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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    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?
    I haven't claimed anything to that effect. I said it was a possibility worth considering, ie to stop these kneejerk reactions. I'm sad you read anything else into my words.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azer)
    I haven't claimed anything to that effect. I said it was a possibility worth considering, ie to stop these kneejerk reactions. I'm sad you read anything else into my words.
    You did. You claimed there was a causal link between decriminalizing drugs and a reduction in their use:

    "Difficult to see how any causal link could be more satisfactorily demonstrated.........."

    I've no idea whether this is right or not since it's your claim, not mine. All I'm asking is whether you think such a causal link might apply to other, and more serious, crimes.

    Do you think that child molestation should be de-criminalized (or considered a less serious offence) because this would lead to fewer cases or not?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    You did. You claimed there was a causal link between decriminalizing drugs and a reduction in their use:

    "Difficult to see how any causal link could be more satisfactorily demonstrated.........."

    I've no idea whether this is right or not since it's your claim, not mine. All I'm asking is whether you think such a causal link might apply to other, and more serious, crimes.

    Do you think that child molestation should be de-criminalized (or considered a less serious offence) because this would lead to fewer cases or not?
    Hi. I don't think you can apply the same logic to drug use and sex crimes.

    Keeping child molestation illegal is necessary, otherwise I think more people would do it and we would end up with many more victims.

    Drugs is a completely different kettle of fish. It could be argued that drug use is a victimless crime. Child molestation certainly isn't.

    Child molestation should remain illegal, however I think the way we are prosecuting offenders is not effective.

    Giving people prison terms for molestation to punish them is not the right way of going about it because when they come out they still have the same desires.
    We need to "cure" them so they don't want to have sex with kids in a society where this is not socially acceptable. They need help, it is just a configuration of their sexuality which is not aligned with this societies views on the subject.

    That or deport them to the middle east where you can marry ten year olds
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HyperGiant)
    Giving people prison terms for molestation to punish them is not the right way of going about it because when they come out they still have the same desires.
    We need to "cure" them so they don't want to have sex with kids in a society where this is not socially acceptable. They need help, it is just a configuration of their sexuality which is not aligned with this societies views on the subject.

    there is help available for them though. i dont know about this country but certainly in the US. there was some louis theroux docu on the tele last year where he went to rehab units and talked to paedos about how rehab was helping/not helping. whether there's any other sort of cure apart from talking/aversion therapy and castration, which are all available at the moment, i dont know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -F-)
    there is help available from them though. i dont know about this country but certainly in the US. there was some louis theroux docu on the tele last year where he went to rehab units and talked to paedos about how rehab was helping/not helping. whether there's any other sort of cure apart from talking/aversion therapy and castration, which are all available at the moment, i dont know.
    I have heard of small schemes in the UK to help them, but it is not widespread, and the usual sentence is prison.

    I think also they should offer anonymous rehab to paedo's before their desires get out of hand. I am unaware of anything in place which serves that purpose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    You did. You claimed there was a causal link between decriminalizing drugs and a reduction in their use:

    "Difficult to see how any causal link could be more satisfactorily demonstrated.........."

    I've no idea whether this is right or not since it's your claim, not mine. All I'm asking is whether you think such a causal link might apply to other, and more serious, crimes.

    Do you think that child molestation should be de-criminalized (or considered a less serious offence) because this would lead to fewer cases or not?
    Read the quote more carefully. I realize that it could be seen as implying what you are saying, but even then to imply is not equal to making a claim. In any case I wasn't consciously implying this; your comment made me wonder how causality could be shown and my remark is a comment on that.

    Now, whether or not a causal link applies is not something I can give an authoritative viewpoint on. I have my own thoughts, but they are simply that: thoughts, which may be wrong or right and are certainly not developed fully enough to use in argument.

    If it interests you, my view is that there is a causation in the drug case, and that this may very well be the case with any unspecified number of other crimes. Which ones these are I do not know. With regards to the crime in question, I am agnostic, but am inclined to see the present system as wrong. Make of that what you will.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azer)
    Read the quote more carefully. I realize that it could be seen as implying what you are saying, but even then to imply is not equal to making a claim. In any case I wasn't consciously implying this; your comment made me wonder how causality could be shown and my remark is a comment on that.

    Now, whether or not a causal link applies is not something I can give an authoritative viewpoint on. I have my own thoughts, but they are simply that: thoughts, which may be wrong or right and are certainly not developed fully enough to use in argument.

    If it interests you, my view is that there is a causation in the drug case, and that this may very well be the case with any unspecified number of other crimes. Which ones these are I do not know. With regards to the crime in question, I am agnostic, but am inclined to see the present system as wrong. Make of that what you will.
    Fair enough. No further questions Your Honour!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HyperGiant)
    Hi. I don't think you can apply the same logic to drug use and sex crimes.

    Keeping child molestation illegal is necessary, otherwise I think more people would do it and we would end up with many more victims.

    Drugs is a completely different kettle of fish. It could be argued that drug use is a victimless crime. Child molestation certainly isn't.

    Child molestation should remain illegal, however I think the way we are prosecuting offenders is not effective.

    Giving people prison terms for molestation to punish them is not the right way of going about it because when they come out they still have the same desires.
    We need to "cure" them so they don't want to have sex with kids in a society where this is not socially acceptable. They need help, it is just a configuration of their sexuality which is not aligned with this societies views on the subject.

    That or deport them to the middle east where you can marry ten year olds
    Or send them on extended vacations to Laos and Thailand perhaps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Or send them on extended vacations to Laos and Thailand perhaps.
    Problem solved, everyone is happy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    So tell me Phugoid, how does one know a paedophile is a paedophile? Telepathy unfortunately will not be accepted as an answer.
    One doesn't can't tell paedophile is a paedophile, and there's no reason why we should need to be able to tell.

    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.
    I never said that we had a problem with paedophiles being needlessly attacked by mobs and police, so I don't know what you're alluding to.

    The problem lies not with events, but with attitudes. Many people on this thread, and others, have said that paedophiles SHOULD be locked up, paedophiles SHOULD be murdered, paedophiles SHOULD be attacked, paedophiles SHOULD be this and that. Now, obviously people will very rarely get to put these principles into action because, as you say, paedophilia isn't something you can see in a person just by looking at them. But the very fact that this logically fallacious and abhorrent attitude exists quite commonly in British society requires that people like me stand up and correct it.

    Now you may say that the attitude is harmless if people will never be able to put it into action. But I disagree for a few reasons.

    1) Paedophiles deserve the right to speak out about their feelings in order to seek support if they need it. If the general British attitude towards paedophiles is that 'if we find out somebody is a paedophile, we make their life a living hell', then paedophiles will not seek help when they need it, and that may lead to something regrettable occurring.

    2) People can and have been framed or targetted by rumours. If somebody knows that if somebody is rumoured to be a paedophile, then they will be attacked, have their house burnt down, etc, then they can and will use that tactic against somebody. I'm fairly sure people have been attacked in the past because a rumour has been started that they are a paedophile. So although you are right to say that we can't be violent towards a paedophile if we can't SEE that he is a paedophile - there are still ways in which it might be 'leaked' or 'rumoured' that someone is attracted to children, which can and has led to this horrible attitude turning into some form of abuse or violence.

    3) People can be accused of child molestation, and have to go to court about it, with the result being that the court finds the defendant innocent. But even having to attend court over such an issue leaves a stigma, and if the attitude in society is that paedophilia is something that should be punished, then there will be repercussions for innocents like these.

    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.
    Not sure why you'd have to be gullible to appreciate my post, could you please explain?

    Secondly, I didn't see a massive hole in my logic, because I never claimed that paedophile attacks were a problem in this country - I claimed that the attitude towards paedophiles are, and that's what I was addressing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    One doesn't can't tell paedophile is a paedophile, and there's no reason why we should need to be able to tell.
    I'm putting my Too Long; Didn't Read response here because your answer pretty much told me all I really needed to know;

    TL;DR: Your entire argument is infact about protecting the feelings of non-proactive paedophiles. Good grief!

    I never said that we had a problem with paedophiles being needlessly attacked by mobs and police, so I don't know what you're alluding to.

    The problem lies not with events, but with attitudes. Many people on this thread, and others, have said that paedophiles SHOULD be locked up, paedophiles SHOULD be murdered, paedophiles SHOULD be attacked, paedophiles SHOULD be this and that. Now, obviously people will very rarely get to put these principles into action because, as you say, paedophilia isn't something you can see in a person just by looking at them. But the very fact that this logically fallacious and abhorrent attitude exists quite commonly in British society requires that people like me stand up and correct it.
    So................it's ok, as a grown man, to enjoy thinking about having anal sex with a 4 year old girl.........but it's not ok to think people who think this is acceptable and, lets face it, only don't do it because they know their chances of getting away with it are slim to none, are abhorrent people who should be shown the strongest distaste and are worthy of being reviled?

    And again, these people would only be reviled if they'ed done something to reveal themselves as a paedophile (i.e correspondance with a minor). So where's the problem exactly?

    Now you may say that the attitude is harmless if people will never be able to put it into action. But I disagree for a few reasons.

    1) Paedophiles deserve the right to speak out about their feelings in order to seek support if they need it. If the general British attitude towards paedophiles is that 'if we find out somebody is a paedophile, we make their life a living hell', then paedophiles will not seek help when they need it, and that may lead to something regrettable occurring.
    You're living in a fantasy world, where being tolerant to deviant practice leads to the eradication of their deviance. No. It doesn't. This is a ridiculous and fanciful notion which simply doesn't work in practice.

    Paedos who offend don't offend because the public hate them, it's because in their mind, what they're doing is rational and right, the fact they've been taught it's wrong only serves to make sure they convince the child to think like they do and keep quiet, to engage in internet grooming rather than hanging round school gates.

    Case in point, there are cultures where it's acceptable to marry and sleep with 14 year olds. No one stops and think's they've yet to hit puberty so perhaps I shouldn't. They think it's ok!!!


    2) People can and have been framed or targetted by rumours. If somebody knows that if somebody is rumoured to be a paedophile, then they will be attacked, have their house burnt down, etc, then they can and will use that tactic against somebody. I'm fairly sure people have been attacked in the past because a rumour has been started that they are a paedophile. So although you are right to say that we can't be violent towards a paedophile if we can't SEE that he is a paedophile - there are still ways in which it might be 'leaked' or 'rumoured' that someone is attracted to children, which can and has led to this horrible attitude turning into some form of abuse or violence.
    We should be tolerant to paedos because men who aren't paedos get wrongly accused and draw vigilantes?
    The law doesn't support vigilante attacks. Also that's not a good enough excuse to support non-proactive paedos (which if you think about it, doesn't exist). It's an unfortunate side effect but it only increases the safety of the children in the area. Also these rumours are rare and don't happen often enough to support this argument. Moot point.


    3) People can be accused of child molestation, and have to go to court about it, with the result being that the court finds the defendant innocent. But even having to attend court over such an issue leaves a stigma, and if the attitude in society is that paedophilia is something that should be punished, then there will be repercussions for innocents like these.
    A repeat of point 2. No case is brought to court unless there is some form of evidence. Especially for a crime as serious as that.

    Also paedophilia should not be punished? I'm going to go by your definition of a paedophile here: How many men are brought to court for only thinking about sleeping with children, and nothing else? How many are given custodial sentances for aforementioned action?

    I think even you're starting to get the self imposed line between a "paedophile" and a "child molester" blurred now.

    Not sure why you'd have to be gullible to appreciate my post, could you please explain?

    Secondly, I didn't see a massive hole in my logic, because I never claimed that paedophile attacks were a problem in this country - I claimed that the attitude towards paedophiles are, and that's what I was addressing.
    A simple analogy, I personally think you'd make an excellent salesman, negotiator, pitcher, perhaps even a politician. But you wouldn't be a very good lawyer. Why do I say this? You're very eloquent, you have a way with words. Gift of the gab even. Even I was almost seduced into your way of thinking by your initial post because it was persuasive, concise and used good English.

    However, it was the fact you differentiated between a paedophile and a child molester that made me think "well............who hates someone who only thinks bad things but never acts on them?". You blew your whole argument apart there frankly.

    You've taken you argument down the path of protecting their feelings. Nonsense. Repressed paedos already have avenues to "seek help" and talk about their problems. Shrinks. Numerous helplines. A child's welfare is far more important than the feelings of a paedo.

    If they keep themselves to themselves, no problem. If they make the transition to molester and bring themselves to our attention, they need the vitrol to make it known this practice is unacceptable and will never be accepted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    Wrong.


    It would be more like:


    "I have a particularly strong interest in rape and domination, I am therefore more likely to rape."



    ^ See the difference?

    besides which there's a difference between a fetish and a sexuality.


    To make your comparison more apt we would more likely say this:


    "I have a particularly strong interest in women, I am therefore unlikely to ever take it up the bunghole from another dude"

    ^ In the example we see the difference between actually liking women and seeking out consensual gratification and being a pedophile.



    When I say pedophile I generally refer to child molesters, however, not fully.

    Don't forget that pedophiles create a market for child pornography and where there is a market there is demand for it and where there is demand there will be supply. How do you think that supply happens?
    Yes I see, good point.

    I seriously don't think being a paedophile is a fetish. Fetishes are something you use to enhance your sexuality not define it. OR are you refering to those who have a fetish for domination and rape?

    I think there is an important distinction between paedophiles and child molesters. Regarding your point of supply and demand, we still don't know if someone is downloading/buying child porn just because they are attracted to children. I'd imagine a lot of them would stay away from it: if not the moral issues, the fear of being caught would deter them.

    I'd suggest a policy of non judgemental and confidential castration for peadophiles if they're worrying about giving in to desires. It might make more people come forward and therefore decrease those that give in and commit a terrible crime at a later point in their life. (does that exist already? I'm sure it could be done privately?) If it is a mental health disease as so many people want to suggest, this should be available on the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think people can understand murder a lot more than they can child abuse. I mean if you murder someone, there is usually a motive. If there isn't a motive then your classed as mentally insane and no one cares.

    On the other hand child abuse has no logic or motive. It isn't understood.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the media continually whips us up in to a moral panic to the point where we're told they're crawling out the ******* woodwork. They're not of course, they're statistically minor, and more likely to be a member of your own family BUT DON'T LET YOUR KIDS OUTSIDE. It actually depresses me how irrational and foaming at the mouth people get in this country about paedophiles. Youtube 'Paedofinder General'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's over sensationalized in the media, though one can't deny there's something very disturbing about the idea of adults raping a child, or even having consensual sex given that a child hasn't fully developed mentally or at least hasn't developed a sense of maturity so they can make their own choices. Whether it's worse than murder in terms of morality, to me no, but it's very very disturbing. I'll give my support to the notion of sending them off to Asia, it's win-win, they can support the Thai ladyboy economy!
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Pheonixx)
    Yes I see, good point.

    I seriously don't think being a paedophile is a fetish. Fetishes are something you use to enhance your sexuality not define it. OR are you refering to those who have a fetish for domination and rape?
    I can't honestly call pedophillia a sexuality tbh. Most pedophiles are either straight/gay/bi with a preference for children.

    Sexuality, IMO deals more with gender. Would you say somebody who was into BBW has a BBW Sexuality? What about those only into mature women/men? Would you say they have a mature sexuality?

    There was some pedo on here the other day (cba to find the thread) where he talked about how he had checked out child porn and let his eyes wander and such and he wasn't as thrilled with his girlfriend. Showing imo a clear preference for women (thus heterosexual) with a fetish for children (pedophile).

    For something to be a fetish it doesn't need to be something you understand or can control, generally thats the point, it's an irrational sexual desire. I'm into bondage for example, I don't know why, I can't control the fact that I am into bondage but simply put I am, it turns me on. Similarly just because pedophilia isn't subject to self control or choice doesn't make it a sexuality.

    I think there is an important distinction between paedophiles and child molesters.
    Never said there isn't.

    Regarding your point of supply and demand, we still don't know if someone is downloading/buying child porn just because they are attracted to children. I'd imagine a lot of them would stay away from it: if not the moral issues, the fear of being caught would deter them.
    Yes, I never said that just because they find sexual gratification in children they would DL the porn or seek it out, however there have been people in the thread defending those people saying things like "Oh but the porn is already there and the harm is done and let them get their rocks off".

    WRT The fear of being caught, it isn't that big of an issue, there are ways that require incredible amounts of work for the government to trace you at all, generally not worth it, TOR springs to mind, the CIA and FBI are having a continuous fit over it.... encryption and anonymity have progressed quite far from back in the early days of the web.

    WRT 'moral issues' ask yourself what our morals are defined by? Generally the answer is ourselves.

    All that said, I agree, just because someone is a pedo it doesn't mean they will seek out or get child porn.

    I'd suggest a policy of non judgemental and confidential castration for peadophiles if they're worrying about giving in to desires. It might make more people come forward and therefore decrease those that give in and commit a terrible crime at a later point in their life. (does that exist already? I'm sure it could be done privately?) If it is a mental health disease as so many people want to suggest, this should be available on the NHS.

    I agree. It doesn't exist already (in england).

    IMO it should be available on the NHS simply because I feel that pedophile castration, as much as it may cost, would save that and more money from counselling and other such things required by victims.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think murderers and the such should be treated just as harshly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dyrt18ft)
    I think the media continually whips us up in to a moral panic to the point where we're told they're crawling out the ******* woodwork. They're not of course, they're statistically minor, and more likely to be a member of your own family BUT DON'T LET YOUR KIDS OUTSIDE. It actually depresses me how irrational and foaming at the mouth people get in this country about paedophiles. Youtube 'Paedofinder General'.

    hahah

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4WncvSgNFM
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by ogloom)
    Another thing: If paedophiles are "the worst of the worst", its saddening they don't get the "respect" that murderers get once released. If they are going to be "the worst of the worst" they should at least have an aura of intimidation associated with them. unfortunately this is not the case.

    "Why were you in prison"
    "I murdered someone with my bare hands"
    "...Wow" *intimidated*

    compared to

    "Why were you in Prison"
    "I fiddled with some kids with my bare hands"
    "hahaha dude you are sick"
    Murderers don't get 'respect', they took a human life ffs. I'd probably react like that if someone told me they murdered someone. I would feel intimidated and scared of them (hence I wouldn't go "haha, you sicko"), but they definitely wouldn't get my respect, pfft.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If you force yourself upon kids sexually then you've got it all coming to you really.
 
 
 
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 you like carrot cake?
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.