PDA

View Full Version : Jessica's Law and Pedophilia (Read first post before replying!)


Jae Onasi
03-18-2007, 02:52 PM
Nancy Allen" asked if this discussion could be raised, and I think it's fair game, since an issue like "Jessica's Law" is a very relevant topic right now. How to protect children from sexual predators fits into this category as well.

However, the following caveats apply:
1. This obviously involves a very sensitive topic in a PG-13 forum. Use discretion, please.
2. Do NOT link to any sites such as Nambla that discuss how to woo and molest children or other places that have any child porn--real, CGI, or otherwise. Any links to child porn sites will be removed and you will be banned immediately. There is absolutely no leeway on that.
3. Anyone admitting to or hinting at committing sexual assault of a child is subject to being banned and being reported to the appropriate authorities.
4. Feel free to post reputable links, but if they get a little too descriptive/graphic, they may get pulled for that reason.

Nancy Allen``
03-18-2007, 07:08 PM
Thank you. I'll share my thoughts a bit on Jessica's Law and then go into detail (or as much detail as I can on a PG-13 forum) on the thoughts I had when asking about such a thread.

This is the first time I heard about such a law and having read about it now, I'm floored at the severity they're taking this. I've heard for a long time law enforcement saying pedophiles should recieve the death penalty and to actually read this could well be an option, I'm glad. One of the things I was going to raise was whether the current punishments were too leniant or too strict. I think we can say that there's no way they're too leniant, even if life in prison with no chance of release was the sentance that's a death sentance anyway. You can bet something will happen to a number of rock spiders, even in the eyes of hardened murderers and drug dealers. The life time monitoring of those who had been convicted of lewed acts is a great idea as well. However I wonder just how this will play out not just with this type of crime but with other crimes, could we be heading into 1984 territory with this? I'll touch on a bit about that below.

Now for NAMBLA, I admit I've watched South Park and they did an episode of this, and the basic message is that no matter how much NAMBLA try and justify themselves a big middle finger's raised to the group. I think most everyone would agree with that but they try and justify it, they try and justify it, they try and justify it, ect, ect.

That leads into the artistic portrayal of children in a sexual way. Whether it be posing in a lewd way or going further fans of this type of material justify it by saying that no child is hurt this way and hide behind laws that they claim state that art, writing, ect doesn't fall into the same catagory as real photos and videos.

Of course what about young people who are portrayed in the media in such a manner? I'll get to the Simpsons slamming the 'little hooker' style clothing in a minute, for this I'll use Mission Vao as an example. Statement: Twi'leks are meant to appeal to male audiances. Fact: Mission is a female Twi'lek and is hit on by men. Problem: She's only 14. Statement: Her underwear (which for some strange reason she appears in when you rescue Griff, or it might be just a bug I've encountered) is rather revealing. Question: What is the morality of portraying a 14 year old Twi'lek in such a manner? The same goes for others who are older, younger, and are shown in perhaps a worse off way.

And now for the type of clothing that's marketed at children these days. As I said the Simpsons slammed fashion makers who market adult, even street walker style clothing, to children and rightfully so. This is damned damned irresponsible of them to do so and in my opinion they should be held responsible because by portraying children as adults pedophiles can be more enticed to them.

Similar comments can be made of child modelling and fashion shows. These have come under fire recently especially with the reopening of a case when some whack job claimed to have kidnapped a child who was at such an event. Well good, from a personal level I don't think children should face that type of pressure in the first place and there's the added danger of what could take place.

It might sound like I'm overreacting and I'll cover that facet of this issue in a minute. First off there's the media that's marketed to children. Everyone knows about Britiny Spears and other pop statrs that children like who are probably not appropriate. How about content that's in films and television that they watch? Lewd material has been known to sneak into media directed at a younger audiance and as the media gets more and more raunchy so could the material that's not made for adults. Especially troubling are the magazines popular to teenagers and younger, where there's frank discussion of sex and sexual acts, pregnancy and whether or not to let their boyfriend do this or do that. Ditto for the Internet.

Now this might seem like overreacting, and it could be. This is one issue I do want to address. First of all I'll discuss those who fight against this sort of thing online. A friend of mine used to be involved with fighting kiddy porn on the Internet and his experiance was that the people were crazy. They kept accusing each other of things they were meant to have done, eyed anybody and everybody with suspicion and considered themselves above the law. It might have been just a bad crowd but my friend quickly gave it up. And what about those who go into chat lines pretending to be a young girl so they can entrap predators? Isn't there supposed to be a law about this?

Another form of overreaction that's been seen is people saying we cannot take photos of children. There's places where you're not allowed to take photos out of fear of pedophiles getting ahold of them, and people have said that they are made to feel like they can't be with their children out of fear of people thinking of them as predators.

Not surprisingly these people would like, and have done off their own backs, warning of where pedophiles live. The law doesn't like this too much but I'm thinking this might be a good idea. Should law enforcement do something like this?

Speaking of laws, bringing about the death penalty and life time monitoring for pedophiles. That's good given the severity of the crime but even though lives are destroyed in this type of crime bringing in the death penalty for a crime where no lives have been lost has me wondering if maybe some time down the track the death penalty could be implemented for other crimes, terrorism for example, or armed robbery. The same could be said for lifetime monitoring, could we one day see that we would all be like this to ensure security? That's a scary road to take.

The conclusion to this topic should be obvious but I'll raise it anyway. Teenagers have been known to consent to sex, even though they're underage, and even ask for it. What if they were younger? I know the answer will be along the lines of 'well we don't allow kids to drive or drink alcohol if they ask to' but a friend wanted this asked.

Well I think that covers it all. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-18-2007, 07:25 PM
Just based on what I read in the Wikipedia article on this new law, I have to say that I think it is entirely too severe. While I'm completely in favor of lifetime sentences for sexual battery or rape of a child, I think that the death sentence is going too far. In addition, the 25 year minimum for "lewd or lascivious behavior" towards a child less than 12 years of age should be removed. I believe that in cases like these, the sentence should depend entirely on the circumstances and severity of the crime.

SilentScope001
03-18-2007, 11:01 PM
I'm going to basically say...I really don't know if Pedophile is wrong. I just don't. It's against my religion, I'm not going to do it, but is it wrong and should it be punished?

Let me explain. I would agree with you that pedophilia is wrong, and that the law is just too strict...but, I read Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents. Basically, every human wants to be happy. This means sastifying every base desires (read, sexual desires) that the Human has [that is, the eros instinct and the death instinct].

(The eros instinct is the instinct to love people. The death instinct is the instinct to destroy.)

Problem is: You can't sastify all the desires. We're humans, we got limitations. So, we either sublimate all your base desires into other fields (defending civilizations), use drugs, or create beautiful works of art (say, games and paintings) so that we can look at them, marvel at its beauty, and secretly sastify our base desires.

Civilization is made to protect humans, to allow them to have stability. The problem is, to create civilization, you need to put restrictions. The humans in the civilization has to spend time defending civilization. And the more time being spent defending civilization, the less time and energy he has to actually sastify his base desires. Not only that, but civilization may make laws that deem certain sexual behavior acceptable, and other sexual behavior not acceptable, and then the cultural superego (a construct of society) comes in and enforces that, telling the person he cannot do this or that...or else.

However, not all humans are made the same. You can't just force morals down the throat of someone. Some humans are okay with the acceptable sexual behavior (that is, a man and a woman). Others are for homosexual, a behavior that was once looked upon with scorn. And there are a few who are...pedophiles.

It harms the child? Why of course. It sastifies the death instinct, the instinct to cause pain and misery upon others. Is it wrong? Well, civilization dictates what is right and wrong to you...but the Pedophile sees it as right, and it makes him happy. Do I care about the right of the child to be happy? Of course, and so does Freud, as he states that the world before civilization is not really happy...there would be one man who is totally happy...and his woman and childern who would be the most miserable.

...So this is why I really don't know if pedophiles should be punished. The pedophile only wants to be happy, and because of that, he causes lots of harm to civilization and to childern. But the pedophile wants to be happy. To go and imprison him, and even KILL him, just because he wants to be happy, nay, because he is BUILT that way by having his sexual desires directing him to do such a deed...and to call it wrong without worrying about the unhappiness we are causing to the pedophile by placing such an artifical law...

But, if civilization has to manitan this law, if it has to go and make sure everyone conform to the same standards...then do it. Do whatever it takes to make people in the society conform, and then make sure nobody ever have sexual denicency. Or thought deviencay. Or any kind of deviancy at all, have everyone be equal. I don't think it is possible, to get rid of everything, but if you can, then you might as well. It's the way to stop crime, to stop all evil behavior, and I think that is what everyone is worried about, no? I'm for treating those with pedophile, but I might see it as a form of mind contorl...

Jae Onasi
03-19-2007, 02:01 AM
Freud was a flippin' fruitcake on some issues.

There is no moral wiggle room on this issue. Pedophilia is wrong. Period. Those actions are reprehensible and I could care less about making a pedophile 'happy' about his sex 'feelings'.

If I like being a sadist and killing people, but it feels good to me, does that make it right? Absolutely not.

Children don't get to make informed consent in molestation. Even if a pedophile convinces them that 'oh, you'll like it, it feels great', that child is by no means able to make an informed choice about the matter, because the child does not understand the physical/emotional/mental impacts this has on them. They certainly don't have a choice if they're raped.

Furthermore, molesting a young child can cause permanent and quite serious internal damage because they physically are not grown enough to handle such activity. It certainly screws them up emotionally and sometimes mentally.

I care far more about the children than I do the pedophile, and if s/he gets caught and has his butt put in jail for a long time, I'm not sorry in the least. At least he's in a place where there's no chance for him to cause harm to my kids or anyone else's.

Q
03-19-2007, 06:00 AM
I really don't know if Pedophile is wrong. I just don't.
WTF?!
Freud was a flippin' fruitcake on some issues.
Might have had something to do with the massive amounts of cocaine he consumed. Which begs the question: why on earth did/does anyone take him seriously? Anyone who's ever known a cokehead would know what I'm talking about. They don't have a very realistic world-view, to say the least.
If I like being a sadist and killing people, but it feels good to me, does that make it right? Absolutely not.
You meant sadist, right?;) Yep. That's what I get for posting at 1am. :D --Jae
A possible solution would be to have the sadists torture the pedophiles to death, thereby killing two birds with one stone.:xp:
While I'm completely in favor of lifetime sentences for sexual battery or rape of a child, I think that the death sentence is going too far.
I can't consider any punishment for these types as too severe. Life in prison is acceptable as long as they're kept with the rest of the prisoners. They most certainly do not belong in society, where there is even the slightest chance that they might do it again.

mur'phon
03-19-2007, 09:10 AM
I agree partly with SilentScope, paedophiles shouldn't be locked away forever, and certanly not killed. Instead, punish them a little more than rapists, and give them treatment while in prisson to help them avoid doing it again when they get out.

When they do get out, put them on survey for two years, and offer them further treatment if they want. Also, I think alerting people in the area they live should only be done when the person have been convicted more than once.After all they have "only" commited the same crime as rapists, but against persons less able to defend themselves/make an informed choice.

SilentScope001
03-19-2007, 03:18 PM
Freud was a flippin' fruitcake on some issues.

I'd concur. He hates religion, calling it a psyhocis, and his method isn't scientific.

But that does not mean that he's a fruitcake on THIS issue.

The thing is: my original point, before reading Freud is this: The pedophile believes what he is doing is right. Freud's book tells us why the pedophile believes what he is doing is right.

There is no moral wiggle room on this issue. Pedophilia is wrong. Period. Those actions are reprehensible and I could care less about making a pedophile 'happy' about his sex 'feelings'.

Why are the actions reprehensible? Civilization says so.

But what if civilization says pedophilia is okay? Does that mean that suddenly, the actions are no longer rephrensible, and rather, supposed to be seen as a symbol for what is "normal"?

And, I am explaining why a pedophile does what he does. I could condemn the pedophilia tendencies of a person, but I will NOT condemn the person himself. It is the tendencies, it is the desires that a person has, that gets him to do this, but it is not the person itself.

If I like being a sadist and killing people, but it feels good to me, does that make it right? Absolutely not.

Depends.

What if you are in a Sith acadmecy? No, let change it. What if the whole galaxy was taken over by the Sith?

Suppose everyone believes that the Sith Code is correct, that you should do what you like, and that sadism is a trait that should be enocurged.

If everyone believes it to be right, and will punish people for "deviant behavior"...like showing mercy, then it makes it "good". Meanwhile, becoming a Jedi is "evil".

Most people will do sadism if they were told by civilization that sadism is okay. But there are those who will resist agianst civilization, and may be built for alustrism. If so, does this means alturism is wrong? Should we execute people who are alturistic?

This is why I am afraid of the "morality is a construct of civilization" argument. Because if this is true, then if civilization changes...morality changes. And therefore, just because it is immoral to be a pedophile in this civilization...it's immoral only because civilization says so, and then, well...in another civilization, pedophile may become moral.

Children don't get to make informed consent in molestation. Even if a pedophile convinces them that 'oh, you'll like it, it feels great', that child is by no means able to make an informed choice about the matter, because the child does not understand the physical/emotional/mental impacts this has on them. They certainly don't have a choice if they're raped.

Furthermore, molesting a young child can cause permanent and quite serious internal damage because they physically are not grown enough to handle such activity. It certainly screws them up emotionally and sometimes mentally.

Exactly. Which is why I do not know if pedophile is bad. I know that the pedophile has to do it, to satify his basic desires, but he is harming people in the process. Hence, I decide it is better for me to have no judgement on the matter...

Might have had something to do with the massive amounts of cocaine he consumed. Which begs the question: why on earth did/does anyone take him seriously? Anyone who's ever known a cokehead would know what I'm talking about. They don't have a very realistic world-view, to say the least.

I hate the Attack on the Man. That's a logical fallacy right there. It does not matter about Freud's personal conduct at all, what you are saying is:

"Don't listen to Freud...he's stupid!"

That's just...wrong.

Why people listen to Freud? Because he's the first person, prehaps the only person, to examine why people do things. You say pedophilia is wrong and that people shouldn't do it. Yet they do it. Why? You say they are crazy. But, then why they are crazy? Is it that they are the sane ones and that we're the crazy ones? There will probraly be others who will find out precisally why people do the things they do, but I think Freud's argument that everything, every sin, every good deed, stems from our prusit of happiness is good.


I can't consider any punishment for these types as too severe. Life in prison is acceptable as long as they're kept with the rest of the prisoners. They most certainly do not belong in society, where there is even the slightest chance that they might do it again.

But you are condemning a person because of his desires. You are saying: "I hate what you are doing, so let just tortue you!"

What if you was a pedophile? Not by choice, but by these desires, by these constant urges to go and do such a deed? Would you want such things to be done to you? Would you want to be executed? No. You would want to go and sastify your pedophile lusts...or get those lusts to be diverted. If someone changes your mind, fixes your mind, and gets you to conform to society, and you would be okay with it, and feel no negative side-effects to the change, and in fact feel that everyone loves you...then, you would prefer that.

If you want people to conform to society, I say reform is the best method. Or, to put it bluntly, theraphy/mind-contorl. Get everyone to conform to civilization's standards. Because if civilization tells us to do something, we have to do it, no? We need to devote more fundings to go and try to change people, and not try to punish them, or get them off the street and such. That would stop the recent pedophiles...but there will always be pedophiles.

(And...er...execution for a pedophile? If I run over someone in Arizona, and by running over, I mean by killing them in the process, I only get a $1,000 fine! A US soilder kills an Iraqi teen, and all he gets is about 2 to 3 years in prison for manslaughter. Heh, I could do much emotional harm, I could easily mess up someone's mind, by taunting him, and bullying him, traumtizing him in much the same manner as a pedophile can...and I'll just get a 6-hour detention for ruining another person's life forever!

This is just absurd. These laws are aritbrary, and life is not fair. Pedophiles get punished so harsh...and I will get punished so little...but I have done exactly the same deed. Not to mention that the pedophile has a reason for the crime...if we can change that reason, there would be no crime.

Haven't you heard of: "Hate the sin, not the sinner?")
---
/sigh.

I'm going to have to pull out of this arugment before I heat it up any more than I already did. Just wanted to present an alternative view.

Nancy Allen``
03-19-2007, 06:29 PM
You DO know that children, especially those used in organised child porn rings, have been known to be killed once they have been used up, right?

Q
03-19-2007, 08:00 PM
I hate the Attack on the Man. That's a logical fallacy right there. It does not matter about Freud's personal conduct at all, what you are saying is: "Don't listen to Freud...he's stupid!"
Nope. Never said that. I stated that because he was a drug addict that his theories should not be taken seriously, nor should any scientific conclusions be drawn from them. I see no flaw in my logic there.

I can't believe that you actually defend these people by trying to rationalize and therefore justify their behavior. There are such things as self-control and accountability you know. Such notions have become unfashionable, I know, but that fails to make them any less true or relevant. Harming children in any manner is wrong, and this just happens to be the worst way to do it short of killing them. Pedophiles do not belong in society-period. If you sympathize with them so much, then maybe you should study yourself objectively to determine why. Who knows: maybe Freud has the answer.:xp:

Maybe you could become a lawyer and be their advocate in court. Or you could become a therapist and try to treat them. Maybe after some first-hand experience with these people you might even come to draw the same conclusions about them that the vast majority of society already has.

Jae Onasi
03-19-2007, 09:25 PM
I can hate the sin and still love the sinner, SilentScope, but when it comes to protecting my children from sexual predators, I have no qualms about saying they should be locked up forever. The recidivism rate for pedophiles is horrible. It is highly likely that once they've gotten out of jail, they will return to their previous behaviors and molest yet another kid. I don't want to take the chance with my children, and I don't want any other parent or child to be the victim of these monsters, either.

If they're in jail, they can't harm my kids. That's what I care about.

Emperor Devon
03-19-2007, 10:10 PM
Pfft. There's a difference between this "right to happiness" you're advocating and simple, plain greed. Simple happiness is fine, of course when it comes at the expense of others? Of course it isn't. That's selfishness. Raping children, robbing them of their innocence, and then murdering them is nothing short of barbaric. There is no way you can possibly justify that.

Civilization shmivilizations, almost all of them have tried to uphold the rule that you have the right to your own happiness as long as it does not infringe on that of another - for without that, people cannot be happy. In this case it applies to pedophiles.

You cannot possibly portray perverts as victims. Say they're being denied what makes them happy, say that society doesn't understand them, whatever - the simple fact is that momentary pleasure a pedophile receives from the pain, suffering, and even death of a child is wrong.

You cannot even attempt to justify this. Say that I lack empathy, but I think that raping and molesting children is disgusting.

Achilles
03-19-2007, 10:30 PM
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
QFE/T

I recognize that people that do this sort of thing are either sick or are continuing the cycle that they were subjected to when they were young, but I don't for one second think that they don't need to be held accountable for what they do.

Sexual abuse (especially that of a minor) is a violent crime and some form of incarceration is absolutely equitable punishment. Depending on the nature of the crime, I don't even think chemical castration is out of the question.

My 2 cents.

Rogue Nine
03-19-2007, 10:49 PM
I'm in agreement with most of the anti-pedophile sentiment here. It's vile, wrong and should never, ever be tolerated, "happiness" or whatever bullpuckey argument be damned. There are very few things in this world worse than stealing a child's innocence in such a disgusting fashion.

That being said, I think a distinction needs to be made. Not all pedophiles are the same. They're not all creepy men and women looking to score with young children, though that seems to be the general concensus on what a pedophile is. But what about those that were abused as children themselves? It's a sad fact, but a good percentage of child molestation cases go unreported, be it because the child is ashamed or scared to do so, especially if the molestor is a close relative or friend. Children who are molested have a higher risk of becoming molestors themselves, and while yes, something must be said for individual self-control, something else must also be said for the effect that their childhood experience has on their psyche.

Personally, I feel that if a convicted pedophile has a history of being molested as a child, they should be given extensive counseling and a chance to reclaim some of their dignity. Of course, I do also feel that it should be handled on a case-by-case basis, as no two pedophiles are alike. Someone with repeat offenses should definitely be dealt with more stringently than someone who has committed a first-time offense.

It may seem like I'm advocating leniency for certain cases, and I think that it's accurate to say that. I can't help it; I like to believe in the inherent goodness of people, as old-fashioned as that may seem. Of course, this is probably all subject to change once I have children of my own and I become a zealously over-protective parent, but I'd like to think I'd stay objective even in that case. I just felt I had to say something on this touchy matter because, despite how black and white it may seem, there are still a few gray spots.

Jae Onasi
03-19-2007, 10:56 PM
There is no objectivity when it comes to your own children. :D

Nancy Allen``
03-19-2007, 11:23 PM
Chemical castration? Why wasn't this thought of? Of course were it me I'd go the Hard Candy route, just to start off, but between the death penalty and wanting some form of justice how about this for a first attempt and then if the death penalty would still apply with chemical castration in place have the pedo 'ride the lightning', with a dry sponge.

Or maybe not. Watch Green Mile, scary. I'm all in favor of castration for first offence and then the death penalty though.

Det. Bart Lasiter
03-20-2007, 12:11 AM
Of course, this is probably all subject to change once I have children of my own
Make me the godfather.

But you are condemning a person because of his desires. You are saying: "I hate what you are doing, so let just tortue you!"Each of us has an obligation to society to restrain out desires should they be harmful to others, those of us who can't do this get to sit in a cell.

This is just absurd. These laws are aritbrary, and life is not fair.o noes

Fish.Stapler
03-20-2007, 12:45 AM
Chemical castration is a very interesting solution to a heinous problem, because let's face it, we all aknowledge that rules are set by the society but there are few societies that will condone the rape and abusing of a child. Even the oft-cited ancient Greek paederasty model was consentual, or more consentual than most of what goes on today. There are nonviolent, non-cruel ways to counsel offenders or give them outlets for the expression of their desires that don't hurt anyone. As jmac aptly pointed out

Each of us has an obligation to society to restrain out desires should they be harmful to others, those of us who can't do this get to sit in a cell.


However, the question still remains...what to do with the offenders. The problem I see with any kind of castration is the eighth amendment. Cruel and unusual punishment. I stress the and for a reason, since many punishments thought to be cruel are not unusual, thus allowed and many unusual punishments that are not cruel are allowed. So do you believe that chemical or phyisical castration is both cruel and unusual, just cruel, or just unusual? Is there a better solution?

Nancy Allen``
03-20-2007, 12:50 AM
Rope's cheap. And there's plenty of room six feet under.

Okay, I need to go to bed. What I'm saying is that castration is probably more humane than killing someone. On the other hand some people may prefer death, but by the same token that might be the point, to have them suffer and be punished for their crimes.

Achilles
03-20-2007, 01:29 AM
Each of us has an obligation to society to restrain out desires should they be harmful to others, those of us who can't do this get to sit in a cell. Well said.

The problem I see with any kind of castration is the eighth amendment. Cruel and unusual punishment. I stress the and for a reason, since many punishments thought to be cruel are not unusual, thus allowed and many unusual punishments that are not cruel are allowed. So do you believe that chemical or phyisical castration is both cruel and unusual, just cruel, or just unusual? Is there a better solution? I think we all have example of "tapes" that play in our heads whenever we hear something. Whenever I hear "cruel and unusual punishment" I hear one of my college history teachers lecturing us about the cruel and unusual punishments that we're used in Europe and acted as the catalyst for this legislation. Cruel and unusual punishment is intended to ensure that our government does not torture or maim their citizens. That is the litmus test that I use to make my own personal decisions about what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment".

Physical castration as cruel and unusual punishment? Absolutely. Chemical castration. Not so much.

That being said, I think a distinction needs to be made. Not all pedophiles are the same. They're not all creepy men and women looking to score with young children, though that seems to be the general concensus on what a pedophile is. But what about those that were abused as children themselves? It's a sad fact, but a good percentage of child molestation cases go unreported, be it because the child is ashamed or scared to do so, especially if the molestor is a close relative or friend. Children who are molested have a higher risk of becoming molestors themselves, and while yes, something must be said for individual self-control, something else must also be said for the effect that their childhood experience has on their psyche. All valid points, sir. I think the problem that most people will have with this is the idea of absolvement of personal responsibility for the acts committed. The fact the tragedy begets tragedy is heartbreaking in every sense. I agree that the person that committed the crime deserves our mercy and our help, but not to the degree that they should be set free without serving time in prison or mental institution.

Fish.Stapler
03-20-2007, 01:46 AM
I think we all have example of "tapes" that play in our heads whenever we hear something. Whenever I hear "cruel and unusual punishment" I hear one of my college history teachers lecturing us about the cruel and unusual punishments that we're used in Europe and acted as the catalyst for this legislation. Cruel and unusual punishment is intended to ensure that our government does not torture or maim their citizens. That is the litmus test that I use to make my own personal decisions about what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment".

Physical castration as cruel and unusual punishment? Absolutely. Chemical castration. Not so much.



I did some research into drawing and quartering before I made my post, so I kind of understand what you're getting at. Chemical castration isn't cut and dry - it's not just "take a pill, you can't procreate". It's a temporary solution. Side effects can be potentially harmful, and there is a right to refuse medical treatement (I'm pretty sure at least). This does fall under the umbrella of medical treatment, so do the victims still get a right to refuse it? Besides, castration fails to address the psychological root cause of the urges, up in the mind.

I feel that it is a good solution...some of the time. I do feel that imprisonment for the crime and intense psychological treatement (getting people to talk about their urges nd beliefs goes a long way towards fixing the problem) is probably more effective. As Rogue Nine said, no two pediphiles are alike. I belive that this falls in that category, suitable for some but not for others.

Rogue Nine
03-20-2007, 07:37 AM
All valid points, sir. I think the problem that most people will have with this is the idea of absolvement of personal responsibility for the acts committed. The fact the tragedy begets tragedy is heartbreaking in every sense. I agree that the person that committed the crime deserves our mercy and our help, but not to the degree that they should be set free without serving time in prison or mental institution.
By all means, lock them up. I'm not advocating the release of every pedophile that was molested as a child because that would be ridiculous. No matter how you look at it, they committed an egregious, disgusting act and should be made to pay for it. I'm merely saying that those who were molested as children and are probably perpetuating the cycle should be at least given counseling and psychiatric help.

Punishment is an appropriate measure for all child molestors. Rehabilitation should also be a measure in certain circumstances.

Darth InSidious
03-20-2007, 08:55 AM
Paedophilia and pederasty are wrong, done and dusted. There's no two ways about this, no room for manoeuvre, IMO. Citing someone else's pleasure is the kind of ridiculous Benthamism that annoys me. I and five friends might get enormous pleasure for a long time very soon from tearing your arms off, but should we? Of course not!

On the other hand, I believe that all life is a sacred gift, and that we do not have the right to intentionally remove it. This becomes difficult with armed forces etc., but I would argue that in that case they should only be employed for self-defence.

Achilles
03-20-2007, 11:02 AM
By all means, lock them up. I'm not advocating the release of every pedophile that was molested as a child because that would be ridiculous. No matter how you look at it, they committed an egregious, disgusting act and should be made to pay for it. I'm merely saying that those who were molested as children and are probably perpetuating the cycle should be at least given counseling and psychiatric help.

Punishment is an appropriate measure for all child molestors. Rehabilitation should also be a measure in certain circumstances. It seems we're on the same page then. Thanks for clarifying your stance.

JediMaster12
03-20-2007, 01:38 PM
Another form of overreaction that's been seen is people saying we cannot take photos of children. There's places where you're not allowed to take photos out of fear of pedophiles getting ahold of them, and people have said that they are made to feel like they can't be with their children out of fear of people thinking of them as predators.
This is overreaction. To be quite honest, that statistics point out that it is highly unlikely that a child will be abducted and molested by a total stranger. They are more likey to be molested by someone that they know. It's the same with rape but that is different.

As to pedophiles, they are sick people and Jae I think Freud was a Fruitcake. To sexually exploit children is sick and perverted. Some of the clothing I have seen that came out are totally not cool. The designers should be ashamed at themselves; a lowering of morals. I do believe in the retribution philosophy of incarceration with pedophiles, the eye for an eye thing. If I had my way I would lock them up and throw away the key for life. Sexual exploitation I think doesn't constitute capital punishment. It wouldn't survive the cruel and unusual punishment clause. If it did lead to murder then I would go for capital punishment.

Pedophila is a problem that cannot be solved by rehabilitation. I find that to be a load of crapola that pedophila is a mental disease that can be solved by medicating the perp. If I had my way, I would reopen Alcatraz and stuff the persp in there. They are just plain sick.

Nancy Allen``
03-20-2007, 06:21 PM
I talked to my friend who fought against child porn online about this, he says that for some the attraction of children as sexual objects stems from seeing a fetish that you like. They do it because they like it, they enjoy it, and he added that the same elements that come from other acts, such as the fact it's wrong, the danger, risk of getting caught, ect adds to it.

As for the abused becoming abusers, BS. There'd be cases where this would happen but by and large people should be able to not rape children no matter what they went through, it's no excuse. Any lawyer who tries to prove otherwise is as bad as the pedophiles they defend.

mur'phon
04-01-2007, 04:03 PM
Pedophila is a problem that cannot be solved by rehabilitation. I find that to be a load of crapola that pedophila is a mental disease that can be solved by medicating the perp.

I agree that paedophilia is as much a disease as homosexuality, what I disagree with is your statement that rehabilitation can't solve the problem. Sure, they'll probably always be paedophiles, but rehabilitation can help them to control themselves. Sentencing them to life in prison seems a bit to harsh to me, considering that a lot of them could return to society without causing further harm.

mimartin
04-01-2007, 09:55 PM
Sentencing them to life in prison seems a bit to harsh to me, considering that a lot of them could return to society without causing further harm.


Life in prison is less harsh then what they did to the child. I believe in rehabilitation and I believe it is better for a guilty person to go free rather than there be a slim chance that an innocent person be imprisoned, but the victim will suffer the rest of their life because of this personís ďproblem,Ē why not make the criminal suffer just as long?

mur'phon
04-02-2007, 05:30 AM
why not make the criminal suffer just as long?

Because if the criminal can be returned to society without causing further harm and live a happy life, then isn't it better than having the criminal suffer unnecesary for a long time? Yes, they should be punished with a few years in prison to dether others, but most people don't care much about the punishment when they break the law, or they think they won't get caught.

Det. Bart Lasiter
04-02-2007, 08:49 AM
I was cleaning out my pics folder and found this.

http://i12.tinypic.com/2rgfawx.gif


I just think it's a testament to how much lawmakers actually care about this issue. I've watched quite a few Congressional hearings on this topic (as well as others, I find it amusing that these people govern us when they can't govern what goes on in their own votes, hearings, poker nights, etc), and I'm not inspired by the level of incompetence and lack of effort made by them.

I'm curious to see how many of you think these laws (ability to punish sex offenders more severely, monitoring search engines and customer records from ISPs, etc) like these will be effective. It just seems to me that since no one's bottomline is being affected by this issue, stuff like this is just hot air and just one of the latest issues being taken advantage of by politicians.

Nancy Allen``
04-02-2007, 09:15 AM
Since no one's bottom line is being affected, like it would with alcohol and tobacco regulation, it should be something that's even more aggressively pursued.

mimartin
04-02-2007, 11:03 AM
Because if the criminal can be returned to society without causing further harm and live a happy life, then isn't it better than having the criminal suffer unnecesary for a long time? Yes, they should be punished with a few years in prison to dether others, but most people don't care much about the punishment when they break the law, or they think they won't get caught.

IMO NO! Unless the same thing can be done for the innocent victim then no I donít want to give the criminal a chance at a happy life or safe life. They obviously didnít feel it necessary for the victim to have a safe or happy life or they wouldnít have done what they did.


Why does the victim have to suffer the rest of their life and the guilty only suffer for a short period of time? If the punishment isnít a deterrent then maybe the punishment isnít stiff enough.

That said I do think it is the obligation of the prison system to get them help with their problem, but just because they seem to be able to control their sick impulses does not mean the crime should be forgiven. After all the harmed a innocent child and as a somewhat civilized society our most important job is to protect those that can not protect themselves.

mur'phon
04-10-2007, 12:35 PM
IMO NO! Unless the same thing can be done for the innocent victim then no I donít want to give the criminal a chance at a happy life or safe life.

Why not? To let the victim have some sort of revenge on the criminal? So that instead of having one persons life ruined, you would ruin two lives?
To make the criminal regret his actions for the rest of his/her life, wich he probably would anyway? Could you please answer why?

They obviously didnít feel it necessary for the victim to have a safe or happy life or they wouldnít have done what they did.

Paedophiles have the problem that satisfying one ofe their main desire is ilegal. This means they have to keep that desire in check, wich most of them do. However sometimes a few of them "loose controll", and even fewer don't even try to remain "in controll". Most of those not "in controll" don't think about anything except satisfying their desire, so most of them don't really think about their victim, their chance of getting caught, or anything else. After commiting the crime most paedophiles are tormented by what they have done, and how this afect the child. So most of them didn't even consider how they were ruining the victims life.

If the punishment isnít a deterrent then maybe the punishment isnít stiff enough.

As far as I know, stiffer punishment have litle effect on most crimes, and I have yet to see a place where stiffer punishment have made any real difference. Also were I live, the hardest punishment is 24 years for stuff like murder, and 4years to life if a person is not considered "safe" by psycologists. Yet crime is mysteriously low.........

That said I do think it is the obligation of the prison system to get them help with their problem
It's nice that we agree on something.

just because they seem to be able to control their sick impulses does not mean the crime should be forgiven.

Why not? If they are about as likely as anyone else to cause harm, they might as well live a good life, no?

Jae Onasi
04-10-2007, 08:09 PM
The recidivism rate for pedophilia is horrendous. Pedophiles are far more likely to commit another sex crime than a murderer is to commit another murder once released.
Pedophiles have permanently ruined a child's life emotionally and quite possibly physically. I really don't care one iota if they have a good life after molesting a child. There are penalties to pay for crime, and they should pay that penalty to understand the severity of their crime and as an example to others what happens if they engage in similar behavior. Should they get help in prison? Sure. Do I want them out on the street again where they can molest my child? No way.

I do make a distinction between someone who's convicted of a sex offense because what he thought was adult porn turned out to be a very physically mature 15 year old instead, versus someone who actually commits a sex act with a young child. The punishment should fit the crime of course. The point of prison isn't just to punish the guilty, it's also to keep them off the streets so they don't hurt anyone else, and child molesters don't belong on the streets.

Emperor Devon
04-10-2007, 08:25 PM
As far as I know, stiffer punishment have litle effect on most crimes, and I have yet to see a place where stiffer punishment have made any real difference.

Completely untrue. One good example of this is the practice of chopping off the hands of pickpockets in Saudi Arabia. I know a couple people who've been there, and they were amazed at how low the rate of petty theft there was. At bazaars the merchants would keep stacks of coins on their tables, in the perfect place for someone to snatch them of all things.

Really, it's basic logic. If there are harsh penalties for doing things people don't want to do them as much. (Not that I'm advocating that barbaric practice of cutting off hands, mind you)

Yet crime is mysteriously low.........

Perhaps because there are fewer criminals where you live which makes the lighter penalties irrelevant? I have no idea what crime rates are like where you live, but I imagine increasing or decreasing the harshness of punishments would have some effect on it.

SilentScope001
04-10-2007, 09:51 PM
Pedophiles have permanently ruined a child's life emotionally and quite possibly physically. I really don't care one iota if they have a good life after molesting a child.

Love thy neighbor? Love thy enemy?

It is easy to love your child. It is not so easy to love a person who harmed your child. But really, they both are persons, and they both are humans.

Emperor Devon
04-10-2007, 11:03 PM
Love thy enemy?

Wouldn't that contradict the 'enemy' part...?

But really, they both are persons, and they both are humans.

Humans shmumans. Whether they look like us or not, that does not excuse their actions.

Nancy Allen``
04-10-2007, 11:10 PM
Kill'em all, let God sort it out if you believe in him. If you rape a child, or even an adult, if you force sex onto them then you have no right to live. Pedophiles aside who would deem such acts acceptable? I can't see anyone being able to think it's something that can be excused.

Rogue Nine
04-10-2007, 11:25 PM
It is easy to love your child. It is not so easy to love a person who harmed your child. But really, they both are persons, and they both are humans.
Right, they're both humans. But let's break it down a bit further.

My child: someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong and nothing to deserve being made to serve the perverted desires of a stranger.

The person who harmed my child: someone who has hurt my child for his/her own selfish desires.

You talk about pedophiles just following their desires. What about my child? What about his desire not to be molested, not to have his innocence taken away from him? What about me? What about my desires not to have my child molested? Why do the pedophile's desires trump those of mine and my child?

Jae Onasi
04-11-2007, 12:32 AM
Love thy neighbor? Love thy enemy?

It is easy to love your child. It is not so easy to love a person who harmed your child. But really, they both are persons, and they both are humans.

God can forgive them if they're truly repentant. I might be able to forgive them through God's grace after some time, but God help the person who I catch in the act messing with my children, because I will not hesitate to do what I need to in order to protect my children from such evil.

Furthermore, one can love the sinner indeed, but that does not in any way excuse the sin. It does not give the sinner carte blanche to continue sinning. It does not mean I abdicate my responsibility as a parent to protect my children from evil in the world for his pleasure. Do you honestly expect me to make any other decision about protecting my children from molesters? If I had my way, I'd remove their ability to commit a sexual crime entirely. I absolutely refuse to justify a pedophile's right to molest my child.

Just because pedophiles happen to be fellow members of the human race doesn't mean they belong on the street with access to other children. That doesn't excuse them for their atrocious, evil behavior, for their emotional and physical injury of a child, for the destruction of the child's trust in adults and/or family members. The safety and protection of innocents in society completely outweigh the rights of an individual to indulge in his sick desires to commit a violent sexual crime on a child.

This is the kind of moral ambiguity that is devastating to any culture. When we can honestly say in all seriousness that our relativistic thinking allows us to believe that we're actually infringing on the rights of a molester to commit a crime against a child, and when we can somehow justify the idea that the duty to protect a child is outweighed by an adult's desires, then we have a serious problem with moral decay in this country. No amount of mental gymnastics is ever going to make pedophilia a moral action.

El Sitherino
04-11-2007, 10:59 AM
Chemical castration isn't simply "pop a pill, can't reproduce". It's a series of hormone therapies that lowers sexual desire and even performance (Erectile Dysfunction). This has been a method used to punish sexual predators for a while. It's actually under consideration for being "cruel and unusual", which would then make it an illegal practice.

Anyway, they've hurt kids in a most horrendous way. Pardon the expression, but who gives a **** about them. They've selfishly placed their desire over someone else's. The child, in the US, is allowed the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and I'm fairly certain that the kids idea of life, liberty, or happiness isn't equated to being forced into sexual acts with an adult.

mimartin
04-11-2007, 11:21 AM
Why not? To let the victim have some sort of revenge on the criminal? So that instead of having one personís life ruined, you would ruin two lives?
To make the criminal regret his actions for the rest of his/her life, which he probably would anyway? Could you please answer why?

Yes, Iíd like to ruin the criminalís life, but it would not be me or the legal system ruining his/her life. It would be the criminalís own actions that ruined his/her life. Iím not saying I donít want to help the person with their problem. Iím just saying that the victim is way more important to me then the pedophilia.

I'm no expert on the criminal system or mental illness, but I do know a victim of rape. Twenty years later and she is still very affected by what happen to her. She was in her early twenties at the time; I can only imagine how it would have affected her if she would have been younger. The slime ball got out after a few years and today she still looks over her shoulder for him. Her life change because of anotherís action, she didnít choice it, but he did. Why should he be allowed a happy life when he deprived another of the same?

That is where my rational about this comes from. The VICTIM should have more rights than the criminal. IMO the criminal forfeited some of their rights when they robbed the victim of their rights.

Why not? If they are about as likely as anyone else to cause harm, they might as well live a good life, no?

Like I said before, unless they can undo the harm done to their victim then they should not be forgiven. Only after theyíve served the sentence then they can be released back into society, but the crime should not be forgotten. They should be monitored for the rest of their life.

To me society should protect those that can not protect themselves (such as children and the elder). Normally I believe in giving people second chances, but not in the case of our childrenís welfare. In the case of Pedophiliaís Iím for the one strike and youíre out rule.

Love thy neighbor? Love thy enemy?
It is easy to love your child. It is not so easy to love a person who harmed your child. But really, they both are persons, and they both are humans.

Sometimes you are showing more love towards someone by punishing them. You are protecting them from their own destructive behavior.

If the Pedophilia was a friend or relative of mine Iíd want the penalty to be just as harsh as a stranger. Iíd still try to love them and support them, but Iíd want to make sure they did not ever have access to children again.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-11-2007, 08:06 PM
I know I'm going to take flak for my views here, but whatever the Heck, I'll shoot.

First of all, I don't consider pedophilia a disorder. To explain my view here, I liken it to psychopathy (which admittedly is a mental disorder). Neither psychopaths and pedophiles, I believe, can help being what they are.

But of course that does not mean I condone sex with children. And I support the rapid finding of a 'cure' for pedophilia, and the encouragement of employing such a 'cure', while keeping it voluntary. Like psychopaths, pedophiles simply need to make the best, morally, of their situation. For psychopaths, that means playing nice. For pedophiles, it means leaving the lolitas to themselves. It's probably not easy, but it's necessary.

As for having sex with teenagers, I'm less sure. Like it or not, there are people 14 and 15 years old who have had happy, mutual relationships with far older people. So on one hand - if they are happy together, who are we to say they can't be boyfriend and girlfriend? On the other hand, there are teen girls and boys of forced marriages in the Middle East who are happy together, too - does that mean forced arranged marriages are OK?

As a side note, I think young teen-grown person relationships and arranged marriages can be compared quite effectively:

Happiness:
-A significant number of teen-to-adult relationships end up working fine.
-A significant number of arranged marriages end up working fine.
Consent:
-Many teen-to-adult relationships are not voluntary.
-Many arranged marriages are not voluntary.

So I think, personally, they can be treated equally. If one is wrong, so is the other. The problem is I can't really decide when it comes to either.

As for death sentence for child abuse - no. As a matter of fact, I recognize it for the emotion-laden quest for revenge that it is, and, despite my temptations to condone it, I choose to oppose it 100%. As a side note, it also reeks of eugenics-style 'rooting out the bad' - I think what we really want with such a law is to kill the pedophiles to clean up the gene pool. So seeing I'm against measures of eugenics, not to mention revenge-based justice, I vote no to death sentence for child abuse. Castration of offenders, probably. All offenders, pedophiles or otherwise. However, I recognize this as revenge-based as I've got over half a dozen friends who have gotten raped (I go to a school for people whose lives haven't been kind to them), so don't take my view on that too seriously:o.

As two last notes:
- I believe adult-to-child sex is wrong.
- I believe in finding an effective, actually-working way to 'cure' pedophilia, but that it should be voluntary.

...So this is why I really don't know if pedophiles should be punished. The pedophile only wants to be happy, and because of that, he causes lots of harm to civilization and to childern. But the pedophile wants to be happy. To go and imprison him, and even KILL him, just because he wants to be happy, nay, because he is BUILT that way by having his sexual desires directing him to do such a deed...and to call it wrong without worrying about the unhappiness we are causing to the pedophile by placing such an artifical law...OK, I know I'm irritatingly tolerant when it comes to pedophiles, but this is just wrong.

If we were to follow this rhetoric, then no one can be punished, buddy. Robbery makes people happy. Beating innocent homosexuals up makes bigots happy. Heck, destroying the WTC probably made Bin Laden very happy in his cave, to the point of singing and dancing and throwing wild parties. Yet we invaded Afghanistan to capture him and execute him.

Everything would be legal if we were to think this way. Literally everything.

Oh, and just so there won't be any mistakes: Freud was a moron. He was hopeless as a psychiatrist, losing countless patients, and his ideas have been proven wrong. I don't care if he essentially founded psychology - his own ideas in the field were, to say the least, misguided.

Also, I think alerting people in the area they live should only be done when the person have been convicted more than once.Perspective. The fact that people want this only for rapists of children and not for other sex offenders (clicky and scroll down page to last sign (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/birthsigns.asp):D), terrorists, murderers, and so on, proves it's an irrational desire not founded on logic, rate of repetition notwithstanding.

The pedophile believes what he is doing is right.Far from it. While people do hurt others while trying to do good (fundie parents sending their homosexual kids to be tormented in de-gayification camps is but one example), most sexual molesters, like thieves and murderers, perfectly well know that what they are doing is not right. I can nick a candy bar from someone and still know it's wrong. I don't do it because it's right, I do it because of my drive for something tasty. Not that that makes it morally right, of course:o.

I agree that paedophilia is as much a disease as homosexualityFor your information, sickness of the mind is called a mental disorder, not a disease.

Love thine enemy?A splendid proposal for society. Let's invent some flying elephants to go with it. Both are equally plausible.

Nancy Allen``
04-11-2007, 08:13 PM
With pedophiles not being able to help what they are, actually that's not the case. I spoke to my friend who fought child porn and he said that pedophiles know what they do and have the power to stop themselves, they just choose not to. He's gotten into their minds and had come to the conclusion that lack of self control is not an excuse, especially in premeditated cases of kidnapping rape and murder. In short it doesn't come from a lack of self control, it comes from a calculated plan with no regard to the child or their family.

Dagobahn Eagle
04-11-2007, 09:45 PM
I'm not talking about actually raping and downloading child porn, I'm talking about being attracted to children in the first place. Evidently abusing someone and downloading pictures is voluntary.

Nancy Allen``
04-11-2007, 10:12 PM
That too stems from pedophiles seeing something, child pornography, and it being something that appeals to them. This stems from seeing people who have dealt in it, downloaded it and fantasised about it and they had knocked it until they tried it and now they look at it as any other type of legal fetish, knowing full well that it is illegal. Can the mere fact that it appeals to them mean something is wrong with them? Absolutely, no question they have problems if they like kiddies, but when I spoke to my friend who fought child porn he said that while someone who enjoys this type of material is disturbed he's not sure if this can be pinned down to any mental condition, as many pedophiles are otherwise very normal people and defy any signs of being a, his words, a 'rock spider.'