With all these stories of child abuse in the news it got me thinking why don't the victims when they grow up to be adults just go and kill their abusers?

The public wouldn't blame them and i can't see judges being to heavy on the abused people if they were caught and there was evidence to prove the victim carried out their own justice.

humanspirit wrote:
G'day Humanspirit.

I've always wondered why parents of sexually abused children don't kill the fucker that molested their child.

If there was the risk of a parent killing you for molesting their child, it might reduce the number of paedophiles ... one way or the other.

There is always a risk of getting murdered as a paedophile by parents. A mate of mine ended up on jury service for such a case..

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Me too.

However, one must take into consideration the amount of sexual abuse that goes in within family's therefore making the above obsolete. Sadly.

In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and say that I reckon there's far more abuse goes on in average joes family than there ever will be out there in celebrity land.

psketti wrote:
G'day Psketti.

I recall my old man saying that if anyone touched me, my sister or my mother, that he would kill them regardless of jail time. I always though, "Fuck yeah", 'cause thinking if I had kids that's what I would do too.

When I was in the police, we used to have to do 'court security' as well, having a local and district court next to the station (Parramatta). We'd have to take prisoners from the cells up to the court house and then back again. Well, doing so, you get to sit in on a fair amount of court cases.

Anyway, I don't recall any paedophile cases that the perpetrator was not a family member. So you are probably on the mark with your call.

yea, a lot happens in family now... and itd b nice to kill family members for that too.

in the case of it not being a family member, whether ur a child or an adult, u could get charged with manslaughter for going after em.

psketti wrote:
Very true, sadly.
The fact that family members or people close to the family that are usually the abusers is perhaps far more sinister than it just being some random stranger. For example, they have greater access to the child, creating a potentially disturbing pattern of abuse for the victims.
How anybody can do this sort of thing is totally beyond me.

humanspirit wrote:
Have you seen The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo?

I'd question the idea that victims of serious abuse "grow up to be adults" in the same way as everyone, "grows up to be "adult"" if I may be so bold you should perhaps ask another question:
How does violent sexual abuse (or abuse in general and of different levels) during a child's formative years affect or influence their process of psychological development and in what ways?

Are you a psychology student Guev?

Now I aint standing up for the nanny state but in my experience the qualification for abuse and neglect is wrong....

If you regularly drag your kids about by the neck, up and down stairs and throw hard objects at them that cause pain and leave bruising..........that is classed as "unacceptable parenting".
If you don't bother with basic hygiene, nail cutting, tooth brushing or nitting, send your kid to school stinking of piss because YOU were too lazy to clean them and get them fresh clothes etc etc, that is similarly classed.

The worst that happens in either or both scenarios, is you will be offered a friendly ear. Should someone start custody proceedings to address the situation, the courts will side with those that decided this is just good old "unacceptable parenting" and allow it to continue. Given all that, should you threaten/attempt to beat the living shite out of the one harming children in earshot of another, you yourself could well do time.

Needless to say, I'm not impressed with any of these nanny state fucking idiots.

Pretty Graphical bring a puke bucket

No multi quote is there on here?

I have seen the girl with the dragon tattoo and it was quite a shocking film as i didn't know anything about the story,the ending annoyed me as i wanted Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander to skip off into the sunset at the end,just a softy me.

Is it right that people who have been abused as kid's tend to go on and abuse others or is that bullshit?

If the abused killed or just assaulted their abuser it would be a form of empowerment and most likely stop the abused becoming the abuser,a form of therapy,basic therapy?

Wonder what adverts run when to catch a predator is showing?

MrsGood wrote: Not officially, but people's psychology is something I feel we must take back and understand organically

HumanI don't think generalizations are particularly accurate, though I'd wager some abusers are past victims of abuse, you can see a less extreme manifestation of this in children who are bullied at home becoming bullies at school etc imo. each case is different.

I agree that the death of the abuser can have cathartic effects on victims, I think the guilt would be huge, as you probably noticed in TGWTDTattoo Lisbeth doesn't kill the main villain at the end, merely allows him to die, she takes no active role in his expiration really, I think there's something relevant to learn from that, she didn't appropriate his guilt as I personally think may occur if she had killed him herself.