permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/531824740
jax_1 Posted on 12/6 12:10
Craig Sweeney

Given life for abducting and r_aping a 3 year old, while on early release from a sentence for indecently assaulting a 6 year old.


Why was he allowed out and even more importantly, how on earth did he manage to not only get the girl into a bail hostel without being noticed but managed also to parade her in front of other paeds

London_Boro Posted on 12/6 12:12
re: Craig Sweeney



That is awful. I hope life means life for hm....but I won't hold my breath!

mattrich Posted on 12/6 12:13
re: Craig Sweeney

how long is life though? he might be in an open prison in a year or so, then given day release etc. worrying that people like that exsist.

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 12:16
re: Craig Sweeney

He is only in his early 20's, so unless he is given a whole life tarriff, then at some stage he will be out again. I didn't manage to catch what the recommendation was though. can only hope that he is never allowed to roam the streets again. He will always be a threat to children.

InfraRed Posted on 12/6 12:17
re: Craig Sweeney

Should the state execute those who abuse children in this way?

ovy1 Posted on 12/6 12:19
re: Craig Sweeney

I simply cant get my head around why somebody could do something like that!!! Makes me feel sick!

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 12:20
re: Craig Sweeney

Personally, yes, I think so. I really can't see any point in keeping them alive.

Marlon_D Posted on 12/6 12:21
re: Craig Sweeney

"Should the state execute those who abuse children in this way?"


Yes very slowly and with a lot of pain involved.

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 12:58
re: Craig Sweeney

I don't see any reason why not Marlon. I certainly don't think they are entitled to any consideration of any kind and as for segregation, why? Why not put them in with the rest of the lags, give them something to play with for a while They are vile, despicable creatures.

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 13:01
re: Craig Sweeney

Only has to serve a minimum of 5 years apparently before he can apply for parole. Not long enough at all.

mufflar Posted on 12/6 13:04
re: Craig Sweeney

they should let him go, publish his picture and address and then take the phone off the hook for a couple of hours..

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 13:06
re: Craig Sweeney

I can't think of any argument against that suggestion Muffy, other than of course, they might miss a genuine call, then again, they ignore them anyway.

angelmatty Posted on 12/6 13:10
re: Craig Sweeney

The only way to deal with these people is castration the first time they do it.

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 13:13
re: Craig Sweeney

That could help Matty but then again it won't stop them from thinking their thoughts necessarily and perhaps still helping others to commit the same sort of offences.

angelmatty Posted on 12/6 13:22
re: Craig Sweeney

True Jax

But that was just a starting point.

The worst part about this is when they goto prison there all put together.

This is why prison doesnt work.

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 13:25
re: Craig Sweeney

Yes indeed Matty, it's just more of an opportunity for them to meet other pervs and enlarge their networks.

mufflar Posted on 12/6 15:06
re: Craig Sweeney

the thing that annoys me is:

- abuse a child, for the second time, 5 years, probably out in 2

- happen to be Asian, suspected but not convicted of being tenously linked to a dodgy organisation - slung in a prison in the US indefinitely

summat not quite right here..

angelmatty Posted on 12/6 15:31
re: Craig Sweeney

mufflar

That sort of changes the subject dont you think,

Pervs are Pervs

Suspect terrorists have got to have done something to make them a suspect

mufflar Posted on 12/6 15:33
re: Craig Sweeney

I was thinking along the lines of rights of suspects versus rights of victims and how relevant the two punishments are in relation to the crime..

Nedkat Posted on 12/6 15:39
re: Craig Sweeney

A direct consequence of cost cutting by the government. Same thing happened in Florida, where we had a large number of complete whackos being held in a mental hospital. Jeb Bush decides to whittle away at the budget which supports mental health, the hospital gets closed, the whackos suddenlt find themselves with a free bill of health, and within the next year we've got young girls disappearing, sexual abuse on the rise, and several murders directly attributable to the release of those whackos. One of them went to his fathers house, knocked on the door, when his Dad came to the door, the whacko lopped his head off with large machete.

FunkyPotatoe Posted on 12/6 15:41
re: Craig Sweeney

I would love to kill him!

He should be killer - why pay taxes to keep this scum in a warm place with 3 square meals a day???

angelmatty Posted on 12/6 15:53
re: Craig Sweeney

I totally agree with capital punishment.

In this day and age nobody should be convicted for a crime they didnt commit.

ParmoMan17 Posted on 12/6 16:03
re: Craig Sweeney

The biggest positive with Capital punishment for me is as a preventative tool!

If people know they will be killed - they wont fookin dare do anything - in case they get caught!!

If they know they will get 5 years in a comfy cell - no money to pay out - gym - tv etc etc

It boils my p*ss that prisoners are treat like this!!! should be a scratty cell with bread and water!! Fook their human rights!!

we live in a 'pussy' world now IMO

littlejimmy Posted on 12/6 16:06
re: Craig Sweeney

Why, angelmatty/Parmoman? Because it so obviously works in the USA? NOT! Because it brings back the dead? NOT! Or maybe because it's all about revenge rather than justice. Feel free to move to Saudi Arabia where they will cater to your every medieval whim.

FunkyPotatoe, I doubt you would, really. Just think about it. Imagine yourself at the moment of truth, with a gun to his head or a knife to his throat. And then ask yourself, would this make me better than him? Not many people can do it. In fact, those who can are slightly mad themselves. For what it's worth, I'm sure everyone else is suitably impressed by your entry into today's "most outraged" competition.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 12/6 16:07 ---

BigBadSteve Posted on 12/6 16:17
re: Craig Sweeney

ParmoMan17

Capital punishment does not work as deterrent, we only have to look at the USA to see that. I know how I would feel if it was my daughter, however, the death penalty would not reduce this type of crime.

ParmoMan17 Posted on 12/6 16:20
re: Craig Sweeney

Good points BBS / Littlejimmy

although - I still belive that we have gone far to soft as a country now though.

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 19:15
re: Craig Sweeney

Capital punishment may not stop more of the vermin from popping out of the woodwork but it would be a good start at clearing the backlog.

These people are beyond rehabilitation. They can't be rehabilitated because they do not think what they do is wrong!
They are of course, only too pleased to go to the group therapy sessions as this gives them yet another opportunity to share their depraved fantasies. The thought of them makes my flesh crawl.

BigBadSteve Posted on 12/6 19:31
re: Craig Sweeney

jax

What happen when we get it wrong? Would you volunteer to apologize to the relatives of a person wrongly put to death by the state? How do you explain to a young child or a distraught mother that 'we' made a mistake?

littlejimmy Posted on 12/6 19:36
re: Craig Sweeney

I'm sorry, jax, but capital punishment belongs in the past and in medieval regimes. What you're suggesting borders on Eugenics. Whichever way you dress it up, these people are mentally ill. Killing people for this is just wrong. Killing people under most circumstances is wrong.

There is another thread on this subject where the discussions were a little bit less reactionary, and some discussion of the fact that it isn't all black and white, that there is a spectrum of different kinds and degrees of peadophilia, and in certain circumstances, people can be "cured".

Also, one of the best reasons for keeping them alive for me is that they can be studied and the causes of their condition can be found and maybe used to stop others from falling into the same traps. Often, these people have been abused themselves. You say yourself that "they do not think what they do is wong", which points to the fact that they have a mental health issue. They can't make moral judgements like normal people.

And before anyone comes on and says "what if it was your kids?", I've heard it before, and always say the same thing, we live in a civilisation where justice is delivered in a dispassionate, clinical manner, where all emotional issues have to be put to one side. If we don't, we head towards vigilantism, and that is a big step backwards, in my humble opinion.

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 19:37
re: Craig Sweeney

Steve, I can understand what you mean, however, in the case of paeds, it's highly unlikely that mistaken identity would come into the equation.
Many of them have been tracked for years and very few have only one victim.
Quite often also, you have paeds photographing themselves with their victims - where this has occurred, there is even less chance of mistaken identity.

littlejimmy Posted on 12/6 19:44
re: Craig Sweeney

The thread I mentioned:

Link: Another viewpoint.

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 19:44
re: Craig Sweeney

How do you intend to study them, when most are well practised liars.

If they are clever enough to worm their way into a family unit by deceiving the families,then they are not that mental are they?The fact that they immediately tend to ask to be segregated also indicates that they are not 'mad', if they were truly mad they wouldn't care where they were put. However, they know that their behaviour is not acceptable in our society but they choose to continue with their perversions.

The_Commisar Posted on 12/6 19:46
re: Craig Sweeney

I'm going out on a limb, but perhaps one reason why these criminals are hated is that they reflect the darker side of our society, it's a horrible reflection on the society we have created. Lets face it, TV, the media, all promote the sexuality of children, all want them to be grown up and adult. Go take look at the current crop of pop stars being promoted, the overt sexuality etc.
No I am not defending the actions of these sick people, I'm just asking questions about our society. I don't think capital punishment will resolve the problem, yes it will remove some individuals from society, but are the causes societal ?

Jax, you use the word "choose" and to blur the boundaries between insane and evil, I don't think it's that simple. Do you feel that these people are evil or that they have mental issues, if the latter, can you condone capital punishment for them ?

--- Post edited by The_Commisar on 12/6 19:48 ---

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 19:52
re: Craig Sweeney

I've just had a quick look at the other thread Jimmy but it seems to go off point a bit. We're not talking here about your average piece of street scum, we are talking about men that go out of their way to deliberately little children.
They cannot be cured and even if they could, wouldn't it be against their human rights to force treatment upon them, no matter how it is administered. You cannot force anyone to undergo surgery and it's doubtful that forcing other methods of medication on people is legal. So how would you cure them?

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 19:59
re: Craig Sweeney

No Commi, personally I don't hold with the mental health issue theory, I think they are just plain evil.
I was just typing as you posted that these people are clever enough to use deception to worm their way in, therefore they cannot be without some form of intelligence.

I do take your point about the way little girls are allowed to dress these days. I have this argument often with my brother, who virtually encourages his daughter ( 11 or 12 y.o.a. ) to dress like a tart and she knmows way too much for her age, in my opinion. I don't think it's right, however, I'm just the aunty, so my opinion doesn't count.

The_Commisar Posted on 12/6 20:22
re: Craig Sweeney

Jax
I do not believe people are born evil, these people are sick and undetake sick acts, the fact that they can be devious, duplicitous and work they way into lives don'e mean they are not mad. After all, madness is simply a failure to adopt to the social norm. If you can offer an another way of defining mad or insane behaviour, I'd like to hear it.

littlejimmy Posted on 12/6 20:28
re: Craig Sweeney

Jax, you're bandying around the word "Evil". It's a good word to use to describe all behaviour and thoughts that we don't agree with or we find abhorrent or disgusting. It's a term they use in the Church, you know, Good V Evil and all that. But I don't believe it exists. Like I don't believe in Hell or the Devil. It's the polarisation of things into black and white packages to make them easy to deal with. Until recently people were getting priests round to do excorcisms on people who they thought were possessed, but the fact is, they were ill, mentally if not physically. I understand that it's difficult to be dispassionate and clinical about such a subject, but I think we have to, to ensure that people don't become demonised and dehumanised and that people don't turn into baying lynch mobs stirred up by the media, who go putting bricks through the windows of peadatricians. Please understand that I am not making excuses for anyone.
Did you read that article linked by someone about the guy who was cured?

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 20:29
re: Craig Sweeney

Insanity is caused by an organic failure of the brain to function correctly. What you are referring to, I would probably just refer to as being eccentric, that is not the same as clinical insanity.

littlejimmy Posted on 12/6 20:30
re: Craig Sweeney

Which is basically the same as Commisar said.
Hitler was as mad as a box of frogs. Stalin was completely bonkers. Saddam Hussein is madder than a bike. All mad. Their acts could be defined as "Evil", but they weren't themselves. They were sick in the head. When people say that, it's exactly what it means.

littlejimmy Posted on 12/6 20:34
re: Craig Sweeney

.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 12/6 20:41 ---

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 20:38
re: Craig Sweeney

Yes and Saddam is staring a death sentence in the face and had Hitler been caught and not committed suicide, he too would have been executed and rightly so.


The diagnostics Jimmy, I'm not sure why you posted those. I think it's fairly obvious to most people what constitutes a paed. The fact that it is in a book of psychiatry means nada, I'm afraid.

littlejimmy Posted on 12/6 20:39
re: Craig Sweeney

The fact that it's classified by the APA shows that it is a mental disorder.

As for the dictators, they're on a whole different level, and the arguments about the correct punishment for them isn't relevant to this topic, really. I was just trying to show how the word "Evil" is over-used.

Heavy stuff for a football message board. Let's let this drop off the board, eh? We're not going to agree on this.

--- Post edited by littlejimmy on 12/6 20:43 ---

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 20:43
re: Craig Sweeney

The whole subject is a highly emotive one jimmy. People have their opinions and will stick to them I spose, whichever way they lean. good thing though that we can have a decnt debate about all sorts of things on here. Nice too that we do have a mix of views and opinions. It would be no fun at all if we all agreed and threads would be very short

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 20:50
re: Craig Sweeney

The reason why I said about psychiatrists books being of no use, is simply because they include many different things that have no actual bearing on psycopathic disorders. Including Autism and other A.S.D. as well as other psychological profiling criteria.( Including those of rescuer or survivor etc. )
I don't think you'd disagree with me if I said that there was a difference between someone being mentally handicapped ( autistic or similar organic brain dysfunction ) and someone who was just plain 'mental'.

littlejimmy Posted on 12/6 20:54
re: Craig Sweeney

Of course there's a big difference. It's a broad spectrum. Being "mental" is a disorder. Psychotic minds are not the same as normal minds. There are reasons behind psychosis, just are there are reasons for everything.

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 20:57
re: Craig Sweeney

Indeed so, I was just explaining why I set little store on psychiatry books Jimmy or psychiatrists as it happens.

BigBadSteve Posted on 12/6 22:25
re: Craig Sweeney

Are murderers and p.aedophiles evil or ill? This is another very important issue as it would seem hardly reasonable to punish people who are mentally ill but more reasonable to punish those who are intentionally evil.

It would seem that whilst legally and technically "sane" many criminals are mentally abnormal and their thought processes are not like those of the rest of us.

In the case of Craig Sweeney, he is obviously not "normal", some psychiatrists believe that there is no such thing as evil and therefore a criminals actions can be attributed to some mental or emotional disorder.

I'm not sure I believe in "evil" but if a person understands and can take responsibility for their actions then they are sane so how else can you describe them?

jax_1 Posted on 12/6 22:36
re: Craig Sweeney

Well exactly Steve and they know precisely what they are doing when they begin grooming their targets. Often taking months or possibly years to gain the kids trust before abusing them.

FunkyPotatoe Posted on 13/6 1:49
re: Craig Sweeney

Mr Commissioner,

Let me give you a different perspective on this. Lets say this sick idiot did this to my little girl……… I would make it my life’s mission to end his life in the most painful and drawn out way possible! I would not care what the consequences would be for me because my life would be over anyway – you have to look at the big picture and not just think about the child (which is totally heart breaking) but the fallout within the entire family.

This slime should be killed. Simple as. Is it right to take the law into your own hands…..never! However, for me I would have to in these circumstances because I could not live with the thought of this scum walking the streets and praying on some other little girl to sexually assault and murder when I COULD DO something about it.

Sorry if this seems OTT but this subject has really boiled my blood.

boro_steve Posted on 13/6 2:27
re: Craig Sweeney

We have a right to justice, not vengence. The risk of a miscarriage of justice is too great. It costs more to put a person to death than it does to keep them in prison for their entire life. Jax over-reacts to stuff like this, though I agree 5 years is too short.

If we kill people we are lowering ourselves to their level, we as a society should aim to be better than that.

It is not a deterrant.

Capital punishment does not work.

To return to capital punishment we would have to totally withdraw from the EU - never going to happen.

But the main issue is the risk of a miscarriage, very few things in life are certain, very few cases are 100% certain.

These people are mentally ill and society has a right to protect itself by locking them away, we do not have a right to be vengeful.

--- Post edited by boro_steve on 13/6 2:44 ---

Chutney Posted on 13/6 8:32
re: Craig Sweeney

Interesting priorities, Mr Potatoe, because if he did it to my little girl, my "life’s mission" would be to try and help her recover and repair whatever damage had been done to her.

If you're any kind of father that's what you'd do too, so quit with the macho nonsense, it's not in the least impressive.

BigBadSteve Posted on 13/6 9:33
re: Craig Sweeney

For those who are calling for the death penalty please remember that in this particular case (Craig Sweeney) it would not be applied even if it had been on the statute books. Capital punishment would only ever be applied in cases of premeditated murder.

littlejimmy Posted on 13/6 9:36
re: Craig Sweeney

I thought this thread had been deleted.
Can't we just let it go now? It's too heavy for this board, and everone's had their say.

jax_1 Posted on 13/6 9:41
re: Craig Sweeney

I'm not sure that I ' over react ' as such - maybe it's a woman thing but I have no sympathy at all for men that deliberately set out to hurt children, not just physically don't forget but the mental scars of being abused never leave a child. They are entitled to the most consideration in my opinion.
I think we are all well aware, that it's highly unlikely that the death penalty will ever return, for any crime, so we are talking hypothetically. However, as it stands, the sentences dished out are unnaceptably lenient.

The_Commisar Posted on 13/6 9:43
re: Craig Sweeney

FP
Firstly I realise your views are deeply held and important to you so I'm not trying to belittle what you feel. This is a very emotive subject. It is worth noting that we get more sensible on a day on this board than we get in a month of the Express, mail or Sun...

For someone to commit a crime as awful as that we are discussing is beyond comprehension to most people, if not all sane people.
I don't believe it's right to kill people who are insane.
Lock them up, sure, for as long as it takes to eiether cure them or ensure they are no longer a threat to anyone, if they cannot be cured then thats it, Broadmoor, Rampton or where ever and a room for as long as needed.

Jax
re Insanity is caused by an organic failure of the brain to function correctly.
The key to that definition is who defines what correct functionality is ? Society does. Are you insane if you fail to live by the culture society determines is correct ?
Organic, ie induced naturally by inherent patterns and linkages in the brain, if you take that at face value, then you can argue that people are born insane or have a predeliction to insanity, do we geneticly screen people to see if they should be allowed to have kids in case the kids carry the madness gene ?

jax_1 Posted on 13/6 9:48
re: Craig Sweeney

I hadn't even thought of that Commi, however, wouldn't that fall more in line with Jimmy's idea of 'studying' them to see what makes them tick?
As for screening, it already happens you know.

jax_1 Posted on 13/6 9:49
re: Craig Sweeney

Double bubble.

--- Post edited by jax_1 on 13/6 9:49 ---

The_Commisar Posted on 13/6 9:51
re: Craig Sweeney

Yes genetic screening takes place, but whats the limit on that one ?
If you are looking for X and you find Y, do you tell the family ?

boredreceptionist Posted on 13/6 10:06
re: Craig Sweeney

Going off the point a little but the same papers foaming at the mouth over this (although I agree the sentence is too lenient) are the same ones who did a count down to Charlotte Church's 16th birthday, when they could legitimately publish bikini shots of her. How can they justify that?

jax_1 Posted on 13/6 10:12
re: Craig Sweeney

The limit for screening - well who knows. As each new gene is identified and those responsible for illnesses or disabilities are marked, then they will be added to the list of things that we routinely screen for now, I suppose.




--- Post edited by jax_1 on 13/6 10:15 ---

littlejimmy Posted on 13/6 10:16
re: Craig Sweeney

Hysterical Hypocrisy. Our tabloids excel at it, boredreceptionist.

Chutney Posted on 13/6 10:30
re: Craig Sweeney

Interestingly, the Star had its Church-Watch on the opposite page to a piece condemning the Brass Eye peedo special.

jax_1 Posted on 13/6 10:55
re: Craig Sweeney

I suppose their argument would be, that she would be of no interest to paeds, being that she had passed the stage of the onset of puberty.

Chutney Posted on 13/6 11:07
re: Craig Sweeney

I disagree.

I think their argument would be that the irony of such a juxtaposition hadn't even occurred to them. Only using fewer syllables.

jax_1 Posted on 13/6 11:10
re: Craig Sweeney

Yeah maybe Chutney, have to say though, the sight of her in a bikini in yesterdays papers was nearly enough to put me off my eccles cake

The_Commisar Posted on 13/6 11:11
re: Craig Sweeney

Your working on the assumption they would "get" irony Chut.
This from the papers that slammed Brass Eye.

Revol_Tees Posted on 13/6 11:46
re: Craig Sweeney

littlejimmy and The_Commisar are spot on. As it happens, I think the sentence was too leniant in this case, but when it comes to the wider issue of pedophilia and child abuse all this stuff about capital punishment and pure "evil" sounds like medieval hysteria.

Not all pedophiles harm children directly and not all of them ever will, which is why the authorities urge these "ill" people to seek help in the first place. It can be managed - that is a fact. Ask the experts. It is only through "management" of such (abnormal) drives that society is held together in the first place. Ironically, those who call for the death penalty are probably endagering more children themselves by promoting a climate of fear whereby pedophiles are driven underground for fear of being lynched. That's not just my opinion; it's also the opinion of many professionals who deal with this issue every day. There was a report about this on ITN lunchtime news last week - they interviewed an anonymous guy who was concerned about his increasingly abnormal feelings, so he sought counselling before it went any further.

It's not hard to see why there is so much fear and ignorance about child abductors/abusers - the tabloid media have a lot to answer for. Far more children are killed on the roads every year than are abducted by child abusers; and I understand that the majority of those who are abused are done so by someone in their own family. But that is not the stereotype we've grown accustomed to. A lot of this talk about kids not being safe on the streets is pure exaggeration, because the tabloids like to promote suspicion, division and hysteria by carefully selecting which stories they report and constructing a bogeyman figure for us to fear (whether it be the pedo who lives next door, or the Muslim terrorist in your local Mosque). It's that clime of ignorance, fear and vengeance which is most damaging in the long-run.