11-12-2014 3:16 PM
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.
12-12-2014 7:47 AM
@aernethril wrote:It's hardly a relevant comparison, not just because in those days (and in some cultures today) there was no age of consent and children were married off and even expected to be having intercourse at a very early age.
They also died early too, especially women. And that still happens today in other cultures.
It has no bearing on dealing with paedophiles whatsoever and there's is an urge which is often muddled with other forms of offending.
Paedophiles are generally not interested in teenagers, they are obsessed with young children at every point.
Medically, it is not a good thing for young people to be experiencing intercourse, and again it's considered worse for women in the long term.
It's also not right to expect 14 year olds to be able to judge what is 'right' or not about having sex (I expect the word will be bleeped out). It is far too easy to persuade a young girl or boy and especially around that age, that it's OK to 'do it', and the child has no protection if they agree because they feel presurised.
It doesn't matter that children even under 12 are experimenting, it's about whether they can be protected from those who are predatory for their own unacceptable demands.
Are we then to suggest that Austria, Germany, Portugal and Italy are evil states because they leave vulnerable 14 year old girls open to the persuasions of predators?
12-12-2014 7:49 AM
@saasher2012 wrote:
Perhaps a lobotomy as well as surgical castration then, I'm sorry but I have no sympathy towards these types of people what so ever,!.
Is that not a bit harsh? Would you have no sympathy for gay people if homosexuality was still unlawful?
12-12-2014 7:51 AM
@aernethril wrote:No need to apologise, saasher.
The simple fact is that whilst it might work for some sex offenders, it doesn't for others and the only option to stop them from not just acting themselves but from interacting to help others is to lock them up.
What I find worrying is what is definitely an increase and not just with men either in all forms of sexual abuse and attacks.
We do need a serious review on how this is dealt with and for me it goes on to how convicted criminals in prison are allowed to live and the way we have simply failed to deal with the spiraling problems in society.
I know it's terrible, a street urching can steal a loaf of bread and not even swing for it these days!
12-12-2014 8:10 AM
@suzieseaside wrote:I don't know Mal, that particular documentary which mentioned that level of abuse was not about convicted paedophiles or those who have claimed past assaults. It was a story of one brave man who came out on TV to say that he had feelings towards children but he has never offended and says he never will act on his feelings (I think they termed him a virtuous paedophile), and some attempts to understand the reasons.
That number of 1 in 6 children was given in the documentary but I don't know where they got it from. Even if it is higher than reality I rather suspect it is more common than most people realise or expect.
Most people have a deviant act in them if only in their head, and for most they remain in their head as fantasies, the problems come when the fantasies are acted out in reality which often takes place due to a close encounter which presents an opportunity.
I believe for known offenders we need to remove any opportunity.
12-12-2014 9:11 AM
12-12-2014 9:57 AM
@saasher2012 wrote:
I was not discussing gays, Your comparison is not only silly but thoughtless as well!
Two same sex consenting individuals can hardly be compared to Paedophiles, please check the op heading.!!!.
You may think it's harsh, perhaps for once you might consider the victims, & before you go into the do Gooder mode on this subject again, give me facts not daydreams!.
Never been a Do Gooder myself!
The comparison is apt because telling someone not to be a paedophile is like telling someone not to be gay! Finding someone revolting for being a paedophile is like finding someone revolting for being gay! Paedophilia is not a crime!
In the case of paedophiles, hetrosexuals or gay people they do not choose to be how they are, that is just the way they are, but we accept hetrosexuality and homosexuality but not paedophilia.
Of course we can not accept paedophilia because the nature of it means that encounters with minors are crimes, as they should be because we need to protect the minors, but perhaps you could have a bit more thought for the paedophile who did not choose to be made that way and would often change places with you at the drop of a hat!
Remember paedophilia is not a crime and therefore there are no victims unless an assault takes place!!!
These are the facts!
12-12-2014 10:32 AM
12-12-2014 11:05 AM
12-12-2014 11:12 AM
In this country, the age of consent and minimum age for marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys, and was only raised to 16 for both in 1929
Parental consent was required for under 21s, and I dont think many girls did marry at 12, but it was legal to do so
12-12-2014 11:41 AM
@saasher2012 wrote:
I don't find your comparisons valid in fact I find them thoughtless & insulting towards gays & lesbians , paedophillia even if it is a mental issue is one of the most vile acts inflicted on the young
Paedophilia is not an act!!!
I would suggest the problem you have is that my comparisons are very thoughtful; they involve far more thought than most give to the subject!
I'm sure you would find it absurd to suggest someone could or should stop being gay, well it's just as absurd to suggest someone can stop being a paedophile which is why we should put more thought and effort into how we tackle the problems that arise!
I mention being gay as an illustration in the hope it makes it easier for you to understand that paedophiles don't choose to be paedophiles!
at the very least these obnoxious people should be institutionalised so they can't carry out any more deprived acts .
What acts? Paedophilia is not something people do and nor is it a crime!
Once again it's all about them not the victims
There are no victims of paedophilia because paedophilia is not a crime! Sexual assault is the crime!!!
we were asked our opinion , these are mine, I don't care if you don't like them they are honest! End of!!!.
If we paid more attention to the perps we could perhaps prevent future crimes!
As for your opinions I just wonder why you are so harsh on people who can't help the way they are?
We don't tollerate the bullying of or discrimination against people for being Ginger, of a certain race, camp, Blonde, Gay, Lesbian or dumb; so why is it acceptable to dismiss paedophiles and discriminate against them by condemning them to no consideration whatsoever?!
Many gasp when they hear of a Christian couple not wanting a gay couple to stay at their guest house. Would they have had the same reaction had it been a paedophile being discriminated against? (Remember it's not a crime)
Why are so many so ready to askew their moral standards and waiver from their integrity when the word 'paedophile' is used?!
If they are a danger to society then they need to be dealt with in an appropriate manner, but rather than trotting out vitriol about lobotomy and castration I believe they should be given proper consideration as we would give to all others.
That is my opinion and I know my integrity remains intact!
12-12-2014 11:57 AM
12-12-2014 12:28 PM
@saasher2012 wrote:
Once again you are nit picking just for the sake of it!.
I am female, & to me this, call it whatever you want is not normal. To s assault a child or baby , I don't think most people would call it so. It goes against any moral code to hurt a child.im not interested in why they do it the mere fact they do is bad enough.& they should be removed !.
Well of course it is not normal. Assault is a crime which deserves to be punished and we deserve to be protected from those who would commit such a crime.
Perhaps removal is the only option, or we could give them the choice of castration or removal. All I'm saying is we should give the matter proper consideration rather than off-the-cuff rhetoric.
BTW, it goes against moral code to hurt anyone, child or not!
12-12-2014 12:38 PM
12-12-2014 1:45 PM
A child deserves to be protected from anyone who could harm them, paedophile or not.
Out of interest how would you regard/treat someone who possesses the following traits?
Someone who has a desire to kill people.
Someone who has a desire to torture and kill people.
Someone who has a desire to mutilate.
Someone who has a desire to self harm.
Someone who has a desire to sexually assault a woman.
Someone who has a desire to sexually assault a man.
Someone who has a desire to sexually assault a child.
Someone who has voyeuristic desires towards women.
Someone who has voyeuristic desires towards men.
Someone who has voyeuristic desires towards children.
Someone who fantacises about sexual acts with women.
Someone who fantacises about sexual acts with men.
Someone who fantacises about sexual acts with children.
12-12-2014 2:07 PM
12-12-2014 2:25 PM
Yes they should feel the full force of the law if they commit a crime.
All are in the mind and in most cases people would be happy to study these people, add labels such as Sociopath, Psychopath, Bi-Polar, Munchausen's, Depression, Schizophrenia etc., and see what could be done to understand and unburden these people while reducing their threat to society.
However other than adding the label, who makes any such efforts with paedophiles?
12-12-2014 2:35 PM
So, you would arrest Romeo as a paedophile, for having underage sex with Juliet?
If I had a pound for every time I've seen this rot....
Technically Romeo would not have been a paedophile -
They were married, what happens then is implied
Why would they anyway, apart from being fictional characters in an age long past, they are both relatively close in age, and current legislation makes note that in general it is not there to specifically criminalise what might otherwise be consensual similar age relationships, albeit in current legislation juliet could not legally consent, Romeo may or may not have been able to do so, its unclear
Incidentally the law may still allow an older man a defence such that he may not be convicted even though his victim is as young as 13
Instead, couldn't we just follow the example of Germany - and lower the legal age of sexual consent to 14.
By the same token you could make it a requirement to PTS attention -seeking seniles
Actually the age of consent varies as in this country, here its usually 16 but can be 18 depending on the situation
The problem with a lot of these statistics is that the questions are often framed as to give the answer they want.
you mean like your own
And your evidence for this is what??? Do you know? - probably not
As for the additional strain on HMP, the present population is about 85/86 thousand, & growing with a system designed for far less. Suicide rates up, still about 5k or so ipp inmates
Sex offenders - ie nonces - in prison hierarchy are the lowest rung, with child SO at the very bottom -even reviled by other SO
As such they are normally segregated for their own safety, that has additional resource requirements, indeed nonce is an accornym for not on normal courtyard exercise
clearly more are being convicted if you read the statistics -and rightly so
Ah the TV programme - the paedophile who hasn't offended and is sure he wont - yet actually that's incorrect on both counts. Firstly he's calling for support groups - they are already there in some cases (but if hes so sure he wouldn't offend, he wouldn't need any nor does he need to come out ) . Whether there has been any contact offences by the person in question I don't know - presumably non that have resulted in conviction anyway, but even taken at face value he has offended, because he decided he was a paedophile by the 'pornograhic' ie abuse images he was viewing - that would be an IIOC criminal offence under POCA depending on cat & num , a custodial sentence
Its not clear on his motivations but he appears far from typical given most offenders, taking him at face value.
Worth remembering that his interest begins in girls aged 4, from his own words, when using terms like virtuous
Yet again the rotten state of our mental health services is highlighted.
What on earth has the mental health services got to do with it?
Chemical Castration doesn't address the problem it simply applies an archaic form of punishment
No, it does, it removes the physical urge, that alone may not be enough in every case, but would in some cases make management easier
Ah yes it's about money - the old chestnut often used by offenders themselves against their victims, yet there is often none, and its so easy to prosecute a case
To take the same prog mentioned already, one of the victims featured was abused at public school, by his head and other teachers, passed around.He was subjected to what the Americans call complicit victimization.
A process whereby victim becomes complicit in the act by being otherwise rewarded, made to feel special, etc - by their abuser .Jim Clemente is a former victim turned ex FBI prosecutor himself and can tell you about complicit victimization
Sandusky who is serving 30-60 years for abusing boys who came through his second mile program 'groomed' his boys by choice choosing his prey carefully. Same in the case of one victim featured in the prog - remember they were children - he was 9. Eventually he tried to bring his abusers to court - the cps after reviewing the case initially said they felt there wasn't enough evidence to bring it to court with a likelihood of conviction/jail .He persisted however and pressed the case with the then DPP Keir Starmer- eventually the case was brought and two of his abusers were charged convicted.One committed suicide rather than face prison
That was only a few years ago - easy?? ask him how difficult it was
Is that rare? apparently not if you read other a/cs of children who were generally taken to be unreliable - and even when adult the nature of the offenses are such that it's difficult to secure convictions
One girl was abused from 4 -and by abused I don't mean for our expert survey person, someone made an inappropriate gesture - I mean the r word. By her step father, rented out to others as was her sister. Took many years of struggle and eventually media intervention to get just 2 of her abusers, including step father, charged and convicted. Easy - go ask them
12-12-2014 2:38 PM
12-12-2014 2:42 PM
Is that not a bit harsh? Would you have no sympathy for gay people if homosexuality was still unlawful?
homosexuality, in the same way you mention paedophilia isn't 'unlawful', wasn't 'unlawful' in itself
I believe for known offenders we need to remove any opportunity.
So everyone removes their children from the world, ergo no problem, wow what a solution
but we accept hetrosexuality and homosexuality but not paedophilia.
Because?? might be they don't involve wanting to have physical relations with children
Remember paedophilia is not a crime and therefore there are no victims unless an assault takes place!!
These are the facts!
Actually they aren't, because they are wrong!
I too find your comparison confused and insulting and many homosexuals would i suspect
What acts? Paedophilia is not something people do and nor is it a crime!
There are no victims of paedophilia because paedophilia is not a crime! Sexual assault is the crime!!!
These response are just too ridiculous for words
We are talking about crimes, & whilst some paedophiles continue on the same line as you,
talking as if no crimes relating to paedophilia exits nor do victims, who you show zero regard for
it is merely diversionary rubbish
That is my opinion and I know my integrity remains intact!
lol, well jolly good, glad something is intact
We must understand and empathise with them - why? would it stop them offending
current thinking is it's a management problem as no 'cure' exists
seems to me taking the urge away helps in management
Summary 'we must sympathise with paedophiles- and there are no crimes or victims because that would be silly to suggest and spoil a poor rant
12-12-2014 2:53 PM