Child rapists repeatedly freed despite continued offences?!

Controversial News | Paedophiles and Child Molesters | Image Credit: News.com.au

 

 

What does being convicted of paedophilia or child rape get you these days?

A few months’ jail, then freedom and total protection from the evil public, that’s what.

I mean, what harsher penalty is there for a poor, unfortunate child rapist than to get to live freely within the community he so desires to repeatedly molest?

A County Court hearing has revealed that a prolific child abuser has recently been approved by corrections staff for unaccompanied visits with friends in Melbourne, makes regular trips to Ballarat for socialising and shopping, will get more freedom as part of plans to see him living back in the community. This is despite a judge extending a supervision order after even he himself conceded he was still an unacceptable risk in the community.

His lawyer said it would be impossible for him to spend more time in the community if people were able to identify him.

Sounds like total sense to me. We can’t just be locking up people who are predisposed to be repeat offenders because it’s in their wiring, now can we? Whether paedophilia and child molestation urges come from genetic predisposition or mental illness, we don’t exactly know. At the moment, those convicted are treated to psychological correction sessions, while society at large is loathe to diagnose such predispositions to crimes as ‘due to illnesses‘ lest it open up the possibility for criminals to plead their illness and get – at worst, hospitalisation, over jail time. After all, it takes a sick, unwell person to be automatically drawn to children sexually.

But this taboo is a two-edged sword. Because of the strain on tax dollars, overcrowding in correctional facilities and most of all, the underlying cause for individuals to commit crimes against children seen as “correctable mistakes”, they continue to be freed back into society with little consideration for their mental state and more consideration for their comfort and freedom than the comfort and freedom of the law abiding, mentally sane families who must live around him, oblivious.

This, evident by the huge statistics of repeat offenders, obviously lead to a high likelihood of committing further crimes against children. Put the temptation there, and the criminal with little willpower will crack.

Seemingly the success of these attempted reforms on child molesters is going nowhere.

If freedom and identity protection were only granted on fully passing a psychological evaluation, this whole sick dilemma would not occur. If we as a society must exercise freedom and rights to criminals even when they’re not reformed, something is wrong. I don’t have the answers, but something is wrong.

Read More: Shopping trips for child rapist who court won\’t name | News.com.au.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Crime, Politics, Law, Uncategorized

Author:Andrew Beato

CEO, Chief Editor and founder of Intentious. Passionate comment enthusiast, amateur philosopher, Quora contributor, audiobook and general knowledge addict.

Subscribe to Intentious

Be notified by email whenever new pieces are posted by the blogging team tackling controversial current events or issues.

5 Comments on “Child rapists repeatedly freed despite continued offences?!”

  1. James Hill
    November 10, 2011 at 10:16 am #

    I understand why the court seeks to protect the identity of released sex offenders: their crimes are especially heinous and make them likely targets for vigilante justice. No civilized society should allow vigilante’s to dispense justice. On the other side of the coin though, pedophiles and child rapists have an extremely high recidivism rate and their crimes are catastrophically damaging to their victims. These sorts of offenders need to be given punitive sentences in line with community expectations. If any of them earn the right to parole or early release they need to be monitored even more closely than regular offenders. If they reoffend, the punishment should be life.

  2. Anonymous
    November 10, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    Tough subject, and as Andrew posits, not one with an easy solution. I’m with James for the most part, but I don’t agree necessarily with locking people up for life under these circumstances. There’s no value to society in permanently removing someone’s ability to be rehabilitated back into becoming a contributing member of the community. Sure for some people that’s never going to be an option, but like most situations, there’s no “one-size-fits-all” answer.

    I agree that court judgements in Australia, in a wide variety of cases are out of line with community expectation, and I think that this is a more important issue than focussing specifically on the issue of child-rapists.

  3. James Hill
    November 10, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Anonymous is right and I was too hasty in making a blanket “life” statement for all reoffenders. I would suggest though that all prison terms are not simply about rehabilitation (otherwise, why sentence someone to a set period? Why not sentence them until they’re rehabilitated), but also contain a punitive element to them. I’m not particularly concerned if a child offender is rehabilitated within six months of incarceration but has another 10 years on their sentence, they haven’t been punished enough.

    Even if you don’t agree with me on the punitive nature of prison, If we let a child rapist out of prison and they reoffend, I believe a convincing case can be made that they are unlikely to ever be rehabilitated, given the nature of their crimes and what we understand about serial child sex offenders. I see no reason to let them out into the general public again without pretty drastic steps taken to ensure they don’t reoffend (extended monitoring, chemical castration, etc.)

    • November 10, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

      What about, hypothetically, a “rehabilitation” village for high-risk re-offending criminals who have done their time but failed to pass a certain risk threshold set by psychological evaluation. They get to live in the illusion of a community, away from the innocents of the real community? Is that too barbaric?

  4. Anonymous
    April 9, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Sir: You oversimplify the topic and, just like most persons alas, advocate harsh and punitive solutions which are only called for at the last resort, when the man is sadistic, or extremely mentally ill, or both. You also superbly ignore the complexity of Human Sexuality, which often yields disturbing imaginations in the minds of most males (I do not know about the ladies). “Sexual Child Abuse” was created by the American Feminists, an extraordinarily sexist, and harsh, movement, which is furthermore compounded by an extreme brand of Puritanism. Of course sexual abuse exists! Is it exactly as those women describe it, though? Sometimes, but rarely. Most of the time, it involves no violence. Notice, kindly, that young people have always been sexual, and that this has been recognized forever, except for very recently. Of course, if young people are seen as “children”, and if they are “innocent” (sex free), then it follows that any sexual activity is viewed as criminal. Is what we’re doing currently the solution? Are all these harsh laws ever going to change Human Nature? Clearly not, but since Reagan, every problem is met with “tough” measures”, which are made even tougher, when it is clear that they don’t work. This is an impasse, in which everybody is a loser.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: