leeslover Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I suspect that people aren't talking about executing someone who has wanked over a couple of pictures on the web. I would think they are on about child rapists. In that scenario I fail to see why anyone would let the child live and themselves potentially die after willingly inflicted such pain already. Future victims (if the bad man has been caught) could be dealt with by other means. Castration (screw the chemical aspect. Lop them off) for example. If not caught, he'll carry on murdering rather than raping. NB. You also have to ask the levels of this. Should Graham Rix for instance have been hung? I am making up facts here, but despite the growth of the internet I think most child abuse of any type goes on either within families or within institutions of one sort or another, so it really isn't a case of it being simpler for the baddy to decide to kill and bury the victim or not do the crime. True maybe for the Ian Brady type (who killed them anyway) but not for the more "normal" sort who grooms them, uses bribes and threats and all sorts to get them not to tell. Asking for the levels is a very fair point. Rix - was he shagging a 15 year old girl? They looked fit to me when I was 20, they look like girls to me now. A 40-something bloke shagging one sends shivers down my spine, but god knows how to draw the line on when someone is old enough to give genuine consent. The law makes reasonable judgments about these things in relationships. I don't think it muddies the waters in this discussion, clearly you don't noose up everyone with something nasty on the PC or a 24 year old simpleton who is the boyfriend of a 13 year old girl, but you can leave a whole load of in between cases and find a category of people who habitually have sex with pre-pubescent children, and who seek to carry on with this behaviour if you let them onto the streets. Honestly, don't you think it's better to just kill these people rather than giving them supervision and a 50/50 chance of setting up a new breeding camp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Honestly, don't you think it's better to just kill these people rather than giving them supervision and a 50/50 chance of setting up a new breeding camp? Alright there are many occasions where it is in family, someone who doesn't have it in them to kill, and 101 other scenarios. How many raped children is better than one murdered one? I just think it would work indirectly in doing more harm than good. you have to have levels of crime and to just bung this one to the top of the list when it isn't doesn't add up. I'd rather they neuteredalised these folk than killed them. I have little problem with capital punishment for murder, but this. No. I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Alright there are many occasions where it is in family, someone who doesn't have it in them to kill, and 101 other scenarios. How many raped children is better than one murdered one? I just think it would work indirectly in doing more harm than good. you have to have levels of crime and to just bung this one to the top of the list when it isn't doesn't add up. I'd rather they neuteredalised these folk than killed them. I have little problem with capital punishment for murder, but this. No. I don't think so. As I said, or implied, they get away with it because they control the children - most of it isn't spur of the moment snatch a kid and dump her, it's a long term planning thing. They may very well have several in the planning or active stages at one time rather than it being the one-time or miss job that you describe, and it's extremely likely that they plan to return to rape/abuse the same child many times over a number of years once they have gained control. It's not a case of a one-off "kill them for safeties sake" - they make an investment in their victims. It's as likely that a child rapist will kill a victim if he fears that one he's had under his control for 20 years is about to shop him as if it is his first time, surely? May as well just get those who are serial offenders and not looking liking they will give up and be done with it rather than let him ruin scores of lives. Plus, they will be dead rather than alive, which in my aging state, I am inclining to think of as a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stebuzz Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 according to the daily express gary glitter, real name paul gadd is looking for a house in the saddleworth area. maybe we can interest him in a season ticket. he wont be welcome here said a denshaw landlord, with whom glitters agent tried to book temporary accomodation. he is due in the area on monday/tuesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stebuzz Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Will they act on the information? Too often they don't. Let's hope he doesn't buy an ice-cram van eh? Seem to have read somewhere this week that's exactly what another offender did. Defies belief! lol, it gives a whole new meaning to mind that child. he gets all his money i believe from royalties. particularly so from the phrase do you wanna be in my gang my gang every time it is played in the usa as teams come out onto the pitch, he gets a fat cheque sent over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.