Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Don't be a Prick

Josh writes:

OK, I don't think I properly spelled this out before, so here goes: you are not a prick. At least, most of you would claim not to be. So -- and here's the subtle bit -- don't act like one.

The people at Kiwiblog currently vilifying "pondscum" paedophiles and clamouring for a bullet to the head for abusive parents are wrong to do so. Not because the objects of their vitriol don't "deserve" it -- not because of any facts about them -- but because that's not what civilised adults do. Any attempt to justify such behaviour on the grounds of "they're asking for it/they deserve it/an older boy made me do it" is at best childish and at worst quite disturbingly psychopathic, going be some of the comments in the linked posts.

I'll say again: The way you act towards people has nothing to do with them and everything to do with you and how you choose to act. So you don't abuse murderers and serial rapists in jail because abusing people in your care is what the fuckers do. You don't forcibly sterilise abusive parents because forced sterilisation is, quite famously, what the fuckers do. And you pay up when you're found guilty of not treating convicted criminals like you're supposed to because to do otherwise is what the fuckers do. No excuses.

Now, you're probably be thinking "easy to say, hippy -- you'd feel different if it was your child being abused/your mother being murdered in her bed/your puppy being kicked." And I might. But I'd be wrong.


Apathy Jack said...

See, when I read about that, I figured; yeah, it was terrible that the police outed him, that will make it much harder for him to rape little kids.

I don't think they should have paid him out, not because he's a bad person or anything (although he is, but as you say, that's neither here nor there) but because outing him to the neighborhood was the right thing to do: He is a danger to all of the young boys in the neighbourhood, so the residents needed to know he was there.

(And don't come to me with that whole "reformed" argument - raping kids is a no-second-chnaces sort of thing. Giving him the benefit of the doubt presents an unacceptble risk.)

RSJS said...

So what's an acceptable risk? Where do you draw a non-hysterical knee-jerk hang-'em-high line? By which I mean, where does "safe" end and "dangerous" begin?

...if you can answer while refraining from the argument "Agh he did bad he evil kill smash bad man argh" it'd be appreciated.

Oh, bear in mind the chap in question got caught doing something bad to kids back in the eighties. Therefore that just indicates he is both a kiddie-fiddler and dumb enough to get nabbed. But what of those without records, the smart ones? The first-time offenders, or sneaky ones who get away with it for years? Adults who gravitate to children but aren't yet fingered for their love of the under-agers?

Meh, down that path one reaches universal castration for blokes and quarantining the wee pink scholastic cherubs. So how far down that path does "unacceptable risk" push us?

By the way, "Shit cock".

Blair said...

I actually agree with Josh, but for completely different reasons, because his ones suck.

I simply think that it's none of your damn business who lives next door to you. The only reason anyone has for publicly declaring someone's previous conviction is to incite vigilante justice. Now I'm willing to hear arguments in favour of vigilante justice, but at the moment, we already have a justice system run by Her Majesty and we should let her do her job.

If parents are really worried about their kids being molested, they should teach them about stranger danger and not leave them alone with people they don't trust. Hounding people who have already paid their debt to society is just retarded.

phats said...

I disagree with you Blair.
Josh has pointed out may years ago that the point of the "Justice System" dealing with criminals is to protect society, not to avenge the victiom/ punish the criminal / make them pay some debt. If anything, in prison, they accrue debt for the normal taxpayer anyway :)

I'm having to stand with Jack here, because funnily enough, I would disagree that our current system functions adequately to protect society from child molesters. I don't recall the figures for repeat offending for sexual abusers of children. Heres a nice right-wing website for you: http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/statistics.htm

As I think our system for protection of society is broken, therefore, if someone in the police tips the balance to make up for a broken system, I refuse to cry foul. I think that ideally the system should be fixed, of course, but the officers on the ground aren't in a position to do that....
If you take the view that justice is about protection of society, not about criminals paying some loosely-quantified debt, then their "right" to privacy after their first conviction is a very good acid test of whether privacy is a right or a privilege. And you can't argue he got much privacy while he was in prison....

RSJS said...

To sum up the preceeding posts:

blah blah waffle waffle pseudo-highbrow examples of saying "shitcock".

I will try to succinctly annoy Josh by applying his three current hates, ad homoginised attacks, wicker men and being a prick by saying "Josh is a child molester and must be killed, and by the way everything peopel are saying about blancmanges is wrong and I can prove it".

To bed, perchance to masturbate.

Apathy Jack said...

Actually, Jellybean raises a good point: Where do you draw the line.

Well, I'd be more than happy for the police to post a copy of my crimial record on every lamp post in my street.

And, of course I don't think the guy should have been outed just to punish him (I think he should have been sodomised to death with razors to punish him, but thats another discussion entirely) - I think he needed to be outed to protect the neighbourhood children.

RSJS said...

"(I think he should have been sodomised to death with razors to punish him, but thats another discussion entirely)"

Actually, that's the fist ON topic thing you've said. And quite a succinct illustration of Josh's point.

as for criminal records being used as a guideline, pish tosh. Carrying burglarising tools isa crime as it suggests an intent to burglary. Brandishing offensive weapons is a crime as it implies imminent ultraviolence. So surely walking around with a concealed penis is indicative of a mind to fuck? Shouldn't male teachers wear a "warning, penis on board" sign when entering school grounds?

I reiterate, your theory of name-and-shame only protects us from crims dim enough to get nabbed with baby-formula on their todgers. Crims who have possibly even been rehabilitated in the eyes of the law. What of the clever types who don't get caught (such devious boys) and how do you differentiate a potential molester without a criminal record, from say, a gay Kindy teacher down south? Mandatory penile encephalograms? Scopolamine for breakfast?

Apathy Jack said...

Obviously, we can't protect people from potential monsters, but we can protect people from proven monsters.

RSJS said...

So you want to shut the barn door after the horse has put it's huge horse-cock in little Timmy, and has been theoretically rehabilitated, while cock-packing ponies with eyes of fire and loins of preternatural lust are allowed free? That you haven't castrated yourself is a shock, a moral outrage, a SIN! Off with his wee purple head!

Ben Thomas said...

The Court ruled the police's (ahem) information campaign was a breach of privacy. It's worth noting that until about five years ago it wasn't certain that there was a "right to privacy" protected by law. It's been developed by the Courts, in my humble opinion as a reaction to media culture.

My question: why *shouldn't* the police have a right to publish the names of paedophiles and their addresses, assuming this information is on public record?

Newspapers and (gasp) bloggers and, yes, the police should have the right to publish anything that's public record. It's called the open society.

If we move to the opposite presumption - that info about someone is unpublishable unless they consent - you get the kind of comedic petty tyranny that people who don't understand the Privacy Act think we already have (ie parents not allowed to see report cards and other urban legends).

None of this addresses the rights and wrongs of rehabilitation vs ntegration vs punishment for kiddie-fiddlers, but seems a much more important aspect of the case.

Has anyone read the decision? I would like some light shed.

TomV said...

When you're convicted of a crime it is a matter of public record. That information should remain freely publicly available.

If someone convicted of abuse of children moved in next door to me, I'd expect to be told

span said...

TomV - would you expect to be told even if you didn't have children?

RSJS said...

As in of his own, or ones he's "borrowed" and keeps in buckets in the basement?

Frankly I'm all for announcing kiddy-fiddler locations so they can network and exchange srories and toddlers. It'll be Fuck Club.

I also want Jack castrated. But that's y'know, coz I'm on the internerd.

Apathy Jack said...

As to RSJS's first point: sure, we may be closing the barn door after one horse has escpaed (the horse here being Rape-Bo's first offense), but it does stop any other horses (to whit; the other offenses he'll commit) from escaping.

There is a difference between "That Man Is A Potential Kiddy Fiddler Because He Has A Penis" and "That Man Is A Potential Kiddy Fiddler Because He Has Fiddled With Children In The Past And Is Proven To Have A Proclivity For Young Boys" - so the two situations should be treated differently.

As to RSJS's second point: why put all the effort into castrating me - things fall off when that atrophy...

As to Span's question: Speaking for myself, it's none of my business if a Paediatrician moves into my neighbourhood, but the next door neighbours have kids, so they should be told.

Josh said...

Well, this conversation has moved so far from the point of my post that I'm now viewing it from my post via a powerful radio telescope, but just to join in: if you believe that people at risk of paedophilia (i.e. children or their guardians) should be made aware of the presence of a convicted paedophile, do you then believe that:

A) People at risk from paedophiles should be made aware of the presence of a suspected padeophile (or a paedophile who was never convicted, but everyone knows he done it)?

B) People at risk of being raped/murdered/burgled (i.e. everyone) should be made aware of the presence of a convicted rapist/murderer/burglar?

phats said...

I think we should make them wear armbands, with little, yellow badges on them*. I can't think of a good idea for a logo, though...

Also, if a black person moved in next door, I'd expect to be told.

Ben Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Apathy Jack said...

People at risk from paedophiles should be made aware of the presence of a suspected padeophile

No, because there is a difference between soneone you think has abused children, and someone you know has done it.

People at risk of being raped/murdered/burgled (i.e. everyone) should be made aware of the presence of a convicted rapist/murderer/burglar?

Yes, of course.

As I said earlier: I would be thrilled for the neighbours to have copies of my entire police record. I don't see why anyone else should be different. If you don't rape kids (or murder anyone or rob anyone or any of the other examples used), you've got nothing to worry about.

john w said...

As in the movie Papillon they s/b put on an island to fend for themselves with all of the other criminals.