another abuser caught

[Pierre]

I have to disagree with that, because it's like saying that, for instance, someone who becomes a Monk would never be able to hold to a vow of celibacy as hetero-sexuality is *their* sexual orientation.

The trick is to help the paedophile understand that, no matter what they, personally, may feel about children, those feelings are *not* reciprocated (unless the child has been groomed/ brainwashed/ coerced) and that acting upon them *will* hurt the child and cause them suffering.

Completely different scenario and you cannot use that example. A monk/priest etc take a vow of celibacy because that is a concience decision in regards to their faith and they are willing entrants into that decision. (and by the way some fail this vow)

With a paedophile they would also need to be willing, (doubtful). and keep out of the way of temptation. (monks used to go away to monasteries). Paedophiles need to be watched all the time and we do not have the social services resource to do that.

I stand by my earlier coment that paedophiles cannot be "cured" and should not be let back into society

Originally Posted by Pierre

Completely different scenario and you cannot use that example.

"Cannot"? I just did!

A monk/priest etc take a vow of celibacy because that is a concience decision in regards to their faith and they are willing entrants into that decision. (and by the way some fail this vow)

So *why* can't a paedophile be re-educated so they *gain* back that conscience they seem to have lost? It may not work for all of them, but it's better (IMO!) than locking them up for life (and I'm sure that some of you will disagree with that!!)

With a paedophile they would also need to be willing, (doubtful).

Doubtful? Why? Got any cites to back that opinion up?

I've heard of paedophiles who are deeply ashamed of what they do and hate themselves for doing it. I would think that they would be *most* willing to do something that would make them disinclined to continue their activities.

and keep out of the way of temptation. (monks used to go away to monasteries).

Monks did not (and do not) go to monasteries *just* to "keep out of the way of temptation.

Paedophiles need to be watched all the time and we do not have the social services resource to do that.

That's like saying that murderers need to be watched all the time. It's nonsense.

I stand by my earlier coment that paedophiles cannot be "cured" and should not be let back into society

Fine, that's your *opinion*. Please excuse me if I disagree with it.

[Pierre]

That's like saying that murderers need to be watched all the time. It's nonsense.

Murderers come in many shapes and sizes, crimes of passion, bursts of anger etc. they may get put away for a several years but are unlikely to commit another murder and are usually not a continual danger to society.

The ones that plan and cold bloodedly kill people usually go away for very long time.

Serial killers (Fred West, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, Peter Sutcliffe) never come out.

Paedophiles (history shows) get about 4 years (serve 2) and then are let out, and are a danger to society. It would be interesting to see how subjective you would be if a paedophile lived next door to you and you had two young daughters. I'd bet you'd do some watching then. I would, anyone would.

Fine, that's your *opinion*. Please excuse me if I disagree with it.

No need to be excused, I value your opinion. wouldn't the world be a boring place if we all agreed.

Originally Posted by Pierre

That's like saying that murderers need to be watched all the time. It's nonsense.

So do paedophiles, however to equate murder with child molestation is a mistake and I probably shouldn't have brought it up, so let's change that to "people who commit acts of GBH" for instance, since even though the "damage" to the child may not be particularly physical, the mental effects could still be described as "grievous".

Now are you going to watch *everyone* who has got out of control and committed a serious act of GBH (which may have put someone in hospital) then been released at the end of their sentence?

Paedophiles (history shows) get about 4 years (serve 2) and then are let out, and are a danger to society. It would be interesting to see how subjective you would be if a paedophile lived next door to you and you had two young daughters. I'd bet you'd do some watching then. I would, anyone would.

May I remind you that the person *most* likely to commit abuse against a child is a parent/ close relative/ person known to and in a position of authority over that child.

I also suggest you take a look at http://home.uni-one.nl/books/howitt/7c.htm

[Pierre]

I probably shouldn't have brought it up, so let's change that to "people who commit acts of GBH" for instance

This likening of other paedophiles to other criminals is irrelevant and detracting away from my particular point that paedophiles cannot be "cured". Whilst I understand in part with your earlier point of trying to appeal to the paedophiles bettter nature and asking him politely not to violate young children - please. I personally don't find that good enough.

I believe that in some cases we can take liberalism too far, and sometimes the answer to societies problems are not PC, sometimes we have make tough decisions for the greater good. If that means that people that violate children (and let's not forget that point, these people hurt children in ways I'm sure most of us could only try, and fail, to imagine) lose their human rights. Then that is something I am willing to accept.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Serial killers (Fred West, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, Peter Sutcliffe) never come out.

You are assuming that the only reason that they are being held permanently is to punish them and protect society. You are forgetting to take into account that no government would risk releasing someone like Myra Hindley as it would cost them votes.

Originally Posted by Pierre

This likening of other paedophiles to other criminals is irrelevant and detracting away from my particular point that paedophiles cannot be "cured".

But your point, as a general sweeping statement is wrong.

Originally Posted by Pierre

This likening of other paedophiles to other criminals is irrelevant and detracting away from my particular point that paedophiles cannot be "cured".

You can, of course, prove that?

Whilst I understand in part with your earlier point of trying to appeal to the paedophiles bettter nature and asking him politely not to violate young children - please. I personally don't find that good enough.

Pierre, mis-representing what I have said and putting your own "spin" on it is *not* a way to conduct a reasoned debate.

I believe that in some cases we can take liberalism too far, and sometimes the answer to societies problems are not PC,

Ah, now we have Pierre playing the Political Correctness card, except that Political Correctness is something which which I will have no truck whatsoever

sometimes we have make tough decisions for the greater good.

Another wonderfully "political" quote...

If that means that people that violate children (and let's not forget that point, these people hurt children in ways I'm sure most of us could only try, and fail, to imagine) lose their human rights. Then that is something I am willing to accept.

Yes, and some are willing to lynch them or castrate them or even murder them. Of course if you end up with the occasional Paediatrician getting hurt in the cross-fire, I'm sure you can accept that as being regrettable, but acceptable as part of the "greater good" too...

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

fair comment but i am not sure it would work , can anyone find anything to prove or disprove this ???????????

While i'm not going to particpate in this discussion, thanks to my work, i have several articles on paedophilia, it's classification and implications for treatment if anyone is seriously interested in the debate and the current trends in possible treatment.

I'd love to post them here but can't thanks to copyright legislation and can't post links to the sites because they can only be accessed by password

If anyone would like the articles or more info feel free to pm me with your email address and i'll forward them to you


To conclude, all i will say is that it's a complicated issue with no simple solution or method of treatment, but there appear to be ways forward.

[paulyoung666]

excellent post

Originally Posted by kink

To conclude, all i will say is that it's a complicated issue with no simple solution or method of treatment, but there appear to be ways forward.

And that, for me, at least, is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Graham

And that, for me, at least, is a good thing.

Thread closed then?

Originally Posted by kink

Thread closed then?

You'd have to ask Paul.

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by Graham

You'd have to ask Paul.

nope thread still well open as far as i am concerned , i must admit to siting on the sidelines on this one , sometimes itis interesting to watch and not post

Originally Posted by Graham

You'd have to ask Paul.

Sorry graham.... i was joking and apologies to Paul too..... after much verbal shouting, i thought it was nice to end on a positive note..... but i know you have lots more to say graham as do other members....

I made my contribution before and will not make any more childish posts..... in this thread anyway

[Stuart]

While I do agree that something should be done about Paedophillia, I don't agree with the Jail for all Paedo's option that some here seem to be suggesting. Jail, in a lot of cases, doesn't stop people commiting crimes. It teaches people not to get caught. Having said that, I think schemes to educate people as to what jail is actually like (as opposed to the image the media presents which is, incidentally, wrong) do work.

I actually agree with Kink. There isn't one correct answer to this. In some cases, Jail possibly does work. In some cases, it doesn't. It's the same with other treatments.