http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/15/ch...sts/index.html
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
27 pedapholies will be brought to justice. I love it when these happen. I get a bubbly feeling inside knowing these "people" wont be able to hurt a child agian.
Printable View
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/15/ch...sts/index.html
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
27 pedapholies will be brought to justice. I love it when these happen. I get a bubbly feeling inside knowing these "people" wont be able to hurt a child agian.
Yes. They are sick. But they should be treated as sick people, not murderers.
I disagree these people are S-C-U-M and on there first onfense should be castrated. There second life.
Beatdowns followed by educational videos are the way to go...
EDIT: Just read the stroy...severe beatdowns...
for defiling an innocent youth they have or would have, they should never be forgiven, they should be extracted from society and branded so everyone can know just what kind of monster they are.
Unfortunately I do not believe they will be "brought to justice". I was watching a documentary on this subject last weekend and most convicted pedophiles were only in jail for a few years at most. And often less than that. They had a victim speaking on the documentary, who was still only around 15 at the time of the interview, and he was saying that "jail is a joke to them". He goes around and speaks at all their sentencing hearings (which he seems to have done quite a lot of already) but it doesn't appear to be doing much good.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Maybe things are different in the USA than in Canada but some of those listed in the original post were in Canada, so at the very least, not 100% of them would be "brought to justice". :furious3:
Well said. Every society is judged by how it looks after those most vulnerable and sick and in pedophilia cases there are two people who are vulnerable, the poor child victim and the pedophile. Just because someone has done an unthinkable crime, it doesn't mean they are not humans with rights, people who can be helped and not in need of help. It is our duty to rehabilitate these people not only for their own good, the child they molested, the future children they might molest but also for society as a whole. If we rehabilitate pedophiles and other criminals, it is society as a whole which directly benefits most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
Philosophically, I have some sympathy for your view. One of the things that is forgotten about paedophiles is that many of them are victims of previous abuse in their own childhoods, and end up perpetuating abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
However, it is also true that paedophilia is notoriously difficult to treat effectively. Paedophiles are extremely wily, denying to themselves the magnitude of their crime. They lie very effectively, to themselves and to assessors. Repeat offending is very high.
Rehabilitation therefore, is an extremely expensive and fairly risky business. An essential part of rehabilitation is recognition of the crime and acceptance within society of the criminal. Very few people are willing to accept paedophiles into their community in a forgiving manner that might give them a chance to rehabilitate, which leads to hiding and increased risk of re-offending. Given the vulnerability of children to this crime (most abuse is never reported) I think society is unwilling to shoulder the risk and cost - this does not make it a harsh community, but a rational one.
My own view is based on this cost/benefit analysis. I don't believe in the death penalty (prone to irreversible errors, populism and frankly way too easy a punishment) but would sentence almost all who exhibit this level of paedophilia to life imprisonment with extremely hard labour, without possibility of parole. Unless society wants to spend the time and money truly rehabilitating, it should never let them out.
Paedophilia cant be treated. Those sick bastridge are a threat to our children, i cant think of any civilized way to treat them. Instead of thinking of ways to rehabilited those garbage, we should think of ways to protect and treated the underaged victim. Not the predators. They should pay in blood and sweat. They abused childs that still wore diapers !
What's good about this case, is the level of cooperation between different police corp of different countries. I hope the hunt for these psycho is open for good !
Excellent post, Haruchai.
I stress the importance of looking at pedophiles on a case-by-case basis. Some of them might be helpless and mentally handicapped who can be rehabilitated, depending on how bad their crimes were and how many. Plus, a 16 year old getting it on with a 15 year old is technicly pedophilia, too.
In the case of serial rapists or members of organised networks, lock them away and throw away the key. People like those mentioned in the article should be kept outside the sunlight forever even if only for the safety of our children.
i would point out that to paaedophiles, prison is anything but a joke. they are the lowest of the low to a normal con, and certainly in the UK, they are generally category A prisoners, mainly for their own protection. The article referenced below
That said, i saw a deeply compelling/disturbing series on BBC2 a while ago, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2027864.stm. i actually couldn't watch this sitting down...
Towards the end there was an interview with a german paedophile who turned himself in and volounteered to chemical castration, and was living a normal life, as far as could be told.
But this guy wanted to reform, and was appalled by his actions. whether this treatment can be applied to others is a different issue.
just for clarity, here is the law as it stands in the UK.
Quote:
The Law:
The legal age for young people to consent to have sex is 16. This applies to heterosexual and homosexual sex.
* Although it is technically illegal for two fifteen year olds to engage in sexual activity, the Home Office has stated “the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation.”
* And young people still have the right to confidential advice on contraception, pregnancy and abortion even if they are under 16.
The government recently reformed and amended the law relating to child sexual abuse in the Sexual Offences Act of 2003. The offences are now split according to age.
Under 13s
All penetrative sex (including penetration of the mouth) of a child aged 12 or younger is classified as rape and carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. A child this old is considered to be incapable of legally giving consent.
* Other offences include assault by penetration (with an object or part of the body), sexual assault (any kind of sexual touching), and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity (this could include making a child strip, or promising them rewards for sexual behaviour).
* Assault by penetration has a maximum penalty of life in prison; sexual assault and causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity both have maximum penalties of 14 years in prison.
13-15 Year Olds
The following are some examples of the offences where the offender is aged 18 or over (but where the sexual activity takes place between someone below the age of 18 and someone under 16, the offences are similar but carry lower sentences).
Sexual activity with a child
* This law covers all intercourse, other penetration or sexual touching of a child and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
* This covers causing or persuading a child to engage in any sexual activity, including sexual acts with someone else, or making a child strip or masturbate. Again, the maximum sentence is 14 years in prison.
Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child
* Under this law, it is an offence to intentionally engage in sexual activity when you know that you can be seen by a child, or you believe or intend that they can see you, and where you do this in order to get sexual gratification from the fact that they may be watching you.
Causing a child to watch a sexual act
* This makes it an offence to intentionally cause a child to watch someone else taking part in sexual activity for the purpose of your own sexual gratification.
Meeting a child following sexual grooming
* Under this new law, if you are over 18 and have communicated with a child under 16 at least twice (including communication by phone or internet) it is an offence to meet them, or travel to meet them, anywhere in the world with the intention of committing one of the offences above.
Arranging or facilitating a child sex offence
* This makes it an offence to knowingly arrange or carry out an action in any part of the world which will lead to one of the offences above being committed.
16 and 17 Year Olds
Since most sexual abuse of children takes place in the home, the law now makes it an offence for any child under 18 to engage in sexual activity with a ‘family member’.
* Family member now includes foster family, step family and, in some instances, lodgers.
Also, it is an offence for a person working in a position of trust (e.g. a teacher, Connexions Advisor, nurse or carer) to engage in sexual activity with any child under 18. In other cases that age limit would be 16.
No doubt these are sick bastards. But I think if bashing, killing, torturing and other reactions are what you think they deserve then so do the proper homosexuals. I think sexual perversion (no matter which degree it is) is something from the birth and and through your unexplored corners of brain. Can you decide what looks or feels attractive to you? No. Of course this does not mean these criminals are not threatening the peace of a society. But I wanted to point out that in terms of "sex", one can not be abused above some degree. It's not what you choose. It's widely about the way you are from the birth and the environment you were exposed after it.
I agree, they are scum, but they're still sick. They should deffinetly be locked up to keep the communities safe. I don't think you fully understood my comment, but it's hard to, on forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
I agree with some of what you say, but can we please be very clear that homosexuality and paedophilia are two ENTIRELY different things?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Those peadophiles need to be tar and feathered!!!! Sick f***s need to be cleansed from society, screwing up innocent children.:furious3:
https://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e...ure/neng59.jpg
Torture and use them for medical testing.:idea2:
Pedophilia is not a crime. Child molesting is a crime. People don't molest children because they are pedophiles, they do it because they are pedophiles and evil. It's like the difference between a heterosexual and a rapist.
Child molesters should be treated same as rapists. I don't think rehabilition works though I could be wrong. Long prison sentances sound right.
And of course looking at child porn is wrong too. The sentance would obviously be less severe.
Yeah both concepts are described entirely different linguistically. However in a world that is generally heterosexual provided that biology supports this order, homosexuality and peadophilia take their roots from very close points.Quote:
I agree with some of what you say, but can we please be very clear that homosexuality and paedophilia are two ENTIRELY different things?
Maybe not your request but I have to clarify a point : I'm not a homophobiac nor accusing any homosexuals of being socially threatening. Human is human. However, as the science supports, what they and paedophiliacs find attractive is not right. Homosexuals live it on adult levels within their private lives but the sick paedophiliacs try it with children -that's the huge difference, not anything else.
The point saying that homosexuals would deserve the same way the paedophiliacs would be exposed is that those weirdos' perversion is not their choice. You can't make them feel right by beating them to the last bone, I'm also highly doubtful that they can be rehabilitated completely. Most efficient way seems to be the isolation.
This is my cent, and here is the other one.
:inquisitive: I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say, but you're wrong. Paedophiles are sexually interested in children, and in most of Europe (and I am pretty sure in the USA too) acting on that interest in any way will attract a serious criminal sentence. People who are paedophiles almost always act on their impulses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
If you are trying to say that the mere thought of sexual attraction to children but without any action upon that thought is not criminal, then theoretically you're correct, but it's rather splitting hairs - and to defend what point?
It is certainly not equivalent to comparing heterosexuality (which is legal in both thought and practice) and rape (which is fundamentally a crime of control and violence, much less sexual gratification).
:no:
Thanks. made clear.
sorry, you touched a nerve. But i've far too often seen the two treated as being the same.
Is this true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Haruchai
Saying someone is a criminal when they're not is wrong. Like me saying someone is a rapist because they are heterosexual.Quote:
If you are trying to say that the mere thought of sexual attraction to children but without any action upon that thought is not criminal, then theoretically you're correct, but it's rather splitting hairs - and to defend what point?
the worst cases cannot be rehibilitated, and they cannot be reinjected into society. we need a nice small island in the middle of the pacific where we can just drop all the scum off.
As far as I know, there are pedophiles who do not act on these impulses and by consequence, they are not criminals. But also by consequence, it shows a flaw in LEN's reasoning. It cannot be ethically questionable to be a pedophile, just as it cannot be ethically questionable to be homosexual. But pederasts act on their impulses, knowing that doing so is wrong. No one has it under his control to be a pedophile but pederasts have it under control. Therefore being a pedophile is no more an excuse for pederasty than sexual needs are for rape. Thus, pederasts are criminals, not merely victims of a sickness.Quote:
I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say, but you're wrong. Paedophiles are sexually interested in children, and in most of Europe (and I am pretty sure in the USA too) acting on that interest in any way will attract a serious criminal sentence. People who are paedophiles almost always act on their impulses.
Of course if there are pedophiles that can stand what runs through their minds, then they can't be counted sick and that makes a flaw in my way of reasoning. It is why homosexuals can not be counted "sick" -I never did.Quote:
As far as I know, there are pedophiles who do not act on these impulses and by consequence, they are not criminals. But also by consequence, it shows a flaw in LEN's reasoning.
You and SFTS need to get together...:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
There's no difference between pedofilia and other cases of sexual tastes. The one action that is criminal, and reasonable so, is molesting and raping. As far as I'm concerned pedophiles are not sick. Conducts such as those can be seen on the natural world around us and they're pretty normal. People who socialize, at least a part of their lives, learn to control their basic instincts, people who don't socialize are no more than animals, they don't learn the way of man they simply live by instinct. Every pedophile, by instance, demostrates how much marginalization there's on society, and every case solved (and I mean by socializing the person), demostrates how responsable and devoloped a society is. Punishment is not a solution just an analgesic. You want a rapid solution to this, there isn't any, if you want a real solution then talk to that one that you never talked offer him help or treat him as an equal, that prevents this kind of behavior.
Boohoo, the poor defenceless paedo's are really the victims, we should do all we can to help them.
What utter bollocks, as is all the "Every society is judged by how it looks after those most vulnerable and sick" when applied to sexual predators. Society's, and every adults therein, duty is to look after the future, the children, and if that means that all paedophiles are locked away for life then I would say that is a bargain, and well worth it.
If counselling can help them before they commit crimes then, by all means, save two lives, this can only be a good thing, but, once the crime has been committed they should be excised like the cancer on society they are.
So is cannabilism and killing the young of different fathers, hell some animals even eat their own young, should we be encouraging them too?Quote:
Conducts such as those can be seen on the natural world around us and they're pretty normal
Once again, tree hugging taken to extremes :no: You can't save everyone, and some don't even deserve the effort.
Needless to say that an emotional response don't make a sound arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Pedophilia generally starts at an early age, puberty. If you're looking to the future then help that one that's being marginalized, that IN FACT demonstrates how much socialized everyone is.Quote:
What utter bollocks, as is all the "Every society is judged by how it looks after those most vulnerable and sick" when applied to sexual predators. Society's, and every adults therein, duty is to look after the future, the children, and if that means that all paedophiles are locked away for life then I would say that is a bargain, and well worth it.
So if the rest of society fails to provide the care they need to this mentally "deviated" man or woman you say "to hell with them". That's not even a solution, you cannot make scraps and rewrites with human life. I'm not sure of the next, but I think most pedophiles never commit crimes, they do however satisfy their sexual tastes by looking for naive (and not so naive) childs, if you're so worried.Quote:
If counselling can help them before they commit crimes then, by all means, save two lives, this can only be a good thing, but, once the crime has been committed they should be excised like the cancer on society they are.
I don't remember using the word "encourage". My idea is exactly the opposite, but to do that you can't simply send them all to hell, you've to socialize with them and in turn they do the same with you. That's a perfect way to reduce canibalism too.Quote:
So is cannabilism and killing the young of different fathers, hell some animals even eat their own young, should we be encouraging them too?
Is not tree hugging at all. Many people that take punishment as the first resolution before every subject that appears as morally regreatable primera facie forget to check reallity and logic from time to time. The problem here is untamed behavior, the charge of socialization is on society itself, the individual generally is too weak to face all society as one, so he needs friends, he needs people, he needs someone who can help him pass throughout his life and learn to be an human, if nobody is disposed to do that then I think that we've already lost a far better value than upright sexual tastes. Don't you believe the same?Quote:
Once again, tree hugging taken to extremes :no: You can't save everyone, and some don't even deserve the effort.
Pleople constitute society, therefore the duty is always reciprocal. Helping the little, the marginal, the poor is always a duty of society, a moral duty that's wich means that you're not forced to do so but it's the right thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
:unitedstates:
Nice. Well put GC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I also agree with enthusiasmon this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I think that some people misinterpret this idea as people have a duty to government, which is a very different concept.
Yes, we have a duty to government: To be mistrustful, to be ever vigilant, to challenge assumptions, and most importantly to be involved and engaged.
Some may think that duty to government and society means that we must be subservient and obediant- a grave but understandable misunderstanding.
:unitedstates:
And what is "common-will", is it the same as Rousseau's? If it's, then can you proove that such thing exists? If it exists can you proove that it's relevant? Many questions in your way. I never talk about "common-will" because I find the concept as superempirical, and I believe it's non-existent as god, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Beyond that I fear that you're misunderstanding what I said. I talked about morality, therefore a moral duty, morality is subjective (there are others that argue the contrary, as always), so what you really have to answer is towards the moral value of raising the "standard of living" of everyone, not if it belongs to the common-will in a given time and a given place, that's totally irrelevant. If the good didn't exist then we should create it, as simple as that.
Things that are plain as day are usually very complex issues in disguise. Something as a "common-will" is philosophically highly problematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
When you say that the individual has a duty to society that is a moral evaluation, yes? If that is the case then the fact that society is tool with many uses does not prevent it to have a duty to the individual as well. Society can only exist as a collective of individuals, how can it be the object of duty distinct of those to other individuals? Likewise, what would be the reason for the individual to create society if it doesn't expect something in return?
Not knowing the purpose of society must make living in it strange. I'm not saying society is a big loving care-bear, but it's purpose must be for those who create it. Society has a goal, it is not the goal. Therefore, the state is there for the people and not the people for the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Exactly: Mutual care. But GC don't mistake this afirmations with factual occurences, it's just how I see society, how I perceive a moral duty. You don't perceive it, and it's OK, you appear to follow the rule of utilitarism, more than the common-will, as you say that society is a "tool". Both rules have flaws but that's far from the topic's range.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Data on the sickness of pedophiles. More an analog case really, wich I'm sure people will find sick and disgusting. Doctor von Cosel likes bodies (WARNING: written necrophilia in there). Ironically doctor von Cosel was declared sane by psycologists. What does this says about pedophilia? Well being an analogue case this shows that not all pedophiles are insane (or "sick")
*climbs on high horse*Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
When informed and educated people use the word "sick", they mean something else than what you do
*climbs down from high horse*
If the person is sick, and if the sickness is what caused a reaction that led him to commit a criminal act, then there's no doubt he's inimputable, therefore stands without guilt (a great "hole" in the concept of the "rabid dog"), the question of treatment refers always to the danger grade in wich this subject falls, but if it's a criminal act then you can be sure that he'll receive. Saying otherwise is illogical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
But my point is that pedofilia is not a necessary nor sufficient condition to be "sick". To me, then, pedophiles, if they commited a criminal act, then should be treated in principle as everyone, psicologic evaluations should be done case by case.
And I was just beginning to read Marquis de Sade's Juliette...
...that book was disturbing.
Not entirely unsurprising, 'sick' means having an unhealthy condition. If a certain behaviour is a symptome of a sickness, then it cannot be ascribed to the choice of the person commiting it.That person is then just a victim. It certainly isn't connected to how appalling you find that behaviour. There are numerous people for which cleaning themselves is often a symptome of disease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
But you're not necessarily entirely wrong though. Pedophily could be considered a disease and still not be the direct cause of pederasty. Seen that way, pedophiles can be pitied and offered help, while pederasts can be punished.
I don't know what you mean by this GC, that's exactly what I said. You presume wellbeing, and the defendent prooves sickness. Actually the dogma, yes a dogma, is pretty similar, since it's based in similar principles and, of course, many of this laws, more often than not, adjust to this principles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
That should be prooved. If you're saying that all pedophiles are sick, in some technical sense, then you cannot attach responsability to their actions. Saturnus explains it better than I.Quote:
Pedophiles and rapists know what they do is wrong. That argument has never stood up in court. If it ever has, it certainly got overturned on appeal.