Paedophiles

[snotmonkey]

Paedophiles are deeply mentally ill people who need treatment, so to demonize and brand them perverts and sub-human stops them from coming forward and asking for help before any damage is done. 90 years ago WW1soldiers suffering from shellshock were imprisoned or shot, now its called post traumatic stress disorder and sufferers can claim compensation. i'm not saying paedophiles should claim compensation only that they should get help when they need it, before children are put at risk.

[sft42]

And your Question is?

[Gef]

Good point sft - by definition a paedophile will put young children at risk

[woodpam]

A paedophile can come forward, see his or her doctor and receive help and treatment. The doctor is bound by the confidentiality associated with his or her profession UNLESS a child or young person (as defined by the Children Act) is at risk of significant harm. There is absolutely nothing stopping the paedophile from questioning the doctor as to what would be considered as a risk before they disclose the information. BTW there is also very little evidence that treatment is effective. All professionals are obliged to adhere to the legislation.

[andy hughes]

There are two basic problems caused by the concept of paedophillia. One is the revulsion and anger caused by the suffering of innocent children which is obviously a highly emotive subject for any thinking human being, and can be pandered to by the more hysterical elements of the press. The other difficulty is that paedophiles see no wrong in their action - they genuinely believe that children are knowingly sexualy provocative, and the paedophile response is acceptable for both parties. The comparison you use is therefore invalid - times and medical science have indeed moved on since the days of World War One, but child abuse was, is, and always will be, both repellent and abhorant to civilised society. As a thinking individual, i would always want treatment for a mental condition, but as a parent of three daughters, my fear and revulsion is as high as most other people's - it's a dilemma we have to live with.

[beenee]

There is something inherently criminal about abusing a child and distributing nasty pictures of them (only one of the many manifestations of paedophilic behaviour). It is a good point about psychologically rehabilitating them, but I believe that should be done only after punishment from the law has been given. Part of the social punishment is negative labelling of the person ('pervert') - ideal or not.

[andy hughes]

Sorry beenee, I trhink your answer is contradictory. As a society, we cannot on the one hand punish a wrongdoer as a criminal, and then rehabilitate them as psychologically unable to avoid commiting their crime - the two simply do not equate. Yes, some people have compulsions which are against all notions of care and nurture of children, but others are exploiting such people for commercial gain. The divide is clear to see, and so is the response.

[beenee]

Ok, I know what u mean: For me a paedophile is a person who actively sexually abuses kids and/or exploits them and their images. There is no psychological factor that I know of that brings about an unability to avoid engaging in such acts. These people know that their behaviour is wrong. They should be criminalised and then psych. rehab should be offered by which I mean an opportunity to bring their issues to the fore. Issues like the need to exert sexual power over helpless beings etc. I hope Ive put my stance forward clearer this time.

[andy hughes]

Yes beenee, I see where you are coming from the second time around - that's the problem with debating in print - we don't always make our point first time. Thanks for your patience in re-posting - obviously we do see this issue from the same position.

[lisaj]

Alternatively one can look at nature where elephant matriarchs will defend their daughters calves against their own fathers who will attempt to mate with them even before they hit maturity. In Edinburgh Zoo for example, a male giraffe was removed because he was consistently trying to mate with his own daughter. Along with Oedipus Complex (where a male child has an underlying desire to replace his father and mate with his mother), these indicate that there might be an underlying biological condition also.

[andy hughes]

I think Lisaj is looking for a parallele where none exists. It is very common in the animal world for 'fathers' not to recognise their offspring as their 'daughters', but merely as other females - this anthropomorphism is invalid. In humans, who are far more sophisticated in their attidues, and their tabboos - paedophilia is rooted in an inability to form satisfactory adult relationsips, and the substitution of a child who can be moulded and coerced in a manner which gives the pedophile a sense of control they are unable to obtain with adults. As a father of three daughters, I find it inconceivable that I would ever feel sexual attraction to a child, I do not believe that such interest is biologically inherited, but rather a deviation from standard sexual practices created by experiences, often in a paedophile's own childhood, which can have contained the receipt of abusive beahviour.