The Student Room Group

Etonian paedophile spared jail sentence

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Fullofsurprises
Lol, I don't think it's just money in this case - it's about the attitude to people from certain classes.



It isn't money and I am not sure it is class. Rather it is a reward for parental effort.

We won't bang your kid up despite the fact that he is a nasty piece of work because you are trying to do something.

Whilst that might be appropriate at 12, it isn't at 17. He should have seen the inside of a YOI.

Interestingly no mention of his mother, His father is married but given the disconnect between his and his father's surnames I wonder if he has taken the name of his mother's second husband.
Original post by llys
Ah, but are the sentences comparable too?


Because he's rich.
Reply 42
Original post by Da RainForest
Because he's rich.


I'm not sure, actually. I think it has more to do with class than money. If an upperclass boy goes off the rails (he did much worse), it is unexpected, therefore, people assume there are "circumstances". If the son of a single mother on benefits goes off the rails, well that's "normal", and we have to do something to stop him in his tracks. I would expect a judge to know better, but at the end of the day, they are only people too. He obviously sympathised with the father, to whom he can relate professionally, so perhaps that influenced the sentence.
Original post by llys
I'm not sure, actually. I think it has more to do with class than money. If an upperclass boy goes off the rails (he did much worse), it is unexpected, therefore, people assume there are "circumstances". If the son of a single mother on benefits goes off the rails, well that's "normal", and we have to do something to stop him in his tracks. I would expect a judge to know better, but at the end of the day, they are only people too. He obviously sympathised with the father, to whom he can relate professionally, so perhaps that influenced the sentence.

He is a paedophile. It's neither an upper-class or a working-class phenomenon. Maybe if he was involved in gang crimes, I would be more surprised considering these factors.
Reply 44
Original post by Da RainForest
He is a paedophile. It's neither an upper-class or a working-class phenomenon. Maybe if he was involved in gang crimes, I would be more surprised considering these factors.


Good point, that would be even more unexpected.
Original post by moonkatt
As he was 17 at the time of the offence I presume the courts treated him as a child, however at 17 he's well above the age of criminal responsibility. I wonder what similar offences would attract as a sentence, they've obviously made a case with his mental illness. The press have obviously jumped on this because of where he went to school. I'd rather a custodial sentence for his crimes, either way though, his life is pretty much ruined before its begun. I doubt even having a well connected father will make people want to employ a convicted paedophile.


Original post by DougallnDougall
The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10. In Scotland it is 8 though prosecutions can only be brought against 12+

Whoops, I got the terminology wrong. In either case my point was that the sentence is probably lenient because of his age at the time of the offence. If he were below the age of criminal responsibility they couldn't even give him a suspended sentence.
Original post by knapdarloch
You almost sound like you feel sorry for him?

I'm afraid there's a massive grey area between 'feeling sorry for him' and calling for outrageous sentences and for him to be castrated.
Reply 47
People are too fussy with criminals. Why would castration be an outrageous sentence for these kind of crimes? It would probably do more to rehabilitate him than "counseling".

To clarify: There are men who are not willing or do not have the willpower to control their testosterone-driven sexual urges. Removing the source of testosterone is a very simple solution, and should especially appeal to people who don't want to put criminals in prison.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by llys
People are too fussy with criminals. Why would castration be an outrageous sentence for these kind of crimes? It would probably do more to rehabilitate him than "counseling".

To clarify: There are men who are not willing or do not have the willpower to control their testosterone-driven sexual urges. Removing the source of testosterone is a very simple solution, and should especially appeal to people who don't want to put criminals in prison.

Okay Mr. IjustgotbackfromthemedievaleraandIactuallykindofpreferredit
'Counselling', this is what is wrong with this country. Lock him up and throw away the key, he is absolute scum. I hope someone shoots him dead soon enough.
Reply 50
Original post by Unkempt_One
Okay Mr. IjustgotbackfromthemedievaleraandIactuallykindofpreferredit


FYI

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wiring-the-mind/201410/should-we-be-castrating-sex-offenders

The Ministry of Justice has been rolling out a program to chemically castrate rapists, paedophiles and other sex offenders.

At the moment, this is a voluntary program for people who wish to be relieved of a sexual drive that they feel is ruining their lives. (And it works!)

Professor Don Grubin of the University of Newcastle discusses the benefits and potential pitfalls of this technique, with which he has been heavily involved.

Does medicating rapists suggest that they are suffering from a disease, making them less morally responsible for their actions? (IMO, that's irrelevant, so long as the threat to society is removed.)
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by llys
FYI

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wiring-the-mind/201410/should-we-be-castrating-sex-offenders

The Ministry of Justice has been rolling out a program to chemically castrate rapists, paedophiles and other sex offenders.

At the moment, this is a voluntary program for people who wish to be relieved of a sexual drive that they feel is ruining their lives. (And it works!)

Professor Don Grubin of the University of Newcastle discusses the benefits and potential pitfalls of this technique, with which he has been heavily involved.

Does medicating rapists suggest that they are suffering from a disease, making them less morally responsible for their actions? (IMO, that's irrelevant, so long as the threat to society is removed.)

FYI, I'd already looked this up. The key word here is 'voluntary', and the key fact is that it is suggested for inmates with literally uncontrollable urges, not for offenders who may well be cured with therapy.
Reply 52
Original post by Unkempt_One
FYI, I'd already looked this up. The key word here is 'voluntary', and the key fact is that it is suggested for inmates with literally uncontrollable urges, not for offenders who may well be cured with therapy.


If you'd already looked it up, you would know that there is nothing "medieval" about it. It's just medicine.
Original post by Unkempt_One
I'm afraid there's a massive grey area between 'feeling sorry for him' and calling for outrageous sentences and for him to be castrated.
Is chemical castration really any worse than some of the ways we deal with psychosis?
Original post by llys
If you'd already looked it up, you would know that there is nothing "medieval" about it. It's just medicine.

Consenting to a procedure with debilitating side-effects when there is no other option to improve your quality of life = medicine.
Being forced by the justice system to be castrated when you could feasibly be treated by CBT or else with no long-term side effects = medieval.
And yes, the death penalty is medieval too.
Original post by knapdarloch
Is chemical castration really any worse than some of the ways we deal with psychosis?

I get what you're saying, but in those cases there's no real option other than to resort to drugs.
Original post by Unkempt_One
FYI, I'd already looked this up. The key word here is 'voluntary', and the key fact is that it is suggested for inmates with literally uncontrollable urges, not for offenders who may well be cured with therapy.


Yeah,therapy proved to be sooooo effective.
Original post by 0123456543210
Yeah,therapy proved to be sooooo effective.

Once again, that's the job of his doctors and psychiatrists to determine.
Reply 58
Original post by Unkempt_One
Consenting to a procedure with debilitating side-effects when there is no other option to improve your quality of life = medicine.
Being forced by the justice system to be castrated when you could feasibly be treated by CBT or else with no long-term side effects = medieval.
And yes, the death penalty is medieval too.


There aren't "debilitating side effects". These people can live a normal life - they can even have children. It is the OPTIMAL solution when you look at it in terms of rehabilitation. I honestly don't know why you think it is so "outrageous". The alternative is to lock people up for life. Personally I think that is MUCH worse, and that is probably why some sex offenders do volunteer for medication.

Please demonstrate how CBT has cured sex offenders. Some research or even just a few case studies would be nice.
Original post by llys
There aren't "debilitating side effects". These people can live a normal life - they can even have children. It is the OPTIMAL solution when you look at it in terms of rehabilitation. I honestly don't know why you think it is so "outrageous". The alternative is to lock people up for life. Personally I think that is MUCH worse, and that is probably why some sex offenders do volunteer for medication.

Please demonstrate how CBT has cured sex offenders. Some research or even just a few case studies would be nice.

According to this article there are actually two broad types of medical treatment that can reduce reoffending. SSRIs which aren't at all medieval (but nonetheless you can't force them to take them) and anti-androgens, a form of chemical castration, which do have negative side-effects including breast growth, reduced bone density, increased risk of heart attacks and osteoporosis. I agree that should be an option for severe cases, but given the harsh side-effects it would definitely be medieval to force all offenders to undergo that, not to mention probably against their human rights.

As for your second point, I didn't mean specifically CBT and I'm not going to accept a burden of proof as absurd as to refute the absurd notion that therapy has never worked.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending