This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Are paeodphiles the scapegoat of every murder?

Like everyone else, i am always disgusted to hear the news of more paeodphiles been found in society. BUT surely we can't blame them for every single death of a child. yes we must be suspicious but we can't automatically condemn them. do you agree?

Reply 1

chriswhit

1

Yep, there is an almost complete absence of reasoned and well informed debate where sex offenders are concerned in the press...anyone who doubts this is most welcome to read my thesis where I did a study to prove it!

Reply 2

unfinished sympathy

OP

15

i agree, look at this new murder- rory
automatically a sex offender is blamed, wheterh he did it or not, why couldn't a "normal" person have killed rory. any murderer should be caught, but to be under suspicion because of your record with children is just wrong

Reply 3

Fleece

15

Mrs. Political

i agree, look at this new murder- rory
automatically a sex offender is blamed, wheterh he did it or not, why couldn't a "normal" person have killed rory. any murderer should be caught, but to be under suspicion because of your record with children is just wrong

umm if they're capable of raping kiddies then i wouldnt personally put it past them to kill someone. its not 'just wrong' to put someone under suspicion because of that, surely its better to be safe than sorry...its not like it's ruining some 'innocent' persons life under suspicion, its a sick paedophile.

IMO anyway.

Reply 4

Dude

14

Because of my love for programmes such as CSI, I would like to see all the evidence before comdeming someone.

Reply 5

Tyler Durden

17

Mrs. Political

but to be under suspicion because of your record with children is just wrong

Why is it wrong? It sounds like a pretty good idea to me... People have criminal records for that very reason.

Reply 6

L i b

19

Did that guy who killed those two girls (Holly and Jessica or something like that) have a sexual motive? I remember a vague mention of it in the pub once and roughly related to the subject of this thread...

Reply 7

F1 fanatic

16

Mrs. Political

Like everyone else, i am always disgusted to hear the news of more paeodphiles been found in society. BUT surely we can't blame them for every single death of a child. yes we must be suspicious but we can't automatically condemn them. do you agree?

We can if they did it! :rolleyes:

Reply 8

dave

Mrs. Political

but to be under suspicion because of your record with children is just wrong

englishstudent

Why is it wrong? It sounds like a pretty good idea to me... People have criminal records for that very reason.

Playing devil's advocate here - I think you're both right. It's natural to be under suspicion if an offence against a child is commited in your area and you're on whatever register it is - as englishstudent says - that's why criminal records are maintained.
I think what IS wrong is where the sensalionalist gutter press get hold of something and blow it up out of all proportion. People are too eager to jump on the bandwagon without engaging their brains.

Dude

.........

I would like to see all the evidence before comdeming someone.

.............is a good example of engaging brain.

Wasn't their a case in the portsmouth/southampton area some years back when a large group of people banded together and almost killed a "suspected" paedophile - only to subsequently discover the victim wasn't a paedophile at all - the gutter press got it totally wrong. I mean, no amount of financial recompense is going to make up for the trauma suffered.**

**I recounted that from memory - if I got it wrong - I'll stand corrected.

Reply 9

username21537

2

Yes they are. And its becasue , as we already hate them, no one wants to emp/sympathise with a paedophile who may be innocent. its almost a case of severe peer pressure. Hows it going to look if we defend a Paedophile?

Reply 10

unfinished sympathy

OP

15

MR_JR

Yes they are. And its becasue , as we already hate them, no one wants to emp/sympathise with a paedophile who may be innocent. its almost a case of severe peer pressure. Hows it going to look if we defend a Paedophile?

true

Reply 11

mcidiot

No, paedophiles aren't the sacpegoat, but they are blamed for every murder concerning a CHILD.

Was the person who attacked (granted that she didn't die) the women walking her child, her name forgets me, a paedophile?

But yes, anyone convicted by a jury is seen in the public eyes as a paedophile.

Reply 12

Cirsium

19

Fleece

its a sick paedophile.

Sick exactly.

Just because somebody has strange sexual fantasies that they can't control doesn't mean that they're going to go out murdering kids.
That's like... well if you think homesexuality is wrong then putting people who have homosexual desires that they don't fulfil in the same category as those who sleep around.

Paedophilia is an illness. It's not right to blame them for something with no evidence.

Reply 13

unfinished sympathy

OP

15

mcidiot

No, paedophiles aren't the sacpegoat, but they are blamed for every murder concerning a CHILD.

Was the person who attacked (granted that she didn't die) the women walking her child, her name forgets me, a paedophile?

But yes, anyone convicted by a jury is seen in the public eyes as a paedophile.

i'm not disputing that though, they deserve to be labelled paeodophiles, but if we are going to balme them for everything, then they would be safer in prison for paedophiles, left to themselves, safe from the world and we are safe from them. they deserve 100% to be labelled, but not blamed fro every little crime. it's like that teacher that had consenting sex with a 15 year old, she didn't rape him but she is now a paedophile. it's pathetic, the 15 year old decided and acted with her- it takes two to tango, afterall

Reply 14

Wayvelength

bodhisattva

Wasn't their a case in the portsmouth/southampton area some years back when a large group of people banded together and almost killed a "suspected" paedophile - only to subsequently discover the victim wasn't a paedophile at all - the gutter press got it totally wrong. I mean, no amount of financial recompense is going to make up for the trauma suffered.**

**I recounted that from memory - if I got it wrong - I'll stand corrected.

Yeah, and wasn't there one about a paediatrician? Could be the same case, could have been a different one. In that case, the person had a sign outside of their house saying they were a paediatrician and got attacked because for some reason, the people thought they were a paedophile. I guess that's an example of the TABLOID media whipping up a frenzy. I'd say it is mostly the tabloids that appear to encourage vigalante action and essentially tell people: "peadophiles are always responsible and they're coming to get your child" I have no idea whether or not they can or can not live safeley in the community as I only ever see negative headlines.

But no matter what, people should be innocent untill proven guilty. Though they may have robbed banks in the past, it doesn't mean that they robbed this bank. This case will no doubt result in more calls for "Sarah's Law".

Reply 15

Tyler Durden

17

Bekaboo

It's not right to blame them for something with no evidence.

Is it right to suspect them slightly more than someone with no convictions relating to crimes against children?

Reply 16

username21537

2

englishstudent

Is it right to suspect them slightly more than someone with no convictions relating to crimes against children?

whether or not its right to, we do nonetheless.

Reply 17

Johnny 5

12

Paedophiles are the scapegoats for everything. A paedophile ate my homework, once.

Reply 18

Fleece

15

Bekaboo

Sick exactly.

Just because somebody has strange sexual fantasies that they can't control doesn't mean that they're going to go out murdering kids.
That's like... well if you think homesexuality is wrong then putting people who have homosexual desires that they don't fulfil in the same category as those who sleep around.

Paedophilia is an illness. It's not right to blame them for something with no evidence.

do you really think its an illness?
insanity is an illness, doesnt mean i cant condemn a murderer if his motives were borne out of insanity.

and i dont believe for ONE SECOND that they cant control the fantasies!! that's really stupid. I have fantasies but i dont act on them.
Homosexuality is a tad more consensual than young kids being raped and abused.

Reply 19

username21537

2

Fleece

do you really think its an illness?
insanity is an illness, doesnt mean i cant condemn a murderer if his motives were borne out of insanity.

and i dont believe for ONE SECOND that they cant control the fantasies!! that's really stupid. I have fantasies but i dont act on them.
Homosexuality is a tad more consensual than young kids being raped and abused.

You dont seem to condemn people who are addicted to gambling/nicotine/alcohol etc. We accept that people cant controll *these* urges and try to help but with other urges we seem to condemn then. With help, these people CAN become good members of a community, but people operate double standards when they can/cant empathise at least with the addiction/urge.

Edit im not condoning or showing any support for any of the above.

Are paeodphiles the scapegoat of every murder?

Related discussions

Articles for you