Paedophiles are not perverts

N8

CiaranC wrote:

Care to elaborate this point?

Nope. As I stated before this is an issue probably best left for another fuller discussion.

seamus wrote:

I'm not sure which point you're talking about, but if you're talking about the "Man at the window" example, you'll need to justify what makes you think said person is a "criminal predator". They haven't broken any law, nor acted in a predatory manner. In fact they haven't given any good reason for you to believe they pose a danger to children.

Sorry seamus its not the window thing. The culmination was you stating you would have paedophiles, self declaring celibacy, to look after children. Your children too.

seamus wrote:

With all due respect, you haven't offered any solution either. All you've proposed is that we torture and execute those we've already caught. We know execution isn't a deterrent to crime, so I don't know what makes you think torture is.

Can you backup the statement that execution and torture are not deterrents to crime?

Solution:

For those not acting on impulse they require containment, treatment (which dosn't work according to etho) and studied.

For those tempted they deserve help and containment.

For those crossing the line, they deserve put down unless serious factors of mitigation, then punishment, treatment and containment.

Co conspirators the same.

It’s quite simple.

nacho libre wrote:

I want to ask you if you had a friend or family member who you discovered is a paedophile and acted on their thoughts. Would the solutions you advocated in this thread be the same towards them?

Yes and I have already stated so earlier here Nacho

seamus wrote:

If we're not happy with the way things are being done, we can change that. It's called democracy.

No democracy does not lend itself to this argument.

On one side we have paedophiles and perverts.

On the other we have clear thinkers wishing to protect their children.

In the middle we have liberal do-gooders espousing non accountability, free speech, tolerance, understanding and integration.

Two against one.

Sick win

seamus wrote:

If child rape is to get you life in jail without parole, then what would you do with serial killers? What would you do with someone who committed genocide?

Create deterrent.


The Q’s post is very poignant given the sexualising of children we as a society accept to day.

metrovelvet

seamus wrote:

More media hysteria. Wahey!
If we're not happy with the way things are being done, we can change that. It's called democracy.
Your charges above come from a very different time. From a time where even suggesting that teachers or clergymen were wrongdoers would have you run out of town.
You don't seriously believe that today's Government would allow the same abuses to go on?

Now, as for the sentence, well why shouldn't they get released? This is back to the punishment thing. If you can murder someone and get out in 15 years, then is child rape more horrendous? If you're going to start jailing people permanently, then you've got a whole pile of other problems on your hands. Because there are more crimes which can be considered "worse" than child rape (if you were cold enough to create a scale by which crimes can be measured). This is similar to what the Corinthian was saying. If child rape is to get you life in jail without parole, then what would you do with serial killers? What would you do with someone who committed genocide?

Serial killers do get life or the chair.

You call my question media hysteria? I could accuse your attitude one of enabling and apathy.

Thats the problem, other crimes are considered worse, which says to me that the one we are discussing here is not taken seriously enough.

fits

N8 wrote:

No democracy does not lend itself to this argument.
On one side we have paedophiles and perverts.
On the other we have clear thinkers wishing to protect their children.
In the middle we have liberal do-gooders espousing non accountability, free speech, tolerance, understanding and integration.
Two against one.
Sick win

You have a strange view of what democracy is
Oh well... I laughed...

fits

Just to add another dimension to this... I know two people quite well who suffered abuse...
In both cases the butt of their anger is not directed at the perpetrator, but rather at the people who should have protected them, a mother in one case and the church/school in the other.

N8

Originally Posted by N8
No democracy does not lend itself to this argument.
On one side we have paedophiles and perverts.
On the other we have clear thinkers wishing to protect their children.
In the middle we have liberal do-gooders espousing non accountability, free speech, tolerance, understanding and integration.
Two against one.
Sick win

fits wrote:

You have a strange view of what democracy is
Oh well... I laughed...

sorry fits can you explain democracy for me? here was me thinking it was majority voting.....

fits wrote:

Just to add another dimension to this... I know two people quite well who suffered abuse... In both cases the butt of their anger is not directed at the perpetrator, but rather at the people who should have protected them, a mother in one case and the church/school in the other....

who should protect them now?

Us perhaps?

Society?

seamus

N8 wrote:

The culmination was you stating you would have paedophiles, self declaring celibacy, to look after children. Your children too.

No I didn't. Either you're deliberately twisting my words, or only reading what you want to read. Quote what I said and you'll immediately see the difference between my statement and what you imply I said.

Can you backup the statement that execution and torture are not deterrents to crime?

The United States has executed more than 1,000 people in the last 30 years, yet violent crime has remained completely static (relative to population growth). Murder decreased slightly around the turn of the century, but is on the rise again. The state of Texas (as the state with the highest execution rate) shows a similar trend to the whole.
Seems to me like criminals aren't all too worried about it. Torture isn't a valid form of punishment. Its purpose is to exact revenge or for the pleasure of the punisher. I'm not even going to debate it because torture is what animals do.

For those not acting on impulse they require containment, treatment (which dosn't work according to etho) and studied.

For those tempted they deserve help and containment.

So lock them up. Despite never having done anything.

On one side we have paedophiles and perverts.

On the other we have clear thinkers wishing to protect their children.

In the middle we have liberal do-gooders espousing non accountability, free speech, tolerance, understanding and integration.

I've already dealt with this.

I could accuse your attitude one of enabling and apathy.

Enabling implies that I would allow or otherwise provide a means for people to break the law. Apathy implies that I don't give a ****. The former is refuted if you bothered to read any of my posts, and the latter is refuted by my posting here in the first place.

The Corinthian

N8 wrote:

The Corinthian I agree my suggestions may not seem very compassionate toward paedophiles. Sorry I was thinking of the victims. Perhaps you would too.

I never mentioned compassion or even the rights of paedophiles. I simply pointed out that fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Genocide good point….. do you agree with the Irish government involvement in Iraq, its donations to the one child policy in China, its involvement with a UN that allowed Rwanda to unfold despite all warnings?

What's your point? I was talking about the perpetrators of genocide and how they rate against paedophiles in your World view, not some wider moral debate about the topic.

Genocide is horror itself… I never said nor suggested “that murdering entire populations of men, women and, ironically, children (was) a lesser crime” I just didn’t respond since I though it out of context for what we were discussing.

Not really, because a basic principle of justice is that the punishment is measured to the crime. From what I can see execution and torture are as severe a punishment as you can get, thus you either consider the crime to be as bad as you can get and so equal to or greater than genocide (which I think we can safely say is insane) or you've not worked out your reasoning but are willing to act anyway.

Mine is neither a gut reaction, emotional nor violent.
Execution and torture does not necessarily have to be violent or gratifying.

I'm sorry, but I do have to laugh at this. One may argue that there are forms of execution, such as lethal injection that are not at least outwardly violent, but torture always is - by definition.

In general criminal predatory paedophiles are repeat offenders doing do with increasing severity. There are exceptions to the rule of course self loathing individuals who need crave help and counselling. They also require and want containment.

The problem with this is the same can be said for all sex offenders, in which case should all men be lacked up then because they're potential rapists? Or are you only discussing paedophiles that have committed a crime?

Tolerance is not an option.

Again, I think if you're addressing this at me, I never said anything about tolerance. My point was about addressing a problem in an informed manner to achieve a solution - which may well be intolerant. Your position is one of crying "won't someone think of the children" and going for the most obvious solution without a lot of thought behind it. That's mob mentality.

I couldn't be bothered to talk about the issue any more because we are talking around in circles. In my opinion we're not trying anywhere enough in this country to prevent or punish the sexual abuse, rape, torture and murder of children. There simply is not enough deterrence in place to daunt the earliest activities of such perversions of society and we are being held back from protecting our children by do-gooders preaching tolerance yet offering no effective mechanisms of dealing with such an obvious and destructive problem in our society.

In fairness I think much of that is because I don't think you really understand what I am saying. Let me rephrase succinctly: An emotive solution (which is what you are suggesting) causes more harm than it solves - and often fails to solve what it was meant to solve in the first place. I am not championing the rights of paedophiles, I am simply looking at the problem in a dispassionate manner to consider a solution.

If it means a cull of all individuals with such tendencies, so be it, but it is better that you let your head make that decision not your heart. Otherwise you are in no more in control of your passions as you accuse them of being.

N8

seamus wrote:

If a good friend or sibling of mine came out and told me that yes, he has always had a tendency to find children attractive, but would not and has never acted on it, then yes I would leave my hypothetical children with them. (P.7)

This is not a personal vendetta and I don’t want to imply you support paedophilia but I cannot find myself agreeing with tolerance given the results of such worldwide.


Corinthian I take on board many of your points. Its worth pointing out mental anguish and turmoil as forms of torture (Guantanamo) along with work gangs and other duties.

The Corinthian wrote:

I am simply looking at the problem in a dispassionate manner to consider a solution….. let your head make that decision not your heart. Otherwise you are in no more in control of your passions as you accuse them of being.

I would ask the same of you. Do not let your emotions override fuller consideration of what you perceive to be an abhorrent and emotional response on my behalf.

The Corinthian

N8 wrote:

I would ask the same of you. Do not let your emotions override fuller consideration of what you perceive to be an abhorrent and emotional response on my behalf.

I'm not though. I can safely say I can be completely cold blooded here.

seamus

N8 wrote:

This is not a personal vendetta and I don’t want to imply you support paedophilia but I cannot find myself agreeing with tolerance given the results of such worldwide.

Results such as? And before you start point at the Catholic Church or our current stance as the results of "tolerance", I won't accept that. We are living in ignorance of it at the moment, not tolerance. The lawmakers now accept that it exists, but refuse to touch it with a bargepole. Previously they just refused to acknowledge that it existed.

Besides, there are two major aspects to this here:
There's identifying the illness*, and then there's dealing with criminal activites which arise out of it. You can be tolerant of the illness (in so far as attempting to understand it and help the sufferers), but intolerant of the lawbreakers.

*I say "illness" in so far as having the desire to engage in activites which would injure or otherwise harm another being without their consent, is a mental illness IMO. I'm not using the term to imply treatability or curability.

N8

seamus wrote:

Results such as? And before you start point at the Catholic Church or our current stance as the results of "tolerance", I won't accept that. We are living in ignorance of it at the moment, not tolerance. The lawmakers now accept that it exists, but refuse to touch it with a bargepole. Previously they just refused to acknowledge that it existed.

Besides, there are two major aspects to this here: There's identifying the illness*, and then there's dealing with criminal activites which arise out of it. You can be tolerant of the illness (in so far as attempting to understand it and help the sufferers), but intolerant of the lawbreakers.

N8 wrote:

Nambla, Freespirits and the Childhood Sensuality Circle – who works with these people? The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) for one.

Do any of you realise that even Amazon carries NAMBLA material on its website?

How about a play? Incestuous pedophilia, the musical.

Tolerance is not an option. Next thing we’ll be talking about equal rights. We have only to look to the likes of Denmark, a tolerant European country and the openness of The Danish Paedophile Association, who espoused ‘'Voluntary sexual relations between children and adults do not cause any psychological harm other than the problems associated with discovery and intervention,’ - an organisation who was protected under the Danish constitutional right to free assembly. Its website remains active.

Irish Paedophile Association anyone?

Where is the line here between tolerance and encouraging and openly supporting the lawbreakers?

American Civil Liberties Union supporting those encouraging paedophiles to break the law?

Amazon for distributing paedophilic material encouraging breaking of the law?

Would you call for tolerance of an Irish Paedophile Association?


Where do you want to draw the line?

When do you want to draw the line?

When will you want a deterrent warranted by the horror of the crime?

When your child is kidnapped and raped, abused by one or more people, on one occasion or many? For months on end?

When this is videoed and photographed and the video and photos distributed for paedophiles to w*nk over?

When your child is dismembered and disposed of?

When?

nacho libre

seamus wrote:

Results such as? And before you start point at the Catholic Church or our current stance as the results of "tolerance", I won't accept that. We are living in ignorance of it at the moment, not tolerance. The lawmakers now accept that it exists, but refuse to touch it with a bargepole. Previously they just refused to acknowledge that it existed.

Besides, there are two major aspects to this here:
There's identifying the illness*, and then there's dealing with criminal activites which arise out of it. You can be tolerant of the illness (in so far as attempting to understand it and help the sufferers), but intolerant of the lawbreakers.

*I say "illness" in so far as having the desire to engage in activites which would injure or otherwise harm another being without their consent, is a mental illness IMO. I'm not using the term to imply treatability or curability.

You could well be describing Psychopaths(they are not mentally ill) with that view. Neither are Paedophiles. Overall i have to agree with the position stated by N8. You can engage intellectualisation and preach tolerance but it is the reinforcement of the taboo that stops many people who have these urges from offending in my opinion. Evidence in this matter from studies conducted by the American psychiatry association attest to this.
The humanistic approach to paedophilia will not work as it implies paedophilia is an illness to be treated if only we could better understand it and be more tolerant.
This is not to say i'm advocating lynch mob tactics or a witch-hunt against paedophiles. To restate my position I would not disown a friend for his/her urges but i would let him/her know that acting on them is not acceptable.

seamus

N8 wrote:

Where is the line here between tolerance and encouraging and openly supporting the lawbreakers?

American Civil Liberties Union supporting those encouraging paedophiles to break the law?

Amazon for distributing paedophilic material encouraging breaking of the law?

Would you call for tolerance of an Irish Paedophile Association?

Again, I've yet to see the synopsis of said material, but initially, distribution of any paedophile material is a no-no and is mostly covered by law already.

As I pointed out, the existing situation isn't being perpetuated by tolerance, it's being perpetuated by the unwillingness to deal with it, and media hysteria.

Where do you want to draw the line?

When do you want to draw the line?

When will you want a deterrent warranted by the horror of the crime?

When your child is kidnapped and raped, abused by one or more people, on one occasion or many? For months on end?

When this is videoed and photographed and the video and photos distributed for paedophiles to w*nk over?

When your child is dismembered and disposed of?

When?

And you've gone emotional and lost the run of it again. None of what you've said above is relevant to the discussion. It's the type of Daily Mail content-less hysterical raving that caused these organisations to get attention in the first place.

For the record, the Corinthian summed up my position in a few concise lines when I've attemped a few hundred.

I am not championing the rights of paedophiles, I am simply looking at the problem in a dispassionate manner to consider a solution.

If it means a cull of all individuals with such tendencies, so be it, but it is better that you let your head make that decision not your heart. Otherwise you are in no more in control of your passions as you accuse them of being.

N8

nacho libre wrote:

To restate my position I would not disown a friend for his/her urges but i would let him/her know that acting on them is not acceptable.

fair enough and I can agree to disagree. May I ask nacho would you have them in a postion of trust with children? With your children?

seamus wrote:

Again, I've yet to see the synopsis of said material, but initially, distribution of any paedophile material is a no-no and is mostly covered by law already.

Here it is. Amazon provide a synopsis. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-3725380-2977269?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Understanding+Loved+Boys+and+Boylovers&Go.x=15&Go.y=6

seamus wrote:

As I pointed out, the existing situation isn't being perpetuated by tolerance, it's being perpetuated by the unwillingness to deal with it, and media hysteria.

Is this not what we are discussing here, whether it is indeed perverse and how should we deal with it?

seamus wrote:

And you've gone emotional and lost the run of it again. None of what you've said above is relevant to the discussion.

This is the reality of the far end of paedophilic crime. Do you think they kiss them and give them flowers?


Reinforce the taboo and create a deterrent.

metrovelvet

seamus wrote:

As I pointed out, the existing situation isn't being perpetuated by tolerance, it's being perpetuated by the unwillingness to deal with it, and media hysteria.

This situation is being perpetrated by the predators themselves. And the laws which tolerate it.

CiaranC

metrovelvet wrote:

This situation is being perpetrated by the predators themselves. And the laws which tolerate it.

Care to quote said laws?

metrovelvet

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-25-girl-raped_N.htm


The kind that knock five years off because you apologised.

Eyespy

hallelujah wrote:

Am I the only person who thinks paedophiles are not perverts? Years ago it was considered sick/perverted to be a homosexual. Nowadays it is considered acceptable and to reject this is seen as unacceptable. I think paedophiles cannot help how they feel. I mean, could you stop being attracted to the opposite/same sex?

Its like say you had a brother who confides in you and tells you he fancies animals. He says he hates himself for it but has tried and failed to get rid of the attraction. Would you call him sick eben though his plight is out of his hands?

I think its wrong of paedophiles to have sex with minors and also viewing images (as the children in the images are being exploited) but to have feelings for children is not perverted.

Yes, I do believe that paedophiles are perverts. However, to me, a paedophile has always indicated a person who has had such thoughts and then acted upon them whether through the medium of images (child pornography) or the act of molestation itself.

I can't imagine how it must feel for someone to discover they have feelings for a subject, be it children, animals or blood relations. I think realistically though when any of the above subjects are mentioned people react with a mob mentality. This in itself while understandable leads to supression of said feelings on behalf of the person (obviously). I really don't know how that persons feelings progresses to him/her acting upon them so I can only hypotasise. However, I believe what happens between a person in the initial time they have had the feelings to the act itself is possibly how the media potrays paedophilia and how the public accept that potrayal.

Paedophile = monster/depraved, honestly there's more descriptive phrases out there. But what if the urge to not merely supress but obliterate the feelings existed? In today's world this concept would never appear because the minute the word paedophile is mentioned people instantly are alarmed and you have the whole "Kill the beast!" before the whole story emerges.

It's definitely worth investigating the whole psychology behind why paedophiles are what they are and how they became that person. But that can't happen at the present because of the reaction to the presence of the thoughts in the first place. If someone acknowledged that they had such feelings in the first place, who realistically could they tell? Most bodies outside of the confessional are compelled to report such things to the Gardai who in such a case I'd imagine would rush to act upon it.

This is definitely a very thought-provoking topic but I'm not sure that there is a straight forward answer. I also don't believe it is fair to compare homosexual activity to paedophilia in that although that was the attitude years ago to the former, it is highly unlikely that the latter will ever be accepted in any form.

I have tried to be as clinical as I can about such a provocative subject. I agree with The Corinthian who is able better articulate how I feel. I am of the view that this particular subject will not be dealt with by legislation or the Oireachtas because it's a hell of a boat to rock. It's just going to by swept by the wayside along with the other undesirable/unacceptable activities in Irish law until auch a situation occurs where goverment are forced to confront it such as the CC case last year.

Pervert is probably the wrong word to describe a paedophile. A peeping tom is a pervert but I wouldn't class a paedophile in the same league at all. Chalk and cheese. A paedophile as I understand it is a million times worse.

Eyespy
(reflecting that my nom de plume on boards is probably ill-chosen considering the last point .)

eth0_

N8 wrote:

There has also been the suggestion that homosexuality and paedophilia are mutually exclusive they are not. It is a fact, the rate of homosexual attraction is many many times higher among paedophiles (1). There is also a much higher rate of homosexuality amongst childsex abuse victims than amongst those not abused. It may not be politically correct nor convenient to to state such but it is fact.

This is, at best, anecdotal evidence.

Have you heard the phrase "Correlation does not equal causation"? Most murderers are men, does it follow that all men are murders?

Many people here are missing my point that physical abuse from paedophiles is very rare. Don't believe everything you read in the tabloids.

eth0_

N8 wrote:

Originally Posted by N8

In the middle are the do-gooder liberals. Unwilling to do anything but preaching tolerance, understanding and inaction, and so allowing proliferation of this cancer in our society.

I am offended by this statement. I like to think we should be compassionate to people who admit they need help.

I think treating people with paedophilic sexuality (but haven't acted on it) like they're murderers is wrong and counter productive. Do you think these people enjoy having such abhorrent urges? Is it not better that they are offered counselling so they have an outlet for feelings that may otherwise build up with devastating consequences for a child?

There's a big difference between offering compassion and understanding, and saying "Go ahead and rape a child".

seamus

metrovelvet wrote:

The kind that knock five years off because you apologised.

The law didn't knock five years off. The judge did.

metrovelvet

The judge couldn't have done that unless the law gave him the authority to do so.

Stark

That's the same for all crimes. The law defines the range of sentences but can't legislate for all situations, which is why you need a person to make a judgement call. Now judges make bad/excessively lenient calls all the time, such as letting a person off with drink driving because they "needed the car for work", but c'est la vie.

seamus

^^
What Stark said. If you want to legislate for every possible scenario, then you get rid of the judges and the law is black and white. If on the other hand you wish to have some leeway in the application of law, then you need judges.

Without specifically looking at this case, if a criminal is genuinely remorseful about their crime and are really willing to use their prison time to better themselves, then do they not deserve some degree of leniency? That is, if a criminal is going to receive a harsher sentence for having no remorse, then the opposite scanario must also be made available. (Yep, this is a good bit off topic).

DragonGeo2

Misunderstanding leads to fear of the unknown;
Fear leads to frustration;
Frustration leads to anger;
Anger leads to violence;
Violence leads to suffering.

I just read all 11-pages and 205 posts in this thread, and I must say that I am quite interested in your reactions to this topic.

I have a lot of ideas as well as (hopefully) meaningful and interesting statistics on the subject, but no time to post them right now, as reading has taken its toll on me (and it's now 6:00 AM, I began reading at 3:00 AM).

Just as an initial retort, as N8 said:

N8 wrote:

On one side we have paedophiles and perverts.

On the other we have clear thinkers wishing to protect their children.

In the middle we have liberal do-gooders espousing non accountability, free speech, tolerance, understanding and integration.

Two against one.

Sick win

You forgot the opposite of the liberals, the conservatives, who tend to take the stance that you're taking - it's actually "two against two".

I'll make a lengthy and informed report in the morning, in the mean-time, thanks for expending the effort to make for an enjoyable 3-hour read for me. This debate has really been worth-while so-far.

The Corinthian

DragonGeo2 wrote:

Misunderstanding leads to fear of the unknown;
Fear leads to frustration;
Frustration leads to anger;
Anger leads to violence;
Violence leads to suffering.

Are you quoting Yoda?

Stark

DragonGeo2 wrote:

I'll make a lengthy and informed report in the morning

People who can't wait can try "telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl".

JohnK

There's a story on the Sky News website today about punishment of Paedophiles.

'Do Not Lock Up All Paedophiles'

nacho libre

N8 wrote:

fair enough and I can agree to disagree. May I ask nacho would you have them in a postion of trust with children? With your children?

Absolutely not. That would be akin to putting a bottle of vodka in front of an alcoholic and then asking them not to drink it.

N8

Originally Posted by N8
There has also been the suggestion that homosexuality and paedophilia are mutually exclusive they are not. It is a fact, the rate of homosexual attraction is many many times higher among paedophiles (1). There is also a much higher rate of homosexuality amongst childsex abuse victims than amongst those not abused. It may not be politically correct nor convenient to to state such but it is fact.

eth0_ wrote:

This is, at best, anecdotal evidence.

sorry eth0_ it is fact. Have you checked the reference? Not politically correct but fact.

eth0_ wrote:

Many people here are missing my point that physical abuse from paedophiles is very rare. Don't believe everything you read in the tabloids.

etho_ where do you live? Under a rock? Sexual abuse services in Ireland are overwhelmed by the numbers.


Originally Posted by N8
On one side we have paedophiles and perverts.
On the other we have clear thinkers wishing to protect their children.
In the middle we have liberal do-gooders espousing non accountability, free speech, tolerance, understanding and integration.

Two against one.

Sick win

DragonGeo2 wrote:

Just as an initial retort, as N8 said: You forgot the opposite of the liberals, the conservatives, who tend to take the stance that you're taking - it's actually "two against two".

I am on the side of the conservatives on this one, it is two against one. With tolerance and compromise, the sick win.

JohnK wrote:

There's a story on the Sky News website today about punishment of Paedophiles.

Just a few comments:

• This is an incentive as the officer said to drop jail numbers.
• The report envisages removing the deterrent and lessening the taboo of child pornography which in itself would create a bigger market and widen the problem.
• There is no treatment according to a post earlier here which hasnt been challenged.
• It envisages these paedophiles viewing child pornography to continue living in the community and not on any register. Untreated and less able get said material to w*nk off, those entering such a program would be left asking themselves should I w*nk at the window or hmmm steal one and move on?
  
• This incentive would push the paedophile further toward desperation and consideration of action.

Originally Posted by N8
May I ask nacho would you have them in a postion of trust with children? With your children?

nacho libre wrote:

Absolutely not. That would be akin to putting a bottle of vodka in front of an alcoholic and then asking them not to drink it.

My thoughts exactly.