Why Megan's Law places children in danger

I know we don't like posting articles and then just stating - well that is a great article and you should read it and that is my position. However I make no apologies for this article, it is a great one and not only does it make perfect sense, it is something I passionately believe in too if we are to solve our problems.

I present Johann Hari -

Quote:

---

Paedophiles need support, not persecution
Why Megan's Law places children in danger

Now that John Reid is considering caving in to the News of the World’s incessant demand for the government to publish the name and address of every paedophile in the country, Britain’s conversion into a Murdochracy is almost complete. If they moved the Home Office to Wapping and turned every last Sun snarl into law, would anybody notice the difference now?

Yet at first glance, this particular proposal might sound like common sense. In 1994, a seven-year-old girl in New Jersey called Megan Kanka was lured into the house of one of her neighbours, Jesse Timmendequas, by an offer to see his puppy. He raped her for days on end before finally strangling her with a belt. In the grief-strewn aftermath, it turned out that Timmendequas had a previous conviction for child molestation. Megan’s mother was appalled that she didn’t know, and launched a campaign for local police to be legally required to tell families when a paedophile moves into the neighbourhood. Who could object?

Except in practice, introducing Megan’s Law would require the government to commit a fresh blood-sacrifice of innocent children to appease their tabloid gods. John Reid claims he is only sending one of his ministers to the States to “study the evidence”, but he knows the evidence is already in, and has been clear for some time. Far from protecting little girls like Megan, the law named after her actually increases the number of children who are raped and murdered.

To understand why, you have to talk to the people who work with paedophiles and have a proven track record of bringing their reoffending rates crashing down, saving countless Megans and Sarahs. They are invariably the strongest and fiercest opponents of Megan’s Law. Pam Welch, a prison officer who works in-depth with paedophiles, explains, “It is when these people feel isolated and friendless that the risk of reoffending is highest. They feel that if the world considers them a monster they might as well behave like a monster. At least then there might be some feeling of pleasure, and some measure of control.”

Megan’s Law guarantees that a released paedophile will be put in this position. Instead of being able to find a job, build normal adult relationships and being given help to resist their darkest urges, they are plunged into a scalding bath of hatred. One newspaper, the Times Herald-Record, documented the effect of Megan’s Law in Newburgh, a small town in up-state New York. When a sex offender named John Duck Jr. was released on parole to live with his elderly parents, their neighbours were told about his crimes by hundreds of police knocking door-to-door with leaflets. All three family members received a cascade of death threats. A howling picket was established outside their house for weeks, demanding Duck “get out now!!” – presumably to a mythical place with no children. (He couldn’t anyway – it was a condition of his parole to remain at that address). He was shunned everywhere he went, unemployable and friendless. The few neighbours who did speak to him received threats of their own.

It’s hard to think of a situation more likely to make a sex offender relapse and destroy another child’s life. That’s why, despite Megan’s Law being introduced in every state, rates of child rape and murder by strangers have not fallen; in many, they have increased.

The only programmes with a proven track record of reducing reoffending adopt precisely the opposite approach to Megan’s Law. Jim Nethercott is an American who worked for twenty years as a detective tracking down paedophiles. When he started, he saw this question through a standard News of the World frame where the issue was “black and white. There was the good side and the bad side, and criminals in general deserved to be locked up for as long as they could be locked up.” But as his investigations led him to meet paedophiles – pitiful people, 70 percent of whom have been raped as children themselves – he began to believe that once they have been properly punished for their crimes, “we have to give these offenders some reason to go ahead and succeed in life. Most offenders want to change, they just lack the tools.”

Nethercott decided to set up an institution where paedophiles would be given extensive, gruelling therapy to understand and control their urges. They learn to empathise with their former victims, and discover the trigger points that make them more likely to relapse. Of course there is an untreatable minority of sociopaths who don't respond and shouldn't be released. But for the vast majority, it works. The people released from Wyoming Honour Farm are 50 percent less likely to reoffend – a remarkable drop. As John Reid knows perfectly well, he doesn’t even have to look this far for success stories. A brilliant programme piloted by Thames Valley Police over the past three years here in Britain has provided released paedophiles with a similar support network of trained ‘friends’, who they can call 24/7 for help in rebuilding their lives or if they think they are at risk of relapsing. Not a single one of the 48 people on the programme has relapsed.

Before he was released, Jesse Timmendequas begged for therapy like this. The woman conducting his psychiatric evaluation persistently said he needed to undergo “intensive psychotherapy in the community following release.” He was offered nothing and went on to rape and kill Megan. Here is another area where a ‘tough’ policy only creates more victims, while a ‘soft’ policy actually works. Here is a paedophile policy that really protects kids – but it doesn’t please the News of the World, so in Tabloid Britain, it won’t happen.

But the danger from Megan’s Law isn’t just to paedophiles and the children they are more likely to rape. Across the US since it was introduced, there has been a Columbine-sized massacre of paedophiles, their relatives and anybody who got in the way. It started in Nova Scotia when a vigilante found the names and addresses of two sex offenders from the register, hunted them down and killed them. Almost exactly the same thing happened a few months later in Maine – and one of victims was listed on the register because as a 19 year old, he had consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend. In New Jersey, a man was beaten nearly to death with a baseball bat after he was mistaken for his sex offender brother. This list could go on and on.

If this was really about protecting kids, the government would be sticking to the evidence and offering the majority of paedophiles who want to go straight far more support and therapy. Incredibly, two-thirds of sex offenders leave our prisons today without going through sex offender treatment programmes. But, no, this is about something very different. It is about John Reid posturing as a hard man to please Rupert Murdoch and the most base chunk of public opinion as he tries to position himself as Tony Blair’s successor. Ah well, what’s a few raped kids when the keys to Downing Street are at stake?

The Independent - 20/06/2006

---

I have absolutely no empthay or sympathy for a child molestor - the best way to keep them from ever revisiting their desires on children is to keep them locked up for the rest of thier lives once they are convicted in a court of law of the horrendous act of child molestation.

No program - no individual can 100% predict that a child molestor is and can be reformed completely.

I disagree with publishing the names and addresses of convicted paedophiles in that if they pose enough of a threat to children to warrant that, surely they should still be incarcerated? I'm not sure what parents would do with the information, anyway, apart from vigilantism. Refuse to let their kids go outside? Move?

I also wonder if you could end up with situations where teenagers convicted of statuatory rape would get their addresses made available to the public. This would be a bad thing.

Both my first and second wives were raped as children. One by a realtive, the other by her fathers best freind. I worked for many years to, amongst other things, protect the children left in my care.

I have had contact with these people and believe me they think nothing of raping a child. I am against the death penalty, but if there was ever a case of returning to it they would be the top of my list. The emotional havoc the leave behind is breathtaking. Decades after their wicked ways, they leave a lagacy of despair and depression. They, with their deeds, condemn their victims to a life sentence of shame and guilt. They are evil and wicked beyond redemption. They should be locked away for life.

Then there would be no need for a 'Megans Law' in the UK.

If reforming these monsters, and giving them a 'normal life'-by not telling their neighbors of the very real and horrific threat they pose- works so well, why did they offend in the first place, when they still were 'normal' people who were thought of as normal people by everyone? Why did many do it repeatedly before being caught?

Hari offers no evidence to support his absurd claim that Megan's Law place children in danger. The article is a bunch of his conjuncture from the idea that:
1) Child rapists are decent people deep down,
2) who would not repeat their crimes if they were treated like any normal person by their neighbors
3) and it is isolation from informing the public of the threat they pose that drives them to repeat their crimes.
4) Children are safer when their parents don't know a child molester lives next door.

Each of these is wrong.

He also wants people to be unaware of any danger their children face from child rapists. I fail to see how that protects children. His criminal coddling would only endanger more children. As Redleg said, noone can predict with 100% certainty, so community notification is essential. Would you bet your child on not knowing about nearby sex offenders? Oh, wait, you want to bet other's children.

Hari also says that the "vast majority" are treatable, then says in his next breath that reoffenses- in the time those inmates have been released, has dropped 50%, which still means a heck of a lot of them reoffend.

And his example of British rehabilitation has already been torn through before.

BKS, in Washington, we get mail from the police for sex offenders likely to reoffend on a sheet that shows their picture, general address, and what they were convicted of. And it seems that these people are not ordinary criminals; they are likely to offend after decades in prison.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

70 percent of whom have been raped as children themselves

---

So if we reduced the number of children raped by 10% it would reduce the number of peds by 7%. So if you locked away every ped for life as soon as possible you could potentially drop the number by what 40% (Assume that 80% of the peds are repeat offenders and rape equal to or more children in total after their first jail sentence)... so that would drop the amount raped by 28%. Down to 72%, now this would have an automatic knock on effect to reducing the amount of second generation peds... 28% less children raped would reduce the "70 percent of whom have been raped as children themselves" to a ratio of 50:30, a net drop of 20% of the rapists. Rinse and repeat and you can drop the "70 percent of whom have been raped as children themselves" down and down.

All the children who are victims should get the therapy so they don't become offenders, that and they minimise the depression and dispair. Victims first, as it will minimise offenders coming from the pool of victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

All the children who are victims should get the therapy so they don't become offenders, that and they minimise the depression and dispair. Victims first, as it will minimise offenders coming from the pool of victims.

---

From a personal observation this is correct.

When parents pretend that the molestion did not happen is the worst thing that they can do for the child. Yes, indeed I will always advocate immediate therapy for the child and the family for any molestion event that happens. The child and the family must realize that for the most part they did absolutely no wrong - the fault lies totally with the child molestor.

The child will struggle with the molestion for some time. Anexity is one of the many issues that they will face. This along with fear of the molestor (especially when the individual is a family member) can cause some severe social interaction problems for the child.

From a personal observation if I had the events surrounding my child to be reviewed - instead of advocating immediate theraphy for the family member who coducted the molestion of my child - I should of had him prosecuted to the full extend of the law, but I chose to try to save both the teenage son and the adolensent child. Bad mistake on my part - one that might have severe reprecussions on my younger son as he gets older.

One of the most terrible crimes that an individual can do to another is rape - the worst of them is the child molestors that are out there. Lock them up and throw away the key - the possiblity of their re-visiting the act is to high.

Far to emotional a subject to be debated rationally. It is the most hideous of all crimes. It scrapes the parental nerve of everyone.

The sore thumb of it all is the bit about there being no rehab facilitys, or the lack of them, or even the semblance of caring to. It is an absolute that when person is treated as a pariah they will revert back to what they previously deemed as normal or acceptable (for them) behaviour.

Damning all, versus helping even the salvagable is so much easier. More expensive in the long run - but, easier. By not assisting those willing to go through a strenuous program of rehab we do in fact send a message to those peds amongst us to do as they will for as long as they can - after all, 100 acts is as good as one if it means a life time sentancing anyway.

One thing, however, the lumping of what child molestation is has made the term near meaningless. In California, you don't have to actually touch a child to be charged - attempting to touch them in an offensive manner is an offense. No doubt laws are even worse elsewhere.

Oh, well. Crucify them all - even the 18 yearold for sleeping with a 16 yr old. Seems about right.

Quote:

---

Oh, well. Crucify them all - even the 18 yearold for sleeping with a 16 yr old. Seems about right.

---

Apart from anything else, that isn't pædophilia. Pædophilia is being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children.

In the UK an 18 yo having sexual intercourse with a 16 yo is legal. They can marry and have children.

We have a duty to protect the children.

Quote:

---

A 10 year follow-up study on reconviction rates for a sample of paedophiles released from prison in 1980 showed that 36 per cent of paedophiles committed further sexual offences. For serious offences, which included sex or violent offences, the rate of reoffending increased to 45 per cent. This information may appear to be dated but follow-up studies must be for a substantial period of time. Social and legal changes may also affect reconviction rates. A 10 year reconviction study is currently in progress on the Sex Offender Treatment Programme but it is too early for results.

---

source

This is a good example of the monkeysphere. Paedophiles are always thought of as monsters, yet when some people get to meet them they realize they are humans and thus can't be all that bad. They are wrong. There are problems with this law, most importantly that it lists people sleepign with their under age (of consent) girlfriend, and I'm not sure if this is any more effective than the police having a file of all paedophiles in the area, but I can't bring myself to feel sorry for the child molestors.

What is clear to me, and other patrons have pointed this out to, is that sentences for paedophiles do not reflect the will of the people. They should be locked up for life, not just out of spite, but to protect children from then.

Is therpay possible ? Maybe. But this isn't some simple disease, for most it's a sexual orientation, you won't get that out of their system, at most you could teach them how to handle their feelings. If you could couple this to some sort of AA like meeting once a week (monitored) then maybe you can seriously lessen the amount of re-offenders.

Hmm, choosing between paedophiles and howling vigilanties, its like choosing between maggots and slugs isn't it?

The issue is a simple one: with Megan's law in place, have more, or fewer, paedophiles reoffended? We shouldn't have to speculate: that data ought to be available. Although my gut reaction is with JAG and Hari on this one, it does have to be said the article is strong(ish) on anecdotal evidence from parole officers and the like, but notably absent is a plain statement like "In America, before Megans law was passed, 80% of child sex offenders were reconvicted of a sexual offence involving children within five years of release. After Megan's law was passed that percentage rose to 90%"

That data must exist and I am pretty suspicious of why Mr Hari doesn't give it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

All the children who are victims should get the therapy so they don't become offenders, that and they minimise the depression and dispair. Victims first, as it will minimise offenders coming from the pool of victims.

---

Children who are victims usually get therapy already. What if they do turn out to act on pedophilic urges? I think it's pretty harsh to paint all pedophiles with a broad brush as if they're inherently evil people, while the majority of those strayed because society failed to protect them in the first place. The childhood of the sex offender should always be taken into account when determining what measures are necessary and just.

I think it would be a good idea in principle to put all sex offenders on permanent parole, that can only be revoked if it is sufficiently probable that they won't reoffend, like teenagers convicted on statuatory rape.

Even if the chance that a pedophile would reoffend is pretty great, he should be given a chance to redeem himself after he has done his time. Parole officers should warn the local police, maybe teachers of local schools, and cooperate to keep a close watch on him. Warning the parents may sound like a good idea, but even looking at the above posts will predict that they'd never be given a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I think it's pretty harsh to paint all pedophiles with a broad brush as if they're inherently evil people, .

---

Are you serious?

I don't know if you have any children, or if you have ever met a victim of these poor, misunderstood people. What they do is hand their victims a life sentence. There is no parole for them.

Anyone that wants to have sex with children is not misunderstood or confused, they are evil, vile, wicked manipulative monsters and should never be allowed to walk the streets again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Anyone that HAS sex with children is not misunderstood or confused, they are evil, vile, wicked manipulative monsters and should never be allowed to walk the streets again.

---

corrected.

I should have said:
I think it's pretty harsh to paint all pedophiles with a broad brush as if they're all inherently evil people

Many of them are irredeemable, even the majority of them are. Some are not and they should not and should be given a chance to redeem themselves after serving their time, and even those I would not call "poor, misunderstood people". Their crime is vile and they should be severely punished, but because the majority of them got messed up because society failed to protect them from abuse in the first place, locking all of them up for life indiscriminately and without looking at the person at hand is not justice.

Sorry I can't agree with that statement. I come from an era where is was thought normal to hit kids. I was forever getting the cane at school, mainly for smoking behind the bogs. :embarassed:

Now according to your train of thought I should be a vicious thug who goes around beating people, because that's what happened to me.

As an aside, I never hit my kids. There are far more effective sanctions at one's disposal, you just have to use your imagination at bit more.

So you were traumatized by getting an occasional hit?

Of course not all child victims turn out to be pedophiles. But as said, it's a fact that around 70% of the perpetrators were victims. I talked to my dad a while ago (he's a psychotherapist) and he gave me a similar figure.

Boy JAG, you sure do a good job trying to assist these predators to their prey. Amazing.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Boy JAG, you sure do a good job trying to assist these predators to their prey. Amazing.:no:

---

Did you even bother to read the article? :inquisitive: Name calling is going to make things worse, not better.

Labelling people as "evil" is not helpful.

The person who committed the crime can not be freed from all guilt, but assuming that the 70% were molested themselves it is highly likely that this event has at least partly caused their behaviour.

Kids from "broken homes" seem to be allwed to get away with anything - fighting, robbing, even beating up elderly people as it's not their fault. Why not the same understanding (at least in the first instance) here?

The task should be to find those that can be helped and place them with support in a community where there is little room for temptation - a retirement village for example. I would have said that they are not allowed to travel freely, but that is the price that they pay.

Those that are truely sociopathic monsters should be locked up or shot.

So, yes over the years there might be a downturn in numbers. But to lock up the undesirables to help future people could be argued for entire swathes of people on Council Estates - families who live on benefits - we're better off without them, right?

~:smoking:

This is an issue in the west we overthink. We beleive we are so enlightend we can cure anyone and we are dead wrong. Pedapholies are scum and deserve to be treated as such plaini and simple. Its not like the dont now what they are doing. They are masters are there trade seeking out kids they are cold and calculated. So they deserve nothing less to rot in the pit of hell.

So, nature over nurture. Thanks for simplifying that debate for us! :wall:

I take it you speak from a background of Child or adult psycology in this area, and are not just waving your pitchfork going "grrrrr".

I love your use of "they". All one homogenous mass, eh? Same with murderers is it? All same type of person, same motives? Humans reduced down to a one dimensional characature. :dizzy2:

Your argument - no, wait - emotional statement would grace the Daily Mail.

~:smoking:

Oh youre so caring. Pedapholies are people to. Look at what they do. Look at the reoffender rate. 70% of pedapholies were raped as kids. Lock them up for good and there will be less of them. These people know what they are doing. They are cold maclicous they activley seek out youngins. Its disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

This is an issue in the west we overthink

---

In in most other parts of the world is simply ignored...
We're not handling it that badly really, considering we didn't handle it at all some 50 years or so ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The task should be to find those that can be helped and place them with support in a community where there is little room for temptation - a retirement village for example. I would have said that they are not allowed to travel freely, but that is the price that they pay.

---

I'd fully support this. Heck our minimum securtiy jails are like this, the problem is someone has to pay for it, and so far the politicians/taxpayers seem unwilling.

As I said in another thread, I also support free psychological help for paedophiles who haven't done anything wrong and wish to make sure their desires are kept in check.

Quote:

---

So, yes over the years there might be a downturn in numbers. But to lock up the undesirables to help future people could be argued for entire swathes of people on Council Estates - families who live on benefits - we're better off without them, right?

~:smoking:

---

1. poor people don't necessarily harm people
2. pedophiles (would) have to be convicted before they can be locked up (and lets make it clear that they shouldn't be locked up for robbing a boy's hair or having pictures of his naked kids playing in the backyard, I'm talking convicted for serious abuse here)
3. pedophilia is a sexual orientation and therefor not similar to something like stealing, unless (and even that's stretching) you're dealing with a kleptomaniac, but we threat those too don't we ?
4. People who get robbed aren't much more likely to become thieves, people who get abused as a child have a far greater chance of abusing children themselves later in live. Society has a serious long term interest in making sure paedophiles don't cause too much trouble.
5. families living on welfare often do so from generation to generation, so you'd target a certain segment of society. paedophiles are found in all layers of society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Oh youre so caring. Pedapholies are people to. Look at what they do. Look at the reoffender rate. 70% of pedapholies were raped as kids. Lock them up for good and there will be less of them. These people know what they are doing. They are cold maclicous they activley seek out youngins. Its disgusting.

---

Great post... :laugh4:

70% were attacked as children. Therefore they were likely damaged by this.
They know what they are doing: yes, but so do murderers. They get let out and usually have less mitigating circumstance.
"Cold, malicious": pure, splecualtive and subjective. Anything resembling evidence to back that up?

Please, a bit more fact and a bit less sabre rattling and you'll sound less like an ill educated lynch mob.

~:smoking:

I'd fully support this. Heck our minimum securtiy jails are like this, the problem is someone has to pay for it, and so far the politicians/taxpayers seem unwilling.

They could have normal but restricted lives in these places. Costs would be lower than in a jail for years.

Paedophilia is not really an orientation as it is usually the result of previous trauma. Other orientations are inherent.
My point with the generaional welfare parasites is exactly that they can be targeted, and if they don't breed then they'll be far less of them. I fail to see that being able to target a specific group is a bad thing, especially as their grouping is defined by their action.

~:smoking:

It's sad that the people that are being labeled as "sociopathic monsters that should rot in hell" were often once the very children we were trying to protect when they were young from sociopathic monsters that should rot in hell. When they are the victims, we feel for them and are protective of them. When they grow up and carry the burden of emotional trauma to the point of doing the act themselves, they are viewed as subhuman.

One thing we should distinguish is pædophilia from underage sex. Many of my peers and young people I have know of since I was in junior high school were sexually active at 16, 15, even 14 years of age. Their partners were often of about the same age. In most cases, these are just young people who fall in lust or love at a young age. This is not unusual: it has been very common throughout the world for people to marry and begin having children starting at 15.

On the other hand, the rape of a prepubescent child is an act of violence and domination by someone with extreme emotional problems. It is an act of power over the weak and helpless by someone who feels an excessive lack of power in normal relationships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I'd fully support this. Heck our minimum securtiy jails are like this, the problem is someone has to pay for it, and so far the politicians/taxpayers seem unwilling.

They could have normal but restricted lives in these places. Costs would be lower than in a jail for years.

---

Possibly, I doubt any of our politicians could handle it well. It's been a while since we had even one capable person in office...

Quote:

---

My point with the generaional welfare parasites is exactly that they can be targeted, and if they don't breed then they'll be far less of them. I fail to see that being able to target a specific group is a bad thing, especially as their grouping is defined by their action.

---

Society needs people, the EU is already complaining that there are too few people, I don't see how eliminating them will solve anything. Besides, being born in the lower class isn't always a 'death sentence', lots of people manage to work themselves up and they often bring fresh blood/ideas to the scene. Eliminating them will only lead to another group becoming lower class anyway :juggle2:

The article makes it pretty clear that releasing the information is a bad idea compared with therapy. It also makes it clear that life in prison for child rapists is a better solution than either. Sure they can't help their desires, but they have to know that they are wrong and show some restraint. Celibacy isn't that hard. If everyone else but me thought it was horribly wrong to have sex with any woman under the age of 95 I wouldn't go around raping 20 year olds.

If that was the law, I doubt you'd need to rape 20 year old girls... Most people have... needs. :pimp:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The article makes it pretty clear that releasing the information is a bad idea compared with therapy. It also makes it clear that life in prison for child rapists is a better solution than either. Sure they can't help their desires, but they have to know that they are wrong and show some restraint. Celibacy isn't that hard. If everyone else but me thought it was horribly wrong to have sex with any woman under the age of 95 I wouldn't go around raping 20 year olds.

---

Are you saying that you are certain you would be able to control your urges?

The paedophile-->child-->paedophile cycle is a vicious circle. They way to destroy a vicious circle is to remove one of the components of that circle, i.e paedophiles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Are you saying that you are certain you would be able to control your urges?

The paedophile-->child-->paedophile cycle is a vicious circle. They way to destroy a vicious circle is to remove one of the components of that circle, i.e paedophiles.

---

Exactly, break the cycle!!! Good post....


To all the child molester apologists shedding tears for the "victim child rapers"... you guys should go back to defending terrorists as "freedom fighters", atleast there's a better argument for this bizarre and undefensible thought than defending scum that #### children.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Are you saying that you are certain you would be able to control your urges?

---

of course :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

The paedophile-->child-->paedophile cycle is a vicious circle. They way to destroy a vicious circle is to remove one of the components of that circle, i.e paedophiles.

---

Exactly, combine that with therepy for the victims and we may get somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If that was the law, I doubt you'd need to rape 20 year old girls... Most people have... needs. :pimp:

~:smoking:

---

Well obviously in that scenario most people are only attracted to really old people. It's just to illustrate a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

of course :inquisitive:

---

Does that mean, if need be, you would also be able to remain completely celibate, no matter what? You must have very strong will power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Does that mean, if need be, you would also be able to remain completely celibate, no matter what? You must have very strong will power.

---

Masturbation solves a lot of problems...

well, this one anyway

As the orgs resident fascist, may I suggest concentration camps where these poor, misguided souls could concentrate on not ****ing kids until they die.

I've never in my whole time at the Org been with anybody more wholeheartedly than with InsaneApache right now. I'm not married, but I know where you're coming from. I shall not say anything more about it on an internet site.

Sorry JAG, I understand the reasoning behind your post. If we were dealing with car thieves, I'd be with you. But alas, on this subject, I out-fascist PanzerJager, though I shall refrain from using the word concentration camps.

I fully support a relentless extermination program of all child-molesters and I don't care what anybody thinks about that.

This one particularly strikes an emotional chord. My solution to people convicted of pedophilia -> Public Execution...preferably using some sort of medieval type instrument of torture.

As long as we can guarantee that the person convicted of the crime actually did the crime. Or we might, one day, find ourselves on the execution block, wrongly convicted by a spiteful "witness" or an incompetent law enforcement agent or just a tragedy of errors. If an infallible, absolutely infallible, means is ever found to prove guilt then go for it. Otherwise life without the possibility of parole. We can make room by reforming the drug laws and reforming our feudal economic systems, so the prisons won't be full of the poor. Then we can lock all the child molesters away forever, including the ones who seem to get a pass - the women who molest male children, like that Letourneau scumbag.

If paedophiles feel that they can get help, there is a good chance that they will ask for it.

If they feel they'll be killed they'll go underground.

We are not dealing with car thieves. Car thieves make a choice to steel cars. Paedophiles in many cases have less choice in the matter as they feel compelled.

I too want paedophiles to be stamped out. I just feel that approaching the matter in a blind emotional whirlwind is going to make things worse, not better.

E.g. the paediatrician that had to move as the mob got the words confused.

If we can deal with the SCUM that is the IRA, we can try to help paedophiles.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I too want paedophiles to be stamped out. I just feel that approaching the matter in a blind emotional whirlwind is going to make things worse, not better.

---

Exactly, Rory. Well said.

This is why, for democracies to function, the rights of the minority must be protected. Democracy can't just be majority rule. There must be protections to prevent democracy from becoming mob rule. Mobs are based on emotion. Visceral responses to things like child molestation are also based on emotion. The solutions can't be based on emotion or you have mob rule. You get witch hunts. You get the Inquisition. Revenge is never a sound basis for laws. It smacks of mob rule. Unfortunately, the emotional tend to view anything but the extreme as coddling and apologist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

This is why, for democracies to function, the rights of the minority must be protected. Democracy can't just be majority rule. There must be protections to prevent democracy from becoming mob rule. Mobs are based on emotion. Visceral responses to things like child molestation are also based on emotion. The solutions can't be based on emotion or you have mob rule. You get witch hunts. You get the Inquisition. Revenge is never a sound basis for laws. It smacks of mob rule. Unfortunately, the emotional tend to view anything but the extreme as coddling and apologist.

---

Until it is their rights that are threatened - but that's completely different isn't it... :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Until it is their rights that are threatened - but that's completely different isn't it... :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

---

Exactly. As the famous poem "First They Came..." by the German Protestant minister, Martin Neimoller, after WWII rather pointedly illustrated.

Try looking into the eyes of a victim of child molestion sometime. Watch the anexity build in their eyes at the mere mention of the pedophile's name. THe child has to live with the consequences and the mental trauma of the event for the rest of their lives - I don't think its a un-necessarily restriction on the child molestor to confine them for the rest of thier life to prevent their re-occurance of the act.

When someone can predict with an 100% certainity that the individual will not act upon the urge to commit such an act again - the welfare of the child is of a higher importance then the freedom of pedophile (the one convicted in the court of law.).

...and then that child has a 70% chance of becoming the same thing.

Daemonising drives them underground the problem then is worse.

Try to think of the population and not the individual.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

...and then that child has a 70% chance of becoming the same thing.

Daemonising drives them underground the problem then is worse.

Try to think of the population and not the individual.

~:smoking:

---

Notice in the second post I stated the child needs extensive theraphy and assistance in coping with the event.

When parents pretend that the molestion did not happen is the worst thing that they can do for the child. Yes, indeed I will always advocate immediate therapy for the child and the family for any molestion event that happens. The child and the family must realize that for the most part they did absolutely no wrong - the fault lies totally with the child molestor.


That is how you help prevent the child from becoming the molestor later on in life.


I think of the child and not the molestor. The molestor is often an adult and can suffer the consequences of their behavior. The child has to suffer the consequences of the adult not being able to control their urges to commit a hurtful and wrong act.

I will coddle the child but not the adult.

Yes, yes, I know, Aenlic, Rory, you two are probably right.


Damnit. :wall: :wall: :wall:


:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

...and then that child has a 70% chance of becoming the same thing.

Daemonising drives them underground the problem then is worse.

Try to think of the population and not the individual.

~:smoking:

---

70% of child molestors were molested. That is not the same thing as 70% of children who are molested become molestors.

Some social service groups put it as high as 1 in 4 other reports 1 in 40. So lets just use these figures for some understanding of the consequences of children being molestd.

1 in 4 children would mean that 70% of molestors come from 25% of the population while 30% come from the other 75%. It would mean the increase in becoming a molestor after being molested is about an order of magnitude ( 70/25:30/75 = 3:(1/3) = 9:1 ratio of molested to non molested). It it is 1 in 40 then the increased chance of becoming a molestor would be two orders of magnitue (70/2.5:30/75 = 30:(1/3) = 90:1 ratio of molested to non molested) higher.

So obviously by decreasing as many victims as possible you reduce the next generation quite dramatically. However no where does it say that 70% chance that any individual who was molested will become a molestor. For that stat we would need to figure out the % of molestors and then extrapolate the chances any individual has.

I really don't get this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

We are not dealing with car thieves. Car thieves make a choice to steel cars. Paedophiles in many cases have less choice in the matter as they feel compelled.

---

How do pederasts have "less choice"? Are you really prepare to accept "I felt compelled" as an excuse for child rape?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Does that mean, if need be, you would also be able to remain completely celibate, no matter what? You must have very strong will power.

---

What is it about being celibate instead of raping someone that requires will power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I really don't get this.




How do pederasts have "less choice"? Are you really prepare to accept "I felt compelled" as an excuse for child rape?

---

It's hard to explain. But the experiences you have in childhood stay with you forever. And not on the surface either. The behaviors that they learn as much through action as words become very deeply ingrained. If a kid gets molested and nothing is done about it the message is sent to the kid that what was done to them was ok on some level. So then they are walking around thinking, deep down in the sub-concious, that it's ok for them as an adult to rape a pre-pubesent kid.




This topic has got me thinking about the episode of Titus called "the protector". Where you find out his niece was molested. Towards the end he has a speech about protecting your kids that's apt and insightful. I just wish I remebered it all.

Quote:

---

We do everything we can to protect our kids.....But then theres that one night he stays over at your buddies house and when he comes home he's never the same again. And not matter what you do or who you kill it doesn't make andifference becuse you didn't protect him.

---

Please don't misunderstand my point. I'm not saying, not even a little, that we should be lenient toward child molesters. I know that's the twist that some would wish to put on it. That isn't the case.

As I said, I thought quite clearly, if you can guarantee with absolute and infallible certainty that the person convicted is actually guilty of the crime, then I see no problem with the death penalty for child molestation. But, and this is the important part, it must be 100% accurate. This is why I'm against the death penalty. It's not because I'm against putting murderers to death. It's because I'm against putting the innocent to death. That in itself is murder.

Too many cases are now being overturned based on new DNA evidence. But even DNA evidence is subject to error, as they discovered in Houston 3 years ago. Even eyewitness accounts, multiple eyewitness accounts, are subject to error. There was the famous experiment done by some law professor where he had an actor walk into a full lecture hall and in plain sight mug another actor pretending to be a student and steal her purse. It was done in plain sight of everyone in the lecture hall. The students afterwards were given photo lineups to pick out the person they all saw do the crime. Something like 1 in 10 picked the right guy. But that's not the worst part. Something like 6 in 10 picked the wrong guy and were absolutely certain that they had picked the right guy. And eyewitness accounts are the main staple of convictions everywhere. Then you have bad or corrupt law enforcement. Accusations made out of spite, as in divorce or custody hearings as an example. Victims being led to falsely remember childhood events that never happened, as has been the case in more than one conviction.

Too many opportunities for the wrong person to be convicted. So, in spite of visceral feelings which seek revenge and as the father of a 17 year old girl I'm not immune to them, I assure you, I still say until we can absolutely guarantee the guilt of the person we convict - which we can't at all do now - then no death penalty. Even in a country which is supposedly bound to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. There's just too much chance that it's even innocent after proven guilty. And giving in to our emotional vengeance-seeking responses doesn't help in that regard at all - not in the least.

Considering the recidivism rate of sex offenders, I don't think life without parole is an unwarranted punishment. And, just in case the wrong person is convicted, that prevents us from committing murder ourselves, as the state - which is us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

This one particularly strikes an emotional chord. My solution to people convicted of pedophilia -> Public Execution...preferably using some sort of medieval type instrument of torture.

---

And the teachers at the McMartin school? They could be dead now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool

He said people convicted of paedophilia. No one in that case was convicted.

With advancements in DNA testing the likelyhood of innocent teachers being publicly excecuted would be pretty low, but i still think once somebody innocent has been excecuted there is no way of bringing them back- with jail you release them.

The problem with progressive ideas is that when they deal with emotional issues, many fail to understand them. Take this thread. Unfortunately, many of the patrons who choose to post here did not understand the article this thread is about. You can clearly see this by the way they react. That is not to say that anyone here did not understand the article because of lack of intellectual capacity. It is only emotion standing in their way. This shows how strong emotion influence our behavior and even our thinking...

Anyway. The article the starter of this thread posted poses the claim that Megan's Law is detriemental to the security of children. Many of those who objected did not address any argument for or against that claim. Instead they posted emotional appeal. Often they denied pederasts any compassion. That may spark it's own discussion, but it is off-topic for the issue at hand. And that is what they can't understand because emotion blind them: compassion for pederasts is off-topic here!





(Of course, many will not like having pointed this out. In fact I expect to be accused of "having compassion with pederasts" or some such)

I've yet to see someone reply to my post.

Is there a stigma to being a sex offender? Yes, and rightfully so. But Megan's Laws do not result in mobs attacking them 99.999% of the time.

However, does this make them more likely to reoffend? Their first offenses were before they had such stigmas atached, after all. It seems that saying flat out that stigmatized people are more likely to reoffend assumes that they do this kind of stuff only when they have nothing better to do. But they are not normal people; they have a sick desire to do this stuff.

Most importantly to this discussion, Megan's Laws give parents knowledge about potential dangers that allow them to take the proper precautions for themselves and their children. Taking this away is very foolish.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

However, does this make them more likely to reoffend? Their first offenses were before they had such stigmas atached, after all. It seems that saying flat out that stigmatized people are more likely to reoffend assumes that they do this kind of stuff only when they have nothing better to do. But they are not normal people; they have a sick desire to do this stuff.

---

This is the right question to ask, but your argumentation is a bit flawed. Obviously, a pederast has offended without being stigmatized at least once, but that doesn't imply that stigmatizing does not increase the chance to reoffend. Social support increases self-control, social pressure decreases self-control, that is pretty much a undisputable psychological fact. However, this still does not answer the question, as we don't know for how much self-control actually counts in the matter.

Quote:

---

Most importantly to this discussion, Megan's Laws give parents knowledge about potential dangers that allow them to take the proper precautions for themselves and their children. Taking this away is very foolish.

---

The right question here is whether the parents actually can take precautions for savity. Parents can warn the children or keep them under watch but that will only protect the children in his neighbourhood. Going to another neighbourhood and searching for victims there implies greater effort for the pederast, but will that stop someone who set a plan in motion to rape and murder a child?

Why is there even discussion on this! Just shoot them and get it over with. (if there is enough evidence)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

Why is there even discussion on this! Just shoot them and get it over with. (if there is enough evidence)

---

That's part of the problem, ceasar010. Let's hypothesize for a moment. Let's say you piss off the adolescent down the street. He decides to get back at you by accusing you of exposing yourself to him. The police believe him. The overworked state psychologist believes him...

The jury believes him. It's just a misdemeanor in most places; but it's still regarded as a sex crime. You serve your time, or even more likely for a first offense and a midemeanor, you do your community service. But... you're still a convicted sex offender. You are now required to register and report your address wherever Megan's Law has been passed. Anyone with a computer can look up your name and address on the internet. And then one night, a drunk father whose child actually was molested decides to look up sex offenders on the local law enforcement Megan's Law website and finds you live next door. He has a gun. He waits for you to come outside and Boom. You're dead.

And all because you were falsely accused by the snotty kid down the street. And don't say false accusations like that don't happen. It happened to the McMartin's.

If only the world were a simple place eh? Of there's enough evidence just dropped in the end there.

If there's always enough evidence why not get rid of jurys? They're not needed, as the result is clear.

And although they are different environments, how well is the "shoot the bad guys" policy doing in Iraq? :laugh4:

~:smoking:

I thought this article was pertinent:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Belgium has been gripped by another case involving missing children. It is nearly three weeks now since two schoolgirls, aged seven and 10, disappeared in the city of Liege.

The police have used helicopters and sniffer dogs in a desperate search for them and have sifted through the city's collected rubbish.

A suspect, Abdellah Ait Oud, 39, turned himself in to police after the authorities had publicised his details, but has denied any involvement.

The disappearance of the girls brings uncomfortable memories of a horrific case in the same city, which started with two eight-year-olds going missing in 1995.

They were been abducted, chained in a dungeon, repeatedly raped, and left to starve. Two teenagers were taken the same year, and after similar treatment are thought to have been buried alive.

Two other girls were eventually rescued. The man who abducted all six, Mark Dutroux, was sentenced to life in prison.

'Different mindset'

What shocked many people was the fact that Dutroux had already been convicted in 1989 for abduction and rape of five girls and sentenced to 13 years in prison, but was released after just three years.

Should those who commit sex offences against children ever be released?

Roger Stoodley, a retired senior detective who worked on murder and child abuse cases for many years in southern England, says it is very difficult to justify releasing from prison a paedophile who has killed or seriously assaulted children.

"Paedophiles have a mindset different from other people's, most of them think that what they are doing is quite normal and they reoffend at every given opportunity."

Most people use the word "paedophile" loosely. Their understanding of the word is based on high-profile media cases, which usually involve abductions, rape and even murder.

But experts, like Ray Wyre, who has been working as a consultant in the area of child sex abuse for over 30 years, think it is important not to use the word paedophile when talking about murderers like Dutroux.

Canadian system

"Mark Dutroux is a killer, an abductor, and a sadistic offender, who doesn't reflect the vast majority of adults who sexually abuse children," he says.

In the paedophile world, Mr Wyre says, "adults form a relationship with a child, they make the relationship secret, and they introduce sex into it, putting the guilt, blame and responsibility on the child, making it impossible for the child to tell anyone."

In Canada, sex offenders including those who offend against children, are automatically required to attend treatment programmes as a parole condition.

Professor Bill Marshall, an Australian working in Ontario, has 37 years of experience in treating sex offenders, many of them paedophiles.

He treats inmate sex offenders of whom - he says - only just over 3% reoffend. The treatment is a combination of psychological therapy and, when necessary, medication.

He uses the so called anti-androgens, drugs that lower testosterone levels, or the selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors, or SRIs, "which have been shown to control all manner of impulses like smoking, shoplifting and obsessive compulsive behaviours".

But are paedophiles curable? "I wouldn't use the term curable because this is not some medical disease that you can be cured of. These people have control of their behaviour.

"They don't grab a child in the middle of a public place and assault him; they are very careful about the way they go about it. They choose to offend against children.

"Whether the guy goes in his grave still being interested in children - as long as he never does it again - I don't care what's inside his head. I care about him stopping hurting children."

Experts agree that treatment - which is expensive, complex, long, and drawn out - can help paedophiles change their behaviour.

'Why was I abused?'

But only those paedophiles who get caught are referred to experts for assessment. The vast majority - some experts say perhaps 95% of them - do not get caught.

Many child victims do want to know why they were abused. Shy Keenan, now in her early 40s, was sexually abused for years from the age of eight - by her stepfather and a number of other men.

"I've wrestled with this problem all my life - why did they do it to me? I spoke to one of these child molesters. I asked him - what is it that would stop you? What kind of treatment would help you?"

"His response was 'I like molesting children, it's great, what I hate being is a child molester, and if I could stop it tomorrow, I would'."

He states 3% of those he treats reoffend. If that is accurate, IMO it shows that therapy is a good treatment.

~:smoking:

On a side note: one of the girls (the 7y old) mentioned in the article has probably been found (still need a positive ID) dead besides a railroad track.

Always nice to see Belgium in international news :2thumbsup:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

On a side note: one of the girls (the 7y old) mentioned in the article has probably been found (still need a positive ID) dead besides a railroad track.

Always nice to see Belgium in international news :2thumbsup:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

---

Is this what you're talking about?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/28/D8IHG0D80.html
Looks like that theropy didn't keep him from killing these poor kids. I guess JAG, Sat, and other bleeding hearts didn't give this guy enough hugs and "understanding". The blood is not only on the murdering child ####ers hand but the ill informed "well intentioned" "hug a child rapist" camp as well. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Is this what you're talking about?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/28/D8IHG0D80.html
Looks like that theropy didn't keep him from killing these poor kids.

---

Actually, the article paints a completely wrong picture. No evidence has been found that links the man in custody to the two murdered girls. He only happened to be a known sex offender who was in the neighbourhood. Th'yve kept him locked up for several weeks now WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. DNA tests and the autopsy should provide some clarity.

So far, there also isn't any indication that the two girls have been sexually molested either. I'll post updates if you like (and probably if you don't like too)...

EDIT: he hasn't been chareged with anything yet, the article is wrong from the first sentence...

They've found DNA on the bodies, it wasn't from the man they have in custody but from someone unknown. One of the girls was raped, both were strangled.

I hope they find who did this soon :furious3:

There's an initiative in my state that would lock violent sex offenders up for life after their first offense on the ballot this fall. I bet that'd knock down the re-offend rate.

Quote:

---

I hope they find who did this soon

---

Well, I guess they just need better therapy.
[/sarcasm]

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Well, I guess they just need better therapy.

---

I was in the lock 'em away for life camp....