Anti-paedophile demonstration...

[Salsaman]

Did anybody see these demos on the news?

 

http://www.theratbook.com/Articles/Article/a_paedophile_protest_in_dorset

 

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Im in 2 minds...part of me wants to say good, but surely theres a risk that these mob groups get the wrong person or end up hurting someone totally innocent?

[Kyrisch]

I'm immediately turned off by the tone of the blog. Their use of the word 'pervert' just goes to show that people view pedophiles as monsters, not human beings convicted of a sexual offense. It is tantamount to the use of the word faggot and is just brutish and unbecoming of an honest intellect. The rest of the post follows suit with the chillingly obvious appeal to emotion: "is this justice?" Seriously, people with fetishisms are not terrorists...

[Phi for All]

At some point, we need to either acknowledge that prison pays a debt to society or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then we need an alternative. This stance is dishonest, since we incarcerate offenders (for any type of offense, not just sex crimes) and then continue to persecute them after they've served their sentence. There needs to be a point where we say that the slate has been cleaned enough to allow an offender a chance at some kind of normal life. And if the slate can never be cleaned, then we need to be honest enough to say that and treat them accordingly.

 

I don't have a solid alternative, but this half-assed stance is just wrong, imo.

[Sisyphus]

To me the most telling sentence is this:

 

There is growing concern that paedophiles, rapists, murderers, terrorists, abusers and other criminals, are being given too much support, too much help, too much protection.

 

Talk about vaguely directed fear and anger. (First of all: "Terrorists?" What?) Lynch mob mentality.

 

Phi has it right. Either we say it's possible to pay your debt to society, or isn't. If not, then we need to change the basis of our entire legal system.

[Mokele]

I don't think it's an either-or. You can use the "debt to society" model for crimes with low recidivism (ordinary crimes, stupid mistakes, crimes of passion, etc.).

 

The problem is that we cannot effectively deal with those who, due to built-in drives and urges, have an extremely high recidivism, and thus pose a danger to others.

 

Basically, can we lock someone up due to future danger, if that danger is extremely high (for instance, a known pedophile, or someone who a panel of 10 shrinks unanimously agree is going to become a serial killer)?

[Severian]

We need to bring back the death penalty. If they are dead they can't harm anyone.

[CharonY]

Or pre-emptive death penalty. If you kill everyone, no crime will happen ever again.

[Mr Skeptic]

We need to bring back the death penalty. If they are dead they can't harm anyone.

 

That's a little extreme and totally unnecessary in the context of sex crimes. Castration should work just fine and is also a permanent solution, at least for these types of crime. But, that would be cruel and unusual, wouldn't it?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The peaceful demonstration in Weymouth drew a great deal of support and media attention, including backing from The Rat Book... The concerned residents of Weymouth demanded the introduction of ‘Sarah’s law’, a law which would allow them to know more about the convicted offenders in their area... Another resident who helped set up the internet campaign on facebook said that she was both frightened and angry that so many offenders were living under their noses. She didn’t believe the current assessment system was doing enough because so many paedophiles were re-offending.

 

Seems like a reasonable protest, not the stuff of pitchforks and torches.

[Severian]

That's a little extreme and totally unnecessary in the context of sex crimes. Castration should work just fine and is also a permanent solution, at least for these types of crime. But, that would be cruel and unusual, wouldn't it?

 

Yes, castration would work. But I think it would add to the confusion. Since I would advocate the death penalty for any (serious) violent crime, you would have a problem with rape. Is it sexual, or violent? I would say violent, so kill them all.

[Leader Bee]

How on earth would castration be any form of prevention? You are mistaken if you think this means that the entire penis is removed so I fail to see how this would be any kind of physical preventative measure. Sexual abuse is also more than just penetration as well and would do nothing to stop other means being used for gratification.

 

By the way, women couldn't be castrated either and the above post just goes to show what image we have of peadophiles. Let me guess: sweaty old men in their 40's right? Lest me remind you of the recent case in UK news of a childrens worker/nursery nurse in her early 30's that was arrested for holding indecent images of children.

 

The only difference we have here between Homosexuals and people who have an interest in pre-pubecents is that society views it as wrong. It isn't a sickness otherwise we would be pidgeon holing every other fetish into immorality and you cant cure something that isnt a sickness.

 

Locking someone away for their sexual preferences will not "cure" them either, would somone be any less gay had they spent 10 years in prison? The only thing we can really do is to convict anyone who manages to act on their urges and while this isn't exactly ideal "after the fact" we dont want to end up in a minority report type world either.

 

After all rapists, bank thieves and many other types of criminal cant be arrested just for thinking about it can they?

[Royston]

The only difference we have here between Homosexuals and people who have an interest in pre-pubecents is that society views it as wrong.

 

Sure, it has nothing to do with manipulating a child to consent, how can you possibly compare the two.

 

It isn't a sickness otherwise we would be pidgeon holing every other fetish into immorality and you cant cure something that isnt a sickness.

 

If somebody is incapable of restraining their urges, knowing that such urges will cause harm to somebody else, then it is a sickness. BTW women can be castrated, not that I think castration or death (as mentioned earlier) is a humane solution, by any stretch of the imagination. The problem resides in the brain, not the genitals.

[Sayonara]

After all rapists, bank thieves and many other types of criminal cant be arrested just for thinking about it can they?

Depends on the circumstances. Conspiracy to commit... may apply.

[Mr Skeptic]

How on earth would castration be any form of prevention?...By the way, women couldn't be castrated either

 

Perhaps it would surprise you that sexuality is largely based on hormones? Especially the hormones secreted by the testes and ovaries. Why do you think that people neuter or castrate their pets? It's not just about reproduction in case you were wondering -- it also affects their behavior. Makes them uninterested in sex, and much less aggressive.

[Sisyphus]

How on earth would castration be any form of prevention? You are mistaken if you think this means that the entire penis is removed so I fail to see how this would be any kind of physical preventative measure. Sexual abuse is also more than just penetration as well and would do nothing to stop other means being used for gratification.

 

Men and women can both be castrated. It just means removal or otherwise disablement of the gonads (testicles or ovaries). The point is not physical restraint but a reduction of the sex drive to zero, so they are literally no longer pedophiles, because they aren't anything "philes." IIRC some pedophiles voluntarily seek this out as treatment, and it does work, even if it is extreme.

 

The only difference we have here between Homosexuals and people who have an interest in pre-pubecents is that society views it as wrong. It isn't a sickness otherwise we would be pidgeon holing every other fetish into immorality and you cant cure something that isnt a sickness.

 

What counts as a disorder in medicine is subjective and basically comes down to whether it negatively impacts oneself or others. So yeah, to a certain extent it is just based on society's view, but it's not merely arbitrary. The reason homosexuality is considered ok and pedophilia isn't comes down to consent. Children aren't considered capable of informed consent to sex with an adult. The basis of that is a whole other topic, but what it comes down to is that pedophilia is a "philia" with no ethically or legally acceptable outlet, while homosexuality can be satisfied with consenting adults, just like "normal" sexuality.

 

Locking someone away for their sexual preferences will not "cure" them either, would somone be any less gay had they spent 10 years in prison? The only thing we can really do is to convict anyone who manages to act on their urges and while this isn't exactly ideal "after the fact" we dont want to end up in a minority report type world either.

 

After all rapists, bank thieves and many other types of criminal cant be arrested just for thinking about it can they?

 

I agree completely, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. There's some semantic confusion, I think. "Pedophilia" as in being sexually attracted to children is not a crime nor should it be, though it is generally considered a disorder. "Pedophilia" as in "engaging in sex acts with children" is the crime.

[Leader Bee]

Sure, it has nothing to do with manipulating a child to consent, how can you possibly compare the two.

 

 

 

If somebody is incapable of restraining their urges, knowing that such urges will cause harm to somebody else, then it is a sickness. BTW women can be castrated, not that I think castration or death (as mentioned earlier) is a humane solution, by any stretch of the imagination. The problem resides in the brain, not the genitals.

 

You're assuming that all peadophiles cannot restrain their urges and the only ones that exist are the ones that have been caught. Of course some are aware of the consequences of their actions and decide never to act upon them because of the fear of lynch mobs.

 

It has nothing at all to do with manipulating a child to consent.

There is a difference between pedophilia which is litterally translated as "Child" & "love" from Greek which denotes the sexual preference of the individual and then there is child abuse which is taking action on those urges.

 

I realise this is a sensitive topic for a lot of people but I find it ridiculous that people from a scientific community cannot look past the emotion of the subject and view this topic from a logical point of view rather than a moral one.

 

It should also be noted that here in Britain we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1543596/Sharp-rise-in-under-16-pregnancy-rates.html

 

While the telegraph is hardly a 100% accurate source I would imagine that few of those pregnancies under the age of consent were all attributed to peadophiles and rape. This says to me that women and young girls are perfectly capable of concenting to sex whether they are aware of the consequences or not.

 

While in the eyes of the law someone under the age of consent is deemed unable to make this kind of decision, this in practise is not the case and it depends on the individual and their mental state.

 

I am not saying that it doesnt happen [coercing children into sexual acts] but the fact that people will produce a biased view of the facts before researching the topic they are speaking about because of either media demonisation or the moral pressure of society is very saddening.

 

I don't agree that the ones who do act on their urges are a tragic lot who will cry out about being oppressed because of their sexual orientation should be exempt, sexual assult is still a crime be it with a minor or not. What I find irritating is peoples belief they can be cured.

 

Yes you're right it is a problem of the mind, but a social problem not a sickness.

 

EDIT:

 

MR Skeptic.

 

Perhaps it would surprise you that sexuality is largely based on hormones? Especially the hormones secreted by the testes and ovaries. Why do you think that people neuter or castrate their pets? It's not just about reproduction in case you were wondering -- it also affects their behavior. Makes them uninterested in sex, and much less aggressive.

 

 

I am not at all suprised that sexuality is based largely on hormones. I was well aware of this fact when I posted. The reason I did not mention this was because I was unsure of the effectiveness of this and I was on the understanding that castration would only lower the sex drive and not reduce it to zero - I felt I was unqualified to comment on something I dont understand entirely.

 

Thank you for pointing this out however.

 

Wouldn't the fact that people are willing to undertake this procedure voluntarily point to a certain level of self control in an individual, in relation to a previous posters argument that pedophilia = uncontrolable child rapist.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Leader Bee

[Sisyphus]

There should be a distinction made between attraction to a minor (i.e., someone below the legal age of consent), and attraction to a prebuscent. I think only the latter would be a distinct "preference."

[Sayonara]

It has nothing at all to do with manipulating a child to consent.

There is a difference between pedophilia which is litterally translated as "Child" & "love" from Greek which denotes the sexual preference of the individual and then there is child abuse which is taking action on those urges.

The reason manipulation was mentioned is that you said "the only difference between homosexuals and paedophiles...", and this rather notable behavioural difference was not mentioned in the rest of that sentence.

 

I presume you meant the only difference under some qualifying constraint, such as medical, genetic, or pathological differences. But that's not what you said.

[Royston]

You're assuming that all peadophiles cannot restrain their urges and the only ones that exist are the ones that have been caught. Of course some are aware of the consequences of their actions and decide never to act upon them because of the fear of lynch mobs.

 

It has nothing at all to do with manipulating a child to consent.

There is a difference between pedophilia which is litterally translated as "Child" & "love" from Greek which denotes the sexual preference of the individual and then there is child abuse which is taking action on those urges.

 

Ok, I just re-read your post, and you did say 'interest', not acting on those interests, but I made no mention that all paedophiles act on their urges. The discussion isn't about so-called thought crimes...so why bring it up.

 

I realise this is a sensitive topic for a lot of people but I find it ridiculous that people from a scientific community cannot look past the emotion of the subject and view this topic from a logical point of view rather than a moral one.

 

Ummm, I've just scanned through all the replies, and can't see any appeal to emotion.

 

It should also be noted that here in Britain we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe.

 

What does that have to do with paedophilia ?

 

This says to me that women and young girls are perfectly capable of concenting to sex whether they are aware of the consequences or not.

 

I agree there is a grey area at certain ages, and why such examples are dealt with, on a case by case basis.

 

While in the eyes of the law someone under the age of consent is deemed unable to make this kind of decision, this in practise is not the case and it depends on the individual and their mental state.

 

Yes, but within reason, see my last response.

 

I am not saying that it doesnt happen but the fact that people will produce a biased view of the facts before researching the topic they are speaking about because of either media demonisation or the moral pressure of society is very saddening.

 

Yes, there are many examples, especially in the UK, of a pack mentallity concerning the issue, I don't disagree with that.

 

What I find irritating is peoples belief they can be cured.

 

Why ?

 

Yes you're right it is a problem of the mind, but a social problem not a sickness.

 

Eh ?

Edited February 8, 2010 by Snail

[Severian]

The only difference we have here between Homosexuals and people who have an interest in pre-pubecents is that society views it as wrong. It isn't a sickness otherwise we would be pidgeon holing every other fetish into immorality and you cant cure something that isnt a sickness.

 

One can certainly define paedophiles as 'broken', and can also define people with other fetishes as 'broken'. That doesn't, in itself, mean that they can't be functional members of society, just as a car can still function with a chip in the windscreen. Gay people can probably be constructive members of society, so I have no problem with them. On the other hand, I would hold though that paedophiles are dangerous enough that they should be removed from society.

 

Locking someone away for their sexual preferences will not "cure" them

 

Executing them would cure them though.

 

After all rapists, bank thieves and many other types of criminal cant be arrested just for thinking about it can they?

 

Sure they can. Or at least they can be arrested for displaying outwards signs that they are thinking about it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, castration would work. But I think it would add to the confusion. Since I would advocate the death penalty for any (serious) violent crime, you would have a problem with rape. Is it sexual, or violent? I would say violent, so kill them all.

 

On the other hand, pedophilia is not necessarily violent.

[Leader Bee]

Pedophilia is just your sexual orientation and people seem to be having a difficulty seperating this term from child abuser. The words are not synonymous.

[A Tripolation]

Executing them would cure them though.

 

While I kinda support this, I don't think we can go all Salem-Witch-Trial on them and just start executing people like that. I think they should be executed once they harm a prepubescent child. No second chances.

 

Pedophilia is just your sexual orientation and people seem to be having a difficulty seperating this term from child abuser. The words are not synonymous.

 

I think this was mentioned by many of the posters. Why you're repeating this I cannot say.

[Severian]

While I kinda support this, I don't think we can go all Salem-Witch-Trial on them and just start executing people like that. I think they should be executed once they harm a prepubescent child. No second chances.

 

That seems fair enough.

[The Bear's Key]

Since I would advocate the death penalty for any (serious) violent crime, you would have a problem with rape. Is it sexual, or violent? I would say violent, so kill them all.

Listen, I hear you.

 

Expanded further, what person in their right mind wouldn't be upset for something terrible occuring to any human being, whether a kid or an old person, whether sexual and/or violent?

 

But how well do you think out the consequences of so easily handing the government such power as to kill?

 

Nations with a death penalty share a list of nations where terrorism and extremism breed. No Western nations are on that list except for the U.S.

 

Might there be a relation to capital punishment? Does a relevant mechanism exist? We'll get back to that in a bit.

 

First, we protect all citizens for a reason.

 

The protection isn't just for the law breaker, it's for society. Our rights. Either they're special, or not.

 

Second. Did you research, anytime before your decision, how well most kids knew their abusers beforehand? If fairly well, then, by auto-killing the culprits, it's possible lots of kids will stay quiet to protect their abusers from death. It's not an unrealistic scenario.

 

Third. Your fix appears to corrupt government so you can gain extra vengeance beyond what the justice system offers in detaching the person from society. No thanks.

 

The rest of the civilized world has advanced past that.

 

It'd be a different story if you had directly killed a culprit who harmed a loved one, for you've taken responsibility for your actions -- by knowing the risk yet following through.

 

It's something I can respect.

 

Were you my friend, and I learned you killed someone because they abused a kid, I'd say you did what you needed to do. Wouldn't hold it against you. I might even silently admire you having the balls and determination to having followed through with it -- although I'd still disapprove killing for vengeance, I'd certainly be there as a friend, and certainly without judging.

 

Now say you got caught. I might tell the officer, "hey friend, you know why he did it. Can you help any way?" Or maybe not. The officer would be risking severe consequences. Yet either way, if my friend went to prison or let's say the officer also did for hiding a crime, I wouldn't blame the justice system for its result. That's how it's supposed to function and healthy for society that it does -- even as I also couldn't hold the vengeful murder against you.

 

The system's integrity preserved.

 

But when you start tainting the rest of everyone's government by mandating it to kill, I won't join behind you. I draw the line at that point.

 

It's human nature for some people to get extremely upset and demand a world of vengeance. I get that, and who hasn't felt it at times?

 

But you're not allowed to corrupt the system in order to quell your anger.

 

So now, why does government tend to spoil and corrupt when it's handed the power to kill? I believe it's many reasons. Look at history, there was no end of "sinners" to execute, and flocks gathered to watch...under a leadership more corrupt than the people being killed -- except maybe they were no longer people in the onlookers' eyes. A conditioning for other injustices.

 

Finally, perhaps such a government's corruption increases due to more good people wanting to stay clear of it, while for all those same reasons more bad people flock to it.

 

There's a sensible way to handle crime.

 

It should generally be a numbers thing. If someone's going to (or previously did) harm an average kid or two, the price owed to society needs to be lesser than if they're likely to (or previously) harmed dozens of average kids. Thus a repeat offense ups the time spent in prison.

 

Does it make everone comfortable? No. But it's the ultimate price of freedom.