Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Well if you want me to be more accurate, I could have titled this thread, "Ephebophiles: Why not Become a Teacher?" It wouldn't have been quite as sensationalist, however, as the TSR population would be collectively reaching for the dictionary, if not the X-button, and few people would have had the chance to read my wonderful thread!
    I think it'd have been better as 'Teachers: Why not become a pedophile?'


    Also, the enthusiastic question asking probably just wants to go loo.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by riotgrrl)
    You're right, it is difficult to balance the desire to protect children whilst also letting people retain their freedom. It's possible to take your argument the other way too and say that once a person has been rehabilitated, their criminal record is in the past and should not be released to people in case they are discriminated against. In fact, if we are to fully support rehabilitation, even people who have been convicted specifically of paedophilia should not be prevented from working with children. The reason we don't arrest men who act peculiarly is that there is no evidence against them, however these people have been proven guilty and convicted and whilst they become thoroughly upstanding citizens in time, you can't simply erase the past and assume that because they say they're sorry, they really are.

    If you can differentiate between those that are likely to reoffend and those that aren't, surely we wouldn't keep releasing those that are likely to offend (this goes for other criminals too)? I'm sure that some of them would never dream of hurting a child but it's simply not that easy to distinguish between those that would and those that wouldn't. In my mind, once you've severely harmed another human being, you can't expect for all of your "rights" to stay intact. It's not dissimilar to those who abuse animals being banned from owning them- you've shown you cannot be trusted within that area of society.
    That's true -- and it's ultimately a decision to be made on the evidence. If evidence shows that in some cases ex-offenders could work with children with little chance of harm, I wouldn't have any dogmatic opposition to that. I do think that it's beneficial to notify potential employers of their convictions though, which would surely change the dynamic, since the responsibility to make sure that procedures are in place to minimize risk would be rightly placed to some extent on the shoulders of the employer. In the real world, of course, we mustn't forget that virtually all employers wouldn't choose to employ such people anyway, especially since there isn't exactly a shortage of folk who want to work with kids.

    The fact that we keep releasing those who are likely to reoffend doesn't necessarily imply that we can't differentiate in any way between those who are likely to reoffend and those who aren't though. As we live in a country whose legal system is based on statute (and common) law, we have to release even those who we may think are likely to reoffend after they have served their mandated sentence whether we like it or not; offenders can't be further detained when their sentence is up merely on the basis of the probability of their committing another crime in future, however high it might be (though they could in Minority Report, which is a pretty cool film ), just as offenders can't be released after having served very little of their sentence merely because it's very improbable that they'd commit crime again.

    I don't think that offenders should retain all of their rights after having committed a crime -- if I did, I wouldn't believe in prison at all, since it of course infringes their fundamental freedom of movement/association -- but I do think that criminals should retain rights where possible. And I believe that because I believe that, given the right circumstances, we all have (or would have had) the potential to commit crime; I don't believe in the concept of evil. For example, I think that it's right that Ian Huntley was able to sue HMP after he'd been repeatedly attacked [by other inmates] whilst inside, because if he's [rightly] being locked up against his will then the prison service has a duty of care to ensure that he's not the subject of vigilante violence where it could have possibly been prevented -- otherwise, we endorse, in effect, torture and/or the death penalty. I don't really have any strong opinions on prisoners voting, but I think that it's probably a good thing that at least some of them can (and there are less than 100,000 prisoners currently, not all of whom would be voting, so it isn't likely to make a huge difference to results, & they'd be voting in their home constituencies not all voting en masse in the constituency of the prison) -- especially when we consider, for example, how prisons have often been used throughout history merely as an easy way of disposing of those whom the political regime disagrees with or finds troublesome (for example, under Stalin), and so, unthinkable though it is in 21st c. Britain, it's probably useful that there's some form of direct check on this power. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Anyway, it's been interesting discussing it with you. :cool:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    That's true -- and it's ultimately a decision to be made on the evidence. If evidence shows that in some cases ex-offenders could work with children with little chance of harm, I wouldn't have any dogmatic opposition to that. I do think that it's beneficial to notify potential employers of their convictions though, which would surely change the dynamic, since the responsibility to make sure that procedures are in place to minimize risk would be rightly placed to some extent on the shoulders of the employer. In the real world, of course, we mustn't forget that virtually all employers wouldn't choose to employ such people anyway, especially since there isn't exactly a shortage of folk who want to work with kids.

    The fact that we keep releasing those who are likely to reoffend doesn't necessarily imply that we can't differentiate in any way between those who are likely to reoffend and those who aren't though. As we live in a country whose legal system is based on statute (and common) law, we have to release even those who we may think are likely to reoffend after they have served their mandated sentence whether we like it or not; offenders can't be further detained when their sentence is up merely on the basis of the probability of their committing another crime in future, however high it might be (though they could in Minority Report, which is a pretty cool film ), just as offenders can't be released after having served very little of their sentence merely because it's very improbable that they'd commit crime again.

    I don't think that offenders should retain all of their rights after having committed a crime -- if I did, I wouldn't believe in prison at all, since it of course infringes their fundamental freedom of movement/association -- but I do think that criminals should retain rights where possible. And I believe that because I believe that, given the right circumstances, we all have (or would have had) the potential to commit crime; I don't believe in the concept of evil. For example, I think that it's right that Ian Huntley was able to sue HMP after he'd been repeatedly attacked [by other inmates] whilst inside, because if he's [rightly] being locked up against his will then the prison service has a duty of care to ensure that he's not the subject of vigilante violence where it could have possibly been prevented -- otherwise, we endorse, in effect, torture and/or the death penalty. I don't really have any strong opinions on prisoners voting, but I think that it's probably a good thing that at least some of them can (and there are less than 100,000 prisoners currently, not all of whom would be voting, so it isn't likely to make a huge difference to results, & they'd be voting in their home constituencies not all voting en masse in the constituency of the prison) -- especially when we consider, for example, how prisons have often been used throughout history merely as an easy way of disposing of those whom the political regime disagrees with or finds troublesome (for example, under Stalin), and so, unthinkable though it is in 21st c. Britain, it's probably useful that there's some form of direct check on this power. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Anyway, it's been interesting discussing it with you. :cool:
    Absolutely fantastic post, brilliantly reasoned. The problem is, most people base their opinions on bias and emotion rather than logic, which leads to bad results. It also, as you say, questions the whole point and level of belief in rehabilitation and so forth. I also agree that there's no principal point to deny prisoners the vote. They could introduce rules to stop them, but that only detracts from democracy. Why not deny stupid people the vote on the basis they don't 'deserve it'? Why not deny the unemployed the vote on the basis of not 'earning it'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    Absolutely fantastic post, brilliantly reasoned. The problem is, most people base their opinions on bias and emotion rather than logic, which leads to bad results. It also, as you say, questions the whole point and level of belief in rehabilitation and so forth. I also agree that there's no principal point to deny prisoners the vote. They could introduce rules to stop them, but that only detracts from democracy. Why not deny stupid people the vote on the basis they don't 'deserve it'? Why not deny the unemployed the vote on the basis of not 'earning it'?
    To be fair, Riotgrrl made some good points too. And emotion isn't necessarily a bad tool for decision making -- it evolved to help us make good decisions quickly and we'd find it quite hard to survive in nature without it (e.g. feeling shame when a child is attacked allows us to intervene and so help it, or feeling love, of course, allows mating and mate selection to become a pleasurable activity for us etc.), though in some cases it may be best to go against our natural tendencies; on the whole, they're not bad guidelines though. If we had no emotion at all, we could quite easily allow paedophilia, for example (there's no purely logical reason why we shouldn't, unless we work from emotionally based axioms). Indeed, in many cultures it has been allowed or has even been the norm.

    Thanks anyway.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.