Well, here's the questions: How come that most people(of the ones I've talked to) that thinks that pedophiles should be castrated or even killed for their crimes say things like; "Heh, Michael Jackson will sure deserve a couple of years in prison if he's guilty."

I don't know if it is the same for you, but almost all the time I discuss this with people, they say the same thing. Why? Is it because he's famous?


Disclaimer: This is an asumtation that Jackson is guilty.

No matter who they are, I think people should treat everybody the same. Kill them, castrate them, incarcerate them. One rule for them all I say. I think the conflict comes because people like his music, and many might have his albums. As such, he isn't the nameless pervert in a mac standing around a kid's park. It's easier to hate somebody if you don't know who they are.

Hang them.

ever heard of not guilty until proven ? Just because some people claim stuff, you can't go and hang a guy. We stopped doing that ever since the Dark Ages. Let a judge decide wheter he's guilty or not.

Keep in mind there was the disclaimer that we're assuming he's guilty (which is wrong, but just for the sake of conversation).

Actually, the worst thing you can do to pedophiles is put them in prison. The guys ther have a tendency to sort of sort pedophiles out. Ever see Oz? ;)

ever heard of not guilty until proven ?Er, no. But I HAVE heard of 'Innocent until proven guilty'.


Just because some people claim stuff, you can't go and hang a guy. We stopped doing that ever since the Dark Ages.Actually we kept doing it right through the latter part of the twentieth century(less and less so but still...)!


Let a judge decide wheter he's guilty or not.Er...surely you mean JURY, not judge.

Well, I don't want to put pedophiles in prison, I want to put them on a long-term rehabilitation. Prion serves no good at all, they only take existing problems and makes them worse. Put a rapist in prison: Guess what he is gonna do, you got it right: rape!! Put a robber in prion: Gues what he is gonna do, you got it right again: rob!!


And yes, I have seen Oz. I have also seen Bad Girls and Prisoner, tow other prison-shows, but I don't support my statements with information I got from them.

Rehabilitation? Are you mad?

No he is not mad, he just agrees with EU on our punishment policy. Which is that the point of prisons is not to punish the prisoners it is to rehabilitate the prisoners to the society and get them to think about their deeds and feel regret (which I would say most of the prisoners feel).

If we talk about protecting our society then there are mental institutions where such cases are put and atleast here in Finland they stay there until they are healthy and so are no risk to the society.

EDIT: Weee 100:th post, and a new beutyful gem too. :D

You cannot rehabilitate a paedophile

You cannot rehabilitate a paedophile
Ah yes, here we have an expert on the subject, I am sure. :rolleyes:

Sarevok, putting people in hot, sweaty cells and letting them rape eachothers is not a way to stop them from continue with their crimes when they get out. Giving them a healthy living in "jail" and learning them how to get back into society is a good way.

Could anyone give me a website with statistics on prisoners who "fall back" in different countries, because I am sure that the number is much lower in Sweden or any other rehabilitation nation than in USA or any other 'cruel and unusual( :p ) punishment' country.

Caleb, the idea is very nice but the truth is that there isnt a good way to deal with the problem of criminals. Just punishing them only serves to make them worse, rehabilitating perhaps works better than one sided punishment but it is by no means a perfect way. I have worked with many pedophiles for example and the best treatments currently in existance has a 33% fallback rate. That is not acceptable. We can debate all we want what to do with the "scum" of our society but the end result still is that whatever we do it is sure to be crap.

The punishment for crime should also be a preventative for further offending. I.e. cut a thief's hands off, cut a slanderer's tounge out, cut a pedophile's... you get the idea.

But rehab. is good too. However repeat offenders should most definately be punished. Isn't punishment a form of rehabilitation too? "If you do this, THIS will happen to you. Didn't like that did you? Well don't do what you did and it won't happen again."

You cannot rehabilitate a paedophileThe Catholic Church in America certainly believed they could. The results are very public. :mad:

You cannot rehabilitate paedophiles. You can say it all you want but let’s say your little sister gets sexually abused tomorrow by a paedophile, would you still think they should be rehabilitated and let back into society to **** up more innocent children’s lives before they have even began? I think not.

The Catholic Church has protected many of these mentally ill people, and it inevitably is resulting in more children being hurt. I have no problem with trying to re-habilitate non-violent child molesters, but just like an alcoholic, they can never, ever, be trusted. They should have to wear that badge for the rest of their lives (i.e., public documentation as to where they live and work).

For those violent to children, well, prison inmates have ways of taking care of those who sexually abuse children. :jawdrop:

Darkwolf all sex offenders are listed.I can't recall the sight offhand but you can find out if there are any offenders livving in your town whenever you want.

Here in MA you can only find out about certain levels of sex offenders and you have to go to the police department to find out. Our courts have been grappling with this issue for years.

Dorion,

I didn't say they weren't. As a matter of fact, before I bought my house, I checked the registry in my state. The only problem is, like all things the gov't oversees, the lists are outdated and inacurate. :(

Er...surely you mean JURY, not judge. Now, on what godforsaken and obscure places on this earth do they still have juries ?

I didn't say they weren't. As a matter of fact, before I bought my house, I checked the registry in my state. The only problem is, like all things the gov't oversees, the lists are outdated and inacurateBut that's pretty problematic. When a listed person moves near you, your immobilia loses worth. Where should those listed persons live ? If you've done your time in jail, shouldn't you be free to move again, without notifying anyone ?

Not if you are a paedophile

*Strongly agrees with Sarevok*

I dont like pedophiles. But I cant help but to feel sorry them either. What if you are married and have kids and all and suddenly you feel that you are sexually attracted to your own kids?
Not that that would happen, but still. Imagine what they must feel like. I would be so disgusted with myself I would commit suicide.
If there is a way of rehabilitation, then I would vote for that.
Now if a pedophile *did* anything to a child, I think he/she should be sentenced to jail, just like any other person. Thats just as much harrassing as if the child was grown up.

I can't believe I'm going to do this. Sigh.

Listen, I'm going to some of you in on a little secret: Pedophlies are human too. In many cases, these are not evil people, they just have an unfortunate mixture of sickness and weakness-- they have a sexual attraction towards children and cannot resist the urge to act on that attraction. This is obviously an abhorrent crime, but let me throw out an open question: how is this worse then rapists, murderers, or even sexual harassment perpetrators? A sexual harrassment case has a great many similarities to a child molestation case; the perpetrator, usually male (as far as I know) uses some sort of power over the victim to force sexual favors out of that victim. Does the fact that the victim in this case is an adult make the crime more forgivable? Of course not; to percieve children as "more innocent" unconsciously depicts victims of other crimes as "less innocent", which is ridiculous. People are protective of their children, which leads people to demonize pedophiles far more then perpetrators of other crimes (in fact, the serial killer is being romanticized quite a bit, see Lecter, Hannibal), and this is not right. Rape is as awful a crime as any. And what crime is worse then murder?

To continue on with this line of thinking, those of you who (ignorantly) proclaim that pedophiles should be punished to a different extent then criminals of a similar nature, I ask: so what is your solution to rapists or murderers, or theives or hate criminals? Do we excecute them all nazi-style, like you would have us to to pedophilles? Should any violation of society's rules result in maiming or death? I don't believe so. I believe in rehabilitation; many criminals are, at their core, not evil people. A single indiscretion should not be the end of a person's life, especially when that person could be helped. It IS possible for many criminals to pay their debt to society, and not be a further danger to others. Of course, I'm not naive, and this is not possible for everybody, but I believet those to be the vocal minority. Now, I do believe that some repeat offenders should be dealt with approprately, and that some completely psychotic people are beyond any hope of treatment. But the idea that we, as a society, should execute everybody who violates our norms is simply barbaric.

To answer Caleb's original question, I don't believe that contempt for Michael Jackson stems from his fame combined with this alleged crime, it's the crime itself (and his strange, almost legally insane personality). People are emotionally attatched to their children in a very protective way, and thus have incredible loathing for those who seemingly lack this same feeling towards their own children. I feel the same way; defending pedophiles isn't exactly giving me a warm tingly feeling inside, but the legal system should do its best to detatch itself from emotion and focus on objectively assessing the crime and the extent and form of punishment.

You cannot rehabilitate paedophiles. You can say it all you want but let’s say your little sister gets sexually abused tomorrow by a paedophile, would you still think they should be rehabilitated and let back into society to **** up more innocent children’s lives before they have even began? I think not. Such a statement is irrelevant. If somebody raped my mother, I'd feel about the same way towards rapists. If I was black, I'd feel the same way towards the KKK. I'm sure Jews don't exactly approve of neo-naziism. But you know what? Some people are big enough to actually forgive those who have trangressed against them. Maybe you can't understand that in your blatant ignorance (I'm thinking either your posts were pretty tongue-in-cheek or your sister really WAS molested, either way I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) but there are those who are able to forgive people who have hurt them. But even if you're right, it's not the victims who decide punishment, it's the courts, and they should not be ruled by emotion, but by reason. Justice is supposed to be blind, after all.

Nazi style

People jesus, it is not spelt pedophile, it is spelt paedophile.

Actually, both spellings are correct. Paedophile is BrE, and pedophile is AmE.

Shaz -- As to your comparison of adult sexual harassers and pedophiles:

Does the fact that the victim in this case is an adult make the crime more forgivable? Of course not; to percieve children as "more innocent" unconsciously depicts victims of other crimes as "less innocent", which is ridiculous I disagree with your rationale here. An adult victim has the choice to leave the situation usually, whether it be the office or even the home. Child victims frequently have no such choice. I've read accounts of these crimes being committed against children as young as 2 and 3 years old -- how are they expected to correct the situation?? Especially if it's a parent that's the offender?? Where are they supposed to go?? This, in and of itself, makes them by far the more helpless.... and hence, the more innocent. I think it's different situations that can't be compared.

I disagree with your rationale here. An adult victim has the choice to leave the situation usually, whether it be the office or even the home. Child victims frequently have no such choice. I've read accounts of these crimes being committed against children as young as 2 and 3 years old -- how are they expected to correct the situation?? Especially if it's a parent that's the offender?? Where are they supposed to go?? This, in and of itself, makes them by far the more helpless.... and hence, the more innocent. I think it's different situations that can't be compared. I don't understand that. So, if you are over 18 and get raped, that's because it was your choice ? Or if you are shot, drowend, strangled, beaten, robbed etc., usually you would have been able to leave the situation ? Well, there could be situations, where a victim could have avoided the situation, but then I can think of many situations where escape or avoiding the situation is just impossible.

o, if you are over 18 and get raped, that's because it was your choice ? Or if you are shot, drowend, strangled, beaten, robbed etc., usually you would have been able to leave the situation ? Iago -- A child cannot avoid ANY situation -- that was my point. A 2 or 3 year old is helpless to the whims of any adult nearby. An 18 or 19 year old can use experience to perhaps avoid potential "situations" to begin with....and even in the cases where that's not possible, can use his or her wits sometimes to lessen the bad outcomes. IMO, there is NO comparison between the two. One is TOTALLY helpless, the other has a well-formed brain capable of logical thought and decision. Apples and oranges.

You know, just to play the Devil's Advocate...

Maybe it is the children's fault for being so darn sexy...

Hey, all I am saying is that if you wear over-alls with a flap specifically placed over your butt...your kinda asking for it.

It's time we let Micheal go free and start locking up these lascivious cherubs...

Iago -- A child cannot avoid ANY situation -- that was my point. A 2 or 3 year old is helpless to the whims of any adult nearby. An 18 or 19 year old can use experience to perhaps avoid potential "situations" to begin with....and even in the cases where that's not possible, can use his or her wits sometimes to lessen the bad outcomes. IMO, there is NO comparison between the two. One is TOTALLY helpless, the other has a well-formed brain capable of logical thought and decision. Apples and oranges. That's where I differ. I think the equatation is helpless victim/helpless victim. A small child is generally helpless, but an adult can come into a situation, where wits, brains and experience won't help, being helpless and defenceless, easy prey. And that situation may be not self provoked and not avoidable.

But coming back to the list. If it is so, that most children are victimized by people close to them, good family friends, parents, relatives, what is the use of a public list with people who are knwon to be paedophile, when the people that pose a far greater threat aren't on that list anyway ?

I beliive the only rehab for ALL criminals should be pain assosiaction stuff ie. you steal, we'll shock your balls.

Either that, or Chinese Revolutionary styled show trials, incredibly humiliating and damaging.

Line them up against a wall and shoot them, then people will think twice.

I would classify pedophilia alongside drug addiction. Drugs addicts and pedophiles are not criminals, exactly, but rather people with psychiatric ailments that cause them to commit crimes. That is to say that a sex offender who molests children was a pedophile BEFORE he ever commits an act of molestation. If we as a society can identify the warning signs we can help.


NOW, I am by no means saying that the crimes committed should be punished. They absolutely should. A sex offender should be placed in a prison with psychiatric resources. I am just saying that not every pedophile commits sex crimes, just like not every drunk driver kills someone on the road. But the longer a pedophile is untreated, the more likely they are to commit a crime. As like the longer some one drives drunk regularly, the more likely they are to commit vehicular manslaughter.

As long as we continue with the trend of reactionary strategies to deal with pedophilia, the crimes will never cease. We need proactive solutions; we need to apply treatment to individuals before they commit the unthinkable. Because, there are ALWAYS warning signs. It is up to the family and freinds of a pedophile, to identify the warning signs and nip them in the bud, or, they can continue the trend of turning a blind eye to the warning signs, for reasons of shame and pride.

Also: I have read numerous posts stating "you cannot rehabilitate a pedophile" It may very well be true that the pedophiliac urges will never dissapear. However, they can be rehabilitated in that they will no longer committ crimes, no longer act on the urges. ESPECIALLY if they are treated before they ever commit an act.

peadophilia is a mental illness, and it could proberly be cured if people let other people have a chance, it just becomes a viscous circle otherwise.

Damn you! (jk ;) )

Michael Jackson isn't guilty. Can't you see?
I don't like his music (at all), but people are misjudging him because of some stupid tv interview by some ****er who wanted to screw him over. Maybe he is, but I'm nearly copnvinced of him not being guilty.

peadophilia is a mental illness, and it could proberly be cured if people let other people have a chance, it just becomes a viscous circle otherwise.IMO, it is a mental illness in the same way rape is, and its impact leaves lifelong scars. Children generally do NOT recover - they are forever changed, with one of their hallmarks being the inability to trust people. I say never mind the rehabilitation - put the bastards someplace where they'll never, EVER, do it again.

He should have been arrested for his dangling-the-babe-out-of-the-window stunt if for nothing else. If that isn't child abuse, I don't know what is.

It needs to be said (or re-iterated) that there is a difference between a pedophile and a sex offender. A pedophile is someone who has sexual thoughts about minors. A sex offender is someone who acts on those sexual thoughts, or who commits other sex crimes such as rape.

Not all pedophiles are sex offenders of course. Some have enought restraint, or fear, or shame to reign in their deviant impulses. Others do not.

Thus, it is not, and can never be, illegal to be a pedophile. Save the instutution of some Orwellian-like thought police. A sex offender, however, must be punished, as an example to other would-be sex offenders.

It needs to be said (or re-iterated) that there is a difference between a pedophile and a sex offender. A pedophile is someone who has sexual thoughts about minors.From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedophilia:

ped·o·phil·i·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pd-fl-, pd-)
n.
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children