Talk:Nicole Louise Pearce

BLP noticeboard

I have initiated a discussion about this article at the Biographies of Living People noticeboard. I believe there are various BLP violations in the article but I'm not very experienced as an editor within this area, so I want some input from people who are. --bonadea contributions talk 15:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: your concerns. A biography of a person only known for their crimes would necessarily include a discussion of their crimes. That I have done no other editing on other topics is no proof of bias. The discussion of gender identity is relevant, which you could have readily gleaned from the descriptive references footnoted and linked to, as this was the first individual in Australia to receive a gender reassignment while incarcerated and it was this gender change ("extreme chemical castration") which contributed to the first life re-sentencing under then new "truth in sentencing laws" which took into consideration that the prisoner was no longer fundamentally the same person originally convicted. If you were to check the references again, and there are many, the discussions about "psychopathy" and "evil" and "pedophilia" pertain specifically to Pearce. They are not general subjective assumptions or original research. You may listen to the ABC linked audio file for a fairly succinct survey of these ideas with specific regard to Pearce. These ideas have been written about in academia with sole focus on Pearce's nature, and whether or not a person of this very specific background and diagnosis can have their criminal tendencies rendered harmless by gender change. The gender identity is also relevant because it relates to the offender's drive to commit the same crimes again (testosterone reduction and estrogen increase not having been found reliable in decreasing criminal sexual aggression towards others). The gender is a factor, because without the gender reassignment, there would have been no release, and a precedent set for similar appeals. I would appreciate it if in finding fault you would reference how the information does not stack up with the available information or in what way it is misleading or biased rather than simply assuming so. The references are extensive and much of it readily accessible online. There are no statements in the original article which aren't borne out by what is academically published, in books with dedicated chaptersabout Pearce, journals or interviews with their authors. Key issues surrounding Pearce are genetics/brain structure, background which may have led to offending, role of gender in crime and rehabilitation, discussions by criminologists, psychiatrists and psychologists and extensive consideration about what constitutes evil in Pearce specifically. Criminologist Professor Paul Wilson (referenced several times) gives extended discussion of Pearce's evil with reference to Dr. Robert Hare's "PCL Checklist Revised" – the gold standard for determining psychopathy in a court of law, and includes references to other important figures which influenced Paul Wilson – Australia's pre-eminent criminologist – in determining the nature and extent of Pearce's evil, the meaning of her gender and the likelihood she would reoffend. The concept of evil with regard to Pearce cannot be understood by tying it to any one opinion, thus several are quoted for balance. As the experts quoted in the references describe the origin of their thinking, based on 100+ years of psychological research, it is apt to include those they mention – they do form part of the greater understanding of this individual. These are not POV statements, they are references to a broad base of findings by experts. Similarly controversial figures are those related to chemical castration and release of sexually-motivated murderers whom ultimately weren't deterred by changes in their hormonal balance, incarceration or the passage of time. Obviously this would be "regrettable releases" given that the ability to have such releases occur in the future has been all but entirely done away with (again, as referenced). These similar criminals are a part of the context in which Nicole Pearce can be compared and contrasted, and the place she holds in crimes of her nature over the last 40 years. Her life forms an extremely unique chapter in Australian criminal history which cannot be seen in isolation. There is no gender reassignment slander, it is integral to understanding why and how she was released. Please take the time to thoroughly argue your points. There are no sections in this article which aren't referenced with absolute reference to Pearce, yet a rebuttal hasn't concerned itself with a single oneof them. They do not make for tangential discussions. Her's is a prominent case in Australian criminal history which will be debated in the contexts I mention above for decades to come. --Crimescrutineer (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)