Paedophile support group.

Diogenes

Interesting

One such paedophile was Charlie Taylor, once regarded as Canada's public enemy No 1. He had been in and out of jail for offences against young children since his teens, and in 1994 had just been released again in Hamilton, Ontario, after his latest sentence had come to an end. Charlie had an IQ of 70, was illiterate, and had never been employed.

Understandably, the community into which he was released was up in arms about the fact that Charlie had come home. Several concerned residents took to the streets to make their views known. Forced to "do something" in response to this public uproar, the police promised that they would watch Charlie's bedsit around the clock. Even the local schools got in on the act, placing a photograph of Charlie on every child's desk. Pupils were warned not to go near him if they should spot him in the street or in the park.

One child put up his hand. "But Miss," he said, "he came over to our house last night for supper."

And so he had, for this child's father, Harry Nigh, had just set up the first ever Circle of Support and Accountability for released paedophiles - in an act that Harry and his wife described to me as "accidental courage". In fact, all they had done was to invite four of their friends over to dinner with Charlie; they wanted to see if they could do anything to help him resettle in the community in the face of public panic. But then, over the next 12 years, they kept following this basic template of the first ever circle. Each day, one of the six would meet with Charlie, the "core member", to buy him a coffee, ensure that he was taking his medication, and just to provide an ear for Charlie to vent his many complaints. Then, on the seventh day, they would all come together to eat a meal, find out how Charlie was doing, and celebrate his successes, or help him to overcome his problems.

To put it bluntly, Charlie became part of their extended families. Two months ago, when Charlie died, his circle members were his only mourners. Yet, in the 12 years of liberty before his death, Charlie Taylor had never reoffended.

And what holds true for Charlie's circle can equally be applied to the first 50 circles that were set up in Canada, and which have recently been evaluated by Dr Robin Wilson of the Correctional Service of Canada. He has demonstrated that circles - overwhelmingly made up of everyday, working Canadians with little, or no, knowledge of criminology, policing, psychology or social work - have reduced the predicted rates of reoffending for this extraordinarily difficult type of offender by some 60%. He also found that if these "core members" do reoffend, it is for a less serious category of crime than they had originally been sentenced for.

Full article here

These circles are now being set up in the UK working with the prison service, I was wondering do people think they are a good idea? Some redtops are refering to the groups dismissively as "paedo pals".

Personally I think they're a good idea, there's no way to lock them up forever, its a way of checking up on paedophiles, and its certainly a better step then setting up the pub lynch mob to set upon the local pediatrician. However I'm not sure if I could be part of such a circle. Could you?

6th

I think they are a good idea, if they are going to be released after offenses then this type of thing is a way keeping checks.

folan

Its like a more hands on way to keep tabs on them! or thats how it seems to me. if someone meets him every day, he'll be noticed missing or even acting strangely if they do it again quicker. plus maybe keeping them busy helps!
fair play to the parents

tbh

fair play, but I don't think I could be part of a circle. I guess if the guy in question accepted he needed help, then I could try, but if they tried to justify their previous actions, I'd lose it.

Nevyn

Community policing.

Jackie laughlin

I was very upset the day I came to the conclusion that paedophilia was a sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. It therefore cannot be cured. If treated as a crime, offenders will be released in the certain knowledge that they have not changed. I was led to begin thinking that permanent or indefinite incarceration (as with dangerous lunatics) was the only course. What you have raised here may go some way to addressing the difficulty.

I have to admit that I fly into a temper in defence of children and I don't think I'm sufficiently tolerant to belong to one of these groups. Like most people my age, I was groped by paedophile teachers. It's not easy to put that to one side.

metrovelvet

How can you be sure they wont use them to trade seduction techniques and strategies?

seamus

metrovelvet wrote:

How can you be sure they wont use them to trade seduction techniques and strategies?

If enough of them are set up, then maybe one or two will be. But you can't abandon a possible working outlet over "maybes".

If they're being set up in conjunction with the prison service, there's also a good chance that most of the people involved will be
A) Non-offenders (of any crimes)
Of mixed sex (possibly even mostly female)
C) Largely unknown to eachother

Each of these factors would massively reduce the chance of a circle being turned into a peadophile ring.

Diogenes

metrovelvet wrote:

How can you be sure they wont use them to trade seduction techniques and strategies?

Paedophiles don't meet, a single paedophile is set up with seven volunteers from around the community. The likelyhood of seven paedophiles managing to inflitrate the group, getting assigned altogether on the same case is remote.

Pink Bunny

Diogenes wrote:

One child put up his hand. "But Miss," he said, "he came over to our house last night for supper."

And so he had, for this child's father, Harry Nigh, had just set up the first ever Circle of Support and Accountability for released paedophiles - in an act that Harry and his wife described to me as "accidental courage

This bothers me. Bringing a man with this description "once regarded as Canada's public enemy No 1. He had been in and out of jail for offences against young children since his teens" into a house with a child. As a mother I would never let a man like that in my house around my child.

seamus

Pink Bunny wrote:

This bothers me. Bringing a man with this description "once regarded as Canada's public enemy No 1. He had been in and out of jail for offences against young children since his teens" into a house with a child. As a mother I would never let a man like that in my house around my child.

Well, obviously you don't leave the man alone with the child. It's also most likely that although the man came around "for supper", the children weren't present at the meeting.

Besides this, it's rare enough for a peadophile to randomly assault a child. Often they feel that they're "loving" the child, and so the tendency is to get acquainted with child, build a repore and a friendship before any kind of sexual activity.

That said, it would still take some courage for many parents to even allow such a man within a mile of their children.

Pink Bunny

I reread the whole article again and I don't see any indication that the child wasn't present at the dinners, he certainly was aware that the offender was there. And according to the article this wasn't a mild offender either, he was the worst of the worst :

"Let us take the most difficult example we could think of - someone not unlike Craig Sweeney: a convicted paedophile who targets young girls and children. Remember that such individuals also come with a range of social, sexual and other problems. And let's bear in mind that, on the continuum of paedophilia, those paedophiles who target babies, infants or young children for penetrative sex are regarded as being at the extreme; these are the ones who are most likely to reoffend. Despite the fact that most will have attended sex offender courses, or in some extreme cases will have been chemically castrated, these are the ones who seem absolutely resistant to changing their behaviour.

One such paedophile was Charlie Taylor, once regarded as Canada's public enemy No 1 "

That's crime to the extreme and I just would find it personally offensive to be around someone like that. They are fortunate that it worked for them in this instance and that he never commited a crime like that again, but what a high price for their child to have had to pay if it hadn't worked.

Also as you mentioned offenders seek out children they already know and so therefore by that logic inviting a man such as that into your home on a regular basis so much so that they become , as the article says "part of their extended families" makes the risk even worse.

InFront

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Like most people my age, I was groped by paedophile teachers. It's not easy to put that to one side.

Most people werent groped by teachers in a sexual way... people of any age.

I agree with you on this being hard to swallow. There is no way that I could allow this guy near my wife/ children if I had them. I also think that paedophilia is an inherent sexual preference just like heterosexuality and homosexuality. I dont think it can be cured, and so cannot be certainly contained. Im sure many people disagree with me, but I really think that convicted paedophiles, where proof of the act exists, should be castrated. I think it is maybe the only crime for which I would consider the death penalty a reasonable judgement.

I think paedophiles were born with their condition. They cant help feeling it. They should be puit out of their misery one way or the other.

Diogenes

Pink Bunny wrote:

I reread the whole article again and I don't see any indication that the child wasn't present at the dinners, he certainly was aware that the offender was there. And according to the article this wasn't a mild offender either, he was the worst of the worst :

"Let us take the most difficult example we could think of - someone not unlike Craig Sweeney: a convicted paedophile who targets young girls and children. Remember that such individuals also come with a range of social, sexual and other problems. And let's bear in mind that, on the continuum of paedophilia, those paedophiles who target babies, infants or young children for penetrative sex are regarded as being at the extreme; these are the ones who are most likely to reoffend. Despite the fact that most will have attended sex offender courses, or in some extreme cases will have been chemically castrated, these are the ones who seem absolutely resistant to changing their behaviour.

One such paedophile was Charlie Taylor, once regarded as Canada's public enemy No 1 "

That's crime to the extreme and I just would find it personally offensive to be around someone like that. They are fortunate that it worked for them in this instance and that he never commited a crime like that again, but what a high price for their child to have had to pay if it hadn't worked.

Also as you mentioned offenders seek out children they already know and so therefore by that logic inviting a man such as that into your home on a regular basis so much so that they become , as the article says "part of their extended families" makes the risk even worse.

No offense or anything, but the article makes it abundantly clear that the parents of this child where painful aware of how dangerous this man was, and took a proactive step to understand him, learn about him, and protect their children.

They were aware he was joining their community, instead of lighting the (whatever people light when joining a lynch mob) and gathering the pitchfork they took the time to understand and help someone who's a danger to their community. I think its a far more rational and healthy response to then burning out the local paedtrician.

I think paedophiles were born with their condition. They cant help feeling it. They should be puit out of their misery one way or the other.

I disagree with Jackie I doubt most children were abused. Out of curiousity what are your two ways to put them out of their misery?

seamus

Pink Bunny wrote:

but what a high price for their child to have had to pay if it hadn't worked.

What price though? There's absolutely nothing to indicate that their child was at any risk (or at least any extra risk). They didn't give him a key or leave him alone to babysit the children.
I say that there's a good chance that the child didn't attend the meetings, because it seems to be a closed help group. You wouldn't hold an AA meeting in a pub, or a WeightWatchers meeting in McDonalds.

as the article says "part of their extended families" makes the risk even worse.

This I agree with, but so long as the child is kept in the loop, then the risk can be kept to a minimum. The man isn't said to have been known for kidnapping or physical abuse, so as long as the child knows that the man is sick, and how to deal with him, then the risk is minimal.

InFront

Diogenes wrote:

I disagree with Jackie I doubt most children were abused. Out of curiousity what are your two ways to put them out of their misery?

Castration and the Death Penalty

Hagar

Diogenes wrote:

The likelyhood of seven paedophiles managing to inflitrate the group

It was also unlikely that they would infiltrate the schools system, sports associations, scouts, religious orders, health services, orphanages...

They infiltrated every facet of our society and will do so again with any new bodies set up.

Diogenes wrote:

Out of curiousity what are your two ways to put them out of their misery?

Quickly or slowly doesn't matter to me as long as it's according to the dictates of the law of the land.

I don't believe there is a minimum acceptable risk.
No risk is acceptable where my kids are concerned.

Diogenes

Hagar wrote:

It was also unlikely that they would infiltrate the schools system, sports associations, scouts, religious orders, health services, orphanages...

They infiltrated every facet of our society and will do so again with any new bodies set up.

I think you are being a tad paranoid. As I understand the group structure, the volunteers are assigned randomly, It would be difficult for 7 paedophiles to be grouped together.

Quickly or slowly doesn't matter to me as long as it's according to the dictates of the law of the land.

I don't believe there is a minimum acceptable risk.
No risk is acceptable where my kids are concerned.

Theres a contradiction right there.........

InFront wrote:

Castration and the Death Penalty

Are you in favour of the same being imposed on rapists?

Is it paedophiles or people who commit any form of child abuse? Be it look at pornography.

Please note I'm not defending these practices just quantifying how people want to deal with those who commit them.

Hagar

Diogenes wrote:

Theres a contradiction right there.........

No. I don't mind if they are shot or hanged. As long as it's what the law states. I do advocate changing to law include the death penalty for offences against children. There would be no kiddie porn if there the demand for it was removed by removing the offenders. The purveyors of said porn should face the same penalty as an accessory to the crime.

As for rapists that a different topic isn't it?

Dades

InFront wrote:

I think paedophiles were born with their condition. They cant help feeling it. They should be puit out of their misery one way or the other.

You mean put them out of your misery.

I can't reconcile the suggestion that although they are born with the defect, it's acceptable to execute them.

InFront

Diogenes wrote:

Are you in favour of the same being imposed on rapists?

Is it paedophiles or people who commit any form of child abuse? Be it look at pornography.

Please note I'm not defending these practices just quantifying how people want to deal with those who commit them.

Depends on the severity of the rape case, but in general no. Rape isnt a sexual persuausion, but I feel personally that paedophilia is. I dont think it can be reversed. Not to mention the fact its not always easy to tell between rape and consent. Paedophilia doesnt suffer this distinction.

Im not talking about castrating or killing those who look at child porn, as bad as that is. I feel many look at child porn to quench their sexual desires. Child porn, ironically, is some sort of saving grace (obviously not for the photographed child, but for others). I personally feel that anyone who rapes a child should be surgically corrected or put to sleep. I know you may not agree, but I think its the surefast way of decreasing paedophilia. So many of these (mostly men) are repeat offenders.

InFront

The Atheist wrote:

You mean put them out of your misery.

I can't reconcile the suggestion that although they are born with the defect, it's acceptable to execute them.

No, they dont affect me or never have affected me or anyone I know or anyone in my extended family to my knowledge. Its not to put them out of my misery at all. im sure it must feel awful to be a paedophile. When I said that this is the best way to put them out of their misery this is what I mean by that:

Being a paedophile cant be a picnic. Even though they get sexual graitification, they must feel awful for it. The whole thing is one big misery. Want to make sure a paedophile wont re-offend? Kill or castrate him. Im sure that seems very cold hearted but thats just my opinion on it.

iPink

As far as my kids are concerned I WOULDN'T accept the risk ever...it's bad enough without inviting them into your house!

I know what you are saying about it being minimal & controlled but the kid had obviously met or seen Taylor which increases the risk 100% in my mind even down to the fact that the child may be more trusting as he/she has seen this person at home interacting with his/her parents...

I think castration may be the only solution in these cases, I know where I'd be aiming if I ever got my hands on someone...

seamus

iPink wrote:

I think castration may be the only solution in these cases, I know where I'd be aiming if I ever got my hands on someone...

Well, for a start it's not always effective.
On top of that, who's to say that it's not possible at the moment for some people to learn to control their urges? Do you think it's OK then that they would be unable to go and have a family, even if they have their sickness under control?
That someone has the capacity to learn, to change and to repent is the very cornerstone of our justice system. The death penalty or any other permanent injury for any crime is an affront to this belief. Should we kill all heroine addicts? After all, if there were no more addicts, there would be no more drug dealers, and loads of crime problems solved.

Paedophilia is one of those issues that everyone has an answer for, but no-one has a solution for. This is largely because we don't yet understand the full nature of the sickness. Any attempt to delve deeper with objectivity is usually met with hostility (as witnessed in this thread - someone comes up with a novel attempt at a solution, and instantly everyone is trying to find the flaws), and the media are not interested in portraying anything other than the drooling, child-raping monster who'll pick up your kids from school. Fear sells.

Diogenes

Hagar wrote:

No. I don't mind if they are shot or hanged. As long as it's what the law states. I do advocate changing to law include the death penalty for offences against children. There would be no kiddie porn if there the demand for it was removed by removing the offenders. The purveyors of said porn should face the same penalty as an accessory to the crime.

As for rapists that a different topic isn't it?

Out of curiousity do you support the death penalty for other offenses? Rape? Murder? And are you suggesting that people who look at child porn deserve the death penalty as well?

One of the most intelligent UK suggestions for people who look at child porn is an ASBO banning them from owning credit or debit cards. Because child porn wesbites are invariably hosted in non UK or even not Western countries, shutting them down, is nigh on impossible.

I think thinking like the above, and support groups are the way forward. You cannot kill or imprison forever every paedophile . You need to (pardon the cliche) think outside the box.

tbh

Diogenes wrote:

Out of curiousity do you support the death penalty for other offenses? Rape? Murder? And are you suggesting that people who look at child porn deserve the death penalty as well?

One of the most intelligent UK suggestions for people who look at child porn is an ASBO banning them from owning credit or debit cards. Because child porn wesbites are invariably hosted in non UK or even not Western countries, shutting them down, is nigh on impossible.

I think thinking like the above, and support groups are the way forward. You cannot kill or imprison forever every paedophile . You need to (pardon the cliche) think outside the box.

While the UK idea is a good one, it only applies to cards used to access sites. So, there is nothing to stop the person getting another card, and starting again. The problem is that Human rights legislation doesn't allow for banning someone from owning a c/c full stop.

Diogenes

tbh wrote:

While the UK idea is a good one, it only applies to cards used to access sites. So, there is nothing to stop the person getting another card, and starting again. The problem is that Human rights legislation doesn't allow for banning someone from owning a c/c full stop.

Ah. Still good idea on principle though and a fun one to put on credit history

"Why are you applying for a Barcaly card sir?"

"Weeeelllllll, I'm banned from buying child porn on my Egg card"

Diogenes

InFront wrote:

Depends on the severity of the rape case, but in general no. Rape isnt a sexual persuausion, but I feel personally that paedophilia is. I dont think it can be reversed. Not to mention the fact its not always easy to tell between rape and consent. Paedophilia doesnt suffer this distinction.


Im not talking about castrating or killing those who look at child porn, as bad as that is. I feel many look at child porn to quench their sexual desires. Child porn, ironically, is some sort of saving grace (obviously not for the photographed child, but for others). I personally feel that anyone who rapes a child should be surgically corrected or put to sleep. I know you may not agree, but I think its the surefast way of decreasing paedophilia. So many of these (mostly men) are repeat offenders.

It's a complex problem, and frankly cannot be dealt by a blanket ban. I mean do you castrate or kill anyone who makes any attempt to abuse a child?

Here's another article, more focused on the support group members

David became a volunteer four years ago, partly because of his faith as a Quaker and partly because of his belief in "restorative justice". Restorative justice means that the community accepts a responsibility for the reintegration of offenders - on moral grounds and to prevent further victims, some of whom could themselves become paedophiles. "If I can stop anybody harming a child, then that's of value to me," David says.

David's "circle" includes a professional hypnotherapist and a person working with the homeless. "As volunteers, you make friends with people you would never otherwise have met," David says. "That's one of the rewards." The circle's "core member" - the offender, in other words - is Sam, 23. Sexually abused by older girls from the age of five, as a teenager he was sentenced to five years for sexual assault. He now works in a supermarket, has a girlfriend, and is developing a social life - activities that the circle encourages but also views as opportunities to re-offend.

David sees himself as both supporter and watchdog. "I'm committed to Sam's wellbeing," he says, "but if he did anything to cause me concern, I'd have no compunction in taking action.

"One core member came to us saying that he could manipulate anybody . We turned it round and told him, 'You're only in a position to manipulate us if we let you. That's not your power - it's ours.' The relationship between the volunteers and how they gel is critical."

As well as the formal meetings, volunteers also meet core members informally, going to the cinema or for a coffee, to demonstrate how "normal" adult relationships are conducted. Offenders are often isolated, rejected by family and friends, socially inadequate and suffering from low self-esteem. Research says that a paedophile living in this kind of dehumanised social exile is much more likely to offend again.

That is a message confirmed by Harry - divorced, with two daughters, and a convicted paedophile. "I sometimes wonder what life would have been like had I not been accepted into Circles," he says. "Pretty bleak! Without Circles I would seldom leave the flat and would be prey once more to depression and paranoia. But I have been able to discuss and relate stuff about my past life, my feelings towards children and many other things that until now I have kept to myself. I really feel I have made more progress in understanding myself and my offending than I did throughout all the years in prison or on the sex offender treatment programmes, essential though they were."

John is in his 50s, and one of David's core members. Abused as a child, he went on to abuse his sister and then his daughters until the eldest was 21. He served several years in prison. "John was the first sex offender I had knowingly met and I liked him," David says. "He was outgoing and pleasant, but in the first few meetings he went through his story and I remember thinking, 'How could you do this to a child?'

and

In four years, three core members have been recalled to prison on licence because of a circle's concern about likely recidivism. One of them was grooming girls in internet chat rooms. Another four offenders have been "called to account" by the Circle for behaviour causing concern, such as "inappropriate" sexual activities with a fellow hostel member. In these cases, monitoring was increased.

"If a core member is recalled to prison, volunteers can feel they've failed," says project coordinator Rebekah Saunders. "But we point out that, from a public protection point of view, what they've done is clearly a success."

Karen became a volunteer nine months ago because she thought it might complement the psychology degree she begins in the autumn. "You're asked to sign up for a year," she says, "but you soon discover that you're in it for life. Circles has that effect." The core member of Karen's circle is Peter, a serial offender, in his 60s and with a low IQ. His story illustrates how volunteers' vigilance can never flag.

Peter was electronically tagged and placed in a probation hostel on his release because of the likelihood that he would reoffend and possibly murder a child. He was in denial about his offences. After a year in his first circle, his personal hygiene, confidence and appearance had improved. He had a job as a cleaner and he had moved to sheltered accommodation. He spent Christmas Day with one of his circle. He reported that it was the best he had ever had.

The second and third year taught Circles a lesson. Among other issues, Peter had coerced a man into buying a car on his behalf. He had previously used a car to abduct a child. Volunteers also learned that Peter had invited young girls to his flat, contravening the terms of his release. Nothing had yet occurred but Peter was given a community sentence and returned to a supervised hostel. Karen is one of Peter's second circle. She goes to the pub to watch him in his darts team. "It's brilliant - not children!" she says. "He often hides his limited understanding," she adds. For instance, he was told not to go within 50 metres of a school as part of his sex offender order but when asked, he didn't really know what 50 metres meant. We had to show him. And keep showing him, because he doesn't retain much.

"He's a likable chap so you have to constantly remind yourself why he's in the circle. People say to me that they've never talked to an offender, but they probably have. They've just haven't realised." Would she tell a friend with children if a core member moved in next door? "That's an interesting dilemma," she answers. "It would depend on how the core member is behaving and who the friend is . The bottom line is: no more victims."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1817573,00.html

InFront

Diogenes wrote:

It's a complex problem, and frankly cannot be dealt by a blanket ban.

A ban on what, paedophilia? What exactly to you mean by this?

I mean do you castrate or kill anyone who makes any attempt to abuse a child?

No, where witness and medical proof exists they have raped a child, then you do it. Medically, legally and forensically, proving paedophilia faces less blurry lines than many other convictions, especially rape and murder which are less 'provable'.

Its all very well meaning to teach these men the error of their ways, but if anyone is at such a low level as to rape a child then I am of the *opinion* that chatting and niceties over dinner is not enough to correct them, and God knows they need to be corrected.

Well, for a start it's not always effective

Castration is very effective, much more so than this buddy programme. Whether its correct is a different issue, Im just saying its effective and personally I would agree with it. Crime has repercussions on victims and offenders alike.

iPink

I'm not saying it's not an extremely complex & emotive subject, just that I would not be happy doing it or hosting it in my house or for any registered sex offender to be within a 50 mile radius of my child...

I also suspect that the more liberal/supportive people out there to the support group idea aren't parents, maybe I'm wrong but I may have thought it was a good idea before I became a parent myself (& a mother at that!) & as such am extremely if not overly protective of my child & believe that an innocent child has more right to have their innocence (& in some cases life) preserved than a registered & convicted sex offender has to their freedom (or balls for that matter!!)..

They have already proven that they can't control their urges (come on- who amongst us hasn't had an 'anti-social' urge at some stage in their life?) or have something inherent missing from their conscience or whatever.. so nothing you can say to me can make me believe they are going to become trust-worthy in the future!

Diogenes

InFront wrote:

A ban on what, paedophilia? What exactly to you mean by this?

Ban was shorthand for kill or castrate.....

No, where witness and medical proof exists they have raped a child, then you do it. Medically, legally and forensically, proving paedophilia faces less blurry lines than many other convictions, especially rape and murder which are less 'provable'.

Not to be funny or to drag this thread into a weird place, so it's only rape you feel justifies your extreme reaction? Some paedophiles touch or.....lets not go there, but you get the jist, it can be equally as tramatic for the child.

Its all very well meaning to teach these men the error of their ways, but if anyone is at such a low level as to rape a child then I am of the *opinion* that chatting and niceties over dinner is not enough to correct them, and God knows they need to be corrected.

No offense intented it, but reading the article chatting and niceties may be exactly what is needed to correct, these groups success rate is fantastic, and they've been helpful in interventions where they have stopped paedophiles from re offending, to the point of altering the authorities of dangerous behaviour, before the paedophile commits another ghastly crime.

Castration is very effective, much more so than this buddy programme. Whether its correct is a different issue, Im just saying its effective and personally I would agree with it. Crime has repercussions on victims and offenders alike.

I really have a problem with castration. There are some case where a paedophile has volunteered for castration, but I have a problem with castration aganist someones will. I know many surgeon's would have ethical opposition to commiting such an act, and as a society I really hope we are above mutilating someone as punishment for a crime.