effect a criminal offence.
No, look closely at the reasoning behind the Sex Offenders Bill and it falls
apart. In theory we are all on the voters' roll at our current addresses
already. In theory and in practice, details of convictions are already
recorded against all offenders' names, and held centrally. But Mr Howard
finds an urgent need for an up-to-the-minute list of the whereabouts of all
serious sex offenders and nobody else.
Why? Reams of notepaper and a jumble of faxes have surrounded me all
week, but nothing answered that question. Then all at once in the small
hours of Thursday morning, the answer came. There is no reason for this
Bill. No reason at all. It is simply a piece of electioneering.
It does nothing, achieves nothing, helps nobody, protects nobody. It
demeans and discourages. For some it will render just a little more forlorn
the hope that can redeem any human being: the hope that we might
reinvent ourselves and start afresh.
But it raises a saloon-bar cheer. And in order for Michael Howard and
Jack Straw to raise a cheer before a general election, the principle is to
be established that there shall be categories of free citizen against whom
no process of law is outstanding but who in some cases for the rest of
their lives must trudge into a local police station whenever they move to
a new address, and tell a constable, upon whose discretion they know
they cannot rely, that they are former sex-offenders, come to live in the
area.
It is shameful. It will have all-party support.
----------------
forwarded for your information by Alan Reekie (in Brussels - usual disclaimer)
David Toube
abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) wrote:
:On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:14:27 GMT, D.S....@qmw.ac.uk (David Toube)
:
: typed:
:
:
:>Indeed. Other interesting developments in the law include the
:>imposition of an additional penalty for casting aspersions on the
:>complainant in mitigation.
:
:does this mean stating that your accuser
: is making a false accusation...means that you are guilty?
:
I think that it means that if you are convicted of, say, rape,
you cannot suggest that the complainant is a woman of easy
virtue.
----
David Toube
abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) wrote:
:the security regulations....
:1. you must answer accordingly to my questions...don't turn
: them away.
:2. don't try to hide the facts by making pretexts this and that.
: you are strictly prohibited to contest me.
:3. don't be a fool for you are a chap who dare to thwart the
: revolution
:4. you must immediately answer my questions without wasting
: time to reflect.
:5. don't tell me either about your immoralities or the essence
: of the revolution.
:6. while getting lashes or electrification you must not cry at all.
:7. do nothing. sit still and wait for my orders. if there is no order
: keep quiet. when i ask you to do something, you must do it
: right away without protesting.
:8. don't make pretexts about (word removed by me) in order to
: hide your jaw of traitor.
:9. if you don't follow all the above rules, you will get many lashes
: of electric wire.
:10. if you disobey any point of my regulations you will get either
: ten lashes or five shocks of electric discharge.
:****
:
:the source will be posted after any guesses....
:
:regards...
Um - Japan in WW2?
:ps i have responded to your post on LAW and the INDIVIDUAL
: just in case you missed it....
I'll look for it presently - I think that I must have missed it.
I'm afraid that I'm horribly busy for the next few weeks, so it
might take some time to answer it properly. Might you send it
again by email?
A.J. Norman
In article <33151af...@news.qmw.ac.uk>, David Toube
> abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:14:27 GMT, D.S....@qmw.ac.uk (David
> > Toube) typed:
> >
> > > Indeed. Other interesting developments in the law include the
> > > imposition of an additional penalty for casting aspersions on
> > > the complainant in mitigation.
> >
> > does this mean stating that your accuser is making a false
> > accusation...means that you are guilty?
>
> I think that it means that if you are convicted of, say, rape, you
> cannot suggest that the complainant is a woman of easy virtue.
Surely that if accused of rape, and you choose during the trial to
make such suggestions, you will be clobbered harder if you are found
guilty? It wouldn't make you more likely to be found guilty, or have
any repercussions if you weren't found guilty.
Does this wonderful proposal come from Michael Howard (or his wife)
by any chance?
--
Gary Dale
>I have a hard time accepting that the NHS is a capitalist plot (and it
Capitalist society needs consensus - this makes it distinct from
older types of society.
Hence I never claimed it was a 'plot'. It was certainly in the primary
interests of the capitalist class (as a farmer feeds his animals and keeps
them in reasonable nick to do more donkey work), and that fact made
this compromise acceptable. And it is in interests of same to retain it
as a more efficient system of healthcare than in the type of system which
operates in the USA, for example. This doesn't mean no-one else benefits,
or that pressure from below didn't play a part. State reforms of
capitalism by pressure from below was what the British left was all about,
before it died a death.
It was a strategic expedient, when govt's took a more strategic
view of society, and when the role and expectations of government
w.r.t. improving society were much greater. Nowadays the state
as an instrument for improving society is held in very low esteem;
'social policy' has become almost synomous with 'social control'.
>certainly wasn't set up by a "Tory/Labour consensus", as anyone even
Throughout the postwar years there was a consensus around this
issue. Perhaps you can correct me on the fine details: but
more recently, all parties want to claim it as their own
heritage ('safe in our hands' etc.). Excuse me if I let them
argue amongst themselves who takes credit for 'the idea' or
'implementing it' etc.
>slightly familiar with its history will know), but occasionally there's
>something worth reading hidden among the anarcho-Marxist kvetching.
>Certainly most of their attacks on Blairism are spot on.
spin
In article <331409a8...@news.demon.co.uk>, l...@venturer.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>This is very interesting because Abel et al, 1987 is the single piece
>of research which the government really relies on to justify its
>position (Home Office letter to Liberty/NCCL). There are 5 or 6 other
>surveys purporting to show exceptionally high rates of undetected sex
>offender recidivism,
This puzzles me. How can you measure the undetectable? What was the
mechanism used?
[rest of the interesting post snipped]
>--
>Leo left-libertarian humanist boy lover
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you're not biased in any way then?
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Man's mind and spirit grow with the space in which they are
allowed to operate - Krafft A Ehricke
* Where there is no vision, the people perish - Proverbs 29:18
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gary Dale
>This puzzles me. How can you measure the undetectable? What was the
>mechanism used?
In any discussion of crime it is a widely accepted orthodoxy
that the figure for "Crime we don't know about" is rising
exponentially.
abelard
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:37:10 GMT, l...@venturer.demon.co.uk (Leo)
typed:
>field. But Grunfeld & Noreik 'Recidivism among sex offenders: a
>follow-up study of 841 Norwegian sex offenders', International Journal
>of Law & Psychiatry 1986 v.9 95-102 is more substantial, and shows
>that 21.7% of rapists reoffended, compared with 10% of child abusers;
>10% of the rapists were reconvicted for rape, 6.8% of the child
>abusers for child abuse over an average follow-up period of 12 years.
>All of these figures are rather low as recidivism rates go.
first..i am delighted to see you return to uk.politics.misc....
second...it is a relief to see you arguing from data
in place of the more common base....emotion...
third...your figures are ambiguous....
eg 21% of 'rapists' re-offended...
i assume this means they become 're-convicted rapists'
yet you go on to type.... 10% were 'reconvicted'
so i ask *further*....
10% of of the original tranche?
10% of the recidivists?
how can 21% be defined as re-offending...
and '10%' as re-convicted....
all most confusing...
i imagine you can see the difficulties...
perhaps you would clarify....
regards.
Alan Reekie
sp...@aster.demon.co.uk (spin) writes:
> In article <331409a8...@news.demon.co.uk>, l...@venturer.demon.co.uk
> says...
> >
> >This is very interesting because Abel et al, 1987 is the single piece
> >of research which the government really relies on to justify its
> >position (Home Office letter to Liberty/NCCL). There are 5 or 6 other
> >surveys purporting to show exceptionally high rates of undetected sex
> >offender recidivism,
>
> mechanism used?
>
reported by persons convicted for a single offence. Obviously, these self-
declared offences are *NOT* then the subject of investigation or prosecution,
and therefore these figures must inevitably be unreliable.
May I take this opportunity to remind readers of the revealing statement in
the Criminal Law Revision Committee's 15th Report, Sexual Offences (HMSO 1984):
5.19 As the Policy Advisory Committee pointed out in their report, cases of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 are subject to wide discretion
in both prosecution and sentencing. Over the period 1972-1982 for every adult
male (then 17 or over) prosecuted for the offence, two were cautioned rather
than prosecuted; for every male under 17 prosecuted, thirteen were cautioned.
Offenders are generally dealt with by means of a non-custodial penalty, but
a Home Office Research study showed that the younger the girl and the older
the man, the more likely it was that a custodial penalty would be imposed.
After considering various possible alternatives, the CLRC concluded that this
practice should continue for such consensual heterosexual offences. It did not
discuss why the same practice should not apply to the corresponding consensual
homosexual offences, instead of enforcing the law to the letter.
-- Alan Reekie (in Brussels; usual disclaimer)
David Toube
g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
:In <85701101...@aster.demon.co.uk> sp...@aster.demon.co.uk (spin) writes:
:
:
:>This puzzles me. How can you measure the undetectable? What was the
:>mechanism used?
:
:In any discussion of crime it is a widely accepted orthodoxy
:that the figure for "Crime we don't know about" is rising
:exponentially.
:
It is precisely for this reason that 'U.K.' - which used to stand
for 'United Kingdom' - now stands for 'Unbelievable Krimewave'
M.S. Robb
In article <5f29ih$5...@news1.Belgium.EU.net>,
Alan Reekie <alan....@ping.be> wrote:
> years of discharge from prison during 1992. They are expressed as
> percentages of the total number discharged in each category.
> All offences, 51%;
> burglary, 70%;
> theft and handling, 62%;
> robbery, 45%;
> violence against the person, 41%;
> drugs offences, 26%;
> fraud and forgery, 25%;
> sexual offences, 16%.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for these. That's perfectly consistent with the idea that paedophiles
have a reoffending rate of 70%.
Roger
abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) writes:
> first..i am delighted to see you return to uk.politics.misc....
Always nice to have a self declared pervert on the books.
> second...it is a relief to see you arguing from data
> in place of the more common base....emotion...
> third...your figures are ambiguous....
> eg 21% of 'rapists' re-offended...
> i assume this means they become 're-convicted rapists'
> yet you go on to type.... 10% were 'reconvicted'
The data available from the Home office demonstrates that at least
70% of child abusers reoffend after being released. Some have actually
reoffended while on leave.
The figures are oly difficult for people who want to tell a different
story.
--
"Damned creatures you are thoroughly evil despite my daily teaching and advice."
| Only the saintly can become good without instruction;
Roger | Only the worthy can become good after instruction;
| Only idiots will not become good even with instruction.
Richard Caley
Roger wrote:
> The data available from the Home office demonstrates that at least
> 70% of child abusers reoffend after being released. Some have actually
> reoffended while on leave.
Now, at the risk of apearing to be on the slimey side of this
discussion, I find it hard to take Home Office figures as anything other
than fantasy. Howard has as much reason to produce self justifying
figures as the offenders.
--
r...@lillith.demon.co.uk _O_
|<
Leo
Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk (Roger) writes:
>The data available from the Home office demonstrates that at least
>70% of child abusers reoffend after being released. Some have actually
>reoffended while on leave.
I have not seen the document in which the Home Office claims 70%
reoffending. Maybe you could be kind enough to tell us where the Home
Office makes such a claim.
It would be interesting, for instance, to see whether this is a claim
of 70% reoffending overall, or whether it is limited to certain kinds
of offences (e.g. sexual) and in general how it was derived.
posted and e-mailed
with a warning that any further abusive replies will be forwarded to
the newsgroup
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy lover
posting in uk.politics.misc at weekends only
"Quarrels would not last long if the fault was only on one side."
-La Rochefoucauld
spin
In article <334d6ad9...@news.demon.co.uk>, l...@venturer.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>sp...@aster.demon.co.uk (spin) writes:
>
>>This puzzles me. How can you measure the undetectable? What was the
>>mechanism used?
>
>"measuring the unmeasurable", I agree with you, and I included the
>adverse comments of other researchers on Abel's method in the bit of
>my post you snipped!
Ooops. Must have missed it.
>
>>>Leo left-libertarian humanist boy lover
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>So you're not biased in any way then?
>
><g>
>
>I prefer to lay my cards on the table. And I think it's important to
>demonstrate that boy lovers are real people who can even join in a
>discussion every now and then. There's been too much objectification,
>not to say dehumanisation of us in this debate.
Sadly, this is true. The first step to violent suppression is always
dehumanisation. If you can think of your 'enemy' as less than human,
it makes it so much easier to abuse or kill them - not for nothing
that many derogatory terms use the names of animals. Child abuse is a
serious problem, and there are some extremely evil and dangerous
individuals involved. But then any abuse of anyone is a dehumanising
act - not just to the victim, but also to the perpetrator. In it's
frustration and fear, society is moving towards a blanket solution
to CSA which I believe will not only be ineffective, but will also
result in the needless abuse of many innocent people.
Personally, I think there are better solutions which carry hope
for everyone. I don't want to see the exchange of one evil for
another, especially as I don't think either is necessary.
Bill Bedford
Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) writes:
>
> > first..i am delighted to see you return to uk.politics.misc....
>
> Always nice to have a self declared pervert on the books.
>
> > second...it is a relief to see you arguing from data
> > in place of the more common base....emotion...
> > third...your figures are ambiguous....
> > eg 21% of 'rapists' re-offended...
> > i assume this means they become 're-convicted rapists'
> > yet you go on to type.... 10% were 'reconvicted'
>
> The data available from the Home office demonstrates that at least
> 70% of child abusers reoffend after being released. Some have actually
> reoffended while on leave.
>
> The figures are oly difficult for people who want to tell a different
> story.
Which perhaps says a lot about the Home Office's policies on
rehabilitation.
Roger
In article <332301DE...@lillith.demon.co.uk>
r...@lillith.demon.co.uk "Richard Caley" writes:
> Roger wrote:
>
> > The data available from the Home office demonstrates that at least
> > 70% of child abusers reoffend after being released. Some have actually
> > reoffended while on leave.
>
> Now, at the risk of apearing to be on the slimey side of this
> discussion, I find it hard to take Home Office figures as anything other
> than fantasy. Howard has as much reason to produce self justifying
> figures as the offenders.
They don't change much between Governments.
M.S. Robb
In article <33400dd7...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Leo <l...@venturer.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>The data available from the Home office demonstrates that at least
>>70% of child abusers reoffend after being released. Some have actually
>>reoffended while on leave.
>
>I have not seen the document in which the Home Office claims 70%
>reoffending. Maybe you could be kind enough to tell us where the Home
>Office makes such a claim.
The data has been available for some time AFAIK. It was quoted in the
Indie a while back, I can try to find the reference, but my access to
usenet is erratic, so don't hold your breath.
>It would be interesting, for instance, to see whether this is a claim
>of 70% reoffending overall, or whether it is limited to certain kinds
>of offences (e.g. sexual) and in general how it was derived.
It refers to sexual abuse of children.
abelard
On Sun, 09 Mar 97 01:51:56 GMT, Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk (Roger)
typed:
>abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) writes:
>
>> first..i am delighted to see you return to uk.politics.misc....
>Always nice to have a self declared pervert on the books.
it is not completely clear who you are labeling a 'pervert'....
but your constant random verbal violence is debilitating?
>> second...it is a relief to see you arguing from data
>> in place of the more common base....emotion...
>The data available from the Home office demonstrates that at least
>70% of child abusers reoffend after being released. Some have actually
>reoffended while on leave.
i note that you use a different term 'reoffend'
against 'reconvicted' is this significant?
how can the figures be 'at least'?
what does 'demonstrates' mean?
how is the data collected?
what is the comparison for other reoffending/reconviction?
say burgulars....(btw iirc they also commonly re-offend on
leave)
leo has quoted a journal and apparently rather precise
figures...although the category he quotes (re 'children')
is rather a catch-all...
the paper refers to norway...are these differences
real, reliable and reasonably comparable.....has
norway adequate therapy in place?...could such a
difference be causative...
leo's ref. is easily checked if one should become suspicious...
you have given no clear reference...
discussions could be forwarded with more efficiency
if more people did as leo has...and gave clear references.
>The figures are oly difficult for people who want to tell a different
>story.
i am much less prepared to make judgements of others
without purpose than seems to be your taste....
i also think we will be far more likely to solve social
problems by widespread discussion...not by refusing
to listen to uncomfortable views...or inhibiting discussion.
if you have a good case...i expect you will make it, and
convince others...why not trust reason and analysis?
i do not type this as any criticism...strange as that may
seem to you...you type as you do for your own reasons...
which are not a matter of curiousity to me thus far...
i am merely interested in your content.(and in your
flapping)
your content is often interesting to me...but is often swamped
in the emotive flapping...perhaps you have reasons obscure
to myself (no i am not asking)
just stating that i would find your posts more informative
if you argued your 'ideas'/viewpoint in more detail.
that again is not a request...merely information...
Roger
In article <3329715f...@news.demon.co.uk>
abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk "abelard" writes:
> it is not completely clear who you are labeling a 'pervert'....
> but your constant random verbal violence is debilitating?
Not random at all. There is only one who really qualifies. The rest
think it fun to say that I said it because they think it helps their
case.
There are those who offend and who are willing to undergo treatment.
There are those who claim that there is nothing wrong with what they
do (or want to do).
The second sort are the fools.
> >> second...it is a relief to see you arguing from data
> >> in place of the more common base....emotion...
But data doesn't mean a thing without emotion.
70% of all cabbages planted reach their optimum size before harvesting.
(perhaps)
Not a political statement for most people.
70% of child molesters reoffend.
Very political statement for most people.
Ask people to prioritise Government spending between increasing
cabbage optimisation and reducing recidivism and it's pretty clear
which will come out on top. You would need a major famine to change
these opinions, and probably not even then.
abelard
On Thu, 13 Mar 97 09:22:53 GMT, Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk (Roger)
typed:
>In article <3329715f...@news.demon.co.uk>
> abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk "abelard" writes:
>
>> it is not completely clear who you are labeling a 'pervert'....
>> but your constant random verbal violence is debilitating?
>
>Not random at all.
to me...it looks close to random...
> There is only one who really qualifies.
i would not know...even if you are/were correct...
this is imv...a very relevant environment for discussion.
there is no long term rational manner of attenuating destructive
behaviour outside open debate with relevant input...
essential input includes above all, examination of the detailed
mental set of destructive individuals.
>There are those who offend and who are willing to undergo treatment.
>There are those who claim that there is nothing wrong with what they
>do (or want to do).
>
>The second sort are the fools.
as a crude statement...that is clear...
but there is much fear generated by a witch hunt
mentality...and anger....that runs directly counter to solutions.
>> >> second...it is a relief to see you arguing from data
>> >> in place of the more common base....emotion...
>
>But data doesn't mean a thing without emotion.
that may be an empiric stt about the mass at large....
for me emotion is mere confusing/irritating noise.
>70% of child molesters reoffend.
>
>Very political statement for most people.
i note (no more) that you skipped the q's.
> You would need a major famine to change
>these opinions, and probably not even then.
this bit...i disagree...people eat each other
when things get bad enuf.
humans tend to treat problems in some order
of priority....only now are they attending to
these issues....after starvation...disease...slavery...
basic education....next maybe our meat industry....
as i said...humans are not nice fluffy bunnies....
Phil Hunt
In article <858244...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
I imagine that by varying the definitions of 'child', 'molesters' and
'reoffend', one could, on the same data, come up with any percentage
between 5% and 95%, depending on what spin you wanted to put on the
raw data.
What definitions did this figure use?
--
Phil Hunt
Eurolang info at http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/eurolang.htm
Richard Caley
Roger wrote:
> But data doesn't mean a thing without emotion.
> 70% of all cabbages planted reach their optimum size before harvesting.
> (perhaps)
> Not a political statement for most people.
But undoubtably meaningful, so your claim is falsified by your own
example.
Roger
In article <33292F...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk "Richard Caley" writes:
Politically meaningful. It might be politically meaningful, but
I doubt you could sustain a debate about the size of cabbages
which approached that about the recidivism of sex offenders.
Richard Caley
Roger wrote:
> Politically meaningful.
What on skaro does `politically meaningful' mean?
Have a lie down Roger, you're starting to sound like Gary:-).
spin
In article <332aa4c1...@news.demon.co.uk>, abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk
says...
>[snip]
>
>>There are those who offend and who are willing to undergo treatment.
>>There are those who claim that there is nothing wrong with what they
>>do (or want to do).
>>
>>The second sort are the fools.
>
>as a crude statement...that is clear...
> but there is much fear generated by a witch hunt
> mentality...and anger....that runs directly counter to solutions.
That's for sure. E.g. in the US, public pressure forced a change
in the law so that therapists were *required* to disclose any
admissions of offenses by child sex abusers, to the police.
The result (unsurprisingly) was that the number of people seeking
therapy dropped. Some offenders are deeply disturbed by their
offences and want to seek help to stop offending. Naturally they
are unwilling to seek help if retribution will be the result.
Currently the only legal way for an offender in the US to receieve
any help is via the prison system.
So offenders who want to stop, go on offending, and may even escalate
their activities in a desparate attempt to get caught - to put an
end to their misery.
spin
In article <3329715f...@news.demon.co.uk>, abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>>The data available from the Home office demonstrates that at least
>>70% of child abusers reoffend after being released. Some have actually
>>reoffended while on leave.
>
>i note that you use a different term 'reoffend'
> against 'reconvicted' is this significant?
>how can the figures be 'at least'?
> what does 'demonstrates' mean?
> how is the data collected?
>what is the comparison for other reoffending/reconviction?
> say burgulars....(btw iirc they also commonly re-offend on
> leave)
There seems to be widely differing estimates about re-offending.
Maybe these reflect different methods of data collection, different
interpretations, or even differences in the way different cultures
deal with the offences - or maybe even what is deemed to constitute
an offence.
I have just been reading the page for an organisation which
purports to prevent reoffending (see http://www.stopitnow.com/).
A quote from their page is
"Can Abusers Change?
Experts say YES! But sending abusers to prison without treatment
does not stop further abuse. Those prosecuted for their crimes
and assigned to specialized treatment have learned to control
their behavior. A recent study in Vermont showed that without
treatment, 38% of abusers returning to the streets abused again.
With treatment, this incidence of re-offending dropped to 6%."
Wildly different to what Roger has been claiming.
Without detailed information, we can only really say that we
don't know for sure what the facts are. About all you can be
certain of is that some abusers re-offend, and some don't.
Phil Hunt
In article <858348...@ducks.demon.co.uk>
Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk "Roger" writes:
> In article <33292F...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
> r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk "Richard Caley" writes:
> > Roger wrote:
> > > But data doesn't mean a thing without emotion.
> > > 70% of all cabbages planted reach their optimum size before harvesting.
> > > (perhaps)
> > > Not a political statement for most people.
> >
> > But undoubtably meaningful, so your claim is falsified by your own
> > example.
>
> Politically meaningful. It might be politically meaningful, but
> I doubt you could sustain a debate about the size of cabbages
> which approached that about the recidivism of sex offenders.
I don't know. Does anyone know if there is an EU cabbage mountain?
Leo
abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) writes:
>the paper refers to norway...are these differences
> real, reliable and reasonably comparable.....
No, no and no. High recidivism figures (but still nowhere near 70%)
come from studies like Abel et al, which try to take unreported
offences into account, but in doing so make their figures hopelessly
unreliable. Grunfeld and Noreik (the Norwegian study) looked only at
subsequent convictions. Recent UK research by Canter & Kirby ('Prior
convictions of child molesters' in Science & Justice 1995 35/1 73-78)
broadly concurs with G&N, although because they looked at previous
rather than subsequent convictions, the figures are not directly
comparable.
> has
> norway adequate therapy in place?...could such a
> difference be causative...
AFAIK there is nothing particularly remarkable about the therapy in
Norway. Besides, I tend to agree with Gary Dale, that therapy is not
really particularly relevant here. Anti-social people are IMV usually
badly educated (in the broadest sense), not ill.
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy lover
posting in uk.politics.misc at weekends only
"He that judges without informing himself to the utmost that he is
capable, cannot acquit himself of judging amiss." -Locke
Leo
ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.S. Robb) writes:
>In article <33400dd7...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Leo <l...@venturer.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I have not seen the document in which the Home Office claims 70%
>>reoffending. Maybe you could be kind enough to tell us where the Home
>>Office makes such a claim.
>The data has been available for some time AFAIK. It was quoted in the
>Indie a while back, I can try to find the reference, but my access to
>usenet is erratic, so don't hold your breath.
I deeply mistrust this 70% figure, and would be very interested to
know the Independent's source. I have looked in the scientific
literature and been unable to find anything remotely like it. The
nearest would be Abel et al (quoted earlier in the thread), but even
with their highly questionable methodology, they found (trusting Gary
Dale here) that a majority of their subjects did not reoffend.
>>It would be interesting, for instance, to see whether this is a claim
>>of 70% reoffending overall, or whether it is limited to certain kinds
>>of offences (e.g. sexual) and in general how it was derived.
>It refers to sexual abuse of children.
That makes it seem even more unlikely.
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy lover
posting in uk.politics.misc at the weekend only
"Mankind is tired of freedom" -Mussolini
"It is often safer to be in chains than to be free"
-Kafka
Leo
abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) writes:
>On Thu, 13 Mar 97 09:22:53 GMT, Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk (Roger)
> typed:
abelard:
>there is no long term rational manner of attenuating destructive
> behaviour outside open debate with relevant input...
> essential input includes above all, examination of the detailed
> mental set of destructive individuals.
I am curious to know whether you would include me among these
destructive individuals. and if so, to register my strong disagreement
and intention to argue in detail!
>>There are those who offend and who are willing to undergo treatment.
>>There are those who claim that there is nothing wrong with what they
>>do (or want to do).
>>The second sort are the fools.
>as a crude statement...that is clear...
When you say 'clear', do you imply 'true'? Once again, I would wish to
argue.
> but there is much fear generated by a witch hunt
> mentality...and anger....that runs directly counter to solutions.
No argument there.
>>70% of child molesters reoffend.
>>Very political statement for most people.
>i note (no more) that you skipped the q's.
I suggest he has no idea where the figure comes from and cannot
support it. M.S. Robb thinks it may come from a remark by some Home
Office official reported in the Independent. If so, I doubt it can be
traced back any further than that, and suggest there is no research
that supports it; and that either the Home Office official or the
Indie quite simply made it up.
>humans tend to treat problems in some order
> of priority....only now are they attending to
> these issues....after starvation...disease...slavery...
> basic education....next maybe our meat industry....
It is an illusion that attention to 'these issues' is new, although
the pitch of hysteria is new.
>as i said...humans are not nice fluffy bunnies....
No, but a lot of them are sheep. And then there are the goats... and
the wolves...
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy lover
posting in uk.politics.misc at weekends only
"There can be no final truth in ethics any more than in physics, until
the last man has had his experience and said his say."
-William James
(I would add -- the last woman, too!)
abelard
On Fri, 14 Mar 97 14:09:10 GMT, Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk (Roger)
typed:
>In article <33292F...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
> r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk "Richard Caley" writes:
>
>> Roger wrote:
>>
>> > But data doesn't mean a thing without emotion.
>>
>> > 70% of all cabbages planted reach their optimum size before harvesting.
>> > (perhaps)
>>
>> > Not a political statement for most people.
>>
>> But undoubtably meaningful, so your claim is falsified by your own
>> example.
>
>Politically meaningful. It might be politically meaningful, but
>I doubt you could sustain a debate about the size of cabbages
>which approached that about the recidivism of sex offenders.
~the whole universe will have passed away before
the last word is said upon the common flea....j. h. fabre.
spin
In article <33339b20...@news.demon.co.uk>, l...@venturer.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>[snip]
>
>AFAIK there is nothing particularly remarkable about the therapy in
>Norway. Besides, I tend to agree with Gary Dale, that therapy is not
>really particularly relevant here. Anti-social people are IMV usually
>badly educated (in the broadest sense), not ill.
I think that the case for therapy depends on the individual. It
seems that many can benefit from therapy, provided it is right
for them, and they can find it. It's not a simple case of therapy
being relevant or not. IMO It should be readily available to
those who feel they need it - whether or not they have offended.
spin
In article <33349eb0...@news.demon.co.uk>, l...@venturer.demon.co.uk
says...
>
>I deeply mistrust this 70% figure, and would be very interested to
>know the Independent's source.
It may be an attempt to convince the public that the problem
of re-offending is impossible to solve. This means the Gov't
doesn't have to take any blame for the failure to provide the
resources to treat offenders.
If I was really cynical, I might think that certain moral
purists had made up the figure to help ensure the forced
segragation of paedophiles from society.
No other claims I have come across show anything like as high
a rate of re-offence. While I'm sure you could obtain such
figures with a carefully selected subgroup, I am very skeptical
that they provide any reflection of the general reality.
Roger
In article <858379...@vision25.demon.co.uk>
ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk "Phil Hunt" writes:
>
> I don't know. Does anyone know if there is an EU cabbage mountain?
Someone will now mention the EU definition of 'cabbage'.
abelard
On Sun, 16 Mar 97 12:18:52 GMT, Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk (Roger)
typed:
>In article <858379...@vision25.demon.co.uk>
> ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk "Phil Hunt" writes:
>
>>
>> I don't know. Does anyone know if there is an EU cabbage mountain?
>
>Someone will now mention the EU definition of 'cabbage'.
perhaps i can help....
abelard
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:50:59 GMT, sp...@aster.demon.co.uk (spin)
typed:
>Without detailed information, we can only really say that we
>don't know for sure what the facts are. About all you can be
>certain of is that some abusers re-offend, and some don't.
as with all human behaviour...
your detail posts are most welcome....
it is important that you keep well in mind
the difference between the very necessary
attention to real world academic fact...
and the reality of *individual* human pain and folly...
psychology is not physics...:-)
my general view is that you are thus aware....
but your posts can come across as dry on these
matters if you are not attentive....
i think this may relate to roger's flapping...
see also...my long post to leo....
abelard
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 02:21:01 GMT, l...@venturer.demon.co.uk (Leo)
typed:
>abe...@abelard.demon.co.uk (abelard) writes:
>>there is no long term rational manner of attenuating destructive
>> behaviour outside open debate with relevant input...
>> essential input includes above all, examination of the detailed
>> mental set of destructive individuals.
>
>I am curious to know whether you would include me among these
>destructive individuals. and if so, to register my strong disagreement
>and intention to argue in detail!
as i have made no such stt. i could easily choose
to resent the question.
>>>There are those who offend and who are willing to undergo treatment.
>>>There are those who claim that there is nothing wrong with what they
>>>do (or want to do).
>
>>>The second sort are the fools.
>
>>as a crude statement...that is clear...
>
>When you say 'clear', do you imply 'true'? Once again, I would wish to
>argue.
i use words with much more care than the average...
if i had meant true...i would have typed true....
>I suggest he has no idea where the figure comes from and cannot
>support it. M.S. Robb thinks it may come from a remark by some Home
>Office official reported in the Independent. If so, I doubt it can be
>traced back any further than that, and suggest there is no research
>that supports it; and that either the Home Office official or the
>Indie quite simply made it up.
that you would have to take up with him....
>>humans tend to treat problems in some order
>> of priority....only now are they attending to
>> these issues....after starvation...disease...slavery...
>> basic education....next maybe our meat industry....
>
>It is an illusion that attention to 'these issues' is new, although
>the pitch of hysteria is new.
i do not agree...these issues were generally out of the
light until recently.
issues of power divergance have not been studied with
any attention until recently...reliance upon 'instincts'
of orthodoxy/fitting(ness) was the normal approach.
such issues are very complex
further our knowledge of animal behaviour has grown
explosively of late....while dogmatic behaviour codes
have come under increasing question.
just as with the recent invention of the motor car...every
jo sixpack wants to put in their twopence worth...which
is about all it is worth...
you may find it uncomfortable...but my view is that despite
what i regard as roger's ludicrous posturing...his response is
far more complex upon these issues than most of what i
see posted...much as it pains me to type that!
the only other poster upon psychological matters that
goes beyond general knowledge on this group is imv aj....
the problems posed by what roger calls offenders...among
a host of unpleasant names (which i reject...i prefer humans)
those problems are very real...they are far wider than this
unseemly focus on sex...sex is but one very narrow issue in
in 'abuse'....
hence my concentration on child rights and better education.
both of which i see you mention....though of course i do
not know how far your meaning runs with mine.
as a species we are struggling out of the slime....
we have a very great deal to learn....
in the meantime we are better to err on the side
of *great* caution and fanatical refusal to blame....
while not fearing to act to control predation.
the witch hunt is by far the greatest road block
to solving the narrow problems of 'sex' 'abuse'....
but the dangers of 'enthusiasms'/fervour/mania....
hit at the very foundations of civilisation.
which brings me to the very trying issue at the
heart of 'sex' 'abuse'....opposition to the fanaticism
which fanaticism is imv a fundamental attack on civilisation....
is easy to read as an approval of the destructive behaviour
involved in using/pressuring young people for gratification.
i regard using others as objects as a fundamental
destructive human behaviour pattern...
i think we have much to learn before we may
become better sentients....i think the problems
are in our nature/genes....i also think that...
we can...and will...and must....overcome them....
so doing is basic to a better society.
i can easily see roger's frustration...but thouroughly reject
his emotive methods...though my belief is that he will
become more effective/sophisticated in time...or i would
not waste efforts replying to his posts.
>>as i said...humans are not nice fluffy bunnies....
>
>No, but a lot of them are sheep.
most act as herd animals...but they are still
not nice fluffy bunnies.
> And then there are the goats
most act damned stupid...but they are still
not nice fluffy bunnies.
>... and
>the wolves...
many act in predatory idiocy...but then as typed, they are
not nice fluffy bunnies.
spin
In article <858596...@ducks.demon.co.uk>, Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk says...
>[snip]
>
>My 'emotive methods' can be very effective in digging out attitudes
>and opinions which otherwise don't come to the surface. Force someone
>to take a stand perhaps.
Oh my God! Roger's been playing with us all this time. Pretending
to be a lunatic, but really playing a subtle psychological game
with us.
I feel USED!
:(
Bill Bedford
Roger <Ro...@ducks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <858379...@vision25.demon.co.uk>
> ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk "Phil Hunt" writes:
>
> >
> > I don't know. Does anyone know if there is an EU cabbage mountain?
>
> Someone will now mention the EU definition of 'cabbage'.
Something to do with Brussels..........
T Bruce Tober
In response to Bill Bedford <bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk>, who commented:
No, surely it's sprouts you're thinking of.
tbt
--
|Bruce Tober, octob...@reporters.net, Birmingham, England +44-121-454-4328|
| Freelance PhotoJournalist - IT, Business, The Arts and lots more |
|pgp key ID 0x9E014CE9. For CV/Resume: http://pollux.com/authors/tober.htm |
| For CV/Resume and Clips: http://nwsmait.intermarket.com/nmfwc/tbt.htm |
M.S. Robb
In article <858300...@vision25.demon.co.uk>,
Phil Hunt <ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> 70% of child molesters reoffend.
>
>I imagine that by varying the definitions of 'child', 'molesters' and
>'reoffend', one could, on the same data, come up with any percentage
>between 5% and 95%, depending on what spin you wanted to put on the
>raw data.
>
>What definitions did this figure use?
I think that it is a reference to the HO figures, whihc I imagine refer to
multiple convictons under given staute.