What to do with child molesters?

[Don Corleone]

Okay, well, I'm actually surprised by some of the responses I've seen in here, not because of content, but because there's more people on my page (and from a wider perspective) than I would have thought. Still, even a lynch mob has a majority in agreement, so we shouldn't be too quick to castrate/flog/execute the perpetrator.

I'd like to address a comment by Seamus that pedophiles 'create a whole new generation'. Not all pedophiles were in fact molested, and the vast majority of victims DO NOT come of age and begin offending. I'm not criticizing you, it's a common myth put forward by pop-psychology. If you really believe the pedophile is created directly in such a fashion, surely you must view him/her as blameless, as they have no concious role to play, correct?

I understand what people are talking about when it comes to execution not as vengance, but as a public health solution, but again, as this is a human being we're talking about, I do not believe we have the right to take his/her life. It's hard, believe me, very hard, to continue to toe this line, but I really honestly believe the Lord reserves final judgement for Himself.

Anyway, is A. Saturnus the only one we have in the backroom that's 'in the know' when it comes to prevalanent modern theories of psychology and what's being bandied about in their journals? I really would like to understand the thought process of people that advocate for rehabilitation of pedophiles. I think I know what Jag would say, but he approaches it from his notion of social justice, and I'm looking for something derived in the crucible of scientific method, or at least in conjunction with it.

[Kanamori]

Yup, its only allowed to bash Christianity here.

The Church is not the same as Christianity, and I haven't heard any widespread cases of Rabbis moving Rabbis to different synagogues, or Imams moving Imams to different mosques. Criticizing the clergy is distinct from criticizing the religion. At any rate, I remember a particularly nasty thread about Islam.

[Tribesman]

Dave , if you could point me in the direction of an organisation with a very long history of child abuse and coverups of that abuse stretching all the way to the top of that organisation then I will bash that organisation .
Until then why should I not bash an institution that fits all of that criteria ?

[Adrian II]

I really would like to understand the thought process of people that advocate for rehabilitation of pedophiles. I think I know what Jag would say, but he approaches it from his notion of social justice, and I'm looking for something derived in the crucible of scientific method, or at least in conjunction with it.

I have researched this theme a bit because there have been several widely-publicised cases of repeat sex offenders in The Netherlands recently.

The trouble is there is no known cure for serious sexual deviancy. Chemical castration is the alternative, but only in combination with forced psychotherapy and rehabilitation. Therapy is necessary because a main part of the problem of sex offenders is that they incapable of dealing with stressful situations. A long prison sentence followed by forced treatment tends to work in The Netherlands. The repeat offenders I mentioned were typically convicts who eluded their parole officers, stopped taking their medication and were caught within days of their escape. The Dutch parole system for sex offenders clearly needs an overhaul.

[TosaInu]

Note!

This topic is getting pretty heated. I've been editing and PM'ing for a couple of hours just because of this topic, both private and general. This is the last warning: keep it civil.

Avoid the generalisation trap and the or this topic will be purged. A shame, as I think it also contains some reasonable discussion from several sides.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Current laws being pushed in the United States specify 12 and under. Not that you can't get in trouble for 13-18, just that a mandatory 25 year sentence is not imposed because situational factors may intervene, however infrequently.

As to 13 being "younger and younger," your comment is only true if viewed through the lens of modern western society. Numerous other cultures and many traditional Western cultures allowed marriage at or near that age.

If your're saying that selling dental floss style undies to minors obviates an adult from correct behavior I must vehemently disagree. If you are saying that there are instances where it is not a crime of violence to the same extent as a stereotypical pedophilea attack (if there can ever be sadi to be such a thing), you may have a point for consideration.

Seamus

[yesdachi]

The punishment needs to fit the crime. There is a difference between pedophilia and child molestation. There is a difference between rape and statutory rape. There is a difference between pre-meditated murder and killing in self-defense. And in each instance there are several levels of difference. In each case the punishment needs to be flexible enough to fit the crime. Some crimes are serious and demand punishment but others are horrible and those who commit them should never be allowed the opportunity to commit them again, punish them and save society, put them to death.

Anyone that thinks it’s appropriate to jail a criminal for life to take them out of society is forgetting that they are still part of society. They cost society money and their imprisonment forces others to interact with them. The thought of being in the same society as a child molester or a rapist is terribly offensive and a cause of fear and anger, but can you imagine being in jail for robbery (out on parole in a few years) and being cellmates with one who is in for life! That’s cruel and unusual punishment. A life sentence is a ridiculous punishment because it causes a drain on tax dollars and still allows the convicted to influence society. The only way to remove them from society and guarantee they will never harm anyone again is to put them to death.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

[Turin]

What to do with child molesters?

Lock them up??? Do you have any idea how expensive it is to lock a person up for the rest of their lives these days? With that money you can put almost a hundred underprivilaged kids through college!

Kill them, clear and simple, most of the time the bastards confess. Oh, and you need to do it cheaply too... eh, slit their throat while they stand over a ditch. A little brutal, but really, how much more brutal is it than strapping someone to a chair and frying them or tying a noose around their neck and letting the weight of the body snap their neck? At least with the knife it's a quick and relatively quiet affair.

Of course, this goes without saying that there needs to be a very big thick book for this law. Only when the defendent has either confessed, or after extensive retrials and appeals. No one's life should be that easily discarded.

And make sure their assets go to a charitable organization, this way they can give back to society in death what they took away in life.

[kiwitt]

This would be my approach.

1) First Offence, Jail, Monitoring for a period of time
2) Second Offence, Castration is voluntary option, Jail (3 x longer), Monitoring for 3 times the length of time
3) Third Offence, Castration is mandatory, Jail (10 x longer), Monitoring for the rest of their life

A bit like 3 strikes and you are out. Harsh but necessary to protect society.

[Goofball]

What to do with child molesters?

Lock them up??? Do you have any idea how expensive it is to lock a person up for the rest of their lives these days? With that money you can put almost a hundred underprivilaged kids through college!

Kill them, clear and simple, most of the time the bastards confess.

This guy: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/milgaard/ "confessed" too. Good thing we didn't kill him, because we eventually found out he didn't do it. But hey, you're right. It's definitely worth killing people if we can save a few bucks...

Disgusting.

[Devastatin Dave]

Dave , if you could point me in the direction of an organisation with a very long history of child abuse and coverups of that abuse stretching all the way to the top of that organisation then I will bash that organisation .
Until then why should I not bash an institution that fits all of that criteria ?

But in the same context if I say something critical about Islam, or that many terrorist happen to be muslim, I get warnings tacked on while you and others can say that Cathlic Priests have sex with children and the Christianity is bad for society, and an eye is barely batted. But back to topic since obviously nothing will be done about the apparent anti-Christian tolerance in this forum, child molestors cannot be allowed in society, rather they be Catholic priests or Democratic voting NAMBLA liberals.

[Kralizec]

Seamus Fermanagh:
Well yeah, I am talking through the perspective of modern western culture. From what other viewpoint could we possibly talk about? You and me don't belong to any of the cultures that condone pedophilia, or Aztec sacrificial rites or any other sick things that took place by human hands (and other body parts). Advocating that something is not normal because some other culture does it doesn't hold water IMO.
Besides I think that pedophilia in those cultures is more practicly minded. It occurred in medieval times in Europe. People lived shorter in those days and life was harder, peasants in medieval times wouldn't bear the burden of supporting their daughters longer then necessary. Marry them off at 14, why not? Now Greek pedastry is something entirely else though, at the time seen as a pedagogical.
I wouldn't call it "unnatural" because as soon as girls enter puberty, nature has from a evolutionary viewpoint intended them to get children. But people aren't animals who just eat, have sex and get little puppies. Unlike what the Greeks thought I think it's harmful for the kids emotional development. (If some academic could confirm me on this that'd be great ;) )
I'm not sure I understand your comment on dental floss underwear. I intended it to be an example of how society is pressuring kids to learn...inappropriate stuff at an early age, and this causes them to behave "mature" when they're in fact barely in puberty.
I was also trying to argue that not all pedophilia falls under the old pervert stereotype as you noticed.

To all:
what if a 17-19 year old boy has a night with a girl from the 13-15 year range...strictly token that's pedophilia, even by Hollands' pretty liberal legislature. What about that?

[Devastatin Dave]

This would be my approach.

1) First Offence, Jail, Monitoring for a period of time
2) Second Offence, Castration is voluntary option, Jail (3 x longer), Monitoring for 3 times the length of time
3) Third Offence, Castration is mandatory, Jail (10 x longer), Monitoring for the rest of their life

A bit like 3 strikes and you are out. Harsh but necessary to protect society.

Harsh? I don't think it is harsh enough. In order to get to strike 3, 3 lives have been ruined by the molestor. Why give a sexually difuntioned person this many chances. If sexuality is genetic, as many claim, then child molestation in ingrained within the person much like a homosexual, heterosexual, necrophiliac, etc. I do not believe it is worth the risk to have these people in society. Kill them? No. But put them all on an island somewhere that they cannot escape from and their lifestyle is accepted, Possibly California after the Big One...

[Redleg]

My faith teaches against the use of the death penalty, and I have slowly come around to agreement with that position.

Heinous offenders of this type are demonstrably damaging to society (creating a new generation of the same being among the worst elements). Redleg's commentary about quarantine is apt. Taking life judicially may be unneccessary in a modern society and thereful too "vengeful" to constitute a truly ethical response. Allowing such offenders to continue among us, especially in light of the known recidivism/failed treatment rates, is equally unethicical. Imprisonoment until the threat is nullified is the only moral choice.

Seamus

I do believe you were refering to Red Harvest - even though my thoughts on the matter are very similiar - his were more precise and he did use the term.

[Tribesman]

I get warnings tacked on while you and others can say that Cathlic Priests have sex with children and the Christianity is bad for society, and an eye is barely batted.
I have never said that Chritianity is bad for society
Failing to address chid abuse is bad for society and any organisation that fails to address it is not only bad for society , it is bad for the organisation itself .
If something is wrong then it should be criticised , if elements of a group that you belong to is wrong then it is even more important that you are critical of its failings .

[econ21]

I agree with Yesdachi that people need to be careful to make distinctions between types of paedophiles. At one extreme, there are the violent child molesters who may kill or worse (type A). At the other extreme, there are people who are sexually aroused by children but who never act on it (type B). There is then a wide continuum of "child molestation" between.

To further complicate it, you have rather a large "grey area" arising from who is defined as a child or a child abuser. As a result some people may be classified as paedophiles when they are not - for example, in the UK, a sixteen year old sleeping with someone a year younger, ie below the age of consent (type C). Most people seem to be implicitly equating type B with type A and the law, being an ass, often comes down hard on type C, e.g. in the UK, they may well be registered on the sex offenders list.

I assume most of the discussion here is around Type A. I have no solution for these offenders. Lock em up and throw away the key is the best I can come up with.

With type C, I am pretty liberal and provided nobody gets hurt, everything is consensual, I would have them warned but not prosecuted.

With type B or those close on the scale to B than A, I think we perhaps should be less hysterical. In my childhood, I knew of a case of a stereotypical scout master. Every child knew he liked to give his boys a bath. We were too young to understand anything explicit about this but we knew it was odd and not quite right. But most scouts merely thought it funny, although it deterred me from ever joining their ranks. I believe some parents and people in authority knew also, but did nothing. I don't suppose he hurt anyone and was probably a kind harmless man. I believe people were too unconcerned in those days - I was gobsmacked thirty years later to know that adults knew about this scout master's nature. But the pendulum seems to have swung too far in the other direction and I do not believe he should have been stigmatised or locked up.

I suspect the real challenge for the police and others in authority is determining which kind of person they are dealing with. Ian Huntley, who killed two schoolgirls in the UK, came to police attention before the murders but they let it go because they thought he was a type C and not a type A. As a layman, my hunch is that a key distinguishing factor is whether violence is involved; obsessing about paedophilia may detract from that. It's not love that kills. For cases not involving violence, I think the extent of the harm - or potential harm - to children should determine the severity of the punishment and the need for incarceration.

[Azi Tohak]

I'd really like to hear from qualified professionals...

Well, I'm out!

Azi

[Strike For The South]

1st mandatory castration 10 years
2nd LIFE

[Seamus Fermanagh]

1st mandatory castration 10 years
2nd LIFE

SFTS:

Don't you remember reading the "cruel and unusual" clause my fellow superpatriot yank?

Seamus

P.S. Sorry to have confused the "Reds." Happy it didn't lead to one of you being badly misrepresented.

[Strike For The South]

SFTS:

Don't you remember reading the "cruel and unusual" clause my fellow superpatriot yank?

Seamus

P.S. Sorry to have confused the "Reds." Happy it didn't lead to one of you being badly misrepresented.

I dont see how it is

[Soulforged]

The same thing done today, jail for a time, and then realease them. Treating them will make them an instrument and will give the state the higher moral ground (and the ability to imposse that moral, wich the state cannot do). On the other hand execution is out of the question, it's desproportional.

To all of you that propose castration (execution I'll not even bother) one thing. The problem is psychologycal, the molester will continue to molest, with accesories perhaps, or with his own tongue, wich is considered as carnal access too. Just for you to notice how useless castration is.

[Reverend Joe]

My only solid opinion lies with pedophilia.

If a person is found guilty of child molestation, he will receive whatever sentence child molesters get, along with a thorough psychological evaluation. If they are found to be prone to child molestation, they will be carefully watched. If they perform a second act of molestation, they will be given massive surgery. This goes far beyond simple castration, which is technically just the removal of the genitals. In men, the penis and testicles will be removed, along with all other possible sources of sexual stimulation, especially the prostate and nipples and areolae, but possibly the nerves on the palm and fingers, and the foot and toes, to remove all sensation form those areas. For women, the procedure is basically the same, with all sections of the vagina being removed, especially the clitoris, and the nipples and areolae, and if necessary, the nerves in the palm, fingers, feet and toes.

If any of the women on this site argue that the penalties for women are harsher because they lose the entire vagina, whereas men just lose the penis and testicles- trust me, it's just as bad.

These people would no longer gain any pleasure from molesting children, and thus could be released to lead as normal lives as they could, even though these lives may be somewhat hollow. Then again, it's better than the death penalty- less expensive.

[Adrian II]

Just for you to notice how useless castration is.

Chemical castration works in The Netherlands. See my earlier post.

[Samurai Waki]

Turn pedophiles into steers for all I care. It's horrible and disgraceful.

[bmolsson]

It's a very difficult problem. Society needs to be protected so they have to be removed from society. Death penalty is not an option since we are better than that. Medication and therapy when away from society is the only option.
But, a very difficult problem which can not be taken seriously enough.....

[English assassin]

Hmm, we need JAG. Never mind, I'll have a go.

Although I can sympathise, and probably agree, with those who say they need to be removed from society for as long as they are dangerous, this too poses dangers.

First, lets get rid of all the flogging and hurting stuff. Does that unmolest a single child? No. Will it deter a future offence? I doubt it, and even if it does, it com,es at the proce of brutalising the whole of an already pretty brutal society. So, lock them up for the puinishment part of the sentence in normal conditions, and if they need to be detained thereafter on a preventative basis, that should be in normal, comfortable conditions. Take away their liberty to the extent necessary to protect children, but otherwise why should they not live a normal life? After all at this point we are detaining them only for a crime they might commit in the future, not for one they have done in the past.

And that, I would just like to point out, is a dangerous precedent. We all agree that paedophilia (SA's type A paedophilia) is a particularly horrible crime, and it seems to be the case that most offenders really cannot help themselves reoffending. Preventitive detention certainly seems appealing. But locking people up for what they might do is a very different concept from locking them up for what they have done. Suppose, as we move a little way down the slippery slope, we identify people who have themselves been victims, who have accessed child pornography, who show an unhealthy interest in playgrounds and scout groups. Our psychologists tell us this person is almost certainly an offender in waiting, maybe they even admit to being attracted to children and delude themselves that such relationships can be consensual and acceptable. But they have never in fact so much as touched a child. By parity of reasoning presumably we lock them away for ever?

A short way down the slope are other sexual offenders, who also seem to have a very high reoffending rate. After that I am sure we can identify sociopaths, psychopaths, people with poor impulse control, incorrigible drug addicts, etc etc etc. We could probably clean up society a lot by locking up people who are "very likely" to do things we don't like.

Sounds dangerous to me?

Edit: a further thought

We live in a society where horrible things happen to children. A child being smashed to a pulp by two tons of speeding steel is not nice, yet we are apparently prepared to tolerate the fact that it happens so we can all have the liberty of driving where we like. Children being smashed to bits could easily be stopped by banning motor transport, or, less draconianly, fitting mandatory 20 mph speed governors activated in all urban areas. Can someone explain to me why the liberty of driving as we wish outweighs the need to stop children being smashed to pieces, but the liberty of only being punished for the crimes you commit, not the crimes you might in the future commit, is somehow less important?

Clue: in my cynical opinion the answer would be different if general motors made a profit from paedophilia.

[Petrus]

Never mind, I'll have a go.

To my greatest regrets, I must agree with you on this topic.

In a previous post that mysteriously disappeared, I suggested to kill, cook and eat child molesters.

Having not the chance to live in a country such as China, Iran or the US which provide legally fresh human flesh from subjects in good general health situation at the moment of their death, it seemed to be a good opportunity to taste this kind of food usually reserved to crows and flies.

But after a bit of reflection, I doubt the remains of mob’s justice through painful death can provide a good quality human flesh.

I also think that defining law and justice by emotional reactions, whatever their strength and their justification, is not a good thing.

Hoping my English is understandable, I will take as an example the Eichmann’s trial.

This man was judged in a country where a very large part of the citizen had very good reasons to wish to extract his brain through his eyes with a screwdriver.

Despite this, he was not insulted, was judged with a perfect equity following the same rules as for any other criminal, was accused without biases, defended himself without restriction, was convicted in his direct responsibility into the murder of six millions human beings, was condemned to death, hung, his body burned and the ashes dropped into the sea.

I think this is justice, without hate, without passion, clear and equitable whatever the heat of hate was burning into every Israeli citizen heart.

Although it is a very extreme example, I think it reflects the only way to provide justice, judging without passion.

[Byzantine Prince]

Boilem', mashem', stick 'em in a stew...

[Don Corleone]

Very interesting perspective, EA. I'm going to have to spend some time mulling it over before I respond completely, but I would like to address one particular item, your comparison to traffic fatalities.

Traffic fatalities are an undesirable (and possibly as you suggest intolerable) unintended result of a very desirable phenomenon, rapid transport. As I understand things, there is is no positive benefit for society to allowing paedophiles access to children, and let's face it, our probation systems are horribly inept at the process of monitoring released offenders. The decision is between life incarceration or an almost certain future molestation (you don't know which will re-offend, but you know more will than won't).

As for the rest of your post, very intriguing. I intend to give it some serious regard before saying anything. Thank you for the honest effort at presenting the other side.