Chemical castration for paedophiles.

[eva-dav]

I don't think anyone can deny that the recent rise in convictions of sexual offences is stretching the prison service to the brink.

Most don't believe there is any cure for paedophilia, so is chemical castration the answer for repeat offenders?

I'm not suggesting we go quite as far as Russia, where it can be ordered by a court, although I'm open to persuasion on that.

What surprises me is that while most offenders express deep sorrow for their crimes as mitigation, so few volunteer for the treatment.  I see no better way to demonstrate true contrition than to have the temptation permanently removed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11169677/Raise-funds-to-pay-for-chemical-cas...

[d_cor99]

I have encountered quite a number of offenders who would have tried weakly deflecting on exactly the same.Bless

You may wish to volunteer yourself, but reason isn't on your side in this matter.

You don't have to move far from here to have a recent salient example of this.

Already been answered, not as often as it's been drummed of course, but then that would be tedious.

The question was about known offenders, repeat offenders in fact, and the treatment thereof.Child sexual abusers, paedophiles, paedophilia

[d_cor99]

---

@millielilac wrote:
Goodness knows what the solution is BUT it is a problem.....

The fact is that there are numerous offenders ...sadly I know of several people who were known to me personally ( including my next door neighbour at one time ) . The persons in question were not known to each other ...so not part of a ring ...

My neighbour was a teacher and a church organist , another was a teacher and the local choirmaster ( different churches ) ...another 3 people I knew very well ....all 5 were known personally by me ...it was very shocking ...

Our own doctor was also struck off too for viewing child abuse online ....

Now I think that it a large number of people for myself to know ......I expect that there are more in the community at large that I do not know about ...

I also know of children who were affected in my professional capacity as a teacher.

It is of course likely that these people cannot be " cured " it is the way that they are . What the answer is I have no idea at all ....

---

Interesting personal observation I missed initially. Thanks

[lambsy_uk]

---

@d_cor99 wrote:

The question was about known offenders, repeat offenders in fact, and the treatment thereof.Child sexual abusers, paedophiles, paedophilia

---

The discussion evolved, they tend to do that. Have a nice day!

[d_cor99]

You mean deflected and drummed

y'all have a nice day now 

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@d_cor99 wrote:

You mean deflected and drummed

y'all have a nice day now 

---

Hardly - i would just call it stubbornness on your part - there is no crime of paedophilia - something you seem unable to accept - no one in this country has ever been charged with paedophilia let alone found guilty.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@marg*e wrote:

I've seen bits of a few of these programmes, and often wonder if those so determined to defend paedophiles are that way inclined themselves.

Also someone mentioned the abusers of children may have been abused in their childhood.

I've never understood this excuse, surely the last thing you would want in that case would be for your children to suffer the same abuse.

---

I see what you are saying re the first point, but I think there is another explanation.  Those who believe that genetic inheritance determines certain things such as sexual preference are probably more likely to be sympathetic to the situation another finds themselves in than those who believe we have complete free will over our actions.

Re your second point, it is well documented that the abused can go on to be abusers and whilst the reasons aren't entirely clear, it may be that, during the original abuse, a level of disassociation from the events is required to cope.  Later, as an adult, this learned disassociation comes into play and prevents the person fully identifying with the child they are hurting.  Or it may be the majority of children are abused by a relative and, if genetics powers these things, that is why the behaviour is perpetuated.   This could explain why not all abused child go on to abuse, in just the same way that some children of murderers go on to murder and some do not, some children of sociopaths become sociopaths themselves and some do not.  If genes are the predominant driver, the mix of genes in any one person would be the crucial thing here. 

[d_cor99]

Lol, err given some posters history, that’s rich

How many times and by how many posters have you had the same accusation leveled your way? 

Wrong again, I made my position clear, if you haven’t bothered to read/can’t, that’s not my problem

But it hasn’t much to do with either the OP or charging, just pedantic noncesense. You can't charge someone btw with an offence that you say doesn't exist 

But here are your own words

I don't think I'd consider anyone convicted of a paedophile offence as a friend 

But if you think Teret, Denning, Hall etc are innocent, give them the benefit of your vast legal expertise

I see you think ched evans is innocent, but apart from reading his website, seem to have no idea why

[d_cor99]

Some may be, in my experience,  the simple explanation of 'self defending'  is often the case

Recent examples are not hard to find

Some abused as a matter of fact may go on to abuse themselves, least for a while. The majority I would say don't, but spend what can often be many years trying to escape/coming to terms with their past .Clemente reckons the average period is app30-40 years - he has dealt with thousands of cases and was a child victim himself

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@d_cor99 wrote:

Lol, err given some posters history, that’s rich

How many times and by how many posters have you had the same accusation leveled your way? 

Wrong again, I made my position clear, if you haven’t bothered to read/can’t, that’s not my problem

But it hasn’t much to do with either the OP or charging, just pedantic noncesense. You can't charge someone btw with an offence that you say doesn't exist 

But here are your own words

I don't think I'd consider anyone convicted of a paedophile offence as a friend 

But if you think Teret, Denning, Hall etc are innocent, give them the benefit of your vast legal expertise

I see you think ched evans is innocent, but apart from reading his website, seem to have no idea why

---

And???

Paedophilia isn't an offence, homosexuality didn't use to be an offence either - it was the acts connected with those predilections that were the offence.

On a personal basis I don't believe that homosexual acts are offensive, others disagree - I DO think paedophile ACTS are offensive and would not associate with anyone convicted of such an offence.

You still don't seem willing to accept that being a paedophile is not an offence in law or morality - why not? - are you someone who believes that offences can be committed in the mind - bring on the 'thinkpol'!

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@d_cor99 wrote:

Lol, err given some posters history, that’s rich

How many times and by how many posters have you had the same accusation leveled your way? 

Wrong again, I made my position clear, if you haven’t bothered to read/can’t, that’s not my problem

But it hasn’t much to do with either the OP or charging, just pedantic noncesense. You can't charge someone btw with an offence that you say doesn't exist 

But here are your own words

I don't think I'd consider anyone convicted of a paedophile offence as a friend 

But if you think Teret, Denning, Hall etc are innocent, give them the benefit of your vast legal expertise

I see you think ched evans is innocent, but apart from reading his website, seem to have no idea why

---

Mind reading again? - where have I said I think Ched Evans is innocent?

As for Teret, Denning, Hall etc. - with your incredible mind reading abilities surely you don't need to ask that question 🙂

[d_cor99]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

---

And???

Paedophilia isn't an offence, homosexuality didn't use to be an offence either - it was the acts connected with those predilections that were the offence.

On a personal basis I don't believe that homosexual acts are offensive, others disagree - I DO think paedophile ACTS are offensive and would not associate with anyone convicted of such an offence.

You still don't seem willing to accept that being a paedophile is not an offence in law or morality - why not? - are you someone who believes that offences can be committed in the mind - bring on the 'thinkpol'!

---

See no comment on your 'history' - how surprising, lol

I think much of your ramble has already been said, several times in fact incl by myself, homosexuality wasn't in itself an offence even though others have by comparison suggested it was, I actually corrected that, well done for your repeat

No, thats just your view, I never said anything of the sort, show me where I did? -quite the opposite in fact  You really should pay more attention  - or sharpen your own *incredible* mind reading abilities lol

[d_cor99]

Sounded like it, though on second review the thread looks a tad light, how surprising lol

Glad to know you think he's guilty then, cos it didn't sound like it  before the the thread went light, unless of course you want to equivocate depending on circumstances.

oh and it was no moot point as you predicted, cos Sheffield rejected him, as did many other clubs 

toodle pip

[aernethril]

Just tried to post this and it went blank so apologies if it comes out twice but slightly different as I try to remember what I typed.

This may or may not give further insight into when paedophilia becomes a crime

Three people jailed

No actual action had been taken against children directly but the background is very disturbing and does not make for comfortable reading.

The main issue would appear to be that whilst being a paedophile is not a crime in itself and the person keeps their fantasies to themselves, the moment those fantasies and urgings are out in the open, no matter how secretively shared, it becomes a criminal offence.

".......... but the central question never goes away. Was there a conclusive agreement and was there an agreement that it should be put into action?"

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@aernethril wrote:

The main issue would appear to be that whilst being a paedophile is not a crime in itself and the person keeps their fantasies to themselves, the moment those fantasies and urgings are out in the open, no matter how secretively shared, it becomes a criminal offence.

---

There are difficulties inherent in that though.  What if you confide in a priest or doctor or psychologist?  Surely, it encourages people to keep quiet when they may want to seek help. 

[aernethril]

I think it all hinges on what you share with whom, and why.

So, sharing the fantasies with a doctor or psychologist should or would be considered as an open admission of the person's problem and hopefully to lead to support or to be monitored by consent.

Sharing it with a priest is another matter and if it's in the confessional, then it does present a huge problem.  How many of those who abused in the past got away with 'confessing' their sins but the priest was duty bound to keep all confessions to himself?

In the case above it's quite clear - the issue was that they went on to not only share their fantasies but to conspire to carry them out.  The deciding factor on whether the 'conspiracy' was also a fantasy (as the defendents claimed) or not, appears to be how far it went, previous sexual deviation and the possessing of pictures downloaded from the internet.

[malacandran]

What should happen to known paedophiles on the television. For example, consider the example of Sir James Saville.  

He was regarded as a "national treasure", until he got exposed. After his exposure, the TV hasn't show any past programme with him in it, except by accident, when the viewers complain.

A similar kind of thing has happened to the Australian artist.  He's got "airbrushed" out of TV history.

Is it right that these great entertainers should be forgotten?