Paedophiles and Sex Offenders

[pjm007]

I appreciate this is a touchy subject, but this a spin off from joules99's question about 'Hanging'. What do people (especially parents) think the fate of (forensically proved) paedophiles and sex offenders should be ? I've made my feelings on the subject perfectly clear and you can see these by clicking on the link in the following post. Does anyone else share my views, or am I alone in my 'vigilante' style of thinking ?

[FP]

Philtaz, I was referring to Marge's stooping to a personal level, not you!  I am so sorry you misunderstood me!

Of course, I realised that you were referring to MargeB rubbishing Steve's degree!  I have never known you to stoop to a personal level yet - you should know me by now!! :o)

[FP]

Vitriolic hatred, MargeB?  I don't hate anyone!!  Neither do I rubbish people!  Your degree didn't teach you much about getting on with others did it!

[MargeB]

contribute something to the thread or get off it.

[FP]

say please!

[FP]

pjm007   I was actually following this thread with interestas I gave my thoughts quite clearly on the hanging thread, and had actually been thinking what my views really were about sex offences against children.  Unfortunately, I was distracted by Marge's extreme rudeness to Steve and  I apologise for this.

My view is that I would like to see these people imprisoned for life, with no chance of ever being freed, in a special unit devoted to cases of this type. 

[netibiza]

Yes FP its all getting ridiculous - decent people agree totally with you. Too much learning appears to get in the way of common sense.

[MargeB]

Netibiza, thanks for your reply.

I was expanding the definition to what I see as a group comprising those who have acted against children as well as those who are inclined to do so but who have not. I do deplore those paedophilic acts we all know about, and they do become very well covered in the press very quickly. But to do something to protect children, something must be done to address the much much larger number of people who have a sexual attraction towards children but who cannot be touched under current legislation, partly because they are not known publicly as being paedophilic, or simply because they have not committed any acts. There must be tens of thousands of such people in the UK (if police net-paedophilia figures are to be believed). Among their number must be a sizeable group who know that they will present a danger to children, and wish to have some kind of treatment. To put the situation in perspective, if someone is into looking at child porn on the internet, if they are not stopped from looking at child porn again, then child abuse is increased, since behind every such indecent image is a child abused, and the development of a market for these images leads to an increase in child abuse to support it. This phenomenon is now spiralling out of control in the UK (police figures support it). So what is to be done? You cannot simply curb the child abuse at source: many are probably created in random countries where civilized government has no reach.

[MargeB]

So a decent amount could be done by addressing the actual paedophiles themselves. Maybe little can be done to intervene psychologically. But if we accept this as given then we give up on a major hope of intervention and abandon many many children to their fate. Maybe these people are simply 'evil'. But in case any of them have given themselves over to a condition on which psychological intervention will have an effect, I think that's an avenue to be explored. It is known, for example, that whatever ill intent is present in paedophiles, the majority of them are radically misguided about the psychological position of the abused. Most paedophiles will believe that their victims are somehow willing, that they enjoy the experience, that they are coy and innocent on the outside but inside are actually pandering to the desires of the abuser. We know that in believing this that the paedophile is mistaken, how about starting with a program of education, to begin with? "Children are not pandering to your interests, they are the helpless victim of your desire for control over them" or "You may believe that the child enjoys this, but the actions you are carrying out or intend to carry out will cause profound psychological damage to them which will remain with them for the rest of their lives."

In saying this, I am not wrapping them up in cotton wool. As far as they have an evil dimension to their psychopathy, I think that this element will be curbed little by the knowledge that society despises them for it. But I think that demonization betrays a crucial misunderstanding of the nature of psychopathology and the human willed action.

[netibiza]

I see where you are coming from MargeB but I really do not think that the paedophiles would want to know that their victims were not enjoying it, as indeed, them knowing that what they are doing is wrong, will stop them from committing the act - if you see what I mean.  Anyway I think basically we all agree its a heinous act. I'm off to bed as its midnight here. Goodnight

[El D]

Nice answer Phil, as expected emotional and irrational. I fail to see how treating these people correctly and compassionately will lead to more deaths. In actual fact it is your approach that will ultimately lead to more crime, as I have pointed out in an alternative thread. MargeB has made the point, perhaps misunderstood by some, that sexual urges are one of our greatest motivators. Fear of punishment is secondary to these urges, otherwise these people would not commit crimes, non? You are effectively implying that by increasing the fear of punishment, you can restrain these people's urges, but this is not the case, otherwise the death penalty would eradicate serious crime.

Punishment will not prevent these crimes. You may gain some basic emotional satisfaction from watching them fry/bleed/spasm to death, but essentially you have merely dealt with a symptom of irregular human nature. Only through understanding the causes of such behaviour and managing its triggers/development/origins/enviroment etc. will we ever create a society with no Sarah Paynes. You appear unwilling to forego satiating your rage and bloodlust for such a scenario. Perhaps it is you who should think about families of victims . . . that's right Phil, feel like you are dealing with the problem. I guess that's all that matters to some people. Unfortunately there are bigger issues at stake than your instinctive reactions.

[Philtaz]

Thanks for the clarification FP, thought it was out of character for you, sincerest apologies again and all that!

El D,

Yet again, failure to answer any of the questions put to you.  I'll ask again, how do you intend to treat people like this who refuse treatment even when they are incarcerated for previous similar crimes?

You are incorrect, I am not implying that by increasing fear of punishment their urges will be restrained I am saying that their punishment does not fit the crime.

that's right Phil, feel like you are dealing with the problem. I guess that's all that matters to some people. 
 

Er, yes it does actually!  What matters to you?  Seeing paedophiles released without voluntary treament time after time to re-offend again? I understand that for some people it is de rigeur to comfort, counsell and understand paedophiles whilst paying far less attention to their victims, but some of us see them for the cunning, devious violators of children they are.

Lastly, can you explain what the 'bigger issues at stake' are?  After all, a discussion about the re-introduction of the death penalty for child rapists and murderers is a fairly 'big issue' topic, is it not?


 

[MargeB]

The direction of efforts other than punishment is not centrally about the interests of the paedophile but the interests of the innocents that would go on to be harmed if intervention did not take place. If you cannot understand the paedophile, you cannot change the way they behave.

Philtaz, you have two poles in your mind, liberal on the one side and 'tough approach' on the other, and people's approaches do not readily fit into this framework. People can still advocate a tough approach to paedophiles and have the utmost grief for the victims, while applying an intelligent approach to try to change people.

[Philtaz]

But as we've established, some can't/won't be changed, even when help is offered.

[pjm007]

No worries FP, It would seem to me that whilst myself and other posters on this thread seem to agree on the fate of these vile and sick people, who are knowingly carrying out these appauling offences on innocent children, they are cunning and clever individuals who know exactly what they are doing, how else would you explain paedophile rings ? where, for example, groups of well respected people including Doctors, teachers, police, etc. are leading double lives and lying to their wives and their own children.

While some people (including myself) would like to see the kind of people involved in these deplorable acts punished in such a way that they could NEVER re-offend again, others would rather give them a hug and say 'There, there I know you didn't mean it, your just misguided'.

I think that the majority of paedophiles would carry on offending, regardless of what the general public's opinion of them is.

[El D]

Yes, these people pose a problem, but again this stems from mental programming. They can be reformed. It may take a lifetime to do it, but it can be done. I am under no illusion that many paedophiles are let out far too early with no confirmation of change and a light sentence. I also find this unnacceptable. As already mentioned elsewhere, personally I think paedophiles should be kept away from the general public until many, many people are happy that their harmful tendencies have been dealt with. If they do not get treated, they do not get released, because they are still a danger to the general public. So in direct answer to your question, if they are not cured and shown the error of their ways, they are not released. I fail to understand why my attitude of helping these people leads you to believe I think they should be let loose on society.

Feeling like I am solving the issue means very little to me in comparison to actually dealing with the problem. Chest beating may remove a few dangerous individuals but does nothing to stop more emerging. I notice you ignore this point.

The bigger issue at stake is creating a crime free society. I thought that was obvious from all my posts which you have read carefully . . .

[bazwillrun]

So Lorcan, who said we have no right to "kill them" ? Did all these right come from some superior alien being ? Rights are man made you can vote for one or against one or even sit on the fence if you arent sure, but they are all of human design and most of them are based around human emotions and thats the problem.Why not an eye for an eye etc. A male lion, on finding a new pride will, if there any cubs, kill them all so that he can then mate and ensure his genes are proliferate. Out and out murder, is it right or is it wrong ? You with your human emotions decide.

[MargeB]

No, even if they were based around a human design dimension, that dimension wouldn't be emotion.

El D, I have to tell you that it IS interesting and informative to read your post, however, you will probably have guessed by now that many of those to whom you are speaking have a distorted view of even the basics of human mental design.

[Philtaz]

That's right Marge, we are not even on the same intellectual level.  We have little idea as to the nuances and workings of the criminal mind and all its intricacies.  We don't really care too much for understanding and treating those with no wish to be treated.  We care not for their circumstances or the hard luck stories that drove them to rape and murder innocent tots.

We prefer to see the life and welfare of a child as sacrosanct, above all others, but especially those who wish to harm and violate them.  I guess we're just giving in to our protective, maternal and paternal instincts, aren't we?

[FP]

Marge, I have to admit I am not sober, but why do you put everybody down and think you are more intelligent and educated than everybody else and are not at all modest about it!    Oh well, never mind, I obviously have distorted views!

[MargeB]

Because coming to a site like this to hear someone just spout their opinion is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. What is of use is reasoned debate, but El D has hit the rocks is in trying to engage in reasoned, informed debate with those who think they are qualified to talk about the workings of the human mind, but are not. It may seem that if you do not delve into psychology you can work with what you have from personal experience and common sense, but this is just not the case at all, in fact very many concrete findings in psychology run directly contrary to "common sense". This is not surprising, since the mind is subject to a miriad of biases which, unless controlled for, will lead to false conclusions.

If I have not informed myself enough about a subject, I will not presume to dictate to others what I have as a only as a matter of opinion. I know a little bit about physics and astronomy, but I will spend all my time with a physicist/astronomer listening, not offering my 'opinion' on the matter. Just because you have a 'mind' doesn't make you qualified to spout out about how it might work.

Philtaz, if a psychologist is approached by someone who has paedophilic tendencies, but wants shot of them, what approach do you think the psychologist have? What do you think they should do?