Gary Glitter in trouble in Vietnam

[Shade]

Well quite. I just wish that when replying to Miss Shelf's original post, more people had bothered to consider her signature:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell

 

[Motokid]

I've been biting my tongue because I was afraid of getting lynched and strung up by the mob here.

What mob?

 

[Zolipara]

The Vietnamese government should throw this old booger in prison and arrange to have the dads of teenage girls be his guards..

The dads are likely to try and sell their teens to Gary as well.

 

[G4G]

***after consideration***

Nah - shoot the lot of them.

Seriously though, I do understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with it, and that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it, and that's why we'll have to agree to disagree.

It is my opinion that trying to understand abusers is another way of letting them think they can get away with it. Of course people shouldn't just be hung by their balls from Tower Bridge until they die, no matter how wonderful an image it conjures up in the case of Glitter for his crimes against music.

"We all think paedophiles are the lowest of the low. But what about studies which show that most of them were themselves abused as children? Say paedophile Mr X abuses a boy, A, as a child. If A grows up and becomes an abuser himself, at what point do we stop viewing him as a figure deserving of our greatest sympathy, and start to demonise him as with Mr X?"

In my opinion A should never be seen as a victim if he abuses. If A knows what it's like to be abused, then why does he have to go and do it to someone else? Why should it be an excuse?

Call my opinion unworthy of the forum, call me unedumacatid, whatever, but I don't think that understanding why people abuse is going to help stop them. If understanding was the key, then we'd sort out a lot of crime. Giving potential abusers a good reason not to abuse is what is needed, not understanding.

 

[G4G]

What mob?

Indeed.

 

[Motokid]

I thought most in this forum were all about adults being 100% responsible for their own actions? At some point the excuse of how they were raised and how they were treated as a child has to stop being an excuse. I think 18 years old is good enough to be that point.

Preying upon children in a sexual manner is the lowest form of all crime. Many of these people are fully functional people in society. Some are of religious background. They know what they do is wrong. They know they have to hide it. They know they might even have to threaten and kill to protect their secret. It's all fine and dandy to say it's something we should study, and try to understand, and hope to find a "cure". But, in the mean time, these sub-humans should be put away for life from the very first offense. Most who are "returned" to society end up being repeat offenders from what the media portrays.

There should be no second chances for adults who rape children. No sympathy here.

 

[Shade]

If A knows what it's like to be abused, then why does he have to go and do it to someone else?

The answer is: we (who haven't been abused or abusers ourselves) don't know. That's why it's important to understand why it happens. Nobody would doubt that being sexually abused by an adult is the sort of thing that can mess a child's mind up for life: that's why we condemn it so strongly. So in what way, Motokid, does the effect end when the child turns 18? I've had clients who were abused as children and I've read the psychologists' reports on them. They are harrowing. "The prognosis for X is poor. He will probably never be able to hold down a job or maintain an adult sexual relationship." Another told of how the victim, as he passed through adolescence, "feared that he himself would become an abuser." Who are we to say, OK, but the sympathy ends on your 18th birthday, sunshine?

I'm not talking about repeat offenders. When I say "to stop it happening again," I mean to stop others from doing it. Unless you feel that it's an almighty coincidence that most abusers were themselves abused as children, you have to accept that until we understand and can control it, it's a virus that will pass down through generations. Similarly, unless it can be talked about without knee-jerk responses (joking or otherwise) like "shoot the lot of them" or "cut his knob off," how can we create a climate where those who feel themselves sexually attracted to children can feel they can go and get help to stop themselves submitting to their urges?

I'm guessing not everyone read Roger Ebert's review of The Woodsman. Here are some apposite extracts.

Walter is a pedophile. ... He has a deep compulsion, which is probably innate, and a belief that his behavior is wrong. That belief will not necessarily keep him from repeating it. Most of us have sexual desires within the areas accepted by society, and so never reflect that we did not choose them, but simply grew up and found that they were there.

The reason we cannot accept pedophilia as we accept many other sexual practices is that it requires an innocent partner, whose life could be irreparably harmed. We do not have the right to do that. If there is no other way to achieve sexual satisfaction, that is our misfortune, but not an excuse. It is not the pedophile that is evil, but the pedophilia. That is true of all sins and crimes and those tempted to perform them: It is not that we are capable of transgression that condemns us, but that we are willing.

"The Woodsman" understands this at the very heart of its being, and that is why it succeeds as more than just the story of this character. It has relevance for members of the audience who would never in any way be even remotely capable of Walter's crime. We are quick to forgive our own trespasses, slower to forgive those of others. The challenge of a moral life is to do nothing that needs forgiveness. In that sense, we're all out on parole.

 

[Motokid]

There is no denying that there are very deep seated, mental issues with this kind of crime. Just like suicide, those who do not have those feelings can't understand them.

However, if you know something is wrong, morally, socially, mentally, and legally, and you still continue to act in that manner, you deserve to be punished for your actions.

I don't buy that most child molesters can't function in society or hold down a job. Most of what I see in the news shows people who have been holding their own quite well. The neighbors are in shock. The communities are outraged. These people are priests, scout leaders, teachers, coaches....

They can't hold down jobs probably because they have to change jobs to protect themselves from getting captured. They have to move to different cities, out of state, out of country....to keep from getting caught. They know they are acting in a very socially unacceptable way.

 

[G4G]

There is no denying that there are very deep seated, mental issues with this kind of crime. Just like suicide, those who do not have those feelings can't understand them.

However, if you know something is wrong, morally, socially, mentally, and legally, and you still continue to act in that manner, you deserve to be punished for your actions.

I don't buy that most child molesters can't function in society or hold down a job. Most of what I see in the news shows people who have been holding their own quite well. The neighbors are in shock. The communities are outraged. These people are priests, scout leaders, teachers, coaches....

They can't hold down jobs probably because they have to change jobs to protect themselves from getting captured. They have to move to different cities, out of state, out of country....to keep from getting caught. They know they are acting in a very socially unacceptable way.

Once again, Mr Moto, you have managed to sum up in just a few lines pretty much what I was thinking.

 

[Shade]

However, if you know something is wrong, morally, socially, mentally, and legally, and you still continue to act in that manner, you deserve to be punished for your actions.

I agree. But I don't think that understanding and condemnation are mutually exclusive. When an oncologist tries to understand how cancer spreads, he's doing so to try to stop it. To understand is not to excuse; it's simply to understand. And if you (generic 'you,' not you personally, Moto) really think you can prevent something without understanding why it happens, then good luck.

I don't buy that most child molesters can't function in society or hold down a job.

That's probably true. I can only quote from the cases I personally know. In most cases abuse comes from someone known to the child, so when it's not directly in the family it's quite likely to be a family friend or someone from the school (see Ian Huntley) or church (see long lists of Catholic priests).

As discussed already I think the important issue is prevention rather than cure, but this article has some interesting points (and some viciously differing responses) on the subject of rehabilitation.

 

[Stewart]

However, if you know something is wrong, morally, socially, mentally, and legally, and you still continue to act in that manner, you deserve to be punished for your actions.

...if you are found guilty!

I don't buy that most child molesters can't function in society or hold down a job.

Some can't, and it also applies to serial killers. The one I'm thinking of at the moment, Jeffrey Dahmer, was a bit of both. Konarek Simphasomphone was 14 when he stumbled naked and drugged from Dahmer's flat before the cops gave him back to be strangled five minutes later.

Taking Dahmer as a model, as it applies to a number of social misfits, they are generally of above average intelligence. What they lack is the ability to apply this. The reason for being unable to apply may come from sexual abuse in early years of their life.

You talk as if they should know what they are doing is wrong but, when you have suffered as a kid at the hands of someone - typically a relative - and they get away with it. How do you know it's wrong? It must be okay and these are people who don't do well at school, they are loners, they make up their own rules because they are influenced little by others.

Most of what I see in the news shows people who have been holding their own quite well.

Not all they've been holding.

Seriously, though, the news, for the most part, can't differentiate between the blame for child abuse and child porn.

They can't hold down jobs probably because they have to change jobs to protect themselves from getting captured. They have to move to different cities, out of state, out of country....to keep from getting caught. They know they are acting in a very socially unacceptable way.

They can't hold down jobs because they can't relate to others.

As for moving about, in the case of Mr Gadd it's more likely that he's moving about to get away from the gutter press that follows him about.

 

[Miss Shelf]

...if you are found guilty!

That is a scary thought. What happens to our society if a jury finds someone not guilty of this type of crime? That sets a precedent that future lawyers can use to get their clients off.

 

[Stewart]

That is a scary thought. What happens to our society if a jury finds someone not guilty of this type of crime? That sets a precedent that future lawyers can use to get their clients off.

If they are found innocent then what's wrong with society? You aren't in the courtroom; you aren't privy to the facts; you don't know what's true, what's supposition, and what's hearsay.

 

[Motokid]

Not every man accused of rape is guilty. If found innocent then the assumption is the guy did nothing wrong and has been wrongly accused.

That's the way it should be.

 

[Shade]

I'm not sure if you're being satirical Miss Shelf - in which case, very good! - or serious, in which case, Eh? Could it be that sometimes people are found not guilty because they didn't do it? Or are we back to No Smoke Without Fire?

 

[Miss Shelf]

Sorry Shade, I wasn't being sarcastic. What I mean is, in our legal system in the US, if a lawyer can have a crucial piece of evidence thrown out because it was improperly obtained, then the defendant possibly goes free, in which case he's free to go out and do the same thing again. If the jury has to disregard the evidence that was inadmissable, and there is no other evidence to strongly prove the defendant's guilt, then the jury may be forced to find the defendant not guilty.

I watch too much "Law and Order", I fear.

 

[Kookamoor]

In response to Moto's question "What mob", I present to you "the mob":

They should chop his knob off and rip his vocal chords out as far as I'm concerned.

I will second that!

I think they should lock him up and throw the key into the nearest swamp.

The Vietnamese government should throw this old booger in prison and arrange to have the dads of teenage girls be his guards

Glitter's now been arrested. If guilty, he could face a firing squad.

Never heard of the guy, but I sincerely hope the worst for him. If not death, then perhaps he'll be some guy's "little girl" in prison.

The firing squad's too kind. Much better to castrate him and keep him in prison as a sex toy.

I hope they lock him up until his bones turn to dust.

Glitter should be put away and buggered every day until he dies.

I just find the concept of talking about the torture of a man who has not yet been convicted of a crime to be quite heinous. It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, and as such I have not been part of the discussion. I take no issue with discussing penalities for pedophiles, who are disturbed individuals who I feel the law does not punish appropriately. However, discussing the penalty of a specific individual who is currently still under investigation with the zeal and bloodthurstiness shown above, is, I feel, not appropriate.

 

[Shade]

I agree Kook. The word that springs to mind is 'sadistic.' I was particularly shocked to read these comments from a member who I understand to be an observant Christian.

 

[Zolipara]

Not that christians tend to be any less sadistic than the rest of the population.

 

[SFG75]

I thought most in this forum were all about adults being 100% responsible for their own actions? At some point the excuse of how they were raised and how they were treated as a child has to stop being an excuse. I think 18 years old is good enough to be that point.

Preying upon children in a sexual manner is the lowest form of all crime. Many of these people are fully functional people in society. Some are of religious background. They know what they do is wrong. They know they have to hide it. They know they might even have to threaten and kill to protect their secret. It's all fine and dandy to say it's something we should study, and try to understand, and hope to find a "cure". But, in the mean time, these sub-humans should be put away for life from the very first offense. Most who are "returned" to society end up being repeat offenders from what the media portrays.

There should be no second chances for adults who rape children. No sympathy here.

I agree 110%. Yes, you may have had a bad childhood. Yes, you may have had had some things happen to you. At the same time, that doesnt' excuse you for your actions in society. I was somewhat bemused by the 'understand the pedophile' reasoning. If it was your kid who was molested by this thing, would you be as understanding? Do we not have a problem with this kind of stuff today? We have an alphabet soup of disorders, but TRS(taking responsibility syndrome) appears to be non-existant.