Turn on thread page Beta

Sexual Deviants; are we too soft on them? watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TulipFields)
    Demand gives rise to supply. Enjoying a product of a harm to children might not be same as harm to children, but it is still sick and wrong.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...use-background
    I know this might be an ad hoc argument, but how would you feel if your kid was abused by a a worker in the nursery and then this was used to give pleasure to other paedophiles on the internet? Even if those people did not actually harm the baby themselves- merely encouraged the original perpetrator?
    If you could refer to my comment earlier up this page, few Paedophiles actively encourage other to abuse children. Infact, there is a remarkable sense of shame even within certain communities of Paedophiles.

    I wouldn't be happy. But at the same time, if those images stopped someone abusing another child, then I'd let the be circulated. And I'd not see someone's life destroyed if they happened to find my child attractive. In all likelyhood I wouldn't understand, but I wouldn't blame them or hate them. But equally, law is not best made on the back of emotional appeal.

    If someone raped my daughter I would in all likely hodd want to cut his manhood off, but would I advocate a justice system based on that? I would not. But I understand where you are coming from.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonkatt)
    However, it is not victimless. Someone still has to make the images or videos, if the punishments for posessing child porn are harsh it makes people think before trying to obtain it. In the end, generating a market where people want to view child pornography is as bad as the sick *******s that make it.
    What's your opinion regarding eating meat w.r.t animal cruelty ? Just curious...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    People that engage in 'perverse' activities are clearly sick. Sick people ought to be rehabilitated, not sentenced to death or unjustly punished.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon1992)
    shall we agree to disagree? we all have our own opinions and this could go on for a while.
    I'm not disgreeing with your opinion, just the terminology you use.

    The Spanner Case was an example of one of the many quirks in the English Law. It resulted in a judgement that sexual acts being performed between consenting adults were illegal.

    A complete waste of money.

    An example of illegal sexual devaints that I believe fall outside of the intended scope for your lynching party.

    It may seem a petty point to chase but we live within a country where members of the public have in the past hounded a hospital paediatrician on the back of ignorance/misinformation.

    (Original post by yellowmeringue)
    People that engage in 'perverse' activities are clearly sick. Sick people ought to be rehabilitated, not sentenced to death or unjustly punished.
    :facepalm2:

    What is 'perverse'?

    Such simple, throwaway words can be misunderstood.

    Do you mean all things that you consider perverse, all things that society considers perverse or things that the courts consider perverse?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yellowmeringue)
    People that engage in 'perverse' activities are clearly sick. Sick people ought to be rehabilitated, not sentenced to death or unjustly punished.
    But what do you class as "perverse".
    Different people have different opinions.
    As I said earlier, a few years ago being gay was viewed as perverse (it still is by some idiots).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    If you could refer to my comment earlier up this page, few Paedophiles actively encourage other to abuse children. Infact, there is a remarkable sense of shame even within certain communities of Paedophiles.

    I wouldn't be happy. But at the same time, if those images stopped someone abusing another child, then I'd let the be circulated. And I'd not see someone's life destroyed if they happened to find my child attractive. In all likelyhood I wouldn't understand, but I wouldn't blame them or hate them. But equally, law is not best made on the back of emotional appeal.

    If someone raped my daughter I would in all likely hodd want to cut his manhood off, but would I advocate a justice system based on that? I would not. But I understand where you are coming from.
    I sincerely doubt that child porn would stop someone who has a potential to rape a child from becoming an abuser. If anything might stop them is psychiatric help/ their own sense of morals, but to say that just because they watched a porn video where kids were abused and felt like their urges were satisfied, is wrong. I don't doubt that there is some sense of shame in some paedophile communities, but whether they follow that sense and stop acting upon their thoughts is another thing. To me, no amount of regret and remorse from a paedophile who harmed a child would make up for what the child in question would have to live through. ,


    I guess that since people who watch child porn do not commit crimes themselves, the punishment might be slightly lower than that of the person who produced itbut it has to be there- after all our judicial system was developed to protect the public and act as a deterrent from crimes.
    And if someone actively seeks help to stop themselves from having those thoughts, they should be provided with that. Except that not many do, maybe due to the existing culture in our society. But by going underground or acting on those urges, they do nothing but fuel the public outrage and support the stereotype;/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stratos)
    paedos=children
    philia=loves
    paedophila= sexual interest towards children(which in this country would be anything under 18)

    And let me be even more controversial, since consent seems to be based on rationality how about we prohibit idiots from having sex or allow anyone who understands the implications to have sex and yes this includes 10 year olds.

    Should law be based on popular opinion/values or rationality because it seems to be the former and that's advocating stupidity and dogma.
    Peadophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children.


    I'll say no more because from what I recall you were either a troll or an idiot.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yellowmeringue)
    People that engage in 'perverse' activities are clearly sick. Sick people ought to be rehabilitated, not sentenced to death or unjustly punished.
    What defines perverse sexual activity and what is acceptable?

    To me what happens between two (or more!) consenting adults in private is none of the business of the state as long as the two adults can easily prove their veracity of their claims in regards to the consensual nature of their activity. I take the approach of anything, and any adult, goes as long as the quality of the content is good and no one walks away missing limbs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TulipFields)
    I sincerely doubt that child porn would stop someone who has a potential to rape a child from becoming an abuser. If anything might stop them is psychiatric help/ their own sense of morals, but to say that just because they watched a porn video where kids were abused and felt like their urges were satisfied, is wrong. I don't doubt that there is some sense of shame in some paedophile communities, but whether they follow that sense and stop acting upon their thoughts is another thing. To me, no amount of regret and remorse from a paedophile who harmed a child would make up for what the child in question would have to live through. ,


    I guess that since people who watch child porn do not commit crimes themselves, the punishment might be slightly lower than that of the person who produced itbut it has to be there- after all our judicial system was developed to protect the public and act as a deterrent from crimes.
    And if someone actively seeks help to stop themselves from having those thoughts, they should be provided with that. Except that not many do, maybe due to the existing culture in our society. But by going underground or acting on those urges, they do nothing but fuel the public outrage and support the stereotype;/
    I'm not talking about people who harm children. I'm talking about people who have a facet to their sexuality they cannot help, but are punished despite the fact they don't harm anyone.

    By having this culutre of 'Every Paedophile should be killed!!' or whatever you force them deeper underground, deeper into themselves, and deeper into the arms of the person that eventually accepts them. Why can people see this when it regards Radicl Islam, or something like that, and yet be so blind when it comes to Paedophillia? We need a society that is more open about this sort of thing. Where people are educated about the nature of Paedophillia, and where there is a strong distinction between a Paedophile and a predatory Paedophile. Noone, noone can come forward and say they are a Paedophile in this society. Noone can get help for it. Why? Because of the hysteria surrounding it. If you are labelled a Paedophile then you can say goodbye to friends, family and a job pretty much forever.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Hmm. Interesting.

    For one, I don't think possesing material you did not make, or fund should carry such a harsh sentance. And it certainley have you treated the same as those who make it. Contreversial, but take Child Porn. If someone only downloads and looks at it, that person has not harmed anyone. If they do not distribute it and have it only for personal use? I think it should be taken from them, but they shouldn't be classed anything like the same as a predatory Paedophile. Lots of people have secret, and what would be termed by society 'perverse' desires, to live them out within the confines of your own mind, with perhaps some visual stimulant is not harmful. Just as every man that watches 'rough' porn is not a rapist, not every person that looks at Child Porn will go out and rape a child.
    What? Harmless? They are creating the demand for child pornography. If no-one wanted it, it wouldn't exist.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexD14)
    It is my opinion that we are much to lenient on people whom commit crimes of a sexual nature; child molesters, rapists, voyeurs all seem to get off very lightly for what crimes that, if anything, show gross moral and social deformity and therefore should suffer much great punishment for they're crimes. For instance, today, I was reading a news report from the Flintshire Chronicle about a sexual pervert who had taken pictures and recorded footage of women undressing or using the toilet without there consent - it later transgressed that he also had child pornography on his computer. The sentence he received was a petty 14 months in prison with a more suitable period of time on the sex offenders register.

    My questions are:

    Should we bring back capital punishment for rapists and those who engage in sexual activity with minors?
    Should we increase the terms of incarceration given to those who download child pornography and those who stalker or film women without consent?
    Should there be a program set-up to give people who have certain "urges" to commit crime of a certain nature psychological help?

    I would personally answer yes, to all of these questions.

    The incident that I was talking about is described in more detail in the article below:
    http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk...1352-28487275/
    That's not illegal, as long as you are in a public place you can film whoever you want whenever you want, harassment is another case entirely though.

    It has been mentioned previously that these that commit such crimes have mental disorders though
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by j.alexanderh)
    What? Harmless? They are creating the demand for child pornography. If no-one wanted it, it wouldn't exist.
    Read my other posts on this line of argument, and then comment specifically if you so wish.

    I'll not type out the comment yet again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Of course we are. All of the causes of sexual deviancy are well-ingrained in our society- it's just that an increasing number of individuals are taking a step further.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But what do you class as "perverse".
    Different people have different opinions.
    As I said earlier, a few years ago being gay was viewed as perverse (it still is by some idiots).
    (Original post by James1977)

    :facepalm2:

    What is 'perverse'?

    Such simple, throwaway words can be misunderstood.

    Do you mean all things that you consider perverse, all things that society considers perverse or things that the courts consider perverse?
    Anything that isn't between consenting adults could be - and I would - consider perverse sexual behaviour.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To all the people pushing these ideas of rehab:

    It is already done.
    It is incredibly expensive.
    It is almost entirely unsuccessful.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I think we would do well to follow the example of Scandinavian countries and some areas of America. Currently sex offenders re-offend at a rate well above 50%, meaning that when we release them after their o so short prison sentences they are more likely to re-offend than they are not to. If they are chemically castrated this figure drops right down to about 5%. The vast majority of sexual crime is committed by pyschopaths who see nothing wrong with what they do, so the only way to stop them is either permanent incarceration or removing their sexual urges.
    Err, fairly sure that chemical castration would be ripped apart by the Supreme Court and the ECHR for good reason before any proposals to introduce it got even a little way off of the ground.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Err, fairly sure that chemical castration would be ripped apart by the Supreme Court and the ECHR for good reason before any proposals to introduce it got even a little way off of the ground.
    We are dealing in theoreticals here any way. The government is going to keep on giving rapists 5 year sentences, and they're going to keep on getting out and doing it again. Nothing will actually change. I am personally not averse to chemical castration, as stopping rapists getting boners is hardly the human rights violation of the century, on the other hand raping someone is just about the worst thing you can do to someone.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexD14)
    Should we bring back capital punishment for rapists and those who engage in sexual activity with minors?
    We never had capital punishment for those who engage in sexual activity with minors, and anyway that would be ridiculous.

    What are you going to suggest next? Cutting off the hands of those who steal? Chopping the genitals off people who commit underage sex? Please :lol:

    (Original post by AlexD14)
    Should we increase the terms of incarceration given to those who download child pornography and those who stalker or film women without consent?
    Should there be a program set-up to give people who have certain "urges" to commit crime of a certain nature psychological help?
    I think a program should be set up where people can satisfy their urges in a safe non-harmful manner would be far more successful.

    For example this would definitely solve sex crime:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1149663

    You cannot get 'rid' of natural urges, look at the rate of re-offending to see why.


    And for people who film women without their consent, although it is wrong and should be illegal, it does not cause enough harm (if much at all) to warrant long-term incarceration.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by j.alexanderh)
    What? Harmless? They are creating the demand for child pornography. If no-one wanted it, it wouldn't exist.
    There is no proof, or any other logical argument, that downloading free and widely available files causes or could potentially cause "demand" leading to more manufacture and supply to meet that demand.

    Firstly, how exactly do manufacturers of child pornography know anything about what the demand is? How can they track or trace where files or or how much is being downloaded? They have no idea. Once something goes on the internet it can be duplicated an infinite amount of times and spread everywhere.

    Secondly, how is downloading something for FREE going to motivate supply?
    I'm sure lots of people would like Rolex watches for free, and there is huge demand, but nobody is going to start making Rolex watches and give them out for free to satisfy demand. Especially if it was illegal to.

    Suggesting downloading child porn creates demand goes against every basic law of economics that exists.

    If anyone wants to give me a good argument to why I might be wrong, please go ahead.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Paediphilia is a mental illness, perhaps they could be medicated without a chemical castration.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.