French Paedophilia Trial

[Rog]

Oh... bollocks then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Believe me, I wish it was.

[ans]

The source is quite simply the number of times that we read of people soing something to their kids and the justification / excuse coming up that they had been abused themselves as kids.

 

Yeah, because it's not like anyone ever jumps on the sympathy bandwagon and tries that one on in the hope for understanding and a lighter sentence.

 

Judge: Rog, you stand before me convicted of arson and criminal damage. I hereby sentence you to el.....

Rog: But judge! I was abused as a kid innit. I need mental help and stuff.

Judge: Oh ok son, here, have a three month series of counselling sessions and we'll say no more.

 

That's not trying to trivialise genuine cases, but it's far far too easy to blame a parent (who's quite often in the ground by now) for inflicting 'mental and physical torture' on someone as a way of obtaining more lenient punishment.

 

I should stress that I know there are plenty of times this is true, but it's my own personal opinion that a good portion of them are made up by callous people only looking out for their own interests.

 

Also, posting the number of times you've read in the paper about something is hardly an independant source for a definitive blanket statement.

[Rog]

Point well made but have a look at this for starters.

 

http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp?S=3624474

 

Edited to add ---

 

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/07/child.abuse.part.04/

 

http://www.safechild.org/abuse.htm

"95% of child abusers were themselves abused as children (Groth); "

 

Maybe there just might be something to it after all?

[When Skies Are Grey]

"Using monkeys, scientists found child abuse to be a learned trait"

 

[Observer]

What a load of bollocks.

 

In any event, saying 95% of child abusers were abused themselves, is not the same as saying that the majority of those abused will go on to abuse... think about it.

 

Second thoughts, I'll make it a little clearer - of 100% of the abused population, say perhaps a miniscule 0.0000000000000000000001% go on to abuse which will still make up the 95% you quote (even if your statistic is accurate)

 

I find your remark downright offensive actually.

[Rog]

What a load of bollocks.

 

In any event, saying 95% of child abusers were abused themselves, is not the same as saying that the majority of those abused will go on to abuse... think about it.

 

Second thoughts, I'll make it a little clearer - of 100% of the abused population, say perhaps a miniscule 0.0000000000000000000001% go on to abuse which will still make up the 95% you quote (even if your statistic is accurate)

 

I find your remark downright offensive actually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not my figures

 

But saying 95% of child abusers were abused themselves, is precisely the same as saying that the majority of those abused will go on to abuse... 95% of them if the figures are to be believed. (which I don’t as I will show in a mo.)

 

 

In any case if 95% of abusers went on to abuse then from a population of 100 abusers in generation 1 there would be a population of 95 abusers in generation #2, Around 90 in generation 2, 86 in generation 3, 80 in generation 4 and so on.

 

I think that 95% is far too high a percentage. Personally I suspect (for reasons that I won’t enter into) that around 50% may be more realistic rate.

 

That would see an initial population of 100 abusers reducing to 50 in generation 2, 25 in generation 3, 7 in generation 4 and so on towards zero with only new abusers keeping the pot boiling unless tyhere was some addition social factor at play.

 

But in all seriousness, which remark do you find offensive and why?

[P.K.]

Oh I know there will be a hue and cry that being abused has made a person determined not to abuse in their own right and in many cases this is true but not in the majority.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I disagree - source please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For balance I would like to see the sources for your disagreement.

[Observer]

But saying 95% of child abusers were abused themselves, is precisely  the same as saying that the majority of those abused will go on to abuse...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is entirely two different things - to say 95% of those abused will go on to abuse is competely different to saying 95% of (convicted) abusers were abused themselves. I don't know how I can put it any clearer.

 

The vast majority of child abuse cases don't even make it to court, or therefore the statistics - child abuse touches so many peoples lives in one way or another and I personally have met quite a lot of people who were sexually abused in various ways as children. I find that those people tend to hold extreme 'anti abuse' views and would be the first to deal with those who inflict this physical and emotional harm on others.

 

If the majority of people who were ever abused went on to abuse others themselves then we would be totally awash with paedophiles as an abuser doesn't only abuse just one child - the ripple effect would be huge.

 

I really don't know how you can say that the two things are the same - it is blazingly obvious to me that the two are completely different.

 

I find it offensive because I was abused and I have known plenty of other people who were also abused and statements like the one you made make my blood boil with rage, it is like being slapped in the face, a real double whammy.. "Not only were you unfortunate enough to be subjected to that crap as a kid but now some crass know it all is going to label you as likely to mess up some other poor innocent just because they've read a few articles and newspaper clippings here and there"

 

I consider myself very liberal, not overly politically correct - I reckon socially I have a good balance on things and would consider myself a kind and caring individual. Line up a few paedophiles and hand me a gun and I would be the first to pull the trigger, as shocking as that may sound to some of you. So my children are at risk are they?? Is that what you are saying??? The very thought makes me feel sick to my stomach. I would argue that my children are at less risk than perhaps yours, I know what to look out for and am fiercly protective of them - heaven help anyone who even thinks about trying anything with them.

[Observer]

My final attempt at statistics...

 

10,000 children abused.

 

19 of them become convicted abusers (ie 0.19% of the 10,000 unfortunates)

 

19 abused + 1 newbie = 20 convicted abusers in prison

 

The 19 have now become a 95% statistic.

 

95% of the convicted abusers were themselves abused as children but that does not mean that 95% of those who were abused will go on to abuse. The 95% only represents 0.19% of those abused.

[Rog]

My final attempt at statistics...

 

10,000 children abused.

 

19 of them become convicted abusers (ie 0.19% of the 10,000 unfortunates)

 

19 abused + 1 newbie = 20 convicted abusers in prison

 

The 19 have now become a 95% statistic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No. 10,000 kids abused, 95% of them will go on to be abusers except I don't accepth the 95%, I think it's too high. Convicted abusers? Another matter.

 

But to your earlier post ---

 

 

I see the point that you make and broadly agree. That’s why I also think that the 95% rate is far too high and suggest that a more sensible figure would be around 50%.. The other 50%? Probably they go on to be the parents who make dam sure that their kids never suffer from what they did. I have very good cause to believe this to be the case and before you ask, no I will NOT provide my source for that. It’s a tad too close to home.

 

Nonetheless there is good evidence fro the two links that I posted to support the principle that abuse is passed down generation to generation. And furthermore not just abuse. Did you open the url to ‘memes’ on my original post on this thread?

 

 

Do the abused abuse? There is no doubt that many do.

 

Not all, and in my opinion despite the numbers in the sources that I have shown, not the majority, but trans generation abuse is a fact. As such it should be considered where any question of child abuse arises.

 

It really IS a case of “the sins of the fathers being visited onto the children” and in many more ways than just the one..

[P.K.]

My final attempt at statistics...

 

10,000 children abused.

 

19 of them become convicted abusers (ie 0.19% of the 10,000 unfortunates)

 

19 abused + 1 newbie = 20 convicted abusers in prison

 

The 19 have now become a 95% statistic.

 

95% of the convicted abusers were themselves abused as children but that does not mean that 95% of those who were abused will go on to abuse. The 95% only represents 0.19% of those abused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just so that I understand this "load of bollocks" as someone put it.

 

Something like 95% of those convicted claim in court that they themselves were victims of child abuse.

 

The vast majority of cases do not come to court, much less to a conviction hence Huntley could become the caretaker at Soham school.

 

Of 10,000 children that are abused 19 end up being convicted of the crime themselves which is 0.19%.

 

Well, the only thing that doesn't stack up to me is the "19 out of 10,000" figure. What facts back this figure up? Is the 10,00 a UK total figure per year?

 

The reason I am interested is that like most I was appalled at the sheer scale of the Angers convictions. Never knowingly met someone who was abused as a child I am struggling to come to some idea of just how prevalent it is. Most on here seem to assume that Angers is a wierd one-off, I know I do, but now I am wondering.

[Observer]

The 10,000 was a notional figure used only to demonstrate how 0.19% could become 95%.

 

It sadly seems to be going over most people's heads.

[Lonan3]

I am struggling to come to some idea of just how prevalent it is. Most on here seem to assume that Angers is a wierd one-off, I know I do, but now I am wondering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sadly, that is certainly not the case. The case in Chartroi, Belgium in the 1990s was another high-profile one but, even a cursory search of the internet will show you that this a problem on a world-wide scale.

Personally, I do know of people who were abused as children - one, in fact, who's child was sired by her own father!

It is sickening, but it's also one of those things that most of us prefer not to hear too much about - and as long as we feel that way it will go on and on.

[marcus]

Could i just say that, childhood abuse is an extremely complex and emotive subject.

 

We really need to be careful how we choose our responses on this topic, posting links, to various statistics does not really add to the discussion.

 

Hasn't anyone thought, how someone who has been a victim of abuse may feel, if they read on this forum and discover their may be a certain percentage of a chance, they may become abusers themselves?

 

This is just one example, care and support of victims/suvivors is one of the most difficult in the care related field.

 

I hope i'm not coming across as arrogant, but its so easy to say the wrong thing.

 

We never really know about peoples pasts, particulary on here.

 

We just need to be careful and think before we post, there are many that are trying to re-build thier lives after abuse and countless yet to start the painful journey of recovery.

[P.K.]

I am struggling to come to some idea of just how prevalent it is. Most on here seem to assume that Angers is a wierd one-off, I know I do, but now I am wondering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sadly, that is certainly not the case. The case in Chartroi, Belgium in the 1990s was another high-profile one but, even a cursory search of the internet will show you that this a problem on a world-wide scale.

Personally, I do know of people who were abused as children - one, in fact, who's child was sired by her own father!

It is sickening, but it's also one of those things that most of us prefer not to hear too much about - and as long as we feel that way it will go on and on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure that the majority don't want to hear about it at all. What do you base that on?

 

The 10,000 was a notional figure used only to demonstrate how 0.19% could become 95%.

 

It sadly seems to be going over most people's heads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Moving away from "notional" figures and bearing in mind that these days you can usually find something on the www to support your case (no matter how loopy it might be) are there any reliable figures for the size of this problem in the UK for example?

 

An 'Artist' formely known as........Carter - excellent post btw.