Paedophile or phone tap?

Question

If you had the chance to put a peadaphile in jail and not a person who had tapped into a mobile phone , who do you think is the most dangerous to the public?.

Answer 1

This question cannot be answered. There is a moral panic existing at the moment concerning paedophilia, and the concomitent public hysteria renders a sane discussion of the subject impossible. Suffice to say that one can be labelled a 'paedophile' simply by accessing an internet porn site by mistake, or by accessing a porn site that states that 'all models are over eighteen years of age' when they are, actually, not of this majority. This is the position in English criminal law.

The absurdity is that there is no offence of 'paedophilia' in English law. It is not an offence to love children, or even to fantasise about them in a sexual manner, but it is a strict offence to view images of naked children, even accidentally, on the internet.

The upshot is that one could, presumably, be prosecuted for looking at a live naked child sitting next to oneself on an official naturist beach. Furthermore, when we all know that thirteen year olds are having sex on a regular basis, should both these children, if caught in the act, be charged with illegal sex, and, is the adult, parent or police officer, who catches these youths indulging themselves, be subject to a charge that will label them as paedophiles because they indulged in, or witnessed, a sexual act by those deemed by the offences of strict liability to be under age?

Phone tapping, however, is another matter entirely. The privacy of the individual just about remains paramount within our society. Using one's position for personal gain, or in order to further a personal cause, by allowing or arranging for the interception of personal communications is abhorrent.

I would therefore jail the phone-tapper, if there was sufficient evidence to convict him or her of deliberate interference with the personal communications of others for personal gain, either in a monetary manner or with intent to procure blackmail or other advantage. As far as the person accused of offences against children, if the person had assaulted or interfered with a child physically, I would throw all three volumes of Stones Justices Manual, along with Blackstones and Archbold at the person, and follow up with a further salvo of the Archbold supplements. They would get the book thrown at them, as the law allows.

The non-molester who regularly views blatant child porn sites would be offered psychiatric help, on a custodial basis. If, after release and a cure, they went back to their habits, they would have to be Sectioned.

I would make the word 'paedophile' illegal. It has lost its meaning, and has become perjorative without an actual cause.

Try to view this problem objectively. We all wish to defend our children from abuse. I am arguing objectively about the legal position. Internet porn is not illegal in the UK, thus a porn-user who comes across a child-porn site by accident is not a 'paedophile'. For the habitual w*nker over such sites, then the term 'sex offender' should be used. For the actual abuser, then the term 'convict' should apply, once he or she has been proven guilty of the offence.
,

Answer 2

your question isnt as simple as you may think, i know that you want one or the other but i cant give you that , i have to say they both gotta be jailed .

the issue is why are there no spaces in the prisons , the reason is because theyve made easier sentences rather than tougher ones , people would say well the prisons would be even fuller but the reality is it would be a deterent because the difference is now these people way up the risks the jail sentences are shorter so all it does is breed crime a vicous circle that will never end and sadly is done by design .

Answer 3

Our town has a lot of problems with the phone lines. I tried to call Burger King one time. My son wanted to know what toy they were giving in the Kid's Meals. Anyway, I call and I hear this other man trying to make a phone call and he starts talking to me at the same time the Burger King lady answers. But the really bizarre part of it is that my sister said the conversation I had with the man and lady at Burger King was on her mother-in-laws answering machine! Isn't that trippy? We have had a lot of trouble with hearing other conversations. Maybe whoever's line is crossed with your mother-in-laws is just having fun listening in. Maybe it's some kids playing around. I hope it's not tapped. That would be creepy! I have also picked up a Christian talk radio station on the line.

Answer 4

Neither should be in Jail, castrate the Paedophile with a rusty Axe, and let him go, preferably to bleed to death, whilst a decent fine, say £ 50 should sort the Tapper.

Answer 5

Depends on whose phone was being tapped. It could be a terrorist tapping a milatary phone or something but normally I would say bang up the paedo and let him rot in jail.

Answer 6

Tapping phones is not good, but paedophiles?

Jeez, shouldn't be in jail, should be executed!

Answer 7

Obvious isn't it - the journalist who tapped the mobile phone's - that's the depth's our Government have fallen to - absolutely disgusting..........

Answer 8

The paedophile - he is a danger to our kids. Bang him up!

Answer 9

No doubt about it, the paedophile. Children cannot defend themselves against such evils.

Answer 10

Why do we have to make a choice? Both are worthless scofflaws and should be in jail.