Some People Should Be Sterilized
- Thread starter AppleBiter
- Start date
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Neglect versus Abuse
Another report of the French Child Abuse case:
The Times:
July 28, 2005
An ordinary town with an evil secret - 65 paedophile parents
By Adam Sage
Ringleaders are jailed after court is told of hellish catalogue of abuse
RINGLEADERS of the biggest paedophile network exposed in France were jailed for up to 28 years yesterday for raping and prostituting children in a spiral of depravity in a Loire town.
The jury at Angers Criminal Court returned its verdict after 93 days of hearings, many filled with stories of appalling cruelty, and nine days of deliberations on the 65 men and women in the dock.
At least 45 children, including babies six months old, were assaulted by their parents, or prostituted for money, alcohol, cigarettes and even a car tyre, the court was told.
Ivan Auriel, the state prosecutor in Angers, said: “The paedophile network functioned like a clan, closed to the outside world, keeping up appearances while terrible crimes were being committed in the secret of the flats.” He said the 430-page charge sheet read like “a book that Dante would not have rejected . . . with three circles of Hell”.
Yesterday there was widespread condemnation of the moral vacuum in which the paedophile ring had operated, and the absence of remorse from many of the defendants.
Despite repeated warning signals, including previous convictions, evidence of new assaults and breached parole conditions, paedophiles were allowed to form a network that spread across Angers.
However, there appeared to be no plans for a formal review of procedures in France despite criticism of the failure of social workers and others to detect the widespread abuse.
The longest sentences of 28 years in prison were given to two men with previous convictions for sex offences.
They were Eric J, 39, dubbed the ogre by state prosecutors, who assaulted 27 children, including his own, and prostituted 35, and Philippe V, 59, who raped his granddaughter. In accordance with the French legal system, the full names were withheld.
Philippe V’s son, Franck, 35, who was likened by the prosecution to the evil Thénardiers in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables, was given an 18-year sentence for assaulting 14 children and prostituting 31.
He was among the men who raped his daughter on at least 45 occasions between 1999 and 2002, the court was told.
Franck V’s wife, Patricia, 32, was sentenced to 16 years in jail. The Angers court was told that she had been the paedophile ring’s book-keeper, charging “customers” to have sex with children — her own and others’.
Patricia, one of 26 women in the dock, sat on the sofa in her council flat while the children screamed in pain and terror in the bedroom.
The child victims, many of whom are described by psychiatrists as profoundly traumatised, were not asked to give evidence. Instead, video recordings of their questioning by police officers and judges were played to the jury.
They described how they had “played doctors and nurses” with men and women, most of whom had been abused by adults in their own childhood.
The sense of shock during the trial was all the greater for the setting.
Angers is a quintessential French provincial town — a peaceful, attractive place that is also the gateway to the Loire Valley with its châteaux and vineyards.
François Caviglioli, a commentator with Le Nouvel Observateur magazine, said that if so many paedophiles had been uncovered among the 156,000 inhabitants of Angers, “how many are there in the whole of France, hidden behind their boxes of geraniums and their rose beds?”.
Police officers blame underfunding and a lack of staff for their failings. Judges and probation staff make a similar case. As for the social workers, they say that they were trained to help people, not to pry into private lives, which was why they failed to spot the abuse.
Last night Pascal Clément, the Justice Minister, announced that incest would be made a criminal offence. This would undermine the defence of parents who carry out child abuse and then claim that their children had consented, he said.
Children under 15 would automatically be nonconsenting and paedophile parents would be prosecuted for rape and incest.
END
The birth of a child disatrously affected by a parent's alcohol abuse is a burden for that child. Whether the parent or parents were guilty of criminal abuse is a matter of judgement in the circumstances of the case. If the mother was genuinely unaware that she was pregnant - had she committed any crime?
Children knowingly born to drug-abusing parents is a different matter.
Children conceived by unprotected sex with a partner known to have AIDS is a crime.
But the French case was deliberate and prolonged abuse for financial or other reward. Are there any excuses for that?
There has to be a distinction made between the feckless and the deliberately cruel.
Og
Another report of the French Child Abuse case:
The Times:
July 28, 2005
An ordinary town with an evil secret - 65 paedophile parents
By Adam Sage
Ringleaders are jailed after court is told of hellish catalogue of abuse
RINGLEADERS of the biggest paedophile network exposed in France were jailed for up to 28 years yesterday for raping and prostituting children in a spiral of depravity in a Loire town.
The jury at Angers Criminal Court returned its verdict after 93 days of hearings, many filled with stories of appalling cruelty, and nine days of deliberations on the 65 men and women in the dock.
At least 45 children, including babies six months old, were assaulted by their parents, or prostituted for money, alcohol, cigarettes and even a car tyre, the court was told.
Ivan Auriel, the state prosecutor in Angers, said: “The paedophile network functioned like a clan, closed to the outside world, keeping up appearances while terrible crimes were being committed in the secret of the flats.” He said the 430-page charge sheet read like “a book that Dante would not have rejected . . . with three circles of Hell”.
Yesterday there was widespread condemnation of the moral vacuum in which the paedophile ring had operated, and the absence of remorse from many of the defendants.
Despite repeated warning signals, including previous convictions, evidence of new assaults and breached parole conditions, paedophiles were allowed to form a network that spread across Angers.
However, there appeared to be no plans for a formal review of procedures in France despite criticism of the failure of social workers and others to detect the widespread abuse.
The longest sentences of 28 years in prison were given to two men with previous convictions for sex offences.
They were Eric J, 39, dubbed the ogre by state prosecutors, who assaulted 27 children, including his own, and prostituted 35, and Philippe V, 59, who raped his granddaughter. In accordance with the French legal system, the full names were withheld.
Philippe V’s son, Franck, 35, who was likened by the prosecution to the evil Thénardiers in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables, was given an 18-year sentence for assaulting 14 children and prostituting 31.
He was among the men who raped his daughter on at least 45 occasions between 1999 and 2002, the court was told.
Franck V’s wife, Patricia, 32, was sentenced to 16 years in jail. The Angers court was told that she had been the paedophile ring’s book-keeper, charging “customers” to have sex with children — her own and others’.
Patricia, one of 26 women in the dock, sat on the sofa in her council flat while the children screamed in pain and terror in the bedroom.
The child victims, many of whom are described by psychiatrists as profoundly traumatised, were not asked to give evidence. Instead, video recordings of their questioning by police officers and judges were played to the jury.
They described how they had “played doctors and nurses” with men and women, most of whom had been abused by adults in their own childhood.
The sense of shock during the trial was all the greater for the setting.
Angers is a quintessential French provincial town — a peaceful, attractive place that is also the gateway to the Loire Valley with its châteaux and vineyards.
François Caviglioli, a commentator with Le Nouvel Observateur magazine, said that if so many paedophiles had been uncovered among the 156,000 inhabitants of Angers, “how many are there in the whole of France, hidden behind their boxes of geraniums and their rose beds?”.
Police officers blame underfunding and a lack of staff for their failings. Judges and probation staff make a similar case. As for the social workers, they say that they were trained to help people, not to pry into private lives, which was why they failed to spot the abuse.
Last night Pascal Clément, the Justice Minister, announced that incest would be made a criminal offence. This would undermine the defence of parents who carry out child abuse and then claim that their children had consented, he said.
Children under 15 would automatically be nonconsenting and paedophile parents would be prosecuted for rape and incest.
END
The birth of a child disatrously affected by a parent's alcohol abuse is a burden for that child. Whether the parent or parents were guilty of criminal abuse is a matter of judgement in the circumstances of the case. If the mother was genuinely unaware that she was pregnant - had she committed any crime?
Children knowingly born to drug-abusing parents is a different matter.
Children conceived by unprotected sex with a partner known to have AIDS is a crime.
But the French case was deliberate and prolonged abuse for financial or other reward. Are there any excuses for that?
There has to be a distinction made between the feckless and the deliberately cruel.
Og
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Colleen Thomas said in part:"...There is no temporal authority that has the moral rectitude to make that call. In the absence of such authority, we basically thrust this wretched woman upon a criminal justice system that is ill equipped to handle her.
The law has certain limitations. Morality does too and ethics and personal responsibility. The vast majority of situations fall within in the sphere of one or in over lapping spheres, but we will, as a people, always be faced with what to do when a case falls into the small space that none of them rightly cover.
So it is in that gray area and is all the more tragic because of that..."
Many here on Lit and elsewhere, everywhere in fact, express the opinion that ethics and morality are subjective areas of human endeavor.
The conclusion that human behavior is simply a matter of choice, that there are few hard and fast 'right and wrongs' and that an opinion has weight just because it is an opinion, equal to all others, is a dangerous and slippery slide into that 'vast' gray area Colly points out.
There was a time in our 'modern' society where it was common and acceptable medical practice to 'lobotomize' people suffering from mental disorder. It was and is in some cases, permissable to use massive electrical shock as a treatment procedure.
Many aspects of society function beneath the view of the public. Morticians, for one, our facilities for dealing with the mentally impaired.
I would like to think, as a society, we have improved our understanding and knowledge in terms of treating the vast number of maladies that afflict humans, endemic, or brought about by individual choices.
The very first and essential step to acquiring knowledge about those aspects of human life, discussed on this thread, that are abhorrent to most, is to realize and know, that they can be rationally perceived and dealt with.
There is no such thing as a 'gray area' in human ethics or morality. There is however a vast gray area of understanding human actions by those who reject reason and logic.
This is not a criticism of Colleen, nor of anyone one in particular.
I sense a frustration and a deep pain in many posts expressing human inability to deal with some aspects of existence on a 'temporal' level, without divine guidance, as I think was implied.
We do not have all the answers, but I offer that the 'knowledge' that we can and will find the answers and solve the problems, is essential to our own mental health for those who take the time to consider the issues.
Whereas, if you accept the premise that there are no absolute answers, that everything remains subjective and merely at matter of differing opinions; the result is devastating to the very fragile human mind.
Just yesterday, in a local market as I was shopping, a very large and unattractive woman was physically abusing her three year old daughter, jerking her along to keep up, slapping her face as she cried.
I went into a rage as I cannot stand the sight of an adult abusing a child, in any manner. I raised my fist to knock her on her fat ass, enough to bring fear into her eyes before I regained control, dropped my shopping basket and left the market.
There are degrees of human action that are self evidently good, as well as bad. The ultimate answer in all cases, is individual responsibility and individual action to the extent that it is possible. After that, we call in the Gendarmes.
Are there gray areas, Colly? Sure there are and I have as many as any one else. The difference is that I personally think there will eventually be rational, ethical answers forthcoming.
Rather a ramble, I need another strong coffee.
amicus...
The law has certain limitations. Morality does too and ethics and personal responsibility. The vast majority of situations fall within in the sphere of one or in over lapping spheres, but we will, as a people, always be faced with what to do when a case falls into the small space that none of them rightly cover.
So it is in that gray area and is all the more tragic because of that..."
Many here on Lit and elsewhere, everywhere in fact, express the opinion that ethics and morality are subjective areas of human endeavor.
The conclusion that human behavior is simply a matter of choice, that there are few hard and fast 'right and wrongs' and that an opinion has weight just because it is an opinion, equal to all others, is a dangerous and slippery slide into that 'vast' gray area Colly points out.
There was a time in our 'modern' society where it was common and acceptable medical practice to 'lobotomize' people suffering from mental disorder. It was and is in some cases, permissable to use massive electrical shock as a treatment procedure.
Many aspects of society function beneath the view of the public. Morticians, for one, our facilities for dealing with the mentally impaired.
I would like to think, as a society, we have improved our understanding and knowledge in terms of treating the vast number of maladies that afflict humans, endemic, or brought about by individual choices.
The very first and essential step to acquiring knowledge about those aspects of human life, discussed on this thread, that are abhorrent to most, is to realize and know, that they can be rationally perceived and dealt with.
There is no such thing as a 'gray area' in human ethics or morality. There is however a vast gray area of understanding human actions by those who reject reason and logic.
This is not a criticism of Colleen, nor of anyone one in particular.
I sense a frustration and a deep pain in many posts expressing human inability to deal with some aspects of existence on a 'temporal' level, without divine guidance, as I think was implied.
We do not have all the answers, but I offer that the 'knowledge' that we can and will find the answers and solve the problems, is essential to our own mental health for those who take the time to consider the issues.
Whereas, if you accept the premise that there are no absolute answers, that everything remains subjective and merely at matter of differing opinions; the result is devastating to the very fragile human mind.
Just yesterday, in a local market as I was shopping, a very large and unattractive woman was physically abusing her three year old daughter, jerking her along to keep up, slapping her face as she cried.
I went into a rage as I cannot stand the sight of an adult abusing a child, in any manner. I raised my fist to knock her on her fat ass, enough to bring fear into her eyes before I regained control, dropped my shopping basket and left the market.
There are degrees of human action that are self evidently good, as well as bad. The ultimate answer in all cases, is individual responsibility and individual action to the extent that it is possible. After that, we call in the Gendarmes.
Are there gray areas, Colly? Sure there are and I have as many as any one else. The difference is that I personally think there will eventually be rational, ethical answers forthcoming.
Rather a ramble, I need another strong coffee.
amicus...
The_Darkness
Ascending Demon
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2003
- Posts
- 6,787
They all sound like prime candidates for the Apollo Clensing Act.
I got flammed hardcore for talking about that before, even as a joke, so I will not speak of it in here except to say that it would solve problems like this. Period.
I got flammed hardcore for talking about that before, even as a joke, so I will not speak of it in here except to say that it would solve problems like this. Period.
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,773
The_Darkness said:
I've heard that one many times before. It's been tried frequently. And never with success.
Of course, I have a personal reason to be against such a thing. As an 'abnormal' I would be one of the people in line to get my balls removed.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
amicus said:
I tend to think of this as several points, around which are drawn circles to indicate their spheres of influence. theoretically, the point representing law, the one represening ethics and the one representing morality, have a grat degree of overlap. Personal responsibility as well. The largest area of each is overlapped by the others, with smaller areas only overlapped by say one of the others, but there remains a place on the edge of all that is white, covered by none.
This case is one that I think falls outside the lines. She was of age, so the law can say nothing about her drinking. Looking at the woman, I think we could agree whatever standard of ethics or morality she believes in, is significantly skewed from the ones most of us work with. This is reinforced by her boyfriend getting sloshed with her. A code of ethics isn't universl. Neither is a code of morality. And apparently neither her, nor he, found their actions immoral or unethical. It dfalls then to personal responsibility, but how much faith in the responsibility of a person geting drunk day in and day out do you have?
The Law couldn't act until the child was born, at which point it became endangerment. Other's in her community were aware of her actions, or we wouldn't have quotes. Yet none of them found the action represhensible enough to bring the weight of community morals or ethic to bear. An addict, while personally responsible for all they do is a slave to their addiction.
In your supermarket example, your ethical code, and the law are not in overlap. Had you punched her, you could have been arested. You didn't however, because your personal responsibility was in overlap with the contemplated action. Since I wasn't there i can't speak to the morality invovled, although it's apparenty your morality and hers wren't in overlap.
That's why I feel this case is so tragic. Apparently, her actions did not fall within the sphere of the law, her community's code of ethicals or morality or her own code of personal responsibility.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Castigate the woman? What good will that do?Colleen Thomas said:
The kid is born, the kid will live with the effects of FAS. Castigating the woman won't change a thing for the kid.
I would sterilise the woman, however. How many more debilitated kids is she allowed to produce? Remember, each and every one of them must live out a full lifespan under execrable circumstances, while we stand by helplessly. We cannot cure the children already born and we will not be able to cure the children yet to be born by this woman- who may well produce at least one more before her liver oozes away.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Stella_Omega said:
If you would not consider sterilization castigation what would you?
The_Darkness
Ascending Demon
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2003
- Posts
- 6,787
rgraham666 said:
There's an awesome novel we read in my Bio-ethics class about this sort of thing. Mendel's Dwarf by Simon Mauer. Check it out...only a couple hundred pages or so. It's a pretty fast read, too.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
I dunno.. I always thought of castigation as- you know, shaking a finger and yelling...Colleen Thomas said:
Telling her what a bad, bad person she is.
Seems simpler to let her live her life in the way she's chosen, minus the unfortunate side effects- namely those pesky labor pains.
I don't mind her chosen lifestyle, as long as she doesn't harm anyone else, and she has harmed several people.
SeaCat
Hey, my Halo is smoking
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Posts
- 15,378
Stella_Omega said:
Isn't the real question here how to stop her from harming others? We know that we can't stop her from harming herself, she has chosen to do this to herself and will continue doing so until SHE decides she needs help.
How to stop her? We can sterilize her, but that is a rather dramatic and extreme measure isn't it? Also it is loaded with the question of "if we can do this to her for drinking then who can't we do it to?" We can lock her up, but as the penal system knows if she wants something bad enough she can get it even in jail. Hell we could lobotomise her or give her ElectroShock Therapy, but again that question raises it's ugly head. So how do we cure this? For this I have no answer and I don't think society does either.
Cat
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Stella_Omega said:
to castigate is to inflict severe punishment.
Although it cn also denote an extremely stern talking to.
i was working on the primary definition.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Isn't the birth of a disabled and unwanted child a pretty dramatic and extreme circumstance? And wont it remain dramatic and extreme for whowever long that child lives? Every day of it's life, it will deal with the effects of its mother's actions. That's a form of child abuse that is damn near biblical.SeaCat said:
We wouldn't be sterilising her because she drinks. We would be sterilising her because she drinks- excessively- while pregnant. And each one of these babies she makes may be a burden on society, to re-coin a very old-fashioned praise.
And, I don't see it as a punishment at all. We are not locking her up, not gining her any spanking of any sort. It's a safe and humane operation, including painkillers, antibiotics a clean bed and jello for desert. Many women have to pay quite a lot of money for this operation, or have health insurance for it. This woman would get it at government expense.
It's not like we are depriving her of the right to make babies- she's already done that, several times.
Similar threads
