Garry Glitter to be released 19 August

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 538657.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7538657.stm)

[Bob]

Presuming he goes back to England, I hope they nail the bastard again and give him another 10 or 20 years.

3 years for molesting an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old? Vietnam was much too kind to the creep.

Presuming he goes back to England, I hope they nail the bastard again and give him another 10 or 20 years. 3 years for molesting an 11-year-old and a 12-year-old? Vietnam was much too kind to the creep.Presumably you think he's not mentally ill then, Bob? Any human being is capable of such actions should they so choose?

[Bob]

Presumably you think he's not mentally ill then, Bob? Any human being is capable of such actions should they so choose?

What's your point, Homi? You trying to assert he is mentally ill? If so, how would you know?

I don't accept the concept that diddling kiddies equates to mental illness.

I don't accept the concept that diddling kiddies equates to mental illness.So any adult can choose to be a kiddy-fiddler - there's something innately attractive about it?

[Marsilius]

The man has been punished in law once. Why ever should he be punished again? We don't do that to any other people who break the law.

The man has been punished in law once. Why ever should he be punished again? We don't do that to any other people who break the law.If he has a mental condition there's an argument for on-going treatment, where in principle I agree with Bob. Where we differ is that I believe a paedophile acts under a compulsion and thus the use of emotive language is entirely inappropriate, just as I don't condemn schizophrenics or indeed drug addicts including alcoholics. What people like Bob want is a bet each way - they want paedophiles locked up for life but they're not prepared to admit the corollary - in a civilised society we lock people up for life where there's no potential for cure, therefore paedophiles are sick. If they're not sick then anyone (including Bob) could choose to be a paedophile. However Bob and I have crossed swords before on this sort of issue - Bob believes that prisoners, for example, should be punished while they are in prison, rather than prison itself being the form of punishment, by depriving them of the generally-accepted minimum standard of accommodation

One of the benefits of religion (which generally I abhor in its popular forms) is its fostering of compassion and the understanding that we are all sinners (however you want to define that, and I prefer the Buddhist one - we all suffer through a failure to face reality)
I suppose I should stop wittering on and get back to the Mem'sahibs (and the gin) :occasion7:

I think you have to have a mental condition to take someone else's life, too. But that doesn't mean we should put them back on the street after a couple therapy sessions.

[Bob]

I suppose I should stop wittering on and get back to the Mem'sahibs (and the gin) :occasion7:

Hell, a lot of your posts would suggest you've already been there! :drunken:

You don't accurately state my views and I realize that's difficult to do with one-liners on a message board. Your suggested analysis (through your questions, I suppose) is rather simplistic. Everybody could do anything (rob a bank, diddle a kid, whatever) but applying that rationale to the Glitter situation is about as useful as asking somebody what his/her favorite color might be.
I have no reason to believe Glitter is mentally ill - at least to the degree that it ought to fully or partially exculpate him for
responsibility for breaking laws in place. If you have such information, spit it out (it's apparent you know diddley about the topic and are just in the usual mode of rib poking).
My comment is that I find it inappropriate that somebody only gets 3 years for molesting a 9-year-old and a 12-year-old (and Mr. Glitter ought to feel lucky that it didn't happen in his home country or mine). I also have no problem with one's home country re-prosecuting as it is the home country's right (you may not like it and may spout some theoretical babble why it shouldn't occur but it is the law and it does occur). In this particular case, I'm all for it. Go England!

I have no reason to believe Glitter is mentally ill - at least to the degree that it ought to fully or partially exculpate him for responsibility for breaking laws in place.So, logically, Garry Glitter = sane adult = Bob ??

[Bob]

I have no reason to believe Glitter is mentally ill - at least to the degree that it ought to fully or partially exculpate him for responsibility for breaking laws in place.So, logically, Garry Glitter = sane adult = Bob ??

Sure, to the same extent you believe 2 + 2 = 5; besides, when did I ever claim to be either sane or an adult?

when did I ever claim to be either sane or an adult?Quite

In the above UK paper, it says when he is released he is entitled to go anywhere he pleases, he will sent to the airport in Vietnam and can go anywhere, according to his lawyer.

[Brad the Impala]

In the above UK paper, it says when he is released he is entitled to go anywhere he pleases, he will sent to the airport in Vietnam and can go anywhere, according to his lawyer.

Yes, that's what being released means!

... that he could be allowed to go anywhere upon his release.

[Khor tose]

I have to agree with Homi, that pedophilia is a mental illness, and I agree with Bob that these people should be locked up. I am somewhat surprised that neither Bob nor Homi has mentioned the fact that we do both in many states in the USA, We sentence the offender and then move him to a mental institution until such a time as the man can prove he has learned to overcome his compulsion to molest children. This means that the man can be in the hospital far longer then his jail sentence calls for. There are dozens of approaches being tried, and so far they have met with some success. It is all about compassion, both for the twisted souls who commit this horrible crime, and for the children yet untouched. For the most part it seems to work. Bob, if it is now the law to treat Pedophilia as a mental illness, then I must agree with Homi that, "I hope they nail the bastard again and give him another 10 or 20 years" is probably not an appropriate response. We cannot have it both ways, well not logically.

[Bob]

For purposes of criminal liability for one's actions, most western societies have established standards to determine when one asserting a mental illness can escape, partially or fully, responsibility for his/her acts. In the states, we've essentially adopted a hybrid of the old McNaughton rule which, in short, provides that you are relieved of some/all responsibility depending on the degree to which you can tell right from wrong and have the ability to control your impulses. We "normal" (allegedly) people can't understand why somebody violently rapes another person, has sex with a 8 year old, or even robs a bank......but tossing the concept that "they must be mentally ill" at it because one doesn't understand it or because the act isn't "normal" is an awful lazy way of thinking. Western law just doesn't work that way. If you're going to label something a mental illness (which presumably means you're going to assign less responsibility in the process), you first need to define what it is and how you're going to determine if somebody is in that condition.

Gary Glitter, as I understood it, never asserted he had a mental illness or defect nor have I read anything (admittedly, there wasn't much "guts" of the case printed) that would lead me to believe he didn't have an ability to control his impulses.
My initial comments were simply that I was astonished that he only got 3 years for molesting two kids (and I repeat again that he would have received 4-10 times that sentence if it occurred in England, the States, and most of Europe - and, of course, he would have been executed in some places).

For the last 20 years or so, it's become popular (a better word might be "fashionable") to claim that one isn't responsible for one's acts because one was raised by bad parents, watched too many violent video games, etc. In my eyes, almost all of that is pure bullshit and simply a way of not taking responsibility for one's acts. I have no reason to believe that Glitter wasn't responsible for his acts (and haven't heard him claim otherwise).

Western societies have never accepted "pedophilia" (sexual attraction to kiddies - although there's some research that indicates it isn't all about sex just as in cases of adult rape) as a mental illness that allows the person to escape liability for his/her criminal acts. You can personally disagree with that idea but a lot of societies have struggled with the concept for hundreds of years and none of them agree with you.

Skipping all the theoretics, I also may disagree, Khor tose, with your comment that the treatment of pedophilia has met with some degree of success. Based on what I've read, the so-called success rate is abysmally low and, rather pointedly, almost identical with the "success" rate of no treatment at all. Pedophiles are notorious repeat offenders and, for that reason alone, they ought to be kept away from all children for the rest of their lives.

I'm quite sympathetic with the truly mentally ill (having represented many hundreds of people who my state was attempting to involuntarily commit for psychiatric treatment). I have no reason to have any sympathy for Glitter.

Bob, if it is now the law to treat Pedophilia as a mental illness, then I must agree with Homi that, "I hope they nail the bastard again and give him another 10 or 20 years" is probably not an appropriate response. We cannot have it both ways, well not logically.The pearls are genuine; sadly the swine are imitation

[Khor tose]

I answered a different question on another board, but my answer also applies here.

http://pattayapassion.19.forumer.com/vi ... highlight= (http://pattayapassion.19.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=161&highlight=)

[Aunty]

They should take him to Piccadilly Circus, strip the bastard naked and then mercilessly whip him until he bleeds. All in full public view! Then and only then will he have paid his debt to society for inflicting such God awful music and stage persona upon us!

Gary Glitter just called to say that he would sue Elephantspike if this libelous thread was not removed immediately. (waiting...)

[Brad the Impala]

They should take him to Piccadilly Circus, strip the bastard naked and then mercilessly whip him until he bleeds. All in full public view! Then and only then will he have paid his debt to society for inflicting such God awful music and stage persona upon us!

Whatever turns you on dear.