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

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.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

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?

Firstly, having sex with a woman is fine whereas paedophilic behaviour is not, and I'm sure there are paedophiles who would never abuse children for that reason.

I simply don't see how you think that's a valid comparison if his point is about paedophiles who know between right and wrong.

metrovelvet

How are you sure?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

metrovelvet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Right. And while arousal is normal and understandable,with an adult and child uh uh. No way.

Sandvich

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

You know being ignorant of psychology doesn't somehow make you smarter. I would have thought that'd be obvious. You want to throw away "why" people do things which quite frankly makes me not want to be terribly nice to you.

Labelling people as monsters isn't likely to turn them into better human beings.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

How are you sure?

Because it seems logical to me that some people are sexually attracted to children, but may not go through with it because a sexual attraction doesn't stop you knowing the difference between right and wrong.

I don't want to sound crude, and seeing as how you feel these comparisons are relevant then okay. If a guy is really really into oral sex, and his grildfriend isn't; then his conscience is going to keep him from orally raping her.

Do you see how that could translate to paedophilic behaviour?

Having consensual sex with a woman is fine. Raping a woman because I can't control my sexual urges is not.

It would be worrying if the thread had got this far and that wasn't already quite clear.

metrovelvet

Yes I know what you are saying. The thought of someone being aroused by their lover,acted upon or not is of no bother. The thought of someone sitting their aroused looking at a child, possibly fantasizing about the child, sickens me.

Red_Marauder

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes I know what you are saying. The thought of someone being aroused by their lover,acted upon or not is of no bother. The thought of someone sitting their aroused looking at a child, possibly fantasizing about the child, sickens me.

Yes of course, but I have to say I would have a pretty hard time personally judging someone with those thoughts.
I don't think we as a society are doing children any favours by failing to really engage with paedophiles. It seems quite possible that an individual might have no control over paedophilic thoughts, and the attraction to children may even be determined genetically.

I really think a large part of the reason we as a society do not try to understand paedophiles and encourage them to come forward is because that perception of them as some leering dark nocturnal monster comforts us - we do not want to associate them with being normal, pleasant, everyday people we meet at athe gym or go for drinks with - and that is bad for child welfare.

ChocolateSauce

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not to mention that Vampires require blood to live, so it would more like putting a hungry person in a room with food...;)

Metrovelvet wrote:

If I locked you up with twenty beautiful naked women, you are telling me that you would not make an attempt eventually.

Are you saying that you don't think you could keep your desires to yourself? I certainly could...

Right. And while arousal is normal and understandable,with an adult and child uh uh. No way.

So it's okay to be aroused by a woman so long as you don't rape her, but it's different if you are aroused by a child, but don't rape him/her for the same reason?

What should sicken you is immoral behaviour, not a person's biology. If you can't accept that, it's the same as someone being sickened by the concept of homosexuality, and as long as people who haven't done anything wrong are treated like that, this subject will remain so hot that harm is actually perpetuated due to a lack of effective communication and even-handedness.

metrovelvet

It depends on whether you believe this is a purely sexual preferance or if there are other things going on.