Paedophile support group.

InFront

Diogenes wrote:

Theres no middle ground. Innocent or guilty. You cannot claim someone is more innocent or less guilty because of DNA or forenisc evidence is submitted or not submitted. It skews the entire principle of our legal system, you're saying certain kinds of evidence are better or more important than other kinds.

That is very interesting and admittedly, while previously discussing how legal decisions must be made with uniform certainty, this was something I had not considered. I was arguing in favour of castration or the death penalty when there was medically certified paedophilic activity and, in the case of age appropriate children, a victim statement. Yet I cant honestly say I feel both are necessary to the same extent to get a custodial sentance against the alleged perpetrator.

So there you go, youve got me thinking about that one. I think you're right, we probably share more opinions on this issue than I would have thought.
I suppose to be more accurate I would have to say then that I am only in favour of the death penalty in cases where aggressors have shown their case to be more grave than comparable legal charges brought against others by virtue of the extent of their offences, the number of victims, the timespan of their crime, the level of remorse that they demonstrate to the court, the psychological status of the defendant and finally the danger of re-offending. Suggesting that cases where DNA and other forensic rescource technologies, for example, has been applied would give the conviction more 'weight' is, I can understand, problematic to the point that it isnt realistic.

Onto the issue of the paedophile who was mentally retarded: I think that of course avenues of hospitalisation and medication should be explored first. But that will not always work. The main question in my opinion would be whether this guy was able to comprehend the damage he was doing at the time of the offense and could understand the charges brought against him in court. If so, he should get the same treatment as everyone else would get depending on the severity of his actions. Otherwise, I feel that lifelong psychiatric input into his future and constant monitoring must be necessary, along with a restriction on his access to children and vulnerable groups such as the disabled.

To be honest, I cannot imagine a case where i would feel this socialisation programme would be okay. Whatever about mental illness, I dont believe paedophilia can be cured and I feel that suggesting it can be contained, while true in some cases, is going to fail where society depends heavily on psychological and socialisation methods, and methods where the offender is rehabilitated to the broader community.

But having said that, it would be preferable to a paedophile being given 4 years in behind bars and then being let out scot free to walk the streets. The fact that I think it should be used in that case is only a reflection of my opinion that letting these criminals walk into society after x number of years is complete lunacy, and 'socialisation' would only be the lesser of two evils.

mayhem#

If a sick f*ck like that comes within a 100 yards of my home or family i'll slot him. Might not be very PC but I just call it preventative action...

E.

JayRoc

I think, at the end of the day, I have to be frank and say Paedophilia and Child Abuse are like Heterosexuality and Rape. One is an orientation for which a person cannot in all reason be blamed, and the latter is an act which is beyond the bounds of human decency.
The first time anyone shows the tendency, it's time for community justice.
Ever hear of a serial rapist in South Armagh?

InFront

I agree with your definitions, Jayroc, and equally I would rather not say what I expect Id do if I found out that someone in my family had been sexually abused by someone I know. Thats a human reaction.

Whatever about community justice, as Diogenes has just pointed out, legal justice is not completely cut and dry in relation to the more extreme forms of dealing with child molestation. 'Community Justice' might well result in you appearing in court next to the paedophile, with you as the defendent.

But if a paedophile on my street were to 'walk into a door' I certainly wouldnt be reaching for an ice pack.

Zillah

iPink wrote:

By whom? When? Where? & my point is that even if it is a sexual orientation it's not sex with a consenting adult, even if a child 'consents' thay cannot possible understand what they are really consenting to...

Saying that something is a sexual orientation does not neccessarily mean its right. You seem to think that if we accept paedophilia as a sexual orientation we have to accept its practice. Thats not the case. You can say that its an orientation while condeming those that give into it, because its harmful.

Trying to dismiss its existence, or obfuscating its nature, does nothing to help the situation, for anyone.

the_syco

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I was very upset the day I came to the conclusion that paedophilia was a sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Glad you now know. Many people still see it as a phase, or something that can be cured.

InFront wrote:

Castration and the Death Penalty

Castration would have as much effect on a rapist as on a paedophile. It'll either stop them, or make them use other tools. Sometimes it'd be a broom stick, other times its a knife.

Also, both would deter paedophiles coming forward. The article in the OP's post, although not great, may get paedophiles to come forth. If you knew what you believe in is wrong, but are not able to tell anyone in fear of getting killed, you'd hide it.

Killing them for a defect that they were born with makes you no different than Hitler. Sure, after all, they were born jews/handicapped/etc...

=-=

If one touched a kid, I think they should be inproperly hanged, tbh.

JayRoc

InFront wrote:

That is very interesting and admittedly, while previously discussing how legal decisions must be made with uniform certainty, this was something I had not considered. I was arguing in favour of castration or the death penalty when there was medically certified paedophilic activity and, in the case of age appropriate children, a victim statement. Yet I cant honestly say I feel both are necessary to the same extent to get a custodial sentance against the alleged perpetrator.

So there you go, youve got me thinking about that one. I think you're right, we probably share more opinions on this issue than I would have thought.
I suppose to be more accurate I would have to say then that I am only in favour of the death penalty in cases where aggressors have shown their case to be more grave than comparable legal charges brought against others by virtue of the extent of their offences, the number of victims, the timespan of their crime, the level of remorse that they demonstrate to the court, the psychological status of the defendant and finally the danger of re-offending. Suggesting that cases where DNA and other forensic rescource technologies, for example, has been applied would give the conviction more 'weight' is, I can understand, problematic to the point that it isnt realistic.

Onto the issue of the paedophile who was mentally retarded: I think that of course avenues of hospitalisation and medication should be explored first. But that will not always work. The main question in my opinion would be whether this guy was able to comprehend the damage he was doing at the time of the offense and could understand the charges brought against him in court. If so, he should get the same treatment as everyone else would get depending on the severity of his actions. Otherwise, I feel that lifelong psychiatric input into his future and constant monitoring must be necessary, along with a restriction on his access to children and vulnerable groups such as the disabled.

To be honest, I cannot imagine a case where i would feel this socialisation programme would be okay. Whatever about mental illness, I dont believe paedophilia can be cured and I feel that suggesting it can be contained, while true in some cases, is going to fail where society depends heavily on psychological and socialisation methods, and methods where the offender is rehabilitated to the broader community.

But having said that, it would be preferable to a paedophile being given 4 years in behind bars and then being let out scot free to walk the streets. The fact that I think it should be used in that case is only a reflection of my opinion that letting these criminals walk into society after x number of years is complete lunacy, and 'socialisation' would only be the lesser of two evils.

Hmmm....Maybe the onus should be on us to get them the most effective treatment , and therefore , most effectively reduce the risk to our kids.

I still stand by the notion that a truly democratic society cannot condemn people for what they think or feel...Only for what they do.
In fact, for a born paedophile to do his best to combat his "nature" is IMO worthy of a certain degree of commendation, and I certainly couldn't in all conscience condemn him purely for what he (or, damn it, she) feels...
As I said , wouldn't that logic make us all potential rapists?

(Don't get me wrong though, let some ****er try it and he WILL BURN.....FIRST)

Diogenes

InFront wrote:

That is very interesting and admittedly, while previously discussing how legal decisions must be made with uniform certainty, this was something I had not considered. I was arguing in favour of castration or the death penalty when there was medically certified paedophilic activity and, in the case of age appropriate children, a victim statement. Yet I cant honestly say I feel both are necessary to the same extent to get a custodial sentance against the alleged perpetrator.

So there you go, youve got me thinking about that one. I think you're right, we probably share more opinions on this issue than I would have thought.
I suppose to be more accurate I would have to say then that I am only in favour of the death penalty in cases where aggressors have shown their case to be more grave than comparable legal charges brought against others by virtue of the extent of their offences, the number of victims, the timespan of their crime, the level of remorse that they demonstrate to the court, the psychological status of the defendant and finally the danger of re-offending. Suggesting that cases where DNA and other forensic rescource technologies, for example, has been applied would give the conviction more 'weight' is, I can understand, problematic to the point that it isnt realistic.

Okay see we're making progress, I think we'll both agree someone committing crimes to the level of the Marc Dutroux crimes has clearly gone beyond the pale of ordinary justice, and extreme steps, be it life imprisonments, castration, death. I'm opposed to latter, concerned about castration, and in general feel the sentences meeted out to many paedophiles is, at times, unduly leninent.

You made allusionals to earlier in the thread that you felt paedophilia was a sexual preference, can I ask what your thoughts are on the fact that many paedophiles are former abuse victims themselves?

Onto the issue of the paedophile who was mentally retarded: I think that of course avenues of hospitalisation and medication should be explored first. But that will not always work. The main question in my opinion would be whether this guy was able to comprehend the damage he was doing at the time of the offense and could understand the charges brought against him in court. If so, he should get the same treatment as everyone else would get depending on the severity of his actions. Otherwise, I feel that lifelong psychiatric input into his future and constant monitoring must be necessary, along with a restriction on his access to children and vulnerable groups such as the disabled.

You're fundamentally looking at whether he's mentally capable of understanding his crime. I'm sure you are aware there are varying degrees of mental capacity. For instance in the case mentioned, while he knew he couldn't or wasn't supposed to go near schools, he had trouble understanding the actual distance of his barring order. He needed constant re education that it was 50m. Thats a grey area of mental capacity. Many people with learning difficulties may know something (closing times, red means stop) etc but have trouble understanding the why.

The point I'm making here is you're drawing a line of absolute, and allowing no grey area, which in this field is required. There are some who can function in society with help.

To be honest, I cannot imagine a case where i would feel this socialisation programme would be okay.

With respect I've posted articles about two organisation running socialisation organisations that are effective and work, and achieve a great deal of success in rehabilationg paedophiles, and spotting aberant behaviour. The latter role being ignored by many on this thread.

Whatever about mental illness, I dont believe paedophilia can be cured and I feel that suggesting it can be contained, while true in some cases, is going to fail where society depends heavily on psychological and socialisation methods, and methods where the offender is rehabilitated to the broader community.

But having said that, it would be preferable to a paedophile being given 4 years in behind bars and then being let out scot free to walk the streets. The fact that I think it should be used in that case is only a reflection of my opinion that letting these criminals walk into society after x number of years is complete lunacy, and 'socialisation' would only be the lesser of two evils.

But thats what is happening, and if you're going to allow paedophiles back into the community such groups play a vital role.

InFront

Diogenes wrote:

You made allusionals to earlier in the thread that you felt paedophilia was a sexual preference, can I ask what your thoughts are on the fact that many paedophiles are former abuse victims themselves?
.

Manyformer abuse victims (Im supposing) get on with their lives. I dont think a sex offender is made by society, even though some experience he suffers in society may somehow give him the green flag or push him over the edge. So I dont blame previous abuse for a sex offenders actions, nor do I think an account for it. We all have crosses to bear and imo it makes their actions no less forgivable. Do you think differently?

You're fundamentally looking at whether he's mentally capable of understanding his crime. I'm sure you are aware there are varying degrees of mental capacity. For instance in the case mentioned, while he knew he couldn't or wasn't supposed to go near schools, he had trouble understanding the actual distance of his barring order. He needed constant re education that it was 50m. Thats a grey area of mental capacity.

I dont think that is a grey area, I think its quite clear: He was mentally incapacitated and should be kept in an environement which was as favourable as possible to his health while allowing no contact with children to a period where, if ever, the gravity of his actions could be reconciled to his conscience and were judged to have been a consequence of his mental illness and not his sexual orientation. There should be no sex offender who committed his actions whilst in the full of his health out roaming the streets or who has his behaviour monitored merely by lay people in the community. Whilst tho monitoring at all, I still think that it doesnt go far enough. Earlier you mentioned the term 'one strike, you're out', and yes, so long as the sex offense was a conscious decision, this is a principle I absolutely agree with.

There are some who can function in society with help.

I have no doubt they can function. Surely that is some of the problem. The most important people in every society are the vulnerable. I dont believe that this buddy programme affords them adequate security from sexual deviants.

With respect I've posted articles about two organisation running socialisation organisations that are effective and work, and achieve a great deal of success in rehabilationg paedophiles, and spotting aberant behaviour. The latter role being ignored by many on this thread.

I do agree that that has been over looked, but you are talking about lay people with jobs and their own lives being expected to spot aberrant behaviour. I dont feel that is adequate. So, he calls over for dinner at 6pm, watches Coronation Street with the family, and then heads back to his own house. What's he doing for the rest of the evening? Where was he before dinner? This doesnt have the same safeguards as life (and I mean that literally) imprisonments cases, castration and the death penalty.

However, Im obviously just speaking like any Joe Public here, and I realise the impracticalities and the weight of financial cost of state detention. That is not to say it's impossible - its much more costly, but it is providing the public with more of a guarantee that their children are safe. The method you are speaking about has its own major impracticality and that is one that is far more serious - it bears the onus of responsibilty on the sex offender to behave himself at times when he is not in the company of his supervisors.

There is also another impracticality and its this: Can you imagine the reaction of neighbours (who would have to be) informed of this guys presence. There isnt a chance that he would be welcomed into the community with open arms, the guy would be publicly shunned, and probably worse. What kind of socialisation is that?

Have their been any independent assessments of the merits or otherwise of this? Apart from data provided by the people themselves involved in it.

Diogenes

InFront wrote:

Manyformer abuse victims (Im supposing) get on with their lives. I dont think a sex offender is made by society, even though some experience he suffers in society may somehow give him the green flag or push him over the edge. So I dont blame previous abuse for a sex offenders actions, nor do I think an account for it. We all have crosses to bear and imo it makes their actions no less forgivable. Do you think differently?

See I don't think so. You said on the 1st page that you feel paedophilia is a sexual orientation that people are born with. I disagree with that. I feel it's entirely possible people are born with a paedophile sexual orientation, but the vast majority are the victims of abuse themselves at an early age. It's a tramatic experience and it scars them, lucky ones are either psychologically strong enough or have the support of family, and develop in time an ordinary sexual identity, some don't and grow up to feed the cycle of abuse.

I dont think that is a grey area, I think its quite clear: He was mentally incapacitated and should be kept in an environement which was as favourable as possible to his health while allowing no contact with children to a period where, if ever, the gravity of his actions could be reconciled to his conscience and were judged to have been a consequence of his mental illness and not his sexual orientation.

I know I keep banging on about Capturing the Freidmans but it really needs to be watched. It just shows how easily paedophilia charges can be made, the pain and suffering of a witchhunt and how possibly innocent people can go to jail. It's agonsing viewing, but it really drives how to me how an irreversal punishment should not be meated out for paedophiles. It's too easy for a wrong verdict to occur and for an innocent man to be punished.

There should be no sex offender who committed his actions whilst in the full of his health out roaming the streets or who has his behaviour monitored merely by lay people in the community.

How about monitoring them in addition to social workers/police etc....I don't think this scheme is designed to replace state monitoring, I think it's designed to enhance it. I think it's for people who upon hearing there are paedophiles in their locality, instead of grabbing their copy of the news of the world, and a pitchfork, decide to do something more proactive about it.


Whilst tho monitoring at all, I still think that it doesnt go far enough. Earlier you mentioned the term 'one strike, you're out', and yes, so long as the sex offense was a conscious decision, this is a principle I absolutely agree with.

I have no doubt they can function. Surely that is some of the problem. The most important people in every society are the vulnerable. I dont believe that this buddy programme affords them adequate security from sexual deviants.

I think we're both in agreement that the most vile and depraved paedophiles should not be let out in the community. I'm sure you'll agree there's some acts that people, might consider paedophilia do that do not justify the most extreme of your sentence.

I do agree that that has been over looked, but you are talking about lay people with jobs and their own lives being expected to spot aberrant behaviour. I dont feel that is adequate. So, he calls over for dinner at 6pm, watches Coronation Street with the family, and then heads back to his own house. What's he doing for the rest of the evening?

With respect I don't think you've read either article in full. In the groups at the moment seven volunteers met with the paedophile one day of the week each. On the 7th day they all get together with the paedophile and then privately to discuss this week's behaviour and anything praiseworthy or of concern.

These individual meeting are talks about the paedophile, it is not bringing him over to watch soaps.

Where was he before dinner? This doesnt have the same safeguards as life (and I mean that literally) imprisonments cases, castration and the death penalty.

However, Im obviously just speaking like any Joe Public here, and I realise the impracticalities and the weight of financial cost of state detention. That is not to say it's impossible - its much more costly, but it is providing the public with more of a guarantee that their children are safe. The method you are speaking about has its own major impracticality and that is one that is far more serious - it bears the onus of responsibilty on the sex offender to behave himself at times when he is not in the company of his supervisors.

Hmmm out of curiousity is it just paedophilia or do think rape and murder that justifies such punishment, as well?

There is also another impracticality and its this: Can you imagine the reaction of neighbours (who would have to be) informed of this guys presence. There isnt a chance that he would be welcomed into the community with open arms, the guy would be publicly shunned, and probably worse. What kind of socialisation is that?

There are lots of released paedophiles in society today, we dont have a version of Megan's law in Ireland that means people can get access to the names and addresses of paedophiles.

Have their been any independent assessments of the merits or otherwise of this? Apart from data provided by the people themselves involved in it.

I don't know, I'll look into it. Simply applying Occam's razor though, as it's a volunteer led scheme it would hardly attract volunteers for over a decade if it consistently failed.