I'm as liberal as the next man but this is exactly what I was going to say...once its been decided in Court at a fair trial (and there has been no appeal against this as such) then we can accept what was decided as fact. Yes not all trials get it right, but 99.9% do!

My personal view is that there is no crime worse than that of someone who rapes and kills a child. Having just had a week of lectures on sexual offences I am sick to the stomach with hearing case after case of vile rape. But most are against adults. I can't begin to contemplate this crime against a defenceless child.

If an act is something that a person cannot stop themselves from committing, then they have a mental disorder and should be committed to an asylum. BUT if someone has the forethought to plan and carry out such a vile act, there is no mental illness. This is not an irresistable impulse. They are as criminally liable as he who goes into a bank and puts a gun to the cashier's head. Call me evil, but let them rot.

Head Honcho of the CPFC Pillow Fighting Force

So we as a society drove Huntly to rape and murder? That is the biggest amount of bulls*** i have ever read on these boards. It is also incredibly insulting.

You argue that peadophillia is not a choice but that their urges drive them to such acts? Surely that lack of self restraint for something they know is wrong is why they are so loathed?

Do you know where hell is?

Oh, my word.

It is simply not possible or appropriate to place any kind of blame on society for Huntley's actions. In fact, linking this crime to any perceived flaw in our society is completely and totally irrelevant. Leaving out the hysteria whipped up by the press over this case, Huntley's actions can only be interpreted as pure, unadulterated evil. It's really as simple as that. Throughout history, society has evolved what we might call 'norms' of behaviour and no civilisation has ever, ever accommodated either paedophilia or child murder. This has been the case the world over. Offences against children have always attracted greater disapproval, for a variety of reasons - the rape of innocence, the destruction of that society's future, the sheer defencelessness and blamelessness of the victim and so on. There can never, ever be any excuse within a sophisticated social system.

Society can, and to an extent does, take the blame for a variety of types of criminal behaviour - poverty, discrimination and exploitation are prime motives behind what we call 'crime'. But society can accept no responsibility for the actions of people like Huntley. His kind are an evil that lurks within our civilisation; there is no justification, no possible excuse that can be offered in mitigation of his actions, in much the same way that there can be no excuses for the Bradys, Hindleys, Wests and all the other monsters who exist completely outside the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. The penal and judicial systems are, as matters stand, utterly powerless to differentiate between degrees of seriousness - murder is murder, regardless of who the victim is or what the killer's motives were.

If 'society' has any responsibility at all, it is to create some kind of separate legal definition of crimes of the kind committed by Huntley so that a sentencing policy that reflects the universal disapproval of such action can be implemented. In this case, I have to conclude that death can be the only realistic option. This is not about retribution and rehabilitation, the twin pillars of the penal system; the Huntleys of this world fall entirely outside the scope of such principles. It is about satisfying society's demand for genuine justice, acknowledging the outrage that society feels and clinically removing from the face of the earth an influence which is inherently and unequivocally evil.

I can see what you're getting at but paedophiles are as responsible as anyone else in controlling their urges. Just because someone may fancy blondes more than brunettes doesn't mean that he's going to abduct, torture and rape them. If someone feels that that is where his inclinations lie, then there is help available, be that via their GP or through the many, free confidential counselling services that are available. It is safe to classify Huntley and his type as evil because he knew that he had those urges - if he acknowledged them as being wrong, somewhere along the line conscience would have kicked in. But it didn't. He actively concealed his past brushes with the law for related offences, he showed utterly no remorse during the trial and even now he refuses to reveal what truly happened that day; anyone with a shred of humanity or decency would have at least done that, if only to put the girls' parents out of their misery. He's content to sentence them to a lifetime of anguish, knowing that they'll never know what really happened to their daughters. Why not acknowledge that evil exists instead of trying to find some justification for them, be it mental problems or some kind of flaw in society? This guy is a monster, pure and simple, and I think you're on very, very shaky ground if you suggest that we are no better than his kind; the overwhelming majority of us have an acute sense of right and wrong, something Huntley failed to demonstrate and continues to do so.

A load of rubbish!

These sick "Humans" should be strung up or locked away from civilised society for ever!

Anyone who is tempted to harm kids shouldn't be allowed in public areas.

Have you got kids Despotic?

Edited by martin.cpfc (12 Mar 2004 8:00am)

“Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.”
–General Norman Schwartzkopf