NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I was watching CNN yesterday - don't ask me why - and Paula Zahn happened to be on. People were bitching about sexual predators once again, and CNN was covering it like the good folks they are, and I heard the little piece that follows. I was baffled at the way the reporter worded what she said, and the tone her voice took - something showing remote sincerity and belief in the point made - so I decided I'd post what she said here. I got on CNN.com and fished up the transcripts for you all, and here they are; Stewart was a lady they were interviewing for the show, and Gutierrez is a CNN correspondent that was reporting on the matter:

STEWART: I think that they are just dumping them off here in our community because we're a poor community. And there's nobody out here to picket and to run them off.

GUTIERREZ: The problem is where to house these people. Many convicted sex offenders can't find work. They have nowhere to go. So, the parole board places them in privately owned group homes like this, where rent is cheap.

Which brings me to my question: am I the only one who doesn't give a shit? If the state can't afford to house these fucks, kill them. Is that so hard? These are sexual offenders whose crimes are heinous enough to render the convicts attention-worthy after release from prison. Does anyone here actually care about the life of someone that molests a twelve year old girl, or violently rapes a woman at a party? Seriously, what is so wrong with painting the wall of a small room with their brains, aside from being politically incorrect? Come on, people. Do most people actually care about these poor, ex-felons. Do most people feel sorry for sexual offenders that can't find work or a place to live?

Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit?

I did fry their asses as a joke, they're people.

Well, I wouldn’t put it that way, but no, you're not alone. I could care less about what happens to them after they are released. As long as a physical evidence for the crime can be found, I’m all for executing (or at least castrating) those psychos. Society just isn’t built for those kinds of people, and it shouldn’t be.

By the way, let me just say that, in saying sexual predators, I'm not referring to, and neither is the quote, the guy that fucks the drunk chick at a party who says she was raped the next day because she was too wasted to make a good decision. That's not being a sexual predator, that's getting fucked, especially since 99.9% of the time, the person being accused in such a case was just as drunk as the person doing the accusing. I'm talking about the screwy Dad that molests his daughter's friend, or the guy that slips the party-girl Mexican valium.

Stop to think for a minute. These people are going to get out of prison eventually, whether you like it or not. The question is, when they get out of prison do you want them to be given a chance of integrating themselves into society again and overcoming their past mistakes? or do you want them to have no hope of ever being a productive member of society? Ill fill you in on a little secret, people with no hope are many times more likely to return to a life of crime than people who are able to put their mistakes behind them and move on with their lives.

Stop to think for a minute. These people are going to get out of prison eventually, whether you like it or not. The question is, when they get out of prison do you want them to be given a chance of integrating themselves into society again and overcoming their past mistakes? or do you want them to have no hope of ever being a productive member of society? Ill fill you in on a little secret, people with no hope are many times more likely to return to a life of crime than people who are able to put their mistakes behind them and move on with their lives.
Hahaha, let me fill you in on a little secret: dead people can't return to a life of crime. My point stands strong.

Hahaha, let me fill you in on a little secret: dead people can't return to a life of crime. My point stands strong.

I guess thats what I get for responding to a braindead post. I was being realistic, and assuming you must have been joking about murdering people on your original post. I guess I was wrong, you really are that evil.

I guess thats what I get for responding to a braindead post. I was being realistic, and assuming you must have been joking about murdering people on your original post. I guess I was wrong, you really are that evil.

No, the evil ones are the ones that molest little kids in the first place. Don't be dense, hippy.

I guess thats what I get for responding to a braindead post. I was being realistic, and assuming you must have been joking about murdering people on your original post. I guess I was wrong, you really are that evil.

Woah, hang on. Do you even know what evil is?
Evil is setting a cat on fire just to watch it burn.
All he wants to do if inflict harsher punishments on people who are messed up in the head and are in fact evil.

I for one would like to have all the convicted sex offenders/rapists have their punishment fit the crime, let's just say that they stay in prison and drop the soap in the shower a few times... ;)

Don't be on the same level of the "seckshal predidders."
Seien Sie nicht dicht, kommunistisch.
(Don't be dense, commie.)

By the way, let me just say that, in saying sexual predators, I'm not referring to, and neither is the quote, the guy that fucks the drunk chick at a party who says she was raped the next day because she was too wasted to make a good decision. That's not being a sexual predator, that's getting fucked, especially since 99.9% of the time, the person being accused in such a case was just as drunk as the person doing the accusing. I'm talking about the screwy Dad that molests his daughter's friend, or the guy that slips the party-girl Mexican valium.

Oh, spiffy.

Why a nice combination of rape mythology, misogyny, and bloodlust.

If you knew a damn thing about rape in this country, you would realize you are talking out both sides of your ass.

Anti-rape advocates long ago fought to remove the death penalty from such crimes because it made getting people to report crimes, getting police and prosecutors to act, and --most importantly -- getting juries to convict muct more difficult. When its the word of the nice man versus a kid, people are much less likely to convict if they think the man may get put to death.

Your definitions of "sexual predator" and "real rape" are naive and dangerous. They are exactly the kind of crap that rapists exploit to convince juries they don't fit those stereotypes, so they must be innocent.

Increasing the rate at which sex offenders are actually caught and convicted would do far more to make society safer than executions. You have your priorities backwards.

Don't be on the same level of the "seckshal predidders."
Seien Sie nicht dicht, kommunistisch.
(Don't be dense, commie.)

Wow; you act as if wishing death on sexual predators is a redneck thing to do. Are you retarded? Obviously sexual predators need to die - unleashing them on society for the sake of being a good person is an unnecessary risk to innocents.

Ede stercum et mortuere, canis.

Stop to think for a minute. These people are going to get out of prison eventually, whether you like it or not. The question is, when they get out of prison do you want them to be given a chance of integrating themselves into society again and overcoming their past mistakes? or do you want them to have no hope of ever being a productive member of society? Ill fill you in on a little secret, people with no hope are many times more likely to return to a life of crime than people who are able to put their mistakes behind them and move on with their lives.

Unfortunately, LH, this will likely be one of the most intelligent things said in this thread. And it will be viciously attacked precisely for that reason.

Bloodthirsty little twits that think the electric chair solves all problems really hate to be confronted with realism. They don't want to think about real solutions to real problems. They want to show how "cool" they can be by being callous and ignorant.

Unfortunately, LH, this will likely be one of the most intelligent things said in this thread. And it will be viciously attacked precisely for that reason.

Bloodthirsty little twits that think the electric chair solves all problems really hate to be confronted with realism. They don't want to think about real solutions to real problems. They want to show how "cool" they can be by being callous and ignorant.

Agreed.

Woah, Woah, Woah, are you people saying that because these people are different from you or I that they should be treated any different? Mabye we're the ones who are wrong here. (sarcasm) :eek: :sniper:

They should be executed, and at the least be segragated into their own maximum security communities. Since the second is likley expensive, die they should. :D.

Oh, spiffy.

Why a nice combination of rape mythology, misogyny, and bloodlust.

I certainly thought so. :)

If you knew a damn thing about rape in this country, you would realize you are talking out both sides of your ass.

And I suppose you're a rape expert. Let's see what you have to say.

Anti-rape advocates long ago fought to remove the death penalty from such crimes because it made getting people to report crimes, getting police and prosecutors to act, and --most importantly -- getting juries to convict muct more difficult. When its the word of the nice man versus a kid, people are much less likely to convict if they think the man may get put to death.

So you think it's cool to go ahead and convict people even if the evidence isn't strong enough to convict them of the death penalty? I guess that makes sense. Or maybe you're saying that people don't like the death penalty enough to convict with it on the books - there's a simple solution to that, of course, and that solution: juries consist wholly of rednecks, unless the person being accused is of a different race; in which case you use black rednecks. They do exist, you know.

Your definitions of "sexual predator" and "real rape" are naive and dangerous. They are exactly the kind of crap that rapists exploit to convince juries they don't fit those stereotypes, so they must be innocent.

Gee, let's be vague to convince people that truly are naive that you are correct, instead of pointing out one thing in what I said that didn't make sense and wasn't true, other than the joke statistic I posted.

Increasing the rate at which sex offenders are actually caught and convicted would do far more to make society safer than executions. You have your priorities backwards.

Really? You think college kids that rape chicks at parties wouldn't think twice, were capital punishment on the books for rape? Crazy child molestors aren't going to be deterred either way, because psychopaths don't really worry about whether they'll get caught.

And I suppose you're a rape expert. Let's see what you have to say.

Yeah... I guess I was wrong.

Unfortunately, LH, this will likely be one of the most intelligent things said in this thread. And it will be viciously attacked precisely for that reason.

Bloodthirsty little twits that think the electric chair solves all problems really hate to be confronted with realism. They don't want to think about real solutions to real problems. They want to show how "cool" they can be by being callous and ignorant.

Unfortunately, Hippies, there are idiots out there who will actually think what you said has some merit, even though it is completely stupid and doesn't discount what I said in the least. They want to show how "intelligent" they can be by acting like they are educated on a matter, all the while being stupider than the person that they are attempting to discredit.

Stop to think for a minute. These people are going to get out of prison eventually, whether you like it or not. The question is, when they get out of prison do you want them to be given a chance of integrating themselves into society again and overcoming their past mistakes? or do you want them to have no hope of ever being a productive member of society? Ill fill you in on a little secret, people with no hope are many times more likely to return to a life of crime than people who are able to put their mistakes behind them and move on with their lives.

Problem with that is that the recidivism rate among pedophiles is very high. You can’t cure those people; its been proven time and time again.

Unfortunately, Hippies, there are idiots out there who will actually think what you said has some merit, even though it is completely stupid and doesn't discount what I said in the least. They want to show how "intelligent" they can be by acting like they are educated on a matter, all the while being stupider than the person that they are attempting to discredit.

Anyone who does a even a brief comparison of our styles of writing and yours will quickly realize who the less intelligent person is. ;)

We should use the death penalty on sexual predators!

They are the lowest forms of life and they should be taken care of (meaning kill them). Instead of giving them houses with cheap rent, and making people having to live next to this scum. If giving these scums the death penalty too expensive, then we should use a cheaper way of execution. Like hanging.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Problem with that is that the recidivism rate among pedophiles is very high. You can’t cure those people; its been proven time and time again.

Actually, that is completely incorrect. The recidivism rate of pedophiles was found to be 43%, compared with 68% for the general inmate population. So, in reality pedophiles are less likely to reoffend than murderers, robbers, drug dealers, and the rest of the prison population. If you could not cure these people then the recidivism rate would approach 100%, it would not be lower than the recidivism rate of the general inmate population.

Anyone who does a even a brief comparison of our styles of writing and yours will quickly realize who the less intelligent person is. ;)


Not to make this "A lesson in English" thread, some people may be very intellegent, but maybe not a good speller or speaker.

I did fry their asses as a joke, they're people.


No their not, their scum.
Kill em all, and kill them quick, for do not doupt, they will do it again.

Not to make this "A lesson in English" thread, some people may be very intellegent, but maybe not a good speller or speaker.

I was reffering to the hostility, name calling, and general childish bravado of the posts, not the spelling or grammar. I understand some people are not very good with language for a variety of very good reasons.

Actually, that is completely incorrect. The recidivism rate of pedophiles was found to be 43%, compared with 68% for the general inmate population. So, in reality pedophiles are less likely to reoffend than murderers, robbers, drug dealers, and the rest of the prison population. If you could not cure these people then the recidivism rate would approach 100%, it would not be lower than the recidivism rate of the general inmate population.

lol proof?
Paedophiles are incurable, they deserve nothing less than a stream of bullets.

Anyone who does a even a brief comparison of our styles of writing and yours will quickly realize who the less intelligent person is. ;)

When did anyone say that either you or Cat was less intelligent than I? Maybe you just assumed that it was Cat that I referred to, though I have no idea why. Anyway, that aside, let us do a brief analysis of your writing, because you seem to think writing is the sole factor in the determination of intelligence.

Stop to think for a minute. These people are going to get out of prison eventually, whether you like it or not. The question is, when they get out of prison do you want them to be given a chance of integrating themselves into society again and overcoming their past mistakes? or do you want them to have no hope of ever being a productive member of society? Ill fill you in on a little secret, people with no hope are many times more likely to return to a life of crime than people who are able to put their mistakes behind them and move on with their lives.

A more correct way to write the previous paragraph:

I'm a moron.

Just kidding, here it is:

Stop to think for a minute. These people are going to get out of prison eventually, whether you like it or not. The question is this: when they get out of prison, do you want them to be given a chance of integrating themselves into society again and overcoming their past mistakes, or do you want them to have no hope of ever being a productive member of society? I'll fill you in on a little secret: people with no hope are many times more likely to return to a life of crime than people who are able to put their mistakes behind them and move on with their lives.

You're right, you are much more intelligent than I could ever aspire to be.

I was reffering to the hostility, name calling, and general childish bravado of the posts, not the spelling or grammar. I understand some people are not very good with language for a variety of very good reasons.

Ah, ok :). Sorry then.

Oh, spiffy.

Why a nice combination of rape mythology, misogyny, and bloodlust.

If you knew a damn thing about rape in this country, you would realize you are talking out both sides of your ass.

Anti-rape advocates long ago fought to remove the death penalty from such crimes because it made getting people to report crimes, getting police and prosecutors to act, and --most importantly -- getting juries to convict muct more difficult. When its the word of the nice man versus a kid, people are much less likely to convict if they think the man may get put to death.

Your definitions of "sexual predator" and "real rape" are naive and dangerous. They are exactly the kind of crap that rapists exploit to convince juries they don't fit those stereotypes, so they must be innocent.

Increasing the rate at which sex offenders are actually caught and convicted would do far more to make society safer than executions. You have your priorities backwards.

Also, I think people should remember that if, indeed, you do have sex with a drunk woman, the chances of being convicted of rape are almost zero.

There is a type of nasty urban legend in the US wherein a guy has sex with an intoxicated woman and the next day she feels "dirty", accuses him of rape, and he gets sent to prison. Absent other factors, merely sleeping with a drunk person cannot - as far as I understand it - result in rape charges. Nevertheless this nasty little rumour seems to persist.

Granted, you shouldn't have sex with an unconscious person, but that's really a different issue, and shouldn't bother any ordinary person in any case.

lol proof?
Paedophiles are incurable, they deserve nothing less than a stream of bullets.

These are the statistics from the justice department, feel free to look them up. Here is an article which makes refference to them:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1128/p10s02-comv.html

Actually, that is completely incorrect. The recidivism rate of pedophiles was found to be 43%, compared with 68% for the general inmate population. So, in reality pedophiles are less likely to reoffend than murderers, robbers, drug dealers, and the rest of the prison population. If you could not cure these people then the recidivism rate would approach 100%, it would not be lower than the recidivism rate of the general inmate population.

You act as if 43% is an insignificant number. Using your statistic, let's say that 43 pedophiles in a test group of 100 pedophiles strike again; was it truly worth it to attempt to give them a second chance? What if it was your sister, mother, or daughter that they raped or molested? Was the pedophile's second chance worth it, then? Hell no. Fry their asses.

You act as if 43% is an insignificant number. Using your statistic, let's say that 43 pedophiles in a test group of 100 pedophiles strike again; was it truly worth it to attempt to give them a second chance? What if it was your sister, mother, or daughter that they raped or molested? Was the pedophile's second chance worth it, then? Hell no. Fry their asses.

Eh? By that logic, why let any prisoner out? Why not bring back the bloody code? Death to Martha Stewart &c.

You act as if 43% is an insignificant number. Using your statistic, let's say that 43 pedophiles in a test group of 100 pedophiles strike again; was it truly worth it to attempt to give them a second chance? What if it was your sister, mother, or daughter that they raped or molested? Was the pedophile's second chance worth it, then? Hell no. Fry their asses.

Id be more concerned about the 68 murderers who will strike again than the 43 pedophiles.

Also, I think people should remember that if, indeed, you do have sex with a drunk woman, the chances of being convicted of rape are almost zero.

There is a type of nasty urban legend in the US wherein a guy has sex with an intoxicated woman and the next day she feels "dirty", accuses him of rape, and he gets sent to prison. Absent other factors, merely sleeping with a drunk person cannot - as far as I understand it - result in rape charges. Nevertheless this nasty little rumour seems to persist.

Actually, you're wrong - at least in Ohio. It's not an urban legend in the least, and is, in fact, taught in rape education classes. Conviction may be unlikely, but having sex with someone that is drunk actually is illegal, and can result in minor rape charges.

If the state can't afford to house these fucks, kill them... Seriously, what is so wrong with painting the wall of a small room with their brains, aside from being politically incorrect?
Personally, I don't paint human brains on walls because it's kind of gross. If you think that makes me politically correct, well you'll find a lot of other PC people out there too.

Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit?
You actually seem to be pretty passionate about this. Which is fine, so long as you don't go smashing peoples' heads against walls. Though it's a bit disturbing that you'd actually justify violence on the basis of someone else's immoral behaviour.

Id be more concerned about the 68 murderers who will strike again than the 43 pedophiles.

I'd be concerned about both. You really do have great style. :rolleyes:

Personally, I don't paint human brains on walls because it's kind of gross. If you think that makes me politically correct, well you'll find a lot of other PC people out there too.


You actually seem to be pretty passionate about this. Which is fine, so long as you don't go smashing peoples' heads against walls. Though it's a bit disturbing that you'd actually justify violence on the basis of someone else's immoral behaviour.

The wall-painting thing was semi-sarcastic rant, thus not meant to be taken seriously. The frying part was not, however, as I'm a big fan of the electric chair. Lethal injection is for pussies.

I certainly thought so. :)

Cute. :rolleyes:

And I suppose you're a rape expert. Let's see what you have to say.

Funny how ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand.

I could explain exactly how I do happen to have a fair amount of expertise on the subject, but such claims to authority are unprovable and shouldn't give my statements any credence anyway.

Instead, I'll cite to some real experts on child abuse, sexual predators, and rape -- Andrew Vachss and Alice Vachss.

Andrew Vachss—Credentials (http://www.vachss.com/vachss/credentials.html)
Alice Vachss (http://www.evawinc.com/vachss.html)

Here Mr. Vachss describes real, concrete solutions to the threat of sexual predators.

If We Really Want To Keep Our Children Safe … (http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9905_a.html)
How to Handle Sexual Predators (http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9308_a.html)
Pragmatically Impotent (http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9207_a.html)
Today's Victim Could Be Tomorrow's Predator (http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9006_a.html)

You will find that Mr. Vachss outdoes you in his disgust for child molestors. But he separates false rhetoric with hard solutions based on his experience.

So you think it's cool to go ahead and convict people even if the evidence isn't strong enough to convict them of the death penalty? I guess that makes sense. Or maybe you're saying that people don't like the death penalty enough to convict with it on the books - there's a simple solution to that, of course, and that solution: juries consist wholly of rednecks, unless the person being accused is of a different race; in which case you use black rednecks. They do exist, you know.

Cute.

1. I didn't say anything like what you imply.

2. Your alleged solution shows an ignorance of the system -- not to mention a cavalier attitude towards justice. FYI, juries in capital cases already are death-qualified.

Gee, let's be vague to convince people that truly are naive that you are correct, instead of pointing out one thing in what I said that didn't make sense and wasn't true, other than the joke statistic I posted.

You are perpetuating rape myths that are dangerous and make the problem worse.

All Rape Is 'Real' Rape (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss.html)
The Charge of Rape, the Force of Myth (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss2.html)
Top Lawyer Says Juries Fail on Rape (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/top_lawyer.html)

Really? You think college kids that rape chicks at parties wouldn't think twice, were capital punishment on the books for rape? Crazy child molestors aren't going to be deterred either way, because psychopaths don't really worry about whether they'll get caught.

Um. You specifically said that you proposal didn't apply to the first scenario. :rolleyes:

Again, isn't it rather more important and effective to catch and convict as many child molesters as we can than to carry out your sick little fantasies about how to punish them?

Yeah... I guess I was wrong.

:confused: I'm supposed to answer a question in this post before you even post it?

Eh? By that logic, why let any prisoner out? Why not bring back the bloody code? Death to Martha Stewart &c.

Because money is slightly less important than a person's physical and mental well-being, obviously.

That said, I wouldn't mind capital punishment for Martha Stewart, but that's just because I hate her with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns.

The wall-painting thing was semi-sarcastic rant, thus not meant to be taken seriously. The frying part was not, however, as I'm a big fan of the electric chair. Lethal injection is for pussies.

The only reason I want ol' sparky back, is its alot more scary than lethal injection. Of course crimes still wont stop, but I say we go back to hanging or firing squad.

Actually, you're wrong - at least in Ohio. It's not an urban legend in the least, and is, in fact, taught in rape education classes. Conviction may be unlikely, but having sex with someone that is drunk actually is illegal, and can result in minor rape charges.

Well, as a matter of personal etiquette, you probably should not make a habit of sleeping with drunks in the first place.

That said, consider the normal bar/party situation wherein both parties have usually consumed alcohol. To begin with, neither party is capable of identifying who is capable of giving consent, and secondly - and most pertinantly - who raped whom in that situation?

Also, as far as I understand the law in New York, you are always in the clear if you did not get the other party drunk yourself. (With the caveat that they are not passed out at the time).

I am sure that Cat can come up with some on point case law that will debunk this myth. He's pretty damn good at that kind of thing.

Id be more concerned about the 68 murderers who will strike again than the 43 pedophiles.

Tell that one to a child, see if they share your concern as much.

I'm curious to wether Aldranin thinks his death penalty for pedophiles is there to prevent more children from being molested or to punish the perpetrator.

The vast majority of pedophiles are not the creepy weirdo kidnapper types, but are in fact on the surface normal heterosexual men.

If there was a virtually foolproof method of curing pedophilia would you still demand their deaths? Also people seem ready through a label like 'evil' around, even when talking about people who they admit can't help themselves.

(My personal opinion is that if psychologists think that a pedophile is even remotely likely to re-offend they should stay in a mental hospital until they are cured).

Funny how ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand.
Yeah, it is.

I could explain exactly how I do happen to have a fair amount of expertise on the subject, but such claims to authority are unprovable and shouldn't give my statements any credence anyway.

But, you'll go ahead and insinuate that you are an authority on the subject, anyway, because you understand that people will assume that means you do.

Instead, I'll cite to some real experts on child abuse, sexual predators, and rape -- Andrew Vachss and Alice Vachss.

Andrew Vachss—Credentials (http://www.vachss.com/vachss/credentials.html)
Alice Vachss (http://www.evawinc.com/vachss.html)

Here Mr. Vachss describes real, concrete solutions to the threat of sexual predators.

If We Really Want To Keep Our Children Safe … (http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9905_a.html)
How to Handle Sexual Predators (http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9308_a.html)
Pragmatically Impotent (http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9207_a.html)
Today's Victim Could Be Tomorrow's Predator (http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9006_a.html)

You will find that Mr. Vachss outdoes you in his disgust for child molestors. But he separates false rhetoric with hard solutions based on his experience.

Because no expert ever says that the death penalty is a good idea for rapists. :rolleyes:

Don't use other people to support your argument; it makes it seem like you can't do so yourself. Experts exist on both sides of the coin equally, so to point out a few that agree with you and loosely imply that their points are more valid than anyone else's is ridiculous.


2. Your alleged solution shows an ignorance of the system -- not to mention a cavalier attitude towards justice. FYI, juries in capital cases already are death-qualified.

1.) My "alleged solution" was not "alleged," as I actually did post that solution. It's not under discussion. That said, the solution was mainly sarcastic, and I am well aware that such a solution would not be allowed, nor could it work practically. But I'm sure you knew that.

2.) FYI, juries in all cases are picked jointly by the prosecution and the defense, at least in the United States. Thus, they are not all necessarily "death-qualified." Also, if they were "death-qualified," you just discredited your own point, because no "death-qualified" juror would have any problem killing a child molestor.



You are perpetuating rape myths that are dangerous and make the problem worse.

All Rape Is 'Real' Rape (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss.html)
The Charge of Rape, the Force of Myth (http://www.vachss.com/guest_dispatches/alice_vachss2.html)
Top Lawyer Says Juries Fail on Rape (http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/top_lawyer.html)



Um. You specifically said that you proposal didn't apply to the first scenario. :rolleyes:

Ummm, you can't read. :rolleyes:

I said that the drunk scenario doesn't apply, not the party rape scenario. Nice try.

Again, isn't it rather more important and effective to catch and convict as many child molesters as we can than to carry out your sick little fantasies about how to punish them?

Because doing both is obviously impossible.

14 people have weighed in for the paedophiles so far, does make you wonder...

14 people have weighed in for the paedophiles so far, makes you wonder...

Excuse me?

Not being bloodthirsty and ignorant makes one pro-pedophile?

I suppose those that wrote the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment were pro-pedophile as well.

Actually supporting measure that would protect our children rather than just satisfy your little fantasies is pro-pedophile?

I've actually helped prosecute pedophiles. WTF have you done?

Well, as a matter of personal etiquette, you probably should not make a habit of sleeping with drunks in the first place.

That said, consider the normal bar/party situation wherein both parties have usually consumed alcohol. To begin with, neither party is capable of identifying who is capable of giving consent, and secondly - and most pertinantly - who raped whom in that situation?

The man raped the woman, of course. :rolleyes:

Also, as far as I understand the law in New York, you are always in the clear if you did not get the other party drunk yourself. (With the caveat that they are not passed out at the time).

I'm not familiar with New York's laws on this, specifically.

Tell that one to a child, see if they share your concern as much.

Whats the matter, cant handle having your theory thoroughly trounced? You said that pedophiles are incurable, yet the statistics from the department of justice proved you wrong. You said they had a very high recidivism rate, yet it was proven that they have a lower recidivism rate than other criminals. So, you switch to an emotional appeal once your logic is destroyed? I think you can do better than that. Or maybe not.

The Liberated Ones']I'm curious to wether Aldranin thinks his death penalty for pedophiles is there to prevent more children from being molested or to punish the perpetrator.

Both; more the former than the latter, but both.

The Liberated Ones']The vast majority of pedophiles are not the creepy weirdo kidnapper types, but are in fact on the surface normal heterosexual men.

(My personal opinion is that if psychologists think that a pedophile is even remotely likely to re-offend they should stay in a mental hospital until they are cured).

Anyone else find anything ironic about these two statements being made in the same post?

The Liberated Ones']If there was a virtually foolproof method of curing pedophilia would you still demand their deaths? Also people seem ready through a label like 'evil' around, even when talking about people who they admit can't help themselves.

If there were a virtually foolproof method of making a murderer completely safe for society, would you want them freed? Hell no, or at least I hope you wouldn't; why? Because the murderer's victim didn't get a second chance, and thus neither should the murderer.

taking the life of another human being is not an acceptable option - ever! Ever heard of a fellow by the name of Jesus Christ?

I've actually helped prosecute pedophiles. WTF have you done?

What happened to keeping your credentials to yourself? It would so seem that you have great form, as well.

The man raped the woman, of course. :rolleyes:

What if he lodges the complaint first? I am telling you, you haven't thought this through. The idea that men are being wholesale coralled into the pen. because a drunk woman "changed her mind" is a myth.

Anyone who exercises a ounce of common sense and responsibility will never run afoul of the date rape laws. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

And even if some maverick DA decided to persue a case in these circumstances I cannot imagine obtaining a sustainable conviction.


I'm not familiar with New York's laws on this, specifically.

Actually, as you are an Ohio resident, I suggest you go to the annotated statutes for your home state. I imagine if you read them, you will be surprised when you find you cannot be convicted just because you merely slept with a drunk woman "that changed her mind."

But, you'll go ahead and insinuate that you are an authority on the subject, anyway, because you understand that people will assume that means you do.

Because no expert ever says that the death penalty is a good idea for rapists. :rolleyes:

Don't use other people to support your argument; it makes it seem like you can't do so yourself. Experts exist on both sides of the coin equally, so to point out a few that agree with you and loosely imply that their points are more valid than anyone else's is ridiculous.

Yes, it is so much better to just post your own ignorant rants than to actually consider an informed opinion. :rolleyes:

1.) My "alleged solution" was not "alleged," as I actually did post that solution. It's not under discussion. That said, the solution was mainly sarcastic, and I am well aware that such a solution would not be allowed, nor could it work practically. But I'm sure you knew that.

2.) FYI, juries in all cases are picked jointly by the prosecution and the defense, at least in the United States. Thus, they are not all necessarily "death-qualified." Also, if they were "death-qualified," you just discredited your own point, because no "death-qualified" juror would have any problem killing a child molestor.

You really have no clue. I'm rather aware of how juries are selected in the United States. It varies by jurisdiction, but generally -- no, they aren't "picked" by the prosecution and the defense. Rather there is a jury pool, from which a panel is selected at random. Both the prosecution and the defense can ask that certain jurors be removed for cause and have a limited number of peremptory challenges. The judge may also remove any juror for cause.

Any juror that is opposed to the death penalty or uncertain about his/her ability to impose the death penalty can be removed for cause. Contrary to you assertion, juries may be and are "death-qualified" in capital cases. That does not mean, however, that juries are not less willing to convict rapists and child molestors if they think the punishment may be death. That is rather well-established by social science. (But I'm not supposed to cite experts. :rolleyes: )


Ummm, you can't read. :rolleyes:

I said that the drunk scenario doesn't apply, not the party rape scenario. Nice try.

Fine. Claim whatever distinction you want. Are you know advocating the death penalty for all rape cases?

How are you drawing the line between those rapes you would impose death on and those you would not?

Because doing both is obviously impossible.

Actually, I explained quite clearly why trying to impose excessive penalties in the pursuit of your bloodlust is counter-productive to catching and convicting increased numbers.

So, yes, your proposals are mutually exclusive from real changes that would really help stop sexual predators.

Whats the matter, cant handle having your theory thoroughly trounced? You said that pedophiles are incurable, yet the statistics from the department of justice proved you wrong. You said they had a very high recidivism rate, yet it was proven that they have a lower recidivism rate than other criminals. So, you switch to an emotional appeal once your logic is destroyed? I think you can do better than that. Or maybe not.

How exactly was their theory trounced in the least by that petty statement that completely ignores how the victim feels about the situation? Besides, I'm arguing the logical point of view here - what with the bloodstains on the wall and the sponge dampened for use - so direct your petty arguments on logic at me. Besides, I already explained why your point was retarded, so pretending that it still has merit in this debate just makes you look like a jack-ass.

What happened to keeping your credentials to yourself? It would so seem that you have great form, as well.

Two different contexts, buckaroo.

But I suppose that the nuances escaped you.

You've already demonstrated your ignorance of the subject matter and your unwillingness to be informed.

Why should I be suprised that you endorse the notion that anyone that disagrees with you is pro-pedophile?

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]Excuse me?
Not being bloodthirsty and ignorant makes one pro-pedophile?

If you want to keep them alive it does.
What possible use are they?

I suppose those that wrote the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment were pro-pedophile as well.

A paedophile should not be allowed to even come under the bill of rights, once they harm a child, their rights should be waived for good, fuck em!

Actually supporting measure that would protect our children rather than just satisfy your little fantasies is pro-pedophile?

Keeping paedophile alive - chance of more kids being hurt in future.
Shooting paedophile dead - no chance of more kids being hurt in future.
If you cant work that one out... :rolleyes:

I've actually helped prosecute pedophiles. WTF have you done?

Alerted people to the presence and exact house of a paedophile living in my neigborhood, and pointed him out. The parol system in their infinate wisdom, placed him two blocks from a pre - school, and one street away from a former victim.

Yes, it is so much better to just post your own ignorant rants than to actually consider an informed opinion. :rolleyes:
It is when the informed opinions go both ways. This is not a situation where all the experts lean one way, and thus bringing up the opinions of two is petty and pointless.

You really have no clue. I'm rather aware of how juries are selected in the United States. It varies by jurisdiction, but generally -- no, they aren't "picked" by the prosecution and the defense. Rather there is a jury pool, from which a panel is selected at random. Both the prosecution and the defense can ask that certain jurors be removed for cause and have a limited number of peremptory challenges. The judge may also remove any juror for cause.

Juror elimination is effectually picking the jury, and is exactly what I was referring to.

Any juror that is opposed to the death penalty or uncertain about his/her ability to impose the death penalty can be removed for cause. Contrary to you assertion, juries may be and are "death-qualified" in capital cases. That does not mean, however, that juries are not less willing to convict rapists and child molestors if they think the punishment may be death. That is rather well-established by social science. (But I'm not supposed to cite experts. :rolleyes: )

Contrary to your insinuation, jurors don't always fess up to being against the death penalty, obviously. Human beings have this uncanny ability to lie, or, at the very least, exclude details that are contrary to their goal.



Fine. Claim whatever distinction you want. Are you know advocating the death penalty for all rape cases?

How are you drawing the line between those rapes you would impose death on and those you would not?

Haha, very easily. I wish judges would call me every time they had to decide sentencing.

Actually, I explained quite clearly why trying to impose excessive penalties in the pursuit of your bloodlust is counter-productive to catching and convicting increased numbers.

So, yes, your proposals are mutually exclusive from real changes that would really help stop sexual predators.

Yeah, you're right; because people on your side of the fence didn't post a statistic here twenty minutes ago that completely destroys any reason for not going ahead and offing the criminal. :rolleyes:

Whats the matter, cant handle having your theory thoroughly trounced? You said that pedophiles are incurable, yet the statistics from the department of justice proved you wrong. You said they had a very high recidivism rate, yet it was proven that they have a lower recidivism rate than other criminals. So, you switch to an emotional appeal once your logic is destroyed? I think you can do better than that. Or maybe not.

They are incurable, I couldnt give two fucks for your stats either, I have little faith in our present justice system, so why would I believe their stats?
I wouldnt be that surprised if the stats were influenced by high ranking paedophiles in the Justice system.
One thing has been agreed apon, is that paedophiles are usually very intelligent, so it would make sense to find alot more in higher positions of society than lower.

Once a paedy, always a paedy.
You dont seem to know much about these walking horrors.

[QUOTE]

If you want to keep them alive it does.
What possible use are they?



A paedophile should not be allowed to even come under the bill of rights, once they harm a child, their rights should be waived for good, fuck em!



Keeping paedophile alive - chance of more kids being hurt in future.
Shooting paedophile dead - no chance of more kids being hurt in future.
If you cant work that one out... :rolleyes:



Alerted people to the presence and exact house of a paedophile living in my neigborhood, and pointed him out. The parol system in their infinate wisdom, placed him two blocks from a pre - school, and one street away from a former victim.

Just for context, I am not necessarily opposed to the death penalty. I do however believe that such sweeping generalizations as "all paedophiles should be put to death" is counter productive and stupid.

To begin with you should appreciate that - as with all things - it represents a spectrum of behaviours. Some which arguably do deserve the death penalty, others which don't. Also, there has never been enough debate about what actually constitutes a paedophile. Are they all mentally ill? Or are just some of them mentally ill? What really is a pervert anyway? (And by no means am I herein suggesting that any form paedophillic behaviour is socially acceptable).

I just don't think that this "all must perish" approach is productive. You have to asses each on a case by case basis, and then decide upon the appropriate course of action. Arguably some of them do indeed merit the death penalty, however, at the same time some so-called sex-offenders are probably easily rehabilitated because of the minor nature of their offence, and therefore should be allowed to resume normal lives as soon as they have paid their "debt to society".

Then again I live in a country where it seems better to install $2000 worth of airbags in a car than spend $50 on a four point restraint system, so there is bugger all chance of sensible thought anyway.

They are incurable, I couldnt give two fucks for your stats either, I have little faith in our present justice system, so why would I believe their stats?
I wouldnt be that surprised if the stats were influenced by high ranking paedophiles in the Justice system.
One thing has been agreed apon, is that paedophiles are usually very intelligent, so it would make sense to find alot more in higher positions of society than lower.

Once a paedy, always a paedy.
You dont seem to know much about these walking horrors.

I obviously know quite a bit more than you. You pretend to know so much yet cant handle the fact that all statistics available and every expert in the field disagrees with you. One would have to wonder where your knowledge comes from that it is so vastly superior to the accumulated knoweldge of those who actually work in this field.

[QUOTE=Lacadaemon][QUOTE=Ugochocka]
Just for context, I am not necessarily opposed to the death penalty. I do however believe that such sweeping generalizations as "all paedophiles should be put to death" is counter productive and stupid.

How is it counter productive?
Your getting rid of the paedys!

To begin with you should appreciate that - as with all things - it represents a spectrum of behaviours. Some which arguably do deserve the death penalty, others which don't. Also, there has never been enough debate about what actually constitutes a paedophile. Are they all mentally ill? Or are just some of them mentally ill?

If their not mentally ill, then they are evil, so kill them, so they can't spread more evil.
A paedophile not only ruins a child for life, he can also create more, the child grows up and becomes one himself.
If their mentally ill, then you would be doing them and society a favour.

What really is a pervert anyway?

Someone- who- sexually- assaults- someone.


however, at the same time some so-called sex-offenders are probably easily rehabilitated because of the minor nature of their offence, and therefore should be allowed to resume normal lives as soon as they have paid their "debt to society".

What do you call minor?

Actually, that is completely incorrect. The recidivism rate of pedophiles was found to be 43%, compared with 68% for the general inmate population. So, in reality pedophiles are less likely to reoffend than murderers, robbers, drug dealers, and the rest of the prison population. If you could not cure these people then the recidivism rate would approach 100%, it would not be lower than the recidivism rate of the general inmate population.

I agree with you that killing them all isn't the answer. However, I do want to point out that recidivism rates are based not on whether people offend again, but rather on whether they get caught again. And pedophiles generally DO offend again.

But, it is also important to note that not all sex offenders are pedophiles.

Personally, I do not support the "kill 'em all" philosophy. These ARE real people, and every case is unique. I would say I support medicinal castration, but the problem with that is that you can molest/sexually assault somebody without an erection. That's not to say it isn't a good option, just that it won't necessarily prevent everyone from re-offending.

So...how do you balance appropriate punishment for a crime and keeping society safe with the right of a person to serve their time and then be allowed to re-enter society? It's a question that I struggle with.

The best solution I've come up with so far is to keep the offender locked up until the victim matures (unless the victim is already an adult), and then lock them in a room together for a few hours....offender tied to a chair, victim armed with some chain, brass knuckes, tin snips, and some pliers. But that's just in my perfect universe, and not to say it would be appropriate in the real world.

Anyone else find anything ironic about these two statements being made in the same post?I don't understand what you found ironic?

I was merely pointing out that the characterization of paedophiles as drooling psychos (mild hyperbole) is not particularly accurate. A child is much more likely to be abused by friendly Uncle John, then by a filth covered hobo with a switch-blade.

My second paragraph was a description of how I believe paedophiles should be treated once convicted. I'd class them as dangerous mentally ill people, who need treatment and to be kept away from society until they are cured.

If there were a virtually foolproof method of making a murderer completely safe for society, would you want them freed? Hell no, or at least I hope you wouldn't; why? Because the murderer's victim didn't get a second chance, and thus neither should the murderer.If that were possible I would let them be free. If this person is no longer a murderer and they have accepted that what they did was wrong, then sure they should be free.

I'd like to think that with the right treatments punishment would become as outdated a concept as duels to the death over matters of honour.

Criminals should have to help make up for their crimes, not suffer so we feel better.

I obviously know quite a bit more than you.
You pretend to know so much yet cant handle the fact that all statistics available and every expert in the field disagrees with you. One would have to wonder where your knowledge comes from that it is so vastly superior to the accumulated knoweldge of those who actually work in this field.

If all your great experts know so much, then why do they think paedophiles can change, to be not paedophiles?
Do they actually have proof of molesters never reoffending until they die?
My knowlege comes from personal experience asshole.

edited.

This is a very emotionally charged topic for a lot of people. For survivors, and for people who work in sex offender treatment. When you treat sex offenders, you have to believe that what you're doing can be effective...otherwise, why would you do it? For survivors, this is a topic filled with incalculable pain, anger, frustration, trauma. Let's everyone try not to lash out too much, can we please?

So, wild guess...hippie, do you work in sex offender treatment?

Sounds like it, thanks to people like him, these paedophiles are released supposedly 'cured' or 'under watch' back into the community, way to go idiot.

If their not mentally ill, then they are evil, so kill them, so they can't spread more evil.
A paedophile not only ruins a child for life, he can also create more, the child grows up and becomes one himself.
If their mentally ill, then you would be doing them and society a favour.

et's say an individual is mentally ill, maybe they can be cured?

And even if they aren't, what happens if evidence is later found that they were innocent, you get to apologise to their corpse? (I guess that's also one of the reasons why I don't support the death penalty).

What do you call minor?

One time when I was 21 I was in a nightclub. You had to be 18 to get in so I thought nothing of chatting up a girl I met there. I later found out that she was 15 so I'm very glad I didn't end up sleeping with her. If I had, under your laws I could quite well be executed. Now if I had unknowingly (no defence from the law) sexually penetrated a minor I would have felt extremely guilty, and regretted it for the rest of my life... however I really don't think I would have deserved to die.

Ugo, that is not fair. If he/she is in that field...which we do not know...then he/she is not responsible for offenders being released back into society. That's not how sex offender treatment works.

Treatment is done because they ARE going to be released back into society, so it's best to try to keep them from re-offending once the inevitable happens.

ps - and it's a very hard and thankless job, too.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Lacadaemon]

How is it counter productive?
Your getting rid of the paedys!



If their not mentally ill, then they are evil, so kill them, so they can't spread more evil.
A paedophile not only ruins a child for life, he can also create more, the child grows up and becomes one himself.
If their mentally ill, then you would be doing them and society a favour.



Someone- who- sexually- assaults- someone.




What do you call minor?


Well, as I obliquely suggested before, what is commonly classified as paedophillia encompasses an entire range of behaviour. It is entirely possible that under a regime of strict liablilty someone who accidently exposes their gentialia to a minor may indeed fall under the rubric of "paedy". I don't believe however, that they should be put to death for that; nor - for that matter - do I believe that they are not productive members of society. On the other hand, there does exist a class of individuals that cannot control an irrestible compulsion to anally rape young children. Some debate needs to occur before sweeping statements about how to treat such individuals can be made.

For example, you define a pervert as someone who is "someone who sexually assualts someone". Notwithstanding, you do so without ever defining what "sexually" and "assualts" ever mean. Arguably yelling "you ****" at a woman would make you a pervert under the widest intepretations of those terms. Indeed, given your preoccupation with protecting children, under a literal definition you could well have some "paedy" tendencies yourself. Should we get rid of you?

I suggest that before you advocate this "death for all" policy, you should at least give a more concrete definition of the types of behaviour you believe merit the death penalty.

Then again, you probably think that airbags in cars are a great idea.

I agree with you that killing them all isn't the answer. However, I do want to point out that recidivism rates are based not on whether people offend again, but rather on whether they get caught again. And pedophiles generally DO offend again.

No, the statistics seem to say that they do not. Of course they are based on how many get caught again, but so are the statistics for recidivism for everyone else, therefore they are on an even playing field and the fact remains that it is less likely that a sex offender will reoffend after being released than that another released criminal will. Also, as treatments improve this number will continue decreasing.

But, it is also important to note that not all sex offenders are pedophiles.

Ah, someone who actually recognizes the problem with current research and statistics! I didnt think anyone else would and was not going to get into it. But yes, you are correct, not only are not all sex offenders pedophiles but all people who molest children are not pedophiles either. In fact, the little statistics we do have that differentiate between the two categories show that the vast majority of those who molest children are not pedophiles though the pedophiles that do tend to have more victims.

So...how do you balance appropriate punishment for a crime and keeping society safe with the right of a person to serve their time and then be allowed to re-enter society? It's a question that I struggle with.


First, you build an adequate program to transition these people back into the real world. A program that involves free, mandatory psychological services, job placement help, and a graduated approach to removing supervision. Then, you eliminate the Megan's laws that are making it impossible for these people to reintegrate themselves into society. These people need the tools to control their lusts (which psychologists can provide them), the desire to do so (that having a good job and a lot of hope for the future and not wanting to lose it all provides), and the ability to put these things behind them and become normal people (which the lack of scarlet letter laws will help with).

A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, much as a heterosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to someone of the opposite sex. This is different from, say, a 12 year old boy who was molested himself, and then molests a younger kid because his boundaries are all screwed up. The 12 year old boy might experience a consequence or grow out of his behavior, whereas the pedophile will always have that attraction.

Hippie, yes I do understand it, as I am in that field too. But I think my view of it is a little less optimistic than yours. That's ok, I hope you're the one who is right. But my experience has not been as rosy as the statistics that you have quoted.

Personally, I think one of the things they learn in treatment is how not to get caught again. They're wily, that's for sure.

[QUOTE='[NS]The Liberated Ones']et's say an individual is mentally ill, maybe they can be cured?

Not worth it, theres probably even less chance of a mentally ill paedophile being cured of his passions, than a sane paedohile.

And even if they aren't, what happens if evidence is later found that they were innocent, you get to apologise to their corpse? (I guess that's also one of the reasons why I don't support the death penalty).

I dont stand on Killing some guy just on a wild accusation, people in the past that have suffered this ignominity, have sometimes killed themselves from the false accusation.
An accusation isnt enough, there must be solid, and undeniable proof.




One time when I was 21 I was in a nightclub. You had to be 18 to get in so I thought nothing of chatting up a girl I met there. I later found out that she was 15 so I'm very glad I didn't end up sleeping with her. If I had, under your laws I could quite well be executed. Now if I had unknowingly (no defence from the law) sexually penetrated a minor I would have felt extremely guilty, and regretted it for the rest of my life... however I really don't think I would have deserved to die.

Thats totally different, your not the first guy and not the last whos been fooled by a cute bit of fluff in a nightclub, hell, I nearly had sex with a fourteen year old girl I picked up in a night club when I was twenty, me drunk, she very mature looking, and done up, I was saved by her friend who told me her real age luckily.

By the way, let me just say that, in saying sexual predators, I'm not referring to, and neither is the quote, the guy that fucks the drunk chick at a party who says she was raped the next day because she was too wasted to make a good decision. That's not being a sexual predator, that's getting fucked, especially since 99.9% of the time, the person being accused in such a case was just as drunk as the person doing the accusing. I'm talking about the screwy Dad that molests his daughter's friend, or the guy that slips the party-girl Mexican valium.
Hope your'e never is the position of being wasted at a party and wake up the next day with a bleeding ass...:rolleyes:

I'll agree there is a fine line between date-rape and a girl having a case of "morning after remorse" - but having sex with someone who is no state to give consent is rape. Why do you think it's illegal to have sex with people below a certain age? Because they don't have the mentality to legally consent. Or, going by your logic, is it OK to rape mentally disabled people because they can't say no?

If all your great experts know so much, then why do they think paedophiles can change, to be not paedophiles?

They do not. No one has ever successfully changed their sexual orientation, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or pedosexual. But people can choose not to reoffend, which is the goal of sex offender treatment. Think about it like alcoholism. Although there are many differences between alcoholism and pedophilia and I dont intend to compare the two in other areas, they share a common characteristic. A person who is an alcoholic is an alcoholic for the rest of their lives. That does not mean that they will drink alcohol for the rest of their lives, but it does mean that they will always have that condition for the rest of their lives. An alcoholic can recover and never drink alcohol again. The same applies to a pedophile.


Do they actually have proof of molesters never reoffending until they die?


Sure, there are plenty of case studies available. In fact, most pedophiles who are released will never reoffend. The statistics alone show you that fact. If all molesters reoffend upon release like you claim then the statistics would be approaching a 100% recidivism rate. You would expect to see statistics that at least go beyond what you get from the general prison population. But you do not. What you get is information proving that sexual offenders are less likely to reoffend than other criminals.


My knowlege comes from personal experience asshole.

Personal experience is inherently unreliable. It often leads to wrong conclusions. People make the mistake of assuming that since something happened to them a certain way that is how it happens to all people. This is simply untrue. That is why you need statistics, because there is more out there than just what you came into contact with.

Ugo, that is not fair. If he/she is in that field...which we do not know...then he/she is not responsible for offenders being released back into society. That's not how sex offender treatment works.
Treatment is done because they ARE going to be released back into society, so it's best to try to keep them from re-offending once the inevitable happens.
ps - and it's a very hard and thankless job, too.

Of course it is, because its a pointless and futile exercise, his stats also, are only based on paedophiles caught.
Just give them a lead bullet to eat, save everyone alot of trouble.

Of course it is, because its a pointless and futile exercise, his stats also, are only based on paedophiles caught.


The stats on the rest of the prison population are also based only on criminals who are caught. Yet we still see a vast disparity between the recidivism rate of sex offenders and that of other criminals. The recidivism rate of sex offenders is much lower.

The problem with statistics, though, is how we come by them. We cannot accurately judge recidivism rates in sex offenders - because, who are we going to ask? The offender? If he has re-offended, he is most certainly not going to admit that to a researcher. So then who do we ask...the victims? How do we find them? All we have left is outcome data from programs, which need to show positive outcomes in order to stay afloat, and justice statistics, which only measure convictions.

Now. We know that most sexual predators have many, many victims before they ever get caught. Those victims are not reflected in statistics. So when I look at statistics that say, "there is a _% recidivism rate for sex offenders," I am very skeptical. I think it is fair to suggest that offenders can learn to change their behavior, but statistics most certainly do not constitute "fact" or "proof" of anything. All they can tell us is the percentage of people who have gotten caught - very different from the percentage who have re-offended.

edited to add: it is much easier to not get caught molesting a little kid than it is to not get caught robbing a convenience store. Unlike with most crimes, when a sex offense is committed there's a good likelihood that nobody will ever know it happened besides the victim and the offender.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread, but it has caused me to stay up way past my bedtime. Night, all.

The problem with statistics, though, is how we come by them. We cannot accurately judge recidivism rates in sex offenders - because, who are we going to ask? The offender? If he has re-offended, he is most certainly not going to admit that to a researcher. So then who do we ask...the victims? How do we find them? All we have left is outcome data from programs, which need to show positive outcomes in order to stay afloat, and justice statistics, which only measure convictions.

Now. We know that most sexual predators have many, many victims before they ever get caught. Those victims are not reflected in statistics. So when I look at statistics that say, "there is a _% recidivism rate for sex offenders," I am very skeptical. I think it is fair to suggest that offenders can learn to change their behavior, but statistics most certainly do not constitute "fact" or "proof" of anything. All they can tell us is the percentage of people who have gotten caught - very different from the percentage who have re-offended.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread, but it has caused me to stay up way past my bedtime. Night, all.


If we were using the statistics on their own, you would have a point. But we are not, we are comparing them to statistics from another sample that suffers from the same accuracy problems. When we do so, we find there is a statistically significant difference between the two samples. Not only a statistically significant difference, but a vast difference. By its self the number may not mean a lot, but it is useful as a comparison with other groups the data for which suffer from the same constraints. The conclusion remains undeniable. It is much easier to rehabilitate a sex offender than to rehabilitate any other type of criminal.

i live like in a huge city and when sexual predators are relased back in society , in my city they try to avoid the police and usally try to do the crime again. they end up gettgin caught sent to jail then released for good behavior. and the cycle goes on. I voted dont care. one persons suffering to many in a community

[QUOTE=Lacadaemon][QUOTE=Ugochocka][QUOTE]
Well, as I obliquely suggested before, what is commonly classified as paedophillia encompasses an entire range of behaviour.

Known regardless as, paedophilia.

It is entirely possible that under a regime of strict liablilty someone who accidently exposes their gentialia to a minor may indeed fall under the rubric of "paedy".

Accidently?


I don't believe however, that they should be put to death for that; nor - for that matter - do I believe that they are not productive members of society. On the other hand, there does exist a class of individuals that cannot control an irrestible compulsion to anally rape young children. Some debate needs to occur before sweeping statements about how to treat such individuals can be made.

Um what debate? We know, and have known for quite a while, that :

a class of individuals that cannot control an irrestible compulsion to anally rape young children

is way too far gone to fix.



For example, you define a pervert as someone who is "someone who sexually assualts someone". Notwithstanding, you do so without ever defining what "sexually" and "assualts" ever mean.

Here in this context, having sex with a kid or young teenager, and you the perpetrator been at least 18.



Arguably yelling "you ****" at a woman would make you a pervert under the widest intepretations of those terms.

No it would just make you - crass/rude/an idiot.

Indeed, given your preoccupation with protecting children, under a literal definition you could well have some "paedy" tendencies yourself. Should we get rid of you?

If what you call my simply caring, as 'preoccupation' then its a preoccupation everyone should have, which they basically do anyway, only a paedophile sees kids as something else.
Saying I have paedy tendencies because I care and worry about kids being hurt by paedys, is pretty twisted man to say the least, just the thought makes me feel grosed out.

I suggest that before you advocate this "death for all" policy, you should at least give a more concrete definition of the types of behaviour you believe merit the death penalty.

To make it simple for you, anyone who knowingly has sex with a minor, under the legal limit.

It gets even crazier when kids start falsely accusing random people of molesting them, leading to witch hunts that ruin peoples' lives. That used to be a problem in the 80s. If the media succeeds in pushing that "omfg we're all surrounded by bloodthirsty pedophiles!" line it'll probably start happening again.

The stats on the rest of the prison population are also based only on criminals who are caught. Yet we still see a vast disparity between the recidivism rate of sex offenders and that of other criminals. The recidivism rate of sex offenders is much lower.

More likey the time it takes them to reoffend is longer, because they would have to be alot more cunning than the average criminal.

I'd have them killed, out behind the courtbuilding, 10 minutes after trial. Firing Squad.

I, too, was watching this. Very disturbing and no I do not give a shit about this, I always have hated sex freaks(as I call them), one of the worst criminals IMO.

Thanks,
The Smelly Nation

To make it simple for you, anyone who knowingly has sex with a minor, under the legal limit.

Well you have already restricted the definition of paedophillia considerably then. Many people who are already considered paedophiles do not fall under that definition. Nevertheless it is one I think we can agree upon: Almost.

I would exempt minors who knowingly have sex with minors. There are also some grey areas around the the age of majority.

Those who have sex with prepubescents knowingly, and are unable to control themselves should serve life sentences: at the very least.

I just don't think these blanket statements serve any purpose, however, and everything should be a case by case assesment.

Well you have already restricted the definition of paedophillia considerably then. Many people who are already considered paedophiles do not fall under that definition. Nevertheless it is one I think we can agree upon: Almost.

[QUOTE]I would exempt minors who knowingly have sex with minors. There are also some grey areas around the the age of majority.

Yeah thats just doctors and nurses shit, nearly every kid( me included) did that.

Those who have sex with prepubescents knowingly, and are unable to control themselves should serve life sentences: at the very least.

Shoot them.


I just don't think these blanket statements serve any purpose, however, and everything should be a case by case assesment.

I agree case by case, but still shot.

I'd have them killed, out behind the courtbuilding, 10 minutes after trial. Firing Squad.

Too long, on the steps of the courthouse, and bodies kicked down to rot in the gutter.

How exactly was their theory trounced in the least by that petty statement that completely ignores how the victim feels about the situation?

You want to hear how the victim feels about the situation?

Fine. I'm one of them. And I agree with Cat-Tribe and LazyHippies.

I have this funny feeling that you don't know what it's like to be sexually assaulted or molested. I don't exactly feel like describing my experiences in detail, but one of the most overwhelming things about it is the feeling that you have been made less than human, that you're no longer a person but an object to be used. It's incredibly dehumanizing. It's horrible.

If I have learned one thing from what happened to me, it's that I will respect the value of all people, even the ones who do unforgivable things. I will never seek to deprive another person of their humanity, no matter how much it may feel viscerally like they "deserve" it. Revenge is not justice and never will be.

Please don't claim to speak for victims until you've been one (which I earnestly hope you never will be).

Whats the matter, cant handle having your theory thoroughly trounced? You said that pedophiles are incurable, yet the statistics from the department of justice proved you wrong. You said they had a very high recidivism rate, yet it was proven that they have a lower recidivism rate than other criminals. So, you switch to an emotional appeal once your logic is destroyed? I think you can do better than that. Or maybe not.

Pedophiles are incurable. Perhaps I'll do a better job of proving it.

Article: Profile of A Serial Child Molester
Child Abuse & Recovery - Profile of A Serial Child Molester
Author: Susan Maree Jeavons
Published on: April 26, 2000
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/3784/33399

"A child is sexually abused every four seconds. One of every 3 girls and one of every 4 boys is sexually abused by age 18. 90% of sexually abused children know and trust the perpetrator.
The first priority of pedophiles is having sex with children. Pedophilia is generally incurable. Death is the only cure for stopping most pedophiles from sexually abusing children. Light sentences often result in abusers repeating their crimes. The average pedophile sexually abuses a minimum of 260 victims during his or her lifetime - without ever getting caught. Of the few pedophiles who are imprisoned, over 90% are arrested for the same offense after their release from prison."

The text of this article appeared in the April 25 issue of America magazine.
"All child molesters are pedophiles and all pedophiles are incurable. They are dangerous men who abuse scores of minors. There is no hope for them."

"As with all distortions, there is some truth to these statements. There are child molesters who are pedophiles, that is, they are sexually attracted to prepubescent minors, and some molest scores of minors. These high-profile, notorious abusers, who capture public attention, are usually resistant to psychological treatment. One does not speak of trying to change or "cure" their sexual attraction to minors. While some pedophiles can be helped to control their sexual desires, many cannot. Since these persons pose an ongoing threat to society, after serving an appropriate prison term, they ought to live in a kind of lifelong parole setting with absolutely no unsupervised contact with minors."

The Death Penalty for Pedophiles By Tom Sawyer
Link:http://uschatter.com/index.php?p=243

Here's a small part of Sawyer's article.
"This leads me to ask, what in the hell was this human turd doing outside of a jail? Pedophilia cannot be cured. Chances are by the time they are actually tried for a crime they have had more than one victim. I know this from experience." The rest is in the link above.

CHILD MOLESTERS AND CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect19.htm

Here's a small part from the above link.
PEDOPHILES have peculiar characteristics. Our fourth category, Pedophilia, is regarded as an incurable condition in which the preferred sexual object (or fetish) is a child, but it also involves some obsessive-compulsive characteristics similar to the fantasy-driven cycles of serial killers.
The rest is in the link.

Part of a article from the Washington Post, by Hanna Rosin.
"Connors, who has 25 years of experience treating offenders as the former head of both St. Luke Institute in Silver Spring and Southdown, shares this clinicians' fine-tuning perspective. True pedophiles are incurable, he said, because psychiatry still has not found a reliable way to correct a perverted fantasy life."

"Statistics show that 95% of the time, anyone who molests a child will likely do it again,"declared an Indiana senator proposing community notification laws for former sex offenders.

"The only molesters who can be considered permanently cured are those who have been surgically castrated," Ann Landers once wrote.

Here's a fine piece by Prof. Hamilton
From The Long and Difficult Road to Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse:
A Tale of Three States, and How They Revised Their Statutes
By MARCI HAMILTON hamilton02@aol.com
Thursday, May. 19, 2005

"Over the last decade, concern about childhood sexual abuse has grown."

"Megan's Laws -- which put convicted sex offenders on public registers, so that parents can know if a neighbor has a record -- have become popular. Child abuse reporting statutes that mandate that certain professionals contact the state with knowledge of child abuse have also been passed."

"And of course - in the most high-profile development - suits against clergy and religious institutions for childhood sexual abuse have been filed, and their filing has sent shock waves through the Catholic Church and (as I will discuss below) other religious institutions."

"Even the press - which was unforgivably lax in covering this issue -- is starting to cover children's issues as though they are an important part of public policy."

"What are the reasons for this trend? One is that experience has shown that pedophiles are incurable. It is a sexual predisposition, not a treatable psychological condition."

"Another is that society has come to recognize that children have a great deal of trouble telling others about their victimization, and that, later in life, they suffer serious ill-effects from abuse. The victim pays for life, and society pays in lost capacities and contributions."

"It is crucial that the United States find ways to protect children from these predators, and to assist those whom its legal system has let down over the years."

"Three states -- Florida, Ohio, and California -- are currently undergoing transformations in their statutory approaches to childhood sexual abuse. In this column, I will examine exactly what is happening on the ground in each of those states."

"Unfortunately, my conclusion is that when religious entities enter the legislative mix, all too often the result is bad for childhood sex abuse victims -- past, present, and future."


OTHER PRINTED RESOURCES That say pedophiles are incurable.
Becker, J. and Murphy, W., "What We Know and Don’t Know about Assessing and Treating Sex Offenders," Psychology, Public Policy and Law 4 (1998): 116-137.
Geffner, R., Crumpton-Franey, K., Geffner, T. & Falconer, B. (Eds.) (2004). Identifying and Treating Sex Offenders. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
Groth, A.N., A. Burgess, & L. Holmstrom. (1977). Rape, Power, Anger, and Sexuality. American Journal of Psychiatry 134(11): 1239.
Groth A. N. (1979). Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender. New York: Plenum Press.
Holmes, R. & S. Holmes. (2002). Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behaviors. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holmes, R. & S. Holmes. (2002). Current Perspectives on Sex Crimes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Holmes, R. & S. Holmes. (2002). Profiling Violent Crimes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hudson, S., Laws, R., & Ward, T. (2002). Sexual Deviance: Issues and Controversies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stevens, D. & F. Schmalleger. (2001). Inside the Mind of Sexual Offenders: Predatory Rapists, Pedophiles, and Criminal Profiles. Campbell, CA: Authors Choice Press.

Need I list more? I f**king hope not!

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

We need to start giving the death penalty to pedophiles. They are the worse, because they prey on the innocents of our society. Don’t give me this s**t that it’s a sickness. Every freaking criminal action can’t be the act of sickness. If it is some kind of sickness, then they need to be quarantined permanently.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

How do we control the human population? Give the death penalty to people supporting the death penalty. Do it once every ten years or so. Simple, clean, and fast without moral obligations. It also makes the people never offend again, and very soon, natural selection will take care of the bloodthirsty nature of some humans whose genes have perverted over the millennia.

Hahaha, let me fill you in on a little secret: dead people can't return to a life of crime. My point stands strong.

Stalin once said, "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem."

Is this the level you want to descend to?

You want to hear how the victim feels about the situation?

Fine. I'm one of them. And I agree with Cat-Tribe and LazyHippies.

I have this funny feeling that you don't know what it's like to be sexually assaulted or molested. I don't exactly feel like describing my experiences in detail, but one of the most overwhelming things about it is the feeling that you have been made less than human, that you're no longer a person but an object to be used. It's incredibly dehumanizing. It's horrible.

If I have learned one thing from what happened to me, it's that I will respect the value of all people, even the ones who do unforgivable things. I will never seek to deprive another person of their humanity, no matter how much it may feel viscerally like they "deserve" it. Revenge is not justice and never will be.

Please don't claim to speak for victims until you've been one (which I earnestly hope you never will be).

Seconded.
To deprive another of their humanity is inconcievable after the multiple offences committed against me.
I will not demean myself to that level.

snip


I already addressed this. Its a typical mistake people make, equating the incurability of pedophilia with the impossibility of stopping abuse. These things are separate, as I explained earlier. Ill use the same example again since you obviously didnt read it. An alcoholic is an alcoholic for life. This is one of the first things they learn when they enter a 12 step program. This does not mean that they will forever drink, it means that they need to forever be on guard against alcohol and cannot ever just have a social drink or else they will quickly fall back into it again. The same applies to a pedophile. They will always be a pedophile, but this does not mean they will always molest, it means it is something they always need to be on guard against and avoid the situations that used to precipitate their sexual encounters.

As for the articles you quoted, lets take a look at what makes these people experts:

1. Susan Maree Jeavons: Susan Maree Jeavons is the mother of 8 and grandmother of 18. She and her husband live on a dirt road away from the rat race of big cities. She is a writer and poet with no formal education and feels she is an expert on this topic because she was abused when she was a child.
2. Tom Sawyer: Some anomymous online personality with no known credentials who chose the monicker of a boy from Mark Twain books.
3. An unnamed Indiana senator touting inflated (or made up) statistics to try to push a bill through.
4. Anne Landers: an advice columnist with no formal education who won her own advice column by winning a contest.
5. Marci Hamilton: A law professor and expert on constitutional and copyright law, with no psychological training whatsoever.

That pretty takes care of every single source you cited.

Here comes the funniest part of your post. Of the printed sources you listed, Ive read 3 and none of those three says that pedophiles cannot help but to molest. I wonder if you actually read any of them.

They will always be a pedophile, but this does not mean they will always molest, it means it is something they always need to be on guard against and avoid the situations that used to precipitate their sexual encounters.


And a fair few Alcoholics fall off the wagon.

I'm not an advocate for their death, never thought I'd say that, but you atleast have to realise the hysteria that can easily be worked up when it comes to ones children and the protection thereof.

Well, I was watching CNN yesterday - don't ask me why - and Paula Zahn happened to be on. People were bitching about sexual predators once again, and CNN was covering it like the good folks they are, and I heard the little piece that follows. I was baffled at the way the reporter worded what she said, and the tone her voice took - something showing remote sincerity and belief in the point made - so I decided I'd post what she said here. I got on CNN.com and fished up the transcripts for you all, and here they are; Stewart was a lady they were interviewing for the show, and Gutierrez is a CNN correspondent that was reporting on the matter:



Which brings me to my question: am I the only one who doesn't give a shit? If the state can't afford to house these fucks, kill them. Is that so hard? These are sexual offenders whose crimes are heinous enough to render the convicts attention-worthy after release from prison. Does anyone here actually care about the life of someone that molests a twelve year old girl, or violently rapes a woman at a party? Seriously, what is so wrong with painting the wall of a small room with their brains, aside from being politically incorrect? Come on, people. Do most people actually care about these poor, ex-felons. Do most people feel sorry for sexual offenders that can't find work or a place to live?

Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit?

The only thing is that not everyone who is registered as a sex offender necessarily did the types of things you're talking about. Some of them are decent guys who at the age of say, 18 or 19, had girlfriends who were just a couple of years younger than themselves, and whose fathers didn't want anyone touching their "little girl" and had the boyfriend arrested for statutory rape. It doesn't even matter if they married when the girl came of age - the poor guy's still branded as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Now to me, that's just not fair.

But as for the rest of those jackasses - the ones who actually did the types of crimes you're talking about - fry 'em!

Well if we're gonna just outright kill pedophiles why stop there? I mean murderers do immense damage to people, families, and loved ones, why do they deserve life? What about thieves who disregard what isn't thiers and take for thier own selfish reasons, surely they don't deserve life? What about criminals in general surely our society would be better without them? What about humanity in general whose society sets up the conditions that create some of these monsters surely they don't deserve the right of life?

Well, I was watching CNN yesterday - don't ask me why - and Paula Zahn happened to be on. People were bitching about sexual predators once again, and CNN was covering it like the good folks they are, and I heard the little piece that follows. I was baffled at the way the reporter worded what she said, and the tone her voice took - something showing remote sincerity and belief in the point made - so I decided I'd post what she said here. I got on CNN.com and fished up the transcripts for you all, and here they are; Stewart was a lady they were interviewing for the show, and Gutierrez is a CNN correspondent that was reporting on the matter:



Which brings me to my question: am I the only one who doesn't give a shit? If the state can't afford to house these fucks, kill them. Is that so hard? These are sexual offenders whose crimes are heinous enough to render the convicts attention-worthy after release from prison. Does anyone here actually care about the life of someone that molests a twelve year old girl, or violently rapes a woman at a party? Seriously, what is so wrong with painting the wall of a small room with their brains, aside from being politically incorrect? Come on, people. Do most people actually care about these poor, ex-felons. Do most people feel sorry for sexual offenders that can't find work or a place to live?

Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit?
I believe that sexual assault, child molestation, and similar crimes should all carry a mandatory life sentence. These individuals should never be facing the difficulties of re-entering society, because they should never be granted that opportunity. They should spend the remainder of their lives working to earn money that will be used to support victim's rights programs, charities for rape survivors, and programs to help children who are sexually abused. Their only human contact should be with each other and with their guards.

If you want to keep them alive it does.
What possible use are they?
Since when was life about being of use?

Alerted people to the presence and exact house of a paedophile living in my neigborhood, and pointed him out. The parol system in their infinate wisdom, placed him two blocks from a pre - school, and one street away from a former victim.
Why do I get the feeling you're the kind of person who will end up leading a lynch mob against a paediatrician?

If all your great experts know so much, then why do they think paedophiles can change, to be not paedophiles?
Do they actually have proof of molesters never reoffending until they die?
My knowlege comes from personal experience asshole.
No matter how traumatic your own personal circumstances, they do not define behaviour for all sexual offenders. You have my sympathy for any suffering you've been through.

Since when was life about being of use?

This isn't about whether or not life must have use, but whether or not a society/government should be obligated to expend effort to keep certain individuals alive. If society or government will not gain anything from ensuring the continued life of a certain individual, and will instead most likely suffer for it, why should we spend time, money, and manpower to keep that individual alive? It's pragmatism, really, not a discussion of the inherent purpose of living.


Why do I get the feeling you're the kind of person who will end up leading a lynch mob against a paediatrician?
Probably because you are prone to wild generalizations about those who disagree with you.

This isn't about whether or not life must have use, but whether or not a society/government should be obligated to expend effort to keep certain individuals alive. If society or government will not gain anything from ensuring the continued life of a certain individual, and will instead most likely suffer for it, why should we spend time, money, and manpower to keep that individual alive? It's pragmatism, really, not a discussion of the inherent purpose of living.
Fine, but that's not the point Ugochocka was making (at least, as it was written). I found his statement to be somewhat peculiar in the middle of the rest of his commentary.

Probably because you are prone to wild generalizations about those who disagree with you.
No, it was meant to be a mild (not very funny, with hindsight) witticism based on the absurd goings on in the UK a couple of years back when the anti-paedophile hysteria went through the roof, culminating in the victimisation of a man who was targeted because someone, consumed by righteous fury, misunderstood what they had read.

Of course, killing them is the best way to ensure that most will murder their victims to minimise being found out, but hey! Why let that get in the way of an irrational rant?

nah, of course not and not all of us specify on the electric chair to be the best method. humans just have this defensive mechanism to kill anything they see as a threat to themselves which obviously incudes the naughtier half of the human race.

Please don't claim to speak for victims until you've been one (which I earnestly hope you never will be).

Please don't claim to speak for victims unless you are victims. You're just one. The rest of us who've suffered from such people might have entirely different views, as I know I do.

If I could get away with it I'd kill the person who abused me in a second and I'd do so without compunction or hesitation. If for no other reason than to ensure he can't hurt anyone else.

The only thing is that not everyone who is registered as a sex offender necessarily did the types of things you're talking about. Some of them are decent guys who at the age of say, 18 or 19, had girlfriends who were just a couple of years younger than themselves, and whose fathers didn't want anyone touching their "little girl" and had the boyfriend arrested for statutory rape. It doesn't even matter if they married when the girl came of age - the poor guy's still branded as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Now to me, that's just not fair.

Right, but that's where common sense comes into it. Actually, I advocate age-of-consent being 15, so long as the older party is not more than three years older, but with that condition departing once you turn 17. That makes a lot more sense than just a blanket age, and there's obviously a big difference between a 15 and an 18 year old, and a 15 and 40 year old. Once you hit 17 though, you're likely to be old enough to figure it out better.

Stop to think for a minute. These people are going to get out of prison eventually, whether you like it or not. The question is, when they get out of prison do you want them to be given a chance of integrating themselves into society again and overcoming their past mistakes? or do you want them to have no hope of ever being a productive member of society? Ill fill you in on a little secret, people with no hope are many times more likely to return to a life of crime than people who are able to put their mistakes behind them and move on with their lives.


The evidence is overwhelming. The fact that they cannot overcome past mistakes and cannot become productive members of society is a fact. These arent people with no skills that cant get a job and cant make money and steal to eat or support a drug habit. These are people that have to victimize children and cannot stop themselves.

I am not willing to free them and give them all the feel good chances and sacrafice more children to keep increasing the stats proving they can not be part of society.
Whose child will pay the price to learn this? mine? Yours?

I have no sympathy and no feeling toward these predators. Once they are convicted beyond any reasonable doubt-and most are, most confess- incinerate them.

If one of my children were a victim to one of these predators, it would be my life's work to hunt and destroy them wherever they were.

I make no appologies for my stance. And I dont think I can make my feelings any more clear. Fuck them.

I believe that sexual assault, child molestation, and similar crimes should all carry a mandatory life sentence. These individuals should never be facing the difficulties of re-entering society, because they should never be granted that opportunity. They should spend the remainder of their lives working to earn money that will be used to support victim's rights programs, charities for rape survivors, and programs to help children who are sexually abused. Their only human contact should be with each other and with their guards.


I agree, unless they are in an area that has the death penalty.

The evidence is overwhelming. The fact that they cannot overcome past mistakes and cannot become productive members of society is a fact. These arent people with no skills that cant get a job and cant make money and steal to eat or support a drug habit. These are people that have to victimize children and cannot stop themselves.

I am not willing to free them and give them all the feel good chances and sacrafice more children to keep increasing the stats proving they can not be part of society.
Whose child will pay the price to learn this? mine? Yours?

I have no sympathy and no feeling toward these predators. Once they are convicted beyond any reasonable doubt-and most are, most confess- incinerate them.

If one of my children were a victim to one of these predators, it would be my life's work to hunt and destroy them wherever they were.

I make no appologies for my stance. And I dont think I can make my feelings any more clear. Fuck them.
Seconded. I fail to see the point of letting such people back into society. Sure not all of them will molest more children, but some will. Isolate the fuckers.
I'm glad it's not up to me to make laws about this, because I'm pretty sure I'd have them killed. It's sad and blah, that they're sick individuals, and it's great that some will just spend the rest of their lives wanking over childrens books... But what good is it to anyone to let them back into society?
Is it doing them a favour? If I had some uncontrollable urge to jump off buildings, I wouldn't want to live in a penthouse.

Lock them up and throw away the key, kill them or cut their dicks off.

The day we're able to kill all sexual urges is the day I'm in favour of having them rejoin the rest of the world.

The evidence is overwhelming. The fact that they cannot overcome past mistakes and cannot become productive members of society is a fact. These arent people with no skills that cant get a job and cant make money and steal to eat or support a drug habit. These are people that have to victimize children and cannot stop themselves.

I am not willing to free them and give them all the feel good chances and sacrafice more children to keep increasing the stats proving they can not be part of society.
Whose child will pay the price to learn this? mine? Yours?

I have no sympathy and no feeling toward these predators. Once they are convicted beyond any reasonable doubt-and most are, most confess- incinerate them.

If one of my children were a victim to one of these predators, it would be my life's work to hunt and destroy them wherever they were.

I make no appologies for my stance. And I dont think I can make my feelings any more clear. Fuck them.

Actually, the evidence, some of which I presented earlier and you can read the rest of the thread to find, shows that sex offenders are less likely to reoffend than the rest of the prison population. In other words, it is easier to rehabilitate a sex offender than to rehabilitate a different type of criminal.

What you say is not a fact, it is an urban legend. It is a myth invented in the early 90s to push through Megan's law legislations. The fact of the matter is that while pedophilia cannot be cured, it can be treated. A pedophile's primary sexual attraction will always be children, but their sexuality is not any more uncontrollable than anyone else's and they can choose not to molest. Studies show that most will never reoffend again.

You are right in pointing out that these are not people with no skills who cannot get a job. This makes my statement much more relevant. These are people who could become gainfully employed if the stigma of incarceration for sexual abuse were not attached to them for life. It is an extremely important part of recovery for them, and for all other criminals, to become gainfully employed and regain a sense of hope in their future. When a person has no hope they have nothing to lose, nothing to work towards, no interest in life, and no reason to follow the law. A person who is employed and sees hope of living a decent life in the future is more willing to safeguard what he has gained and not make the same mistakes he made in the past.

I invite those of you who havent already to watch the movie "The Woodsman" starring Kevin Bacon. It deals with the issue of a pedophile trying to reintegrate himself into society. Although it is fiction and not completely accurate, it still illustrates the other side of the story, the one we dont hear much of. It may increase your understanding of the other point of view, and if it doesnt at least you get to watch what is arguably Kevin Bacon's finest and most challenging performance.

Anyway, I went to bed last night, got back on this morning, read the last 60 posts, went somewhere for eight hours, and now I'm back. Now, it is quite possible that I missed something, but I haven't seen any massive breakthroughs that make me give a shit. The only logical reason presented by those contrary to my opinions is that the death penalty inhibits prosecution of sexual predators by making jurors not wish to convict. However, that has nothing to do with capital punishment being the incorrect way to handle this business, it has to do with jurors being pussies, something intensified by the massive limits courts place on what can be said during the trial.

Certain things hold more credence with respect to this subject, at least with me, and for the sake of not seeming illogical, I will explain why.

Expert references: Expert references on this matter are simply made because the person making them has little understanding of the matter, and simply uses the words of other that are in order to strengthen their point and make themselves appear to be well-read. Unfortunately, this doesn't work, because in this topic, experts are on both sides of the fence as to whether or not capital punishment is a good idea, and to take the opinions of one expert over another is childish. Also, experts are always human, and, as such, biased. A pro capital punishment expert is likely, though not always, going to stay that way with respect to sexual predators, just like an anti capital punishment expert is likely, though not always, going to try to make capital punishment seem like a bad option with respect to sexual predators, because each is human and has an agenda.

Personal experience: First of all, this is nearly impossible to prove on the internet, and to use your own personal experience as the main point in why you feel a certain way about a subject simply says that you don't know enough about the subject to argue it without making that point. Secondly, as with experts, people that have first-hand experience with regards to sexual predators and their trial swing both ways with respect to how they should be punished, so just because one person has such an experience and feels one way about it doesn't mean the next person that has a similar experience is going to feel that same way.

Statistics are cool, aside from polls (which are easy to skew), but the only statistic I've heard thrown around a lot is the fact that sexual offenders are less likely to be convicted a second time than most criminals. This is a stupid and flawed point to make, however, because the likelihood of the predator becoming a reoffender is still there, and taking a risk on the matter is unnecessary and foolhardy.

Logical, obvious points to make - such as dead people can't reoffend and poverty breeds crime - are also good points to bring up in this debate, but I haven't heard any of those that would sway anyone either way majorly, especially me.

Anyway, I'm done ranting as far as that's concerned. I still say sex offenders should be shot on the spot, for the reasons I posted originally and more, but maybe after this post the opposition will think of some new material that fits this debate a little more snuggly.

Until you are ready to give the children what they have been denied for centuries and millennia -- liberty and dignity as human beings -- don't even tell me about protecting the children. You still treat them as owned properties.

It's the same argument government makes respecting the legislation of tyrannical laws -- to protect the nation, the people, and whatever the hell is fashionable these days. What they truly want is tigher control on what they perceive to be their properties.

Most parents continuously abuse their children through neglect, humiliation, propaganda, manipulation of their financial and emotional dependence, and, frequently, violence. I personally would prefer a law that prohibits human beings from ever procreating again and puts all parents who have ever abused their children in any way to death.

Do you want that, too? Oh, I forgot. Probably all of these hatred-filled and paranoidly bloodthirsty posters would end up getting executed under that law, unless you don't have children or any knowledge with respect to something called human decency, in which case you are not even empowered to talk.

Doing a crime means you do the time. When the people get released from jail they will have that on their record, its what they did and it needs to be known. But I believe If they tried hard enough they could get jobs, mabye not something glamorous, but enough money for food, shelter, pants, things like that. Its honestly not going to break my heart if the offenders cant get a great job.

<sigh>

I thought this thread had died.

Well, many of the opinions in here remind me of a passage from "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt: The hero, Sir Thomas More, a devout Catholic and leading citizen, has refused to bless the annulment of the king's first marriage. King Henry, hoping to get even has sent a spy to More's household. Recognizing him for what he is, More's daughter cries: "He's a spy. Arrest him, Father."

More answers: "There's no law against that." But his son-in-law interjects: "There is God's law." More replies: "Then God can arrest him."

Meanwhile, More's daughter is getting more and more exasperated as it becomes clear that the spy will be allowed to escape. "While you talk, he's gone," she complains.

"And go he should if he were the Devil himself," says More, "until he broke the law."

Sarcastically, his son-in-law inquires: "So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law?"

"What would you do?" More asks him. "Cut down a great road through the law to get at the Devil?"

"Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that," his son-in-law replies.

"Oh?" More said, "and when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut the down do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

[QUOTE=Ecopoeia]Since when was life about being of use?

Well why do you think your here? If its to be aburden on society, then maybe you shouldnt have come in the first place. The worlds tough enough without having to support guys who drag the chain by freeloading, much like paedophiles do on our kids.

Why do I get the feeling you're the kind of person who will end up leading a lynch mob against a paediatrician?

If the paediatrician was a child molester I would.

<sigh>
SNIP
[/INDENT]

If the above laws protected a paedophile, then they should be re examined, not got rid of, a simple way to go about this, would be to put in a clause stating a person caught in the act of molesting a child, or stong evidence against of, would be exempt to any protection under the law, and publically named as a paedophile, any one wishing to dispose of said person can do so under the protection of the law, as this 'person' is no longer recognised as having existed or existing.

If the above laws protected a paedophile, then they should be re examined, not got rid of, a simple way to go about this, would be to put in a clause stating a person caught in the act of molesting a child, or stong evidence against of, would be exempt to any protection under the law, and publically named as a paedophile, any one wishing to dispose of said person can do so under the protection of the law, as this 'person' is no longer recognised as having existed or existing.

1. Way to miss the point.

2. Child molester != pedophile. Although virtually all pedophiles are child molesters, not all child molesters are pedophiles.

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]1. Way to miss the point.

I was using his point ...

2. Child molester != pedophile. Although virtually all pedophiles are child molesters, not all child molesters are pedophiles.

Any child molester, is a paedophile.
Where do you get confused here?

2. Child molester != pedophile. Although virtually all pedophiles are child molesters, not all child molesters are pedophiles.

NO!

we've been agreeing on so much, why did you have to state a myth? :(

Most pedophiles are not child molesters. In fact, the opposite is true, most pedophiles will never molest. The evidence of this is in the number of pedophiles who seek treatment at institutions like Johns Hopkins and are never arrested for any crimes. But perhaps even more telling evidence is the immense number of people arrested on child pornography related offences who were never found to have molested a child despite a careful search for possible victims. Sure, you could argue that they hadnt molested yet but some day they would, but then that would defy all known data on convicted child molesters which places the average age of first incident at somewhere around 16.

The conclusion remains undeniable. It is much easier to rehabilitate a sex offender than to rehabilitate any other type of criminal.

???

I find that conclusion to be very puzzling. There is nothing "easy" about attempting to rehabilitate a sex offender, and absolutely nothing that guarantees that said "rehabilitation" has been successful a few months or years down the line after discharge from the program. Yes, Justice Stats are flawed across the board, but more so for crimes that take place privately and in families, like DV and sexual abuse.

Earlier I thought maybe you worked in sex offender treatment but now I'm thinking I was mistaken...I cannot imagine anyone from the field making the above claim.

NO!

we've been agreeing on so much, why did you have to state a myth? :(

Most pedophiles are not child molesters. In fact, the opposite is true, most pedophiles will never molest. The evidence of this is in the number of pedophiles who seek treatment at institutions like Johns Hopkins and are never arrested for any crimes. But perhaps even more telling evidence is the immense number of people arrested on child pornography related offences who were never found to have molested a child despite a careful search for possible victims. Sure, you could argue that they hadnt molested yet but some day they would, but then that would defy all known data on convicted child molesters which places the average age of first incident at somewhere around 16.

I could be wrong about the first part, although it is pretty much a direct quote from here (http://www.atsa.com/ppPedophiles.html).

Regardless, the second part is what was relevant. And, although it should be undisputed, you can see that it is.

???

I find that conclusion to be very puzzling. There is nothing "easy" about attempting to rehabilitate a sex offender, and absolutely nothing that guarantees that said "rehabilitation" has been successful a few months or years down the line after discharge from the program. Yes, Justice Stats are flawed across the board, but more so for crimes that take place privately and in families, like DV and sexual abuse.

Earlier I thought maybe you worked in sex offender treatment but now I'm thinking I was mistaken...I cannot imagine anyone from the field making the above claim.

I didnt say its easy, I said its easier than rehabilitating other types of criminals. The recidivism rates for sex offenders are simply lower than for other criminals.

[QUOTE=LazyHippies]Most pedophiles are not child molesters.

This guy is seriously deluded.


In fact, the opposite is true, most pedophiles will never molest.

Given the high rate of kids that are actually molested, one in five, how many of these supposed 'sleepers' that never molest do you imagine, could actually be out there.


The evidence of this is in the number of pedophiles who seek treatment at institutions like Johns Hopkins and are never arrested for any crimes.

That we know of. :rolleyes:

Given the high rate of kids that are actually molested, one in five, how many of these supposed 'sleepers' that never molest do you imagine, could actually be out there.

Most molestation is perpetrated by people who are not pedophiles according to the psychological definition. Most child molestation is perpetrated by what is termed a situational pedophile. This, is a person who does not fit the psychological definition of a pedophile because their primary sexual attraction is not to children. These people would preffer to have sex with an adult, but turn to children for sex due to a variety of other factors often including: the lack of an adequate partner, low self esteem issues, substance abuse, marital problems, and stress. For these people, the victim is a convenient outlet for their frustrations and lust, not the preffered outlet. Most child molestors are situational, not prefferential.

prefferential pedophiles are what is known in psychology as a pedophile. These people preffer children as sexual partners. They are the more dangerous type because when they do molest, they tend to have more victims, but they are far less prelavent than situational pedophiles. Most child molestation is still done by situational pedophiles (in other words, very disturbed gay or straight people).

It is not known how many pedophiles are out there, but judging by the surge of child pornography with the rise of the internet and the popularity of pornography purporting to be of teens, lolitas, etc, it is easy to see that the number is far greater than previously assumed.

[QUOTE=LazyHippies
snip.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, try telling that to the average person on the street, that a person who molests only children is not considered a pedophile.
And whether they are 'situational' pedophiles as you put it or not, the crime still stands, they touched a child in an inappropriate manner.
For that, death as a punishment, should be the only outcome.

Also seeing as you work with these 'things,' could you tell us why the vast majority of pedys are male, and caucasian.

[QUOTE=LazyHippies]The average person on the street is dumb.

You disgusting elitist.
The average person on the street is not dumb at all. You specify in a field of knowlege, as they probably do, just because they know less on a subject here than you, doesnt mean their dumb.


I do? That's news to me. Wonder which of my coworkers it is. They must be in the closet I guess.

Well you seem to be sprouting alot knowelge on here about pedophiles, references b4 were made to you by me and other posters about you working with them, which you didnt bother to deny.
I guess I'll have to ask someone else why most child molesters are white males. Anyone? Anyone?

There is a quote (I can't quite remember it exactly) that goes something like "A person (singular) is smart; people (as a group) are dumb"...

Bloodthirsty little twits that think the electric chair solves all problems really hate to be confronted with realism. They don't want to think about real solutions to real problems. They want to show how "cool" they can be by being callous and ignorant.
Bloodthirsty is right...

The wall-painting thing was semi-sarcastic rant, thus not meant to be taken seriously. The frying part was not, however, as I'm a big fan of the electric chair. Lethal injection is for pussies.
O_o You do realise that the muscle relaxant that they use with the lethal injection means that if the needle-ee wakes up before they die, they can’t signal it and die in horrible pain.

I can’t recall the statistics at this moment, but apparently that happened so often - it’s why they don’t use it to put animals to sleep any more.

Bloodthirsty is right...


O_o You do realise that the muscle relaxant that they use with the lethal injection means that if the needle-ee wakes up before they die, they can’t signal it and die in horrible pain.

I can’t recall the statistics at this moment, but apparently that happened so often - it’s why they don’t use it to put animals to sleep any more.

Good. I'm glad they die in horrible pain. Why, would you like Ted Bundy's death to have been painless? Or maybe Jeffrey Dahmer? No, maybe you're a Ridgway fan.

People that kill people should die in horrible pain. Their victims had to, thus they should suffer the same terrible fate.

Good. I'm glad they die in horrible pain. Why, would you like Ted Bundy's death to have been painless? Or maybe Jeffrey Dahmer? No, maybe you're a Ridgway fan.

People that kill people should die in horrible pain. Their victims had to, thus they should suffer the same terrible fate.

Does that work for folk who advocate the Death Penalty as well? Their victims die in anguish, so they should too?

Continue on that line of thought too long, and there won't be any humans left.

Though the less humane* would all be gone.


*depending on how you define 'humane'

Well why do you think your here? If its to be aburden on society, then maybe you shouldnt have come in the first place. The worlds tough enough without having to support guys who drag the chain by freeloading, much like paedophiles do on our kids.
I'm here to be of use? I had a choice in coming? What on Earth are you on about?

The current discrimination against pedophiles is very similar to how people hated and persecuted homosexuals back then.

It is exactly the same issue -- sexual orientation. Some people are sexually attracted to young teens or children, and some people are sexually attracted to animals or dead people. There's nothing wrong with any of those sexual orientations, per se, as they embody psychological conditions that are normal and non-destructive if practised properly.

They become dangerous only when society decides to discriminate against these people and make these sexual orientations and practices highly taboo subjects. People who are very much normal are marginalized and psychologically isolated. It is only natural that a small minority would become social problems or even outright sociopaths under this encouragement, whereas the majority would have to tread lightly and live in the closet for their whole lives without fulfilling their natural urges.

Why in the world is pedophilia wrong, anyway? If practised between consenting human beings who are mature and physically capable of handling the biological age difference, then what power does society have to say it is wrong simply because an arbitrary legal age has been defined?

Furthermore, why does anything have to require consent? There are many things people do without asking for my explicit consent, and yet I can't sue them or even make a case for executing them. What's the deal with that?

The current discrimination against pedophiles is very similar to how people hated and persecuted homosexuals back then.

It is exactly the same issue -- sexual orientation. Some people are sexually attracted to young teens or children, and some people are sexually attracted to animals or dead people. There's nothing wrong with any of those sexual orientations, per se, as they embody psychological conditions that are normal and non-destructive if practised properly.

They become dangerous only when society decides to discriminate against these people and make these sexual orientations and practices highly taboo subjects. People who are very much normal are marginalized and psychologically isolated. It is only natural that a small minority would become social problems or even outright sociopaths under this encouragement, whereas the majority would have to tread lightly and live in the closet for their whole lives without fulfilling their natural urges.

Why in the world is pedophilia wrong, anyway? If practised between consenting human beings who are mature and physically capable of handling the biological age difference, then what power does society have to say it is wrong simply because an arbitrary legal age has been defined?

Furthermore, why does anything have to require consent? There are many things people do without asking for my explicit consent, and yet I can't sue them or even make a case for executing them. What's the deal with that?
I really, really hope you are just joking or trolling.

If you can't see what is wrong with paedophilia, or why sex should be consentual, I don't know how to begin to even explain it to you...

Sorry havent read all this crap this may have been said before.

As long as theirs DNA evidence i have no problem executing these sons of a bitches in fact id suport it.

Does that work for folk who advocate the Death Penalty as well? Their victims die in anguish, so they should too?

Pretty much.

Continue on that line of thought too long, and there won't be any humans left.

Haha, or at least no humans that kill, rape, or molest people.

Though the less humane* would all be gone.


*depending on how you define 'humane'

Completely depends, seeing as the humane thing to do, in my opinion, is give the family of the victim closure and give the victim revenge.

That's it! The perfect compromise on the death penalty: for all one criminal one victim murders, let all humans sign a paper similar to checking the box for becoming an organ donor which says what you would like to happen to your killer in the event that you are murdered. I think that sounds wonderful. Mass murderers and serial killers will automatically get the harshest punishment listed by their victims, because I say so.

I'll start. If someone murders me, I want their dick cut off in slivers and fed to them until said dick is gone. Then let a bunch of horny prison inmates take turns making his ass bleed, using smelling salt to wake him if he passes out. And fry. This assumes I get killed by a man. If it's a woman, just leave them to be raped for twice as long, to compensate for their lack of a penis.

Yes let's kill those who have real psychological problems because rehabilitating them is too much of a drain on taxes

Yes let's kill those who have real psychological problems because rehabilitating them is too much of a drain on taxes

Well, that sounded like intended sarcasm, but it made a hell of a lot of sense, so which is it?

Well, that sounded like intended sarcasm, but it made a hell of a lot of sense, so which is it?

Sarcasm, like "Bush is a stable human being" and "Slipknot are nothing but talent".

Sarcasm, like "Bush is a stable human being" and "Slipknot are nothing but talent".

Ahhh, I see. In that case, I might suggest making that which you are referring to sarcastically sound stupider. What you said sounded kind of like, "Gee, because we all know the Earth's orbit is elliptical."

Ahhh, I see. In that case, I might suggest making that which you are referring to sarcastically sound stupider. What you said sounded kind of like, "Gee, because we all know the Earth's orbit is elliptical."

I'm all for understated sarcasm, I use it a lot. Especially in day to day conversation where you can have an amusing time seeing who's receptive enough to pick up on it.

easy......lets ship them all to Christmas island where they can all prey on each other instead of innocent people.

Listen. You have every right as a human being to not give a flying fuck about anything. But I believe that the actual definition of "not giving a shit" would be to sit your ass down and not take a side either way. If you really and truly don't give a shit what happens to sexual predators, then you should just go watch TV or something, and leave the decisions about what to do with sex offenders to people who care.

But bypassing the faulty logic in your admittedly catchy statement, your assessment is pig-headed and wrong, to be blunt. Killing sex offenders is not going serve as a detterant, because pedophilia is usually a mental illness, or caused by previous abuse. And as sexual crimes are not worthy of a death sentance(to be honest, no crime is, but that's a different arguement) under the law, so they will get out sooner or later. Again legally, their rights are restored. So the job should be figuring out how to deal with this issue rationally.

And that's just the practical side of it. I have a hard time believing that you can type with a straight face while you advocate doing horrible things to someone... because they did horrible things to someone. Step back and smell the hypocrisy, please. Or is that the shit I just gave?

Listen. You have every right as a human being to not give a flying fuck about anything. But I believe that the actual definition of "not giving a shit" would be to sit your ass down and not take a side either way. If you really and truly don't give a shit what happens to sexual predators, then you should just go watch TV or something, and leave the decisions about what to do with sex offenders to people who care.

Oh, man, you really shut me down. Wait, I forgot, a couple other morons that didn't read what I wrote already said that. I'm not saying I don't give a shit about anything, I'm saying I don't give a shit about specific things: such as whether or not sexual predators get adequately housed. I do give a shit about whether they are punished more severely or not, and I do give a shit about not hearing idiots talk anymore - a goal which this will hopefully further.

But bypassing the faulty logic in your admittedly catchy statement, your assessment is pig-headed and wrong, to be blunt. Killing sex offenders is not going serve as a detterant, because pedophilia is usually a mental illness, or caused by previous abuse. And as sexual crimes are not worthy of a death sentance(to be honest, no crime is, but that's a different arguement) under the law, so they will get out sooner or later. Again legally, their rights are restored. So the job should be figuring out how to deal with this issue rationally.

First of all, while not serving as a direct deterrent, it definately stops them from reoffending, which they seem to do far too often. Secondly, "If he's too crazy to know the difference, and it makes me feel better..."

And that's just the practical side of it. I have a hard time believing that you can type with a straight face while you advocate doing horrible things to someone... because they did horrible things to someone. Step back and smell the hypocrisy, please. Or is that the shit I just gave?

Step back and fall off a cliff, please. It's not about stopping the first attack, it's about stopping future ones. That, and revenge.

I really, really hope you are just joking or trolling.

If you can't see what is wrong with paedophilia, or why sex should be consentual, I don't know how to begin to even explain it to you...

No, it's not joking or trolling. It's pointing out an idea that hasn't been regurgitated here yet.

I can see why people think some things should be consentual; however, I also know better than to take every "right" in life for granted. "Right" for one person is frequently "power" over another person. What is "wrong" for one person is frequently a "right" to another.

You do realize that consent is mostly a passing thing? To rely on consent as a highly flawed one-time legal carte blanche is ludicrous, as it ignores the consequences that the consenter may not have anticipated. What you consent to, you may regret the next day. Some callous people may say it's the consenter's fault, but it is not, because the human mind is ever-changing and hardly capable of predicting all possibilities at once.

Take marriage for example. How many people agree that marriage is the union between two consenting adults, and how many people get divorced every year? Unlike marriage, which is an ongoing union that can be terminated, sex is a one-time act that carries profound social, psychological, and emotional consequences in modern society and cannot be reversed once done. It is also practised by people young and old, mature and immature alike, many of whom will regret taking part later on. Consent? Give me a break.

As for pedophilia, I will define the term for you -- a broad umbrella term describing the sexual attraction toward children, including prepubescent children. Pedophilia, by itself, has nothing to do with the sexual molestation of children, just as mainstream hetero/homosexuality has nothing to do with rape or sexual harrassment.

However, unlike hetero/homosexual acts, pedosexual acts are highly taboo as well as outlawed. Unlike laws that prohibit homosexual acts or heterosexual adultery, anti-pedosexual laws are enforced and much less controversial. Thus, even with consent, pedophiles cannot practise and release their natural urges without committing statutory rape or child molestation.

Much like how people used to view homosexuals, pedophiles are thought to be insane or physically unfit to continue to exist, even when they were born with the sexual orientation and are perfectly capable of being productive members of society.

Mind you, there is likely a very large number of pedophiles in the world who never break the law and live involuntarily in the closet all their lives, contributing to society as much as people of any other sexual orientation and marrying just as adult-loving heterosexuals, much like homosexual people before they started to be tolerated by society.

It has been proven over and over again. When you outlaw and marginalize things that are perfectly fine but are hated by traditionalists, you merely force innocent people into criminal roles, endanger society with reduced funding for more dangerous crimes, and produce real sociopaths who stand to gain from all the illicit trade at the expense of everyone else. It was the same deal with the Prohibition. It was the same with underground prostitution. It is the same with the War of Drugs. It is the same with filesharing and software/music/movie piracy. It is the same with pedophilia.

Oh, man, you really shut me down. Wait, I forgot, a couple other morons that didn't read what I wrote already said that. I'm not saying I don't give a shit about anything, I'm saying I don't give a shit about specific things: such as whether or not sexual predators get adequately housed. I do give a shit about whether they are punished more severely or not, and I do give a shit about not hearing idiots talk anymore - a goal which this will hopefully further.

Well then I would suggest you change your wording, so as not to confuse us poor idiots. However if you truly want to stop the idiots talking... well they say change comes from within...

First of all, while not serving as a direct deterrent, it definately stops them from reoffending, which they seem to do far too often. Secondly, "If he's too crazy to know the difference, and it makes me feel better..."

And if I come and kill you, I would prevent you from ever offending... but that doesn't make me right now does it? You cannot kill people because it's possible that they might reoffend. Seriously, it's been tried before, but there are still criminals in every nation on earth. The difference is which nations are enlightened enough to realize that real Justice is mercy and repayment, not bloodlust or vengeance.

And you know very well that few people are to crazy to know the difference between being killed and not being killed, but that there are many who have a mental illness that causes them to commit sexual offences.

Step back and fall off a cliff, please. It's not about stopping the first attack, it's about stopping future ones. That, and revenge.

That didn't really have anything to do with what I said in the last bit you quoted. You just kinda dodged the whole issue with doing something horrible to someone because they did something horrible, and the blatant reeking hypocrisy in that action. Oh and I just stepped back. Lucky for me I don't usually surf the internet from on top of that cliff, no?

At any rate I get the feeling that we will never agree on this, and that you are basically trolling with your three beligerent threads that have the same message on different issues.

Have a good day.

And if I come and kill you, I would prevent you from ever offending... but that doesn't make me right now does it? You cannot kill people because it's possible that they might reoffend. Seriously, it's been tried before, but there are still criminals in every nation on earth.

If there were a 43% chance that I was going to kill or rape someone, then yes, it would make you right. But this is a pointless point to make, anyway, because I'm referring to killing back, and you're referring to killing ahead of schedule. I suggest killing back to prevent further killing.

The difference is which nations are enlightened enough to realize that real Justice is mercy and repayment, not bloodlust or vengeance.

Because true enlightenment comes from finding your inner lollygagging pussy.

And you know very well that few people are to crazy to know the difference between being killed and not being killed, but that there are many who have a mental illness that causes them to commit sexual offences.

It was a joke... a quote from a stand-up comedian. Not meant to be wholly serious.

That didn't really have anything to do with what I said in the last bit you quoted. You just kinda dodged the whole issue with doing something horrible to someone because they did something horrible, and the blatant reeking hypocrisy in that action. Oh and I just stepped back. Lucky for me I don't usually surf the internet from on top of that cliff, no?

I "dodged the issue" because I thought you must be joking. I don't know what doesn't make sense about doing bad things to someone that does bad things.

At any rate I get the feeling that we will never agree on this, and that you are basically trolling with your three beligerent threads that have the same message on different issues.

I'm not trolling, I'm debating in an obnoxious, mocking manner.

Yes let's kill those who have real psychological problems because rehabilitating them is too much of a drain on taxes

There is no point to rehabilitating them, just having them around us, brings us down as well, I mean, if one walked into your workplace and told you he was a reformed child molester would you honestly have anything to do with him?
I repeat, they are nothing but filthy scum, that dont deserve a second chance.
Kill them!

I'm here to be of use? I had a choice in coming? What on Earth are you on about?

Well you can either be;

a) a useful, productive member of society, that looks after other people and the enviroment, works hard and expects and asks for no reward.

Or:

b) You can sit around on your lazy sorry arse, take handouts, drugs and be of no use to anyone, especially yourself.
No one asked to come here mate, but you could at least make an effort to leave the world a better place than when you came in.

The current discrimination against pedophiles is very similar to how people hated and persecuted homosexuals back then.

It is exactly the same issue -- sexual orientation. Some people are sexually attracted to young teens or children, and some people are sexually attracted to animals or dead people. There's nothing wrong with any of those sexual orientations, per se, as they embody psychological conditions that are normal and non-destructive if practised properly.

They become dangerous only when society decides to discriminate against these people and make these sexual orientations and practices highly taboo subjects. People who are very much normal are marginalized and psychologically isolated. It is only natural that a small minority would become social problems or even outright sociopaths under this encouragement, whereas the majority would have to tread lightly and live in the closet for their whole lives without fulfilling their natural urges.

Why in the world is pedophilia wrong, anyway? If practised between consenting human beings who are mature and physically capable of handling the biological age difference, then what power does society have to say it is wrong simply because an arbitrary legal age has been defined?

Furthermore, why does anything have to require consent? There are many things people do without asking for my explicit consent, and yet I can't sue them or even make a case for executing them. What's the deal with that?

Word. Except for perhaps the very last paragraph.

You sick fuck.
Its people like you that give me more reason to go find some paedophile, hopefully you, put my hands on to a basball bat, and then repeatedly bash your sick fucking brains out all over the pavement.

You pretty much just proved their point there. All your bigotry is just based on irrational fear.

There is no point to rehabilitating them, just having them around us, brings us down as well, I mean, if one walked into your workplace and told you he was a reformed child molester would you honestly have anything to do with him?
I repeat, they are nothing but filthy scum, that dont deserve a second chance.
Kill them!

I like the way you use the term "if one walked into your workplace" as if they are anything less than human. And honestly, if they are reformed, they're reformed. If they're likable and show no tendancies of their former past, why should I give a shit?

I believe everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance. If everyone took that approach to life, it'd be like "You stole a cookie from a cookie jar ten years ago. Even though you've never done it since, and shown no desire to do it again, I'm going to cut off your hands so you can't do it again".

I like the way you use the term "if one walked into your workplace" as if they are anything less than human. And honestly, if they are reformed, they're reformed. If they're likable and show no tendancies of their former past, why should I give a shit?

I believe everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance. If everyone took that approach to life, it'd be like "You stole a cookie from a cookie jar ten years ago. Even though you've never done it since, and shown no desire to do it again, I'm going to cut off your hands so you can't do it again".


Although I agree with what you are saying it should be pointed out that it is very difficult to tell without a doubt that the person in question is reformed. This person may still have the same urges towards children but is merely more able to control these. They can still be a slight danger but as long as they get their paedophilia out into the open so that others can take the right stance to it, i see no problem

You pretty much just proved their point there. All your bigotry is just based on irrational fear.

So much for the 'slippery slope' not existing. :rolleyes:

So much for the 'slippery slope' not existing. :rolleyes:

Well, I havn't read all of this thread so I'm not entirely sure what you're saying; but I assume you mean that giving rights to some people leads to those rights being given to all people. Is this correct? if so, how is this a problem?

[QUOTE=Shut Up Eccles]I like the way you use the term "if one walked into your workplace" as if they are anything less than human. And honestly, if they are reformed, they're reformed. If they're likable and show no tendancies of their former past, why should I give a shit?

You fool, what if they told you they just won a million dollars as well, would you believe that too?


I believe everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance. If everyone took that approach to life, it'd be like "You stole a cookie from a cookie jar ten years ago. Even though you've never done it since, and shown no desire to do it again, I'm going to cut off your hands so you can't do it again".

So you compare molesting a child as like to 'stealing a cookie?'
You couldnt show you cared less about the damage these monsters have done to children any better than that last callous statement.

Do you have kids? Would you let a person who had molested children in the past, told you he had reformed babysit them? after all, why should you give a shit, right?

Hahaha, let me fill you in on a little secret: dead people can't return to a life of crime. My point stands strong.

Yes, the point tht you dont care about life. Even if these people did horrible things they deserve a second chance like all human beings would. Most of these people have the capacity to change and after going through therapy want to change. Im not saying everybody is going to stop molesting, but we cant kill everyone because they made one mistake in life.

Well, I havn't read all of this thread so I'm not entirely sure what you're saying; but I assume you mean that giving rights to some people leads to those rights being given to all people. Is this correct? if so, how is this a problem?

I'm still trying to get my head around how you thought I proved a child molesters point on here, by disagreeing with him, do you really believe he has a valid point to go ahead and molest children now, because of what I said?

Yes, the point tht you dont care about life. Even if these people did horrible things they deserve a second chance like all human beings would. Most of these people have the capacity to change and after going through therapy want to change. Im not saying everybody is going to stop molesting, but we cant kill everyone because they made one mistake in life.

So let one babysit your kids then( in future now, if you have none now) care to test your faith?

So let one babysit your kids then( in future now, if you have none now) care to test your faith?

There is a reason why convicted paedophiles arent allowed to hold child care jobs. This is just a cautionary measure as we cannot be completely certain whether they are reformed or not in such a case. It still does not give you the right to kill them as they may actually be reformed

There is a reason why convicted paedophiles arent allowed to hold child care jobs. This is just a cautionary measure as we cannot be completely certain whether they are reformed or not in such a case. It still does not give you the right to kill them as they may actually be reformed

surely you mean convicted sex offender, since being a pedophile is not a crime.

I'm still trying to get my head around how you thought I proved a child molesters point on here, by disagreeing with him, do you really believe he has a valid point to go ahead and molest children now, because of what I said?

:rolleyes: He could have done that with or without your consent - if indeed he actually is a pedophile. His point was that people's sexual preference is not essentially their fault - the fault is when society finds certain practices abhorant. If you punish people for their orientation, you're essentially punishing them for their biology. The very fact that you seem to believe they can't change implies that their preference is not psychological but biologically inherant to the individual. It's exactly the same as locking someone up and throwing away the key because they're black, or gay.

surely you mean convicted sex offender, since being a pedophile is not a crime.

Sorry. This is why i never got top marks in english

Agreed.

Doubly Agreed.

These are values of insane ravenous beasts. Watching the rest of the world proves it with a contrast so striking and shocking that there is no doubt that capitalism/corporatism is a failed cultural base. There is no more caring in that society. Corporations have broken the backs of the people like the wagesslaves they are, and now they are granting even more power to very insane men with obvious goals of oil and power.

Constant fear and constant hate. Just emotional dissolution of contstant adverts and non-sensical braincandy. If you already could see the blood dripping from your hands and realised how many deaths are formed from this failed expansive and terrible culture you would change it. Unfortunately, you are inside of it, and from the inside, you can't see the outside.

This is where the differences begin. 165 countries, to 3.