Can filthy pedo scumbags ever be rehabilitated

Kim Workman and Garth McVicar are still going at it over whether or not filthy pedo scumbags can ever be rehabilitated.

Garth says no, Kim wants to give them hugs and cuddles but to date hasn’t offered to re-home them at his place or near his own grand kids.

Garth’s latest newsletter extends the argument.

Kim Workman recently criticised me when I said that there is no known cure for paedophilia, and that paedophiles cannot be either cured or rehabilitated.

So I asked Ian Tyler, the man responsible for locking up more paedophiles than any other for his opinion. Ian had this to say. 

“What is Mr Workman’s motive for ignoring evidence that sex offending against children has 90% under reporting rate? It is naive, at best, to produce figures as fact that are based purely on reconviction rates because they are obviously at least 90% below reality. It is also naive to assert treatment programs are completely effective. Phillip Smith was deemed manipulative and devious and not suitable for parole. Suddenly just over a year ago his behaviour changed and he started playing the system. Another manipulation”

“It is also naive to base figures on the uncorroborated word of an offender, unless you use polygraph techniques, as currently being used in the USA and UK, when managing sex offenders. Otherwise you are basing figures on the word of convicted offenders such as SMITH”.

“I would suggest Mr Workman look at what the World Health Organisation and The Diagnostic Manual for Mental Disorders (World Bible) have to say on this issue. They all state there is no known cure. That is because the world does not have a cure for mental disorders yet. Stop using the phrase rehabilitation and think along the lines of control measures. Then we might believe that you Mr Workman, have ANY real concerns for victims.

Ian Tyler , Retired UK detective, Victim advocate and author of Hope Arises

So if the World Health Organisation and the Diagnostic Manual for Mental Disorders (World Bible) acknowledge there is no known cure it surely follows that these offenders will continue to pose a risk to public safety – children in particular.

The CEO of Corrections, Ray Smith states the New Zealand public quite rightly expect Corrections to keep them safe so why is it that he and other public servants and legislators continue to operate under the mistaken dogma that convicted murderers and paedophiles can be rehabilitated and must be released?

Until public safety is enshrined into legislation these debacles will continue to happen.

The only know cure for filthy pedo scumbags is a copper coated lead injection.


– Sensible Sentencing Trust


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Yeahright

    How about cutting a certain part of their body off, As a comprise we won’t use a rusty saw with no pain relief, we will offer a Panadol or two!

    • Wheninrome

      I have said in an earlier post you would be left with just a torso, it is not just a “certain part of their anatomy” they necessarily use to abuse.

      • Yeahright

        You have to start somewhere!
        On a more Practical note, when you do it to a dog, it calms them down, gets ride of a certain hormone that drives the desire.

  • Cadwallader

    The headline is a rhetoric question but either way the answer is: No!

  • RightofSingapore

    Kim’s views are naive to say the least and dangerous at worst. Assuming one is not a foetus, the Left’s most dangerous belief is their support for criminals.

  • digby

    Only let them out when they pose no risk to the community. Surely the communities right to be free from these proven deviant individuals overrides the individuals right to free access to further victims in the community. As a tax payer I am more than happy to fund a reasonable level of confined comfort as long as they don’t get to roam free amongst us.

  • Kevin

    Put them in their own gated community where they live for their rest of their lives.

  • intelligentes candida diva

    I think if they themselves have been abused as a child then they abuse it is 50 50 that they can be rehabilitated, seems ironic, but they have been affected by their environment rather than it be inherent in their make up.

    If they have not been abused themselves and are abusers then NO I do not believe they can be rehabilitated because they are self serving in any which way for whatever reason and it is inherent in their make up such as being narcissistic and or sociopathic

    • Cadwallader

      Would you make a distinction between male/female pedos?

      I heard once that any sexual encounter which is one of exerting power over another i.e. forcing children to participate, is a form of gluttony and hence the only possible remedy has to come from the gluttonous party.

      • intelligentes candida diva

        No I personally do not make distinction. Abuse is abuse and for a child its the act of abuse that damages and is abhorrent, irrespective of male or female.

        Here is an interesting link

        • Cadwallader

          No, I think you may have misunderstood me. I was questioning whether males were more difficult to rehabilitate compared with females. I assume there must be research into this somewhere?

          • Joe_Bloggs

            yes there is. Just grabbing typical results from the PsychInfo database of research into the area:

            (many studies) women contribute only 5% of criminal sex offenders

            (2005 and 2009 studies of over 5,000 men in UK, USA) the base rates of recidivism among male sexual offenders are, over a follow-up period of 5 years, 13.5% for new sexual offences, 25.5% for new violent (including sexual) offences, and 36% for any new type of recidivism

            (2005 and 2010 studies of over 6,500 women offenders around the western world) recidivism rates among female sexual offenders are much lower than those of males. Recidivism rates were 1.5% for new sexual offences, 6% for new violent (including sexual) offences, and 20% for any new type of recidivism.

            So males reoffend more often – suggests they are more resistant to rehabilitation. What it also reveals is that when males and females are prosecuted for sex offences and put into the criminal justice system, they move on to other criminal activities , i.e., their criminal urges spread wider than just sex offending

            That’s academic. What it doesn’t reveal though are two facts:

            1. barely 10% of sex offending is uncovered
            2. over 90% of sex offending is carried out by offenders known and trusted by the victims

    • Wheninrome

      This is a bit like the chicken and the egg, who was the first abuser.
      If a ” choice” and a non abused person abuses their child then the child goes on to become an abuser, which one is able to be rehabilitated?
      Can you change the choices that people make.
      I have read that people can make a choice to change their behaviour and actively change, but slowly things revert to the original behaviour pattern.
      I believe very few sex offenders can change or be changed.
      Do the majority of people have to risk paying for the minority’s choice of behaviour?
      I am in the no camp.

      • intelligentes candida diva

        I don’t believe anyone ought to be at risk of paying for anyone’s abuse.

        The point I’m trying to make in saying 50 50 is its like the toss of a coin, as opposed to those who have not been abused there is no 50 50
        I hope I’m making sense.

  • HR

    Can they be rehabilitated? In a word, No. And I don’t think the rest of society should have to live in fear that one of these people are anywhere near children or potential victims.
    There was a documentary on the telly a couple of nights ago, Louis Theroux on sex offenders in the States. He was talking about an app you can get that shows information on and locations of offenders on the sex offender register. The offenders also were not allowed out on Halloween (kids about and all) and had to have a sign on their door stating they were not participating in Halloween. And guess what the parole service was doing? Checking to see they were complying with the conditions of parole, and if they weren’t it was back to prison ASAP. There was more of course…
    Say what you like about the USA, but they don’t muck around with the bad guys.

  • D.Dave

    The only ‘hugs and cuddles’ these sicko’s want are unseen ones from other people’s children. The only ones they need are from straight jackets………….

    • Billythekid

      But freferably the copper coated injection.

  • burns_well_eh

    The difficulty with this issue is it’s a highly emotive one, served particularly poorly by hysterical headlines and the use of the pejorative terms we see in this post and the commenters, many whipping each other into a frenzy.

    This type of offence is really hard to stomach, particularly as it involves the most vulnerable people in the community (with the possible exception of those who bash or sexually assault senior citizens, which is equally repugnant).

    But the reality is that yes, some who sexually offend against children can be rehabilitated, are being rehabilitated and have been rehabilitated. Many have insight to their offending, are disgusted by it, and highly motivated to make changes in their lives which usually involve counselling, support and in some cases medication.

    Some very good research was done on this exact subject as part of a PhD a few years ago, and a few salient points were made, which I think are worth considering without the hysteria.

    – We’re not legally able to castrate or shoot those who’ve offended against children, so there’s no point proposing that solution, even if it makes you feel good. If you want to help find a solution, then stop suggesting parts be cut off etc.
    – By law, when people have served their sentence they’re deemed to have paid their debt to society and have to be let out
    – People have to live somewhere, and that somewhere is in the community
    – Many offenders have insight to their offending and want it to stop
    – Not all offenders are like Philip Smith or the “Beast of Blenheim” and many can be rehabilitated
    – What effect is it likely to have on these people if they’re shunned by society, labelled dirty filthy pedo scum etc, have flyers put up in their town and are subject to vigilante justice? Could you blame them for thinking “may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb” or figuring that if society expected them to do these things and refused them a chance to rehabilitate themselves, then why not go hard out?

    Within the spectrum of people who have offended against children (overwhelmingly but not exclusively males), there are many different degrees of seriousness. To assume all are recidivist, evil, manipulative and determined to offend at every opportunity is not only wrong, but very likely to make the situation worse, not better.

    • Popliteal

      Are you sure lowered reported reoffending rates following treatment are the result of reduced reoffending?

      Or are pedophiles using the treatment programmes to learn from each other better ways to conceal future crimes – for instance, which threats work best to shut children up?

      Reported reoffending rates may be much lower than the rate of commission of offences.

      Show us your gold standard.

    • digby

      The problem is that you cannot identify which ones will reoffend and which ones will not until after the reoffenders have reoffended. Should the community have to pay for that risk? Or should the offenders pay for that risk? My vote would go towards the offenders paying that risk by being incarcerated, perhaps in some less severe containment unit where they can essentially pay their way by being offered productive work and that unit being somewhat less restrictive about routines and living conditions etc. Why should the community carry the risk of these people reoffending?

      • burns_well_eh

        Take that exact same argument for any other offence, and you’ll see it doesn’t make sense. The fact is, once people have completed their sentence, they have to be released into the community. if it’s for burglary, the community has to take the risk that they’ll have learned more effective burglary techniques in the slammer, and will offend again. Many do. You can’t lock them up for ever, and you can’t shoot them or chop their arms off to prevent them stealing again.

        If the community shuns, demonises and rejects them, are they more – or less – likely to hit back at that community?

        • digby

          I disagree. Equating the risk around the effects of burglary and paedophilia is ridiculous. I am happy to take the risk of offenders reoffending if the crime was burglary. The downside risk is acceptable. We are talking about a crime here where the risk of recidivism is one I am not happy to take. I would rather see them removed from general society forever, unless they are proven to be 100% rehabilitated. But not in a typical prison where their lives are an abject misery. One where they can mix with their peers in a relatively normal lifestyle, but where they are kept away from temptation and opportunity that is available within our communities. Bottom line for me is, ‘if their is an undue risk, they should be removed from the community’ until they no longer pose that risk. WHY SHOULD SOCIETY HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR.

          • burns_well_eh

            There’s no need to shout – we should be able to debate ideas civilly. You didn’t answer my question, but I’ll answer yours.

            Why should society have to pay the price for “their” behaviour?
            Apart from the fact it’s both dangerous and wrong to label all pedophiles together, the reason is – because that’s what societies do.

            They’re not all made up of people just like you, or people you like, or people whose behaviour you personally are prepared to tolerate or accept the risk of. We have laws, and punishments for people that transgress. Once people have paid their penalty they are released into society again.

            The question is: how do you deal with them in such a way that they have an opportunity to reintegrate (as the law allows them), while at the same time limiting the risk to society?

            Suggestions such as yours – remove them from society (ridiculous and unworkable) until such time as they prove themselves 100% rehabilitated (impossible to prove – do you mean like Philip Smith?) are completely pointless and serve only to illustrate your disgust at the crimes. I get that, but it doesn’t help – not in the slightest.

          • digby

            Yet again I disagree.

            I didn’t need to answer your question because if we do not let them back into society, there is no risk of them rebelling against society. It becomes moot.

            Your response “Because that’s what societies do” is not a valid argument. Its not a reason or an argument. You are merely stating the status quo in NZ.

            The penalty component of any jail term is supposed to act as a deterrent for these people against reoffending. It, in most / many cases for crimes such as paedophilia, has proven time and again to be ineffectual. If a penalty doesn’t work, them we need to change the penalty. IE We should change the law.

            Removing these people from society is not ridiculous or unworkable. Many countries have “jail for life” sentences. I would however, for these types of offenders, not place them into your typical jail but into a facility where they operate their own segregated communities and lead relatively productive lives. If they can’t play by those rules then they go back to the more typical prison situation. These are generally normally functioning people who can run themselves in a community where the opportunity to offend is removed.

            The relevant question I see is a question of, “Is the risk of placing an innocent (or reformed offender) into the ranks of the incarcerated, better or worse than placing a recidivist offender back into society to reoffend against the innocent?” My response to that question is it is better.

            I think the currently correct response to your question “how do you deal with them in such a way that they have an opportunity to reintegrate (as the law allows them), while at the same time limiting the risk to society?” is, currently we can’t as we cannot limit the risk to an acceptable level. We cannot know which of the offenders will reoffend. We cannot, for certain, even answer the question is paedophilia a curable condition?

            My contention that these people are removed from society is not about expressing disgust at the crime. It is a suggested solution to the problem.

          • burns_well_eh

            1. It’s not the status quo just in New Zealand; it’s the status quo in every developed country in the world.

            2. You clearly know nothing about the purpose of jail terms. There are three purposes: punishment – removal from society for a fixed term; deterrent – this wasn’t very nice so hopefully you won’t do it again; rehabilitation – the opportunity to get counselling, in some cases education, and to reflect on why you did this. For you – an untrained layman ignorant of any of the science or research being done in the area of rehabilitation – to come out and say “they will never be rehabilitated – just lock them up with their own kind and throw away the key” merely betrays your ignorance and is an unworkable solution that would never make it through the legislative process. For you to suggest that it would, or somehow happen by a magical wave of your “If I ruled the world” wand, betrays your lack of knowledge of the democratic process. In short, your opinions are worthless.

            3. New Zealand has a “jail for life” sentence. It’s called preventive detention and has been applied in many cases, mostly for sexual or violent assault. You appear to want to skip any of the steps between first sexual offence and preventive detention – go straight to jail, do not pass go etc. This denies the opportunity for rehabilitation and redemption to people who have been punished and subsequently rehabilitated. Pointless and unworkable.

            4. You state that penalising people for pedophilia has proven “time and again to be ineffective” – statistics please, otherwise it’s just your opinion. You also need to provide stats on those that have been rehabilitated and gone on to lead productive lives.

            5. You talk about managing risk, and then say you can’t, but you’re wrong. Risk has to be managed because people have rights – even those that have transgressed against you, your children or your elderly parents. Society (and the law) says that when they’ve served their time, they must be released, regardless of the crime. If you think you can manage risk, consider this – how do you ensure that only guilty people are convicted, and only innocent people go free? You can’t achieve both. If you want to guarantee that no guilty person goes free, then the only way to manage that risk is to convict every single person that comes before the courts. If you want to ensure that no innocent person is convicted, then the only way to manage that risk is to acquit every single person that goes before the courts. If you want to ensure that no person convicted of sexual offending against children does it again, you have to lock them up or kill them. You can’t do that – do you actually understand? You can’t do that.

            If you accept (which given your “arguments” to date I’m not sure you can) that reality, that fact, then you have to look at another solution. I confess I don’t know what that is, but I know that locking them up and throwing away the key (regardless of who else is in jail with them – a canard if ever there was one), or killing them is not legally, morally or practically possible in this country.

            I also know that demonising them, rejecting them, shunning them, running them out of town and enacting vigilante justice is not going to improve the outcome at all.

            And if you think the greatest risk is from offenders released from jail, you’re absolutely wrong. Our children are at far greater risk from their neighbours, uncles, sports coaches, scout leaders, teachers etc than they are from someone that doesn’t know them or has never met them. Look a lot closer to home and keep your children safe.

            Over and out.

  • Sagacious Blonde

    The Herald today tells us how easy it is circumvent the electronic anklet and wander at will – “Top hacker exposes home detention bracelet flaw”.
    Really scary stuff given Corrections seem to be in denial

    • David Moore

      I’d be more convinced it was ‘easy’ if it was a random person with little technical skill showing how it could be circumvented, rather than a ‘top hacker’.

      • Sagacious Blonde

        Determined criminals, pedophiles included are quite happy to buy, use, abuse and extort the means to achieve their ends. How Stuart Murray Wilson the Beast of Blenheim got his victim’s totally unlisted, under police surveillance from the time he was paroled, phone number would be interesting to know.

  • Nz front

    The best rehab is a bullet to the head.

  • Dave Smythe

    Do you really want a person who has sexually abused a child calling themselves a ‘filthy pedo scumbag’? If thats what they think they are, thats what they’ll be. Hardly a helpful or intelligent label for people that have committed heinous crimes. And if thats what they are thinking because thats what people tell them they are, is that taking them towards reoffending or is it taking them away from reoffending? As for the people who use old and predictable lines such as bullet, castration, lock them up forever, save your breath, stop typing and think of something intelligent and useful to say.

    The bottom line is a person who has sexually abused a child will ALWAYS carry a degree of risk of reoffending. Rehabilitation is not about a cure for a mental illness (most are not paedophiles, they are deviant), its about gaining insight into their behaviour, recognising when their behaviour is similar or the same as when they were offending and making much different choices, like keeping away from children.

    • Goldfish

      Just to correct a few things you said:

      will ALWAYS carry a degree of risk of reoffending

      they will ALWAYS carry a high degree of risk of re-offending.

      making much different choices, like keeping away from children

      Rather than giving these highly undesirable people personal 24/7 minders, why don’t we just lock them up?

      Why must we “understand” them? Are they a minority that needs to fight for their rights to be recognised? How do we trust paedophiles (or “deviants” as you call them) to stay away from children? Why are we even having this conversation?