Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pierre
You ask me to supply proof. I, like you, obviously is not a subject matter expert but I do supply many articles that show I am not alone in my thinking. You try to discredit this but offer nothing of your own.
|
And once again you attack *me*...
If you wish to debate in a reasonable manner, please try to distinguish between *facts* and *opinions*.
Quote:
|
And a group of people that don't know the difference between a doctor and an offender, they're obviously not very intelligent. It was me that called them the thuggery underclass, as I would imagine that it was not lawyers, stokebrokers, accountants or any person of reasonable intelligence that were beating a path to their door.
|
"Thy're obviously not very intelligent". You would "imagine". You assume.
Once again you mistake opinion for fact.
Quote:
|
I dont deny that "ordinary" people may do extraordinary things. Hey I've got an idea. As it was my point that Paedophiles should not be released for our childrens safety, maybe they shouldn't be released for their safety also??
|
What a wonderful idea. The fact that it goes against the entire nature of the Justice system in this country is merely an insignificant detail.
Once a person has been convicted of a crime, they are sent to jail/ fined etc and, once that sentence is concluded, they are deemed to have "paid their debt to society" and are released to get on with their lives.
You, however, seem to think it's acceptable to have a system where someone has to not only *go on* paying that debt, but also cannot expect the protection of the law that everyone else who is free to walk the streets of this country is *entitled* to and, seemingly, should be "fair game" to anyone who wishes to exact vigilante justice!
Quote:
|
Sometimes it is right to appeal to emotion. to take away the emotional and damaging affects of these crimes, lessens the severity of the crime.
|
Rubbish!
Appealing to emotion *distracts* from the relevant issues being discussed. It is the sort of tactic used by Tabloid Newspapers and people losing arguments.
Quote:
And, once again you go for the Appeal to Emotion
|
There is no "maybe" about it.
No, it is not...
Quote:
You champion the human rights of the paedophile. But here is an example of where a convicted paedophile was released back into the community. He was not a relative of Sarah Payne, he did not groom Sarah Payne over time. He was an opportunist that abducted her. It could have been any child at any time.
This is the scenario that frightens the public,
|
*EXACTLY*!! It is the scenario that *FRIGHTENS* the public, it appeals to their *EMOTIONS*, not rational thought!
Yes, the Sarah Payne case is a tragedy, I don't deny it. But to claim it as *representative* is a mistake. A child is more likely to be abused by a family member/ close friend than a "random abuser". A child is *MUCH* more likely to be knocked down by a car or be injured or killed in a household accident, yet, because cases like Sarah Payne get the big media coverage, because it taps into an emotional fear, people lose sight of the *real* dangers in this world and, instead, focus on tragic, but *rare* cases instead.
Quote:
|
now you may argue that not all paedophiles are like this, and I would agree to a point.
|
Yes, except that I would argue that the *VAST MAJORITY* of paedophiles are not like this!
Quote:
But from what I have read there is no evidence to support or deny that just maybe on one occasion a paedophile of any description might not give into his (or her) urges if an opportunist situation arose.
And that is the uncertainty of human nature.
|
There is no evidence to support or deny that maybe, were I to meet you in person, I wouldn't haul off and try to punch your lights out. That is *also* the uncertainly of human nature.
However the legal system in this country *does* rely on *evidence*...!