How society needs to approach paedophilia (Mod warning post #12)

Red_Marauder

Firstly, this is a very sensitive topic and I don't want anybody to think I am being in any way sympathetic to paedophilic behaviour or trying to paint paedophiles as innocent individuals but there are some issues around how we approach paedopilia that I find slightly troubling.

Firstly, there is the issue of the nature of paedophilia. Is it understood as a sexual orientation, as a psychiatric illness, or as some other personal deviance?
Leading on from that, is it 'treatable' like a psychiatric condition or an aspect of an individual's make-up, like sexual orientation, which cannot be altered?

Secondly, what are we to do with people who may be described as paedophiles, whether they (a) do not engage in any paedophilic behaviour, (b) either engage in child abuse or support the abuse industry. Do we lock them up and throw away the key? Aim to treat them?

I know this is a hugely emotive subject and I would hope people might have some interesting solutions on the issue of how society approaches paedophilia.
It is very easy to come up with rather dark age methods to deal with paedophiles, or cover paedophilia with blanket terms; but we must really try to understand and engage with this behaviour - indeed engage with paedophiles themselves - if we are to resolve it and promote child welfare as best as we possibly, as an educated society, can.

The Volt

It is a grey area in relation to the law though, for example, sometimes it's difficult to know if a girl is 16 or 21 etc

Red_Marauder

Okay I can see where this is going. How about putting it this way first. Take the non-abusive paedophile who doesn't wish to engage in abuse or have anything to do with the child abuse industry but nevertheless has this paedophilic tendancy.

How do we as a society approach that situation? Is it possible that he does not choose this tendency, and can he (typically, we assume the subject to be male) be helped?

Ickle Magoo

Someone who is attracted to children but refuses to act on it is to be offered all the help and support they need to ensure it stays that way.

I think the majority of people have to know that sexually abusing a child is hugely damaging, both physically and emotionally and to inflict that on a child for the sake of satiating a selfish urge which you know yourself to be perverse is just unforgivable.

I don't think someone who is sexually attracted to children could "recover" any more than I could change my sexual orientation so I think once someone has been found to abuse children, or support the abuse of children via pornography or similar, they should be considered a danger to the public and locked up for life.

miss5

Paedophiles are the most disgusting criminals imaginable.
It is most definitely not a sexual orientation. It is never
justifiable for an adult to engage in sexual activities with
a minor. Children cannot give consent and it is a vicious
crime.

The Volt

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Okay I can see where this is going. How about putting it this way first. Take the non-abusive paedophile who doesn't wish to engage in abuse or have anything to do with the child abuse industry but nevertheless has this paedophilic tendancy.

How do we as a society approach that situation? Is it possible that he does not choose this tendency, and can he (typically, we assume the subject to be male) be helped?

Take Roger Casement and his downfall. He wrote in his diary that he had sexual desires about young boys but he never acted on them. He was jailed because someone found his diary and the diary was used to further the aims of those who wanted him executed. Now who among us can claim that we haven't had extremely strange dreams or desires that if found out, would make us a social outcast?

Casement clearly had a paedophilic tendency as you call it but he did not act on it. I would call it wrong that he was executed because of it but what's to say he never would have?

The actions of a pedophile encroaches so much on the rights of the child that it needs to be considered among the most serious of crimes. I would welcome a situation where people with these 'tendencies' are made comfortable in an environment where they can be helped overcome it before they commit the act.

Bigdeadlydave

I was pretty sure he was jailed after returning from germany in a uboat and for negotiating arms imports? He was the guy who was "executed by a comma"?

Red_Marauder

Voltwad wrote: »

Casement clearly had a paedophilic tendency as you call it but he did not act on it. I would call it wrong that he was executed because of it but what's to say he never would have?

Absolutely agree with you on this. It is also significant that Casement was a homosexual, and as someone who practiced this orientation, was a criminal. Society has moved on and understands homosexual behaviour now as a legitimate, normal, and in itself harmless sexual behaviour.

While paedophilia is neither legitimate, normal, harmless, or classifiable as an orientation, our understanding of it is totally archaic and conversation on the topic too often resorts to "lock them up" with various profanities inserted around this theme.
Surely we owe it to potential victims of child abuse, and indeed previous victims, to engage with the behaviour and the individuals as much as possible to try to resolve its nature and to understand how to prevent it, if possible.

As a general aside, the problem with castration, by the way, is that it does not always remove sexual desire.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/tj8478u3481jju1g/
We know that there are various methods to child abuse and I think that castration itself could be quite a short sighted one.

The Volt

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

I was pretty sure he was jailed after returning from germany in a uboat and for negotiating arms imports? He was the guy who was "executed by a comma"?

True but his diaries were circulated to those who were against the execution and arguably changed minds. My point was he was partly condemned for his thoughts

ChocolateSauce

I believe it is probable that many, if not most pedophiles, (that is, people who are for biological reasons attracted to children) have not acted on their urges. It doesn't take a genius to realise that they have urges which would be wrong to act on, and having urges you can't help doesn't make you a bad person; acting on those urges does.

Furthermore, having urges isn't a crime. There should be places non-offending pedophiles can go to seek counseling if they feel they need it, places they won't be stigmatised for seeking help.

Most importantly of all, people need to stop treating people who aren't criminals like they were. People who might need or want help in overcoming these urges will be highly unlikely to so long as the kind of hate in this thread is directed towards them.

The brain works in very odd ways. Most people are attracted to members of the opposite sex. Some people are attracted to members of the same sex; some to children, and some to inanimate objects. Rather than react with disgust, we should understand that people can't help what they're attracted to, and instead judge them by their actions.

Regarding how to treat a person who has committed a sexual offense against a child, we should treat them they way we treat all criminals: with a measured and dispassionate response proportionate with the scale of the crime relative to other crimes. Anything less doesn't do civilisation dignity or justice.

Red_Marauder

Red_Marauder wrote: »

It is very easy to come up with rather dark age methods to deal with paedophiles, or cover paedophilia with blanket terms; but we must really try to understand and engage with this behaviour - indeed engage with paedophiles themselves - if we are to resolve it and promote child welfare as best as we possibly, as an educated society, can.

Personally I think the PC & "freedoms" brigade has done more damage to society than almost any other grouping in the last few decades. (Sure, plenty of good, but its been taken way too far in so many areas of society) Why do we have to be nice to these people? Just as I feel absolutely no sympathy for murderers "whose past drove them to it", serial rapists "with disturbed minds in need of counseling", etc.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Volt

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I believe it is probable that many, if not most pedophiles, (that is, people who are for biological reasons attracted to children) have not acted on their urges. It doesn't take a genius to realise that they have urges which would be wrong to act on, and having urges you can't help doesn't make you a bad person; acting on those urges does.

Furthermore, having urges isn't a crime. There should be places non-offending pedophiles can go to seek counseling if they feel they need it, places they won't be stigmatised for seeking help.

Most importantly of all, people need to stop treating people who aren't criminals like they were. People who might need or want help in overcoming these urges will be highly unlikely to so long as the kind of hate in this thread is directed towards them.

The brain works in very odd ways. Most people are attracted to members of the opposite sex. Some people are attracted to members of the same sex; some to children, and some to inanimate objects. Rather than react with disgust, we should understand that people can't help what they're attracted to, and instead judge them by their actions.

Regarding how to treat a person who has committed a sexual offense against a child, we should treat them they way we treat all criminals: with a measured and dispassionate response proportionate with the scale of the crime relative to other crimes. Anything less doesn't do civilisation dignity or justice.

Top post. The last bit in particular

Ickle Magoo

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Regarding how to treat a person who has committed a sexual offense against a child, we should treat them they way we treat all criminals: with a measured and dispassionate response proportionate with the scale of the crime relative to other crimes. Anything less doesn't do civilisation dignity or justice.

I think the biggest issue is regarding whether someone who commits a crime driven by a sexual preference for children can come under the same umbrella as other crimes with more controllable/flitting - for want of a better word - mitigating circumstances.

Eliot Rosewater

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

with a measured and dispassionate response proportionate

This is essential. From reading this forum the general attitude towards justice seems to be based on retribution and extreme punishment that will do nothing to make good the criminal. The attitude is partly understandable - my coat was robbed off of me in a pub last night and my knee jerk reaction was some kind of physical violence. However we have to take a throughly dispassionate approach.

Justice should be about helping those involved. It should mean supporting victims. It should also mean showing criminals where they went wrong, and ensuring it never happens again. The kind of thing that has been advocated here would only result in criminals becoming bitter and angry and that is the most dangerous kind of person.

Ickle Magoo

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It should also mean showing criminals where they went wrong, and ensuring it never happens again.

Do you really think a paedophile that has been found guilty of abusing a child needs to be shown where they went wrong?

ChocolateSauce

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think the biggest issue is regarding whether someone who commits a crime driven by a sexual preference for children can come under the same umbrella as other crimes with more controllable/flitting - for want of a better word - mitigating circumstances.

I would say no- a pedophile who assaults a child has committed the same crime as a non-pedophile who assaults one, and being attracted to children should be no more a mitigating circumstance than alcohol should be in an assault or manslaughter trial.

Ickle Magoo

It is the same crime but release of violent criminals isn't based so much on the crime as the risk of re-offending. A drunk man who kills is deemed to have acted under mitigating circumstances because he will be sober in the morning. Someone who is drawn to have sex with children is always going to be drawn to have sex with children.

Bigdeadlydave

Personally I think serial pedophiles should be executed. I know the mod said that advocating physical violence wasn't allowed, but Im not talking about lynchings here, I mean after a fair trial etc

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It is the same crime but release of violent criminals isn't based so much on the crime as the risk of re-offending. A drunk man who kills is deemed to have acted under mitigating circumstances because he will be sober in the morning. Someone who is drawn to have sex with children is always going to be drawn to have sex with children.

I agree that there are differences between the two and that in the morning a pedophile will still be attracted to children, but I still feel this way. I don't think in fact that being drunk is considered a mitigating circumstance; I've seen plenty of trials where this was offered, and rejected, as a defense. It might certainly be a reason to keep him (or her...it isn't always men!) on post-release supervision though.

pablomakaveli

I think a paedophile who has'nt ever abused a child would still have to be monitored as a potential criminal if they admitted to being attracted to children.

The fact that they are attracted to children means there is always that potential for them to give in to their desires and given that would result in a child being abused its important that they are closely monitored.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pablomakaveli

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If they were serious about not wanting to abuse children they would. Obviously they could be offered couselling as well and given support so they'll be less likely to abuse children. But the fact that there is always a risk they might abuse a child can't be ignored either.

ChocolateSauce

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think a paedophile who has'nt ever abused a child would still have to be monitored as a potential criminal if they admitted to being attracted to children.

The fact that they are attracted to children means there is always that potential for them to give in to their desires and given that would result in a child being abused its important that they are closely monitored.

Perhaps we should also treat all gypsies as potential thieves and monitor them? Or priests as potential pedophiles? And so on and so forth.

One of the cornerstones of our society is that we are innocent until proven guilty, and treating someone like a potential criminal because of the crimes of others isn't right.

Red_Marauder

pablomakaveli wrote: »

. The fact that they are attracted to children means there is always that potential for them to give in to their desires and given that would result in a child being abused its important that they are closely monitored.

But there is always the potential for any one of us to commit a crime if some aspect of our personality were to override our perception of right or wrong.

As others have indicated, I'm not sure that this would be a very healthy situtation in terms of encouraging potential child abusers to seek professional psychiatric or medical help themselves.

It seems to me that for a society with such enormous historical exposure to child sexual abuse, we use far to broad and indiscriminatory a brush to sweep the whole issue under the carpet.
We dismiss child abusers as some sort of sinister, lurking monsters with misshapen features like mediaeval Jews, and are glad, we tell ourselves, not to know any. We dismiss the nature of their condition as inherently evil in a way that suggests choice. I do not believe that this is realistic.

While I have no sympathy for child abuse, I certainly do not think that paedophilia is a chosen route for anybody. I find it as hard to reconcile with civilised and educated behaviour the suggestion that they all be locked up and hidden away, just as people have been locked up and hidden away for misunderstood psychiatric illnesses or intellectual disabilities in the past.

Remember there was outcry when it was found that senior Roman Catholic churchmen failed to engage and face up to the reality of the nature of paedophilic behaviour within that institution.
I'm not fully convinced that we, as a society, won't also be judged for failing to fully come to terms with the nature of paedophilic tendencies and behaviour by future generations.

pablomakaveli

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Perhaps we should also treat all gypsies as potential thieves and monitor them? Or priests as potential pedophiles? And so on and so forth.

One of the cornerstones of our society is that we are innocent until proven guilty, and treating someone like a potential criminal because of the crimes of others isn't right.

Paedophiles can't be compared to gypsies though. Assuming a gypsy is going to commit theft is based on sterotypes and profiling. Every gypsy does'nt have a desire to steal hardwired in their brain. The same can be said of priests.

A paedophile has a sexual attraction to children hard wired into them. And that means every paedophile. In this case it isn't based on stereotypes or profiling. The fact that a child is at risk if a paedophile gives into their desires makes it worse.

If a friend approached you and told you they felt attracted to children but promised never to give into their urges would you be comfortable leaving them carry on as normal because they have commited no crime?

Ickle Magoo

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I agree that there are differences between the two and that in the morning a pedophile will still be attracted to children, but I still feel this way. I don't think in fact that being drunk is considered a mitigating circumstance; I've seen plenty of trials where this was offered, and rejected, as a defense. It might certainly be a reason to keep him (or her...it isn't always men!) on post-release supervision though.

They are different, very different. Unless the murderer has some kind of psychopathic tendencies which would make them want to murder and give a drive to murder all their lives then I don't understand the similarities you are trying to draw. I image anyone who has been convicted of murder and is assessed to be at risk of re-offending because they still want to kill are not released, they aren't released because they still want to kill but promise not to. If a paedophile has already crossed the line and deliberately injured a child to satisfy their own sexual desires and that desire has not, or could not, be abated by any means we have at our disposal - they are always going to be a risk to children. Always.

metrovelvet

I can make imaginative leaps to nearly anything, murder, rape, incest, but being attracted to a child I cannot do. I cannot imagine how they take a four year old and gettgr child to play with their erection, how they can strip down a toddler, take off the nappy, hear them screaming, feel the hot tears falling and rape the child. Can someone tell me how you can do that?

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

I can make imaginative leaps to nearly anything, murder, rape, incest, but being attracted to a child I cannot do.

I cannot imagine how they take a four year old and gettgr child to play with their erection, how they can strip down a toddler, take off the nappy, hear them screaming, feel the hot tears falling and rape the child. Can someone tell me how you can do that?

Nobody is disputing how bad the crime is.

The point is that the crime is so indisputably serious and damaging that we need to understand and face up to it properly, if nothing else then in the interest of child welfare.

We as a society need to understand what paedophilia is, and engage with people who find themselves with paedophilic tendencies. I'm not sure that returning to the same point about how disgusting it all is is particularly beneficial.
I don't believe in imprisoning people or hiding them away all of their lives for whatever biological deviations they may suffer from without (a) them being a definite harm and (b) there not being any safe alternative.

We can never fully know how best to deal with paedophilia and protect children simply by demonizing people who perhaps cannot control paedophilic thoughts, refusing to engage with them, and fail to provide a way for them to come forward - until, in many cases, it is all very much too late.

ChocolateSauce

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Paedophiles can't be compared to gypsies though. Assuming a gypsy is going to commit theft is based on sterotypes and profiling. Every gypsy does'nt have a desire to steal hardwired in their brain. The same can be said of priests.

A paedophile has a sexual attraction to children hard wired into them. And that means every paedophile. In this case it isn't based on stereotypes or profiling. The fact that a child is at risk if a paedophile gives into their desires makes it worse.

If a friend approached you and told you they felt attracted to children but promised never to give into their urges would you be comfortable leaving them carry on as normal because they have commited no crime?

It would depend entirely on the friend. I can think of quite a few I'd trust to baby sit my children even if they approached me with this confession.

I acknowledge the difference between something hardwired and something not, but they still shouldn't be treated as a danger unless there is evidence to suggest that the individual is a danger.

ChocolateSauce

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I image anyone who has been convicted of murder and is assessed to be at risk of re-offending because they still want to kill are not released, they aren't released because they still want to kill but promise not to.

Actually, when their sentence is up they have to be released, that's the point of a sentence. It doesn't matter what the risk is. High risk offenders are usually kept under tight supervision though, including counseling and regular signing in.

If a paedophile has already crossed the line and deliberately injured a child to satisfy their own sexual desires and that desire has not, or could not, be abated by any means we have at our disposal - they are always going to be a risk to children. Always.

True there will always be a risk, once they've shown themselves capable of such an act.

The badly named chemical castration is actually a way of treating it, and many countries have programmes where it is used, usually with positive results for everyone.

ChocolateSauce

metrovelvet wrote: »

I can make imaginative leaps to nearly anything, murder, rape, incest, but being attracted to a child I cannot do. I cannot imagine how they take a four year old and gettgr child to play with their erection, how they can strip down a toddler, take off the nappy, hear them screaming, feel the hot tears falling and rape the child. Can someone tell me how you can do that?

Very, very simple. It's the same way someone can kill someone without remorse. If you can understand one, you can understand the other.

pablomakaveli

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It would depend entirely on the friend. I can think of quite a few I'd trust to baby sit my children even if they approached me with this confession.

I acknowledge the difference between something hardwired and something not, but they still shouldn't be treated as a danger unless there is evidence to suggest that the individual is a danger.

I find this very hard to believe tbh. No matter how small the risk of that person abusing the child, that risk is still there and not worth chancing. And how would you feel if years down the line the person abused a child because they never went to receive help or treatment?

You cant necessarily take the "wait and see" approach with someone like that either. For example if a psychotic person goes tells a doctor they are going to kill someone because they believe they have to but they have'nt done anything yet that person will be treated as potentially dangerous and given treatment. By your reasoning that person can walk out without receiving treatment or being monitored and left to their own devices until they inevitably kill someone.

Ickle Magoo

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Actually, when their sentence is up they have to be released, that's the point of a sentence. It doesn't matter what the risk is. High risk offenders are usually kept under tight supervision though, including counseling and regular signing in.

When a murderer is given a life sentence with a minimum sentence that is to be carried out, the actual term is decided by a parole board and range of professionals determining if the individual is a risk to society. Some given life get out after their minimum term, some never get out - it's down to risk and if a paedophile is always going to be a risk then the same rules should apply.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

True there will always be a risk, once they've shown themselves capable of such an act.

The badly named chemical castration is actually a way of treating it, and many countries have programmes where it is used, usually with positive results for everyone.

Usually? Not good enough in my book.

As abhorrent as I find someone sexually fantasising about sex with children, it isn't a crime and shouldn't be treated as such but I see no issue with throwing the book at someone who deliberately takes their fantasy to reality and decides to abuse a child for their own sexual pleasure - and only for their own sexual pleasure. There is no jealousy or infidelity or any of the other emotions that often drive murderers, it is pure unadulterated selfishness and absolute willingness to cause untold pain and suffering to an innocent child.

I think child sex abuse is often viewed as a more wicked and serious crime than murder, in terms of moral outrage because it's impossible for a young child to defend themselves from an adult doing something they don't even understand yet. Perhaps that's another reason paedophiles who are found to have abused get so little sympathy and people have no wish to understand how or why someone would deliberately harm a child just to get their rocks off.

ChocolateSauce

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I find this very hard to believe tbh. No matter how small the risk of that person abusing the child, that risk is still there and not worth chancing. And how would you feel if years down the line the person abused a child because they never went to receive help or treatment?

Believe what you like. I don't say things I don't mean.

You cant necessarily take the "wait and see" approach with someone like that either. For example if a psychotic person goes tells a doctor they are going to kill someone because they believe they have to but they have'nt done anything yet that person will be treated as potentially dangerous and given treatment.

And if someone goes to a doctor and says they fear they'll touch children, then they're worth looking at. (Although there is a difference between being psychotic and being attracted to something.). If they don't go to a doctor because they've got it under control, there's no problem. These people aren't always sex maniacs who can't go a day without wanting to rape children, they're frequently otherwise normal people who probably hate that they feel this way.

By your reasoning that person can walk out without receiving treatment or being monitored and left to their own devices until they inevitably kill someone.

Quite a leap there, considering I said "unless there is evidence to consider them a danger". Going to someone and saying you want to kill them is evidence in my books.

ickle magoo wrote:

Usually? Not good enough in my book.

Are you saying that it's better not to treat at all than to try something with a less than 100% effectiveness rate?

I see no issue with throwing the book at someone who deliberately takes their fantasy to reality and decides to abuse a child for their own sexual pleasure - and only for their own sexual pleasure. There is no jealousy or infidelity or any of the other emotions that often drive murderers, it is pure unadulterated selfishness and absolute willingness to cause untold pain and suffering to an innocent child.

I think child sex abuse is often viewed as a more wicked and serious crime than murder, in terms of moral outrage because it's impossible for a young child to defend themselves from an adult doing something they don't even understand yet. Perhaps that's another reason paedophiles who are found to have abused get so little sympathy and people have no wish to understand how or why someone would deliberately harm a child just to get their rocks off.

I find the moral outrage to be out of proportion to the crime. Murder is far worse, yet people (including yourself) often make excuses for murders, and then get upset with people who try to put pedophilia into context.

pablomakaveli

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Believe what you like. I don't say things I don't mean.

Well i find it pretty shocking that you would let someone who admits they are attracted to children, look after your children unattended.

And if someone goes to a doctor and says they fear they'll touch children, then they're worth looking at. (Although there is a difference between being psychotic and being attracted to something.). If they don't go to a doctor because they've got it under control, there's no problem. These people aren't always sex maniacs who can't go a day without wanting to rape children, they're frequently otherwise normal people who probably hate that they feel this way.

There's no guarentee they will be able to keep it under control. What if they find themselves in a situation where they are alone with a child or if they are drinking which will lower their inhibitions and they might decide to abuse a child.

Quite a leap there, considering I said "unless there is evidence to consider them a danger". Going to someone and saying you want to kill them is evidence in my books.

Saying that they are attracted to children which if acted on results in a child being abused is evidence of danger.

I find the moral outrage to be out of proportion to the crime. Murder is far worse, yet people (including yourself) often make excuses for murders, and then get upset with people who try to put pedophilia into context.

I know this isnt directed at me but the fact that paedophiles who abuse children ,who are the most vulnerable in human society, makes them and their crimes among the most hated. I'm not trying to say murder isnt a serious crime but paedophilia will always be a crime that will upset and cause anger and distress among most people.

PopUp

Voltwad wrote: »

Take Roger Casement and his downfall. He wrote in his diary that he had sexual desires about young boys but he never acted on them.

Sorry, this is a little bit of tangent but I just wanted to clarify something about Casement.

I am open to being corrected here because it's been a few years since I studied this. But as far as I know this is not what the Black Diaries were about at all. Firstly, they were not public knowledge at the time of his trial - some people persecuting him probably knew about them but it wasn't in the papers or anything like that.

Secondly and most importantly - they were absolutely NOT a chronicle of paedophilic tendencies never acted upon. Rather, they were a chronicle of several years voracious sexual activity. Casement spent several years in South America shagging anything that moved. He was NOT a paedophile. The diaries record sexual liasons with numerous native 'boys' - but in the (certainly racist) parlance of his day, a native 'boy' would have easily been in his twenties or older. The term meant a non-white male from the age of about fifteen upwards.

Now I am open to corrections but I don't believe the diaries suggest that the lads Casement shagged were ever under the age of consent (in 1911 or today). He liked young men, but not kids. He was in his forties, so he could fairly be described as pretty sleazy, but a paedophile?! No way.

Ickle Magoo

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Are you saying that it's better not to treat at all than to try something with a less than 100% effectiveness rate?

I don't really mind if they want to try something, I don't think it should be considered an alternative to removing a paedophile that has abused a child from society until it does have 100% effectiveness.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I find the moral outrage to be out of proportion to the crime. Murder is far worse, yet people (including yourself) often make excuses for murders, and then get upset with people who try to put pedophilia into context.

I'm not making excuses for murderers, I don't think there is severe enough punishments for murder either - I sometimes find the rationale for murder understandable in some respects - I can't do that with child abuse. There is an important distinction between puting paedophilia in context, which I think I do - and considering a paedophile that has abused a child to have committed one of the most despicable crimes imaginable.

There was a case a couple of years ago where a two week old baby was raped by a paedophile, she needed surgery to repair the damage and will have to live with colostomy bags and god knows what for the rest of her life - and to think someone was enjoying doing that to her and she must have been screaming her heart out. It's just sickening. Murder is a horrendous crime, obviously, but it takes a special kind of monster to do something like that.

yawnstretch

Paedophelia is a perversion and no one wants innocent children harmed. Recently the British government issued a public apology for chemically castrating that famous scientist Turing I think for his sexual deviancy.

Today we talk openly about homosexuality but once the crime of buggery (man rape) was just as demonic and feared as paedophelia is today.

Tendencies and fantasies should not be outlawed as we risk closing all of society and damaging all expression if we try to (look at the Internet and how we lose freedoms everyday because of paedo crack-downs).

Hurting a child should come with serious penalties. It's a tricky matter though as children can end a persons life on a whim because they don't understand the gravity an accusation means today. I recall reading a story recently about a twenty-something Irish woman admitting to lying about some guy sexually assaulting her like 10 years ago or something - anyone remember that?

pablomakaveli

yawnstretch wrote: »

Hurting a child should come with serious penalties. It's a tricky matter though as children can end a persons life on a whim because they don't understand the gravity an accusation means today. I recall reading a story recently about a twenty-something Irish woman admitting to lying about some guy sexually assaulting her like 10 years ago or something - anyone remember that?

Ya i remember that although her father allegedly talked her into doing it as he had a grievance with the family of the accused.

ChocolateSauce

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Well i find it pretty shocking that you would let someone who admits they are attracted to children, look after your children unattended.

Well that means you haven't any friends in whom you have absolute confidence in their integrity and trustworthiness, and also possibly that you fail to grasp the psychology in this discussion.

There's no guarentee they will be able to keep it under control. What if they find themselves in a situation where they are alone with a child or if they are drinking which will lower their inhibitions and they might decide to abuse a child.

When a person is drinking there's no guarantee they won't loose control and kill someone. Working on the assumption that a person is good and moral, we must give them the benefit of the doubt. If people are treated like they are responsible, they're more likely to be responsible.

Saying that they are attracted to children which if acted on results in a child being abused is evidence of danger.

No more than is someone saying that they hate someone deeply evidence they could kill that someone. ie. not enough to penalise them.

I know this isnt directed at me but the fact that paedophiles who abuse children ,who are the most vulnerable in human society, makes them and their crimes among the most hated. I'm not trying to say murder isnt a serious crime but paedophilia will always be a crime that will upset and cause anger and distress among most people.

True, which is precisely why this topic needs to be approached in a cool and detached manner if it is to be seriously addressed with a view to forming a complete plan of action.

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I sometimes find the rationale for murder understandable in some respects - I can't do that with child abuse.

I understand your position....I think the rationale for pedophiles is essentially "I want, I take", with varying degrees of excuse making and dehumanisation formulated to try and justify it to themselves. I think this kind rationale is not dissimilar to that for murder, as they both disregard the rights and feelings of the victims in the pursuit of the perpetrator's own ends.

Ickle Magoo

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I understand your position....I think the rationale for pedophiles is essentially "I want, I take", with varying degrees of excuse making and dehumanisation formulated to try and justify it to themselves. I think this kind rationale is not dissimilar to that for murder, as they both disregard the rights and feelings of the victims in the pursuit of the perpetrator's own ends.

I appreciate that and obviously there are different kinds and degrees of all violent crimes but I think a paedophile abusing a child is essentially a large person inflicting sadistic torture on a small person, which would put it at the upper "scale" of violent crime - added to the fact it is a condition which cannot be cured, removed or rehabilitated; only muted, I think that the risk that offenders carry of re-offending must be pretty high.

The other aspect of paedophiliac abuse that makes it so difficult to judge adequate punnishment is that it often relies heavily on secrecy. Every murderer leaves a body which in most cases are found & autopsied to decipher the gravity of the crime. Often cases regarding paedophiles are never reported, never make it to court or are tried so many years after the event as to make forensic evidence impossible. There is a risk of re-offending and equally a risk that no-one will know it's happening until it's too late for yet another child.

metrovelvet

Not only that but they seem to lack something sociopaths have. They seem to willing to go through an awful lot of hassle. They are motivated big time.

pablomakaveli

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well that means you haven't any friends in whom you have absolute confidence in their integrity and trustworthiness, and also possibly that you fail to grasp the psychology in this discussion.

It would'nt matter to me if they were the most trustworthy person i know. Remember a lot of children are abused by someone they know or who their family knows. And the safety of ones own child should always take priority over fear of offending a friend. I don't understand how my concern in this situation would mean i don't grasp the psychology of the situation.

When a person is drinking there's no guarantee they won't loose control and kill someone. Working on the assumption that a person is good and moral, we must give them the benefit of the doubt. If people are treated like they are responsible, they're more likely to be responsible.

I was only using drinking as one example of when a paedophile
may be in a situation where they may be tempted to give in to their desires. They may face many situations where their resolve is tested and if they are feeling weak or unhappy at that time they may give in to temptation. Even most people who behave responsibly will do something irresponsible from time to time. Everyone does.

No more than is someone saying that they hate someone deeply evidence they could kill that someone. ie. not enough to penalise them.

Saying you hate someone is not clear enough of a threat. There are several people who i hate but i would never kill them. If i act upon that hate it does'nt necessarily mean i will go out and kill them i might just insult them or ignore them. Saying you are attracted to children is more specific where harm is guarenteed if acted upon.

metrovelvet

Would you stick a vampire in a blood bank and expect him not to sup?

ChocolateSauce

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I appreciate that and obviously there are different kinds and degrees of all violent crimes but I think a paedophile abusing a child is essentially a large person inflicting sadistic torture on a small person, which would put it at the upper "scale" of violent crime - added to the fact it is a condition which cannot be cured, removed or rehabilitated; only muted, I think that the risk that offenders carry of re-offending must be pretty high.

The other aspect of paedophiliac abuse that makes it so difficult to judge adequate punnishment is that it often relies heavily on secrecy. Every murderer leaves a body which in most cases are found & autopsied to decipher the gravity of the crime. Often cases regarding paedophiles are never reported, never make it to court or are tried so many years after the event as to make forensic evidence impossible. There is a risk of re-offending and equally a risk that no-one will know it's happening until it's too late for yet another child.

Yeah, it is a much more complex issue with more latitude for mistake.

pablomakaveli wrote:

I was only using drinking as one example of when a paedophile
may be in a situation where they may be tempted to give in to their desires. They may face many situations where their resolve is tested and if they are feeling weak or unhappy at that time they may give in to temptation. Even most people who behave responsibly will do something irresponsible from time to time. Everyone does.

When someone passes comment on me in the street, I have a fleeting desire to harm them, but I believe I can live my entire life without acting on it. With pedophiles, if that time comes, punishment should follow. I wouldn't want to be punished because I might punch someone I don't like though.

And the safety of ones own child should always take priority over fear of offending a friend.

I agree completely with this, and I wouldn't let someone look after my child if I thought there was a risk. ie. I know several people whom I have absolute confidence in, and if it happened that one of these people had an unfortunate biological urge (and had confided this in me), I could still sleep soundly at night, knowing my kids were in the hands of an exemplary human being.

I think there is a greater risk to my (hypothetical, btw) child in the hands of a teenage babysitter than in the hands of a trusted friend.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I do not presume so. But I would not entice either.

Pretty sure is not good enough. Would you leave your baby girl in the care of someone you were pretty sure about.

Im pretty sure I wont get burgled while i'm asleep but I still lock my door.

Fiction and metaphor are good means of trying to understand something. A klingon is quite different to a vampire, to compare the two is an inappropriate analogy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

If I locked you up with twenty beautiful naked women, you are telling me that you would not make an attempt eventually. Yeah, isnt that asexuality?
Thats not to say you are a rapist by any means. But even still, even if a pedophile didnt do anything to my son, that he would covet him, that he would sit there with hard on fantasizing about him is enough for me to want a 30 mile radius barring order.