NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, can it?

While doing some research on sexual addiction (being engaged to a future social worker gets you into some interesting conversations at times), I came across some websites that state that pedophilia can be "cured". Now various sites stated various things, such as being sexually attracted is ok, as long as you never act on it. Other stated that counseling is your only hope (but he was selling a book on it), and still another recommended steps that included never swimming again, masturbating, or seeing underwear.

There are also, apparently, three different 'flavors' of this addiction.

Pedophilia: being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children
Pedophiliac: Fantasizing about having sexual relations/contact with pre-pubescent child/children, even when engaged in sex with another adult.
Pederast: Having sexual relations/contact with pre-pubescent child/children

So what says the all wise and all-knowing inhabitants of NS General? And please try to back up your answers, saying that they should be drug out onto the streets and shot is not acceptable unless you can show why that's the best way to deal with them (as opposed to shooting them in private perhaps?).

Short note: I'm posting this before heading off to bed as it's late in Japan. So if you're wondering why the original poster isn't responding, it's probably because I'm off dreaming I've joined the Navy and are on a training cruise to Arizona... again.

Well, can it?
Well... yeah. Explain to them that feet really aren't that attractive.

Paedophilia = love of Children.
Pedophilia = love of Feet.

Seriously, guys, it's not that hard.

I've heard that castration therapy has wonderful results.

Pedophiles almost always re-commit when they are released from prison, so the question should be, why do we release them?

Well... yeah. Explain to them that feet really aren't that attractive.

Paedophilia = love of Children.
Pedophilia = love of Feet.

Seriously, guys, it's not that hard.
OED disagrees, Pedophilia is love of children, not just their feet. ;)

Well, can it?

While doing some research on sexual addiction (being engaged to a future social worker gets you into some interesting conversations at times), I came across some websites that state that pedophilia can be "cured". Now various sites stated various things, such as being sexually attracted is ok, as long as you never act on it. Other stated that counseling is your only hope (but he was selling a book on it), and still another recommended steps that included never swimming again, masturbating, or seeing underwear.

There are also, apparently, three different 'flavors' of this addiction.

Pedophilia: being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children
Pedophiliac: Fantasizing about having sexual relations/contact with pre-pubescent child/children, even when engaged in sex with another adult.
Pederast: Having sexual relations/contact with pre-pubescent child/children

So what says the all wise and all-knowing inhabitants of NS General? And please try to back up your answers, saying that they should be drug out onto the streets and shot is not acceptable unless you can show why that's the best way to deal with them (as opposed to shooting them in private perhaps?).

Short note: I'm posting this before heading off to bed as it's late in Japan. So if you're wondering why the original poster isn't responding, it's probably because I'm off dreaming I've joined the Navy and are on a training cruise to Arizona... again.


Contained, but not cured. There isn't any good data on recidivism, but the general consensus is that it is very high. Even with psychological therapy and the use of drugs such as Depo-Provera (which stifles your sexual urges), there is still recidivism. So you have to watch these people for the rest of their lives.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/disneyslut.htm

For the most part, the Catholic Church uses two treatment centers in America for pedophiliac priests: St. Luke Institute in Maryland and the facility operated by the Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, New Mexico. At St. Luke the regimen involves breaking down denial and incorporates 12-step programs to control sexual addictions. It also provides drug therapy involving Depo-Provera, a synthetic compound, similar to the female hormone progesterone that lowers the sex drive. In its nine years St. Luke has treated 137 priests for pedophilia and ephebophilia, the sexual obsession with postpubescent children. The center operated by the Servants of the Paraclete has treated about 400 clergymen for "psychosexual issues" over the past 12 years.

Pedophilia and ephebophilia "are not curable but can be contained," explains Curtis Bryant, in-patient director at St. Luke. After treatment, patients are reassigned and put under direct supervision of local bishops. St. Luke insists that none are placed in positions where they will come into contact with children. What happens if a patient is seen cruising a playground? "We consider that a relapse," says Dr. Stephen Montana, director of St. Luke's out-patient services. There is no guarantee against recidivism. Indeed, at the center run by the Servants of the Paraclete, several former patients committed abuses after their release. One of these was James Porter, a patient in 1967, who was charged by 21 Minnesotans of molesting them. Sued by Porter's victims, the Servants of the Paraclete, while admitting no wrongdoing, eventually agreed to pay an average of $21,000 to each victim.

OED disagrees, Pedophilia is love of children, not just their feet. ;)
Pedophilia is the love of pre-pubescent children's feet?

i think being attracted to kids isnt acceptable but i guess people dont have a choice in the matter. you cant change how you feel. although if people act upon their feelings in a way that can hurt people, especially the kids, they should be shot. :confused: :sniper:

Contained, but not cured. There isn't any good data on recidivism, but the general consensus is that it is very high. Even with psychological therapy and the use of drugs such as Depo-Provera (which stifles your sexual urges), there is still recidivism. So you have to watch these people for the rest of their lives.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/disneyslut.htm

For the most part, the Catholic Church uses two treatment centers in America for pedophiliac priests: St. Luke Institute in Maryland and the facility operated by the Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, New Mexico. At St. Luke the regimen involves breaking down denial and incorporates 12-step programs to control sexual addictions. It also provides drug therapy involving Depo-Provera, a synthetic compound, similar to the female hormone progesterone that lowers the sex drive. In its nine years St. Luke has treated 137 priests for pedophilia and ephebophilia, the sexual obsession with postpubescent children. The center operated by the Servants of the Paraclete has treated about 400 clergymen for "psychosexual issues" over the past 12 years.

Pedophilia and ephebophilia "are not curable but can be contained," explains Curtis Bryant, in-patient director at St. Luke. After treatment, patients are reassigned and put under direct supervision of local bishops. St. Luke insists that none are placed in positions where they will come into contact with children. What happens if a patient is seen cruising a playground? "We consider that a relapse," says Dr. Stephen Montana, director of St. Luke's out-patient services. There is no guarantee against recidivism. Indeed, at the center run by the Servants of the Paraclete, several former patients committed abuses after their release. One of these was James Porter, a patient in 1967, who was charged by 21 Minnesotans of molesting them. Sued by Porter's victims, the Servants of the Paraclete, while admitting no wrongdoing, eventually agreed to pay an average of $21,000 to each victim.

Well put
I remember that case, it tied closly with how the church reacted to our priest when they found out he was recommiting

OED disagrees, Pedophilia is love of children, not just their feet. ;)
But Ped- and Pedo- in Greek mean different things. When you use them as prefixes, you need to distinguish between them. Pedophilia could be very easily a love of dirt. Hence, Paed- is taken as the child prefix to prevent confusion.

I've heard that castration therapy has wonderful results.
High velocity lead therapy is much more effective.

High velocity lead therapy is much more effective.

I believe it's called a buckshot shampoo...

Maybe the difference in spelling (Paedophile vs. Pedophile) is just a regional thing. I mean, in the US we call doctors for little kids Pediatricians. No "ae" involved. We call doctors for feet podiatrists. No "e" at all. Is it different in UK or something?

I believe it's called a buckshot shampoo...
Using my terminology it can be argued for as a medical treatment.

Using my terminology it can be argued for as a medical treatment.

I used to call it a high order craniotomy...

I used to call it a high order craniotomy...
See, now you're thinking. Pedophillia is a mental disorder, and should be treated medically.

Nurse, please fetch me a surgical shotgun shell.

Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a desire. Desires cannot be "cured" like mental disorders like depression, only surpressed.

One cannot be "cured" of smoking, they only decide to resist that urge. The same can be said about anything else that is a desire. It will always reside in their subconscious, they just don't act upon it.

Pedophilia and homosexuality both appear to me as unusual (as in not common) preferences over who we find sexually attractive.

To me the problem Pedophilia seems to have is that underage children can't appear to make rational choices for themselves and public opinion puts Pedophilics are rapists and abusers.

I wonder is a pedophile who never takes action on his desires any different than a homosexual who never takes action on his desires?
Just a thought

High velocity lead therapy is much more effective.

You guys beat me to it. Lead therapy administered to the precise locations. followed by a dirt nap.

Well, can it?

While doing some research on sexual addiction (being engaged to a future social worker gets you into some interesting conversations at times), I came across some websites that state that pedophilia can be "cured". Now various sites stated various things, such as being sexually attracted is ok, as long as you never act on it. Other stated that counseling is your only hope (but he was selling a book on it), and still another recommended steps that included never swimming again, masturbating, or seeing underwear.

There are also, apparently, three different 'flavors' of this addiction.

Pedophilia: being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children
Pedophiliac: Fantasizing about having sexual relations/contact with pre-pubescent child/children, even when engaged in sex with another adult.
Pederast: Having sexual relations/contact with pre-pubescent child/children

So what says the all wise and all-knowing inhabitants of NS General? And please try to back up your answers, saying that they should be drug out onto the streets and shot is not acceptable unless you can show why that's the best way to deal with them (as opposed to shooting them in private perhaps?)

Pedophilia is different from most (though not all) other paraphilias in that you cannot, by definition, find willing partners and must rely on predatory practices. As with all paraphilias this dysfunction "tend[s] to be chronic and lifelong" and "tends to increase in response to psychosocial stressors, in relation to other mental disorders, or with increased opportunity to engage in the Paraphilia"(DSM IVtr, p. 568). Further, mere attraction is not enough to be clinically diagnosed as a pedophile. For that diagnosis an individual must meet three critera: intense sexual fantasies and urges about a prepubescant child over the course of six months, acting on these urges or allowing these urges to cause marked difficulty in personal life, and the individual must be at least 16 and at least 5 years older than the victim(DSM IVtr, p.572). Finally, the recidivism rate for individuals attracted to males is roughly twice that for those who prefer females"(DSM IVtr, p. 571) it is generally very high across the board, even with treatment.

That said, why risk treatment? A recurring pedophile is unlikely to respond to treatment and I have trouble justifying the already paltry mental health dollars to try. Put a bullet to the rabid dog and move on.

i think being attracted to kids isnt acceptable but i guess people dont have a choice in the matter. you cant change how you feel. although if people act upon their feelings in a way that can hurt people, especially the kids, they should be shot. :confused: :sniper:


Easy enough to say, lets turn it around. You can never have sex with your chosen partner, period. If you prefer men, you may only have sex with women, if you prefer women, you can only have sex with men. What, exactly, do you think the likelyhood is of you eventually finding some way around the rules so you can have sex, at least once in your life, with your chosen partner? Now lets say your chosen partner is a child. See why so many of us, even in the mental health community, don't care if its a choice or not?

Maybe the difference in spelling (Paedophile vs. Pedophile) is just a regional thing. I mean, in the US we call doctors for little kids Pediatricians. No "ae" involved. We call doctors for feet podiatrists. No "e" at all. Is it different in UK or something?
Try wikipedia-ing for 'podophilia'. :)

Maybe the difference in spelling (Paedophile vs. Pedophile) is just a regional thing. I mean, in the US we call doctors for little kids Pediatricians. No "ae" involved. We call doctors for feet podiatrists. No "e" at all. Is it different in UK or something?

Maybe your one is wrong, our one is right :)

Maybe your one is wrong, our one is right :)
We're Americans. We're never wrong.

Well, can it?

]

Any behavioural problem can be "cured." All you have to do is .... STOP DOING IT!

We're Americans. We're never wrong.

Oh please, what do you call FDR and Reagan? Even I have to admit those two steaming piles of wrong.

"Curing" Paedophillia is like "curing" homosexuality.

The main difference is that if a "cure" for homosexuality was made, there would be outrage. However, a "cure" for paedophillia would probably be made compulsory for all kiddie-fiddlers.

If a man is attracted to minors, knows it's "wrong" and seeks help is O.K by me.

A man who acts upon these urges are scum.

mere attraction is not enough to be clinically diagnosed as a pedophile. .

Just curious since I don't know much on the subject. Is peadophilia unique or would it be claimed a homosexual would not be homosexual if he did not act on it.


That said, why risk treatment? A recurring pedophile is unlikely to respond to treatment and I have trouble justifying the already paltry mental health dollars to try. Put a bullet to the rabid dog and move on .

Would you say extermination of "racists" or "homophobics" is also fine if they commit again. Because to me while they're not good guys they don't seem to merit death...perhaps.

Pedophiles almost always re-commit when they are released from prison, so the question should be, why do we release them?

Maybe this should instead be an issue of how they are released?

Paedophilia is not a disease, and you can't 'cure' it. In fact, I don't believe that all paedophiles are evil people like the media have portrayed them. The ones that violently harm and rape young children are pretty bad people overall. However, those who possess child pornography or who only do small actions that I don't warrant as fully sexual (i.e. touching a boy's private parts for a fraction of a second) aren't bad people - it's like saying homosexuals or bisexuals are bad people.

I don't agree with all of these 'lock up/kill the paedophiles' statements. Paedophilia is just another sexual orientation in my opinion, and should not be necessarily looked upon as always a bad thing. The things that some paedophiles do (rape for example) are also done by hetero, homo and bisexuals - it's not just because they are attracted to children

Oh please, what do you call FDR and Reagan? Even I have to admit those two steaming piles of wrong.

It's called sarcasm.

And I'm all for high velocity lead solid-state radiatory treatment to the cerebellum. The solid-state beam should be about .45 to .50 inches in length.

aren't bad people - it's like saying homosexuals or bisexuals are bad people.

you mean they're not :O??




j/k

Oh please, what do you call FDR and Reagan? Even I have to admit those two steaming piles of wrong.
Quit hating my freedom, dude.

Paedophilia is not a disease, and you can't 'cure' it. In fact, I don't believe that all paedophiles are evil people like the media have portrayed them. The ones that violently harm and rape young children are pretty bad people overall. However, those who possess child pornography or who only do small actions that I don't warrant as fully sexual (i.e. touching a boy's private parts for a fraction of a second) aren't bad people - it's like saying homosexuals or bisexuals are bad people.

I don't agree with all of these 'lock up/kill the paedophiles' statements. Paedophilia is just another sexual orientation in my opinion, and should not be necessarily looked upon as always a bad thing. The things that some paedophiles do (rape for example) are also done by hetero, homo and bisexuals - it's not just because they are attracted to children

Let's shoot the rapists too!

You rape anyone, man, woman, child, you die!!!

Especially if you rape a child!

Die paedophilic scum!

(calms down, straightens collar, uncocks gun)

Yes, if the person wants to be cured. Even then habitual and addictive behaviors, as most sexual disorders are, are hard to over come.

If the person doesn’t want to change then it is impossible to compel them to do so.

Just curious since I don't know much on the subject. Is peadophilia unique or would it be claimed a homosexual would not be homosexual if he did not act on it.



Would you say extermination of "racists" or "homophobics" is also fine if they commit again. Because to me while they're not good guys they don't seem to merit death...perhaps.


Two interesting question. On homosexuals, homosexuality is not considered a paraphilia or a clinical illness. Once upon a time it was, but were going on three decades since "homosexual" was a valid diagnosis. There are quite a few reasons, but the two main distinctions are that paraphelias tend to have a destructive and disruptive character and that female homosexuals not only exist, but are as numerous as male homosexuals. Clinical paraphelias generally involve behavior that is very hard to find a willing participant for, and that oftentimes requires and unwilling participant (frotteurism, for example, requires a non-consenting and unaware "partner" to rub against for sexual gratification). The existance of lesbians also puts homosexuality in a very different area than paraphelia because female parapheliacs are almost unheard of.

Racists and homophobics are also different from pedophiles. These are not clinical conditions but rather conscious choices. You can reeducate a racist, they can have a transformative experiance that shows them the error of their ways. To put it in decidely unscientific terms, a racist isn't insane, hes just an asshole. Pedophiles, on the other hand, have an abberant and intrusive sexual desire that is not really repairable.

Think of it this way, if you hate black people so much you beat someone up because they're black, then you spend a year in prison, that experiance is likely to keep you from hitting a black person with a bat again. You might still hate black people, but you do not have an insatiable urge to do them violence. The same cannot be said for a pedophile.

Let's shoot the rapists too!

You rape anyone, man, woman, child, you die!!!

Especially if you rape a child!

Die paedophilic scum!

(calms down, straightens collar, uncocks gun)

Enough with the death penalty talk everyone :p
Listen, I agree that any rapist should be punished. However, this is best done through something in the region of ten years in jail - the death penalty is a cruel and harsh treatment in all circumstances (I am for its abolition no matter what the situation - it already is in my native Britain). But leave the paedophiles who haven't done anything which harms anyone else - looking at child pornography doesn't justify jail time, violently and sexually assaulting anyone does

I don't agree with all of these 'lock up/kill the paedophiles' statements. Paedophilia is just another sexual orientation in my opinion, and should not be necessarily looked upon as always a bad thing. The things that some paedophiles do (rape for example) are also done by hetero, homo and bisexuals - it's not just because they are attracted to children

Ok, this is moral relativism taken to a dangerous degree. The fact of the matter is, homosexual sex is not, by definition, rape. The same cannot be said of pedophliac sex. A man having sexy with a six year old is rape, a man feeling up a six year old is rape, a man performing oral sex upon a six year old is rape. It is inherantly destructive to the lives of the children involved, and it is naieve to expect that someone with that kind of sexual urge isn't going to act upon it at some point in their life. I do not advocate pre-emptive justice. I believe that someone with these urges has the right to live as long as they can resist them, all the way until they fail and engage in rape. When (not if) they do, they need to be removed from the population.

Quit hating my freedom, dude.

*rae* Single handedly building big government, and then puting Jaysus at the helm is freedom? Crap...maybe I need to start looking into fascism. ;)

Seriously, I made a snarky comment, but this is REALLY off-topic.

Ok, this is moral relativism taken to a dangerous degree. The fact of the matter is, homosexual sex is not, by definition, rape. The same cannot be said of pedophliac sex. A man having sexy with a six year old is rape, a man feeling up a six year old is rape, a man performing oral sex upon a six year old is rape. It is inherantly destructive to the lives of the children involved, and it is naieve to expect that someone with that kind of sexual urge isn't going to act upon it at some point in their life. I do not advocate pre-emptive justice. I believe that someone with these urges has the right to live as long as they can resist them, all the way until they fail and engage in rape. When (not if) they do, they need to be removed from the population.
I agree that when they cross that line they should be removed from the population. Life in prison without parole would be my choice because, like the poster you've responded to, I'm against the death penalty. I wouldn't lose any sleep if they got the chair though.

Ok, this is moral relativism taken to a dangerous degree. The fact of the matter is, homosexual sex is not, by definition, rape. The same cannot be said of pedophliac sex. A man having sexy with a six year old is rape, a man feeling up a six year old is rape, a man performing oral sex upon a six year old is rape. It is inherantly destructive to the lives of the children involved, and it is naieve to expect that someone with that kind of sexual urge isn't going to act upon it at some point in their life. I do not advocate pre-emptive justice. I believe that someone with these urges has the right to live as long as they can resist them, all the way until they fail and engage in rape. When (not if) they do, they need to be removed from the population.

The punishment should be judged on each situation. Sex with a six year old in any way? Should be punished with ten, fifteen, twenty years even. Having paedophilic urges and looking at pornography? Not a punishable crime. Not all paedophiles are going to go out and have sex with a child - they may suppress their urges through (I know I've said this quite a lot but I feel it is valid) looking at child pornography. I don't believe a paedophile should be persecuted for their believes when they have not done any actions to show that

Oh please, what do you call FDR and Reagan? Even I have to admit those two steaming piles of wrong.


We need Ronald Reagan now.

The punishment should be judged on each situation. Sex with a six year old in any way? Should be punished with ten years. Having paedophilic urges and looking at pornography? Not a punishable crime. Not all paedophiles are going to go out and have sex with a child - they may suppress their urges through (I know I've said this quite a lot but I feel it is valid) looking at child pornography. I don't believe a paedophile should be persecuted for their believes when they have not done any actions to show that

Essentially, I'm not worried about punishment. I'm not worried about revenge.

I'm worried about repeat offenses, the odds of which are extremely high for pedophiles - even if they serve 10 years.

I need a guarantee that they will never again re-offend, due to the heinous nature of the offense.

Either kill them or imprison them forever in solitary confinement if they actually commit any sexual act with a child.

The punishment should be judged on each situation. Sex with a six year old in any way? Should be punished with ten, fifteen, twenty years even. Having paedophilic urges and looking at pornography? Not a punishable crime. Not all paedophiles are going to go out and have sex with a child - they may suppress their urges through (I know I've said this quite a lot but I feel it is valid) looking at child pornography. I don't believe a paedophile should be persecuted for their believes when they have not done any actions to show that
Are children not exploited, sometimes even raped repeatedly, to produce child pornoghraphy? Doesn't buying the stuff provide a financial incentive to subject more children to that treatment?

Child pornography is not harmless, and buying it results in more kids being raped. People who buy it should be treated like those who produce it.

We need Ronald Reagan now.

No, we need Teddy Roosevelt, or Maybe Ike. Hell, we need Jefferson and an army...

Are children not exploited, sometimes even raped repeatedly, to produce child pornoghraphy? Doesn't buying the stuff provide a financial incentive to subject more children to that treatment?

Child pornography is not harmless, and buying it results in more kids being raped. People who buy it should be treated like those who produce it.

Let's put it this way, if I was at someone's house, and looking over their shoulder saw that they were viewing child porn on their computer, they wouldn't have to worry about being arrested - they would have to figure out how they were going to live long enough to dial 911.

Having paedophilic urges and looking at pornography? Not a punishable crime. Not all paedophiles are going to go out and have sex with a child - they may suppress their urges through (I know I've said this quite a lot but I feel it is valid) looking at child pornography. I don't believe a paedophile should be persecuted for their believes when they have not done any actions to show that


Exactly,you cant punish someone for being a paedophile,no more than you can punish someone for wanting to kill somebody.now if the paedophile in question goes and rapes/molests a child,then unleash the wrath of the law on him/her(yes female paedophiles are all but unheard of,but its possible).

Are children not exploited, sometimes even raped repeatedly, to produce child pornoghraphy? Doesn't buying the stuff provide a financial incentive to subject more children to that treatment?

Child pornography is not harmless, and buying it results in more kids being raped. People who buy it should be treated like those who produce it.

The solution then is fake child pornography,either computer generated,animated or adults who look young.if it was guaranteed legal to make that kind of pornography someone would,cos there is money in it.the porn industry is advanced like that,they're happy to advertise for gays,but malteasers(or the people who make them)decided not to air an advertisement because it featured two (apparently) gay men.the ad was released with a man-woman couple.

The solution then is fake child pornography,either computer generated,animated or adults who look young.if it was guaranteed legal to make that kind of pornography someone would,cos there is money in it.the porn industry is advanced like that,they're happy to advertise for gays,but malteasers(or the people who make them)decided not to air an advertisement because it featured two (apparently) gay men.the ad was released with a man-woman couple.
That I believe is a very good idea in total. It will probably help paedophiles resist the urge to go out and sexually offend, and it will stop exploitation of children

The solution then is fake child pornography,either computer generated,animated or adults who look young.if it was guaranteed legal to make that kind of pornography someone would,cos there is money in it.the porn industry is advanced like that,they're happy to advertise for gays,but malteasers(or the people who make them)decided not to air an advertisement because it featured two (apparently) gay men.the ad was released with a man-woman couple.

While I find the idea of computer generated child porn repugnant (and I'm not sure it would have any positive or negative effect on offenders), I find the idea of criminalizing victimless activity even worse. Here here!

I used to call it a high order craniotomy...

Ah yes, esteemed collegues, after amputation of the cranial apendage by utilisatation of the heavily weighted scalpul, mounted on the GL-O-10 gravity delivery mechanism, the patient no longer exhibited symptoms of arousal when presented with subject material.

No other treatment was shown to be even remotely effective.

I don't believe a paedophile should be persecuted for their believes when they have not done any actions to show that

You realise it's not a religion...?

While I find the idea of computer generated child porn repugnant (and I'm not sure it would have any positive or negative effect on offenders), I find the idea of criminalizing victimless activity even worse. Here here!

well i cant conceive of a form of child porn that isnt repugnant.but better cg is than the real thing.lesser of two evils.

I'm pretty sure a sexuality can't be cured. This idea of being able to cure paedophiles seems to be the same pseudo-science that was inflicted upon gay people in the early 20th century, it's only a matter of time before electric shock treatment starts getting used.

I can't see a fair solution myself. Perhaps the UN can assign a deserted island for paedophiles, but knowing the UN they'd probably end up mistakenly using a peninsula.

*Dons Devil's Advocate cap* Ok, let's say that it cannot be cured, but can be repressed well enough (like alcoholism I would guess). Doesn't that mean that we should focus on rehabilitating them?

Or to put it another way, a number of posters have said we should either shoot them or lock them up and throw away the key. For actual child molesters, as they seem to repeat, this might make some sense, but how about those who are just attracted and the crim is just having child pr0n on their computer but have never molested a child and claim they will not.

Should we not therefore helpt them repress this, and after a certian amount of time, remove them from the sex offenders database?

*Dons Devil's Advocate cap* Ok, let's say that it cannot be cured, but can be repressed well enough (like alcoholism I would guess). Doesn't that mean that we should focus on rehabilitating them?

Or to put it another way, a number of posters have said we should either shoot them or lock them up and throw away the key. For actual child molesters, as they seem to repeat, this might make some sense, but how about those who are just attracted and the crim is just having child pr0n on their computer but have never molested a child and claim they will not.

Should we not therefore helpt them repress this, and after a certian amount of time, remove them from the sex offenders database?

Dude, I already told you, castration. Likely a complete cure.

I am compassionate that way.

OK, I don't know if it's been posted yet, but for the definition confusion at the start of the thread:

paedo-/pedo- means children
pedi- means feet

source: dictionary.com

Dude, I already told you, castration. Likely a complete cure.

I am compassionate that way.
Ah, but do you castrate just those who only have pics and have never touched a child?

*And yes, I am ignoring the part that to make those pics a child somewhere had to have been abused*

And actually, seriously, does acstration help? Sex is a part of it, yes, but so is control and power and that doesn't come from a guy's balls. And what is to be done with women abusers?

The cure (http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csi/m1911a1.jpg)

Let's put it this way, if I was at someone's house, and looking over their shoulder saw that they were viewing child porn on their computer, they wouldn't have to worry about being arrested - they would have to figure out how they were going to live long enough to dial 911.

I am in complete agreement.

Death cures all things, and will help weed these traits out of the gene pool.

Death cures all things, and will help weed these traits out of the gene pool.

Pædophilia isn't genetic, to my knowledge.

OK, I don't know if it's been posted yet, but for the definition confusion at the start of the thread:

paedo-/pedo- means children
pedi- means feet

Actually, ped- is foot in Latin. The Greek form is pod-

I'm pretty sure a sexuality can't be cured. This idea of being able to cure paedophiles seems to be the same pseudo-science that was inflicted upon gay people in the early 20th century, it's only a matter of time before electric shock treatment starts getting used.

I can't see a fair solution myself. Perhaps the UN can assign a deserted island for paedophiles, but knowing the UN they'd probably end up mistakenly using a peninsula.


No, no, no, it would be in Orlando, Florida...and they'd try to jumpstart trade by building a candy factory, importing puppies, and subsidisng conversion vans...

Pædophilia isn't genetic, to my knowledge.





If it isn't genetic, then what is it? I can't see anyone "choosing" to be a paedophile...

Ah, but do you castrate just those who only have pics and have never touched a child?

*And yes, I am ignoring the part that to make those pics a child somewhere had to have been abused*

And actually, seriously, does acstration help? Sex is a part of it, yes, but so is control and power and that doesn't come from a guy's balls. And what is to be done with women abusers?

Control and power isn't involved in most clinical cases of pedophelia (outside of incest). Those who seek control in sex may target children, but that is because they are more easily controlled, not because of an attraction to children. Pedophelia is not simply having sex with a child, the MAJOR clinical symptom in the DSM IVtr is pervasive and repeated sexual attraction to children. Female pedophiles, indeed female parapheliacs, are almost entirely unheard of. While there are some women who have sex with underage boys, you almost never see a woman in a clinical setting who is attracted to prepubescant boys or girls.

I suppose it depends to a large extent on the person. For all we know the desire itself much more common than the rate of offences. I suspect for instance the desire to commit bodily violence against another person occurs far more than violence does.

I think it is possible to supress a desire to act, and I also expect it is possible to intentionally intervene in the one's own perception and change what one percieves. To answer the question I think we'd need to know why people have such desires, and why they act on them. And also whether or not sexuality is amenable to intentional self-alteration (as some aspects of self and perception are), and if so to what degree.

Let's say for instance that it is a potential desire for most people but that for most people socialisation experiances result in the potential not being realised. For that group that do realise the potential only those who have certain traits ever actually act on it. Sexuality is amenable to intentional self-intervention, and potentially to a large degree, but the traits that differentiate those who experiance the desire from those that act on it, are such that self-intervention is not likely to desired and/or isnt within the person's range of intra-personal skills.

In such a scenario, 'cure' would be theoretically possible, but very unlikely.

Of course change one of the answers above, and the answer regarding cure also changes. I really dont think we know enough about the prevaliance of such desires (and their strength) and how this relates to actually acting on such desires to come up with an answer of reliable certitude. Nor do we understand enough about human sexuality to understand the extent to which it is amenable to re-orientation/re-configuration.

Actually, ped- is foot in Latin. The Greek form is pod-

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedi-
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paedo-

That's what I was talking about.

If it isn't genetic, then what is it? I can't see anyone "choosing" to be a paedophile...

It isn't genetic in the sense that it is not an inheritable trait. While pedophelia is likey caused by a combination of physical brain abnormality and childhood trauma, it is not something that can be passed down anonymously from generation to generation. It is not a flaw in the DNA of the subject. If pedophelia were to be an inherited trait it simply wouldn't exist in our society, an exclusive attraction to children who are not yet old enough to reproduce weeds itself out within one generation.

Addiction does not exist as a disease. It is simply behavior problem. As to pedophilia one's homophilia is cured than maybe pedophilia will be.

We need Ronald Reagan now.

If Reagan hadn't cut finding to mental institutions, the crazies wouldn'tbe running the government right now...

Control and power isn't involved in most clinical cases of pedophelia (outside of incest). Those who seek control in sex may target children, but that is because they are more easily controlled, not because of an attraction to children. Pedophelia is not simply having sex with a child, the MAJOR clinical symptom in the DSM IVtr is pervasive and repeated sexual attraction to children. Female pedophiles, indeed female parapheliacs, are almost entirely unheard of. While there are some women who have sex with underage boys, you almost never see a woman in a clinical setting who is attracted to prepubescant boys or girls.
Since most child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows, usually a relative, doesn't that make it a control issue?

Also, I thought that part of the longing was seeing the child as 'pure' and wanting to posess or take that away. Or having the belief that only they can introduce the child to love and keep them pure.

Still, for those advocating a bullet to the brain, I do ask, even those whose crimes are only looking at pictures? Isn't that a bit much?

Attraction is different to action. Having these desires does not really matter but Acting upon the desires is wrong.

I personally favour execution of paedophiles, while some limitations should apply, simply so they do not do it again.
Relative ages change things

Attraction is different to action. Having these desires does not really matter but Acting upon the desires is wrong.

I personally favour execution of paedophiles, while some limitations should apply, simply so they do not do it again.
Relative ages change things
But where is action defined... *stops and thinks for a second* Let me rephrase that, OBVIOUSLY child molestation is action, but what about those who look but don't touch?

Well, can it? <snip>
Yup, 1 .50 cal BMG round to the back of the head and no more desire to have sex with children

Yup, 1 .50 cal BMG round to the back of the head and no more desire to have sex with children
*Dryly* Ya know, everyone keeps suggesting that but no one follows through on my question as to WHY that's the most appropriate responce.

We're Americans. We're never wrong.
ROFL! Sigged!

Enough with the death penalty talk everyone :p
Listen, I agree that any rapist should be punished. However, this is best done through something in the region of ten years in jail - the death penalty is a cruel and harsh treatment in all circumstances (I am for its abolition no matter what the situation - it already is in my native Britain). But leave the paedophiles who haven't done anything which harms anyone else - looking at child pornography doesn't justify jail time, violently and sexually assaulting anyone does
I think that the length of the punishment should fit the length that the victim will suffer. So if a 40 year old man rapes a 9 year old boy, and it's assume that the boys will live to a normal age, I see no other recourse than to introduce the rapist to.............................................Mr. Chuck Norris.

We need Ronald Reagan now.
AMEN!

"Pedophilia and homosexuality both appear to me as unusual (as in not common) preferences over who we find sexually attractive.

To me the problem Pedophilia seems to have is that underage children can't appear to make rational choices for themselves and public opinion puts Pedophilics are rapists and abusers.

I wonder is a pedophile who never takes action on his desires any different than a homosexual who never takes action on his desires?
Just a thought"

I agree with that. The only thing wrong with pedophilia is that it hurts the children. people who have pedophilac desires but dont act on them should be treated no differently than others, but those who act on them should obviously be given as harsh a punishment as any rapist.

I see no other recourse than to introduce the rapist to.............................................Mr. Chuck Norris.
Jackie Chan is MUCH better. :p

"Dude, I already told you, castration. Likely a complete cure."

this should be the treatment for all rapists. I definately disagree with killing anyone though.

"If it isn't genetic, then what is it? I can't see anyone "choosing" to be a paedophile..."

maybye some sort of chemical inbalance in the womb

Jackie Chan is MUCH better. :p
Jackie Chan exists because Mr. Chuck Norris allows it.

I think that peoples attitude towards guns is irresponsible, frivolous and ill-considered. Such a regardless attitude towards human life is an exceptionally sad thing as it is so destructive to society and only shows immense ignorance on the part of those that advocate the use of guns and corperal punishment.

I've heard that castration therapy has wonderful results.
so have i

I think that peoples attitude towards guns is irresponsible, frivolous and ill-considered. Such a regardless attitude towards human life is an exceptionally sad thing as it is so destructive to society and only shows immense ignorance on the part of those that advocate the use of guns and corperal punishment.
Your attitude shows immense ignorance towards guns in general, and shows a lack of knowledge about the term "self defense"

You also fail to mention how people can protect themselves from criminals, unless you believe that ALL guns should be confiscated and destroyed. In which case, I laugh mightily and say "come and gettem"

Whether pedophilia can be cured or not depends on your definition of cure. It also depends on what type of pedophile you are talking about. You forgot one major category of pedophile, the situational pedophile.

A situational pedophile is someone whose primary sexual attraction is not children, but who has sex with a child in the absense of adequate adult sexual partners. These people actually account for the majority of child sexual abuse, so it is surprising that in your research you did not run into this.

A situational pedophile can be fully "cured" because he was really never attracted to children to begin with, he was using them as a substitute for the adult sexual partner he preffered.

Then you have prefferential pedophiles. These are adults whose primary sexual attraction is children. No one has successfully been able to change an adult's sexual orientation, so it is no surprise that prefferential pedophiles will always be attracted to children. However, it is possible for a prefferential pedophile to choose not to act on his attractions and many of them make that choice. A prefferential pedophile's primary sexual attraction will always be children, but therapists can help a pedophile who has acted on his attractions gain the tools necessary to keep from acting on those attractions again.

Contrary to popular belief, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is lower than the recidivism rate for criminals in general. The myth of high recidivism rate can be easily traced to the drive for Megan's laws in the US. Some people used questionable and sometimes even fabricated statistics to push for these laws and people kept repeating what those people said without checking their sources. A few congressmen were sharp enough to notice this and raise serious concerns, but no one was willing to sacrifice their political career by voting down such a popular law even if it was based on bad statistics. The reality is what the Center for Sex Offender Management (U.S. Department of Justice) says:

Myth:
"Most sex offenders reoffend."

Fact:
Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case...It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html


So, to some it up. Situational pedophiles can be fully cured, which is great news since they are the ones perpetrating the majority of sex offences against children. Prefferential pedophiles can be cured if your definition of "cured" is that they never reoffend, but if your definition of "cured" is that they are no longer attracted to children, then they cannot be cured. Finally, the recidivism rate for sex offences being higher than for other crimes is a myth, it is actually lower than for crime in general (of course it will be lower than for some crimes and higher than for other crimes, but compared to the criminal population as a whole, a sex offender is less likely to reoffend than another criminal).

I've heard that castration therapy has wonderful results.

Yeah, then they just kill children instead of raping them.

A few congressmen were sharp enough to notice this and raise serious concerns, but no one was willing to sacrifice their political career by voting down such a popular law even if it was based on bad statistics.

Maybe that's because if someone re-offends for burglary, it's not that emotional a subject.

Abusing children, even one, is not acceptable at all. It's a zero tolerance sort of thing.

Maybe that's because if someone re-offends for burglary, it's not that emotional a subject.

Abusing children, even one, is not acceptable at all. It's a zero tolerance sort of thing.

No, it isnt. A zero tolerance law would be one where you give mandatory life sentences for sex crimes. This law is about community notification. The argument was that because they are so much more likely to reoffend than other criminals the community needs to be notified of their presence. The fact that they are less likely to reoffend than other criminals shouldve derailed that law since its very premise was incorrect.

No, it isnt. A zero tolerance law would be one where you give mandatory life sentences for sex crimes. This law is about community notification. The argument was that because they are so much more likely to reoffend than other criminals the community needs to be notified of their presence. The fact that they are less likely to reoffend than other criminals shouldve derailed that law since its very premise was incorrect.

Combine notification with local laws that prevent a convicted pedophile from living within 2000ft of children...

Many pedophiles are wishing they could just go back to jail. No job, no home...

I, for one, am not willing to take even a 1 percent chance that they will re-offend. I'm all for the death penalty for pedophilia.

Many pedophiles are wishing they could just go back to jail. No job, no home...


That's the unfortunate part of these laws. They sound good on paper, but they actually hurt more than they help. People with no job, no home, no friends, no hope, are the most likely to reoffend. When you have nothing to live for and no one will let you put your past behind you, you are the highest risk for reoffending. Those who are least likely to reoffend are the ones who leave prison and are able to rebuild their lives. Hope is the ultimate motivator and when you see hope in your future, you will do anything to avoid losing that by ending up in prison again. But by taking hope away from these sex offenders, the law is actually helping push them towards offending again rather than pulling them towards rehabilitation. It is very unfortunate that this wasnt thought out properly before it was implemented. Hope is the ultimate motivator and its unfortunate that these laws take hope away and then expect you to be surprised when those people reoffend.

Hope is the ultimate motivator and its unfortunate that these laws take hope away and then expect you to be surprised when those people reoffend.

A dead man cannot reoffend.

Since most child sexual abuse is committed by someone the child knows, usually a relative, doesn't that make it a control issue?

Also, I thought that part of the longing was seeing the child as 'pure' and wanting to posess or take that away. Or having the belief that only they can introduce the child to love and keep them pure.

Still, for those advocating a bullet to the brain, I do ask, even those whose crimes are only looking at pictures? Isn't that a bit much?

Ok, allow me to clarify. Sexual predators are just that, predators, and they go after the easiest victims. They might go after victims in their family, but it will not be an exclusive thing. Incest (that is, pedophelia that is exclusive to members of your family) is a slightly different issue with slightly different motivations.

At the core, however, most pedophelia is about an abberant sexual desire. Purity is a common justification, but it is just that, a justification. It is an attempt by the pedophile to understand why they sexually desire children. Think of it this way, imagine that which you look for, physically, in a partner, why do you look for it? I'm betting that something about that factor simply appeals to you, you can try to figure out why, but understanding why doesn't change the existance of the desire.

Finally, I don't think I've advocated execution for those who look at pictures. Just for second-offense child rapists. Actually, I advocate the death penalty for second offence rapists in general. Putting the death penalty at a second offense recognizes that a pattern of conduct is present (you can't claim it was a one-time-thing), it provides an additional safeguard against an innocent man being executed, and it gives the individual a chance to take corrective steps.

*Dryly* Ya know, everyone keeps suggesting that but no one follows through on my question as to WHY that's the most appropriate responce.

It is appropriate because rape is one of the most basic violations of individual rights one can commit. It leaves the victim scarred and shows that the offender is unable to live by even the most basic rules of society. Furter, recidivism rates for rapists (and, by extension, child molesters) are VERY high, treatments are ineffectual, and the course of clinical conditions that lead to an individual become a rapist is lifelong (in other words, you don't grow out of, or get over, a desire to rape). Rapists cannot be cured, they cannot be treated, and they almost always reoffend. That means your options are increasingly long prison terms, death, or letting them out on the street. Our government only has so many dollars in a given year to spend, and I find it difficult to justify the cost of continuing to keep a rapist alive when you can put them down cheaply.

. Furter, recidivism rates for rapists (and, by extension, child molesters) are VERY high, treatments are ineffectual, and the course of clinical conditions that lead to an individual become a rapist is lifelong (in other words, you don't grow out of, or get over, a desire to rape). Rapists cannot be cured, they cannot be treated, and they almost always reoffend.

Wow, how many myths can you fit into one post?



Myth:
"Most sex offenders reoffend."

Fact:
Reconviction data suggest that this is not the case...It is noteworthy that recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal population.

Myth:
"Treatment for sex offenders is ineffective."

Fact:
Treatment programs can contribute to community safety because those who attend and cooperate with program conditions are less likely to re-offend than those who reject intervention.

Several studies present optimistic conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment programs that are empirically based, offense-specific, and comprehensive (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998). The only meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies to date has found a small, yet significant treatment effect—an 8% reduction in the recidivism rate for offenders who participated in treatment (Hall, 1995). Research also demonstrates that sex offenders who fail to complete treatment programs are at increased risk for both sexual and general recidivism (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998).

http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html


As for the statement about the cost of keeping them alive, that's a whole nother topic more suitable to a debate on health care. There are many who feel that the government should be willing to spend money on guaranteeing that everyone recieves the medical care they need. Treatments for psychological disorders are obviously medical needs. But thats a whole nother topic.

Wow, how many myths can you fit into one post?
Like I said, even if the recidivism rate is 1 percent, that's 1 percent too many.

I'm not willing to experiment with criminal justice when it comes to my children.

A bullet only costs 65 cents.

Yeah sure it can, a bullet to the back of the head:p

"Dude, I already told you, castration. Likely a complete cure."

this should be the treatment for all rapists. I definately disagree with killing anyone though.


So mutilation is ok, but murder is over the line?


I think that peoples attitude towards guns is irresponsible, frivolous and ill-considered. Such a regardless attitude towards human life is an exceptionally sad thing as it is so destructive to society and only shows immense ignorance on the part of those that advocate the use of guns and corperal punishment.


I take exception to that. I have no problem with you saying that my stance is cold, cruel, or just plain wrong, but it is not "irresponsible, frivolous and ill-considered." The killing of a human being by the state for the commission of a serious crime is a grave responsibility. It is an issue which I have spent a great deal of time thinking about. Looking at things without the outmoded lense of a Christian fetish for the value of human life has, after careful consideration, brought me to the opinion that some people would be better dead than leeching scarce dollars from our system. Further, against an individual who is almost certain to reoffend (as in the case of a second-conviction rapist) there is the argument that the killing of that individual is society enacting the basic human right to defend oneself. It is a cold, heartless, unfeeling view. It is not ill-conceived or irresponsibile. As for "frivolous," I'm not quite sure I take your meaning. I'm not talking about some elaborate ceremony, I'm talking about the most frugal method of execution that exists today.

I also take offense at your charge of ignorance. Simply because I do not share your view that every human life is sacred does not mean I am ignorant. It means that we disagree. It is this kind of invective that has lowered the general level of public discourse over the past 20 years. My opinions well-researched and well-thought out, they consider all the evidence and come to a particular conclusion, that you disagree is a sign that rational minds looking at the same information can come to different understanding, not that one of us is an idiot. If you wish to try to convince me that I am wrong, you are welcome, if all you bring to the discussion is an ad hominem attack, please, call Talk Radio.

I also take offense at your charge of ignorance.

I think your ignorance was proven when you began to spout old myths.

Maybe that's because if someone re-offends for burglary, it's not that emotional a subject.

Abusing children, even one, is not acceptable at all. It's a zero tolerance sort of thing.

Zero tollerance is a cancer on our justice system. It inevitably leads to non criminals being arrested, convicted, and sent to prison because they came too close to a given line. When talking about something like abuse, you must consider, who is going to define the word? Who is going to apply the law? Who is going to interrogate the child, looking for evidence? We do not yet live in a society where we have literal zero tollerance laws and already we see parents lose their children for taking a picture of a one year old in a bath.

But Ped- and Pedo- in Greek mean different things. When you use them as prefixes, you need to distinguish between them. Pedophilia could be very easily a love of dirt. Hence, Paed- is taken as the child prefix to prevent confusion.

"PED-" for "foot" is Latin, not Greek. Greek would be "POD-", so it seems the best and most logical way would be to call foot fetishism "podiphilia", as in Greek, the plural would be "podia" (pronounced "po-DTHEEAH") with a voiced TH. This would prevent confusion even further.

Wow, how many myths can you fit into one post?



http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html


As for the statement about the cost of keeping them alive, that's a whole nother topic more suitable to a debate on health care. There are many who feel that the government should be willing to spend money on guaranteeing that everyone recieves the medical care they need. Treatments for psychological disorders are obviously medical needs. But thats a whole nother topic.


I'll take on CSOM any day of the week. Their own data admits that sex offenders who receive treatment are only 8% less likely to reoffend, which really means 8% less likely to reoffend, be reported, and convicted. Further, it shows that those who do not complete or ncommit to treatment are, in fact, MORE likely to reoffend. Further CSOM's data is misleading because of the very nature of sex crimes. Sex crimes suffer from severe underreporting, arrests are harder to make, and convictions are harder to obtain. Further, comparing recidivism rates to non-sex offenders is problematic, as sex offenders are not "habitual criminals" but "offense-specific criminals."

There is a further problem with CSOM. CSOM's data is based on Sex Offenses as a whole, not just forcable rapists and child rapists. In that stream are many people who are unlikely to reoffend. Public urinators (yes, that is a sex offense in many areas), statutory rapists, flashers, frotteurists (think subway gropers), those convicted of obscenity, all of these individuals are included in the statistics for "Sex offenders." Compounding this problem is the fact that CSOM cites studies that only track data for five years from release.

I think your ignorance was proven when you began to spout old myths.

Actually, what I was "spouting" was the information from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. In specific, I was quoting information about the prevlance and lifelong course of paraphelias in general and pedophelia in specific. The DSM IVtr is hot hopeful about recovery prospects, and does recognize pedophelia as a chronic condition. Where is the myth, again?

I'll take on CSOM any day of the week. Their own data admits that sex offenders who receive treatment are only 8% less likely to reoffend, which really means 8% less likely to reoffend, be reported, and convicted.


Which is a statistically significant number showing that there is an inverse relationship between treatment and recidivism.


Further, it shows that those who do not complete or ncommit to treatment are, in fact, MORE likely to reoffend.


Than those who did complete treatment. Meanwhile both are less likely to reoffend than the general prison population.

Further, comparing recidivism rates to non-sex offenders is problematic, as sex offenders are not "habitual criminals" but "offense-specific criminals."


Then why did you say they are VERY likely to reoffend (I am capitalizing it just like you did), when in fact they are less likely to reoffend than other criminals?

There is a further problem with CSOM. CSOM's data is based on Sex Offenses as a whole, not just forcable rapists and child rapists.


Wrong. The small quote I provided dealt with all of them as a whole but you can get the further breakdown into categories from their website or from reading the actual studies they are citing. Just follow the link.


In that stream are many people who are unlikely to reoffend. Public urinators (yes, that is a sex offense in many areas), statutory rapists, flashers, frotteurists (think subway gropers), those convicted of obscenity, all of these individuals are included in the statistics for "Sex offenders." Compounding this problem is the fact that CSOM cites studies that only track data for five years from release.

Funny how if I follow the link I can find it broken down further, you mustve missed that. Here is a little more since you are unable to visit the site yourself:


# 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.



The main point, however is not whether CSOM's data is bulletproof (it isn't but it is the most accurate we have yet). The point was that every statement you made was made without any evidence to back it up and that all of the evidence that exists points to your statements being false. Sex offenders are less likely to reoffend than other criminals despite your claim that they are more likely. Sex offenders often do not reoffend despite your claim that they will always reoffend. Therapy does have a statistically significant inverse relationship to recidivism (meaning that it IS effective), even though you claimed that it isnt. The question here isnt how good is CSOM's data. The question is where is yours? and how come all of the latest available data contradicts your claims?

Which is a statistically significant number showing that there is an inverse relationship between treatment and recidivism.


I don't even have to do a study to prove that there's an inverse relationship between execution by hanging and recidivism.

I don't even have to do a study to prove that there's an inverse relationship between execution by hanging and recidivism.

Yeah, and possibly a positive relationship with child murder rates as the molesters are forced to do what they have to to make sure they never tell.

Actually, what I was "spouting" was the information from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. In specific, I was quoting information about the prevlance and lifelong course of paraphelias in general and pedophelia in specific. The DSM IVtr is hot hopeful about recovery prospects, and does recognize pedophelia as a chronic condition. Where is the myth, again?

Sure, but it deals only with the condition of pedophilia, not the act of sexual abuse which is what we are really discussing.

Yeah, and possibly a positive relationship with child murder rates as the molesters are forced to do what they have to to make sure they never tell.

Gosh, there's been a rash of molesters who kill anyway.

Nearly all molesters make the threat of death in order to keep the kids silent.

Nearly all molesters make the threat of death in order to keep the kids silent.

Really?
show me how you know this.

Really?
show me how you know this.
It's what the police tell our children in elementary school as part of a kid safety program.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedi-
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paedo-

That's what I was talking about.

I think you missed the "[Latin, from ps, ped-, foot. See ped- in Indo-European Roots.]" bit at the bottom. Paedo is Greek, Pedi is Latin.

It's what the police tell our children in elementary school as part of a kid safety program.

Ah...I see. You know it through an appeal to popularity. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

Ah...I see. You know it through an appeal to popularity. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm
I also know that they kill even if there's no death penalty for child molesting.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040512-1339-ca-xianamurder.html

Which is a statistically significant number showing that there is an inverse relationship between treatment and recidivism.

Ok, statistical significance indicates that the 8% reduction is not likely to be the result of chance. It is still an 8% reduction. That does not mean that if before treatment 10% reoffend and after treatment 2% reoffend, it means thats if before treatment 10% reoffend then after treatment 9.2% reoffend, given margins of chance (I know those aren't the actual statistics, but its easier to give a conceptual explaination with round numbers). Thats a laughable success rate, sure, its better than nothing, but would you be so excited about a drug that only had an 8% chance of helping you and a 92% chance of doing nothing?


Than those who did complete treatment. Meanwhile both are less likely to reoffend than the general prison population.

Both are less likely because the numbers themselves are flawed. Prison statistics are not the result of some hard experimental data. In that stream you have lots of non-criminals who are repeatedly arrested (drug offendences alone have done significant damage to the external validity of FBI recidivism rates) and you have lots of habitual criminals for whom arrest is part of their job (minor dealers, prostitutes, illegal gambling operations, low level criminals of all kinds).

Then why did you say they are VERY likely to reoffend (I am capitalizing it just like you did), when in fact they are less likely to reoffend than other criminals?

They are very likely to reoffend over the course of their life. I refer you to the heading of "course" found in the DSM IV on page 568. Short-term studies (5 year, as you have mentioned) find recidivism rates (that is, reconviction rates) to be 14% and 20% in the Us and Canada, respectively. Longer term tracking studies finds those numbers increasing to between 39% and 52% depending on the nature of the original offense (with molesters of boys being most likely and foreceable rapists of adult women being least). With national estimates of sex crime reporting being somewhere around 10%, I feel confident saying reoffense rates are high for those who actually fit the definition of rapist. (much of this information can be culled from http://www.atsa.com/ppOffenderFacts.html if you do not have access to a university library or journal search),

Wrong. The small quote I provided dealt with all of them as a whole but you can get the further breakdown into categories from their website or from reading the actual studies they are citing. Just follow the link.

I did follow the link. The more specific you got, the worse recidivism rates got.

Funny how if I follow the link I can find it broken down further, you mustve missed that. Here is a little more since you are unable to visit the site yourself:

If you bother to pay attention to the numbers quoted from the two studies CSOM cites (Quinsey, Rice, and Harris; and Hanson and Bussiere) you see that the low recidivism rates were only in relation to sexual offenders rearrested for sexual offenses withing five years of initial release. Further, CSOM quotes general population recidivism rates from 1983 to compare against sex offender recidivism rates from 1995 and 1998. I'm not accusing them of gaming the numbers, but I do wonder why they did not use more contemporary recidivism data for general population, especially in light of the overall downward trend in criminal offense that has occured over the past decades.


The main point, however is not whether CSOM's data is bulletproof (it isn't but it is the most accurate we have yet). The point was that every statement you made was made without any evidence to back it up and that all of the evidence that exists points to your statements being false. Sex offenders are less likely to reoffend than other criminals despite your claim that they are more likely. Sex offenders often do not reoffend despite your claim that they will always reoffend. Therapy does have a statistically significant inverse relationship to recidivism (meaning that it IS effective), even though you claimed that it isnt. The question here isnt how good is CSOM's data. The question is where is yours? and how come all of the latest available data contradicts your claims?

Well, additional data is above, but I still view CSOM as a questionable source. Further the "latest data" from three studies that are 7 and 10 years old is not nearly as authoritative as the data from the DSM IVtr which represents a meta analysis of all available studies by more than 1000 trained individuals (Medical Doctors, Psychologists, Psychiatrists, Statisticians, etc).


On a more personal note, however, I understand that I am not an impartial voice, nor am I a distanced observer. As a survivor, I have strong feelings about sexual offenders and I find it difficult to gather anything vaguely resembling sympathy for their ilk. What they do- when you peel away the layers of debate, justification, and warmnfuzzy hippy horseshit- is rape. Let us be specific as to what we are discussing. We are talking about individuals who make a choice to penetrate, masturbate, or perform oral sex upon a child that lacks the capactity to understand what is going on or to understand that it isn't their fault. It leaves feelings of guilt, physical scars, problems in relationships, and a deep-seated distrust of authority that never really goes away. Just so someone can get off. It is greed in the deepest sense, to destroy a child so you can have an orgasm. I've no more tollerance for excuses. Someone who can do that needs to be removed from society, with all the proper safeguards in place to make sure that they did. It doesn't matter if housing them costs $20,000.00 per year or treating them costs $5,000.00 per year. If you have that kind of extra money, you can use it to provide therapy for the survivors. Someone who rapes a child deserves neither mercy nor treatment.

Really?
show me how you know this.

Go to a survivor support group and ask. Actually, its more common to see threats against family members, particularily in those non-recidivist offenders who have managed to carefully hone their grooming and intimidation techniques, despite the fact that they have never been convicted or reconvicted of anything.

Ah...I see. You know it through an appeal to popularity. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

You know what, I'm sick of this snide, terse, garbage. Im a previous post I made a sarcastic comment that you should sit in on a survivor support group. Now I'm being serious. Go. Look into the eyes of people who don't have the luxury of approaching the issue as a statistical dilemma. Hear the stories. I defy you to go and speak to a woman who is barren because her cervix was too damaged by her mom's boyfriend, or a man who wears a colostomy bag due to severe trauma to his large intestine because his little league coach had a thing for "playing" with household objects. Put a face on child sexual assault.

You know what, I'm sick of this snide, terse, garbage. Im a previous post I made a sarcastic comment that you should sit in on a survivor support group. Now I'm being serious. Go. Look into the eyes of people who don't have the luxury of approaching the issue as a statistical dilemma. Hear the stories. I defy you to go and speak to a woman who is barren because her cervix was too damaged by her mom's boyfriend, or a man who wears a colostomy bag due to severe trauma to his large intestine because his little league coach had a thing for "playing" with household objects. Put a face on child sexual assault.

I usually assume that the more snide the defender, the more likely the offender.

I usually assume that the more snide the defender, the more likely the offender.

Look, I appreciate the support, but if you're tossing the accusation it sounds like you're tossing, you're even more out of line than LazyHippies.

I think that peoples attitude towards guns is irresponsible, frivolous and ill-considered. Such a regardless attitude towards human life is an exceptionally sad thing as it is so destructive to society and only shows immense ignorance on the part of those that advocate the use of guns and corperal punishment.

Okay. My friend has a scimitar. We'll execute them Arab-style, since firearms are so evil. :D

I think you missed the "[Latin, from ps, ped-, foot. See ped- in Indo-European Roots.]" bit at the bottom. Paedo is Greek, Pedi is Latin.

Oh, yes, of course. I forgot that the prefix had to be derived from the same language as the rest of the word.

You know what, I'm sick of this snide, terse, garbage. Im a previous post I made a sarcastic comment that you should sit in on a survivor support group. Now I'm being serious. Go. Look into the eyes of people who don't have the luxury of approaching the issue as a statistical dilemma. Hear the stories. I defy you to go and speak to a woman who is barren because her cervix was too damaged by her mom's boyfriend, or a man who wears a colostomy bag due to severe trauma to his large intestine because his little league coach had a thing for "playing" with household objects. Put a face on child sexual assault.

That illustrates the problem with your point of view right there. Your point of view is based on emotion whereas mine is based on reason. I actually do know survivors, though I am not one myself. Even if I were, my views would still be based on reason alone. I believe in the ultimate triumph of reason, not emotion. Facts show that the recidivism rate for child sexual abuse is lower than for other types of criminals, that therapy does work (and is constantly improving), that not all pedophiles molest children, and that many who do are able to be rehabilitated. I could care less what emotion says, I'm going with the facts. What emotions tend to do is cloud judgement, not enhance it.

You know what, I'm sick of this snide, terse, garbage. Im a previous post I made a sarcastic comment that you should sit in on a survivor support group. Now I'm being serious. Go. Look into the eyes of people who don't have the luxury of approaching the issue as a statistical dilemma. Hear the stories. I defy you to go and speak to a woman who is barren because her cervix was too damaged by her mom's boyfriend, or a man who wears a colostomy bag due to severe trauma to his large intestine because his little league coach had a thing for "playing" with household objects. Put a face on child sexual assault.

I am offended that you would seek to shamelessly use this appeal to emotion and authority.

Not all survivors agree with your view. Some of us are appalled by it.

I guess I'm not really posting about wether or not peadophillia is cureable per-say. But reading along (not the whole thing I'm not THAT masochistic) the consensus seems to be that it is not. That they are born that way and this sexuality is part of who we are. Now many people beleive that homosexuality is hardwired and part of who they are, something they are born with. They conclude from this that it is natural and should be as protected as gender or race.
Before the flames I must again state I do not think that homosexuals are peadophiles. Or less human or deserving of respect than anyone else on the planet. I'm just wondering why Peadophiles are not given the same status for the same reasons.

I guess I'm not really posting about wether or not peadophillia is cureable per-say. But reading along (not the whole thing I'm not THAT masochistic) the consensus seems to be that it is not. That they are born that way and this sexuality is part of who we are. Now many people beleive that homosexuality is hardwired and part of who they are, something they are born with. They conclude from this that it is natural and should be as protected as gender or race.
Before the flames I must again state I do not think that homosexuals are peadophiles. Or less human or deserving of respect than anyone else on the planet. I'm just wondering why Peadophiles are not given the same status for the same reasons.

Because pedophile does not equal child molestor, you have a partial point.

But pedophiles are likely child molestors, so there is good reason to seek to help those with that orientation either change or control their orientation.

There is an obvious difference, of course, between normal homosexual sex and child molestation.

A dead man cannot reoffend.

Unless you dig him up.

That's pretty offensive right there.

I've heard that castration therapy has wonderful results.

You've heard wrong.

Because pedophile does not equal child molestor, you have a partial point.

But pedophiles are likely child molestors, so there is good reason to seek to help those with that orientation either change or control their orientation.

There is an obvious difference, of course, between normal homosexual sex and child molestation.
Which is where my question was leading up to, if they can be, before the act on their impulse, are we obligated to provide a way for them to seek treatment without the shunning/stoning/bullet to the head that so many on this board seem to favor?

Which is where my question was leading up to, if they can be, before the act on their impulse, are we obligated to provide a way for them to seek treatment without the shunning/stoning/bullet to the head that so many on this board seem to favor?

Yes.

The "I-can-out-bloodthirst-you-crowd" didn't even bother to distinguish between orientation and commission of a crime.

Because pedophile does not equal child molestor, you have a partial point.

But pedophiles are likely child molestors, so there is good reason to seek to help those with that orientation either change or control their orientation.

There is an obvious difference, of course, between normal homosexual sex and child molestation.

Is there a known drug to stop the pedophiles urges? How would they treat them correctly?

Which is where my question was leading up to, if they can be, before the act on their impulse, are we obligated to provide a way for them to seek treatment without the shunning/stoning/bullet to the head that so many on this board seem to favor?

Guillotine? :D *runs*

Is there a known drug to stop the pedophiles urges? How would they treat them correctly?

Again, are you going to round up and punish everyone with illegal impulses or just those who act on them?

I'd say we don't punish thought crimes.

As for those that do commit child molestation, punishment should be harsh, but treatment should be tried.

This is just something that came to mind. I just thought this was getting a bit too serious in here.You always see the recovering alcoholics drinking O'Douls - that's not very smart - you wouldn't give a recovering pedophile a midget dressed in a cub scout uniform, would you?

Guillotine? :D *runs*
*Unleashes the giant flaming wombats* Sic 'em! ;)

*Unleashes the giant flaming wombats* Sic 'em! ;)

Hah! Wombats are no match for my musket, no wait, it's actually kind of a laser, well, a laser sword, with guns on it, that shot other swords.

I guess I'm not really posting about wether or not peadophillia is cureable per-say. But reading along (not the whole thing I'm not THAT masochistic) the consensus seems to be that it is not. That they are born that way and this sexuality is part of who we are. Now many people beleive that homosexuality is hardwired and part of who they are, something they are born with. They conclude from this that it is natural and should be as protected as gender or race.
Before the flames I must again state I do not think that homosexuals are peadophiles. Or less human or deserving of respect than anyone else on the planet. I'm just wondering why Peadophiles are not given the same status for the same reasons.

The simple answer is that this is faulty reasoning on the part of the homosexual community. Now, this does not mean that I do not support gay rights, I do believe they should be treated equally and given all the rights that heterosexuals have, although I dont believe in including them in affirmative action laws for other unrelated reasons. But the reasoning that because you are born that way it must be natural and you should have a right to act on your natural impulses was faulty logic.

The logically sound argument in favor of homosexual rights is that it is none of your or anyone else's business what goes on in the bedroom between consenting adults. Two adults who arent hurting or bothering anyone should have the right to do whatever they want in the bedroom and not be discriminated against. That is the strong argument in favor of gay rights.

The argument that it is natural was a flawed and weak argument, which, as you noted, would apply to pedophiles as well. There are many things that are natural but need to be controlled (bird flu comes to mind since it is in the news so much). Calling something natural as a way of justifying its validity was not logically sound.

I am offended that you would seek to shamelessly use this appeal to emotion and authority.

Not all survivors agree with your view. Some of us are appalled by it.

I'm sorry if you view it that way. I am not sorry if I offended you. What I was proposing was that LazyHippies take steps to see the issue in something other than the hypothetical. Each of the cases I mentioned are people I know, and I have had this very discussion with them. This isn't an appeal to emotion, it is an appeal to reality in a discussion where many people simply do not understand that what they are talking about are the broken lives of real people. If you don't agree, thats your right. If you are appalled, I honestly couldn't give a damn,

That illustrates the problem with your point of view right there. Your point of view is based on emotion whereas mine is based on reason. I actually do know survivors, though I am not one myself. Even if I were, my views would still be based on reason alone. I believe in the ultimate triumph of reason, not emotion. Facts show that the recidivism rate for child sexual abuse is lower than for other types of criminals, that therapy does work (and is constantly improving), that not all pedophiles molest children, and that many who do are able to be rehabilitated. I could care less what emotion says, I'm going with the facts. What emotions tend to do is cloud judgement, not enhance it.


Interesting, how you criticize me for not providing enough statistics, then skip right over them when I do. I'm a big fan of reason, too, but sometimes it needs to be tempered with experiance, otherwise you risk myopia. If you want to take emotion out of the equation, we'll still disagree. Why? Because you are an optimist and I am not. You seem to believe in the ultimate goodness of man, even those who have demonstrated otherwise. You seem to need to believe that these offenders can be fixed, that its a one time offense, that its worth fixing them. I don't agree. The series of steps one must take away from anything resembling a civilized society in order to reach a point where rape is acceptable (much less rape of a child) sets one apart. Is there a chance they can be repaired? Maybe. I just don't think its worth it.

You want to take emotion out of it, fine. A government only has so many dollars available at any given time, how is society better served by spending money to provide therapy for a rapist than by spending that money on infrastructure? I'm willing to bet that more money (both in tax and in economic activity) will be generated by a new road than by making a rapist a productive member of society. Not a big fan of economic development? How much could a county hospital that serves the poor and uninsured be improved if money that had bene earmarked to house and treat sex offenders was instead spent on treating people who had never, say, put their own sexual gratification before the life of another? Or perhaps you're a hawk. You could buy body armor for our troops with that cash. Or expand the WIC program and education spending to prevent a whole new generation from turning to crime. Or provide counseling for victims. You could spend the money on job training for poor convicts whose criminal conduct was related to economic circumstance. The list goes on and on. But that wouldn't be hopeful, it wouldn't be progressive. It wouldn't contribute to the warm lie that all human life has value regardless of any objective factors.

Once someone has moved outside of the rules of society (and I define those rules as only those laws which exist to protect the liberty of individuals), you must make three arguments in order to justify their continued existance. First, you must prove that there is a way to bring them back. Second, you must explain why the cost of bringing them back is equal to the benefit reaped by the society which incurs it. Finally, you must explain why that money could not be better used elsewhere. The more severe the crime, the harder each of those arguments becomes. Eventually, there will be some that society no longer has the money (or the incentive) to rehabilitate.

I'm sorry if you view it that way. I am not sorry if I offended you. What I was proposing was that LazyHippies take steps to see the issue in something other than the hypothetical. Each of the cases I mentioned are people I know, and I have had this very discussion with them. This isn't an appeal to emotion, it is an appeal to reality in a discussion where many people simply do not understand that what they are talking about are the broken lives of real people. If you don't agree, thats your right. If you are appalled, I honestly couldn't give a damn,

Your assumption that LazyHippies is ignorant of reallity is insulting and incorrect.

Your argument was both an appeal to emotion and an appeal to authority.

Survivors that are more bitter or callous are not morally superior to those of us that have different views. Why are the survivors you mention of any more important to LH's opinion than my opinion?

Get off your fucking high-horse and quit acting like bloodlust is some moral equalizer.

I'm sorry if you view it that way. I am not sorry if I offended you. What I was proposing was that LazyHippies take steps to see the issue in something other than the hypothetical. Each of the cases I mentioned are people I know, and I have had this very discussion with them. This isn't an appeal to emotion, it is an appeal to reality in a discussion where many people simply do not understand that what they are talking about are the broken lives of real people. If you don't agree, thats your right. If you are appalled, I honestly couldn't give a damn,

Well, you made a mistake. You assumed that people who disagree with you do not have first hand knowledge on the topic. When, in fact, maybe the reason they are well versed on this topic is because it is something that has affected people in their lives and led them to become informed, well informed. You jumped to a conclusion with absolutely no evidence, and it turned out to be wrong. This happens to be the same mistake you make when speaking about pedophilia while spouting old myths. Perhaps this is the way you normally operate?

*snip*
Once someone has moved outside of the rules of society (and I define those rules as only those laws which exist to protect the liberty of individuals), you must make three arguments in order to justify their continued existance. First, you must prove that there is a way to bring them back. Second, you must explain why the cost of bringing them back is equal to the benefit reaped by the society which incurs it. Finally, you must explain why that money could not be better used elsewhere. The more severe the crime, the harder each of those arguments becomes. Eventually, there will be some that society no longer has the money (or the incentive) to rehabilitate.

You must find the Constitution -- particularly the 5th and 8th Amendments -- darn inconvenient.

The "I-can-out-bloodthirst-you-crowd" didn't even bother to distinguish between orientation and commission of a crime.

Didn't read my posts too carefully, now, did you? Perhaps it was all that being appalled. Not only did I distinguish, but I proposed that a death sentance be the penalty for a second offense. At that point, the individual has shown both the propensity and the willingness to offend, and has shown that it is a pattern of conduct. It has given them the chance to seek treatment, therapy, depo, physical castration (a small percentage choose this route, though I feel the state imposing it would be overstepping), Jaysus, or whatever else they think might help. If, after all that, they recommit, it isn't bloodthirst that leads me to advocate their execution, just pragmatism. Do it quick, do it painless, do it cheap. Just as when you put down a rabid dog, there should be no joy in the killing, just an understanding that it needs to be done.

Didn't read my posts too carefully, now, did you? Perhaps it was all that being appalled. Not only did I distinguish, but I proposed that a death sentance be the penalty for a second offense. At that point, the individual has shown both the propensity and the willingness to offend, and has shown that it is a pattern of conduct. It has given them the chance to seek treatment, therapy, depo, physical castration (a small percentage choose this route, though I feel the state imposing it would be overstepping), Jaysus, or whatever else they think might help. If, after all that, they recommit, it isn't bloodthirst that leads me to advocate their execution, just pragmatism. Do it quick, do it painless, do it cheap. Just as when you put down a rabid dog, there should be no joy in the killing, just an understanding that it needs to be done.

Curious.

You included yourself in the "I-can-out-bloodthirst-you-crowd."

I never said you were part of that group.

Guilty conscience?

You must find the Constitution -- particularly the 5th and 8th Amendments -- darn inconvenient.

Not particularily. Like the other 8 ammendments in the bill of rights, they are vital to the survival of a free state. The judgement of an individuals continued existance should happen at the end of a just and orderly trial. Appeals should be exhausted, etc. Following all of the procedures that are desinged to, and necessary for, the safeguarding of liberty, then sentance is imposed. For most of American history, the death sentance was not seen as cruel or unusual. The supreme court has upheld the death penalty, indeed even doing so by overturning itself in order to do so. An offense like rape or murder, which so clearly infringes upon the most basic rights of another individual, can be looked act in no other way than as an act of war, the action of a small tyrant on a small scale.

Curious.

You included yourself in the "I-can-out-bloodthirst-you-crowd."

I never said you were part of that group.

Guilty conscience?

Meh. I took you to include me in it. No, you meant them, not me. No, I think you meant me. On and on, around in circles. You mentioned that you were appalled by what I said, you made a comment about the 5th and 8th ammendments. If you weren't including me, you should have said.