Which person is worse?

Yes, because there’s nothing worse than those sexual predators who are trying to harm under-age children being given the wrong label…

[RichardCoulter]

How about someone who was compos mentis at the time of the offence, but subsequently became mentally incapacited before the offence came to light?

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...or-nine-years/

Was it right to imprison a man in his eighties to give the victims justice, or should it not have been done because someone who doesn't know what's happening won't know where they are or why, so won't be able to be rehabilitated (which is what our society says imprisonment is for)?

---------- Post added at 16:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, because there’s nothing worse than those sexual predators who are trying to harm under-age children being given the wrong label…

It's just incorrect, like a burglar being referred to as a murderer when they are not.

[joglynne]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I disagree, in my experience any sexual interest in those under 16 is labelled as paedophilia by most people whether it is or not. I think that this is partly because of ignorance of the subject matter and partly because the term paedophile makes the offence sound worse for effect.

Also, if you look on YouTube, there are lots of videos where people trying to pick up underage boys/girls are incorrectly referred to as paedophiles, sometimes by people who should know better.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------





Totally agree. The former will usually do their time and get out, whereas the latter would go into a secure hospital and may never come out.

Richard. What is your definition of a paedophile? In what way,or in what circumstances, could an adults "sexual interest in those under 16" be excused and described as acceptable?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedophile

Have you any views on grooming or is that something that you also find to be an acceptable behaviour ?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

How about someone who was compos mentis at the time of the offence, but subsequently became mentally incapacited before the offence came to light?

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...or-nine-years/

Was it right to imprison a man in his eighties to give the victims justice, or should it not have been done because someone who doesn't know what's happening won't know where they are or why, so won't be able to be rehabilitated (which is what our society says imprisonment is for)?

---------- Post added at 16:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------



It's just incorrect, like a burglar being referred to as a murderer when they are not.

No, what’s "incorrect" is quibbling about the difference between ephebophilia and paedophilia, as all the children involved are under the age of consent.

It’s child abuse, no matter what age the child is.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

How about someone who was compos mentis at the time of the offence, but subsequently became mentally incapacited before the offence came to light?

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/...or-nine-years/

Was it right to imprison a man in his eighties to give the victims justice, or should it not have been done because someone who doesn't know what's happening won't know where they are or why, so won't be able to be rehabilitated (which is what our society says imprisonment is for)?

---------- Post added at 16:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------



It's just incorrect, like a burglar being referred to as a murderer when they are not.

Hardly rocket science if they're fit to serve a normal custodial sentence they do, if they're not then they go to somewhere like Ashworth.

I'm perplexed as to why you think the onset of a mental health condition negates his prior criminal activities ?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by joglynne

Richard. What is your definition of a paedophile? In what way,or in what circumstances, could an adults "sexual interest in those under 16" be excused and described as acceptable?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedophile

Have you any views on grooming or is that something that you also find to be an acceptable behaviour ?

A paedophile is someone with a sexual interest in pre pubescent children, but being a paedophile in itself is not against the law.

Where have you got the idea from that I find that child sex abuse is acceptable?

My contributions to the thread about (mainly) Asian men grooming gangs clearly demonstrate that I don't.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

No, what’s "incorrect" is quibbling about the difference between ephebophilia and paedophilia, as all the children involved are under the age of consent.

It’s child abuse, no matter what age the child is.

Correct, according to our culture & society, it's regarded as child sex abuse. However, in my example, the man concerned would not be a paedophile.

What if they ended up together and started a family of their own (I know of a family in this situation).

If people incorrectly labelled him as a paedophile and a family with toddlers lived next door, they are going to be needlessly concerned because of this sloppy use of the English language.

If someone in your home rang you to say that they had adopted a cat and you came home to find a horse in the house, I doubt that explaining it away by saying "oh well, they are both members of the animal kingdom" would wash!

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Hardly rocket science if they're fit to serve a normal custodial sentence they do, if they're not then they go to somewhere like Ashworth.

I'm perplexed as to why you think the onset of a mental health condition negates his prior criminal activities ?

Your view was obviously shared by the judicial system and, no, I don't think that the onset of dementia negates past crimes.

I was just questioning the point of imprisoning him. Our society says that prison is a means of rehabilitation rather than punishment. As he's suffering from dementia, this won't be possible because he won't know what he did in the past, where he is or why he's there. All at great cost to the taxpayer.

The only thing I can think of is that a custodial sentence may give his victims a feeling of having achieved justice for what he did to them.

I believe that such acts are dealt with in the afterlife, so he wouldn't have got away with it, but do accept that some people believe it is the end when our soul/spirit leaves our physical body, so may wish to seek justice on this physical Earth.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

A paedophile is someone with a sexual interest in pre pubescent children, but being a paedophile in itself is not against the law.

Where have you got the idea from that I find that child sex abuse is acceptable?

My contributions to the thread about (mainly) Asian men grooming gangs clearly demonstrate that I don't.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------



Correct, according to our culture & society, it's regarded as child sex abuse. However, in my example, the man concerned would not be a paedophile.

What if they ended up together and started a family of their own (I know of a family in this situation).

If people incorrectly labelled him as a paedophile and a family with toddlers lived next door, they are going to be needlessly concerned because of this sloppy use of the English language.

If someone in your home rang you to say that they had adopted a cat and you came home to find a horse in the house, I doubt that explaining it away by saying "oh well, they are both members of the animal kingdom" would wash!

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------



Your view was obviously shared by the judicial system and, no, I don't think that the onset of dementia negates past crimes.

I was just questioning the point of imprisoning him. Our society says that prison is a means of rehabilitation rather than punishment. As he's suffering from dementia, this won't be possible because he won't know what he did in the past, where he is or why he's there. All at great cost to the taxpayer.

The only thing I can think of is that a custodial sentence may give his victims a feeling of having achieved justice for what he did to them.

A suitable custodial sentence would be justice. Like I said before having a mental illness/health condition or the onset of mental illness/health condition isn’t a get out of jail free card

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

A paedophile is someone with a sexual interest in pre pubescent children, but being a paedophile in itself is not against the law.

Where have you got the idea from that I find that child sex abuse is acceptable?

My contributions to the thread about (mainly) Asian men grooming gangs clearly demonstrate that I don't.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------



Correct, according to our culture & society, it's regarded as child sex abuse. However, in my example, the man concerned would not be a paedophile.

What if they ended up together and started a family of their own (I know of a family in this situation).

If people incorrectly labelled him as a paedophile and a family with toddlers lived next door, they are going to be needlessly concerned because of this sloppy use of the English language.

If someone in your home rang you to say that they had adopted a cat and you came home to find a horse in the house, I doubt that explaining it away by saying "oh well, they are both members of the animal kingdom" would wash!

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------



Your view was obviously shared by the judicial system and, no, I don't think that the onset of dementia negates past crimes.

I was just questioning the point of imprisoning him. Our society says that prison is a means of rehabilitation rather than punishment. As he's suffering from dementia, this won't be possible because he won't know what he did in the past, where he is or why he's there. All at great cost to the taxpayer.

The only thing I can think of is that a custodial sentence may give his victims a feeling of having achieved justice for what he did to them.

I believe that such acts are dealt with in the afterlife, so he wouldn't have got away with it, but do accept that some people believe it is the end when our soul/spirit leaves our physical body, so may wish to seek justice on this physical Earth.

They could correctly label him as a child abuser, and your casuistry about which group of sex offenders someone who molested a child is in is rather strange…

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

They could correctly label him as a child abuser, and your casuistry about which group of sex offenders someone who molested a child is in is rather strange…

They could label him a child abuser yes, as in this country, we deem someone to be a child until their 16th birthday, so that would be correct.

I've already explained why it's sloppy use of the English language to label someone incorrectly and the problems it causes.

It would be like someone prosecuted for grabbing a woman's breasts being labelled a rapist. He wouldn't be a rapist, a sex offender yes, but not a rapist.

---------- Post added at 22:33 ---------- Previous post was at 22:28 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

A suitable custodial sentence would be justice. Like I said before having a mental illness/health condition or the onset of mental illness/health condition isn’t a get out of jail free card

Fair enough if that's your opinion. It just seems pointless to punish someone who doesn't know they are being punished (let's face it, prison is more about punishment than rehabilitation) at a vast cost to the taxpayer in an institution where there aren't enough places.

He probably thinks he's still in a hospital, but is taking a place that someone who would know they are being punished could be utilising.

I'd also say that life has punished him for his past deeds already by giving him dementia. I've had short periods where you don't know where you are, who you are or even what you are and it's absolutely terrifying.

Having this all the time must be intolerable, dementia is truly a cruel, cruel disease for both the sufferer and their loved ones.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

They could label him a child abuser yes, as in this country, we deem someone to be a child until their 16th birthday, so that would be correct.

I've already explained why it's sloppy use of the English language to label someone incorrectly and the problems it causes.

It would be like someone prosecuted for grabbing a woman's breasts being labelled a rapist. He wouldn't be a rapist, a sex offender yes, but not a rapist.

---------- Post added at 22:33 ---------- Previous post was at 22:28 ----------



Fair enough if that's your opinion. It just seems pointless to punish someone who doesn't know they are being punished (let's face it, prison is more about punishment than rehabilitation) at a vast cost to the taxpayer in an institution where there aren't enough places.

He probably thinks he's still in a hospital, but is taking a place that someone who would know they are being punished could be utilising.

I'd also say that life has punished him for his past deeds already by giving him dementia. I've had short periods where you don't know where you are, who you are or even what you are and it's absolutely terrifying.

Having this all the time must be intolerable, dementia is truly a cruel, cruel disease for both the sufferer and their loved ones.

So it's pointless to punish someone who committed a criminal offence because they now have a mental health condition? And you're worried about how they might feel?

Here's a thought, direct your compassion, focus & sympathies to those that deserve it. Those being the victims that suffered by his actions.

You're so desperate for those with disabilities to be treat equally, let's bang them up in a standard prison. No? thought not....

Your words are an utter disgrace and an insult to those who suffered.

[tweetiepooh]

If someone is such that they are unaware of their actions and are "a danger" or have committed a crime then they do need to be handled in an appropriate way. It's not just to punish/rehabilitate the offender but also to protect society.

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So it's pointless to punish someone who committed a criminal offence because they now have a mental health condition? And you're worried about how they might feel?

Here's a thought, direct your compassion, focus & sympathies to those that deserve it. Those being the victims that suffered by his actions.

You're so desperate for those with disabilities to be treat equally, let's bang them up in a standard prison. No? thought not....

Your words are an utter disgrace and an insult to those who suffered.

I couldn't agree more, Richard should be ashamed of himself, utterly shocking.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

If someone is such that they are unaware of their actions and are "a danger" or have committed a crime then they do need to be handled in an appropriate way. It's not just to punish/rehabilitate the offender but also to protect society.

Absolutely right.

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:39 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So it's pointless to punish someone who committed a criminal offence because they now have a mental health condition? And you're worried about how they might feel?

Here's a thought, direct your compassion, focus & sympathies to those that deserve it. Those being the victims that suffered by his actions.

You're so desperate for those with disabilities to be treat equally, let's bang them up in a standard prison. No? thought not....

Your words are an utter disgrace and an insult to those who suffered.

I'm being pragmatic. What's the point in wasting public funds punishing someone who doesn't know they're being punished? They won't learn anything from it and, from their point of view with their diseased mind, it will be no different to them being kept in a hospital. Society won't get it's pound of flesh by way of revenge- he will have no idea what's happening to him.

Because there is such a shortage of prison spaces, it would be far better to use his place for someone who is aware that incarceration is a result of their crimes.

It's a shame that you've defaulted to your usual posting style, I was thinking that we were having a mature and calm debate. Don't forget that you have a 50% chance of developing dementia and you will be in exactly the same position as this offender- imprisoned in your own mind.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:48 ----------

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

I couldn't agree more, Richard should be ashamed of himself, utterly shocking.

It's more about being pragmatic. Nobody will gain from putting him in prison, but the taxpayer will lose out and someone (possibly a paedophile) who will appreciate the punishment being dished out will probably get a suspended sentence, tagged etc instead due to the shortage of spaces.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Absolutely right.

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:39 ----------



I'm being pragmatic. What's the point in wasting public funds punishing someone who doesn't know they're being punished? They won't learn anything from it and, from their point of view with their diseased mind, it will be no different to them being kept in a hospital. Society won't get it's pound of flesh by way of revenge- he will have no idea what's happening to him.

Because there is such a shortage of prison spaces, it would be far better to use his place for someone who is aware that incarceration is a result of their crimes.

It's a shame that you've defaulted to your usual posting style, I was thinking that we were having a mature and calm debate. Don't forget that you have a 50% chance of developing dementia and you will be in exactly the same position as this offender- imprisoned in your own mind.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:48 ----------



It's more about being pragmatic. Nobody will gain from putting him in prison, but the taxpayer will lose out and someone (possibly a paedophile) who will appreciate the punishment being dished out will probably get a suspended sentence, tagged etc instead due to the shortage of spaces.

Disability or not, you need to take a long, long hard look at yourself.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Disability or not, you need to take a long, long hard look at yourself.

No I don't, it's you that needs to do that.