|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found? Stephen Gallant could easily have been an SO. It was only by an accident of fate, that he was there at Fishmongers Hall, on that day and not some other type of offender. If you look at how Gallant's offence was reported in the media, it was horrific. There was nothing nice about him until, as you say, the press took the trouble to investigate his background. At that point, they were able to find positives to 'offset' against his crime. If the media wanted to do that, where an SO is concerned, then they could do. There is a very good Youtube video here, about telling the stories of SOs, and how some are more messy than others. In other words, some stories have positive elements, that the media could pick up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgigHvmZnAThe cases mentioned, are ones that will only be familiar to American audiences, like Josh Duggar, but I've no doubt there will be UK equivalents out there. The lady doing the talk, is somebody who began by looking at cases involving miscarriages of justice, where an SO was wrongly convicted. But she then went on to investigate other SO, who were being harshly treated under the American SO laws. Yes, he was/is a good person. The media had automatically portrayed him as a sick monster. After all, murderer = sick monster, SO = vile pervert. That is exactly the point. That is what people see, and I suspect that if he had been an SO, and allowed to attend Fishmongers Hall that day, the media reaction would have been different. Yes, there is injustice going on, and yes good people are being dismissed as monsters, but nobody else is remotely interested in changing that, so it will take a lot of exceptions before anyone will be prepared to entertain the idea of even one SO being anything less than a vile pervert. That's reality. I really, really wish it was different, but it isn't. I hope this is another step on the road leading to a change in people's perceptions, but I can't see it happening in my lifetime. In the Youtube video, which I referenced earlier, there is a discussion about how the perception of SO has already changed, since the 1950s. In particular, they mention the impact of feminism in the 1970s and the current moral panic which began in the 1990s. Things do change, but slowly, and when we look back on past media reporting, then we can see how it has changed, by comparing it to today. Yes, things do change, and it is normally very slowly. I'm hopeful that things will change, but I'm not expecting any major improvements in my lifetime. I'm probably older than you, BTW.... In the early 1990s, I made a prediction, that cannabis would be legalised in the UK, in 25 years time. That still hasn't happened, although Malta has now become the first European country to go down that route and it probably won't be the last. But, if you had told me then, that the United States would have legalised it, before the UK did, I would never have believed that could happen, in my lifetime. Growing up in the 1980s, in the middle of the Cold War, I never expected to see the Soviet Union collapse, during my lifetime either, but it did. It is a mistake to equate the hatred of the tabloid headline writers with public opinion. Likewise, all the haters on social media, don't represent public opinion either. As for politicians, there is no way that govt ministers are ever going to say anything positive about SO in public, because they will be crucified in the press. But, behind the scenes, in the Parliamentary Select Committees for example, MPs are more thoughtful and willing to consider change. There has been change already, in the way that illegal image offenders are dealt with and perceived. Before 1999, the maximum sentence for possession of images, in the UK, was 6 months in jail. It was not seen as a serious offence, compared to distribution or production of images, but then the moral panic began. The maximum sentence was increased to 10 years, partly in response to Megan's Law being enacted in the USA, which brought in their SO registry. The UK copied America's approach and in the early 2000s, sentences became much harsher. People in the US, were being given 20 year sentences for image possession, when contact offenders against children, were only getting 8 years, on average. But then something changed again. Around 2013, a group of judges in the US, wrote to the Justice Department, complaining that the mandatory minimum sentences for possession, which they were being asked to hand down, were disproportionate. Sentencing in the UK also moved away, from automatic prison sentences and towards suspended sentences. I like to think, that there was a recognition here, of the fact that the men downloading these images, do not pose any threat to children. Despite politicians and public opinion being favour of long sentences, judges in America refused to follow the govt guidelines. In the UK, Simon Bailey said publicly, that image offenders should not be jailed. These changes occurred in our lifetimes. We need to be clear what we mean by change, as well. Will the tabloids stop hating SOs? No, of course not, because they will always need a bogeyman. But, in the future, although I don't expect downloading will ever be decriminalised, I do think there will be a growing public recognition, of the fact that these SO are porn addicts, and not evil monsters who want to hurt kids. That will lead to a greater focus on treatment and less focus on punishment. I agree that tabloid headline writers don't exactly represent public opinion, but the tabloids are there to keep public opinion in line. That's why there's the constant drip, drip of hatred as part of the moral panic. They do represent public opinion more than the haters on social media, as there are many older tabloid readers who just don't do social media, many of those who do just use the various media as a way of keeping in touch with family and friends. There may well be more openness to change behind the scenes in government, but the whole point is that to make any change, they have to say something in public, which they clearly won't do. So, they won't change anything. The Policing Bill, with its exclusion of some offences from rehabilitation, is evidence that the sort of change we'd like is still decades away. BTW, the United States has not legalised cannabis, but some jurisdications there have. Even after all this time, they're still in the very early stages of legalisation. They're still further down the road towards legalisation of cannabis than they are towards any serious acceptances of SO's. it may well go the same way here eventually.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found? Stephen Gallant could easily have been an SO. It was only by an accident of fate, that he was there at Fishmongers Hall, on that day and not some other type of offender. If you look at how Gallant's offence was reported in the media, it was horrific. There was nothing nice about him until, as you say, the press took the trouble to investigate his background. At that point, they were able to find positives to 'offset' against his crime. If the media wanted to do that, where an SO is concerned, then they could do. There is a very good Youtube video here, about telling the stories of SOs, and how some are more messy than others. In other words, some stories have positive elements, that the media could pick up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgigHvmZnAThe cases mentioned, are ones that will only be familiar to American audiences, like Josh Duggar, but I've no doubt there will be UK equivalents out there. The lady doing the talk, is somebody who began by looking at cases involving miscarriages of justice, where an SO was wrongly convicted. But she then went on to investigate other SO, who were being harshly treated under the American SO laws. Yes, he was/is a good person. The media had automatically portrayed him as a sick monster. After all, murderer = sick monster, SO = vile pervert. That is exactly the point. That is what people see, and I suspect that if he had been an SO, and allowed to attend Fishmongers Hall that day, the media reaction would have been different. Yes, there is injustice going on, and yes good people are being dismissed as monsters, but nobody else is remotely interested in changing that, so it will take a lot of exceptions before anyone will be prepared to entertain the idea of even one SO being anything less than a vile pervert. That's reality. I really, really wish it was different, but it isn't. I hope this is another step on the road leading to a change in people's perceptions, but I can't see it happening in my lifetime. In the Youtube video, which I referenced earlier, there is a discussion about how the perception of SO has already changed, since the 1950s. In particular, they mention the impact of feminism in the 1970s and the current moral panic which began in the 1990s. Things do change, but slowly, and when we look back on past media reporting, then we can see how it has changed, by comparing it to today. Yes, things do change, and it is normally very slowly. I'm hopeful that things will change, but I'm not expecting any major improvements in my lifetime. I'm probably older than you, BTW.... In the early 1990s, I made a prediction, that cannabis would be legalised in the UK, in 25 years time. That still hasn't happened, although Malta has now become the first European country to go down that route and it probably won't be the last. But, if you had told me then, that the United States would have legalised it, before the UK did, I would never have believed that could happen, in my lifetime. Growing up in the 1980s, in the middle of the Cold War, I never expected to see the Soviet Union collapse, during my lifetime either, but it did. It is a mistake to equate the hatred of the tabloid headline writers with public opinion. Likewise, all the haters on social media, don't represent public opinion either. As for politicians, there is no way that govt ministers are ever going to say anything positive about SO in public, because they will be crucified in the press. But, behind the scenes, in the Parliamentary Select Committees for example, MPs are more thoughtful and willing to consider change. There has been change already, in the way that illegal image offenders are dealt with and perceived. Before 1999, the maximum sentence for possession of images, in the UK, was 6 months in jail. It was not seen as a serious offence, compared to distribution or production of images, but then the moral panic began. The maximum sentence was increased to 10 years, partly in response to Megan's Law being enacted in the USA, which brought in their SO registry. The UK copied America's approach and in the early 2000s, sentences became much harsher. People in the US, were being given 20 year sentences for image possession, when contact offenders against children, were only getting 8 years, on average. But then something changed again. Around 2013, a group of judges in the US, wrote to the Justice Department, complaining that the mandatory minimum sentences for possession, which they were being asked to hand down, were disproportionate. Sentencing in the UK also moved away, from automatic prison sentences and towards suspended sentences. I like to think, that there was a recognition here, of the fact that the men downloading these images, do not pose any threat to children. Despite politicians and public opinion being favour of long sentences, judges in America refused to follow the govt guidelines. In the UK, Simon Bailey said publicly, that image offenders should not be jailed. These changes occurred in our lifetimes. We need to be clear what we mean by change, as well. Will the tabloids stop hating SOs? No, of course not, because they will always need a bogeyman. But, in the future, although I don't expect downloading will ever be decriminalised, I do think there will be a growing public recognition, of the fact that these SO are porn addicts, and not evil monsters who want to hurt kids. That will lead to a greater focus on treatment and less focus on punishment. I've only heard anecdotally but isn't there a move now to move towards images offenders being put on a course *before* being charged? If true, that is a huge move forward. I'd assume most of us would have given the earth for that option rather than what we've been through. You may be thinking of the report by Justice.Org.UK, which is a pressure group of lawyers. They recommended a kind of awareness course, as an alternative to prosecution, but what the CPS did agree to do, was consider conditional cautions for these offences. That would mean no criminal conviction. There is no evidence that this is happening at the moment, but with the courts currently being overwhelmed by a backlog of cases, caused by covid, it may become an issue worth considering. Hi My last yearly PPU visit happened recently and I raised the question: [quote]If the authorities focus and promote the psychological assessment / reports / views when prosecuting a suspected SO, then why do they not believe the reports presented / produced and support the ex-SO, after the punishment period has ended when the ex-SO appeals against the percussion?/quote]
Though my actual PPU officer is helpful, I was just informed to attach them to any appeal. I informed them I had already done so and they had been ignored! The psychological effect this and your scenario has on an ex-offender, I believe, is known but dismissed; or worse accepted as another means of attempting to nudge the individual towards re-offending by them loosing hope and so control. Keep faith / belief in yourself no matter the opposition
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found? Stephen Gallant could easily have been an SO. It was only by an accident of fate, that he was there at Fishmongers Hall, on that day and not some other type of offender. If you look at how Gallant's offence was reported in the media, it was horrific. There was nothing nice about him until, as you say, the press took the trouble to investigate his background. At that point, they were able to find positives to 'offset' against his crime. If the media wanted to do that, where an SO is concerned, then they could do. There is a very good Youtube video here, about telling the stories of SOs, and how some are more messy than others. In other words, some stories have positive elements, that the media could pick up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgigHvmZnAThe cases mentioned, are ones that will only be familiar to American audiences, like Josh Duggar, but I've no doubt there will be UK equivalents out there. The lady doing the talk, is somebody who began by looking at cases involving miscarriages of justice, where an SO was wrongly convicted. But she then went on to investigate other SO, who were being harshly treated under the American SO laws. Yes, he was/is a good person. The media had automatically portrayed him as a sick monster. After all, murderer = sick monster, SO = vile pervert. That is exactly the point. That is what people see, and I suspect that if he had been an SO, and allowed to attend Fishmongers Hall that day, the media reaction would have been different. Yes, there is injustice going on, and yes good people are being dismissed as monsters, but nobody else is remotely interested in changing that, so it will take a lot of exceptions before anyone will be prepared to entertain the idea of even one SO being anything less than a vile pervert. That's reality. I really, really wish it was different, but it isn't. I hope this is another step on the road leading to a change in people's perceptions, but I can't see it happening in my lifetime. In the Youtube video, which I referenced earlier, there is a discussion about how the perception of SO has already changed, since the 1950s. In particular, they mention the impact of feminism in the 1970s and the current moral panic which began in the 1990s. Things do change, but slowly, and when we look back on past media reporting, then we can see how it has changed, by comparing it to today. Yes, things do change, and it is normally very slowly. I'm hopeful that things will change, but I'm not expecting any major improvements in my lifetime. I'm probably older than you, BTW.... In the early 1990s, I made a prediction, that cannabis would be legalised in the UK, in 25 years time. That still hasn't happened, although Malta has now become the first European country to go down that route and it probably won't be the last. But, if you had told me then, that the United States would have legalised it, before the UK did, I would never have believed that could happen, in my lifetime. Growing up in the 1980s, in the middle of the Cold War, I never expected to see the Soviet Union collapse, during my lifetime either, but it did. It is a mistake to equate the hatred of the tabloid headline writers with public opinion. Likewise, all the haters on social media, don't represent public opinion either. As for politicians, there is no way that govt ministers are ever going to say anything positive about SO in public, because they will be crucified in the press. But, behind the scenes, in the Parliamentary Select Committees for example, MPs are more thoughtful and willing to consider change. There has been change already, in the way that illegal image offenders are dealt with and perceived. Before 1999, the maximum sentence for possession of images, in the UK, was 6 months in jail. It was not seen as a serious offence, compared to distribution or production of images, but then the moral panic began. The maximum sentence was increased to 10 years, partly in response to Megan's Law being enacted in the USA, which brought in their SO registry. The UK copied America's approach and in the early 2000s, sentences became much harsher. People in the US, were being given 20 year sentences for image possession, when contact offenders against children, were only getting 8 years, on average. But then something changed again. Around 2013, a group of judges in the US, wrote to the Justice Department, complaining that the mandatory minimum sentences for possession, which they were being asked to hand down, were disproportionate. Sentencing in the UK also moved away, from automatic prison sentences and towards suspended sentences. I like to think, that there was a recognition here, of the fact that the men downloading these images, do not pose any threat to children. Despite politicians and public opinion being favour of long sentences, judges in America refused to follow the govt guidelines. In the UK, Simon Bailey said publicly, that image offenders should not be jailed. These changes occurred in our lifetimes. We need to be clear what we mean by change, as well. Will the tabloids stop hating SOs? No, of course not, because they will always need a bogeyman. But, in the future, although I don't expect downloading will ever be decriminalised, I do think there will be a growing public recognition, of the fact that these SO are porn addicts, and not evil monsters who want to hurt kids. That will lead to a greater focus on treatment and less focus on punishment. I've only heard anecdotally but isn't there a move now to move towards images offenders being put on a course *before* being charged? If true, that is a huge move forward. I'd assume most of us would have given the earth for that option rather than what we've been through. You may be thinking of the report by Justice.Org.UK, which is a pressure group of lawyers. They recommended a kind of awareness course, as an alternative to prosecution, but what the CPS did agree to do, was consider conditional cautions for these offences. That would mean no criminal conviction. There is no evidence that this is happening at the moment, but with the courts currently being overwhelmed by a backlog of cases, caused by covid, it may become an issue worth considering.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+xThis was a great program, but also a rare opportunity to see the human beings, behind the offences. Stephen Merchant's character, Greg, was of particular interest, because he is an SO. Although Greg's crime, was one of the few socially acceptable sex crimes, I thought the producers missed a trick, because they could have made him a downloader of illegal images, or an online solicitation offender. That would have opened up a much needed debate, about who is committing these types of offences and whether they really are the monsters, that the press make them out to be. Every offence happens for a reason and each individual has their own particular circumstances, which lead them down that path. In Greg's case, it was loneliness and the lack of an appropriate sexual outlet. These are also the most common reasons, for people committing online sex offences. The show works on two levels. First, as a thriller about a bag of stolen money, but also as a drama, about the many reasons why people commit crime. It is not always because they are just bad, or evil people. That is the way criminals are usually portrayed on TV. In real life, things are far more complicated than that. Hi, Yes it was a great show. As an EX-SO (using a prostitute), I was also interested in how they would portray the character. Though I do feel that the viewing of the offence was shown as a comedy of errors and therefore "Society" would have that excuse to show a liking to him. This was continued throughout his "story"; do you really imagine a firm of solicitors not dismissing him on arrest for a Sex Offence, no matter if eventually convicted. I for a fact was offered a role within a solicitor firm only then to have it retracted on disclosure. That is real life and told to society.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found? Stephen Gallant could easily have been an SO. It was only by an accident of fate, that he was there at Fishmongers Hall, on that day and not some other type of offender. If you look at how Gallant's offence was reported in the media, it was horrific. There was nothing nice about him until, as you say, the press took the trouble to investigate his background. At that point, they were able to find positives to 'offset' against his crime. If the media wanted to do that, where an SO is concerned, then they could do. There is a very good Youtube video here, about telling the stories of SOs, and how some are more messy than others. In other words, some stories have positive elements, that the media could pick up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgigHvmZnAThe cases mentioned, are ones that will only be familiar to American audiences, like Josh Duggar, but I've no doubt there will be UK equivalents out there. The lady doing the talk, is somebody who began by looking at cases involving miscarriages of justice, where an SO was wrongly convicted. But she then went on to investigate other SO, who were being harshly treated under the American SO laws. Yes, he was/is a good person. The media had automatically portrayed him as a sick monster. After all, murderer = sick monster, SO = vile pervert. That is exactly the point. That is what people see, and I suspect that if he had been an SO, and allowed to attend Fishmongers Hall that day, the media reaction would have been different. Yes, there is injustice going on, and yes good people are being dismissed as monsters, but nobody else is remotely interested in changing that, so it will take a lot of exceptions before anyone will be prepared to entertain the idea of even one SO being anything less than a vile pervert. That's reality. I really, really wish it was different, but it isn't. I hope this is another step on the road leading to a change in people's perceptions, but I can't see it happening in my lifetime. In the Youtube video, which I referenced earlier, there is a discussion about how the perception of SO has already changed, since the 1950s. In particular, they mention the impact of feminism in the 1970s and the current moral panic which began in the 1990s. Things do change, but slowly, and when we look back on past media reporting, then we can see how it has changed, by comparing it to today. Yes, things do change, and it is normally very slowly. I'm hopeful that things will change, but I'm not expecting any major improvements in my lifetime. I'm probably older than you, BTW.... In the early 1990s, I made a prediction, that cannabis would be legalised in the UK, in 25 years time. That still hasn't happened, although Malta has now become the first European country to go down that route and it probably won't be the last. But, if you had told me then, that the United States would have legalised it, before the UK did, I would never have believed that could happen, in my lifetime. Growing up in the 1980s, in the middle of the Cold War, I never expected to see the Soviet Union collapse, during my lifetime either, but it did. It is a mistake to equate the hatred of the tabloid headline writers with public opinion. Likewise, all the haters on social media, don't represent public opinion either. As for politicians, there is no way that govt ministers are ever going to say anything positive about SO in public, because they will be crucified in the press. But, behind the scenes, in the Parliamentary Select Committees for example, MPs are more thoughtful and willing to consider change. There has been change already, in the way that illegal image offenders are dealt with and perceived. Before 1999, the maximum sentence for possession of images, in the UK, was 6 months in jail. It was not seen as a serious offence, compared to distribution or production of images, but then the moral panic began. The maximum sentence was increased to 10 years, partly in response to Megan's Law being enacted in the USA, which brought in their SO registry. The UK copied America's approach and in the early 2000s, sentences became much harsher. People in the US, were being given 20 year sentences for image possession, when contact offenders against children, were only getting 8 years, on average. But then something changed again. Around 2013, a group of judges in the US, wrote to the Justice Department, complaining that the mandatory minimum sentences for possession, which they were being asked to hand down, were disproportionate. Sentencing in the UK also moved away, from automatic prison sentences and towards suspended sentences. I like to think, that there was a recognition here, of the fact that the men downloading these images, do not pose any threat to children. Despite politicians and public opinion being favour of long sentences, judges in America refused to follow the govt guidelines. In the UK, Simon Bailey said publicly, that image offenders should not be jailed. These changes occurred in our lifetimes. We need to be clear what we mean by change, as well. Will the tabloids stop hating SOs? No, of course not, because they will always need a bogeyman. But, in the future, although I don't expect downloading will ever be decriminalised, I do think there will be a growing public recognition, of the fact that these SO are porn addicts, and not evil monsters who want to hurt kids. That will lead to a greater focus on treatment and less focus on punishment. Hi Long time we have not chattered. Good to read you are still focused and supporting. the fact that the men downloading these images, do not pose any threat to children.
We previously have had many discussions on images and I think we both respect each other points. My concern with the view of SO's not by society but by other EX-SO's is that some state one is a more acceptable offence than the other and there is no linkage. Two individuals charged in the same Operation as me (prostitutes) where also convicted of image / online offences. That "habit" had been developed before their prostitute usage. We have to remember that in essence the perception of and labels placed on ex-SO's is the same. What is different between ex-SO's is that there is in the majority of circumstances, there is actually limited reality between the ex-offender and these labels attached to them or their offence. Remember diverting the attention from oneself to another will not remove you from their view; or maybe only temporarily.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 450,
Visits: 5.4K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found? Stephen Gallant could easily have been an SO. It was only by an accident of fate, that he was there at Fishmongers Hall, on that day and not some other type of offender. If you look at how Gallant's offence was reported in the media, it was horrific. There was nothing nice about him until, as you say, the press took the trouble to investigate his background. At that point, they were able to find positives to 'offset' against his crime. If the media wanted to do that, where an SO is concerned, then they could do. There is a very good Youtube video here, about telling the stories of SOs, and how some are more messy than others. In other words, some stories have positive elements, that the media could pick up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgigHvmZnAThe cases mentioned, are ones that will only be familiar to American audiences, like Josh Duggar, but I've no doubt there will be UK equivalents out there. The lady doing the talk, is somebody who began by looking at cases involving miscarriages of justice, where an SO was wrongly convicted. But she then went on to investigate other SO, who were being harshly treated under the American SO laws. Yes, he was/is a good person. The media had automatically portrayed him as a sick monster. After all, murderer = sick monster, SO = vile pervert. That is exactly the point. That is what people see, and I suspect that if he had been an SO, and allowed to attend Fishmongers Hall that day, the media reaction would have been different. Yes, there is injustice going on, and yes good people are being dismissed as monsters, but nobody else is remotely interested in changing that, so it will take a lot of exceptions before anyone will be prepared to entertain the idea of even one SO being anything less than a vile pervert. That's reality. I really, really wish it was different, but it isn't. I hope this is another step on the road leading to a change in people's perceptions, but I can't see it happening in my lifetime. In the Youtube video, which I referenced earlier, there is a discussion about how the perception of SO has already changed, since the 1950s. In particular, they mention the impact of feminism in the 1970s and the current moral panic which began in the 1990s. Things do change, but slowly, and when we look back on past media reporting, then we can see how it has changed, by comparing it to today. Yes, things do change, and it is normally very slowly. I'm hopeful that things will change, but I'm not expecting any major improvements in my lifetime. I'm probably older than you, BTW.... In the early 1990s, I made a prediction, that cannabis would be legalised in the UK, in 25 years time. That still hasn't happened, although Malta has now become the first European country to go down that route and it probably won't be the last. But, if you had told me then, that the United States would have legalised it, before the UK did, I would never have believed that could happen, in my lifetime. Growing up in the 1980s, in the middle of the Cold War, I never expected to see the Soviet Union collapse, during my lifetime either, but it did. It is a mistake to equate the hatred of the tabloid headline writers with public opinion. Likewise, all the haters on social media, don't represent public opinion either. As for politicians, there is no way that govt ministers are ever going to say anything positive about SO in public, because they will be crucified in the press. But, behind the scenes, in the Parliamentary Select Committees for example, MPs are more thoughtful and willing to consider change. There has been change already, in the way that illegal image offenders are dealt with and perceived. Before 1999, the maximum sentence for possession of images, in the UK, was 6 months in jail. It was not seen as a serious offence, compared to distribution or production of images, but then the moral panic began. The maximum sentence was increased to 10 years, partly in response to Megan's Law being enacted in the USA, which brought in their SO registry. The UK copied America's approach and in the early 2000s, sentences became much harsher. People in the US, were being given 20 year sentences for image possession, when contact offenders against children, were only getting 8 years, on average. But then something changed again. Around 2013, a group of judges in the US, wrote to the Justice Department, complaining that the mandatory minimum sentences for possession, which they were being asked to hand down, were disproportionate. Sentencing in the UK also moved away, from automatic prison sentences and towards suspended sentences. I like to think, that there was a recognition here, of the fact that the men downloading these images, do not pose any threat to children. Despite politicians and public opinion being favour of long sentences, judges in America refused to follow the govt guidelines. In the UK, Simon Bailey said publicly, that image offenders should not be jailed. These changes occurred in our lifetimes. We need to be clear what we mean by change, as well. Will the tabloids stop hating SOs? No, of course not, because they will always need a bogeyman. But, in the future, although I don't expect downloading will ever be decriminalised, I do think there will be a growing public recognition, of the fact that these SO are porn addicts, and not evil monsters who want to hurt kids. That will lead to a greater focus on treatment and less focus on punishment. I've only heard anecdotally but isn't there a move now to move towards images offenders being put on a course *before* being charged? If true, that is a huge move forward. I'd assume most of us would have given the earth for that option rather than what we've been through.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found? Stephen Gallant could easily have been an SO. It was only by an accident of fate, that he was there at Fishmongers Hall, on that day and not some other type of offender. If you look at how Gallant's offence was reported in the media, it was horrific. There was nothing nice about him until, as you say, the press took the trouble to investigate his background. At that point, they were able to find positives to 'offset' against his crime. If the media wanted to do that, where an SO is concerned, then they could do. There is a very good Youtube video here, about telling the stories of SOs, and how some are more messy than others. In other words, some stories have positive elements, that the media could pick up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgigHvmZnAThe cases mentioned, are ones that will only be familiar to American audiences, like Josh Duggar, but I've no doubt there will be UK equivalents out there. The lady doing the talk, is somebody who began by looking at cases involving miscarriages of justice, where an SO was wrongly convicted. But she then went on to investigate other SO, who were being harshly treated under the American SO laws. Yes, he was/is a good person. The media had automatically portrayed him as a sick monster. After all, murderer = sick monster, SO = vile pervert. That is exactly the point. That is what people see, and I suspect that if he had been an SO, and allowed to attend Fishmongers Hall that day, the media reaction would have been different. Yes, there is injustice going on, and yes good people are being dismissed as monsters, but nobody else is remotely interested in changing that, so it will take a lot of exceptions before anyone will be prepared to entertain the idea of even one SO being anything less than a vile pervert. That's reality. I really, really wish it was different, but it isn't. I hope this is another step on the road leading to a change in people's perceptions, but I can't see it happening in my lifetime. In the Youtube video, which I referenced earlier, there is a discussion about how the perception of SO has already changed, since the 1950s. In particular, they mention the impact of feminism in the 1970s and the current moral panic which began in the 1990s. Things do change, but slowly, and when we look back on past media reporting, then we can see how it has changed, by comparing it to today. Yes, things do change, and it is normally very slowly. I'm hopeful that things will change, but I'm not expecting any major improvements in my lifetime. I'm probably older than you, BTW.... In the early 1990s, I made a prediction, that cannabis would be legalised in the UK, in 25 years time. That still hasn't happened, although Malta has now become the first European country to go down that route and it probably won't be the last. But, if you had told me then, that the United States would have legalised it, before the UK did, I would never have believed that could happen, in my lifetime. Growing up in the 1980s, in the middle of the Cold War, I never expected to see the Soviet Union collapse, during my lifetime either, but it did. It is a mistake to equate the hatred of the tabloid headline writers with public opinion. Likewise, all the haters on social media, don't represent public opinion either. As for politicians, there is no way that govt ministers are ever going to say anything positive about SO in public, because they will be crucified in the press. But, behind the scenes, in the Parliamentary Select Committees for example, MPs are more thoughtful and willing to consider change. There has been change already, in the way that illegal image offenders are dealt with and perceived. Before 1999, the maximum sentence for possession of images, in the UK, was 6 months in jail. It was not seen as a serious offence, compared to distribution or production of images, but then the moral panic began. The maximum sentence was increased to 10 years, partly in response to Megan's Law being enacted in the USA, which brought in their SO registry. The UK copied America's approach and in the early 2000s, sentences became much harsher. People in the US, were being given 20 year sentences for image possession, when contact offenders against children, were only getting 8 years, on average. But then something changed again. Around 2013, a group of judges in the US, wrote to the Justice Department, complaining that the mandatory minimum sentences for possession, which they were being asked to hand down, were disproportionate. Sentencing in the UK also moved away, from automatic prison sentences and towards suspended sentences. I like to think, that there was a recognition here, of the fact that the men downloading these images, do not pose any threat to children. Despite politicians and public opinion being favour of long sentences, judges in America refused to follow the govt guidelines. In the UK, Simon Bailey said publicly, that image offenders should not be jailed. These changes occurred in our lifetimes. We need to be clear what we mean by change, as well. Will the tabloids stop hating SOs? No, of course not, because they will always need a bogeyman. But, in the future, although I don't expect downloading will ever be decriminalised, I do think there will be a growing public recognition, of the fact that these SO are porn addicts, and not evil monsters who want to hurt kids. That will lead to a greater focus on treatment and less focus on punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found? Stephen Gallant could easily have been an SO. It was only by an accident of fate, that he was there at Fishmongers Hall, on that day and not some other type of offender. If you look at how Gallant's offence was reported in the media, it was horrific. There was nothing nice about him until, as you say, the press took the trouble to investigate his background. At that point, they were able to find positives to 'offset' against his crime. If the media wanted to do that, where an SO is concerned, then they could do. There is a very good Youtube video here, about telling the stories of SOs, and how some are more messy than others. In other words, some stories have positive elements, that the media could pick up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgigHvmZnAThe cases mentioned, are ones that will only be familiar to American audiences, like Josh Duggar, but I've no doubt there will be UK equivalents out there. The lady doing the talk, is somebody who began by looking at cases involving miscarriages of justice, where an SO was wrongly convicted. But she then went on to investigate other SO, who were being harshly treated under the American SO laws. Yes, he was/is a good person. The media had automatically portrayed him as a sick monster. After all, murderer = sick monster, SO = vile pervert. That is exactly the point. That is what people see, and I suspect that if he had been an SO, and allowed to attend Fishmongers Hall that day, the media reaction would have been different. Yes, there is injustice going on, and yes good people are being dismissed as monsters, but nobody else is remotely interested in changing that, so it will take a lot of exceptions before anyone will be prepared to entertain the idea of even one SO being anything less than a vile pervert. That's reality. I really, really wish it was different, but it isn't. I hope this is another step on the road leading to a change in people's perceptions, but I can't see it happening in my lifetime. In the Youtube video, which I referenced earlier, there is a discussion about how the perception of SO has already changed, since the 1950s. In particular, they mention the impact of feminism in the 1970s and the current moral panic which began in the 1990s. Things do change, but slowly, and when we look back on past media reporting, then we can see how it has changed, by comparing it to today. Yes, things do change, and it is normally very slowly. I'm hopeful that things will change, but I'm not expecting any major improvements in my lifetime. I'm probably older than you, BTW....
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found? Stephen Gallant could easily have been an SO. It was only by an accident of fate, that he was there at Fishmongers Hall, on that day and not some other type of offender. If you look at how Gallant's offence was reported in the media, it was horrific. There was nothing nice about him until, as you say, the press took the trouble to investigate his background. At that point, they were able to find positives to 'offset' against his crime. If the media wanted to do that, where an SO is concerned, then they could do. There is a very good Youtube video here, about telling the stories of SOs, and how some are more messy than others. In other words, some stories have positive elements, that the media could pick up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgigHvmZnAThe cases mentioned, are ones that will only be familiar to American audiences, like Josh Duggar, but I've no doubt there will be UK equivalents out there. The lady doing the talk, is somebody who began by looking at cases involving miscarriages of justice, where an SO was wrongly convicted. But she then went on to investigate other SO, who were being harshly treated under the American SO laws. Yes, he was/is a good person. The media had automatically portrayed him as a sick monster. After all, murderer = sick monster, SO = vile pervert. That is exactly the point. That is what people see, and I suspect that if he had been an SO, and allowed to attend Fishmongers Hall that day, the media reaction would have been different. Yes, there is injustice going on, and yes good people are being dismissed as monsters, but nobody else is remotely interested in changing that, so it will take a lot of exceptions before anyone will be prepared to entertain the idea of even one SO being anything less than a vile pervert. That's reality. I really, really wish it was different, but it isn't. I hope this is another step on the road leading to a change in people's perceptions, but I can't see it happening in my lifetime. In the Youtube video, which I referenced earlier, there is a discussion about how the perception of SO has already changed, since the 1950s. In particular, they mention the impact of feminism in the 1970s and the current moral panic which began in the 1990s. Things do change, but slowly, and when we look back on past media reporting, then we can see how it has changed, by comparing it to today.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found? Stephen Gallant could easily have been an SO. It was only by an accident of fate, that he was there at Fishmongers Hall, on that day and not some other type of offender. If you look at how Gallant's offence was reported in the media, it was horrific. There was nothing nice about him until, as you say, the press took the trouble to investigate his background. At that point, they were able to find positives to 'offset' against his crime. If the media wanted to do that, where an SO is concerned, then they could do. There is a very good Youtube video here, about telling the stories of SOs, and how some are more messy than others. In other words, some stories have positive elements, that the media could pick up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgigHvmZnAThe cases mentioned, are ones that will only be familiar to American audiences, like Josh Duggar, but I've no doubt there will be UK equivalents out there. The lady doing the talk, is somebody who began by looking at cases involving miscarriages of justice, where an SO was wrongly convicted. But she then went on to investigate other SO, who were being harshly treated under the American SO laws. Yes, he was/is a good person. The media had automatically portrayed him as a sick monster. After all, murderer = sick monster, SO = vile pervert. That is exactly the point. That is what people see, and I suspect that if he had been an SO, and allowed to attend Fishmongers Hall that day, the media reaction would have been different. Yes, there is injustice going on, and yes good people are being dismissed as monsters, but nobody else is remotely interested in changing that, so it will take a lot of exceptions before anyone will be prepared to entertain the idea of even one SO being anything less than a vile pervert. That's reality. I really, really wish it was different, but it isn't. I hope this is another step on the road leading to a change in people's perceptions, but I can't see it happening in my lifetime.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found? Stephen Gallant could easily have been an SO. It was only by an accident of fate, that he was there at Fishmongers Hall, on that day and not some other type of offender. If you look at how Gallant's offence was reported in the media, it was horrific. There was nothing nice about him until, as you say, the press took the trouble to investigate his background. At that point, they were able to find positives to 'offset' against his crime. If the media wanted to do that, where an SO is concerned, then they could do. There is a very good Youtube video here, about telling the stories of SOs, and how some are more messy than others. In other words, some stories have positive elements, that the media could pick up on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgigHvmZnAThe cases mentioned, are ones that will only be familiar to American audiences, like Josh Duggar, but I've no doubt there will be UK equivalents out there. The lady doing the talk, is somebody who began by looking at cases involving miscarriages of justice, where an SO was wrongly convicted. But she then went on to investigate other SO, who were being harshly treated under the American SO laws.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero. Yes, but he was seen as a "nice" murderer when they looked into his background. It's a bit like strivers v. skivers, or the deserving and undeserving. It will probably take many more one-offs before perceptions really start to change..... In the case of SO's, real-life SO's, where will those one-offs be found?
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it. Although public perceptions can change. For example, the convicted murderer, who saved people from Usman Khan at Fishmongers Hall, and then became a hero.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+xOne of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong. For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started. I like the way the revelation was handled, but that doesn't change the fact that the writer chose to make a relatively safe choice. There has often been talk in the past of a need for a national debate or a public conversation, but if anything it just means politicians want to lecture us and the tabloids want to act as moderators to ensure they don't go off-piste. Again, just me being cynical, but that's how I see it.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
One of the narrative approaches that Outlaws uses, is introducing the characters, before revealing why they are on probation. That sequencing - seeing the person first, before learning about their offence - is one way to challenge the stereotypes. By portraying the character, as a charming and likeable individual, especially if they are being played by an actor who is famous and popular, you can make the audience warm to them first, before dropping the bomb, about what they did wrong.
For some people in the audience, just hearing about the nature of the offence, will be enough to make them reject the character immediately, but for others, it might make them think that maybe the people who commit those types of offences are misunderstood, and that they might have had reasons for doing what they did. That's how you could get the public conversation started.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+xThis was a great program, but also a rare opportunity to see the human beings, behind the offences. Stephen Merchant's character, Greg, was of particular interest, because he is an SO. Although Greg's crime, was one of the few socially acceptable sex crimes, I thought the producers missed a trick, because they could have made him a downloader of illegal images, or an online solicitation offender. That would have opened up a much needed debate, about who is committing these types of offences and whether they really are the monsters, that the press make them out to be. Every offence happens for a reason and each individual has their own particular circumstances, which lead them down that path. In Greg's case, it was loneliness and the lack of an appropriate sexual outlet. These are also the most common reasons, for people committing online sex offences. The show works on two levels. First, as a thriller about a bag of stolen money, but also as a drama, about the many reasons why people commit crime. It is not always because they are just bad, or evil people. That is the way criminals are usually portrayed on TV. In real life, things are far more complicated than that. I agree with what you say, but I'm sure the producers chose that offence (whatever it was, I didn't watch it) because they knew there would be little public sympathy for most other offences. It would be constructive to have a debate about what you mention, but I doubt the producers and the public would agree with you, and you can't have a discussion with someone who refuses to discuss.... Yes, real life is more complicated than the plot of a TV show, but in the case of SO's, the general public's view is clear and the tabloids are unlikely to want that to change. Stephen Merchant says his parents were both probation workers, and that was one of his inspirations for writing it. He also said he wants to challenge stereotypes. You make an important observation, about why they might choose one kind of offence over another, and how that might be influenced by possible public sympathy. To some degree, this depends on how the offender is portrayed, not just the nature of the offence itself. One of the characters (Lady Gabby) is a stalker. That is not an offence which attracts any public sympathy whatsoever, when reported in the media. This character has anger management issues and behaves in a way, which terrorises their victim. So, on the face of it, not a sympathetic character at all. If you have not seen the show and all you know about her, is her offence, then she is not at all likeable. This, of course, is how all of us experience crime, when it is reported in the newspapers. We are told about the offence and the effect on the victim, but we are told nothing about the offender, their back story, or why they did it. That's why Outlaws is important. It does look at the offenders life story and who they are as a person. That said, there are a couple of things about this character which help to make them more 'appealing' to the audience. First, Lady Gabby is female, which probably makes her stalking more 'acceptable', to the general public, than if she were a male stalker, (even if the effect on her female victim, is just the same). Second, she is a social media influencer, with a huge following and a very positive and charismatic online personality. Or at least that is how she appears, because behind that public persona, she is much more complex. Anger management issues, issues with her father etc. To me, this is the real point of the program. It is making clear that offenders, just like everyone else, have a good and a bad side to them, irrespective of what their offence is and how the public might feel about that offence. This includes the stereotypes that the public employ, to 'explain' crime. E.g. the idea that stalkers are all evil psychopaths, with no redeeming aspects to their personality at all, or the stereotype of SO, as being sadistic monsters, who just enjoy hurting people. Well, I agree with you, up to a point. There is generally more sympathy, or at least some, for female stalkers, whereas male stalkers are either seen as psychpathic brutes or SO's in the making. Not all SO's are seen as violent monsters, just sick beasts or vile perverts. He may have drawn on his parents' experience to write the script, but if he wanted to challenge portrayals and views of SO's as anything other than what I said above, he would have chosen a different offence. At least he chose to play that role himself, but that may have influenced his decision not to take any risks.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+xThis was a great program, but also a rare opportunity to see the human beings, behind the offences. Stephen Merchant's character, Greg, was of particular interest, because he is an SO. Although Greg's crime, was one of the few socially acceptable sex crimes, I thought the producers missed a trick, because they could have made him a downloader of illegal images, or an online solicitation offender. That would have opened up a much needed debate, about who is committing these types of offences and whether they really are the monsters, that the press make them out to be. Every offence happens for a reason and each individual has their own particular circumstances, which lead them down that path. In Greg's case, it was loneliness and the lack of an appropriate sexual outlet. These are also the most common reasons, for people committing online sex offences. The show works on two levels. First, as a thriller about a bag of stolen money, but also as a drama, about the many reasons why people commit crime. It is not always because they are just bad, or evil people. That is the way criminals are usually portrayed on TV. In real life, things are far more complicated than that. I agree with what you say, but I'm sure the producers chose that offence (whatever it was, I didn't watch it) because they knew there would be little public sympathy for most other offences. It would be constructive to have a debate about what you mention, but I doubt the producers and the public would agree with you, and you can't have a discussion with someone who refuses to discuss.... Yes, real life is more complicated than the plot of a TV show, but in the case of SO's, the general public's view is clear and the tabloids are unlikely to want that to change. Stephen Merchant says his parents were both probation workers, and that was one of his inspirations for writing it. He also said he wants to challenge stereotypes. You make an important observation, about why they might choose one kind of offence over another, and how that might be influenced by possible public sympathy. To some degree, this depends on how the offender is portrayed, not just the nature of the offence itself. One of the characters (Lady Gabby) is a stalker. That is not an offence which attracts any public sympathy whatsoever, when reported in the media. This character has anger management issues and behaves in a way, which terrorises their victim. So, on the face of it, not a sympathetic character at all. If you have not seen the show and all you know about her, is her offence, then she is not at all likeable. This, of course, is how all of us experience crime, when it is reported in the newspapers. We are told about the offence and the effect on the victim, but we are told nothing about the offender, their back story, or why they did it. That's why Outlaws is important. It does look at the offenders life story and who they are as a person. That said, there are a couple of things about this character which help to make them more 'appealing' to the audience. First, Lady Gabby is female, which probably makes her stalking more 'acceptable', to the general public, than if she were a male stalker, (even if the effect on her female victim, is just the same). Second, she is a social media influencer, with a huge following and a very positive and charismatic online personality. Or at least that is how she appears, because behind that public persona, she is much more complex. Anger management issues, issues with her father etc. To me, this is the real point of the program. It is making clear that offenders, just like everyone else, have a good and a bad side to them, irrespective of what their offence is and how the public might feel about that offence. This includes the stereotypes that the public employ, to 'explain' crime. E.g. the idea that stalkers are all evil psychopaths, with no redeeming aspects to their personality at all, or the stereotype of SO, as being sadistic monsters, who just enjoy hurting people.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+xThis was a great program, but also a rare opportunity to see the human beings, behind the offences. Stephen Merchant's character, Greg, was of particular interest, because he is an SO. Although Greg's crime, was one of the few socially acceptable sex crimes, I thought the producers missed a trick, because they could have made him a downloader of illegal images, or an online solicitation offender. That would have opened up a much needed debate, about who is committing these types of offences and whether they really are the monsters, that the press make them out to be. Every offence happens for a reason and each individual has their own particular circumstances, which lead them down that path. In Greg's case, it was loneliness and the lack of an appropriate sexual outlet. These are also the most common reasons, for people committing online sex offences. The show works on two levels. First, as a thriller about a bag of stolen money, but also as a drama, about the many reasons why people commit crime. It is not always because they are just bad, or evil people. That is the way criminals are usually portrayed on TV. In real life, things are far more complicated than that. I agree with what you say, but I'm sure the producers chose that offence (whatever it was, I didn't watch it) because they knew there would be little public sympathy for most other offences. It would be constructive to have a debate about what you mention, but I doubt the producers and the public would agree with you, and you can't have a discussion with someone who refuses to discuss.... Yes, real life is more complicated than the plot of a TV show, but in the case of SO's, the general public's view is clear and the tabloids are unlikely to want that to change.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
This was a great program, but also a rare opportunity to see the human beings, behind the offences. Stephen Merchant's character, Greg, was of particular interest, because he is an SO.
Although Greg's crime, was one of the few socially acceptable sex crimes, I thought the producers missed a trick, because they could have made him a downloader of illegal images, or an online solicitation offender. That would have opened up a much needed debate, about who is committing these types of offences and whether they really are the monsters, that the press make them out to be.
Every offence happens for a reason and each individual has their own particular circumstances, which lead them down that path. In Greg's case, it was loneliness and the lack of an appropriate sexual outlet. These are also the most common reasons, for people committing online sex offences.
The show works on two levels. First, as a thriller about a bag of stolen money, but also as a drama, about the many reasons why people commit crime. It is not always because they are just bad, or evil people. That is the way criminals are usually portrayed on TV. In real life, things are far more complicated than that.
|
|
|
|