When does hatred start for an abuser and pity end for the abused?

[BravestHibs]

I've touched on this before in other threads relating to Paedophilia and general abuse but this article sums it up better than I ever could.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-we-feel-sorry-for-abused-children-but-what-about-damaged-adults-1702067.html

So at what point do we stop feeling pity for someone who is abused? Is it adulthood? When they stop being cute? It also raises questions of why do we feel pity for someone who is abused in the first place if we are then only going to start hating them and calling for their heads when this abuse, that they suffered as a child manifests itself in the form of anger, violence or any other type of abuse in adulthood.

[--------]

I've touched on this before in other threads relating to Paedophilia and general abuse but this article sums it up better than I ever could.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-we-feel-sorry-for-abused-children-but-what-about-damaged-adults-1702067.html

So at what point do we stop feeling pity for someone who is abused? Is it adulthood? When they stop being cute? It also raises questions of why do we feel pity for someone who is abused in the first place if we are then only going to start hating them and calling for their heads when this abuse, that they suffered as a child manifests itself in the form of anger, violence or any other type of abuse in adulthood.



I don't know.

I have in my bookshelves Gitta Sereny's book "Cries Unheard", her account of the Mary Bell case. Back in the 1960's Mary and another girl were tried for the manslughter of 2 small boys in Newcastle.

Mary was convicted, the other girl was acquitted. Sereny is very clear that the reasons Mary was found guilty was because in court she was alone, with no parent present, and that she appeared to be cold and uncaring, while the other (older) girl had her parents with her and cried and showed (apparent) remorse.

I remember the time (I was 18) and I can assure you that there was very little pity extended to 11-year-old Mary Bell. She was demonised in the press and many folks thought (and said) that hanging should be brought back just for her.

It was only years later, after she had spent those years first in a special unit where the staff did a great deal to help her see why she did what she did, and change, and then in a maximum security women's prison from the age of 16, that she began to talk openly about her childhood. A childhood of horrendous neglect, abuse, and sexual exploitation.

Maybe she was lucky - the system actually stepped in and did something positive for her when there was still the possibility of her turning herself around, of change.

maybe what we have nowadays is no different from what we had in the slums of Victorian London 150 years ago - children being used and abused as prostitutes, battered when they complained, farmed out to predatory and uncaring carers by well-meaning but incompetent welfare agencies, and a comfortable, 'respectable' upper layer of society that doesn't care and even practices the same abuse, except in bigger houses and a cleaner and more comfortable environment.

The lucky kids find caring foster parents, conscientious social workers and probation officers who maybe haven't been overloaded with casework to the point of impotence, and they manage to work their way back to something resembling sanity. The unlucky ones grow up, stop being cute, and 'progress' from victimhood to inflicting their demons on a fresh generation of victims-soon-to-be-perpetrators.

The thing is that Mary Bell seems to have a life now, a life that allows her to build something positive for the people closest to her.

Most abused kids don't seem to get that chance.

[BravestHibs]

The thing that makes me confused is the total conviction coupled with an almost complete absence of any considered thought to the subject the 'bring back hanging' brigade seem to uniformly adhere to.

It's almost as if they think that if they aren't seen to condemn wholeheartedly an attack of any dscription then they will be lumped into the same group as the attacker. They seem to only want to distance themselves from an abhorrent act rather than look at it objectively to try and find a solution.

When Martin Narey gave his speech he highlighted something very important in an objective and considered way, it seemed to be his disassociation from the emotion that seperates us from the animals; empathy, that highlighted the fact that the only thing that truly does seperate us from the animals is our ability to take a step back from our emotions in order to find a solution which is best not just for what is unfolding in front of our eyes at that particular moment but also to prevent the same thing repeating itself.

This is why victims of crime don't decide what the punishment of a crime should be as that overriding knee jerk reaction will always be need to recreate the pain and suffering visited upon the victim, when in actuality the average perpetrator of truly awful crimes such as Dano Sonnex have already had enough pain and suffering inflicted on them for several lifetimes.

[IndieHibby]

I read the article and the responses, which were especially interesting. (Narey even came on to explain the story further - how good is the internet, eh? We still have no idea of how it will change society)

The spectrum of opinion seems to fall between two extremes (as is often the case with moral dilemmas):
1. As victims are damaged by their abuse, they shouldn't then be punished (as opposed to merely rehabilitated) if they go on to abuse, as they cannot be held accountable for the abuse they suffered.
2. Everyone, without exception, is responsible for their actions and the punishment should fit the crime.

I suppose that I feel there has to be a balance between these two extremes, in order to represent two reasonably legitimate views.

But I can't get away from the notion that "two wrongs do not make a right", which negates opinion 1.

The fact that some people suffered similar abuse and went on to live decent lives proves that abuse is not fait-accompli for further abuse and therefore cannot be used as a justification for continuing abuse. This is admitting that 'two wrongs do make a right'. Which we know they don't.

I'm far happier with having people held accountable for their actions, based on the premise that when you have a choice (99.9% of the time) then you should be held responsible for that choice.

Sonnex had numerous choices:
to burgle or not? He is poor, so maybe you can see why he chose to burgle. Fair enough.
to leave the occupants alone and steal their stuff: he made the wrong choice
to kill them or not: he made the wrong choice
to set fire to the flat, endangering other lives, to save his own skin or walk away: he made the wrong choice.

You could argue until the cows come home about how his own decision making process is faulty and he can't be to blame.

To me, if he is capable of deciding that burglary is going to benefit him, yet had no means of empathy with his victim, he would probably have done it in broad daylight while telling all his mates what he was doing.

Instead, he know what he was doing was wrong, knew that there were victims, had many opportunities to make the correct choice and chose otherwise.

Sonnex's victims are the ones who had no choice. I bet that if they had a voice, they'd say that if society isn't prepared to kill them, then at the very least lock them up for life (until they die) and spend money on those that deserve it.

I would find it hard to disagree with them. Especially knowing the kind of torture they were put through.

[IndieHibby]

The thing that makes me confused is the total conviction coupled with an almost complete absence of any considered thought to the subject the 'bring back hanging' brigade seem to uniformly adhere to.

It's almost as if they think that if they aren't seen to condemn wholeheartedly an attack of any dscription then they will be lumped into the same group as the attacker. They seem to only want to distance themselves from an abhorrent act rather than look at it objectively to try and find a solution.

Many people see the world in black and white/ right or wrong. If the aren't the type of people to analyse things in detail, that is who they are. They leave the rule making up to others, usually.

[/QUOTE]
When Martin Narey gave his speech he highlighted something very important in an objective and considered way, it seemed to be his disassociation from the emotion that seperates us from the animals; empathy, that highlighted the fact that the only thing that truly does seperate us from the animals is our ability to take a step back from our emotions in order to find a solution which is best not just for what is unfolding in front of our eyes at that particular moment but also to prevent the same thing repeating itself. [/QUOTE]

This is why victims of crime don't decide what the punishment of a crime should be as that overriding knee jerk reaction will always be need to recreate the pain and suffering visited upon the victim, when in actuality the average perpetrator of truly awful crimes such as Dano Sonnex have already had enough pain and suffering inflicted on them for several lifetimes.[/QUOTE]:confused:

What about the victim? Does the pain inflicted BY Sonnex not have a right to justice? Or does the pain Sonnex suffered justify the pain his victims endured?

[BravestHibs]

What about the victim? Does the pain inflicted BY Sonnex not have a right to justice? Or does the pain Sonnex suffered justify the pain his victims endured?[/QUOTE]

No, of course not, that's not the point I'm trying to make. The reference is to the cycle which causes people like Sonnex to feel the need, perhaps even justification in causing pain to someone he could quite faesably see as having it all handed to them on a plate their whole lives. I know you can only play the hand you are dealt but for someone who has had nothing but abuse and aggro their whole lives this probably wouldn't strike you as fair if you were Sonnex. I could see myself turning into a sort of reverse Robin Hood if you get my meaning. Taking all the bad experiences from the poor and dishing them out to the rich. (perhaps a little tenuous but I'll run with it)

Of course this is all hypothetical and neither me nor anyone else could ever know how you would react in someone elses shoes but at the end of the day anything can happen to anyone in the course of a lifetime.

[Sir David Gray]

Not everyone who has had a traumatic childhood grows up to be a murderer, a rapist or a paedophile.

A lot of people who have been on the receiving end of abuse as a child, or who have grown up in real poverty, are determined that they won't be victims forever and they will move on with their lives and they subsequently become thoroughly decent human beings.

Of course it helps if you are brought up in a loving and stable home environment but if you haven't been fortunate enough to have been brought up in such a way, I don't think it excuses violent behaviour in later life.

I think using your poor upbringing as an excuse as to why you are getting into trouble is extremely insulting to the many decent, law abiding people who have also had a rough time as a child, but choose to do something positive with their life and do not go on to lead a life of crime in adulthood because they know that it is wrong.

Instead they use their abusive father, their alcoholic uncle or their impoverished parents and turn it into a positive by saying to themselves that they are absolutely determined to be better than that.

Every single person is responsible for the actions that they take in life. I don't deny that what happens to you as a child does have some effect on the person that you become later on in life, but I also do not believe that having a really bad childhood is any excuse for serious criminal behaviour.

[Betty Boop]

I don't know.

I have in my bookshelves Gitta Sereny's book "Cries Unheard", her account of the Mary Bell case. Back in the 1960's Mary and another girl were tried for the manslughter of 2 small boys in Newcastle.

Mary was convicted, the other girl was acquitted. Sereny is very clear that the reasons Mary was found guilty was because in court she was alone, with no parent present, and that she appeared to be cold and uncaring, while the other (older) girl had her parents with her and cried and showed (apparent) remorse.

I remember the time (I was 18) and I can assure you that there was very little pity extended to 11-year-old Mary Bell. She was demonised in the press and many folks thought (and said) that hanging should be brought back just for her.

It was only years later, after she had spent those years first in a special unit where the staff did a great deal to help her see why she did what she did, and change, and then in a maximum security women's prison from the age of 16, that she began to talk openly about her childhood. A childhood of horrendous neglect, abuse, and sexual exploitation.

Maybe she was lucky - the system actually stepped in and did something positive for her when there was still the possibility of her turning herself around, of change.

maybe what we have nowadays is no different from what we had in the slums of Victorian London 150 years ago - children being used and abused as prostitutes, battered when they complained, farmed out to predatory and uncaring carers by well-meaning but incompetent welfare agencies, and a comfortable, 'respectable' upper layer of society that doesn't care and even practices the same abuse, except in bigger houses and a cleaner and more comfortable environment.

The lucky kids find caring foster parents, conscientious social workers and probation officers who maybe haven't been overloaded with casework to the point of impotence, and they manage to work their way back to something resembling sanity. The unlucky ones grow up, stop being cute, and 'progress' from victimhood to inflicting their demons on a fresh generation of victims-soon-to-be-perpetrators.

The thing is that Mary Bell seems to have a life now, a life that allows her to build something positive for the people closest to her.

Most abused kids don't seem to get that chance. :top marks

[BravestHibs]

Not everyone who has had a traumatic childhood grows up to be a murderer, a rapist or a paedophile.

A lot of people who have been on the receiving end of abuse as a child, or who have grown up in real poverty, are determined that they won't be victims forever and they will move on with their lives and they subsequently become thoroughly decent human beings.

Of course it helps if you are brought up in a loving and stable home environment but if you haven't been fortunate enough to have been brought up in such a way, I don't think it excuses violent behaviour in later life.

I think using your poor upbringing as an excuse as to why you are getting into trouble is extremely insulting to the many decent, law abiding people who have also had a rough time as a child, but choose to do something positive with their life and do not go on to lead a life of crime in adulthood because they know that it is wrong.

Instead they use their abusive father, their alcoholic uncle or their impoverished parents and turn it into a positive by saying to themselves that they are absolutely determined to be better than that.

Every single person is responsible for the actions that they take in life. I don't deny that what happens to you as a child does have some effect on the person that you become later on in life, but I also do not believe that having a really bad childhood is any excuse for serious criminal behaviour.

That's all true of course. If you look at all the people who do commit horrendous crimes such as these however I think you'd be hard pushed to find a single one who didn't have some deeply traumatic event in their past or has some kind of mental illness. But as you say not everyone who's had a traumatic event goes on to commit horrendous crimes.

I'm not trying to justify behaviours in any way but it would be foolish in my view not to accept that an abusive childhood doesn't increase the chances of that victim to then go on and commit attrocities of their own.

That's what I meant when I asked the question, when does ones pity turn to hatred and for what reason does it do so?

[IndieHibby]

What about the victim? Does the pain inflicted BY Sonnex not have a right to justice? Or does the pain Sonnex suffered justify the pain his victims endured?

No, of course not, that's not the point I'm trying to make. The reference is to the cycle which causes people like Sonnex to feel the need, perhaps even justification in causing pain to someone he could quite faesably see as having it all handed to them on a plate their whole lives. I know you can only play the hand you are dealt but for someone who has had nothing but abuse and aggro their whole lives this probably wouldn't strike you as fair if you were Sonnex. I could see myself turning into a sort of reverse Robin Hood if you get my meaning. Taking all the bad experiences from the poor and dishing them out to the rich. (perhaps a little tenuous but I'll run with it)

Of course this is all hypothetical and neither me nor anyone else could ever know how you would react in someone elses shoes but at the end of the day anything can happen to anyone in the course of a lifetime.[/QUOTE]

I can't see what justification there can be for what Sonnex did. None at all. If he did it to those who abused him - then yes. But he didn't. It bothers me that you think there can be any justification. Sorry, but it does.

[IndieHibby]

That's what I meant when I asked the question, when does ones pity turn to hatred and for what reason does it do so?

Fair do'es - I actually thought this was an interesting question. I hope you will forgive me for offering my unsolicited opinion :dizzy:

If you look at someone like Sonnex (the abused) then you feel pity. He has been wronged, so that is expected.

If you look at someone like Sonnex (the abuser) then you feel disgust over the crime and empathy for the victim.

I think that both responses are acceptable and normal and do not suggest a paradox. I don't think I should change how I felt about Sonnex the abused becuase he has become Sonnex the abuser.

The time when I change how I feel about him is the time when he commits a horrendous crime. The reason that happens is because I object to those acts. They are against humanity and therefore it is contradictory of him to do this to a human. If he felt so bad about his abuse, why would he want to do it to someone else? If he thought this was OK, then he wouldn't feel bad about it and there would be no problem?

He can't have his cake and eat it, and people shouldn't suggest he can.

[IndieHibby]

The idea that what he did is justified....

[BravestHibs]

The idea that what he did is justified....

Right, I tried to delete my previous post but since you've seen and replied to it I'll have to respond.

If you want to think that I'm trying to justify his actions then you're either choosing to interpret what I'm writing in this way or you've misread what I have writen because nowhere do I justify anything.

All I'm doing is trying not to let this thread become entirely one sided and become a platform for everyone to illustrate how righteous and disgusted they are at the crime itself because we've had that thread a million times and it's a crushing bore.

Also, if you are trying to cast aspersions on my moral character then I suggest you get to know me a bit beforehand because otherwise you'll get the sharp end of my tongue. I hope we now understand each other.

[--------]

Not everyone who has had a traumatic childhood grows up to be a murderer, a rapist or a paedophile.

A lot of people who have been on the receiving end of abuse as a child, or who have grown up in real poverty, are determined that they won't be victims forever and they will move on with their lives and they subsequently become thoroughly decent human beings.

Of course it helps if you are brought up in a loving and stable home environment but if you haven't been fortunate enough to have been brought up in such a way, I don't think it excuses violent behaviour in later life.

I think using your poor upbringing as an excuse as to why you are getting into trouble is extremely insulting to the many decent, law abiding people who have also had a rough time as a child, but choose to do something positive with their life and do not go on to lead a life of crime in adulthood because they know that it is wrong.

Instead they use their abusive father, their alcoholic uncle or their impoverished parents and turn it into a positive by saying to themselves that they are absolutely determined to be better than that.

Every single person is responsible for the actions that they take in life. I don't deny that what happens to you as a child does have some effect on the person that you become later on in life, but I also do not believe that having a really bad childhood is any excuse for serious criminal behaviour.


How many abused children grow up in a loving and stable home environment? In the vast majority of cases, the abuse takes place in the hime and at the hands of a family member.

And I'm not sure about the concept of being a "decent, law-abiding person", or how far we're ever really sufficiently in control of things to make the sort of choices you're talking about. A child suffering sexual abuse at the hands of an adult isn't really within the boundaries of what I would call "having a rough time", either. It's infinitely worse.

Maybe you should re-think what a child suffers being regularly sodomised by an uncle, or screamed at and battered by an alcoholic mother? Or even ignored and marginalised by neglectful and uncaring parents?

I agree we're all ultimately responsible for the choices we make, and the abuse of a child isn't excusable in any sense. But as I understand the "Independent" article, Deborah Orr is saying that unless we begin to take steps to rescue children from abusive family situations effectively, all we're doing is storing up trouble for the next generation.

Sometimes the darkest impulses of our natures are the very impulses we find it hardest to withstand.... In this context I find that Paul's Letter to the Romans chapter 7 and verses 14 to 25 to articulate an experience I can identify with totally.

[(((Fergus)))]

I've touched on this before in other threads relating to Paedophilia and general abuse but this article sums it up better than I ever could.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/deborah-orr-we-feel-sorry-for-abused-children-but-what-about-damaged-adults-1702067.html

So at what point do we stop feeling pity for someone who is abused? Is it adulthood? When they stop being cute? It also raises questions of why do we feel pity for someone who is abused in the first place if we are then only going to start hating them and calling for their heads when this abuse, that they suffered as a child manifests itself in the form of anger, violence or any other type of abuse in adulthood.


There is no point in feeling either hatred for an abuser not pity for the abused. They are both sick people and above all else require true understanding and resolution of their respective torments.

[Dashing Bob S]

That's all true of course. If you look at all the people who do commit horrendous crimes such as these however I think you'd be hard pushed to find a single one who didn't have some deeply traumatic event in their past or has some kind of mental illness. But as you say not everyone who's had a traumatic event goes on to commit horrendous crimes.

I'm not trying to justify behaviours in any way but it would be foolish in my view not to accept that an abusive childhood doesn't increase the chances of that victim to then go on and commit attrocities of their own.

That's what I meant when I asked the question, when does ones pity turn to hatred and for what reason does it do so?

There's basically one answer, which has already been discussed in the Orr article: the age of the person concerned. We see 'bad' children as victims, of circumstance or bad socialisation etc etc but when they become adults, we forget this as they are supposed to be capable of acting in a mature, moral and sensible way. It's nonsense, of course. Someone who is clearly messed up at 8, 10 or 12 won't become a fully-functional, empathetic human being at 14, 16, 18, 20, 30, 40, or 50.

Our own psychology demands a cut-off point however, and the onset of adulthood generally, as with all other social yardsticks, sex, marriage, drinking, voting, provides this, deeply flawed to the point of ludicrousy though it is.

The big problem is that people crave (and perhaps understandably so) simplistic answers and solutions to an amazingly complex issue.

[Sir David Gray]

That's all true of course. If you look at all the people who do commit horrendous crimes such as these however I think you'd be hard pushed to find a single one who didn't have some deeply traumatic event in their past or has some kind of mental illness. But as you say not everyone who's had a traumatic event goes on to commit horrendous crimes.

I'm not trying to justify behaviours in any way but it would be foolish in my view not to accept that an abusive childhood doesn't increase the chances of that victim to then go on and commit attrocities of their own.

That's what I meant when I asked the question, when does ones pity turn to hatred and for what reason does it do so?

That article that you have linked to, mentions "Baby P" and Daniel Sonnex, as examples of two people that have suffered at the hands of abusive adults. However, there is one fundamental difference between the pair which explains why we sympathise with "Baby P" and demonise Sonnex.

"Baby P" died, when he was just 17 months old, as a result of the horrendous abuse that he suffered. Daniel Sonnex, on the other hand, did not die and became a very violent and dangerous young man which culminated in him committing a wicked and satanic crime.

I have genuine and extreme sympathies with any child who is abused by the people who are supposed to love them and take care of them, including Sonnex, but that is absolutely no excuse for tying people up, stabbing them a total of 240 times, pouring petrol over their bodies and then setting fire to their apartment.

"Baby P", had he survived his torture, may have become another Daniel Sonnex or he could have become a really good young man. Unfortunately he wasn't given the chance to show what kind of person he would become. Because he died so young, as a defenceless little boy, people feel sympathy towards him. Daniel Sonnex, as I've already said, went on to become a violent thug and eventually went on to commit an horrific double murder.

Had Sonnex died as a result of his childhood abuse, we would all be grieving over him in the same way that people are grieving for "Baby P" and if he had chosen to become a decent human being, and spoken about his abuse as a way of encouraging others to speak out about abuse, people would have had sympathy and respect for him.

As I said in my previous post, we all have a choice in terms of what path we follow in life and unfortunately Daniel Sonnex chose the wrong path. We will never know what path "Baby P" would have followed.


How many abused children grow up in a loving and stable home environment? In the vast majority of cases, the abuse takes place in the hime and at the hands of a family member.

And I'm not sure about the concept of being a "decent, law-abiding person", or how far we're ever really sufficiently in control of things to make the sort of choices you're talking about. A child suffering sexual abuse at the hands of an adult isn't really within the boundaries of what I would call "having a rough time", either. It's infinitely worse.

Maybe you should re-think what a child suffers being regularly sodomised by an uncle, or screamed at and battered by an alcoholic mother? Or even ignored and marginalised by neglectful and uncaring parents?

I agree we're all ultimately responsible for the choices we make, and the abuse of a child isn't excusable in any sense. But as I understand the "Independent" article, Deborah Orr is saying that unless we begin to take steps to rescue children from abusive family situations effectively, all we're doing is storing up trouble for the next generation.

Sometimes the darkest impulses of our natures are the very impulses we find it hardest to withstand.... In this context I find that Paul's Letter to the Romans chapter 7 and verses 14 to 25 to articulate an experience I can identify with totally.

Agreed about the bit in bold. I sometimes have a problem with expressing myself properly and saying what I really feel, it's something that I need to work on. Of course being sexually abused is a million times worse than "having a rough time".

I would still say that if a boy is sexually abused by a male relative, it would undoubtedly affect his mental state in a huge way, but I still don't believe that is any excuse for that boy then to go on and commit sexual abuse in the future, and if he did go on to do that kind of thing, he should be severely punished.

[BravestHibs]

That article that you have linked to, mentions "Baby P" and Daniel Sonnex, as examples of two people that have suffered at the hands of abusive adults. However, there is one fundamental difference between the pair which explains why we sympathise with "Baby P" and demonise Sonnex.

"Baby P" died, when he was just 17 months old, as a result of the horrendous abuse that he suffered. Daniel Sonnex, on the other hand, did not die and became a very violent and dangerous young man which culminated in him committing a wicked and satanic crime.

I have genuine and extreme sympathies with any child who is abused by the people who are supposed to love them and take care of them, including Sonnex, but that is absolutely no excuse for tying people up, stabbing them a total of 240 times, pouring petrol over their bodies and then setting fire to their apartment.

"Baby P", had he survived his torture, may have become another Daniel Sonnex or he could have become a really good young man. Unfortunately he wasn't given the chance to show what kind of person he would become. Because he died so young, as a defenceless little boy, people feel sympathy towards him. Daniel Sonnex, as I've already said, went on to become a violent thug and eventually went on to commit an horrific double murder.

Had Sonnex died as a result of his childhood abuse, we would all be grieving over him in the same way that people are grieving for "Baby P" and if he had chosen to become a decent human being, and spoken about his abuse as a way of encouraging others to speak out about abuse, people would have had sympathy and respect for him.

As I said in my previous post, we all have a choice in terms of what path we follow in life and unfortunately Daniel Sonnex chose the wrong path. We will never know what path "Baby P" would have followed.



Agreed about the bit in bold. I sometimes have a problem with expressing myself properly and saying what I really feel, it's something that I need to work on. Of course being sexually abused is a million times worse than "having a rough time".

I would still say that if a boy is sexually abused by a male relative, it would undoubtedly affect his mental state in a huge way, but I still don't believe that is any excuse for that boy then to go on and commit sexual abuse in the future, and if he did go on to do that kind of thing, he should be severely punished.

If it was that simple, why wouldn't everyone just choose to be a fine, upstanding member of the community, why wouldn't everyone just choose not to let horrendous abuse like that affect them in their adult lives, why wouldn't everyone not just choose to become a millionaire if the only thing that affects people is their own choices.

Do you not think that you are looking at it in overly simplistic terms perhaps?

[Sir David Gray]

If it was that simple, why wouldn't everyone just choose to be a fine, upstanding member of the community, why wouldn't everyone just choose not to let horrendous abuse like that affect them in their adult lives, why wouldn't everyone not just choose to become a millionaire if the only thing that affects people is their own choices.

Do you not think that you are looking at it in overly simplistic terms perhaps?

Some people like the power that being a bully/abuser brings. They enjoy seeing others suffer and inflicting pain on others. Some people are influenced by peer pressure into committing acts of crime.

Maybe I am looking at it in simplistic terms. I'm not a Professor on psychology or human behaviour and I've not done any studies on it either.

Perhaps if I did something like that, I may come to a different conclusion but I can only say what I feel and think right now.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm glad we've got this far without one of our resident "thinkers" wading in with advice about castration, and the best and most painful way of administering it. I worry for people like that, in the same way you worry for kids that giggle during sex education lessons, where does the anger/embarassment come from?

It is the case that two people exposed to the same situation will have two different interpretations and reactions to it. We are all individuals with our own unique personalities and histories. One person's reaction to childhood abuse will be different from others.

When a schizophrenic murders someone, because his illness is telling him to do it, I think that the majority of people appreciate that the person's illness meant that they could not be responsible for their actions. Should we apply the same rules to abusers?

I don''t know, I really don't. I think we should make it easier for people to access help. I actually think the focus of our society is on demonising the abuser, rather than in helping the victim. As is often the case, it is only when the victim becomes perpetrator themself that there is an attempt at help.

I'm not talking about specific cases here, but my experiences of working in mental health, is that there is a significant number of people, who suffer the consequences of abuse throughout life, but don't abuse others. However they usually engage in self harm, or self defeating behaviours or have relationship and anger issues.

I'd much sooner we could spot these people at an earlier age, and help them address their issues. than maintain the climate of shame and vengeance that surrounds the subject just now. It is sometimes the fear of what will happen to the abuser, who is often a close relative, a loving and caring father, brother, uncle or grandfather, that stops kids coming forward.

[Chez]

I'm glad we've got this far without one of our resident "thinkers" wading in with advice about castration, and the best and most painful way of administering it. I worry for people like that, in the same way you worry for kids that giggle during sex education lessons, where does the anger/embarassment come from?

It is the case that two people exposed to the same situation will have two different interpretations and reactions to it. We are all individuals with our own unique personalities and histories. One person's reaction to childhood abuse will be different from others.

When a schizophrenic murders someone, because his illness is telling him to do it, I think that the majority of people appreciate that the person's illness meant that they could not be responsible for their actions. Should we apply the same rules to abusers?

I don''t know, I really don't. I think we should make it easier for people to access help. I actually think the focus of our society is on demonising the abuser, rather than in helping the victim. As is often the case, it is only when the victim becomes perpetrator themself that there is an attempt at help.

I'm not talking about specific cases here, but my experiences of working in mental health, is that there is a significant number of people, who suffer the consequences of abuse throughout life, but don't abuse others. However they usually engage in self harm, or self defeating behaviours or have relationship and anger issues.

I'd much sooner we could spot these people at an earlier age, and help them address their issues. than maintain the climate of shame and vengeance that surrounds the subject just now. It is sometimes the fear of what will happen to the abuser, who is often a close relative, a loving and caring father, brother, uncle or grandfather, that stops kids coming forward.


:top marksFrom your post FR, I perceive the point you are making here is that we should be focussing on prevention rather than cure. If people who have been abused, whether mentally, emotionally, physically and sexually - and most victims have experienced the majority of these abuses in their lifetime - could access support and help, then this would prevent them becoming abusers. Like you say, there are a vast amount of people who have been abused and do not go on to become abusers - these people have likely being able to access help and support, therefore able to change their lives as a result :agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

:top marksFrom your post FR, I perceive the point you are making here is that we should be focussing on prevention rather than cure. If people who have been abused, whether mentally, emotionally, physically and sexually - and most victims have experienced the majority of these abuses in their lifetime - could access support and help, then this would prevent them becoming abusers. Like you say, there are a vast amount of people who have been abused and do not go on to become abusers - these people have likely being able to access help and support, therefore able to change their lives as a result :agree:

I don't think prevention is possible, I think what we have to do is minimise the harm. I think we have to accept that this is an unfortunate by-product of humanity, in the same way that we accept mental illness as such.

I am not saying that we can ever tolerate it, and allow abusers to act freely, but I think - like you say - if we can create a climate where victims can come forward, then we can make a start to dealing with it more effectively. The judgements made by others make this a very difficult subject for people such as social workers, nurses and teachers to address.