Wouldn't the children involved now be taken away from their Mothers and rehabilitated into a new life?
Agreed, it doesn't bare thinking about :/
Lostprophets Singer Facing Child Sex Charges
- Thread starter Ascendancy
- Start date
Wouldn't the children involved now be taken away from their Mothers and rehabilitated into a new life?
Agreed, it doesn't bare thinking about :/
Soldato
Stops reoffending 100%
i bloody hope so
the only saving grace about them being babies is the high possibility that they wont remember it.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 166
Yes. Compulsive behaviours aren't deterred by consequences. That's basic human psychology.
Really? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do anything that risked me spending 35 years in prison. Deterrence doesn't work. You can make an argument for executing people to prevent repeat offending, and that's a whole different discussion, but if we're talking about deterrence then nothing you threaten people with will prevent such deeply rooted, deviant behaviour. These aren't normal people with normal thought processes who behave rationally.
Agreed in some respects..
If a naked 19 year old girl walks into a room, 95% of blokes would get an instaboner, nothing wrong.
If a 9 year old girl walks in and someone gets an instaboner - what the hell do you do? how do you begin to deal with this, I don't understand what deterrence you can design which will stop the attraction..
Permabanned
I am sure he won't do well in prison.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 166
Needs a whole lot more research in order to understand the root causes. Many people who are abused go on to abuse others, because their psychology has been deeply damaged. I doubt that's the only reason, but we'll never really get to grips with the problem if our only reaction as a society is to seek vengeance.
Soldato
for his total lack of remorse, he should hang
Caporegime
Well there's not actually anything morally wrong with being attracted to a 9 year old. Anymore than there's anything morally wrong with being tempted to steal a car or having dirty thoughts about your mate's hot wife. It's actions that count (or to put it another way: Jesus was wrong). We don't need to stop paedophiles being attracted to children (although that's preferable) we need to stop them abusing children or supporting the abuse of children through their consumption of materials that are created by abusing children (e.g. child porn).
Usual people on Facebook saying bring back the death penalty, because 20 years on death row and the EHRC keeping a watchful eye would help! Others are saying you would get more for murder - I get the impression this is one of the longest sentences for rape of a minor in UK history though (I know it is for female sex offenders)?
Caporegime
Doesn't the length of his sentences result from a multiplicity of incidents rather than from a single particular horrific crime?
Agreed,
My point was simply to illustrate that if you feel sexually attracted to a child, I don't even know how you begin to tackle the issue.
Society will always seek vengeance upon people who perform these sorts of crimes, I'm also not sure whether that's a bad thing, but is a different discussion entirely.
Hmm..
To say it's morally ok to be sexually attracted to a child - I don't understand how you can argue that.
Whilst such thought crimes don't cause any immediate harm and it's true that actions speak louder than words, I'd be highly worried about somebody who thought it was "morally ok" to be sexually attracted to a child, and I'd argue that the actions of people like Ian Watkins - are the end results of what started off as "simple thoughts"
Soldato
Indeed, without understanding the root causes how exactly can we prevent it (the key goal).
No amount of punishment will stop first time offenders (or the actions up until the person is caught) - it's simply too little too late for my liking.
Caporegime
I said it was not morally wrong. That's not the same as being morally okay. You've excluded your middle.
Indeed. But all crime starts that way. That doesn't mean the start point is morally wrong. For example, I'm sure you've been sexually attracted to many women that are not mutually attracted to you but you've never gone on to rape any of them, have you? But there are other people who've been sexually attracted to women they've known and gone on to rape them. The morally wrong part comes when you go from thoughts to action. You can have thoughts that could lead to immoral action without those thoughts be morally wrong in themselves.
If we were to imagine a paedophile who buys one of those super-creepy child-like real dolls and shags it every night they're doing something that I (and I imagine most people) would personally find utterly revolting but I'd argue that as long as they leave actual children alone they're not actually doing anything that we can class as morally wrong.
To a simple minded person like me, if you say something is not wrong - that implies that it's either unknown or right.
I'm pretty certain that sexual attraction to children is perhaps one of the most morally wrong things anybody could think about, let alone act out. It's certainly not an unknown, as far as I can tell.
I think that sort of behaviour is absolutely morally wrong, the fact that it might be a doll simply doesn't matter, it's the mindset of it being "ok" to fantasise over having sex with children, whether it's with a doll, or even child-porn artwork (which is an offence, not sure about dolls), which is wrong.
If people think it's not morally wrong to fantasise of sex with kids, (be it dolls, artwork, whatever) then I think you have a very big problem, because I think, based on the way human beings behave, that it would progress - as it does in many cases, to real instances of child abuse.
We don't live in a perfect world, people are always looking for ways to enhance their experience, someone having sex with a child doll is merely putting off the inevitable, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 166
There's an interesting scheme that started in America... Circle of Friends, IIRC... that basically supported paedophiles leaving prison by providing a support network of people who would engage with them regularly, doing normal stuff like going out for lunch or going to the cinema. The logic was that if you release someone into exactly the same environment, without "normal" people to interact with, they'll fall into the same patterns. Obviously the "circle" of people who support them receive counselling themselves, and they also report any indication of potential re-offending - like if they see the paedophile talking to children. But the interesting thing with this scheme was that it got re-offending rates down from something like 90% to 10% (approx. - can't remember the exact figures, but they were in that league of impressive).
What that suggests to me is that if we sit down and look at the problem calmly, there's the potential to find solutions that work (at least for certain classes of offender). And if the key thing is protecting children, and if we take it as given that we aren't about to execute every sex offender, then that would seem like a good idea.
Caporegime
Things can also be morally neutral.
Maybe. Or maybe it would act as an alternative. I'm not going to pre-judge it without knowing about any research into the matter.
I don't think that sexual attraction to children is morally neutral, I think it is totally wrong.
I'm absolutely gobsmacked somebody could write that, let alone think it.