Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Paedo's are treated too harshly. Agree? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Same as being gay really, a sexual attraction is not within one's control.

    However to rape a child is obviously a most heinous crime
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    It's not a mental illness.
    it is classified as a mental disorder on the dsm iv tr





    anyways honestly i dont think they are treated unfairly they deserve it if i had kids i woyuldnt wanna put my kids in danger and for them 2 be subjected to it

    maybe murderers ect are treated to leniently
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well I know 'one' (I won't go to deep into the story but it is the Dad of someone close to me) and he walks freely and has his own house and even when admitting it to the police, absolutely nothing was done about it.

    So I think he's got it pretty easy actually. He abused family members and it seems that the police and the family just pretend it didn't happen for 10 years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jadeface)
    Well I know 'one' (I won't go to deep into the story but it is the Dad of someone close to me) and he walks freely and has his own house and even when admitting it to the police, absolutely nothing was done about it.

    So I think he's got it pretty easy actually. He abused family members and it seems that the police and the family just pretend it didn't happen for 10 years.
    I would agree, a lot of abusers go undetected and most of the prison sentences aren't particularly harsh, even for the most serious crimes, six years is the longest sentence I have seen someone serve, although repeat offenders will eventually be serving serious time. How devestating for his family and victims that nothing was done, poor people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azer)
    In a sense you are right, but in the most important sense you are not.
    My argument is not that lowering punishments would also lower the amount of pedophiles; although this may be the case I do not have sufficient reason to believe it. I am just saying that you cannot presume that in all cases a decrease in punishment will lead to an increase in crime, and that you cannot know wheter this is such a case or not.
    So what is your point exactly? The punishment is there to discourage paedophiles or child abusers from actually acting on their desires, whether it be abusing a child or viewing child pornography, and it does work to a certain extent from what I have seen, so logically there would be more crimes committed if there was a decrease in punishment, as there wouldn't be that deterrent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    er - No! Rape isn't that bad at all lol, 40 minutes of discomfort doesn't merit lifetime mutilation. Just a large fine and a possible jail sentence.
    People who are raped (and I know one) do not merely have 40 minutes of discomfort!

    (Original post by </Tom>)
    Because potentially being beaten to death in prison, serving an overkill sentence and losing abso-*******-lutely everything isn't deterrent enough, right?
    True. What do I know?

    (Original post by CrazyPyramid)
    I hate the death penalty and I never think killing them would be the answer. I've seen that thing before though, they look like a very good idea. A rather sensible (but probably partial) solution I think, not any of this microchipping nonsense.
    No I don't like the death penalty that much either.

    (Original post by </Tom>)
    I guarantee any girl wearing one of these will be murdered should the rapist get caught in it.
    Yeah that's the issue with those, or that they check first.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinytinygirl)
    People who are raped (and I know one) do not merely have 40 minutes of discomfort!

    You speak the truth.


    No I don't like the death penalty that much either.

    Oh, good to know
    Responses above.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azer)
    Difficult to see how any causal link could be more satisfactorily demonstrated short of studies which the nature of the subject do not allow.
    I can't see any causation there at all. Why should a lenient approach to enforcing drug prohibition laws result in fewer people taking drugs? It doesn't make sense to me.

    I suspect that there must be other factors at play in Portugal and the Netherlands.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Familial =/= Genetic.
    Of course not, but it's one possibility from the results.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I can't see any causation there at all. Why should a lenient approach to enforcing drug prohibition laws result in fewer people taking drugs? It doesn't make sense to me.

    I suspect that there must be other factors at play in Portugal and the Netherlands.
    Any number of reasons. Being somewhat of a druggy myself, I know that a lot of people get into it as a sort of rebellion, doing something because its being illegal makes it cool. It's simply not as special when it's legal.
    As I said, I can't give adequate reason to explain why, but it simply is this way. Rejecting an argument soleley because it is counter-intuitive
    is a big mistake.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samg100)
    So what is your point exactly? The punishment is there to discourage paedophiles or child abusers from actually acting on their desires, whether it be abusing a child or viewing child pornography, and it does work to a certain extent from what I have seen, so logically there would be more crimes committed if there was a decrease in punishment, as there wouldn't be that deterrent.
    That follows logically only if the deterren works as intended. Do you really think that's the case?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azer)
    That follows logically only if the deterren works as intended. Do you really think that's the case?
    YEs, I've no idea of research findings, but I see it everyday from the child abusers I work with. Child abusers are generally devious and compliant by nature, they don't want to get in any further trouble. Some do obviously, but it does have a deterrent effect, that and the shaming by most of society.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    There are several cures for paedophilia that I will share with you

    1/ Fire and lots of it
    2/ The hangman's noose
    3/ Being flayed alive
    4/ Gassed alive
    5/ Blasted into the sun
    6/ firing squad
    7/ Crushed by a 100ton weight in the shape of a child
    8/ Lynched
    9/ MORE FIRE
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azer)
    Any number of reasons. Being somewhat of a druggy myself, I know that a lot of people get into it as a sort of rebellion, doing something because its being illegal makes it cool. It's simply not as special when it's legal.
    As I said, I can't give adequate reason to explain why, but it simply is this way. Rejecting an argument soleley because it is counter-intuitive
    is a big mistake.
    Do you suppose this would work for other crimes? Since we're on the subject do you think if we made child molestation a much less serious offence carrying lighter sentences we'd see less of it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Do you suppose this would work for other crimes? Since we're on the subject do you think if we made child molestation a much less serious offence carrying lighter sentences we'd see less of it?
    :eek:

    Please guys dont tell me that paedophiles are paedophiles because they want to commit a crime. They are paedophiles because they are attracted sexually to children. They are sexually attracted to children because they are, in comparison to the rest of society, mentally ill.

    Reducing sentences would be the ultimate insult to the poor victims!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfranks7)
    :eek:

    Please guys dont tell me that paedophiles are paedophiles because they want to commit a crime. They are paedophiles because they are attracted sexually to children. They are sexually attracted to children because they are, in comparison to the rest of society, mentally ill.

    Reducing sentences would be the ultimate insult to the poor victims!
    Mine was a rhetorical question, not a recommendation or suggestion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Paedo sympathisers in this thread really are dumb as hell individuals who CLEARLY see themselves as being above people who have zero tolerance on paedophillia, because being a Nice Guy Liberal in all senses of the word is OH SO COOL amirite?

    Your arguments that soley being sexually attracted to children is not a crime, there for we should not show animosity towards non-proactive paedophiles. But HOW do we know a paedophile is a paedophile unless they actually DO something that gives them away????????

    ALL known paedophiles have done something amoral to a child (be it viewing pictures, molestation or rape) to be labeled as such. Otherwise we'd have no idea they were one. We won't call an innocent a paedophile will we?????
    THEREFORE, your arguments supporting NON-PROACTIVE paedophiles are null and void and I find it hilarious that some of you people (Azer and Phugiod I am looking at you two) consider yourselfs holier than thou because of your Leftist Liberal extremists views AND talk down to those who have zero tolerance on the subject. Absolute BS. Paedos are dangerous people, they deserve zero tolerance and stop INSULTING genuinely mentally ill people by using that as an EXCUSE for paedophillia. It's disgusting. Sort yourselfs out seriously.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Your 'honest opinion' was the same 'honest opinion' about homosexuals less than 50 years ago.

    Paedophiles do not need to be treated for anything. They have a sexual attraction to children, but that does not mean they are a threat to children. I have a sexual attraction to women, but I am not a threat to them, and the same is true of a vast majority of paedophiles.

    People who actually molest children should be punished, but the line between child molesters, and paedophiles is as clear cut as the line between straight men, and straight men who rape women.

    Paedophilia is not a problem. Child molestation is. Paedophiles should be left in peace. Child molestors should be dealt with. Paedophiles are treated too harshly. Child molesters are not treated harshly enough. Paedophiles are normal, functioning members of society. Child molesters are delinquents.

    People, please mark the difference between these two very different groups of people in the same way that you mark the difference between men who are attracted to women, and men who rape women.
    So tell me Phugoid, how does one know a paedophile is a paedophile? Telepathy unfortunately will not be accepted as an answer. Angry mobs and police will not attack someone if their (in your opinion) totally acceptable sexual attraction to children never ever leaves their head. Will they. No. They won't.

    Credit where it's due, it's a well constructed post for the gullible (as has been proven numerous times subsequent to this post), but I want to see how you plug that massive hole in your logic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Do you suppose this would work for other crimes? Since we're on the subject do you think if we made child molestation a much less serious offence carrying lighter sentences we'd see less of it?
    I don't know if it would, and my personal opinion is irrelevant anyway. I'm just saying you don't know either.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azer)
    I don't know if it would, and my personal opinion is irrelevant anyway. I'm just saying you don't know either.
    Of course I don't know.

    You're the one that is claiming to have established that there is a causal link between such factors where drugs are concerned. If you're so sure of this why wouldn't you think that it would apply to other crimes like child molestation?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 2, 2010
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.