Planetarion Forums - Working with a sex offender, could you do it?

SYMM · 11 Jul 2006, 21:32

There was an initiative set up in Canada in 1994 whereby a group of people would join together to help rehabilitate (and to some extent monitor the bahaviour of) convicted sex offenders upon their release.
More recently, there have been projects set up in the UK doing the same thing. There was an article in today's G2[1] which included comments from some of the volunteers, and it made me think about whether I'd be able to contribute to such a project (assuming that the general apathy towards volunteering has been overcome).
There are two main criteria (maybe three) that I think would need to be met:
Firstly, and probably the most important, is whether you think you'd have the people skills (motivation, questioning etc.) to actually be helpful to the 'core member'. It is going to be a lot more demanding than helping plant trees.
Secondly, and perhaps thirdly, would you be able to bring yourself to help such a person? And, if you could, would you care what other people thought? Would you, for example, go into the specifics if you were including it on a CV?

Whilst at university, I was quite havily involved in volunteering projects involving the motivation of 'disadvantaged' people, and while I was never entirely convinced that I was being helpful, the feedback I got from the co-ordinators was rather good (I even won an award

), so with training I'm fairly sure I could do a good job.

I happen to think that rehabilitation is often preferable to punishment, and agree with the campaign's motto of 'no more victims', and so I'd seriously consider becoming involved in a year or two when my own life is a bit more settled (we're ignoring the apathy, remember?)

Most people are liberal enough that I'd be fairly sure they wouldn't care/mind what I was doing, however I'm not convinced that going into details with people for who first impression matters (i.e. the CV) would be a good idea. It would be simple enough to gloss over the details, while still being able to include the pertinent/positive information, and the chance that it would be a tabloid-reader on the other end is fairly high.

There are a couple of links to some sites with more information below.

[1] http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimea...817574,00.html
[2] http://www.ccjf.org/what/circles.html
[3] [PDF] http://www.voma.org/docs/dyck.pdf
[4] http://www.stjohnsottawa.ca/pages/cosa.html

Dante Hicks · 11 Jul 2006, 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM

Firstly, and probably the most important, is whether you think you'd have the people skills (motivation, questioning etc.) to actually be helpful to the 'core member'.

Possibly not. It depends on the context and how structured the process was. In a very free and open process I'd probably find it difficult to strike up conversation given I lack any ability to do small talk. If I had to talk about something I'd probably be fine (e.g. if it was training someone how to do something).

Quote:

Secondly, and perhaps thirdly, would you be able to bring yourself to help such a person?

Yes, although it depends on the nature of the crime I guess, and how "rehabilitated" they seemed to be (although I realise that's kind of the point of the exercise).

As for telling other people about it, I think I'd probably just I was helping ex-offenders. I don't see why you'd need to go into specifics with other people.

s|k · 11 Jul 2006, 22:32

I don't think that it is necessary for the rehabilitators to know the nature of their client's crime, although I suppose it is public information. I don't understand why it would require a seperate effort from rehabilitating other criminals. I'm sure people don't want drug dealers, murderers, thieves, and rapists around children either.

In any case I don't see a difference. Of course, a 'personal' relationship between me and the convicted sex offender will be an impossibility. This sort of employment would require a professional and the nature of professionalism is that one puts aside personal feelings and focuses on performance, duty and outcomes.

Dante Hicks · 11 Jul 2006, 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I'm sure people don't want drug dealers, murderers, thieves, and rapists around children either.

I doubt it would be your first choice for a neighbour, but I'd imagine if you found out that a former bank robber lived next door you'd not be particularly worried they were going to abduct/harm your kid.

milo · 11 Jul 2006, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I doubt it would be your first choice for a neighbour, but I'd imagine if you found out that a former bank robber lived next door you'd not be particularly worried they were going to abduct/harm your kid.

yeah but id be worried they'd harm me (unless we're talking about the non violent type of bank robber), the type of neighbour that would irritate/cause fear is a subjective thing, im quite sure the level of degeneracy that you and your friends partake in would reduce the level of 'neighbourlyness' you presented, if i found out a child sex offender was living next door i wouldn't automatically chain my nonexistent children to the radiator, if they presented a real threat they'd probably still be in prison. The terms that are used to label individuals are so broad as to be nearly meaningless id much rather have Graham Rix as a neighbour than the now dead boss of enron. When someone says 'child sex offender' they normally allude to an abducting rapist, taking into account the very very low level of such crimes and the likelyhood that anyone who was convicted of such a crime would be kept in prison till they no longer presented a threat and within the child rape stats the number of people who are family members; i can honestly say in all rationality i wouldn't be pack my family in the car and move if my neighbour was a convicted sexoffender.

Ramihyn · 11 Jul 2006, 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

and the likelyhood that anyone who was convicted of such a crime would be kept in prison till they no longer presented a threat

If such a convicted serious sex offender is released, there is a certain chance that the person will re-offend. This possibility is significant enough that it actually makes sense for the police to first check all known registered sex offenders in a region when a new crime has been committed and its quite a bit higher than the chance to have an unregistered and unknown sex offender as your neighbour.

Not even chemical castration delivers a 100% "cure" to this problem and thats why any psychiatrist who writes a certain amount of recommendations for sex offenders, will sooner or later inevitably write a positive recommendation for a person who re-offends. The worst of those cases usually make it into the tabloids and result in our beloved politicians making "popular" decisions regarding law changes.

ps: about your original question - i would prefer to spend my time helping other people

Dante Hicks · 12 Jul 2006, 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

yeah but id be worried they'd harm me (unless we're talking about the non violent type of bank robber)

Really? In the average sense I don't think it would for me. I've only met one ex-bank robber once, and he didn't seem particularly threatening (he was kind of old though).

Quote:

the likelyhood that anyone who was convicted of such a crime would be kept in prison till they no longer presented a threat

You have more faith than most in the criminal justice system. Doesn't rape have one of the highest recidivism rates? In addition to this, I have no idea how you could convincingly say that someone was no longer a threat, unless they had undergone some physical transformation.

Quote:

i can honestly say in all rationality i wouldn't be pack my family in the car and move if my neighbour was a convicted sexoffender.

Well, no. But there's an issue of risk management for most people. If I know someone is a reformed alcoholic I don't unnecessarily offer them booze or ask them to look after my drinks cabinet (for their benefit and mine) and if someone was a reformed child molestor I'd probably not ask them to look after my children. To be fair, this is the same if they were convicted of certain types of murders.

There's a bit in "The Woodsman" when the main character (Kevin Bacon) a released child molestor is having a conversation with his brother-in-law and the brother-in-law says "OMG you should see your neice, she's so beautiful, you should see the little dresses her and her friends wear", etc. Bacon's character is obviously ashamedly excited by all this but you're left thinking of the brother-in-law ; "Dude...stfu for everyone's sake."

Quote:

The terms that are used to label individuals are so broad as to be nearly meaningless id much rather have Graham Rix as a neighbour than the now dead boss of enron

Well I'd not really care about either. I'm pretty sure as much of a snake the Enron guy was it was unlikely he was going to rob my house when I was out. This is why I would agree with Nod, and as I say, I'd need to know the details of the crime that had been committed.

There are certain categories of crimes I wouldn't really be interested if they were going to reoffend. I'd simply wish they were dead, and in good conscience couldn't help them.

Tomkat · 12 Jul 2006, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I've only met one ex-bank robber once, and he didn't seem particularly threatening (he was kind of old though).

Also you're not a bank so he probably didn't feel like robbing you. All things considered you probably had a lucky escape!

milo · 12 Jul 2006, 01:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Really? In the average sense I don't think it would for me. I've only met one ex-bank robber once, and he didn't seem particularly threatening (he was kind of old though).

well yes, its easy to disassociate the actions of a bank robber from possible harm because they target corporations, but like i said unless you're talking about some sort of mythical friendly bank robber you'll most likely be dealing with ken noye types

Quote:

You have more faith than most in the criminal justice system. Doesn't rape have one of the highest recidivism rates? In addition to this, I have no idea how you could convincingly say that someone was no longer a threat, unless they had undergone some physical transformation.
Well, no. But there's an issue of risk management for most people. If I know someone is a reformed alcoholic I don't unnecessarily offer them booze or ask them to look after my drinks cabinet (for their benefit and mine) and if someone was a reformed child molestor I'd probably not ask them to look after my children. To be fair, this is the same if they were convicted of certain types of murders.

I don't know, although id doubt it unless the individual had a prediliction towards rape but again we're getting into a situation where you're applying the term rape without any real care for what the particular situation was. I wouldn't even think certain acts that land you on the sor as worthy of being crimes so im quite happy to state that i wouldn't think they'd automatically present a threat, if they abducted/raped/murdered a child (which i think is being insinuated at) they'd most probably get a whole life tariff now anyway

Ive happily been the passenger in a car driven by someone who killed a person with their driving

Quote:

There are certain categories of crimes I wouldn't really be interested if they were going to reoffend. I'd simply wish they were dead, and in good conscience couldn't help them.

Can't say the same.

Nodrog · 11 Jul 2006, 23:11

The phrase 'sex offender' is completely meaningless, please dont encourage this sort of tabloid driven nonsense which puts child rapists in the same category as someone who downloads photos of 16 year old girls.

Anyone who judges a 'criminal' based on the name of the broad name of crime rather than the specific details of their case is an idiot who is part of the problem.

SYMM · 11 Jul 2006, 23:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The phrase 'sex offender' is completely meaningless, please dont encourage this sort of tabloid driven nonsense which puts child rapists in the same category as someone who downloads photos of 16 year old girls.

Anyone who judges a 'criminal' based on the name of the broad name of crime rather than the specific details of their case is an idiot who is part of the problem.

Are you saying then, that you'd want to know the details of the offence before deciding whether you'd want to help an individual?

'Sex offender' is as good as term as any for someone who, when released from prison, is obliged to sign the register.
It mentions in the articles that such people are determined to be in 1 of 3 categories, with categories 2 and 3 (where 1 is for people deemed least likely to re-offend) being those for who such 'circles' are deemed appropriate.

Happier now?

Nodrog · 12 Jul 2006, 00:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM

Are you saying then, that you'd want to know the details of the offence before deciding whether you'd want to help an individual?

Well yes, of course. There are people who have actually performed immoral actions (eg child molesters), and then there are people who are victims of ridiculous laws. Terms like sex offenders just conflate the two.

SYMM · 12 Jul 2006, 08:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Well yes, of course. There are people who have actually performed immoral actions (eg child molesters), and then there are people who are victims of ridiculous laws.

I'm still a bit confused. I'm assuming that you'd be more willing to help the former?

Quote:

Terms like sex offenders just conflate the two.

Normally, I'd agree, but I think that within the context of the article, it was fairly evident what was meant.

Nodrog · 12 Jul 2006, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM

I'm still a bit confused. I'm assuming that you'd be more willing to help the former?

Well I'm not particularly interested in helping anyone to be honest; if people are likely to violate the rights of others then they shouldnt be let out of prison, and if they arent, then these sort of programs seem like a waste of time. To be honest, I find the Guardian article quite troubling because it seems to essentially be suggesting that criminals who have a high-risk of reoffending should be let out of prison so that others can relieve their middle-class/Christian guilt by doing some babysitting.

The distinction is that a lot (perhaps most) 'sex offenders' shouldnt be forced into programs like this in the first place, because despite tabloid hysteria, the vast majority of sex offences are either non-crimes in which no rights are violated, or crimes that are on the same level as (eg) assault. I have sympathy with a lot of sex-offenders due to the fact they are getting screwed over by an authoritarian government and a retarded populace, and would obviously treat them a lot more favourably than someone who has molested a 2 year old girl.

Quote:

Normally, I'd agree, but I think that within the context of the article, it was fairly evident what was meant.

Well I still dont know who qualifies for this program. Is it just people who have molested pre-pubescent children? Or does it include those that have downloaded photos of children without actually molesting anyone? How about adults who have slept with 15 year old girls? Businessmen who grabbed their secretaries boobs on a night out? None of the articles actually say what sort of crimes the 'sex offenders' have committed, so I'm not sure why you think it was evident.

Anyway, given that I think the sex offender register should be abolished, I'm not likely to support programs that involve treating 'sex offenders' differently from all other criminals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

Also, rape is any form of sex that isn't consentual.

This doesnt really get us anywhere because the whole argument is over what constitutes consent. The false consciousness induced by patriarchal society makes it impossible for any womyn to rationally consent to sex hence all intercourse is rape, and so on.

Dante Hicks · 12 Jul 2006, 08:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Discussions on these matters are made utterly pointless if we all decide our own definition of crimes.

Sup context. I am not redefining the term I am merely only considering a subset of rapes. I can write "rape, but when I say rape I of course don't mean statutory rape or indeed rapes of a relatively non-violent nature" each time, but that's a bit tiresome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYMM

Normally, I'd agree, but I think that within the context of the article, it was fairly evident what was meant.

Nah, the article still used terms like convicted paedophile (which is unhelpful and misleading anyway).

milo · 11 Jul 2006, 23:17

im just more verbose than nod

coffee- · 11 Jul 2006, 23:37

Paedophiles/Rapists should be castrated, then thrown into general population of a prison and tell the inmates that he/she diddles little kids.

Paisley · 12 Jul 2006, 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffee-

Paedophiles/Rapists should be castrated, then thrown into general population of a prison and tell the inmates that he/she diddles little kids.

I understand the need for someone to do this job.... It just aint gonna be me. It would require someone more with alot more restraint or compassion than I do. I would honestly end up losing the plot with them and get the jail.

Might be going off topic, If the state (USA for example) is willing to do the death penalty for murder, would castration for paedophiles (probily repeat offenders) be a punishment fit for the crime? I would think so

Dante Hicks · 12 Jul 2006, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paisley

would castration for paedophiles (probily repeat offenders) be a punishment fit for the crime? I would think so

Well this implies it's purely a sexual frustration thing. A lot of this seems to be out of psychological trauma, something which is hardly like to be improved by mutiliating somebody (or however you intend to achieve this).

In short, while you might specifically reduce the number of rapes being carried out (presuming you're talking about child molestors, not paedophiles generally) I doubt it's going to make many productive members of society.

Paisley · 12 Jul 2006, 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well this implies it's purely a sexual frustration thing. A lot of this seems to be out of psychological trauma, something which is hardly like to be improved by mutiliating somebody (or however you intend to achieve this).

In short, while you might specifically reduce the number of rapes being carried out (presuming you're talking about child molestors, not paedophiles generally) I doubt it's going to make many productive members of society.

The death penalty is the state effectively saying to the offender "You are beyond redemption" If the offender is going to continously offend and wreak more young lives. Are they fit to ever have children of their own?
When you are saying It isnt going to make more productive members of society, I would beg to differ. Child abuse does wreak young peoples lives and some dont ever recover from it, as a result reduce their productiveness if you want to look at it from a clinical perspective. If this would reduce this vile crime (tougher penalty).
Then why shouldnt it be? at what point does an innocent child have to keep suffering when more can be done?

What is so taboo about it when the death penalty is used in parts of the world?
This would be a punishment reserved for the "beyond redemption"

Dante Hicks · 12 Jul 2006, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paisley

When you are saying It isnt going to make more productive members of society, I would beg to differ.

Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was : This is not going to cure people from being abusers. If you want to make sure that someone is not going to hurt anyone ever again then sure, put a bullet through the back of their head. But mutilating their genitals does not seem like a very sure way of stopping someone being a criminal.

Snurx · 12 Jul 2006, 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paisley

Might be going off topic, If the state (USA for example) is willing to do the death penalty for murder, would castration for paedophiles (probily repeat offenders) be a punishment fit for the crime? I would think so

Do you think the deathpenalty ever stopped anybody from murdering or raping? Crime fighting is about fighting reasons, not the effects, if it wants to be effective. Just making society and punishment more inhuman will make more inhumane criminals.

Besides, you can still mutilate or sexoffend without a penis yourself.

Paisley · 12 Jul 2006, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snurx

Do you think the deathpenalty ever stopped anybody from murdering or raping? Crime fighting is about fighting reasons, not the effects, if it wants to be effective. Just making society and punishment more inhuman will make more inhumane criminals.

Besides, you can still mutilate or sexoffend without a penis yourself.

It does act as a detterent, I never said it would erradicate child abuse any steps to reduce it should be considered. At what point should the offender have priority over the victim/innocent?

Snurx · 12 Jul 2006, 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paisley

It does act as a detterent, I never said it would erradicate child abuse any steps to reduce it should be considered. At what point should the offender have priority over the victim/innocent?

Never, but mutilating somebody for something they have done will not change that, and mutilating somebody for something they might do in the future is in my eyes very wrong. Besides, where would you draw the line? And can you be sure that there is no miscarriages of justice? The deathpenalty, as you've used as a example, has been used on innocents before and will be again. Do you really think its worht mutilating even one innocent if it stops 1000 rapes?

And why do you think it acts as a deterent? This is just my opinion, but if you rape or abuse a child you got a serious mental problem. Do you think that a mental problem can be cured just by a piece of paper? The US got the death penalty and very high prison sentences, does it stop even regular crimes?

furball · 11 Jul 2006, 23:46

I could do it if I was asked to. I doubt that I'd choose to do it, given the number of other things I could do, but I wouldn't have any ethical problems with it.

Dace · 12 Jul 2006, 03:07

Hmmm, this thread has got me thinking.

I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to "break" in the first case. As such i think preventative schemes (such as training for the unemployed and parenting classes for the "poor" etc) are where "our money" should be targeted. However i appreciate that the problem of "criminals" exists at the moment and as such you need to attempt rehabilitation methods (as it's either that or leaving them to rot in jail). I think having a supportive environment for people, on their leaving prison, is an essential part of this. As such i think that if i really believe in my own personal brand of politics i should get involved in a scheme like the one mentioned in the OP. I am however lazy. However, if i don't get involved in something like this then i'm just a lazy good for nothing gobshite who doesn't deserve to air an opinion.

What a dilema :(

Chika · 12 Jul 2006, 03:12

If I didn't fit the sex offenders profile I could. They tend to go for the same type. I.e little boys or little girls. Some go for both. Some go for teenage also. Rarely do they go for grown men. But if a sex offender raped women, then the women in the work place surely wouldn't want to work with him.

Snurx · 12 Jul 2006, 04:15

Statistics for sex offenses (rape, paedos and that kind of stuff) is very hard, since most cases arent reported and/or never discovered.

Official statistics in Norway says there are 300-400 reported rapes a year, and proven about 150 (If my memory serves me correct). Govermental agencies sometimes claim about 1000, while crisis centres and womens support group says about 9000, and thats just women. Who is to be belived?

I think the program can be a good one, but I would not sign up for it. Hate is wrong, as is vengeance, but a few groups of people get no love, or sympathy, from me. That does not mean I would hunt them down or prosecute them, it just means that I cant say I care too much for what happens to them.

Nodrog · 12 Jul 2006, 05:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snurx

Statistics for sex offenses (rape, paedos and that kind of stuff) is very hard, since most cases arent reported and/or never discovered..

Claims like this are interesting because while theyy sound plausible enough, it seems that they cant possibly be supported by any real evidence. How exactly are you going to discover the number of undiscovered rapes?

Quote:

Official statistics in Norway says there are 300-400 reported rapes a year, and proven about 150 (If my memory serves me correct). Govermental agencies sometimes claim about 1000, while crisis centres and womens support group says about 9000, and thats just women. Who is to be belived?

I suspect these groups use very different definitions of 'rape'. For example, I wouldnt be surprised if most women's support groups used a more broad definition than most people, which includes things like sex with drunk girls and so on. Also, a court of law is going to demand far more evidence than a crisis centre before they beleive that someone has actually been raped, many of whom I suspect would accept the alleged victim's testimony without much further questioning.

"Rape" has become a fairly meaningless word these days, since its been diluted by fringe lunatics who want to lump as much under it as possible. You cant really get anywhere in these sort of discussions until youve forced the other person to define exactly what they are calling rape (and why).

s|k · 12 Jul 2006, 05:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Claims like this are interesting because while theyy sound plausible enough, it seems that they cant possibly be supported by any real evidence. How exactly are you going to discover the number of undiscovered rapes?

Organizations and researchers send out 'victim surveys' to random samples just like they send out 'criminal surveys.' On these surveys people can anonymously disclose if they have been a victim of rape or not and wether or not they reported it. Now of course there are all sorts of problems with mail in surveys and anonymous surveys but they've been doing this for quite a few years now, and they've gotten very good at interpreting the results and finding patterns. Victims surveys are used in conjuction with reported (as in reported to the police) crimes and various other statistical analysis.

So they are not really 'undiscovered' rapes. Criminologist and various sociologist have pretty reliable evidence that a lot of rapes go unreported, and have a rough idea of what plausibe percentages are not reported.

On criminal surveys they ask people to report what crimes they've comitted, and if they use drugs, and etc.

Also, rape is any form of sex that isn't consentual.

Snurx · 12 Jul 2006, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Claims like this are interesting because while theyy sound plausible enough, it seems that they cant possibly be supported by any real evidence. How exactly are you going to discover the number of undiscovered rapes?

I suspect these groups use very different definitions of 'rape'. For example, I wouldnt be surprised if most women's support groups used a more broad definition than most people, which includes things like sex with drunk girls and so on. Also, a court of law is going to demand far more evidence than a crisis centre before they beleive that someone has actually been raped, many of whom I suspect would accept the alleged victim's testimony without much further questioning.

"Rape" has become a fairly meaningless word these days, since its been diluted by fringe lunatics who want to lump as much under it as possible. You cant really get anywhere in these sort of discussions until youve forced the other person to define exactly what they are calling rape (and why).

That was my point. The fallback rate of regular criminals is much higher then rapists/sex offenders on paper, but why would they be rehabilitated by prison while a bankrobber or shoplifter would not? I mean sexoffenders as in people who actually offends, just to clear that up. There cant be any meaningfull debate on how to stop rapers before they actually find out who rape who and why. Judging from the jist of things, its not the balaclava wearing hoodlum in the park thats the most common rapist, and thus any big effort against that group would probably not do any good.

The definition is changed all the time, but for me, SK's is the correct one. No or in such a state as she cannot be fully aware = rape. If you **** a deaddrunk girl and she complains about it later, you made your own bed etc.

Fringe groups always do that to words, you know. Most of the middleclass "revolutionary" left runs around calling everything that disagrees with them fascism, that makes it really hard to identify and combat proper fascism etc. Groups that are so extreme should just be ignored, as there are crazy womens group out there (penetration = rape, all girls are really lesbian just brainwashed etc)

milo · 12 Jul 2006, 16:47

im not sure all rape is even a sexual thing, its meant to be about power isn't it? mutilating someones genitals is a step too far imho, way way way to far. I agree that giving medication to stop someone acting in a particular way isn't that controversial (its done with many other conditions) but im uncomfortable with the notion of a 'cure' for sex related 'crimes', particularly as i said earlier i don't even agree that some of those things should have been considered crimes.

Mutilation to cure someone from finding someone else attractive if they're below the age which you consider to be acceptable is akin to lobotomyesque bollocks. In the article linked above it mentioned the 'paedo' had a very low IQ and couldn't even estimate the distance he was meant to keep from schools, 100years ago they might have considered brain butchery to 'cure' him id hope that we'd be able to see the horror of those procedures and not go down a fairly similar route.

Phang · 12 Jul 2006, 16:49

paisley, have you ever watched brass eye? genuinely curious

Paisley · 12 Jul 2006, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang

paisley, have you ever watched brass eye? genuinely curious

I kept missing it when it was on channel 4.

coffee- · 12 Jul 2006, 17:17

I did not suggest just mutilating their genitals. I also suggest throwing them into general population in a prison, and let it well known they diddle little children. I have no tolerance for paedophiles, rapists. A bullet is to good for them. Also for people to be standing up for the rights of paedophiles and rapists is completely bizarre. If they are mentally handicapped lock them up a psych ward. Just get them off the f'n streets.

JonnyBGood · 12 Jul 2006, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffee-

I did not suggest just mutilating their genitals. I also suggest throwing them into general population in a prison, and let it well known they diddle little children. I have no tolerance for paedophiles, rapists. A bullet is to good for them. Also for people to be standing up for the rights of paedophiles and rapists is completely bizarre. If they are mentally handicapped lock them up a psych ward. Just get them off the f'n streets.

This level of intolerance only pushes paedophiles (in the attracted sense) out onto the fringes of society. It forces them to hide and repress parts of themselves instead of dealing with them healthily. They don't need hatred, they need help.

coffee- · 12 Jul 2006, 17:42

Well of course I am intolerant, they are paedophiles/rapists. They should be hiding. Especially the paedophiles.

JonnyBGood · 12 Jul 2006, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffee-

Well of course I am intolerant, they are paedophiles/rapists. They should be hiding. Especially the paedophiles.

A paedophile is just someone who is sexually attracted to children. Directing your own sexual attraction is, at best, hilariously difficult. You're not going to get anywhere by rounding up a lynch mob every time someone says they're attracted to children.

coffee- · 12 Jul 2006, 17:55

There will be no need for the lynch mob if they do not act upon their impulses. Once they know they have a problem they should go seek help. I would like to hear the opinion of someone on here, whom has children. I can assure you if I have children and they are subjected to said abuse, my first reaction will not be to ask the paedophile if they need help.

I am typically a very "left" wing person on most views, but this rehabilitation of paedophilies is hippy bullshit. Are you going to be able to "rehabilitate" Dace from liking women? Are you going to be able to "rehabilitate" Yahwe from liking men? No. So how are you going to "rehabilitate" a paedophile from liking children?

Dante Hicks · 12 Jul 2006, 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffee-

So how are you going to "rehabilitate" a paedophile from liking children?

You're not. That's the point. That's why your rehabilitating their actions, not their desires.

JonnyBGood · 12 Jul 2006, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffee-

There will be no need for the lynch mob if they do not act upon their impulses. Once they know they have a problem they should go seek help. I would like to hear the opinion of someone on here, whom has children. I can assure you if I have children and they are subjected to said abuse, my first reaction will not be to ask the paedophile if they need help.

The point is that isolating people and causing them to be afraid is most likely not going to lead to a healthy balanced individual unlikely to act on certain impulses.

Quote:

I am typically a very "left" wing person on most views, but this rehabilitation of paedophilies is hippy bullshit. Are you going to be able to "rehabilitate" Dace from liking women? Are you going to be able to "rehabilitate" Yahwe from liking men? No. So how are you going to "rehabilitate" a paedophile from liking children?

You don't change the preference. You prevent the action. Without killing people.

coffee- · 12 Jul 2006, 18:01

That is just a band-aid solution. Whose to say they don't stop taking their "liquid" castration? Plenty of people with mental disabilities go off their meds every day. Then you have a paedophile who has not "performed" in a while and is itching to explore the playgrounds.

JonnyBGood · 12 Jul 2006, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffee-

That is just a band-aid solution. Whose to say they don't stop taking their "liquid" castration? Plenty of people with mental disabilities go off their meds every day. Then you have a paedophile who has not "performed" in a while and is itching to explore the playgrounds.

I'm not talking about drugs. I'm talking about social acceptance of the origins of their problem and an end to the dehumanizing of them.

coffee- · 12 Jul 2006, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm not talking about drugs. I'm talking about social acceptance of the origins of their problem and an end to the dehumanizing of them.

I could not give two shits if someone "likes" children, as long as they do not act on these feelings. There is no reason for social acceptance of individuals that have committed peadophilia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Who is being harmed by this specific act?

By allowing legal downloads of child pornography you can then turn it into an industry. People would setup pay-sites just like adult pornography sites. Kids will continue to, on a larger scale, get abducted for the specific purposes of abusing them on camera. Also entrepreneurial parents will also abuse their children on camera for a price.

We should be looking to protect our youth, and punish those looking to do them harm.

Dante Hicks · 12 Jul 2006, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffee-

By allowing legal downloads of child pornography you can then turn it into an industry.

In previous discussions people have raised the idea of making it illegal to sell, but legal to download. This is already the legal status for other things.

I personally don't really think the additional restriction would be necessary, but I'm happy to listen to any arguments.

Quote:

People would setup pay-sites just like adult pornography sites.

This is naive. There already are paysites for this sort of thing.

Quote:

Also entrepreneurial parents will also abuse their children on camera for a price.

Yeah, abusing your own kid on camera and then selling the images really makes sense! Remember, no-one is saying that making child porn would be legal, or that molesting children would be legal either.

Quote:

We should be looking to protect our youth, and punish those looking to do them harm.

I agree. Which is why in a different kind of society I'd happily support executing anyone who habitually molested children. But I don't think getting overly excited about downloads actually helps (or protects) anyone.

milo · 12 Jul 2006, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffee-

By allowing legal downloads of child pornography you can then turn it into an industry. People would setup pay-sites just like adult pornography sites. Kids will continue to, on a larger scale, get abducted for the specific purposes of abusing them on camera. Also entrepreneurial parents will also abuse their children on camera for a price.

...and the children would be easier to track down as everyone would know who they were and thus the abuse easier to stop

coffee- · 12 Jul 2006, 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by milo

...and the children would be easier to track down as everyone would know who they were and thus the abuse easier to stop

So your solution is to allow for more and more children to be abused, and sold for profit. Thus making it easier to "track" them?

JonnyBGood · 12 Jul 2006, 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffee-

I could not give two shits if someone "likes" children, as long as they do not act on these feelings.

This is a blatant lie.

Quote:

There is no reason for social acceptance of individuals that have committed peadophilia.

No dude, I mean if the culture is created you help them avoid it altogether. Like without ever having to commit the crime in the first place. That's crime prevention.

Quote:

By allowing legal downloads of child pornography you can then turn it into an industry. People would setup pay-sites just like adult pornography sites. Kids will continue to, on a larger scale, get abducted for the specific purposes of abusing them on camera.

Actually the legalisation of many black-market industries has led to a decrease in the amount of associated crimes committed in relation to them. You can reference the prohibition for a very straightforward example of this. Moreover with the industry legalised I imagine it would be very simple to introduce a law whereby you can backtrack to the actual child-abusers from the company to which the child porn is offered.

Quote:

Also entrepreneurial parents will also abuse their children on camera for a price.

Hahaha are you serious? Those parents would be prosecuted regardless. I didn't say making child porn should be decriminalised.

Quote:

We should be looking to protect our youth, and punish those looking to do them harm.

Listen to me carefully. Ostracising people and demonising their desires just creates repressed and unbalanced individuals.

coffee- · 12 Jul 2006, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This is a blatant lie.

No, that is not a blatant lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No dude, I mean if the culture is created you help them avoid it altogether. Like without ever having to commit the crime in the first place. That's crime prevention.

This I have no problem with, however I'm talking about once they have performed said acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Actually the legalisation of many black-market industries has led to a decrease in the amount of associated crimes committed in relation to them. You can reference the prohibition for a very straightforward example of this. Moreover with the industry legalised I imagine it would be very simple to introduce a law whereby you can backtrack to the actual child-abusers from the company to which the child porn is offered.

You are suggesting legallizing child pornography? Are you serious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Hahaha are you serious? Those parents would be prosecuted regardless. I didn't say making child porn should be decriminalised.

We are talking in regards to them being able to legally distribute their child abuse videos/pictures. If they are able to distribute them easier, they are able to sell them easier, thus will get more people into for profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Listen to me carefully. Ostracising people and demonising their desires just creates repressed and unbalanced individuals.

...and you listen to me carefully. Abusing children is not nice.

coffee- · 12 Jul 2006, 18:25

I think by "changing your tune" he meant that you may not be so liberal about their rehabilitation.

i.e. Someone rapes your 8 year old daughter