For purposes of criminal liability for one's actions, most western societies have established standards to determine when one asserting a mental illness can escape, partially or fully, responsibility for his/her acts. In the states, we've essentially adopted a hybrid of the old McNaughton rule which, in short, provides that you are relieved of some/all responsibility depending on the degree to which you can tell right from wrong and have the ability to control your impulses. We "normal" (allegedly) people can't understand why somebody violently rapes another person, has sex with a 8 year old, or even robs a bank......but tossing the concept that "they must be mentally ill" at it because one doesn't understand it or because the act isn't "normal" is an awful lazy way of thinking. Western law just doesn't work that way. If you're going to label something a mental illness (which presumably means you're going to assign less responsibility in the process), you first need to define what it is and how you're going to determine if somebody is in that condition.
Gary Glitter, as I understood it, never asserted he had a mental illness or defect nor have I read anything (admittedly, there wasn't much "guts" of the case printed) that would lead me to believe he didn't have an ability to control his impulses.
My initial comments were simply that I was astonished that he only got 3 years for molesting two kids (and I repeat again that he would have received 4-10 times that sentence if it occurred in England, the States, and most of Europe - and, of course, he would have been executed in some places).
For the last 20 years or so, it's become popular (a better word might be "fashionable") to claim that one isn't responsible for one's acts because one was raised by bad parents, watched too many violent video games, etc. In my eyes, almost all of that is pure bullshit and simply a way of not taking responsibility for one's acts. I have no reason to believe that Glitter wasn't responsible for his acts (and haven't heard him claim otherwise).
Western societies have never accepted "pedophilia" (sexual attraction to kiddies - although there's some research that indicates it isn't all about sex just as in cases of adult rape) as a mental illness that allows the person to escape liability for his/her criminal acts. You can personally disagree with that idea but a lot of societies have struggled with the concept for hundreds of years and none of them agree with you.
Skipping all the theoretics, I also may disagree, Khor tose, with your comment that the treatment of pedophilia has met with some degree of success. Based on what I've read, the so-called success rate is abysmally low and, rather pointedly, almost identical with the "success" rate of no treatment at all. Pedophiles are notorious repeat offenders and, for that reason alone, they ought to be kept away from all children for the rest of their lives.
I'm quite sympathetic with the truly mentally ill (having represented many hundreds of people who my state was attempting to involuntarily commit for psychiatric treatment). I have no reason to have any sympathy for Glitter.
|
