Child Molesters/Sexual Predators

Kernel

Wicknight wrote:

Answer me this Kernel. What purpose to society does it serve by not treating a sex offender in a secure mental hospital or mentally ill wing of a prision?

If the sex offender re-offends when they are released could you say to the victim that has just been sexual assaulted that you are very sorry it happened but you really don't really think society should attempt to stop it from happening again.

No, of course you should try to stop it from happening. We just disagree on the best method to do this. I favour the method of incarceration or possibly trying castration. Both are forms of treatment to protect society. Keep them in a mentally ill wing of a prison if you want, once they are locked up I couldn't care less.

Castration would be a nice touch though.

MrPudding

Kernel wrote:

Castration would be a nice touch though.

The only occasion I can think of where castration would be a nice touch is where you, Kernel that is, are wrongfully accused of a sexual crime. You are subsequently found guilty and castrated. After a few year of growing tits you are able to prove that you are infact innocent. Yeah, yuo are right. That would be a nice touch.

MrP

MrPudding

Kernel wrote:

Bah, get a life you pedantic arsehole. I couldn't be bothered providing you with figures and proof, I have other things to do lad. Good luck with your psycho-sexual problem.

EDIT: I fully expect to get banned, but dealing with this kind of nonsense so early is too tedious for me, so knock yourself out mod. I'd keep an eye on Mr.Pudding though, from other posts of his, he seems to be a bit 'dodgy'.

There really is no need for this. If you think something is used too much I don't think it is pedantic for someone to ask for the figures you base your opinion on. Maybe that's just me though, being dodgy and all.

MrP

Zombrex

Kernel wrote:

I favour the method of incarceration or possibly trying castration.

Well I think it has been established that castration doesn't prevent the problem ( you seem to favour it more on the grounds of revenge and punishment than an actual solution to future re-offense) and would also open a mine field of legal questions (for a start what if you castrate someone who is innocent).

And incarceration does nothing either, unless you impose life sentenses for everyone. Otherwise when the person gets out, with no form of treatment or rehab they are very likely to re-offend as the underlying mental illness has not been tackled (and probably been made worse by a stay in prision)

Kernel wrote:

Both are forms of treatment to protect society

Neither of which work at actually protecting society, so there seems very little point to them.

Zombrex

Kernel wrote:

I couldn't be bothered providing you with figures and proof

Then you should probably state that your original assessment, that criminals are claiming to be mentally ill "to much" (which implies they weren't in pervious years, and that they are not actually mentally ill), is based solely on your own opinion, not on actual evidence, and as such carries very little weight on this thread.

zenith

Kernel banned for arsehole comment.
Now he won't have to fret about wasting his time.

Evil Phil

I hate to play the link card but could somebody provide some evidence that pedophiles are actually mentaly ill? Or even tell me what illness they are suffering from?

Outside of this thread I've never heard it before, not that I'm disputing it - just trying to stay informed.

MrPudding

Evil Phil wrote:

I hate to play the link card but could somebody provide some evidence that pedophiles are actually mentaly ill? Or even tell me what illness they are suffering from?

Outside of this thread I've never heard it before, not that I'm disputing it - just trying to stay informed.

Fair point.

This is from the American Justice department, quite interesting:

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/163390.txt

This has a lot of info and outlines the characteristics pedophiles and a small bit about treatment:

http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355

I hope these help you. As I have said before it is a very emotive subject, but not simply a black and white one.

MrP

Eoghan-psych

Evil Phil wrote:

I hate to play the link card but could somebody provide some evidence that pedophiles are actually mentaly ill? Or even tell me what illness they are suffering from?

Outside of this thread I've never heard it before, not that I'm disputing it - just trying to stay informed.

DSM-IV - the "bible" if you will of mental illness - classifies pedophilia as a paraphilia, defined by recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger) over a period of 6 months or more.

It need not involve *any* contact offending for diagnosis, and specifically excludes relationships between two young people.

MrPudding

Eoghan-psych wrote:

DSM-IV - the "bible" if you will of mental illness - classifies pedophilia as a paraphilia, defined by recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger) over a period of 6 months or more.

It need not involve *any* contact offending for diagnosis, and specifically excludes relationships between two young people.

The 2nd link I posted give the relevent sections, if anyone wants more detail.

MrP

pretty-in-pink

Nasty_Girl wrote:

Was that story covered in the "Children Who Kill" book?
It sound familar

Yup, it was indeed. I was going to use Mary Bell, but decided againnst it.

Ian Brady was probably one of the closest things to evil the world has seen. His attraction to young teenagers/children was less about sexual urges and more about terrifying them and hurting them. He planned all the kidnappings and killings, eventually roped a relative of his into coming(this is how he got caught BTW). He had Myra under his thumb- she wanted to do whatever she could to keep him happy. He definatley used coercion, or at least persuasive coercion, to get her to go along with him. He was a sex-killer(well he couldn't really let them go after what he did to them), and she was his monkey.

As for those who molest/abuse children- thats how it starts, but it graduates up. From looking at pictures to actually having relations of some sort with a child. Yet again, its rarely about the sex, but rather about the power and "revenge". They are sick people, beyond any shadow of a doubt, but most were probably abused or horrifically neglected as children- and so need counselling to help them deal with their pain- and to help them try and reform.

To be clear, I am not saying "aw poor little perverts". What I am saying is that most of these perps have been victims to, and probably need pity as well as help. Can anyone here imagine feeling so bad about yourself that you have to hurt children to feel good? Or having been so abused, that you eventualy end up abusing yourself and others? (several child-sex offenders/killers (predominantly male) have done things like put batteries up their own anus and those of their victims, which is generally indicative of similar/identical abuse through their childhood)

In short Jail time without therepy wouldn't work, it would further compound the problem(many child sex offenders have been in trouble with the police,and some have been put into reform. houses,but due to lack of investigation as to what made them turn to crime in the first place, they didn't recieve any help, and they were sent back to the same abusive enviroment they had been "rescued" from. This made their problems worse,and they were less likely to get help having been branded as a trouble-maker). As for castration, its generaly not a sexual urge(though it can be)to have relations of any sort with children, but rather a physcho-sexual release following seeing someone vunerable in great pain,fear or dibilitation), so castrating someone would not work. At all.

MrPudding

naughty_girl wrote:

In short Jail time without therepy wouldn't work, it would further compound the problem(many child sex offenders have been in trouble with the police,and some have been put into reform. houses,but due to lack of investigation as to what made them turn to crime in the first place, they didn't recieve any help, and they were sent back to the same abusive enviroment they had been "rescued" from. This made their problems worse,and they were less likely to get help having been branded as a trouble-maker). As for castration, its generaly not a sexual urge(though it can be)to have relations of any sort with children, but rather a physcho-sexual release following seeing someone vunerable in great pain,fear or dibilitation), so castrating someone would not work. At all.

I think you will find the people proposing castration etc have no interest in trying to "cure" the offenders. When you say that jail time with no therapy would do no good they don't actually care. They would prefer that the offenders either stay in jail for good, get castrated or put to death. The though of trying to help them, those that can be helped that is, to get over their problem does not even cross their mind.

MrP

Evil Phil

Now I could be wrong about this but aren't people allowed to give evidence 'in camera' to avoid them having to do so in front of their abuser. A lot of abusers don't show remorse and can actually use their victims testimony as a chance to abuse them again to a lesser degree. Not all pedophiles show remorse or regret their actions. But I suppose this should be judged on a case by case basis as some abusers plead guilty and spare their victims the pain of having to testify. My point is, or maybe its more of a waffle, its very hard to be formulaic about people who sexually abuse children.

Its an unrelated point but the vast majority of victims do not go on to be abusers.

MrPudding

Evil Phil wrote:

Now I could be wrong about this but aren't people allowed to give evidence 'in camera' to avoid them having to do so in front of their abuser. A lot of abusers don't show remorse and can actually use their victims testimony as a chance to abuse them again to a lesser degree.

I think this is a particualar issue in rape cases. In the UK the accused has, or at least did, have the right to cross examine the (alledged) victim. Not a pleasent experience.

Evil Phil wrote:

Not all pedophiles show remorse or regret their actions.

I the case of a mentally ill person they may not see their action as something they need to feel remorese or regret about.

Evil Phil wrote:

My point is, or maybe its more of a waffle, its very hard to be formulaic about people who sexually abuse children.

This is a major problem with crimes that can have a mental angle. It really is hard to have hard and fast rules. You are right, it really does need to be done on a case by case basis.

Evil Phil wrote:

Its an unrelated point but the vast majority of victims do not go on to be abusers.

True, but it does further reinforce the difficulty of trying to pin labels on people.

MrP

pork99

naughty_girl wrote:

Having read a lot of books on this (and similar matters), I can say with confidence that most child molesters act on a physco-sexual urge. They might not fancy children(undoubtedly some do fancy children), but they get sexual release from the mere act of causing someone else pain.

If we were to investigate a sexual predators(indeed any criminals)background, then we can try and help them.

So it's purely the environment that produces criminals?

Surely for every one case like the one you quoted there are hundreds of thousands of people who have had similarily horrific childhoods and never offend?

What about the increasing evidence that people who can kill, assault, rape without remorse actually have differently structured brains from normal people?

I'm not saying it's that simple but the interactions between nature and nuture are subtle and complex.

( good book on the subject )

pretty-in-pink

pork99 wrote:

I'm not saying it's that simple but the interactions between nature and nuture are subtle and complex.

( good book on the subject )

Not something I'd deny, as there are also some pretty horrific cases where the perp has had a prety good upbringing. So there is a "nature" element. However its probably a mixture of both. If a child is abused or neglected during their formative years, it would affect their cerebral development and their social ability etc.

Not everyone who is abused becomes an abuser/killer- though for those who don't go on to have a criminal career,some of what they have learned growing up will remain with them- they might be very strict, cross parents, or they might be really relaxed about rules etc.

Most people who like to hurt/abuse others have had a traumatic childhood, or a neglectful one*- not all but most.

*by neglectful I mean both the "traditional" sense of the word(left hungry,dirty etc) and also by neglecting to give the child any disipline, so they become spoiled, and expect to get everything they want, and lose their tempers if they don't get it. This can lead to them simply taking whatever they want through whatever means neccessary.

Most *really* dangerous perps have very similar backgrounds and character traits. The combination of nature and nurture would have a major effect- I'm pretty sure it was Jon venables and his friend that were removed from their homes, put into foster care, showed an improvement and got put back into a toxic enviroment. I'll check out who it was and let you know.......

solas

If one group of criminals needs to be electronically tagged it's child molestors. They should get any treatment available but they should also be obliged to wear electronic tags all the time.

havent read the entire thread (will do later) but I would think tagging should be compulsory.
In fact I wonder is it possible to attach electrodes which would supply an electrical current to the relevant part of the brain (or nuts) when stimulated.?

been watching too much brainiac.