what stops you raping kids?

There's a reason Gary Glitter likes it there. I guess I would rather see a case by case analysis than just grouping them all together on the basis of what happens amongst a majority. As I say, I'm sure a lot of other people have a tough time avoiding returning to their previous crimes, which is why the US has the three strikes law.

Of course I got it, but again you are making an assumption about his (and all other pedophiles) motives based on the past. Are we to base all our decisions on a persons past? Not that I necessarily disagree but at the same time we're often told how people can change. So what if he had no intention of molesting those kids?
Where is the line between "grooming" and doing what any average person does to look after kids?

Victims of many crimes can be haunted for life, so should we have lists for all of them and tell the public? Are we concerned about mob justice? Is it not better for everyone if we leave the uncurable in jail?
Also if 1 in 4 goes on to repeat their offense, that means that 3 in 4 don't, so are these people re-habilitated? If so then they should be able to live a normal life having served their time should they not?

Frankly I'd want to know if any unsavoury characters moved into my neighbourhood. I don't much like the idea of having a murderer or a rapist next door, but apparently I have less right to know about that; and I'm hardly going to give my neighbour keys to the house to look after the dog while I'm on holiday if I know he's a thief.
The idea of releasing them though is so they can have a normal life after rehabilitation. If that is failing then we should look at why and what we can do about it. We should not be releasing anyone if we aren't sure they won't re-offend, be it a murderer, a rapist, a thief or a pedo.

Then the system is failing in a big way by releasing him in the first place, the answer is probably to have a tougher sentence in the first instance, but sadly once you've failed to implement that you've dug yourself a hole. He can only be arrested for breaching his conditions, not for what he "might" be about to do by breaching them.

Not that I disagree with the punishment overall, but I don't think that's proportionate once he's been released. The idea is people serve their time, rehabilitate into society and become normal, productive members. At the time someone clearly felt he was ok to be released and at that point we should only take into consideration his past - not repeatadly sentence him for the same past transgressions as that is effectively trying him for the same crimes.
This was of course wrong and he should never have been released as he cannot be a normal member of society - but the way this is being handled is less than encouraging.

Personally I think they dug a hole for themselves by releasing him, and are now trying to cover their tracks. It's slightly admirable that they realise their error but also concerning at the same time. I just don't think we can actually consider him a re-offender until he actually re-offends. He's just at very high risk of re-offending, like many others, but it's still wrong to punish people as if they've commited a crime when they've yet to do it. No matter how disgusting the person, it sets a bad precedent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you are assuming that NORMAL rules apply to released pedophiles and thust his just being alone in a room with kids is not breaking any law.

But normal rules don't apply to released pedophiles.

They are released specifically on the condition that they do not have kids over to their house in an unsupervised situation.

So he broke the rule that allowed him to be out of prison.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Anti-flag

"There's a reason Gary Glitter likes it there. I guess I would rather see a case by case analysis than just grouping them all together on the basis of what happens amongst a majority. As I say, I'm sure a lot of other people have a tough time avoiding returning to their previous crimes, which is why the US has the three strikes law."

Gary Glitter was arrested in Cambodia and then he flee'd the country and went to Vietnam where he was arrested and imprisoned. There is no case by case analysis. If you have sex with a child then the rules should be applied period because of the seriousness of the crime. They don't change Flag. If that guy didn't have any intention of molesting then why was he entertaining children when he knew his freedom depended on not being around children? Are you saying that if a child molester is convicted and free'd then they should be free to say teach kindergarten, baby-sit, work with children because of some benefit of the doubt? Why are you more concerned for the life of predators than for potential victims? It sounds like misguided sympathy if you ask me. Grooming is when a molester builds trust by pampering children, he gives them candy and plays games with them etc, he builds a relationship of sorts so that he CAN molest.

 

Precisely...there's a strong possibility of reoffense in a convicted child molester, they find kids extremely tempting.

It's reasonable to let them out once they have served time, but it's also reasonable to require them to stay out of temptation's reach.

You can't leave me around dark chocolate, you can't leave a pedophile around kids.

 

On child sexual abuse, I'm very much a 'lock them up and throw away the key' girl too. Fuck this shit about giving them a chance to rehabilitate.

 

See...I think that...then I think that a lot of them are just re-enacting what was done to them.

Does not excuse it, no...the damage to the kids are just the same whether they are tortured souls or jolly demons.

But...it seems like some of them might be salvageable as humans. Therefore my sense of ethics would require trying.

 

Stumbled across something here:

http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/sexual_abuse.htm

Before that the article had mentioned that the majority of offenders were intrafamilial, incestuous offenders...and I believe those are much less likely to reoffend.

It's the addictive aspect to note. A pedo craves kids like a drug:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I wrote this post from the bottom up, so I've probably covered the same things I want to say to you there! Apologies for not making my reply to you a bit more personal but I think I'd just be the writing the same theories so I'll be brief. I think I agree with a lot of what you said, and I'm concerned at the governments failings. At the same time I think we have to accept some people can be cured, and whilst I despise what they did and think they deserve a harsher punishment as do all forms of abusers; if we can get them functioning normally we should, but only if they can do it without supervision. Heck if they re-offend I'd even consider the death penalty or some form of painful physical punishment, but the idea is they're cured, or they're in jail so we can minimise the harm of innocents but not impede a normal life. I'd equally apply this to any crime, so we can remove the veil of rehab that constantly fails.
I have no idea what asguard has in mind, I'm sure he isn't that liberal, but it may hinge on nature vs nuture, as nuture invites a cure, but genetic defects don't.

I would say if the conditions are required it indicates doubt of their rehabilitation, and as such they should remain in prison. People being released from prison should be in the situation that they have served their time and been rehabilitated into society or they don't get released. I'm also in favour of harsher penalties in the first place and a structure where people can seek help for their criminal desires before they commit a crime and it's too late.

I'm saying they should only be released when it is certain they no longer pose a danger, and that being the case they should be left to get on with their lives. The fact they're being released with conditions makes me believe it's known all too well they shouldn't be released. Of course if that's possible or not will probably require more studies, but apparently many live without re-offending, so there may be a reasonable case that sometimes it can be overcome, even if the majority of times it can't.
I'm not talking of any benefit of doubt or being concerned for predators - I'm concerned we get caught up in what "might" happen instead of what actually "is" happening - and that we single out one area, when we should apply equally whatever is decided. This in turn leads to the paranoia and overreaction of any act of kindness towards children setting pedophile alarm bells ringing. I would also like to avoid blanket attitudes of "criminals can't be rehabilitated" and such, and suggest that we need to study the causes of pedophilia more, to see if society is failing these people in some ways. Overall I just think people have a hypocritical attitude.

Well didn't you say earlier 1 in 4 re-offend? So that's 25%. At what percentage do we suggest they(meaning all of them, including the 75% that apparently get over it) automatically can't be rehabilitated? At what percentage overcome temptation as opposed to just avoiding it. :shrug: I don't really think avoiding it is an acceptable compromise, there may be times beyond their control where they arrive in a tempting situation.

 

Rarely, but possibly.
Then they ought to take steps to remove themselves from it ASAP.

One of the things that the article I linked mentioned some pedophiles having to drive routes that were planned to keep them away from concentrations of children.

I had a friend who used to be on heroin...and heroin is really addictive for a remarkably long time...she was living in a bad complex and saw syringes dropped on the ground. She started shaking and had to go inside her place and sit. I asked her why, and she said it was out of desire to use. She had been clean for ten years.

I imagine the urge is something like that. They just can't be around kids if they are truly hardwired for pedophilia.

The incestuous abusers may be more opportunistic and less hardwired, therefore more cureable...but it's hard to tell.

Then you're for life without parole. Because that's the only way to be 100% sure with any of them.

 

But the conditions they are agreeing to avoid don't exist in a prison so there is no real way to know if they are rehabilitated or not.

There is no way for them to prove they are ok in prison.

What we do is have experts evaluate them and if they think they can be trusted then we eventually let them out, but still monitor their activities.

Arthur

 

The thing is though...the mental damage from this sort of thing occurring to a child is very severe.
So if the offender's not rehabbed, its not just another junkie out and about.

How old are you? again, I grew up in the late 70's early-80's, and when I tried telling my mom that a neighbor tried to force me into his apartment at gunpoint, I wasn't believed...well, I was 4(would have been 1977), I wasn't explaining it very well...but she cut me off and inserted her own explanation.
Two years later, she showed me his picture under a headline that read something like "Molester sentenced..."
So either my Mom was the queen of De'Nial or it was easier to get away with it back then.

Admittedly...it's occurred to me that what we're teaching kids is that anybody they don't know is a threat. Is that a good social lesson to be teaching our next generation? But I don't know what else to do, I think keeping them safe is too important.

The thing is, pedophilia seems to be associated with personality disorders. Depending on what type of personality disorder you are talking about...they are either considered very hard to treat...to completely untreatable. Narcissistic, antisocial, and... I'm wanting to say avoidant personality disorders...the person with the PD thinks everyone else has the problem.
So they quit therapy when it gets uncomfortable. Pedos tend to fall under that narcissistic/antisocial area. Avoidant personality people...meh, as long as you leave them alone...

 

True, Thank you. John Houston famously says he has learned during his long life "that under the right circumstances, a man can do ANYTHING." And the way he said "anything" was massively creepy. He had fathered a child with his daughter and was now having sex with the child (who was no longer a child).

 

The Movie, not the place. Academy award winner. I forget not everyone is a movie buff. Sorry.

 

Well, sorry I jumped on you undeservedly. Have to check that movie out sometime.

This is a trailer for a documentary coming out..tangential to topic, thought I'd link it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PCtfGdrTBU

 

And to do that, you might end up letting them go free where they can start abusing kids again.

Let's say hypothetically, you wanted me to never ever go near straight consenting adult males. I'm a hetero girl, and you're really not gonna convince me that I'm wrong. Maybe you can threaten me with some punishment, but if I think the tall guy with the shimmery brown hair and obviously powerful upper body likes me back, I'm going to go for it.

And that's how it is for pedophiles. You can teach them it's wrong, but you can't take away that desire. I'm not for letting them out in society where they can gain contact with children any more than I am for letting a dangerous dog off the leash in public.

 

In western culture, there is a tendency to protect the criminal more than the victim. This is part of the liberal philosophy and the swing of the pendulum. It also has to do with there being too many lawyers; repeat business is good buisness.

The criminal is where repeat business is, since the victim tries to avoid repeating being a victim. The criminal does not. If we protected the victim more than the criminal that would mean justice, but not as much business for lawyers.

The trial lawyers tend to vote democrat; birds of a feather flock together. Liberals like to protect criminals, like the pedophiles, by making excuses. It is not about the child or children who are hurt. Liberals also help the lawyers by providing a supply of new criminals by making more laws and regulations. The lawyers benefit and they kickback contributions to the democrats.

Think logically, which political party protects the perverts the most? Which party makes the most laws and regulations? These actions help the lawyers. Which party do the lawyers give most of their money too?

If we reverse this, which party fixates on the victims; death penalty for no repeat business. Which party tries to remove laws and regulations. Which party gets little lawyer kickback.

If we go back to the pedophiles, but put the victim first, if there is a child victim, the parents, friends and neighbors may not be able to control their urge to beat the pedophile up. They are hard wired that way. The lawyers and liberals will say, only the pedophile has a monopoly on hard wire. The others need to use will power, sice that is conditioned behavior, so the cycle of money and kickback is perpetuated.

Personally I side with the victim and don't make excuses for the criminal. His punishment would need to exceed the abuse of the child. This would rewire his brain after a few treatments. The liberal way is not enough to rewire since it is designed to be part of the money laundering scam with lawyers.

 

Something nobody seems to have mentioned throughout this thread...but is fairly obvious, so I wanted to reinforce/mention it before the thread goes dormant.

Pedophiles are not the only people who will have sex with kids. Not the majority of those who grope or have sex with kids.
They are just the ones who really crave sex with kids.

There's a lot of other people out there who will happily f*ck a child if they can easily get away with it.

In fact the majority of children who are sexually abused, are abused by family members who have quasi-normal to normal sex lives...or in the case of sibling abuse, go on to have semi-normal sex lives.

I know my uncle had sex with his second wife, they had a child together.
In retrospect, I strongly suspect he was sexually abusing his stepkids too.... as well as almost certainly beating the living crap out of them randomly. He'd been physically and sexually violent before...not taken to authorities. And those kids were terrified of him. I was 12, so I saw that a lot more clearly, I guess?

Again, my mom, the queen of De'nial...arhg.

They moved away though, so I don't know this for certain.

 

No problem man. I appreciate the thought.

 

The very first claim seems bogus.

I don't believe that 12 is the AVERAGE age of entry into porn and prostitution, other claims, like 1 in 5 porn images are of a child seem equally unlikely.
Child porn is largely illegal and thus its disemination is somewhat limited as sending, owning or making of it is a crime.
On the other hand, the legal porn industry is HUGE, almost beyond belief, so to think that 20% of porn is child porn I find highly unlikely.
And of course it also makes me wonder where someone could possibly come up with these figures, since the total number of porn images is not likely a number anyone even knows.

Arthur