@eric_plant , I was going to say! @mooneyman , you clearly know better than all the experts who work in rehabilitation! Maybe they should just stop all the schemes right?
And that's before you take in different levels of offenders!
I don't think @mooneyman s last paragraph was bad @eric_plant , not even close to the worst on here. If someone is a convicted profile (which is what I understood by 'nonce') I would not want them anywhere near our club.
@Malone - With respect I would suggest you study this subject a bit more before coming to the conclusion that rehabilitation works. There was a recent study by an expert published in the British Medical Journal which determined that rehabilitation does not work.
I agree there are other experts who take the contrary view consequently there are various rehabilitation schemes in place which may help some. However unlike you, I would not want to risk the possibility of another Barry Bennell being employed at the club particularly if we had a youth set up.
I certainly wouldn't want to risk it either, we can agree on that. But then i'd be more hard line on a lot of things, I wouldn't have McCormick, Hughes or even Evans now here. "Technically" not guilty, but an odious behaved individual.
There may be "One" expert who reckons rehab doesn't work, but clearly most think it's worthwhile, or they wouldn't do it!
And again, there are different levels of offenders.
Surely the Bennell case and the related allegation is about failure to have in place satisfactory 'safe-guarding' procedures not about whether offenders can be re-habilitated? And I don't think any advocates of re-habilitating offenders are suggesting they should be automatically allowed to do every job. Drink-driving and sex offending are completely different.
There is a spectacular amount of ignorance on display on this thread. Surprise surprise rehabilitation works for some sex offenders, not for others. The sooner our society learns to treat ex offenders as individuals rather than as labels, the sooner we lower reoffending rates, the sooner we reduce the number of crime victims.
McCormick should not expect banter about his crime. Isome things are too serious for banter. Anyone who wants to laugh and joke about death of children needs a long hard look in the mirror IMHO.
Somebody above argued for longer sentences for such cases. Within the context of jail being very expensive, and very low chance of McCormick reoffending, could you explain how society would have benefited by locking him up for longer.
@Malone - Actually I agree with you on the fact that I would not want McCormack or Hughes at the club. All I am saying is that McCormack has the right to carry on playing as he served his sentence and there is no reason to think he will reoffend.
Evans I am not sure on, as I suspect there are quite a number of players with his attitude to women (including perhaps recent Wycombe ones) but such attitude has not been brought to widespread attention as a result of a well publicised court case.
Saying that a sex offender "has an inherent and continual desire to reoffend" is also spectacularly ignorant. In fact many are desperate for the help and treatment they need not to reoffend
@eric-plant - It is you that is ignorant unless by some miracle you know better than the medical experts. If they didn't have an inherent desire to reoffend they wouldn't need a course of rehabilitation!
I like how you rely the opinions of particular experts and then go on to say 'so called experts'.
The fact that experts in the field who dedicate their life to studying these matters have differing views means it's unlikely to be resolved by a debate on a football messageboard. It's certainly not as simple as to say there is anything near a consensus amongst experts that rehabilitation is not possible for any convicted sex offenders.
Aren't sex offenders usually forced to sign a register and banned from working with children?
You could argue that in the general role of a football player they are highly likely going to be in contact with children - either through community work in schools or in youth teams (let alone those in a crowd) and therefore concievably not allowed to return to that line of work due to those constraints?
Agreed, but conversely there is also no consensus that rehabilitation is possible. As an aside, how do you assess whether a paedophile has been successfully rehabilitated?
Well @DevC perhaps on an Antarctic weather station? My priority would be keeping them away from kids. On an otherwise deserted island with other like minded individuals perhaps?
Its certainly an interesting view, with enough credibility to make the BMJ but contradicted by the vast majority of experts in this field and indeed by the data in the article you refer too.
Mr Norsquarters is sadly illuminitive. Hide the problem away, somebody else can deal with it - just not in your sight. Afraid that just isnt reality. Ex offenders, in some cases ex-sex offenders, are in our society, that nice chap who cuts your hair is statistically quite likely to be an exoffender, the guy who cuts keys in Timsons very likely to be so. we in society can take the easy option, deny them work, marginalise them, keepthem on benefits, terrified of admitting their past,and if we do, they are veery likely to re-offend and create new victims of crime. Or we do all we can to rehabilitate them, bring them back into society. Evidence shows that way there are lower rates of re-offending and hence less future victims.
There will be some roles that will not be appropriate for some ex-offenders - positions of trust , eg teacher, youth coach, scout leader, rarely if ever appropriate for an ex-sex offender against children. But where possible it is hard but in all our interests for ex-offenders to be re-integrated into society.
@RogertheBandito start a HNY thread then. @brittanywanderer yes, but this is for me one of the worst breaches of trust in humanity there is. @DevC yes, hiding them away in prison or Antarctica would be my first choice, in extreme cases chemical castration (bringing up a host of other questions) or letting their identities be known and shunning them to the outskirts of society. Certainly not in the limelight of football.
Comments
He did wrong he paid the price and will always pay the price,But if it was you or a family member would the opinions be the same.
@mooneyman one of the all time dreadful posts there (last paragraph)
@eric_plant , I was going to say!
@mooneyman , you clearly know better than all the experts who work in rehabilitation! Maybe they should just stop all the schemes right?
And that's before you take in different levels of offenders!
I don't think @mooneyman s last paragraph was bad @eric_plant , not even close to the worst on here. If someone is a convicted profile (which is what I understood by 'nonce') I would not want them anywhere near our club.
Talk about lenient sentences...
@Malone - With respect I would suggest you study this subject a bit more before coming to the conclusion that rehabilitation works. There was a recent study by an expert published in the British Medical Journal which determined that rehabilitation does not work.
I agree there are other experts who take the contrary view consequently there are various rehabilitation schemes in place which may help some. However unlike you, I would not want to risk the possibility of another Barry Bennell being employed at the club particularly if we had a youth set up.
I certainly wouldn't want to risk it either, we can agree on that. But then i'd be more hard line on a lot of things, I wouldn't have McCormick, Hughes or even Evans now here. "Technically" not guilty, but an odious behaved individual.
There may be "One" expert who reckons rehab doesn't work, but clearly most think it's worthwhile, or they wouldn't do it!
And again, there are different levels of offenders.
A nonce poses a substantial risk being in and around the club.
I'm not sure someone who drink drove does?
Surely the Bennell case and the related allegation is about failure to have in place satisfactory 'safe-guarding' procedures not about whether offenders can be re-habilitated? And I don't think any advocates of re-habilitating offenders are suggesting they should be automatically allowed to do every job. Drink-driving and sex offending are completely different.
There is a spectacular amount of ignorance on display on this thread. Surprise surprise rehabilitation works for some sex offenders, not for others. The sooner our society learns to treat ex offenders as individuals rather than as labels, the sooner we lower reoffending rates, the sooner we reduce the number of crime victims.
McCormick should not expect banter about his crime. Isome things are too serious for banter. Anyone who wants to laugh and joke about death of children needs a long hard look in the mirror IMHO.
Somebody above argued for longer sentences for such cases. Within the context of jail being very expensive, and very low chance of McCormick reoffending, could you explain how society would have benefited by locking him up for longer.
@Malone - Actually I agree with you on the fact that I would not want McCormack or Hughes at the club. All I am saying is that McCormack has the right to carry on playing as he served his sentence and there is no reason to think he will reoffend.
Evans I am not sure on, as I suspect there are quite a number of players with his attitude to women (including perhaps recent Wycombe ones) but such attitude has not been brought to widespread attention as a result of a well publicised court case.
Saying that a sex offender "has an inherent and continual desire to reoffend" is also spectacularly ignorant. In fact many are desperate for the help and treatment they need not to reoffend
@eric-plant - It is you that is ignorant unless by some miracle you know better than the medical experts. If they didn't have an inherent desire to reoffend they wouldn't need a course of rehabilitation!
I hope the guy from Plymouth has enough feedback to help find new ways to upset Wycombe fans next year. Some useful ideas so far.
@mooneyman "desire" is entirely the wrong word in this context
Would you like to provide a link mooney to justify your extraordinary claim that no sex offenders can be rehabilitated
Innate desire or genetic disposition? Either way i don't want pedos paid by my club.
Who would you suggest should employ sex offenders who have done their time.
@DevC - just one example for your information. Like most subjects there will be differing views from the so called experts.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/recidivism-rates-rehabilitated-sex-offenders-show-treatment-programs-fail-doctor-319710
I like how you rely the opinions of particular experts and then go on to say 'so called experts'.
The fact that experts in the field who dedicate their life to studying these matters have differing views means it's unlikely to be resolved by a debate on a football messageboard. It's certainly not as simple as to say there is anything near a consensus amongst experts that rehabilitation is not possible for any convicted sex offenders.
Aren't sex offenders usually forced to sign a register and banned from working with children?
You could argue that in the general role of a football player they are highly likely going to be in contact with children - either through community work in schools or in youth teams (let alone those in a crowd) and therefore concievably not allowed to return to that line of work due to those constraints?
Agreed, but conversely there is also no consensus that rehabilitation is possible. As an aside, how do you assess whether a paedophile has been successfully rehabilitated?
Well @DevC perhaps on an Antarctic weather station? My priority would be keeping them away from kids. On an otherwise deserted island with other like minded individuals perhaps?
I think this short video demonstrates the knots you can tie yourself into on this subject.
Its certainly an interesting view, with enough credibility to make the BMJ but contradicted by the vast majority of experts in this field and indeed by the data in the article you refer too.
Mr Norsquarters is sadly illuminitive. Hide the problem away, somebody else can deal with it - just not in your sight. Afraid that just isnt reality. Ex offenders, in some cases ex-sex offenders, are in our society, that nice chap who cuts your hair is statistically quite likely to be an exoffender, the guy who cuts keys in Timsons very likely to be so. we in society can take the easy option, deny them work, marginalise them, keepthem on benefits, terrified of admitting their past,and if we do, they are veery likely to re-offend and create new victims of crime. Or we do all we can to rehabilitate them, bring them back into society. Evidence shows that way there are lower rates of re-offending and hence less future victims.
There will be some roles that will not be appropriate for some ex-offenders - positions of trust , eg teacher, youth coach, scout leader, rarely if ever appropriate for an ex-sex offender against children. But where possible it is hard but in all our interests for ex-offenders to be re-integrated into society.
This could be the gasrooms dullest ever thread...
I agree and there are many more criminal activities that could be discussed yet! Unfortunately!!.
@RogertheBandito start a HNY thread then. @brittanywanderer yes, but this is for me one of the worst breaches of trust in humanity there is. @DevC yes, hiding them away in prison or Antarctica would be my first choice, in extreme cases chemical castration (bringing up a host of other questions) or letting their identities be known and shunning them to the outskirts of society. Certainly not in the limelight of football.
I kinda wish I'd never posted in this thread now.
Luton all over again
nors this is a FOOTBALL thread, please try to understand!!