NationStates Jolt Archive

Clickety click (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3424035a10,00.html)

"A New Zealand man is sueing police for $80,000NZ (approx $56,000USD) for distributing pamphlets around the community informing families that he lived in their area.

Brown was freed from Upper Hutt's Rimutaka Prison in July 2001 after being jailed for five years in 1998 for pulling a five-year-old boy into a Newtown flat and sexually assaulting him.

He had previous convictions for indecent assault on small children from 1982, 1985 and 1990.

"When I walked down the street people would come out of their houses and abuse me, yelling things like 'kiddie f**ker'." Brown said.

Brown said he was physically abused on two occasions by men he had never met before."

Do you think the police have a right to tell families if a convicted paedophile moves into their suburb??




Personally I think that they should be allowed to tell people of a paedophiles presence, but themistake they made here was failing to give Brown protection. Even a convicted criminial in my opinion deserves to have protection from physical and verbal abuse in their community.

<Snip>
Do you think the police have a right to tell families if a convicted paedophile moves into their suburb??
No, I don't think they have the right. But I sure as hell hope they'd do it anyway.

A repeat case (as most are) like that one, I think it's completely unacceptable both for the man & the community, to let him loose. Either set the guy up on a deserted island, or do the humane thing: open a special facility for the dirty fuckers, and make sure they can't leave without an escorte.

Then the wankers can do whatever they like, enjoy a (rather limited) community, and noone will have to fear anything, whether it's curbing or rape. Legalise pot, and you'll have both suitable facilities & the money & staff to take care of them.

Edit: It's just a really fucking bad idea to let people like that loose. For everyone. I can't blame parents for wanting to kill him or chase him off. Honestly, I can't say I wouldn't help them.

No, I don't think they have the right. But I sure as hell hope they'd do it anyway.

So he has a right to sue the police and should win the compensation??

A repeat case (as most are) like that one, I think it's completely unacceptable both for the man & the community, to let him loose. Either set the guy up on a deserted island, or do the humane thing: open a special facility for the dirty fuckers, and make sure they can't leave without an escorte.

Then the wankers can do whatever they like, enjoy a (rather limited) community, and noone will have to fear anything, whether it's curbing or rape. Legalise pot, and you'll have both suitable facilities & the money & staff to take care of them.

your not a beleiver of rehabilitation then?? Surely if someone does something stupid when they are younger, there is a chance they may change and be good, productive citizens in the future

So he has a right to sue the police and should win the compensation??



your not a beleiver of rehabilitation then?? Surely if someone does something stupid when they are younger, there is a chance they may change and be good, productive citizens in the future


Thats the problem.
Science tell us that most of these people dont change.
Seems its not just behavioural.
It may just be the brain itself is wired to be turned on by buggering kids.

So, in essence, most pedophiles, never "reform".

I'm a firm believer in rehabilitation in "usual" crimes.

I kinda doubt it in the matter of sexually motivated crimes.

I mean, imagine you're a "normal" person, one of those attracted to the opposite sex and wanting to get laid, straightforward and normally, without any fancy fetish or anything.

Now imagine we're living in a bizarre world where only homosexuality is allowed and heterosexual intercourse strictly outlawed. Would you turn gay? Because that's the position that guy is in, his sexual attraction is outlawed, and "normal" sex, with either a guy or a girl, isn't gonna work out for him.

So I think rehabilitation isn't really going to work out either. How do you want to rehabilitate him? Convince him that he should live a "normal" life?

Could you be convinced to become homosexual, to return to our little bizarre world?

Before someone starts an uproar, this is not a "poor guy, let him rape the boys", it's a simple statement that rehabilitation isn't easy, if possible at all, with sexual crimes.

They probably have the right, but they shouldnt.

[...]it's a simple statement that rehabilitation isn't easy, if possible at all, with sexual crimes.

Only because you are pretending that celibacy is not possible. In fact, it is.

Clickety click (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3424035a10,00.html)

"A New Zealand man is sueing police for $80,000NZ (approx $56,000USD) for distributing pamphlets around the community informing families that he lived in their area.

Brown was freed from Upper Hutt's Rimutaka Prison in July 2001 after being jailed for five years in 1998 for pulling a five-year-old boy into a Newtown flat and sexually assaulting him.

He had previous convictions for indecent assault on small children from 1982, 1985 and 1990.

"When I walked down the street people would come out of their houses and abuse me, yelling things like 'kiddie f**ker'." Brown said.

Brown said he was physically abused on two occasions by men he had never met before."

Do you think the police have a right to tell families if a convicted paedophile moves into their suburb??




Personally I think that they should be allowed to tell people of a paedophiles presence, but themistake they made here was failing to give Brown protection. Even a convicted criminial in my opinion deserves to have protection from physical and verbal abuse in their community.


I see nothing wrong with this. If he had committed any other crime such as murder then I would be against it. People have a right to know if their children are in potenial danger. If anything had happened then the police would have been blamed. Last week somewhere in Ireland a paedophile was found to have been a bus driver for some years for primary school kids. These kids are aged 4-12 years. He now knows where they live. There is the argument that he did nothing to them and he has served his time and all that, but in genuine instances of rape and child abuse a few years in prison isn't enough. Did ye all read the thread yesterday about the Austrailian Granny who got her revenge on her grand daughters rapists? Thats the way to do it.

I see nothing wrong with this. If he had committed any other crime such as murder then I would be against it.

So you are saying that paedophilia is worse than murder??
if we can know where a paedophile is why cant we know where murderers are?

I would want to know if a serial murderer moved into my neighbourhood

Only because you are pretending that celibacy is not possible. In fact, it is.


Yah.

Working well for the catholics, aint it?

Yah.

Working well for the catholics, aint it?

Actually, it is. Don't let the media fool you, the number of priests involved in the child abuse allegations is much less than 1%. The child abuse allegations against the catholic church are not significant because of the number of cases, they are significant because of the way that the administration protected and helped the few priests responsible.

So he has a right to sue the police and should win the compensation??

Sure, why the hell not? First of all, outside the US (and probably in that country as well), the expenses for the state/government wouldn't even be noticable. Secondly, let it be the community punishment for doing something as hopelessly daft as setting a repeat pedo on the loose.

With an "everyone loose" policy, why be halfhearted about it? Anyway, I already suggested the only viable alternatives I can imagine.

your not a beleiver of rehabilitation then?? Surely if someone does something stupid when they are younger, there is a chance they may change and be good, productive citizens in the future

I am. A huge believer in rehabilitation even. But you should probably look at the statistics in this case, and read up on the research about the cause.

As someone else pointed out, it's (usually) a matter of sexuality. Though a number of young pedo's do it for different reasons, and often can be rehabilitated. But adult, repeat offenders are beyond reach. You could of course hang them, cut off their genitals, medicate them untill they're vegetative, lock them in a 3x3 cell for life or electroshock treat them, 'till they're drooling wrecks.

But I honestly think my solution is far more humane. Other insane people in our societies live under supervision as well. Most of them only present a danger to themselves. I don't see any reason not to try something similar with pedo's. Objectively speaking, they are still humans, and it probably isn't completely fair to blame them for their shit.

Actually, it is. Don't let the media fool you, the number of priests involved in the child abuse allegations is much less than 1%. The child abuse allegations against the catholic church are not significant because of the number of cases, they are significant because of the way that the administration protected and helped the few priests responsible.


Even less than 1%, still can be a large number.

How many such cases do you think there have been?

If the answer is greater, than ONE, its too many.
In this case, we may be talking about thousands of instances.
So, maybe its time to reavulate priest celibacy, huh?

I think it is very difficult, if not impossible to rehabilitate sexual criminals, but it´s no solution to inform the neighbourhood/area of living with naming personal dates...just imagine someone has been found wrongfully guilty of sexually harassing a child, gets sentenced, gets free and is killed by his outraged neighbours...collateral damage?

I think it better to raise the standards, if any at all for rehabilitation.

Convictededophiles have the right, outside of prison, to live out their lives without the threat of getting killed by random people ... in designated communities surrounded by large metal gates and guards at the entrances.

Actually, it is. Don't let the media fool you, the number of priests involved in the child abuse allegations is much less than 1%. The child abuse allegations against the catholic church are not significant because of the number of cases, they are significant because of the way that the administration protected and helped the few priests responsible.
Lazy Hippies, what makes you think the number of out-of-control pedo's aren't similar? If anyone have been able to back that kind of claims, it's very much news to me, and at odds with everything I know about this subject (sickningly much, I'm afraid).

Convictededophiles have the right, outside of prison, to live out their lives without the threat of getting killed by random people ... in designated communities surrounded by large metal gates and guards at the entrances.


They can live in designated communities, surrounded by large metal gates, and guards at the entrances, but for them I prefer the ones called H.M. Prison.

Lazy Hippies, what makes you think the number of out-of-control pedo's aren't similar? If anyone have been able to back that kind of claims, it's very much news to me, and at odds with everything I know about this subject (sickningly much, I'm afraid).

Aren't similar to what? I dont understand your question.

So you are saying that paedophilia is worse than murder??
if we can know where a paedophile is why cant we know where murderers are?

I would want to know if a serial murderer moved into my neighbourhood

it isn't a question of which one is worse, rather that recidivism is extremely high in paedophiles. i don't have the statistics to hand but i believe that while a person may in the heat of a moment commit a murder, and then regret it terribly, paedophilia is usually an ongoing state of mind that leads a person to commit paedophile acts repeatedly and for a long time.

I'm not saying that it is impossible for a paedophile to not commit paedophile acts, just that it is common that they don't reform.

They can live in designated communities, surrounded by large metal gates, and guards at the entrances, but for them I prefer the ones called H.M. Prison.

designated communities like bangkok and rio?

no one said what to do with these people!!!

Should the justice Dpt cut their nuts, let them in jail, export them to Poldavy?


I heard no true story 'bout pedophilia where in 98% of the cases the father was the involved guy...

Aren't similar to what? I dont understand your question.
What makes you think every pedo is running amok, abusing children? I can't link to any studies (I can prolly dig up a few if you want) right off, but I've never seen a study that doesn't show the number of active pedo's to be a but a fraction of the sum total.

Many do live in celibacy. Others actually manage to have a family, without causing anyone harm.

it isn't a question of which one is worse, rather that recidivism is extremely high in paedophiles. i don't have the statistics to hand but i believe that while a person may in the heat of a moment commit a murder, and then regret it terribly, paedophilia is usually an ongoing state of mind that leads a person to commit paedophile acts repeatedly and for a long time.

I'm not saying that it is impossible for a paedophile to not commit paedophile acts, just that it is common that they don't reform.

Sorry, but you fell for another myth. Ive posted the statistics here before, I dont feel like looking them up again. But go ahead and look them up yourself. The recidivism rate is actually lower than the recidivism rate of the prison population as a whole. If you limit the comparison to the recidivism rate for violent crime it alone, it is even lower still.

What makes you think every pedo is running amok, abusing children? I can't link to any studies (I can prolly dig up a few if you want) right off, but I've never seen a study that doesn't show the number of active pedo's to be a but a fraction of the sum total.

Many do live in celibacy. Others actually manage to have a family, without causing anyone harm.

Thank you for agreeing with me. Why would you ask me such a question if we both agree and have said basically teh same thing?

Sorry, but you fell for another myth. Ive posted the statistics here before, I dont feel like looking them up again. But go ahead and look them up yourself. The recidivism rate is actually lower than the recidivism rate of the prison population as a whole. If you limit the comparison to the recidivism rate for violent crime it alone, it is even lower still.

a) i find it extremely hard to believe that the recidivism rate for paedophilia is lower than that for the prison population as a whole, but i don't know

b) i find it impossible to believe that the recidivism rate for paedophilia is lower than that for murder

I think the police have the right to notify the public that their kids and possibly themselves are in potential harm.

No pedophile is completely 'reformed.' It quite common for them to relapse within a year after exiting their prison/program.


Cheers.

a) i find it extremely hard to believe that the recidivism rate for paedophilia is lower than that for the prison population as a whole, but i don't know

b) i find it impossible to believe that the recidivism rate for paedophilia is lower than that for murder
There is a huge difference between admitted pedo's and active ones. Also, child-child rapes are a different thing altogether (most of the time).

Active, especially repeat pedo's are pretty much incurable/unchangable/unreformable.. Whatever the hell you want to label it. Point is, they can't stopped, sort of locking them up or killing them dead.

Lazy Hippies, I'm sorry. I must've misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that all pedo's were of the active kind, but only made up a fraction of the priests in this world.

NB: Apologies for the horrid spelling. It tends to happen when I'm partially sober.

Pedophiles have a right to be sexually attracted to children, they do not have a right to violate the rights of children. So he can meet with like-minded individuals, discuss his likes, and pretty much anything else that doesn't violate another's rights.

I don't think government should force the individual to tell people of his offenses, or send anyone door to door. His abuses should be put into the public record, and everyone should have access to them.

International studies indicate a recidivism rate for pedophiles of 40-50 percent, as opposed to only 22 percent for all sexual offenders (Egg 2001) (http://pedophilia.biography.ms)

Over a five-year follow-up period, 25% of the treated group offended again (http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/7c.htm)
using the findings of another study (Marshall and Barbaree, 1988), it was decided that the appropriate recidivism rate for a similar group of non-treated offenders was 40% (http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/7c.htm)

He suffers from heterosexual paedophilia, a psychiatric disease for which there is no cure but which can be medically controlled. The recidivism rates for such untreated offenders is about 35 per cent and, with treatment, these rates are reduced to 5 to 10 per cent for pharmacological intervention and 10 to 15 per cent for cognitive treatment without medication. (http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-362_e.shtml)

Much investigation to date has reviewed surgical castration in Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and Iceland with reported recidivism rates down from 50 per cent to below 5 per cent. Texas has reported repeat offender rates of just 2.2 per cent compared to a national average of over 20 per cent (20 per cent is a low figure that was deduced from a short term study – longitudinal studies show much higher recidivism rates). (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0507/S00025.htm)


This quick google shows that globally touted figures for recidivism in paedophilia are 40% to 50%, dropping to 10% to 15% where the subject has received treatment.


It is now well established that the recidivism rate for murderers (around 3%) is much lower than that for discretionary lifers (26%)12. (http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/12inter.PDF)


Are the figures that I'm quoting for paedophile recidivism part of the myth for which you believe I am falling?

Pedophiles (or all criminals for that matter) don't deserve rights, they broke the law and should really have their citizenships removed, that way they are no longer able to enjoy the freedoms and benefits (That means protection of the law, healthcare, social welfare and education) of the rest of us who live a lawful life. It's harsh, but if you well inform people before hand, then they'll know the consequences of their actions and frankly, have it coming if they choose to break the law.

Pedophiles (or all criminals for that matter) don't deserve rights, they broke the law and should really have their citizenships removed, that way they are no longer able to enjoy the freedoms and benefits (That means protection of the law, healthcare, social welfare and education) of the rest of us who live a lawful life. It's harsh, but if you well inform people before hand, then they'll know the consequences of their actions and frankly, have it coming if they choose to break the law.

can you honestly say that you've never broken a law, and never intend to? including tax law and speed limits?

do you think that there's no such thing as a bad law?

Pedophiles (or all criminals for that matter) don't deserve rights, they broke the law and should really have their citizenships removed, that way they are no longer able to enjoy the freedoms and benefits (That means protection of the law, healthcare, social welfare and education) of the rest of us who live a lawful life. It's harsh, but if you well inform people before hand, then they'll know the consequences of their actions and frankly, have it coming if they choose to break the law.

That is what our courts are for, to determine what rights shall be revoked and for how long. And truthfully, I feel that if we are to begin revoking the rights of individuals, the first thing we must insure that they will recieve adequate legal and medical service. If we start denying rights without allowing legal or medical service, we start a horrible precedent.

So you are saying that paedophilia is worse than murder??

I AM SAYING THAT it's, if not worse, then certainly ON AN EVEN PAR with it. And it's for this (possibly oft quoted, but still) reason:
With a murder victim, the suffering ends immediately for the murdered
(of course the family still suffers).
With a paedophile victim, that kid is scarred for life. It's a potential life sentence of their own if they can't get over what happened to them.


Also, it's the whole "loss of innocence" thing. It makes it a far more heinous crime in the eyes of some (me included). One's child...that which is meant to be raised and protected from birth, suddenly abused by some complete freak.
It's a shot at the child because they're abused and there's quite a shame to it, according to many.
It's a shot at the parents because they didn't know/couldn't be there to protect the child from these people.

I can condone killing someone, even though I don't like the idea.
For instance, self-defense or in certain cases of "dignified death" euthanasia.
I cannot and WILL NOT condone paedophilia.


if we can know where a paedophile is why cant we know where murderers are?

I would want to know if a serial murderer moved into my neighbourhood

That's a good point, and I, personally, would consider letting the neighbourhood know about certain murderers on a case-by-case basis.
As for reasons, though, I might be able to offer one or two:

The earlier discussion about being able to reform.
A murder could be a once-r i.e. the victim was killed for a reason and the
murderer won't ever have a reason to do it again.
They might be more likely to tell if the murderer will kill again (although this, too, isn't an exact science).

Releasing known child molesters, on the other hand, is an unknown element.
Murder can be done for a reason, but being a paedophile is thought to be an actual part of the molester.
If what was said about being unable to reform holds true, and maybe they don't have the willpower to be celibate (as was suggested earlier),
I sure as shit wouldn't want them in my neighbourhood at all if I can help it, and, if they have to be there, then I wouldn't want them there without me knowing about it.

Those are just my thoughts on the matter, though.

What shits me off really badly is that paedophiles (and rapists in general) get punished less harshly in terms of prison sentences than murderers.
Murderers can get sent away until the f**king APOCALYPSE comes before they get to see the light of day again.

But paeodphiles? They can be sentenced to 10 years and get out after 4.
It's sickening.

Pedophiles (or all criminals for that matter) don't deserve rights, they broke the law and should really have their citizenships removed, that way they are no longer able to enjoy the freedoms and benefits (That means protection of the law, healthcare, social welfare and education) of the rest of us who live a lawful life. It's harsh, but if you well inform people before hand, then they'll know the consequences of their actions and frankly, have it coming if they choose to break the law.

How do you expect a former criminal to reintegrate into society if you don't reaccept him in society? There are many people who, out of desperation or juvenile flippance, steal something. They're not "bad people", just someone who made a mistake.

Now you revoke his citizenship and pretty much brand him a criminal for life. What do you expect him to do?

If you don't know, watch Les Miserables. Despite the French title, it's a good play.

The real issue here is that the guy was convicted FOUR times. Sentenced FOUR times, and he's not even forty years old and out in public again :confused:

What the hell is wrong with the NZ court system that they continue to let habitual child molesters out of prison over and over again?

Perhaps next time they should send the guy to China and have his court case there, if he is found guilty again, they'll take him out back, plug a shot in his head and send his family a bill for the price of one bullet. No recidivism problems there.

International studies indicate a recidivism rate for pedophiles of 40-50 percent, as opposed to only 22 percent for all sexual offenders (Egg 2001) (http://pedophilia.biography.ms)

Over a five-year follow-up period, 25% of the treated group offended again (http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/7c.htm)
using the findings of another study (Marshall and Barbaree, 1988), it was decided that the appropriate recidivism rate for a similar group of non-treated offenders was 40% (http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/7c.htm)

He suffers from heterosexual paedophilia, a psychiatric disease for which there is no cure but which can be medically controlled. The recidivism rates for such untreated offenders is about 35 per cent and, with treatment, these rates are reduced to 5 to 10 per cent for pharmacological intervention and 10 to 15 per cent for cognitive treatment without medication. (http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-362_e.shtml)

Much investigation to date has reviewed surgical castration in Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and Iceland with reported recidivism rates down from 50 per cent to below 5 per cent. Texas has reported repeat offender rates of just 2.2 per cent compared to a national average of over 20 per cent (20 per cent is a low figure that was deduced from a short term study – longitudinal studies show much higher recidivism rates). (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0507/S00025.htm)


This quick google shows that globally touted figures for recidivism in paedophilia are 40% to 50%, dropping to 10% to 15% where the subject has received treatment.


It is now well established that the recidivism rate for murderers (around 3%) is much lower than that for discretionary lifers (26%)12. (http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/12inter.PDF)


Are the figures that I'm quoting for paedophile recidivism part of the myth for which you believe I am falling?


Yes. Because the recidivism rate for crime in general is in the neighborhood of 60% (in the US). You quoted statistics showing 5-50% for sex offenders, which makes it considerably lower than the recidivism rate for criminals in general. In essence, what you have shown is that a sex offender is 10% to 55% less likely to reoffend than another criminal in general.

I never mentioned the recidivism rate for murder. You will certainly find some crimes with a much lower recidivism rate than most other crimes. White collar crimes come to mind. You will also find crimes with an immensely high recidivism rate, drug crimes come to mind here. But if you compare the recidivism rate for sex crimes with the recidivism rate for all crimes in general, the recidivism rate for sex crimes is lower. When compared to all violent crimes (which includes robbery, assault, murder, and other things), the difference is larger still.

Here is a government sponsored page that explains the myth in laymen's terms:
http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

In the Center for Sex Offender Management (US Department of Justice)'s own words:
It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population.

and this from an organization whose very existance hinges on society's continued belief that these types of criminals need special management beyond that used for other criminals.

Pedophiles should not have right to privacy. We are talking about children.. and by not informing the public we are putting them at risk. Pedophiles should be sentenced to at least 20 years, and murderers should be sentenced to death. This sounds like a major screw up in New Zealand, that he has been tried four times and is not even forty.

your not a beleiver of rehabilitation then?? Surely if someone does something stupid when they are younger, there is a chance they may change and be good, productive citizens in the future
He was a repeat offender. A multiple repeat offender. Rehabilitation obviously ain't working.

How do you expect a former criminal to reintegrate into society if you don't reaccept him in society? There are many people who, out of desperation or juvenile flippance, steal something. They're not "bad people", just someone who made a mistake.

Now you revoke his citizenship and pretty much brand him a criminal for life. What do you expect him to do?

If you don't know, watch Les Miserables. Despite the French title, it's a good play.

Without forgiveness, there can be no justice. Without justice, there can be no law.

The protection of our children is paramount. Children are our future leaders, carers, police, military, health providers etc etc. Any psychological damage done to them will possibly lose us excellent future members of society. They are also uniquely vulnerable to adult violence and manipulation. Having said that, anyone who has served a prison sentence is seen to have been dealt with by law and has all the rights of anyone else, including protection from violence. It's a horrible dillema. Although informing parents that a convicted paedophile is living amongst them seems a common sense notion, we forget that there are far more potential, as yet unconvicted paedophiles already with us. I believe convicted paedophiles should be tagged for a minimum of five years and required to report to the police in person at least twice a week. I also believe that a second offence should render them liable to life imprisonment. If a society is seen to be dealing with this disgusting problem, it should halp to allay community fears.

Child abuse is a hideous crime, possibly the worst I can conceive of! But the point was...is it correct to inform the region/neighbourhood about a convicted paedophile in the vicinity, and that i think is wrong. Where to draw the line, which crime merits public announcement, which not, what in the case of wrong accusation. If this guy vas caught and convicted four times, then the collected evidence was obviously insufficient for a true sentence...this is the fault of the police, and now they take their revenge? This is not the way a judicial system should work.

The purpose of the community notification is not to embarrass the criminal or decrease the quality of his life. It is to warn people, to make them aware of a risk to their children so they can protect them.

This is about protecting children. If the pedophile feels uncomfortable with the dislike of the community, then so be it. He did commit a heinous crime, after all. I can't understand why anyone has sympathy for his tender ego.

The purpose of the community notification is not to embarrass the criminal or decrease the quality of his life. It is to warn people, to make them aware of a risk to their children so they can protect them.

This is about protecting children. If the pedophile feels uncomfortable with the dislike of the community, then so be it. He did commit a heinous crime, after all. I can't understand why anyone has sympathy for his tender ego.

I agree. And maybe it'll be a deterrant. Do we really want government to sweep pedophiles crimes under the rug? Because they will; community leaders will not want to lower land sales and business with a bad reputation of child molesters in the neighborhood, so they will want to keep it a secret. "It's our little secret."

Ugh. No, no it isn't.

There are certain things that are just not acceptable in todays day and age, and being a kidfucker is one of them. Tough for him; maybe he should have thought about this before he started molesting children. Anyway, I have little enough sympathy for those who actually do have bad breaks in life without wasting any time worrying that this pervert had his "rights" violated.

Sadly, I can see the day coming however when we are forced to accept pedo's under the guise of "diversity" or something stupid. I will however remain firm on the issue, and continue to despise them for the sick bastards that they are.

Sadly, I can see the day coming however when we are forced to accept pedo's under the guise of "diversity" or something stupid. I will however remain firm on the issue, and continue to despise them for the sick bastards that they are.

Yeah. Like the "Legalize Pedophilia" thread a while back.

*sigh*

your not a beleiver of rehabilitation then?? Surely if someone does something stupid when they are younger, there is a chance they may change and be good, productive citizens in the future

Science thus far tells us Pediofilia is largely an incurable condition much like alcoholism. You can try to control it.. but there is no rehabilitation and you are always open to the threat of repeat offense

Even less than 1%, still can be a large number.

How many such cases do you think there have been?

If the answer is greater, than ONE, its too many.
In this case, we may be talking about thousands of instances.
So, maybe its time to reavulate priest celibacy, huh?

Yup, in one case a guy had been attacking kids for over 40 years.

A coworkers husband (Irish) returned home from a trip in the foulist of moods. A few days later he told her that he just found out that his boyhood friend was kidnapped, taking out in the middle of nowhere, tortured and raped.

The boy did turn him in. The Churches responce "please keep this quiet, we will deal with him" They did and years later found that their solution was to move him to Canada where he attacked other kids.

The actual numbers may never be known as the Church will not admit to the numbers and probably part of the seattlements(over a billion so far) probably has nondisclosure rules.....

Science thus far tells us Pediofilia is largely an incurable condition much like alcoholism. You can try to control it.. but there is no rehabilitation and you are always open to the threat of repeat offense

Surely some form of brain surgery or castration therapy would be effective?

The protection of our children is paramount. Children are our future leaders, carers, police, military, health providers etc etc. Any psychological damage done to them will possibly lose us excellent future members of society. They are also uniquely vulnerable to adult violence and manipulation. Having said that, anyone who has served a prison sentence is seen to have been dealt with by law and has all the rights of anyone else, including protection from violence. It's a horrible dillema. Although informing parents that a convicted paedophile is living amongst them seems a common sense notion, we forget that there are far more potential, as yet unconvicted paedophiles already with us. I believe convicted paedophiles should be tagged for a minimum of five years and required to report to the police in person at least twice a week. I also believe that a second offence should render them liable to life imprisonment. If a society is seen to be dealing with this disgusting problem, it should halp to allay community fears.

I think you make a very important point. There are far more uncovicted pedophiles than there are convicted ones. Therefore, labelling them doesnt really do anything more than give you a false sense of security. Parents should just learn to assume that any given person might be a pedophile.

This reminds me of the security field. In the security field, one of the dumbest and most worthless security precautions you could possibly take is to restrict access to a building (or network) by stopping unwanted individuals from entering. The correct approach to access control is to block access to everyone except the individuals who need access. There is a big difference between the two approaches. In the first approach, you are vulnerable to anyone who hasnt yet been identified as unwanted. In the second approach you are only vulnerable to those people you specifically allowed through.

Take a corporate building for example, building A allows anyone from the public to go in unless they are on the watch list. Building B does not allow anyone without a corporate badge to enter. Which building is more secure? While there are obvious workarounds (such as creating a false badge or stealing someone else's), building B is without a doubt much more secure than building A.

That is the same strategy that parents need to follow. They shouldnt be acting differently just because they find out their neighbor is a convicted sex offender. Their security policy should be good enough that regardless of their neighbors legal status, their children will be at the lowest risk possible (risk can never be zero). If they need to change their practices because they find out their neighbor was a pedophile, then their practices werent adequate to begin with.

Its a very good argument against these laws. These laws actually hurt people by giving them a false sense of security and promoting irresponsible security practices.

Clickety click (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3424035a10,00.html)

"A New Zealand man is sueing police for $80,000NZ (approx $56,000USD) for distributing pamphlets around the community informing families that he lived in their area.

Brown was freed from Upper Hutt's Rimutaka Prison in July 2001 after being jailed for five years in 1998 for pulling a five-year-old boy into a Newtown flat and sexually assaulting him.

He had previous convictions for indecent assault on small children from 1982, 1985 and 1990.

"When I walked down the street people would come out of their houses and abuse me, yelling things like 'kiddie f**ker'." Brown said.

Brown said he was physically abused on two occasions by men he had never met before."

Do you think the police have a right to tell families if a convicted paedophile moves into their suburb??




Personally I think that they should be allowed to tell people of a paedophiles presence, but themistake they made here was failing to give Brown protection. Even a convicted criminial in my opinion deserves to have protection from physical and verbal abuse in their community.

The only thing a pedo should be doing is puhing up daises.

Not sueing about anything, if proven guilty of it. they should be dead . End Of Story

Surely some form of brain surgery or castration therapy would be effective?

actually castration has known to be effective and some have taken that path. But it would be a violation of their HUMAN rights to impose such methods on them.

-=Not that anyone will get to this but deffantly needs a read=-

Clickety click (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3424035a10,00.html)

"A New Zealand man is sueing police for $80,000NZ (approx $56,000USD) for distributing pamphlets around the community informing families that he lived in their area.

... Deleted Sceens...

"When I walked down the street people would come out of their houses and abuse me, yelling things like 'kiddie f**ker'." Brown said.

Brown said he was physically abused on two occasions by men he had never met before."

Do you think the police have a right to tell families if a convicted paedophile moves into their suburb??




Personally I think that they should be allowed to tell people of a paedophiles presence, but themistake they made here was failing to give Brown protection. Even a convicted criminial in my opinion deserves to have protection from physical and verbal abuse in their community.

Here in the USA its The goverments responcablity to educate other people of the presance of sexual preditors. the Judical system is Part of the Goverment body here. with http://www.sexoffender.com/ you can serch for your area, and you may be suprised of what you find in your neigborhood.

As for People assulting Him he should be sueing the people who broke the Law and assulted him, where as people yelling obsinitys is harrasment at best but hard to prove in a court of law.

actually castration has known to be effective and some have taken that path. But it would be a violation of their HUMAN rights to impose such methods on them.

Yeah, but if you accept the whole "its an incurable disease" theory instead of my preferred "they are sick criminal perverts theory", obviously the standard is different. Castration has been used in the past to deal with physical illnesses, why not in this case? It's a treatment is all.

Anyway, there is always the brain surgery too. They still do that to some psycopaths.

actually castration has known to be effective and some have taken that path. But it would be a violation of their HUMAN rights to impose such methods on them.

piss on their rights. they are not human.

What about the rights of their victims. Those are the only rights that matter in any crime.

Piss on Murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. they should all get to ride ol sparky, or get the easy way out on the drug bed...

Clickety click (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3424035a10,00.html)

"A New Zealand man is sueing police for $80,000NZ (approx $56,000USD) for distributing pamphlets around the community informing families that he lived in their area.

Brown was freed from Upper Hutt's Rimutaka Prison in July 2001 after being jailed for five years in 1998 for pulling a five-year-old boy into a Newtown flat and sexually assaulting him.

He had previous convictions for indecent assault on small children from 1982, 1985 and 1990.

"When I walked down the street people would come out of their houses and abuse me, yelling things like 'kiddie f**ker'." Brown said.

Brown said he was physically abused on two occasions by men he had never met before."

Do you think the police have a right to tell families if a convicted paedophile moves into their suburb??




Personally I think that they should be allowed to tell people of a paedophiles presence, but themistake they made here was failing to give Brown protection. Even a convicted criminial in my opinion deserves to have protection from physical and verbal abuse in their community.

What's the point in a prison sentence if from the minute you're released, you are not able to get on with your life? Families are not warned if former burglars, muggers etc. are moving into an area and so why should they with a paedophile, so long as the offender is fully rehabilitated. If we treat people who have committed a crime like they are inevitably going to commit a crime once released then all we are going to do is be proved right. You have to give people second chances. He served his time, now give him the chance to be an upstanding citizen.

One thing I'd like to ask, because I really am curious about the subject:
I keep hearing "most sexual offenders never reform" and stuff like that, but whenever I try to look up good solid facts and numbers I get vague statements and about 5,000 pages that seem to be copy and paste jobs from the 500 I just read, none of which lead to the origional study.
Does anyone have the actual numbers on how many are "most" of these abusers, and what they consider to be reformed?

What's the point in a prison sentence if from the minute you're released, you are not able to get on with your life? Families are not warned if former burglars, muggers etc. are moving into an area and so why should they with a paedophile, so long as the offender is fully rehabilitated.

Serving a sentence =/= full rehabilitation.

If we treat people who have committed a crime like they are inevitably going to commit a crime once released then all we are going to do is be proved right. You have to give people second chances. He served his time, now give him the chance to be an upstanding citizen.

It isn't treating them like they are inevitably going to commit a crime, it's a recognition that people want to know if the guy next door happens to be a convicted child molestor before, for example, letting their child wander around alone in his back yard. (Silly example, but you get the picture.) Why should it be secret? He still has a chance to be an 'upstanding citizen,' being truthful about his crimes doesn't ruin that chance.

piss on their rights. they are not human.

What about the rights of their victims. Those are the only rights that matter in any crime.

Piss on Murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. they should all get to ride ol sparky, or get the easy way out on the drug bed...

Statements like that make me worry a great deal sometimes. For one what about people convicted of stagitory rape? I knew people back in High School who's parents sued their signifigant other for stagetory rape because they were under age and the person they were in a relationship was 3-4 years older than them. Because of that these people now show up as sex offenders and will be treated as such for the rest of their life. If we were to have your view, aside from having a rather good relationship ruined, and their life torn to shreds as well, they would also then be killed?

Also for murderes, sometimes a case of self defense is hard to prove, or in my case due to studying martial arts, if someone attacks me and I use lethal force I will be tried for murder because I am considered a dangerous weapon. Should I be killed because some punk in an ally jumped me with several friends and I had to kill at least one of them to survive the encounter?


And the link someone put up for the sex offender... my county seems to have so many it has a site dedicated to it soley... wiggy.

paedophile rights...
alright...
you have the right to be shot in the head...if you decline this right...thats not my problem.
:sniper:

The thing is that sex crimes, and in particular pedophilia, have very very high re-offence rates and repeat re-offence rates.

I thought I already dismantled this myth on this very thread? Look here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9706349&postcount=37

Hey finally someone supplies the numbers that I was asking about.
Interestingly the numbers go against those hundreds of web pages that all looked like copy and paste jobs.
Now to compare data and find which ones come from a more reliable source, and if there is evidence to back it up.

Hmmm let's see, 300 pages that all say exactly the same thing without pointing to their source of information... to studies done by the department of justice.

Yeah, going to definately have to go with the Hippy on this one.

I thought I already dismantled this myth on this very thread? Look here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9706349&postcount=37

Good, so we can just go back to treating them like criminals then, and bin all this "they can't help it" nonsense.

Carry on.

Serving a sentence =/= full rehabilitation.



It isn't treating them like they are inevitably going to commit a crime, it's a recognition that people want to know if the guy next door happens to be a convicted child molestor before, for example, letting their child wander around alone in his back yard. (Silly example, but you get the picture.) Why should it be secret? He still has a chance to be an 'upstanding citizen,' being truthful about his crimes doesn't ruin that chance.

So... if the man has never been convicted (but is still a paedophile) it's ok to let the child wander around alone in the guys backyard?

There is much merit to what the person said who posted that all this does is provide some false sense of security (and also alot more tools to vigilante justice [note news in Washington state])...

One thing that seems to have been forgotten here is the distinction between a pedophile and a child molester. The vast majority of child molesters are NOT pedophiles, and the vast majority of pedophiles are NOT child molesters. (As has been noted by FBI specialist Keith Lanning, among many others in law enforcement.)

I could, under limited circumstances, support warning a community that a convicted child molester had moved into the neighborhood. This case sounds like it MAY be one of those cases.

Unfortunately, given the way the media lies about this subject, that is by no means confirmed.

If this guy really has a history of forcing UNWANTED attention on children, and multiple convictions on multiple occasions hasn't stopped him, then he probably IS a risk.

But I'm not going to believe what the media says about it, because they always lie.

In any case, the greatly over-broad definition of "sex offender" is going to make these databases more and more troublesome, and more and more useless.


Baldur, in South Niflheim

Do you think the police have a right to tell families if a convicted paedophile moves into their suburb??

Personally I think that they should be allowed to tell people of a paedophiles presence, but themistake they made here was failing to give Brown protection. Even a convicted criminial in my opinion deserves to have protection from physical and verbal abuse in their community.

Here in the US, there are several salient facts:

1. Due to a court decision, the police are under no obligation to provide protection to any specific individual at any specific time - only to provide a general service to the general public. So they aren't obligated to guard someone like this. Hell, they won't even guard a victimized woman who has a protective order.

2. Verbal abuse, up to a limit, is free speech here.

3. They post the whereabouts of pedophiles on the Internet here. That got some killed in Idaho recently, but too bad.

4. If pedophiles don't want to get found out and killed, perhaps they should consider not being pedophiles. It's a simple fact that if no one was a pedophile, then no pedophiles would be on any lists, and no one would be abusing or killing a pedophile.

So... if the man has never been convicted (but is still a paedophile) it's ok to let the child wander around alone in the guys backyard?

Well, no. But if he hasnt been convicted how does anyone know he's a pedo? Specifically, why would the government be obligated to tell us if he's only been CHARGED with it? Not all charges stick, but most convictions are convictions in my mind.

There is much merit to what the person said who posted that all this does is provide some false sense of security (and also alot more tools to vigilante justice [note news in Washington state])...

I don't think it's false. But if you want to get technical, you might argue that all the entire Justice system does is provide a false sense of security; criminals will commit crimes anyway.

They post the whereabouts of pedophiles on the Internet here. That got some killed in Idaho recently, but too bad.



So Paedophilia is wrong but murder is okay. Something not quite right there.

...Before someone starts an uproar, this is not a "poor guy, let him rape the boys", it's a simple statement that rehabilitation isn't easy, if possible at all, with sexual crimes.

While you make a point to some degree, your argument is inferring that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, a concept I have major issues with. It is hard to rehabilitate a pedophile, not because it is his natural sexuality, but because the roots behind it are deeply entrenched by adulthood, and because sex (male sex drive in particular) can be a very strong force mentally and emotionally--one that is not easily changed, even if the person is willing. It is partially the power and intensity of the male sex drive that is the reason you don't see that many female pedophiles (or foot fetishists, etc.).

Also, the first time I read your post, I thought you were equating homosexuality with pedophilia, which usually pisses me off royally. I don't think that was your intent, though.

Now imagine we're living in a bizarre world where only homosexuality is allowed and heterosexual intercourse strictly outlawed. Would you turn gay? Because that's the position that guy is in, his sexual attraction is outlawed, and "normal" sex, with either a guy or a girl, isn't gonna work out for him.

For the record, that was a stupid book. SciFi novel, by some forgettable author. The rest of the book was about Ghost Matter, but the author was clearly interested more in his pet social theory.

per the OP: Don't feel sorry for the guy in the slighest.

3. They post the whereabouts of pedophiles on the Internet here. That got some killed in Idaho recently, but too bad.

4. If pedophiles don't want to get found out and killed, perhaps they should consider not being pedophiles. It's a simple fact that if no one was a pedophile, then no pedophiles would be on any lists, and no one would be abusing or killing a pedophile. I was always under the impression that once you've served your sentence, you are free. Punishment should not extend beyond that given by the law - and helping that on its way really is not good at all.

I thought I already dismantled this myth on this very thread? Look here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9706349&postcount=37


And yet:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151999,00.html

And yet:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151999,00.html

Ah yes, more stellar reporting by that beacon of fairness and balance that is Fox News. :rolleyes:

I wonder who to trust, the FBI/DOJ statistics and the Center for Sex Offender Management, or Fox News...

This message is hidden because LazyHippies is on your ignore list.


Ahhh much better.....

That guys a sick bastard and shouldnt have been let out but thats not his fault.

Yes. Because the recidivism rate for crime in general is in the neighborhood of 60% (in the US). You quoted statistics showing 5-50% for sex offenders, which makes it considerably lower than the recidivism rate for criminals in general. In essence, what you have shown is that a sex offender is 10% to 55% less likely to reoffend than another criminal in general.

if your figures are correct, 10% less likely to reoffend if untreated. Personally i believe that crimes against the person are considerably more serious than crimes against property, so I'm much more worried about recidivism in sex crimes than in burglary or drug offences.

But if you compare the recidivism rate for sex crimes with the recidivism rate for all crimes in general, the recidivism rate for sex crimes is lower. . . .

But as I already pointed out, the recidivism rate for paedophile crimes is on average more than double that for sex crimes in general.

And the recidivism rate for paedophile crimes only drops to the 5 to 15% range with chemical or surgical intervention.

They probably have the right, but they shouldnt.

So pedophiles should be free?

Times have changed.

Well, no. But if he hasnt been convicted how does anyone know he's a pedo? Specifically, why would the government be obligated to tell us if he's only been CHARGED with it? Not all charges stick, but most convictions are convictions in my mind.

It does not matter in this case... The point is how people use the list provided...


I don't think it's false. But if you want to get technical, you might argue that all the entire Justice system does is provide a false sense of security; criminals will commit crimes anyway.

The justice system's purpose is to deal out just law, and equitable penalty for infractions..... The purpose of the notification system, is so that people who have already been processed by the justice system (and handed out penalties applicable to the law) can be further harrassed and attacked (and sometimes murdered, note case in Idaho recently) by society in general under a illegal vigilante system....

The point of the issue in the first place, is that you shouldn't be letting you chuldren run around the back-yards of strangers in the first fucking place... And the fact that you insist on the need of some government backed public-domain blace-list to determine which strangers your children can hang around, show a complete lack of care for your children to begin with, and nullifies any other claim you can possible make.

At least read the information I linked to before attempting a response. How is it possible that I pointed to an official source that clearly states:

# child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and
# rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period.

Another study found reconviction rates for child molesters to be 20% and for rapists to be approximately 23% (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995).


Yet you still manage to claim in response:

But as I already pointed out, the recidivism rate for paedophile crimes is on average more than double that for sex crimes in general.

Not only is the recidivism rate for pedophile crimes not double, but it is actually lower than for rape.

Pedophiles should have thier nads chopped of!!!!!!!!! :mad:

Pedophiles should have thier nads chopped of!!!!!!!!! :mad:
But that dosent stop them using tools.