Quote:
Originally Posted by joglynne
Richard. What is your definition of a paedophile? In what way,or in what circumstances, could an adults "sexual interest in those under 16" be excused and described as acceptable?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedophile
Have you any views on grooming or is that something that you also find to be an acceptable behaviour ? |
A paedophile is someone with a sexual interest in pre pubescent children, but being a paedophile in itself is not against the law.
Where have you got the idea from that I find that child sex abuse is acceptable?
My contributions to the thread about (mainly) Asian men grooming gangs clearly demonstrate that I don't.
---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
No, what’s "incorrect" is quibbling about the difference between ephebophilia and paedophilia, as all the children involved are under the age of consent.
It’s child abuse, no matter what age the child is.
|
Correct, according to our culture & society, it's regarded as child sex abuse. However, in my example, the man concerned would not be a paedophile.
What if they ended up together and started a family of their own (I know of a family in this situation).
If people incorrectly labelled him as a paedophile and a family with toddlers lived next door, they are going to be needlessly concerned because of this sloppy use of the English language.
If someone in your home rang you to say that they had adopted a cat and you came home to find a horse in the house, I doubt that explaining it away by saying "oh well, they are both members of the animal kingdom" would wash!
---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
Hardly rocket science if they're fit to serve a normal custodial sentence they do, if they're not then they go to somewhere like Ashworth.
I'm perplexed as to why you think the onset of a mental health condition negates his prior criminal activities ?
|
Your view was obviously shared by the judicial system and, no, I don't think that the onset of dementia negates past crimes.
I was just questioning the point of imprisoning him. Our society says that prison is a means of rehabilitation rather than punishment. As he's suffering from dementia, this won't be possible because he won't know what he did in the past, where he is or why he's there. All at great cost to the taxpayer.
The only thing I can think of is that a custodial sentence may give his victims a feeling of having achieved justice for what he did to them.
I believe that such acts are dealt with in the afterlife, so he wouldn't have got away with it, but do accept that some people believe it is the end when our soul/spirit leaves our physical body, so may wish to seek justice on this physical Earth.