this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
169 points (97.2% liked)

World News

39162 readers
2617 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Paedophiles convicted of serious sexual offences could lose parental rights over their children under a new law.

The proposed law change comes after the BBC reported the case of a mother who spent £30,000 in legal fees to stop her paedophile ex-husband getting access to their daughter.

After hearing the story, Labour MP Harriet Harman tabled an amendment to upcoming legislation.

It covers the most serious sexual offence - rape of a child under 13. 

Speaking to BBC News, Ms Harman said paedophiles who were guilty of that crime in the future would be "automatically deprived" of their parental rights.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

I don't know what I personally think, but my guess about the justification is that the state intervenes when it's in the best interests of the child. Its purpose is to protect and aid the minor when families can't.

It is considered a harm to deprive children permanently of access to their parents, without showing that it's more harmful for the kid to be around them. So crime doesn't automatically remove access. Is the theory.

The state isn't supposed to treat permanent removal of access to a child as another criminal punishment. One thing I do agree on, though, is that people who rape kids shouldn't have unsupervised visits with their minor children, since they've proven themselves harmful specifically to children. Not even supervised, honestly.

I guess I'd want to see studies about outcomes of kids who are allowed around convicted adult rapist parents, vs those allowed access to parents convicted of nonviolent crimes. Or a study designed by people who know how to design studies well. Instead of my rambling suggestion.

I worry that our vibe checks get warped around kids, and we ignore what's proven right vs what feels right. Like people who feel really strongly that kids need their parents specifically have warped the narrative on this issue, and I don't want to warp it in a different way.