Current Murder of Daniel Morcombe

[Dan]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

Come on, it's not the fault of the parents letting him go out by himself. He was 13, not 5. Jesus, I got public transport by myself every day when I was 13.

There's just no preventing crimes like this.

I never said it was their fault.

When I was 12-13 sure I wanted to have some independence, I wanted to go out......but at that age I wasn't allowed to unless I was with at least 1 friend. You can't keep ya kids indoors all there life but at 12-13 years old they are still just kids and very much vulnerable to scum.

If Daniel was with his friends or a friend that day at the bus stop.....this probably wouldn't of happened.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

If my parents told me I couldn't catch public transport as a 13 year old I would've told them to get ****ed. No 13 year old should be banned by their parents for going somewhere by themselves.

And forcing a friend to go with them...come on. I know sometimes I wanted to do s**t just by myself.

 

[Simple Jack]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

If my parents told me I couldn't catch public transport as a 13 year old I would've told them to get ****ed. No 13 year old should be banned by their parents for going somewhere by themselves.

And forcing a friend to go with them...come on. I know sometimes I wanted to do s**t just by myself.

A kid is in high school at 13.

Every kid I went to high school with had to catch PT unescorted to/from school, and were certainly allowed to do things by themselves.

If you have a child who is small and skinny even if you don't let them go out till they're 20 it's still going to be easy for them to be abducted. It's just unfortunate, not bad parenting.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

A kid is in high school at 13.

Every kid I went to high school with had to catch PT unescorted to/from school, and were certainly allowed to do things by themselves.

If you have a child who is small and skinny even if you don't let them go out till they're 20 it's still going to be easy for them to be abducted. It's just unfortunate, not bad parenting.

Exactly. I think some people are over estimating how young a 13 year old is. I'd probably say a parent should be encouraging a 13 year old to be confident enough to catch a local bus by themselves.

 

[Donners]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

He's already been convicted of prior child sex offences, so he should still be in jail IMO.

Given the vast majority (upwards of 90%) of child sex offenders who come before the courts are first-time offenders (albeit in some cases with multiple victims because there wasn't a complaint made by the first victim), that's not really a reasonable position.

A heck of a lot of the situations arise from either a one-off incident where they made a very poor decision (eg. drug-affected and/or drunk, in a really bad mental state, etc) or from a family relationship (primarily step-fathers, uncles and grandfathers) - it's just that the media tends to shy away from those (incest in particular is almost never reported; it's a shock at first to see how much it goes on).

Once exposed, dealt with, registered, put through sex offender programs and so forth, the vast majority don't re-offend.

The ones you have to watch for are those of particularly low intellect, with mental illnesses, have violent offences and/or offences against strangers, and they're the ones who normally wind up on Supervision Orders.

Even then, it's not foolproof - I know of one serial offender with a genius-level IQ, and I've seen people assessed as low risk who have turned out to have horrific offending later exposed.

In short, long-term locking up of people convicted of offences against children should be locked up long-term would not be just or effective.

 

[OneEyed35]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

Given the vast majority (upwards of 90%) of child sex offenders who come before the courts are first-time offenders (albeit in some cases with multiple victims because there wasn't a complaint made by the first victim), that's not really a reasonable position.

A heck of a lot of the situations arise from either a one-off incident where they made a very poor decision (eg. drug-affected and/or drunk, in a really bad mental state, etc) or from a family relationship (primarily step-fathers, uncles and grandfathers) - it's just that the media tends to shy away from those (incest in particular is almost never reported; it's a shock at first to see how much it goes on).

Once exposed, dealt with, registered, put through sex offender programs and so forth, the vast majority don't re-offend.

The ones you have to watch for are those of particularly low intellect, with mental illnesses, have violent offences and/or offences against strangers, and they're the ones who normally wind up on Supervision Orders.

Even then, it's not foolproof - I know of one serial offender with a genius-level IQ, and I've seen people assessed as low risk who have turned out to have horrific offending later exposed.

In short, long-term locking up of people convicted of offences against children should be locked up long-term would not be just or effective.

See, this is where people like you get it all wrong... it shouldn't be about effective rehabilitation of the offender. It should be about making sure they cannot harm another child again. You can reel off all the statistics that you like, but that doesn't change the fact that this scumbag has a history of two seperate convictions (and that's just the ones they know about), and yet, was still allowed out after a relatively short period of time. Had he not been let out after his second known offence, then Daniel would still be alive today.

And as for many cases being incest type of cases, if they are convicted and then re-offend, they should be locked up for life too - who cares if they only take advantage of children they can get close to, they're still people that are attracted to children, which is wrong on every level, and I don't think they can ever be changed. Just like you can't stop a hetrosexual from being attracted to the opposite sex, or stop someone that is gay from being attracted to someone from the same sex.

 

[Donners]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

See, this is where people like you get it all wrong... it shouldn't be about effective rehabilitation of the offender. It should be about making sure they cannot harm another child again. You can reel off all the statistics that you like, but that doesn't change the fact that this scumbag has a history of two seperate convictions (and that's just the ones they know about), and yet, was still allowed out after a relatively short period of time. Had he not been let out after his second known offence, then Daniel would still be alive today.

Sentencing is about many things. Rehabilitation is one, protection of the community is another. There is a balance to be achieved. In certain cases, the latter will take priority.

Unfortunately, while it is clear in some cases that the community needs to be protected from the person (and there are systems in place to do that), that is not always the case.

One cannot impose an extreme punishment just because of something that someone MIGHT do - and if we were to do that for people who are at risk of re-offending, then forget sex offenders, because the jails would be full of those who commit theft, drug offences and acts of violence, since they are FAR more likely to re-offend.

And as for many cases being incest type of cases, if they are convicted and then re-offend, they should be locked up for life too - who cares if they only take advantage of children they can get close to, they're still people that are attracted to children, which is wrong on every level, and I don't think they can ever be changed. Just like you can't stop a hetrosexual from being attracted to the opposite sex, or stop someone that is gay from being attracted to someone from the same sex.

That sounds dangerously close to punishing thought-crime to me. You can't lock people up based on their attractions...

 

[Messenger]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

Donners, without the stats at my fingertips don't offender of this type have a high rate of recidivism?

I wouldn't think of this as incarceration for a "thought crime". People who commit a series of sexual offenses against children even after exposure to treatment or diversion programs should be under consideration for life imprisonment if the courts determine that they are beyond or resistant to rehabilitation.

 

[MaddAdam]

Speaking of people with opinions ... meet the newest groups of sufferers in this cruel world. Paedophiles. Or Minor Attracted Persons, complete with their own academic backing.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/predators_with_phds.html

 

[OneEyed35]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

That sounds dangerously close to punishing thought-crime to me. You can't lock people up based on their attractions...

Not once did I say they should be locked up for their thoughts, but they should if they act on their thoughts. What I did say is that if they are convicted once, then re-offend upon release, they should then be locked up for life, or at least kept in a facility where they don't have any access to children at all.

 

[Qsaint]

The two strikes and your gone sounds completely ok, but the interesting thing to ponder is did Daniel die because this guy knew he was not going to get out again if he got caught again and would more kids die if a two strike rule is bought in. I think in the end we need to give longer sentences first up

 

[Simple Jack]

The two strikes and your gone sounds completely ok, but the interesting thing to ponder is did Daniel die because this guy knew he was not going to get out again if he got caught again and would more kids die if a two strike rule is bought in. I think in the end we need to give longer sentences first up

But what's that going to do?]

Besides defer the exact same situation a little longer.

 

[Teffy]

But what's that going to do?

More dead kids and harder to find bodies.

"More jail" is the standard default response for people that don't put serious thought in to crime issues.

 

[Donners]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

Donners, without the stats at my fingertips don't offender of this type have a high rate of recidivism?

Child sex offenders? Absolutely not; certainly not those without the dangerous factors which I listed.

I wouldn't think of this as incarceration for a "thought crime". People who commit a series of sexual offenses against children even after exposure to treatment or diversion programs should be under consideration for life imprisonment if the courts determine that they are beyond or resistant to rehabilitation.

There is such a system - Supervision Orders, which can include ongoing detention for the worst offenders.

It is applied on a case-by-case basis, as it should be, and has proven effective.

Not once did I say they should be locked up for their thoughts, but they should if they act on their thoughts. What I did say is that if they are convicted once, then re-offend upon release, they should then be locked up for life, or at least kept in a facility where they don't have any access to children at all.

No, but you said "they're still people that are attracted to children, which is wrong on every level, and I don't think they can ever be changed" - that is firstly an incorrect assumption (that those who offend against children are necessarily attracted to children - if that were the case, you'd find a much stronger link to child pr0n than there is, for instance) and secondly ignores the aspect of self-control.

Self-control is typically something which is dramatically affected by drugs, alcohol, mental health issues, intellect, etc - factors which are a factor in a lot of offences, and can take years to manage. Often they cannot be dealt with on a first offence, especially if it seems to be a one-off or they are not in a position to accept treatment initially.



It is silly to say that it should be applied simply based on number of offences. As noted, there are types of offences with far worse rates of re-offending than sex offences, and what makes the victims of those offences so much less worthy of protection than victims here?

 

[RU_]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

I've been looking this up for a while, the area that the shoes/bones were found in, wasn't that area under water in the massive floods? How would the shoes also last from 2003 until 2011, and stay in the general area, wouldn't an animal have likely picked them up, or they deteriorated?

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

I've been looking this up for a while, the area that the shoes/bones were found in, wasn't that area under water in the massive floods? How would the shoes also last from 2003 until 2011, and stay in the general area, wouldn't an animal have likely picked them up, or they deteriorated?

The whole thing is clearly a setup.

 

[OneEyed35]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

Child sex offenders? Absolutely not; certainly not those without the dangerous factors which I listed.



There is such a system - Supervision Orders, which can include ongoing detention for the worst offenders.

It is applied on a case-by-case basis, as it should be, and has proven effective.


No, but you said "they're still people that are attracted to children, which is wrong on every level, and I don't think they can ever be changed" - that is firstly an incorrect assumption (that those who offend against children are necessarily attracted to children - if that were the case, you'd find a much stronger link to child pr0n than there is, for instance) and secondly ignores the aspect of self-control.

Self-control is typically something which is dramatically affected by drugs, alcohol, mental health issues, intellect, etc - factors which are a factor in a lot of offences, and can take years to manage. Often they cannot be dealt with on a first offence, especially if it seems to be a one-off or they are not in a position to accept treatment initially.


It is silly to say that it should be applied simply based on number of offences. As noted, there are types of offences with far worse rates of re-offending than sex offences, and what makes the victims of those offences so much less worthy of protection than victims here?

You must be mistaking me for someone that actually gives a s**t about why these pieces of crap do the things they do... I don't! This is exactly what my point is, we need to stop thinking we can save them from their lives of abusing children, and start putting the safety of innocent children first.

If you look at the child-sex offenders list, many of them have committed more than a single offence. You could hardly say that Daniel's killer's case was managed effectively, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to abuse and kill him! (and Daniel's killer has used child-pr0n as a defense in his previous cases by the way). It's not right that defenceless little kids pay for their right to fairness.

As for other crimes having higher re-offending rates, I would apply the same penalties if it were cases that involved harming or killing innocent people/strangers. Property and money are given more protection in this country than our kids, and that is just pathetic.

So, you can ramble on and on about self control, drug abuse, mental health issues, etc. but that won't change my opinion that they should be locked up for a very very long time for repeat offences.

 

[Simple Jack]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

As for other crimes having higher re-offending rates, I would apply the same penalties if it were cases that involved harming or killing innocent people/strangers. Property and money are given more protection in this country than our kids, and that is just pathetic.

So, you can ramble on and on about self control, drug abuse, mental health issues, etc. but that won't change my opinion that they should be locked up for a very very long time for repeat offences.

Bad drivers absolutely have the ability to harm/kill innocent people/strangers.

So if someone loses their licence, and is caught driving it once, they should be given a life sentence with no minimum because they could get out and do it again!


Whilst 'look, bad person, jail for life' sounds like a great solution, it just doesn't work in reality.

Edit- Just to put that in perspective, here's a possible situation under the 'commit a crime that could harm another person get life' system.

Johnny is a nice 17 year old boy living in NSW. He is polite, respectful, has no histroy of doing anything bad. He plays sport at a local club and everyone loves him. He does well in school and is going to be a doctor. He works part time at the pound saving animals, and volunteers there on his days off. Johnny has his P1 licence in NSW and he is driving along the road in his older car which he saved for and paid for himself. His speedo underreads slightly. Johnny without notcing lets his speed rise to 62 in a 60 zone (barely the width of the needle), because his speedo underreads he is actually doing 64, and is caught by a speed camera and fined.

In NSW if you get caught speeding on your P1 licence (even 1kmh over) you automatically lose your licence for 3 months, this happens to poor Johnny. One day Johnnys sister calls him from a party down the road, there are people gatecrashing and getting drunk and causing trouble, she is scared and asks Johnny to pick her up. He reluctantly agrees as she is 10 mins away by car. He drives carefully but is pulled over by cops and found to be driving on a suspended licence.

Johnny is imprisoned for life.

Sure he shouldn't have driven, but is that really deserving of the punishment?

 

[RU_]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

The whole thing is clearly a setup.

Was simply asking.

 

[OneEyed35]

Re: Daniel Morecombe.....arrest made, charges laid

Bad drivers absolutely have the ability to harm/kill innocent people/strangers.

So if someone loses their licence, and is caught driving it once, they should be given a life sentence with no minimum because they could get out and do it again!


Whilst 'look, bad person, jail for life' sounds like a great solution, it just doesn't work in reality.

Edit- Just to put that in perspective, here's a possible situation under the 'commit a crime that could harm another person get life' system.

Johnny is a nice 17 year old boy living in NSW. He is polite, respectful, has no histroy of doing anything bad. He plays sport at a local club and everyone loves him. He does well in school and is going to be a doctor. He works part time at the pound saving animals, and volunteers there on his days off. Johnny has his P1 licence in NSW and he is driving along the road in his older car which he saved for and paid for himself. His speedo underreads slightly. Johnny without notcing lets his speed rise to 62 in a 60 zone (barely the width of the needle), because his speedo underreads he is actually doing 64, and is caught by a speed camera and fined.

In NSW if you get caught speeding on your P1 licence (even 1kmh over) you automatically lose your licence for 3 months, this happens to poor Johnny. One day Johnnys sister calls him from a party down the road, there are people gatecrashing and getting drunk and causing trouble, she is scared and asks Johnny to pick her up. He reluctantly agrees as she is 10 mins away by car. He drives carefully but is pulled over by cops and found to be driving on a suspended licence.

Johnny is imprisoned for life.

Sure he shouldn't have driven, but is that really deserving of the punishment?

Don't be stupid... I don't mean it as a blanket statement for all cases that "may" injur others. I mean if you have somebody who rapes someone, is convicted and jailed, then on release rapes someone again, then they should receive a very long to life sentence.

If, Johnny is drink driving, and he kills someone whilst doing so, then after conviction, drink drives and kills someone again (particularly if not still unlicensed), then yes, he should too receive a very long sentence, because clearly he hasn't learnt anything from the first time.

 

[grizzlym]

Ok. I'd like to draw a line through the previous discussion relating to sentencing and the like. That's a discussion for SRP.

As the case is currently before the courts, and as Daniel Morcombe was finally buried today, I thought we'd recommence this thread from GD on the Crime board.

Don't know about you people, but this case has really affected me. Just incredibly sad.

 

[MaddAdam]

Ok. I'd like to draw a line through the previous discussion relating to sentencing and the like. That's a discussion for SRP.

As the case is currently before the courts, and as Daniel Morcombe was finally buried today, I thought we'd recommence this thread from GD on the Crime board.

Don't know about you people, but this case has really affected me. Just incredibly sad.

Yeah, it is that classic element of "it could have been me/my son/my brother" etc. I used to get PT as a 13 year old alone all the time.

And the twin, the horror that kid must go through.

Same way Jill Meagher's hubby will never get over the fact that he fell asleep on the couch and missed her texts.

 

[rocker_oz33]

The family can finally put Daniel to rest that might give them some relief.And somewhere to go at the cemetery to place flowers and speak to him.The poor family have been though so much.

 

[grizzlym]

The family can finally put Daniel to rest that might give them some relief.And somewhere to go at the cemetery to place flowers and speak to him.The poor family have been though so much.

They've been through so much, and yet they've done so much good too. I'm amazed at what they've achieved.

 

[Ed_Gein]

First i've heard of this story. Really sad, the thing that gets me is that it is like it was almost meant to happen (even though no person should have to go through anything like this). The bus he is meant to catch breaks down before he reaches the stop Daniel is waiting at and the replacement bus drives past him. On top of that his twin brother decides to stay home. Just a bad set of circumstances is enough to give a loser in the "right place at the right time" the opportunity to take advantage of the situation. Really terrible.