The New Scarlet Letter?

presumably the judge also ordered the t shirt to be extra long? i like this idea - i can think of a few people who should be forced to wear t shirts which say "I am monstrously selfish and I whine all the time."

I thought it sounded like a joke. And his name - Teeter? "a plaything consisting of a board balanced on a fulcrum; the board is ridden up and down by children at either end".. Ergg. I can see this catching on in a big way.

how to they enforce this i wonder? and what if he puts a jumper on over it?

I suppose he has to wear it over his jumper. Trendy. The look will be in Vogue before too long. "The basis of optimism is sheer terror." Oscar Wilde

What if it becomes a fashion and everybody starts wearing them.

Ooooh, I dunno! There's going to be some sick folk out there who think, "How can I get myself one of those funny 'sex offender' t-shirts?!' - surely? Or there's just bound to be some bright spark who decides to create a spin-off range. No, bad idea... ba-a-a-ad... :-/ ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

There's going to be some sick folk out there who think, "How can I get myself one of those funny 'sex offender' t-shirts?!' I admit it, that was my first thought exactly.

Mine too. Dear me. "The basis of optimism is sheer terror." Oscar Wilde

I just want to mention that I wrote my above comment before seeing the previous two comments by galfreda and maddan... just in case it appears I was jumping on their bandwagon! Anyway, carry on... ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

On a slightly more serious note... maddan: "I admit it, that was my first thought exactly." ...&... galfreda: "Mine too. Dear me." It is a sad indicator of society, is it not, that we presume people will leap to exploiting the apparently humorous aspect of child abuse? Although I did jest about the t-shirts, I must admit that this is one of those subject matters to which I find it very difficult to apply the maxim "Laugh at everything." Humour, in the right context, can generally be a useful and positive thing, but I am very wary of anything which may belittle the tragically life-changing consequences of child abuse. Which is why, I think, the attorney in this case was perhaps pretty thoughtless and insensitive in not thinking about the wider, negative consequences of his "punishment." ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

Yes, I don't think the reality of child abuse and its related traumas can be laughed at. But the Delaware judge did a (possibly inadvertantly) comic thing, and its fallout shows even here on ABCtales: I think it's possible to laugh at the punishment-t-shirt and the concept of negative self-labelling (on clothing) without making one a cynical laugh-at-everything-er. I might suggest something about that judge himself if it wasn't potentially libellous. Judges often lack better judgement. Do you remember Judge Ian Starforth Hill suggesting that an eight year old who'd been raped was "not entirely an angel"? "The basis of optimism is sheer terror." Oscar Wilde

"Judges often lack better judgement." And the prize for understatement of the century goes to... ;-) "Do you remember Judge Ian Starforth Hill suggesting that an eight year old who'd been raped was "not entirely an angel"?" I don't remember that one, galf, but I can well believe it. ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

There's a possibility that he might get mobbed and murdered if he has to wear a t-shirt advertising his crime. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Better than what? Judges make crappy judgements because judges make a lot of judgements, Brunel designed more bad bridges than Lord Justice Cocclecarrot, Shakespear wrote more bad poetry then Brunel, Einstein made more stupid mathematical errors than Shakespear.

I agree with Dan but would also add that judges are probably no more likely to say really stupid things than the rest of the population - they're just more likely to have them reported in a newspaper.

I would say, however, maddan, that it does perhaps matter less that Shakespeare wrote some bad poetry than a judge decided a (for example) child-abusing lunatic is "misunderstood." Your comments do, however, illustrate the point that all human beings make mistakes, but for some people, however less inevitable this mistake-making is, their position renders their mistakes potentially more damaging to people/their reputation/our opinion of them - e.g. neurosurgeons, air traffic control bods, presidents of the US of A and judges... should we be so harsh on people for doing what pretty much comes naturally to us imperfect beings? ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

(PS. latest Google Ads... Sissy Stories Free Gmail Invitation Forced to Feminize Cuckold Chastity ... what?!?!?!) ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "In Defence of txtspeak"

So for 22 months he stays indoors and lets his wife run the garden shop. I'm always skeptical of these oddball sentences because there are often unintended consequences, such as the whole thing becoming a joke or people being hurt who were not involved (his wife, employees if any, etc). Based upon the response here, it would seem the judge primarily managed to trivialize child abuse. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

Fair point, AG, and the man (if you can call “him” that) does indeed deserve all he gets. From a personal, short term perspective, the sentence seems absolutely just and deserved and may even do the trick in terms of preventing him from committing these heinous and unforgivable crimes again. However, I also get Justin’s point… Things like this, by their nature, lead to trivialisation and joking around the subject – is this good for larger picture? For moving some way towards preventing the large-scale, global epidemic of child abuse? Maybe it is… maybe the fact that this case makes the issues very public and visual means more people think about them more than they otherwise would. But my worry is that if people are joking about it and focusing on the t-shirt (rather than the essence of what they t-shirt says), then they aren’t taking it seriously enough (perhaps not so much in the case of the more intelligent, socially aware members of ABC, but certainly, I would think, amongst more “average” members of the public). People need to be made to feel horrible about child abuse – to be disgusted, to have the full terrible truth of it thrust into their consciousness – I’m just not quite sure a potentially humorous t-shirt is going to do this… ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "The Art of Flânerie"

The thing with social ostracism, though, is that isn't there a danger of the person feeling so shamed and inferior, that it actually has the reverse of the intended effect? - i.e. he takes out his feelings on those who have, in his perception, brought this about - i.e. the children who "squealed" on him in the first place. And thus the situation comes full circle and the judge may inadvertently be fueling the man's insecurities which possibly caused him to commit the crimes in the first place. ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "The Art of Flânerie"

I'm not sure at what age a child becomes fertile but if he's abusing children who are not fertile then there's no instinctive urge to account for some of his problems. And off course if he's abusing males then this factor doesn't even come into it. So I think it would be fair to place him on a register, make it easily accessible to members of his community (I think all town halls should make these things easily retrievable) and castrate the guy. Until we know why these people do this (which I'm sure has some genetic/neurological origin - I mean, it's vogue at the mo isn't it) then best to disarm the man. Whether or not castration would serve to re-direct his frustrations to other areas I don't know (similar to a blind person developing 'facial vision') but they could make him wear the severed cock on his head for a week. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

You know, this forum is pretty good for enabling one to clarify one's opinions on certain topics, because previously I hadn't considered my view on Public Humiliation as Punishment. However, as a result of the above, I have pretty much come to the conclusion that I don't agree with it at all. Not while the humiliatee has access to the public. Although it would no doubt serve some sort of immediate need for public revenge and direct visual sense of justice being done, I think there is just too much potential for it ultimately actually making matters worse - a humiliated person becomes a frustrated person and a frustrated person may become a violent/vengeful person... is it really worth taking this kind of chance? This sort of punishment, I think, may even incite the humiliatee to commit worse crimes than those s/he is being punished for in the first place. Don’t be thinking I’m just some kind of wishy-washy let’s-all-just-understand-each-other liberal, though! Yes, we do need to work at understanding the reasons behind such things as child abuse – tackling the source(s) of the problem is always preferable than merely curing (or attempting to) the symptoms. However, this should never be done at the risk or expense of the victims of such crimes or the public at large. Violent criminals and sex offenders should, where possible, be kept away from society, unless we are absolutely 100% sure they won’t offend again (and let’s face it, how can we ever be?). The most important thing is keeping the public safe. And this overrides (or should) both the need to cure or “help” the criminal; as well as any perceived need, on the part of the public, for “revenge.” ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "The Art of Flânerie"

If only the delightful Missi was around to see you and I disagreeing on something, eh? ;-) Disagreeing-ish. I am totally with you on the no-sympathy front. Like you say, plenty of people have been abused who don’t then go on to abuse. No sympathy. No excuses. And absolutely no tolerance for this far too prevalent sickness of our society. The only reason I would ever think it would be justified to “help” these people would be for the purposes of society, not them. If we can psychotherapise (or whatever) potential paedophiles out of giving in to their urges or convicted paedophiles out of re-offending, then that’s got to be best all round. Of course, if there are cheaper and more effective methods, then all the better. The root of the problem, I think, likes in the massive smokescreen that shrouds it, and the lack of understanding of the general public of just how extensive the problem is. Child abuse happens continually, everywhere, and most of its perpitrators get away with it. We don’t want to believe this, because it strikes at the heart of things which are wrong with society as a whole. The secretiveness and the refusal to see and believe the truth is what allows it to continue. And the problem is that it happens in all sections of society, so there are plenty of people in positions of power who have vested interests in keeping it secret. How often do you hear of judges or priests or teachers who are paedophiles? People in power. People who have the means to keep their unhealthy desires away from the public eye. And then there is the massive global industry associated with it, huge amounts of money changing hands, helped along by the Internet and unofficially sanctioned by powerful organisations. The world is in a mess and I try not to think about the depth of this problem, because there is the potential for getting hopelessly depressed! Public awareness is the key, though, so perhaps… just perhaps… some form of individual public humiliation would be a start… (I've worked up my own tea-thirst now) ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "The Art of Flânerie"

This all reminds me of the movie 'Hard Candy' which is the best film I've ever seen, btw :) There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"The root of the problem, I think, likes in the massive smokescreen that shrouds it, and the lack of understanding of the general public of just how extensive the problem is." You're obviously living in a different country to me (or perhaps reading different newspapers to me). I read The Sun most days in the cafe. I can't remember the last time an edition didn't have at least one 'paedo' story. Most days there's at least two or three. And there's at least one phone in about the subject every week on Radio 5. "Child abuse happens continually, everywhere, and most of its perpitrators get away with it. We don’t want to believe this, because it strikes at the heart of things which are wrong with society as a whole. The secretiveness and the refusal to see and believe the truth is what allows it to continue." Do you actually have any evidence for this bizarre assertion? Of course, the first part of this statement is true about all crime - in that in a world of 7 billion some people are being robbed, murdered, raped and abused all the time. And lots of perpatrators don't caught. But that tells us nothing at all about the specifics. I'd agree that the ways that the government and the media attempt to focus on and prevent child abuse aren't always the most sensible ones but when compared to, for example, sex attacks on adults and domestic violence - which are almost ignored by government and trivialised by the media - the focus of attention on child sex abuse is absolutely huge.

Sexual abuse involves putting your needs, wishes and right to fulfillment above those of someone else, because, after all, we all have a right to sexual satisfaction and fulfillment, right? We have the right to have our desires fulfilled don't we? We should we let people dictate to us how we take our pleasures? You have to look after yourself don't you? None of us are prepared to go to our graves with our dreams unfulfilled, are we? Some forms of looking after yourself are more extreme than others, but where we believe in making ourselves ahppy whatever the cost... Well, you can see how some people justify things to themselves. If we accept that putting yourself first is correct in the majority of cases, again we end up with a situation where some people take this to extremes that are horrible. Cheers, mark

According to the article he was diagnosed as a "compulsive exhibitionist. " There is no indication he touched anyone or engaged in any other prohibited acts. Obviously, this guy is not anyone's idea of a model citizen, but the law is supposed to operate on the premise of proportionality. Tattooing his forehead is the kind of punishment some rabid Muslim extremist would suggest, just before public beheading, death by stoning, and the like. It can also lead to people making false accusations, knowing that even if the accusations are shown to be false, the damage is done. Of course, it's not possible to prove a negative, so the accusation is also the punishment. American society has been that way for quite some time, especially in the workplace. The accusations in the workplace are not child abuse, but false charges of sexual harrassment are quite common. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

I am also rabidly fanatical about the subject for various reasons… but probably more quietly so than AG! ;-) Bukharin… I have read around the subject and I have spoken to people who know what they are talking about, but I’m afraid I’m unable to find a list of citations at this point (I might go and have a trawl through the Internet later); but what I’m saying about the secrecy and extent of the problem… isn’t it common sense? Isn’t it obvious? I’m talking mainly about child abuse in the home, behind closed doors, often perpetrated by people known to the victims. The children are kept quiet at the time, with shame and threats and guilt; and even if they do have the courage to tell someone, they are often not believed; and if the case goes to court, it is often virtually impossible to convict. And even if, when they become adults, they find the courage to tell someone, it is even more difficult to do anything about it, legally speaking. So there are numerous levels at which the crime either fails to become known or the perpetrator gets away with it. Yes, we hear a lot about child abuse in the news, but do you really think the dozen or two dozen or five dozen cases we hear about each week are anything more than the tip of the iceberg? Do you not think that for each case that is reported or each conviction that is made, there aren’t many more that never see the light? It is obvious when someone has been murdered or robbed, or a car has been stolen – but child abuse can easily go completely unnoticed. Yes, we are aware of it, we may even be aware that it is a big problem, but most of the Sun-reading, Radio 4-listening public aren’t – can’t possibly be – aware of just how big a problem it is. Child abuse messes up the victims, the victims’ families, the perpetrators’ families… and so on. I don’t think we can underestimate the insidious and far-reaching effect it has on society… How often, for example, do you hear about mass murderers, ruthless dictators, etc, etc, who have been abused as a child?... I honestly believe that if we could somehow flick a switch which would stop all child abuse, the world would become virtually unrecognisable. ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "The Art of Flânerie"

For a range of reasons, statistics for reported crime are notoriously unreliable and difficult to interpret. On that basis, non-statistics for unreported crimes don't lead us anywhere near anything approaching an obvious common sense position. "Yes, we hear a lot about child abuse in the news, but do you really think the dozen or two dozen or five dozen cases we hear about each week are anything more than the tip of the iceberg?" This is the kind of meaningless point that you're famous for. More or less everything on the news is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the things it's reporting. News is only a snapshot of everything that happens. Added to that, Editors pick the stories that people are most likely to be interested in. For that reason news coverage is fundamentally representative of the totality of things that are happening in the world. That doesn't tell us anything at all about whether this specific form of crime is more widespread than most people think it is. You don't know because you don't either how much of this form of crime is happening and you don't know how much of it people think is happening. Of course child abuse is appalling for victims and their families and friends. The less of it there is, the better a place society will be. The question is what society can usefully do stop it - how do you create the right legal structures to convict people and the right social services structures to protect children? The other point, though, is that the respect for children's rights is (absolutely rightly) considerably greater now than it has ever been before. Partly due to the stuff about a less deferential society that was being bemoaned on another thread. It's our allegedly amoral modern society that says that teachers can't beat children and priests can't rape them, when 'golden age' social rules openly promoted the first thing and tacitly accepted the second.

Bukharin, you speak of my “meaningless” points and my lack of evidence, but where is your “evidence” for such statements as… “…news coverage is fundamentally representative of the totality of things that are happening in the world.” …? C’mon, Bukh, everyone knows news organisations don’t actually tell the truth! Or at least, if there is truth in there somewhere, it is distorted in such a way as to make a point. Or else why do some people read the Daily Mail, some read the Guardian, and some people, for some reason or other, persist in looking to the likes of The Sun for their source of information on the world? Being the kind of person I am, I’ll forgive your lack of evidence re the above, on account of the fact that expressing opinions here is, I think, about just that and not about conducting scientific studies… ;-) ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "The Art of Flânerie"

"It's our allegedly amoral modern society that says that teachers can't beat children and priests can't rape them, when 'golden age' social rules openly promoted the first thing and tacitly accepted the second." Couldn't agree more with this. I also wouldn't be surprised if there's been a great degree of good work done towards understanding/rehabilitating paedophiles and progressing towards the better detection of child abuse - most of it unreported and fairly dull, going on firmly in the background. There's absolutely no point in trying to form theories and make social diagnoses based on what we glean from a media that treats the subject (just as it treats global warming) as a tool to promote hysteria and rage. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm getting my information from the media, Jack! ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "The Art of Flânerie"

Pepsoid, I'm not sure that anyone will assert that child abuse is a good thing. Some people say that there is loads of child abuse. Some people say that there isn't as much as you might think. None of this takes things very much further toward finding out what to do about child abuse. News comes from somewhere, whatever spin is put upon it by an organisation, a broadcaster, a documentary maker or a journalist, press officer or spokesperson. Some news comes from surveys, some comes from academic work, some from anecdote, some from public event, some comes from official statistics. It suits different people to use different numbers for different reasons. Often the method of gaining funding, awareness or public support is to use the most frightening statistics. Conversely, fears are put at rest by using the least frightening statistics. Either way, the 'facts' are malleable depending on your stance. I think that any individual instance of abuse is too much. I don't need to 'big up' the occurrence of abuse to feel that it's important to deal with. For me, though, the issue isn't how many events of abuse there are in total, because I don't think that we're ever going to find that out. The issue for me is how do we prevent abuse, and ensure that people are aware enough about the signs of abuse to be able to stop abuse occurring. People are often very scathing of 'red tape' and regulation, claiming that this kills spontaneity and acts against common sense. Regarding child protection, this 'red tape' is a concerted effort to remove the possibility of people with a known history of abusing behaviour from being able to access children in situations where they may be vulnerable. I was looking at statistics as released by the NSPCC for their Full Stop campaign. Overwhelmingly, the people who are most likely to be perpetrating individual acts of abuse are young people abusing other young people, followed by adults who are the parents of the child but who are known to the parent or parents. According to the NSPCC very little sexual abuse occurs parent to child and even less is 'stranger' abuse, except for indecent exposure. It seems, though, most abuse occurs outside of a setting that is controlled by law and legislation. What then do we do? There's a problem in that we can't detect people who might abuse until they have abused. What do we do to prevent people feeling that sexual abuse is acceptable or justifiable? For me, the question of what do we do with people we've have abused isn't as much of a question as how we find ways of identifying the triggers for sexual abusive behaviour and the structures of thought that make it permissible at a personal level of conscience. Cheers, Mark

"...identifying the triggers for sexual abusive behaviour and the structures of thought that make it permissible at a personal level of conscience." ... I think this is absolutely right, Mark, & at the root of the matter and what needs to be done. Apologies if I seemed a bit ranty! I suppose my point, though, in speaking of just how prevalent child abuse is, and its impact on society, is that although undeniably more is done about the problem now than previously, its prevalence and impact still don't seem to be given enough precedence and priority in terms of government policy and so on. Anyway, whatever, I've said what I feel, and I know I haven't quoted all sorts of statistics in doing so, but as you seem to be saying, Mark, there are such huge and varying sources of statistics on this and other topics, which can be used to back up all sorts of points, that to do so would be pretty arbitrary... and I admit that I do apply instincts (considered, thought out instincts (if that's not an oxymoron!)) to my opinions on such topics. ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "The Art of Flânerie"

"Bukharin, you speak of my “meaningless” points and my lack of evidence, but where is your “evidence” for such statements as… “…news coverage is fundamentally representative of the totality of things that are happening in the world.” …?" No, my point there was slightly damaged by the missing 'un'. I won't go back and edit it now, though. So I agree with your disagreement with my statement, as I was actually attempting to say the opposite. That said, I still partially disagree with your reason for supporting the point I was actually trying to make: "C’mon, Bukh, everyone knows news organisations don’t actually tell the truth! Or at least, if there is truth in there somewhere, it is distorted in such a way as to make a point. Or else why do some people read the Daily Mail, some read the Guardian, and some people, for some reason or other, persist in looking to the likes of The Sun for their source of information on the world?" In Britain at least, news organisations don't usually lie. And most of them, at least in their news stories, don't even actively distort things. They are fundamentally unrepresentative because printing news stories - which people will be interested in and want to read - is not the same as giving a representative overview of the totality of what's happening in society. The news stories that are chosen for news and interest values gives an impression of how the world is, and that view is distorted. I think you and I might even broadly agree about that bit. What we don't agree about is that because we don't have a complete picture that 'the truth' is necessarily much worse than most people think they are. This was my key point, though, which Mark argues much more clearly: "Often the method of gaining funding, awareness or public support is to use the most frightening statistics. Conversely, fears are put at rest by using the least frightening statistics. Either way, the 'facts' are malleable depending on your stance. I think that any individual instance of abuse is too much. I don't need to 'big up' the occurrence of abuse to feel that it's important to deal with. For me, though, the issue isn't how many events of abuse there are in total, because I don't think that we're ever going to find that out. The issue for me is how do we prevent abuse, and ensure that people are aware enough about the signs of abuse to be able to stop abuse occurring."

Well generally speaking, I think I agree with most of what you've said in the above, as well as what Mark said previously... although my views re the truth of news reporting are perhaps a little more skeptical! Still, that's another topic for another thread... ~PEPS~ Latest on The Art of Tea ( http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/ )... "The Art of Flânerie"

Oh dear Archergirl. I grew up in rural England in the fifties and it seemed that every other family were at it. I was abused by next door neighbors, neighbors across the road, down the road, by teachers at school and the rod was certainly not spared. I got beaten regularly by our psycho Deputy Headmaster (Mr Harry you know who you are) who just before he was about to draw blood with his cane, would carefully and slowly feel your bottom, ostensibly for books stuffed down your trousers. Why this should take 5 minutes one can only surmise. But it did me no harm. My hospitalisation several times for alcoholism had absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm with Laurie Lee on this one, 'Incest begins where good roads end.'

I can't muster much sympathy for this idiot. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

archegirl: what were the holes for? in the paddle?

yep the good ole boys in the Republican states of the USA are about the only people in the world apart from a few fundamentalist Muslim places who are allowed to officially beat children. I actually know a lot of folk who go in for this stuff as an adult hobby and most of them would feel sick to hit a child in the same way, but, hey, we're the pervs and you're (well not you personallly AG) the fine upstanding christian folk

Pakistan which is not known for its liberal attitudes - in anything - is No. 1 in logging on to child porn sites.