Rolf Harris

Thanks for that link when.

I had no idea there were so many offences which carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It would be interesting to know average sentences for the offences in the list but I don't expect you to have those statistics at your fingertips and might google later.

I noticed that under the sexual offences section, more mention was made of girls than boys. For instance incest with a girl under 13 by a man or woman, or by a man with a girl over 13 was mentioned, but nothing about boys. Attempted sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 years carried a penalty of 7 years but there was no mention of a similar offence with boys.

Yes, I know technically it is not possible to have sexual intercourse with a male person, but even so!

Isn't it the case that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 amended the law so that the crimes mentioned now include 'a child under 13' rather than 'a girl under 13'. Also rape includes penetration of the vagina, anus and mouth. Boys can be and are raped all too frequently.

I'm going to stick my neck out here (and probably have my head decapitated in the process)
Not for a second am I condoning RH's behaviour and he had to have a custodial sentence. However....I am very uncomfortable at some of the reactions of people. It's one thing to feel disgust at his crimes; but nobody is the WHOLE SUM of their wrongdoing. I am doubtful whether he 'pretended' to be a nice person, as some have suggested; the truth is that people are all complicated and complex and a mixture of good and bad. He was possibly - though we will probably never know - in denial that he'd committed crimes; not that that's any excuse, but it would have enabled him to live his public life of the amiable, artistic entertainer as he wanted to be known. Then again, maybe that isn't the case at all. I'm just trying to say, rather inarticulately, that people who commit crimes are never wholly bad or wholly evil and IMO it's a mistake to assume they are one or t'other. Some of the press would have us believe otherwise, but I think it's best to distance ourselves from their lynch-mob approach. They are masters at building up personalities for us to worship, and then knocking them down again when they fall from grace (though I know that RH's fall is of his own doing - it's the response to it I'm thinking about here).
I don't know if any of that makes any sense, but that's my thinking, for what it's worth.

Good post Rowantree. I agree.

Excellent post Rowantree. Of course people aren't wholly good or bad, but a mixture of the two.

I have felt quite disturbed by some of the reactions to this case.

I sometimes feel as though a mass hysteria has gripped the country.

I'm not sure about the mass hysteria theory, petallus, but I do agree with Rowantree's post. My problem is that throughout the whole trial he seems to have shown no remorse, despite that handwritten letter to the father of the girl he molested when she was only 13.

He seemed to be in denial even when found guilty - it's so much easier to feel compassion for someone who has realised/admitted that they've committed terrible crimes.

The difficulty is that the crimes he committed were to some degree dependent on his credibility as an all-round good egg; his status as kindly uncle Rolf is part of the problem. The two are inextricably linked.

In the main I agree that everyone is a mixture of good and bad; but I think that what is exercising people's minds about RH is that fact that his very "goodness" was why he was able to perpetrate his "badness."

This is why it causes such strong reactions I think. It is hard to give him credit for his good side, because he used it to commit these crimes.

I do not think it is a media witch hunt - he used the media to bolster his image and this in turn was used to commit his crimes - the reaction of the media will equate to his high profile - and here is no reason to think that he did not encourage this high profile. If I committed a crime there would be commensurately less interest since no-one knows who the hell I am and I have not sought publicity.

Part of me feels sorry for him - he clearly had a weakness that will blight this latter phase of his life and cause his family untold misery. All sexual offenders are victims of their own inclinations, which, in the main, they are not responsible for - but they are responsible for their actions and the effects that these have on others.

He has his sentence - I think it is quite lenient to be honest. But the due process of the law has run its course and that is how it should be.

I agree that no one is all good or all bad. But the simple fact is that RH has knowingly and deliberately ruined some people's lives with his actions. I know where my sympathies lie and they are not with him.

Perhaps that's where the in-prison treatment will come in useful Ana.

I am in agreement with Mishap.

I would add, however, that some people are totally evil through and through without anything to mitigate them. Rare, but I believe it to be true. I can think of one who then took the coward's way out when remanded in custody.

Yes, jingl, but is his sentence long enough to complete the treatment? (as I've said on another thread, when reckons it takes three years 'inside' to do so).

While none of us are perfect, those who appear to have a good side while deliberately trampling on the rights of others should not be given sympathy. They know what they are doing is wrong and get angry when called to account. Their tears are only ever for themselves.

Yes I agree with your last post rosequartz.

I doubt if he really needs treatment at all Ana. He's an old man, and he is hardly likely to do it again after all this.

That's not when's opinion, jingle. I wouldn't know...

I suppose if he gets senile, they'll have to watch him.

I think I'd better leave this thread. There comes a point when you stop caring.

I take issue with rosequartz's assertion that some people are totally evil.
I think most of us would agree that no one is totally perfectly good. Is it not a logical assumption then that no one is totally evil/bad either?

We are all of us a mixture - sometimes, some of us can be callous, thoughtless, spiteful, devious and worse, as well as kind, generous, thoughtful and sensitive, and all shades in between and beyond. Some people tend more to one than t'other. Some of us have said or done things they are now ashamed of - though not many, I hope, as awful as the crimes discussed in this thread. But how would we know, eh?
That might be a simplistic viewpoint, but there you go - it's mine.

Sorry that you take issue with my assertion, Rowantree, but I respect your view and hope you would respect mine.

I am not going to go into some of the things I have heard in my working life over the years, but yes, some people are totally evil.
Very few have no redeeming qualities whatsoever but I remain convinced that there are some.

I think you are probably referring to people you know or have come across, Rowantree, complex personalities like most of us and probably all the more interesting for that.

If you misunderstood my post and thought that I was saying that RH is totally evil, then I was not.

Anyone else wishing that there weren't 2 threads on this?

I rather think that this one will run and run - or it could do!

The discussion has led to more philosophical realms with definitions of good and evil, and whether there exist absolutes of either, which I dispute, but as I said, that's my opinion only.
I'm off to think up something half-evil to do this weekend....by the pricking of my thumbs, etc

"Evil" to me suggests an innate wickedness that has been present since birth. Although I believe some scientists have suggested that some people have a genetic predisposition to psychopathic/sociopathic behaviour, I find it difficult to believe that people are born wholly "evil". I believe this warped behaviour must be rooted in childhood - and I think the easy access to pornography adds fuel to the fire.

I am not suggesting that people who commit these crimes have not committed evil acts or that they should not be removed from society. But they can't be locked away forever and more discussion needs to take place about how they are treated in prison - if they are made to confront the damage they have done and to find strategies to help them avoid re-offending. I believe in some Scandinavian countries, paedophiles are assigned a sort of "mentor" when they leave prison to whom they can turn when they fear they will re-offend.

Ana it takes three years on average to complete every module of the treatment programme, but some sex offenders who make decent progress will find there are one or two modules they can get through more quickly. For example, some offenders need to spend time addressing the abuse they experienced before they can begin to empathise with the people they have harmed - others may quickly show empathy for their victims. Issues of self-esteem may need to be addressed, but self-esteem does not have to be raised in order to lessen the risk of reoffending. Therefore, the necessary parts of the treatment programme could be completed in just less than three years inside, and refresher sessions be available after release. Each offender is different.

Evil to me smacks of Myra Hindley and Fred and Rosemary West.

Yes, people can be truly evil through and through.

Don't think RH is though.