Louis Theroux/ Paedophiles

[Phil D. Rolls]

Anyone see this excellent programme last night. I'm afraid I'm no further forward about what to do with these aberrations of humanity. It seems to me that they cannot change and that programs such as they were undergoing are futile.

[Mike777]

Anyone see this excellent programme last night. I'm afraid I'm no further forward about what to do with these aberrations of humanity. It seems to me that they cannot change and that programs such as they were undergoing are futile.


Louis Theroux certainly does know how to make a documentry. $200,000 per person per year that is unbeleivable, and 70% of them do not enter into the program it really should be compulsary for them.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Anyone see this excellent programme last night. I'm afraid I'm no further forward about what to do with these aberrations of humanity. It seems to me that they cannot change and that programs such as they were undergoing are futile.

I found it really interesting. The guy that they had found a home for probably the most interesting. He appeared completely sincere in his remorse and realisation that what he had done was wrong, but as he also said the proof that he has changed has to be in the pudding, ie he has to show he can live a normal life in society again.

Another quote I found quite striking was the man who refused to go on the program because "Nobody can see inside my head and know what I'm thinking". And it's also true. Can we ever trust these people to have changed?

As said before the only way to find out is to see how they do in society again, which in itself is a risk to society.

[col02]

I found it really interesting. The guy that they had found a home for probably the most interesting. He appeared completely sincere in his remorse and realisation that what he had done was wrong, but as he also said the proof that he has changed has to be in the pudding, ie he has to show he can live a normal life in society again.

Another quote I found quite striking was the man who refused to go on the program because "Nobody can see inside my head and know what I'm thinking". And it's also true. Can we ever trust these people to have changed?

As said before the only way to find out is to see how they do in society again, which in itself is a risk to society.

That guy was a definate for repeat offending imho as he had to change his answers a couple times before he said something incriminating against himself.

Staggering thing for me was that only 13 guys had been released from this facility from hundreds of people and that i assume was the guys who have went into treatment not the 70% who refuse to do so. I would draw from this that the softly softly approach does not work with these guys and even though there would be a few human rights activists against stronger measures i feel they do need to be implemented into Western society otherwise the problem will continue to grow and grow.

[erin-go-bragh87]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.

[Woody1985]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.

:top marks

[Phil D. Rolls]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.

They used to try to "cure" homosexuality, in fact it was classified as a mental illness till the 1970s. I came to the conclusion that you can't seperate the man from the paedophile, and that on a risk analysis you have to reckon that the behaviour will repeat itself.

At the same time, I think it's inhumane to lock a person away for being what they are. However if asked what was in the best interests of everyone on society, I'd say don't let them out.

One of the guys said that if you keep people locked up because there is a risk that they may offend again you might as well put everyone in jail. That's not logical to me.

[EH6 Hibby]

I found the program really interesting, I wasn't sure before watching it, but I like Louis Theroux. The thing that always gets me about peadophile's, is how many of them don't think they have done anything wrong.

I would agree that I don't think these men are able to change unless they go the whole hog and get castrated. It's part of who they are and I don't think they can just turn something like that off, maybe they can choose not to act on it, but if the feelings are still there, then there will always be a chance of them re-offending.

[--------]

They used to try to "cure" homosexuality, in fact it was classified as a mental illness till the 1970s. I came to the conclusion that you can't seperate the man from the paedophile, and that on a risk analysis you have to reckon that the behaviour will repeat itself.

At the same time, I think it's inhumane to lock a person away for being what they are. However if asked what was in the best interests of everyone on society, I'd say don't let them out.

One of the guys said that if you keep people locked up because there is a risk that they may offend again you might as well put everyone in jail. That's not logical to me.


Yes - but what he didn't say was that there's a very much higher risk that a convicted child sex abuser (or any other recidivist convict) will re-offend than in the case of people without criminal convictions.

In the case of the child sexual abuser, the likelihood appears to be 100% or very near it.

It was an interesting program - Theroux always is - but I did get the feeling that the therapists (as well as the rapists) were kidding themselves.

[JE89]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.

Exactly what I thought watching it :top marks

[hibiedude]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.

You make a very good points mate, Louis Theroux was great with his questions, for those who didn't see it check the BBC Iplayer.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.

I wouldn't say that is controversial at all. The reason they do it is they think its natural and therefore ok. I pity these guys as they can't help feeling the way they do, but on the other hand, because of that can they really be risked being reintigrated as part of our society?

[lyonhibs]

I wouldn't say that is controversial at all. The reason they do it is they think its natural and therefore ok. I pity these guys as they can't help feeling the way they do, but on the other hand, because of that can they really be risked being reintigrated as part of our society?

No, no 1 thousand times no. I would go further into my feelings about the depravity of paedophiles crimes and what I consider a fitting punishment for them, but I might get a tad involved and say something regretful!!!

[greenlex]

Off with there bits. Remove their sex drives. Its the only way.

[hibsdaft]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.

not controversial at all.

wished i'd seen this programme, his documentary in a normal US prison last year was incredible.

one question though, which was maybe covered in the programme - would castration actually work ? so many paedo's are supposed to have been abused themselves surely its a mental thing in some way, so without the sex drive maybe they would still be motivated to do some of these things :confused::confused:

[Chez]

Yes - but what he didn't say was that there's a very much higher risk that a convicted child sex abuser (or any other recidivist convict) will re-offend than in the case of people without criminal convictions.

In the case of the child sexual abuser, the likelihood appears to be 100% or very near it.

It was an interesting program - Theroux always is - but I did get the feeling that the therapists (as well as the rapists) were kidding themselves.

:agree: In the sense of looking at one's sexual behaviour and working to eliminate that - yes, they're kidding themselves on. In truth, the real reason they do what they do is to have power over people - usually people who are vulnerable and they can find power over them easy. Until the therapists focus on why such offenders need this kind of power, then it will continue to remain in society.

[Chuckie]

Anyone else think that Mr Kitchens looked like he'd be cracking company over a few pints ?

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.

Spot on.

There are many differing sexual niches in the world - some people like to wear nappies and some like to have a stilleto in their mouth. Some, unfortunately, like Kids. It is an absolute moral minefield but the children must be protected first and foremost.

I agree with other posters on here - you will never 'cure' paedophilia.

[GhostofBolivar]

Yes - but what he didn't say was that there's a very much higher risk that a convicted child sex abuser (or any other recidivist convict) will re-offend than in the case of people without criminal convictions.

In the case of the child sexual abuser, the likelihood appears to be 100% or very near it.

It was an interesting program - Theroux always is - but I did get the feeling that the therapists (as well as the rapists) were kidding themselves.

Yes, but it's still unnerving that the US legal system sees fit to lock people up not for what they have done, but for what they might do. There were more people in that documentary than just the offenders I'd avoid. The head psychologist was positively creepy.

Theroux, I find, can be a bit hit or miss. His programme on gamblers in Las Vegas was mediocre, as was his venture into the world of crime and law enforcement in Philadelphia. In these cases his schtick comes unstuck. He works by feigning ignorance about the situations he finds himself in and pretends to find people's mindsets incomprehensible, which gets people to open up to him because he comes across as non-judgemental and genuinely interested in them.

But too many people gamble and have been to Vegas for that to work well and exploration of inner city drug culture has already been done, magnificently, by David Simon and Ed Burns. Pretending to be naive in these situations makes him come across as irritating, rather than as a vessel for the viewer's own ignorance.

When he gets it right, though, as in the programmes about San Quentin and Coalinga, it works very, very well.

[erin-go-bragh87]

Yes, but it's still unnerving that the US legal system sees fit to lock people up not for what they have done, but for what they might do. There were more people in that documentary than just the offenders I'd avoid. The head psychologist was positively creepy.

Theroux, I find, can be a bit hit or miss. His programme on gamblers in Las Vegas was mediocre, as was his venture into the world of crime and law enforcement in Philadelphia. In these cases his schtick comes unstuck. He works by feigning ignorance about the situations he finds himself in and pretends to find people's mindsets incomprehensible, which gets people to open up to him because he comes across as non-judgemental and genuinely interested in them.

But too many people gamble and have been to Vegas for that to work well and exploration of inner city drug culture has already been done, magnificently, by David Simon. Pretending to be naive in these situations makes him come across as irritating, rather than as a vessel for the viewer's own ignorance.

When he gets it right, though, as in the programmes about San Quentin and Coalinga, it works very, very well.

:top marks
Also enjoyed the programme he did about that american hardline christian family who were protesting about gays and abortion and were just generaly a wee bit mental, the way he seemed to take a sort of non-judgemental interest in them made them tell him things that they would have otherwise kept quiet.

As in his latest programme, you feel that his fake naievity seems to make these people want to show off to him.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes - but what he didn't say was that there's a very much higher risk that a convicted child sex abuser (or any other recidivist convict) will re-offend than in the case of people without criminal convictions.

In the case of the child sexual abuser, the likelihood appears to be 100% or very near it.

It was an interesting program - Theroux always is - but I did get the feeling that the therapists (as well as the rapists) were kidding themselves.

I guess that was my point. Not everyone offends, but those who have offended - especially in a crime which is driven by the person's sense of self - is surely more likely to re-offend. The guy was just wrong in what he was saying, choosing to use a Freudian argument that we are driven by unconscious motives which we aren't aware of.

On the castration thing, I don't think that would make any difference. There's a lot more to the sexual act than just gratification. I don't think you can seperate mind and body so easily, and the abusers would find another way to express their desires.

[--------]

Yes, but it's still unnerving that the US legal system sees fit to lock people up not for what they have done, but for what they might do. There were more people in that documentary than just the offenders I'd avoid. The head psychologist was positively creepy.

Theroux, I find, can be a bit hit or miss. His programme on gamblers in Las Vegas was mediocre, as was his venture into the world of crime and law enforcement in Philadelphia. In these cases his schtick comes unstuck. He works by feigning ignorance about the situations he finds himself in and pretends to find people's mindsets incomprehensible, which gets people to open up to him because he comes across as non-judgemental and genuinely interested in them.

But too many people gamble and have been to Vegas for that to work well and exploration of inner city drug culture has already been done, magnificently, by David Simon. Pretending to be naive in these situations makes him come across as irritating, rather than as a vessel for the viewer's own ignorance.

When he gets it right, though, as in the programmes about San Quentin and Coalinga, it works very, very well.


When I say Theroux is interesting, that's exactly what I mean, no more, no less. He's not in the class of Simon or Pilger by a very long way.

I agree about the psychologists, btw - I've met quite a few in my time and never yet met one who didn't make my flesh crawl. Same goes for psychoanalysts and psychiatrists too.

So waht IS the answer when on the one hand one has deep reservations about the concept of locking people up without term for something they haven't done, but which they might do, but at the same time an equally deep concern to protect children?

Although most children are harmed most by the people in their immediate family....

[ArabHibee]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.
Watched this on iplayer today and found it very interesting. My thoughts on the matter, chop their bits off and let them bleed to death. Waste of money letting these kind of people live. Society would be better off without them.

[GhostofBolivar]

Coincidentally(?) The Independent printed an article about Broadmoor yesterday. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-inside-broadmoor-1671673.html)

An interesting read which raises many of the same issues as Theroux.

[GhostofBolivar]

Although most children are harmed most by the people in their immediate family....

Tell me about it... :wink:

[JennaFletcher]

Interesting thread. I absolutely love Louis Theroux but I somehow managed to miss his documentary. Anyways, I'm agreeing with a lot of people on here. I believe that rapists and pedophiles deserve no respect and should literally be punished in the worst way possible. A leopard never changes it's spots and no amount of 'therapy' will ever cure these b&*^%rds and they should pay for what they've done and not by going in a cushty prison... they need to be castrated.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 5) says that
'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' however, I think that if people rape or sexually assault others there should be some sort of 'eye for an eye' type punishment

[JennaFletcher]

Watched this on iplayer today and found it very interesting. My thoughts on the matter, chop their bits off and let them bleed to death. Waste of money letting these kind of people live. Society would be better off without them.

:top marks

[Phil D. Rolls]

Interesting thread. I absolutely love Louis Theroux but I somehow managed to miss his documentary. Anyways, I'm agreeing with a lot of people on here. I believe that rapists and pedophiles deserve no respect and should literally be punished in the worst way possible. A leopard never changes it's spots and no amount of 'therapy' will ever cure these b&*^%rds and they should pay for what they've done and not by going in a cushty prison... they need to be castrated.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 5) says that
'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' however, I think that if people rape or sexually assault others there should be some sort of 'eye for an eye' type punishment

Hear what you're saying. However, I feel that when you use the "eye for an eye" approach, you're effectively saying you are the same as the the person being punished. You bring yourself down to their level.

I don't know what the answer is in this case though. The thing about the show was that my own sense of humanity was confused by the fact that these were clearly human people who had acted in an inhuman way. I wouldn't want to be inhumane to anyone. I hate to say it, but I think locking them up until we can be certain they won't do it again is as good as we'll get.

As for the psychologists, I agree with Doddie. I reckon they are ghouls who get their kicks out of observing human misery, and who like to see human beings as objects or organisms that they can discuss without any acknowledgement of the fact that we are emotional beings. My experience of psychiatrists is different, at least they want to help people deal with their demons.

[BravestHibs]

Watched this on iplayer today and found it very interesting. My thoughts on the matter, chop their bits off and let them bleed to death. Waste of money letting these kind of people live. Society would be better off without them.

I appreciate this is an emotive topic and I'm in no way defending paedophiles or paedophilia however, the above kind of comment doesn't help anyone. It's the type of mindset that leads to genocide. If someone doesn't fit into accepted norms lets kill them. Isn't that what Hitler tried to do?

Also a question that I don't think has been raised yet. At what point do you go from pity to seething hatred with these people? As they mentioned in the documentary they have all been abused as children, now I'm assuming here but nobody hates abused children do they? They are the ones that are more likely to offend however, now, I'm not saying everyone who's been abused will offend but there has been research which proves that they are alot more likely to than someone who hasn't been abused. So at what point in an abused child's life should the pity turn to hatred? Is at the point where that poor damaged child hits puberty and finds that the damage done to their brains whilst growing up is irreperable and that they now find themselves with the same urges as their abuser? Is it at the point where they find that they can't contain their urges and actually embark on abuse themselves?

Obviously I don't have the answers but I think the people who bay for blood in such an inconsidered and blinkered way, are as, if not more dangerous than the beasts themselves. All the threat of violence will do is push them underground where monitoring is impossible.

What I'm about to say may not be popular but I think that in order to move forward with the treatment of these mentally ill people then we have to remove the stigma so that people are more likely to come forward for treatment. Whether the treatment is futile or not.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I appreciate this is an emotive topic and I'm in no way defending paedophiles or paedophilia however, the above kind of comment doesn't help anyone. It's the type of mindset that leads to genocide. If someone doesn't fit into accepted norms lets kill them. Isn't that what Hitler tried to do?

Also a question that I don't think has been raised yet. At what point do you go from pity to seething hatred with these people? As they mentioned in the documentary they have all been abused as children, now I'm assuming here but nobody hates abused children do they? They are the ones that are more likely to offend however, now, I'm not saying everyone who's been abused will offend but there has been research which proves that they are alot more likely to than someone who hasn't been abused. So at what point in an abused child's life should the pity turn to hatred? Is at the point where that poor damaged child hits puberty and finds that the damage done to their brains whilst growing up is irreperable and that they now find themselves with the same urges as their abuser? Is it at the point where they find that they can't contain their urges and actually embark on abuse themselves?

Obviously I don't have the answers but I think the people who bay for blood in such an inconsidered and blinkered way, are as, if not more dangerous than the beasts themselves. All the threat of violence will do is push them underground where monitoring is impossible.

What I'm about to say may not be popular but I think that in order to move forward with the treatment of these mentally ill people then we have to remove the stigma so that people are more likely to come forward for treatment. Whether the treatment is futile or not.

:top marks

These people need help. Yes they should be punished as a criminal in a jail, but support needs to be provided. Psychologically this behaviour is ok to them, and they need to realise that it is not ok. As mentioned above, these people were once victims themselves.

[ArabHibee]

I appreciate this is an emotive topic and I'm in no way defending paedophiles or paedophilia however, the above kind of comment doesn't help anyone. It's the type of mindset that leads to genocide. If someone doesn't fit into accepted norms lets kill them. Isn't that what Hitler tried to do?

Also a question that I don't think has been raised yet. At what point do you go from pity to seething hatred with these people? As they mentioned in the documentary they have all been abused as children, now I'm assuming here but nobody hates abused children do they? They are the ones that are more likely to offend however, now, I'm not saying everyone who's been abused will offend but there has been research which proves that they are alot more likely to than someone who hasn't been abused. So at what point in an abused child's life should the pity turn to hatred? Is at the point where that poor damaged child hits puberty and finds that the damage done to their brains whilst growing up is irreperable and that they now find themselves with the same urges as their abuser? Is it at the point where they find that they can't contain their urges and actually embark on abuse themselves?

Obviously I don't have the answers but I think the people who bay for blood in such an inconsidered and blinkered way, are as, if not more dangerous than the beasts themselves. All the threat of violence will do is push them underground where monitoring is impossible.

What I'm about to say may not be popular but I think that in order to move forward with the treatment of these mentally ill people then we have to remove the stigma so that people are more likely to come forward for treatment. Whether the treatment is futile or not.
I may have missed something but I don't remember all of them saying they were abused as children. Aren't you tarring people who have been abused as children with the same brush - that they will turn into paedophiles?
And thanks for classing me as more dangerous than a paedophile - have a word with yourself, ffs!!


:top marks

These people need help. Yes they should be punished as a criminal in a jail, but support needs to be provided. Psychologically this behaviour is ok to them, and they need to realise that it is not ok. As mentioned above, these people were once victims themselves.
I understand what your saying, but watching this documentary, I felt that the guys who were in the rehabilitation programme were saying what they had to say to hopefully get out of the place. They freaked me out, they admitted what they've done, they serve no purpose on this earth. Get rid.

[Removed]

Interesting debate, didn't see the programme myself but may watch now if still available on iplayer. Didn't know there was a direct correlation between being abused as a child and being a paedophile, has this been proved by anyone?

If it is true, then the only way to stop it is castrate the offenders so they stop abusing (if that works :dunno:) or remove them from society, period, lethal injection or lock them up forever. That will stop the abuse, so no more paedophiles in the future, or as I suspect the link is fairly tenuous and it's not so much about being abused as a child as being a pervert, so ArabHibee's suggestion in that case is fairly sensible.

[Removed]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.

What about a spanker? :slipper: Can they become a non spanker or vice versa?

[GlesgaeHibby]

I may have missed something but I don't remember all of them saying they were abused as children. Aren't you tarring people who have been abused as children with the same brush - that they will turn into paedophiles?
And thanks for classing me as more dangerous than a paedophile - have a word with yourself, ffs!!


I understand what your saying, but watching this documentary, I felt that the guys who were in the rehabilitation programme were saying what they had to say to hopefully get out of the place. They freaked me out, they admitted what they've done, they serve no purpose on this earth. Get rid.

Thats getting a bit deep. What purpose do any of us serve on this earth?

Having watched that, it is clear that some of them will never change BUT I genuinely believe some of them can change.

[ArabHibee]

Thats getting a bit deep. What purpose do any of us serve on this earth?

Having watched that, it is clear that some of them will never change BUT I genuinely believe some of them can change.

Good for you, I love the happy clapper brigade :applause:

[GhostofBolivar]

Interesting debate, didn't see the programme myself but may watch now if still available on iplayer. Didn't know there was a direct correlation between being abused as a child and being a paedophile, has this been proved by anyone?

If it is true, then the only way to stop it is castrate the offenders so they stop abusing (if that works :dunno:) or remove them from society, period, lethal injection or lock them up forever. That will stop the abuse, so no more paedophiles in the future, or as I suspect the link is fairly tenuous and it's not so much about being abused as a child as being a pervert, so ArabHibee's suggestion in that case is fairly sensible.

So all child abusers are repeat offenders known to the police?

[BravestHibs]

I may have missed something but I don't remember all of them saying they were abused as children. Aren't you tarring people who have been abused as children with the same brush - that they will turn into paedophiles?
And thanks for classing me as more dangerous than a paedophile - have a word with yourself, ffs!!


Have a word with YOURself. I half expected the righteous indignation to get wheeled out. And you delivered.

If you can read then you would have seen that I went to great pains to highlight the fact that it's exactly what I wasn't doing. Look, I've highlighted the bit where I said the exact opposite of how you understood it;

"They are the ones that are more likely to offend however, now, I'm not saying everyone who's been abused will offend but there has been research which proves that they are alot more likely to than someone who hasn't been abused."

Where in that paragraph do you see me "tarring" abused children children with the same brush? Hm? The above paragraph is a statement of fact.

It appears to me that instead of reading and understanding what I said you had a reply in your mind that you were going to use regardless. You don't strike me as the type of person who is open to differing opinions.

I'm not saying that I have the answers but I do know is that convening a mob and going out with flaming torches died out in the middle ages when the commonly held belief was that the earth was flat.

Now what does that tell you Arab?

[--------]

Have a word with YOURself. I half expected the righteous indignation to get wheeled out. And you delivered.

If you can read then you would have seen that I went to great pains to highlight the fact that it's exactly what I wasn't doing. Look, I've highlighted the bit where I said the exact opposite of how you understood it;

"They are the ones that are more likely to offend however, now, I'm not saying everyone who's been abused will offend but there has been research which proves that they are alot more likely to than someone who hasn't been abused."

Where in that paragraph do you see me "tarring" abused children children with the same brush? Hm? The above paragraph is a statement of fact.

It appears to me that instead of reading and understanding what I said you had a reply in your mind that you were going to use regardless. You don't strike me as the type of person who is open to differing opinions.

I'm not saying that I have the answers but I do know is that convening a mob and going out with flaming torches died out in the middle ages when the commonly held belief was that the earth was flat.

Now what does that tell you Arab?


As I read your post, I understood you to be saying that most convicted paedophiles have a history of having been abused as children - not that abused children grow up to be paedophiles.

And without in any way condoning or excusing the abuse of children, sexual or otherwise, I totally agree with you about the danger of lynch-mobs with torches setting out to deal with whoever happens to be Public Enemy of the Week. Unfortunately, such mobs weren't confined to the Middle Ages - there was an absolute doozy took place on 9/10 November 1938, and I believe that lynch-mob parties have been extremely popular in the Southern States of the US of A, especially among the Brethren and Sistern of the Fellowship of the Pointy Hoods, almost right up to the present day.

The danger of these people increases exponentially with their ignorance. Didn't one group of "concerned citizens" (aka "morons") try to burn a PAEDIATRICIAN out of her home a few years back? You really couldn't make it up.

Children who have been abused need effective help. Some receive that help, others do not. Child abusers need to be stopped from abusing; how this is to be done, I don't know. The horrible fact is that most children who are sexually abused are abused by a close blood relative, usually a man, occasionally a woman. Where abuse is long-term, there will be family members aware of that abuse, who know but do nothing, thereby becoming accomplices in the abuse.

Your observation that the threat of violence simply forces abusers to go underground is a valid one; I would go further and say that socially-condoned violence against sexual offenders probably gives them a sense of justification - they see themselves as members of an abused and persecuted minority, rather than as offenders who have done great damage to the children they've abused.

[ArabHibee]

Ok brave boy, lets go through this bit by bit for you. You posted below:


I appreciate this is an emotive topic and I'm in no way defending paedophiles or paedophilia however, the above kind of comment doesn't help anyone. It's the type of mindset that leads to genocide. If someone doesn't fit into accepted norms lets kill them. Isn't that what Hitler tried to do?

Also a question that I don't think has been raised yet. At what point do you go from pity to seething hatred with these people? As they mentioned in the documentary they have all been abused as children, now I'm assuming here but nobody hates abused children do they? They are the ones that are more likely to offend however, now, I'm not saying everyone who's been abused will offend but there has been research which proves that they are alot more likely to than someone who hasn't been abused. So at what point in an abused child's life should the pity turn to hatred? Is at the point where that poor damaged child hits puberty and finds that the damage done to their brains whilst growing up is irreperable and that they now find themselves with the same urges as their abuser? Is it at the point where they find that they can't contain their urges and actually embark on abuse themselves?

Obviously I don't have the answers but I think the people who bay for blood in such an inconsidered and blinkered way, are as, if not more dangerous than the beasts themselves. All the threat of violence will do is push them underground where monitoring is impossible.

What I'm about to say may not be popular but I think that in order to move forward with the treatment of these mentally ill people then we have to remove the stigma so that people are more likely to come forward for treatment. Whether the treatment is futile or not.

I highlighted the bit in bold above and then posted:


I may have missed something but I don't remember all of them saying they were abused as children. Aren't you tarring people who have been abused as children with the same brush - that they will turn into paedophiles?
And thanks for classing me as more dangerous than a paedophile - have a word with yourself, ffs!!
The point I was trying to make was I'm pretty sure there was no reference to all the people who were interviewed admitting being abused as children. I believe that you are making that up.

You then go on to spout the following:


Have a word with YOURself. I half expected the righteous indignation to get wheeled out. And you delivered.

If you can read then you would have seen that I went to great pains to highlight the fact that it's exactly what I wasn't doing. Look, I've highlighted the bit where I said the exact opposite of how you understood it;

"They are the ones that are more likely to offend however, now, I'm not saying everyone who's been abused will offend but there has been research which proves that they are alot more likely to than someone who hasn't been abused."

Where in that paragraph do you see me "tarring" abused children children with the same brush? Hm? The above paragraph is a statement of fact.

It appears to me that instead of reading and understanding what I said you had a reply in your mind that you were going to use regardless. You don't strike me as the type of person who is open to differing opinions.

I'm not saying that I have the answers but I do know is that convening a mob and going out with flaming torches died out in the middle ages when the commonly held belief was that the earth was flat.

Now what does that tell you Arab?

If I've picked up some of what you've said incorrectly then I apologise. What I don't appreciate is the personal insults highlighted in red above. You don't know me, same as I don't know you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't agree with mob mentality but IMO these cretins do not deserve to live after what they have done (and admitted doing) to defenceless human beings. If you want to pander to them, be my guest.

[The Green Goblin]

I don't agree with mob mentality but IMO these cretins do not deserve to live after what they have done (and admitted doing) to defenceless human beings. If you want to pander to them, be my guest.

Aha, the death penalty! Shall we open this very large extra can of worms here or start another thread?

GG

[GlesgaeHibby]

I don't agree with mob mentality but IMO these cretins do not deserve to live after what they have done (and admitted doing) to defenceless human beings.

Who are we to decide who deserves to live or not?

Killing is against the Law and is taught to be wrong, but it can be ok as a punishment?

Paedophilia is a mental problem. If we can help these people see that, after they have been/during their punishement for the crime, then surely that is a good thing?

[CropleyWasGod]

Who are we to decide who deserves to live or not?

Killing is against the Law and is taught to be wrong, but it can be ok as a punishment?

Paedophilia is a mental problem. If we can help these people see that, after they have been/during their punishement for the crime, then surely that is a good thing?

I agree with all of this, but would go further. Convicted paedophiles are a useful resource to society if kept alive. That way, as medical science improves and we are better able to understand the human mind, we will be in a better position to know why abuse starts; better still, we may be able to break that cycle.

By killing them off, that would be a lost opportunity.

[Hibby D]

Im going to be a bit contraversial her and say that when it comes to someones sexual tendencies I dont think they can be changed. I dont think you could talk a straight person gay or a gay person straight. I think its in these peoples heads like its in my head that I like women and no ammount of programmes are going to change that, therefor they should be loccked up and never let out.

Not controversial at all - you're opinion is probably that of the majority. for me I'm simply at a loss :dunno: There are different levels of paedophillia just like there are different levels of murder - some more brutal than others - but ultimately all are unacceptable crimes.

I guess the question is are any of these "levels" forgiveable?


Good for you, I love the happy clapper brigade :applause:

Why so disrespectful and dismissive of his opinion? :confused: GH is expressing his belief that not all of these offenders are beyond repair and redemption. Even if just one of those men featured on the programme goes on to live a life free of repeated behaviour then surely that is a good thing?



When he gets it right, though, as in the programmes about San Quentin and Coalinga, it works very, very well.

I agree :agree: - LT is as frustrating as he is charming. There are times when he's very predictable in his approach to his subjects and not all of them are as open as we'd like them to be.

I often wonder how much of his filming ends up on the cutting room floor/

[Darth Hibbie]

Should this guy ever be allowed back out.

**********************
THE leader of a nationwide paedophile porn ring has been snared with Scotland's most sickening haul of computer images.
Police raiding Robert Rankin's Ayr home found 50,902 still images of youngsters being sexually abused and 1148 video images.

Rankin had 112 grade five still images on his computer, laptop and discs - the most severe type of child porn. He also had 28 level five videos.
But it was the guide to abusing infants which most sickened detectives who investigated him.

Depute Fiscal Brian Maguire told Ayr Sheriff Court: "One particular video was of babies below the age of 12 months being sexually abused with instruction on how they could be sexually abused and how that could be hidden from view."
************************

Tend to agree that the death penalty is not the answer. But one someone has committed one of these crimes they should not be allowed to pose a risk to our children

[matty_f]

Should this guy ever be allowed back out.

**********************
THE leader of a nationwide paedophile porn ring has been snared with Scotland's most sickening haul of computer images.
Police raiding Robert Rankin's Ayr home found 50,902 still images of youngsters being sexually abused and 1148 video images.

Rankin had 112 grade five still images on his computer, laptop and discs - the most severe type of child porn. He also had 28 level five videos.
But it was the guide to abusing infants which most sickened detectives who investigated him.

Depute Fiscal Brian Maguire told Ayr Sheriff Court: "One particular video was of babies below the age of 12 months being sexually abused with instruction on how they could be sexually abused and how that could be hidden from view."
************************

Tend to agree that the death penalty is not the answer. But one someone has committed one of these crimes they should not be allowed to pose a risk to our children

Your point at the bottom - totally agree that the death penalty isn't the answer but there's always a "but"...

As a parent of two kids under 6 (and soon to be three under 6 in the next week and half or so), reading that 'crime sheet' is absolutely sickening.

In fact, sickening doesn't do it justice.

That is someone that should never set foot outside a prison for the rest of his days.

And I do hope (of course, depending on whether or not he's found guilty, which isn't clear from the quoted piece) that when he's in jail he is violated as uncomfortably and as often as possible. By sharp, jaggy things. Big, sharp, jaggy things.

Apologies if that makes me a bad person.

[Darth Hibbie]

Your point at the bottom - totally agree that the death penalty isn't the answer but there's always a "but"...

As a parent of two kids under 6 (and soon to be three under 6 in the next week and half or so), reading that 'crime sheet' is absolutely sickening.

In fact, sickening doesn't do it justice.

That is someone that should never set foot outside a prison for the rest of his days.

And I do hope (of course, depending on whether or not he's found guilty, which isn't clear from the quoted piece) that when he's in jail he is violated as uncomfortably and as often as possible. By sharp, jaggy things. Big, sharp, jaggy things.

Apologies if that makes me a bad person.

Yes he was found guilty. He was told to expect to go to jail, however the judge is still awaiting reports to determine the length

And no that does not make you a bad person.

[Hainan Hibs]

**********************
THE leader of a nationwide paedophile porn ring has been snared with Scotland's most sickening haul of computer images.
Police raiding Robert Rankin's Ayr home found 50,902 still images of youngsters being sexually abused and 1148 video images.

Rankin had 112 grade five still images on his computer, laptop and discs - the most severe type of child porn. He also had 28 level five videos.
But it was the guide to abusing infants which most sickened detectives who investigated him.

Depute Fiscal Brian Maguire told Ayr Sheriff Court: "One particular video was of babies below the age of 12 months being sexually abused with instruction on how they could be sexually abused and how that could be hidden from view."
************************

**** like that don't deserve life to be honest. But then lethal injection is too easy for these ******s, I'd let them rot away in the ****tiest of jails.

[ArabHibee]

Aha, the death penalty! Shall we open this very large extra can of worms here or start another thread?

GG
No point in opening this can of worms. The reason these people on the documentary admitted what they had done is because they thought they would get a jail sentence and let out. Obviously this didn't work as they ended up in this place. If they knew the death penalty was an option for the judge, they would still be denying that they had done anything.


Who are we to decide who deserves to live or not?

Killing is against the Law and is taught to be wrong, but it can be ok as a punishment?

Paedophilia is a mental problem. If we can help these people see that, after they have been/during their punishement for the crime, then surely that is a good thing? Help them see it all they want, it doesn't detract from the sickening things that they have done. Watching the programme, when you heard them talk, especially the ones in the "programme" it was all pyscho babble and easy to interpret that its what the staff want to hear from them. Anything to get let out. My opinion (which I am entitled to, as are you of yours) is that once someone does something like this, you can't change them. Yes, killing them may be an easy option as I would like to see them rot in jail/mental hospital for a long time, but why waste the money on them. Economic crisis and all that.

[Woody1985]

Who are we to decide who deserves to live or not?

Killing is against the Law and is taught to be wrong, but it can be ok as a punishment?

Paedophilia is a mental problem. If we can help these people see that, after they have been/during their punishement for the crime, then surely that is a good thing?

I hate it when this is used as an excuse. People who kill people generally have mental problems. NO **** SHERLOCK. Paedos cannot be rehabillitated IMO.

People use this as an excuse far too often IMO. People get lesser sentences etc because they have a 'mental problem'.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I hate it when this is used as an excuse. People who kill people generally have mental problems. NO **** SHERLOCK. Paedos cannot be rehabillitated IMO.

People use this as an excuse far too often IMO. People get lesser sentences etc because they have a 'mental problem'.

I at no point said it was an excuse. I have maintained that punishment is necessary, but helping them to try and change is surely worth a go after they have been punished? There is clearly something not right in their minds, and if this can be fixed then it benefits them and us.

[Woody1985]

I at no point said it was an excuse. I have maintained that punishment is necessary, but helping them to try and change is surely worth a go after they have been punished? There is clearly something not right in their minds, and if this can be fixed then it benefits them and us.

Fair enough. But I do think that it is widely used as an excuse, especially in legal proceedings.

I don't think they can be 'fixed'. People's sexual tendencies cannot be changed IMO.

Would you seriously be happy with a convicted paedo sitting with you and your children because they have gone through a rehab type programme and passed by a doctor?

For info, I don't have any kids.

[EH6 Hibby]

Fair enough. But I do think that it is widely used as an excuse, especially in legal proceedings.

I don't think they can be 'fixed'. People's sexual tendencies cannot be changed IMO.

Would you seriously be happy with a convicted paedo sitting with you and your children because they have gone through a rehab type programme and passed by a doctor?

For info, I don't have any kids.

I would agree with that, I don't think any amount of counselling would be able to turn a straight man gay or vice versa, so why do we think it's possible to change Paedophiles?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Good for you, I love the happy clapper brigade :applause:

[/QUOTE]
Can I just interject at this point, as the person who started the thread?

I'm impressed by how balanced an mature this debate has been. I think some people need to read a bit more about the subject though, if they want to argue their point in a sensible manner, rather than reverting to predictable responses.

I don't mind people saying that something won't work, or that something else will, but when people are discussing concepts like humanity, they could at least have the decency to attempt to understand the issues a bit more deeply.

Calling people names gets us no-where, and it's disrespectful to dismiss others views in such a flippant manner. If the answers were as simple as cutting their gonads off, or slowly letting them bleed to death, don't you think that would be tried?

Few people would want children to suffer, and we're all trying to find an answer to how to stop the abuse. The punishements that have been used up until now just don't work, because people continue to abuse kids, and new abusers continue to emerge.

Since cans of worms keep being mentioned, can I reccommend this excellent piece of evidence based work? If anyone has any doubt about the link between childhood abuse, and becoming an abuser this booklet should go some way towards resolving those doubts.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/07143029/0

[BravestHibs]

If I've picked up some of what you've said incorrectly then I apologise. What I don't appreciate is the personal insults highlighted in red above. You don't know me, same as I don't know you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't agree with mob mentality but IMO these cretins do not deserve to live after what they have done (and admitted doing) to defenceless human beings. If you want to pander to them, be my guest.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion you're right. But what you seem to be saying is that I'm not entitled to hold an opinion about your opinions? Is that right?

Also, the fact that I don't know you and that you don't know me should, logically exclude us from being able forming personal opinions about each other is that not also right?

It seems to me that when someone is backed into a corner and has been called on something such as your hugely progressive thoughts on a solution to a problem such as this one then it is the stock fallback to say "I'm entitled to my opinions"/"You're getting personal"
It gets very boring after a while. And in my opinion highlights a lack of intellect. As does "cut their balls off and let them bleed to death."
Perhaps you're just out of your depth with this discussion.


You also seemed to bypass every single point I was trying to make in order to focus on things that have no relevance to the discussion we're having. The posts you've been making have a charmingly childlike quality to them in their lack of depth and structure. That is just an opinion by the way, is it allowed?

Nearly forgot actually, where do I say that I want to pander to paedophiles? I believe that you're making that up.

Yours in kindness,

Brave boy. xx

[Dashing Bob S]

My understanding of current research on this issue is that while the vast majority of paedophilles do reoffend, some have been successfully rehabilitated by use of cognitive behaviour therapy. The key to this seems to be level of personal contrition shown for this sort of offence. It's reckoned that this determines the candidaters suitability for treatment, and likelihood of success.

While most people's instincts, including mine, are fundamentally fascist ones based on either ignoring the issue, or exterminating the perpetrators, the sobering truth is that this has probably always been with us, and won't go away unless we try to understand it and confront it.

Obviously, the overriding issue has to be the safety of children. But I'd rather trust that safety, for all its flaws, with the professionals, who are paid and trained to assess such risks, than lynchmobs advocated disproportionately by lawless simpletons, who seem to be working out other needs in striving to belong to such groupings.

[Phil D. Rolls]

OK, why was my post removed? I don't think it was offensive and I'm a wee bit confused. Sorry, I realise it was for quoting from a deleted post. At the same time, I think that you might be guilty of stifling debate here. I think ArabHibby had a valid point to make, although the way he's gone about it wasn't appropriate. Is there no way round this sort of thing?

[marinello59]

OK, why was my post removed? I don't think it was offensive and I'm a wee bit confused.

It wasn't
I had removed the post you quoted so unfortunately yours went with it. I am very confused on a permanent basis.


Ah, you edited your original post quickly.
Arabhibby is welcome to remake her point at any time.

[Dashing Bob S]

Fair enough. But I do think that it is widely used as an excuse, especially in legal proceedings.

I don't think they can be 'fixed'. People's sexual tendencies cannot be changed IMO.

Would you seriously be happy with a convicted paedo sitting with you and your children because they have gone through a rehab type programme and passed by a doctor?

For info, I don't have any kids.

I don't think that paedophillia is a 'sexual tendancy' like, say, heterosexuality or homosexuality. In fact, to describe it as such is to unwittingly normalise it.

It's more akin to rape or other forms of sexual abuse or dysfunctional behaviour. This is supported by the fact that most people are 'made' paedophilles (through previous sexual abuse leading to inappropriate sexual development) rather than being 'born' that way.

[ArabHibee]

I don't think that paedophillia is a 'sexual tendancy' like, say, heterosexuality or homosexuality. In fact, to describe it as such is to unwittingly normalise it.

It's more akin to rape or other forms of sexual abuse or dysfunctional behaviour. This is supported by the fact that most people are 'made' paedophilles (through previous sexual abuse leading to inappropriate sexual development) rather than being 'born' that way.

In my opinion, they are born that way.

[LiverpoolHibs]

In my opinion, they are born that way.

What is your opinion based on? Supposition? As it stands that's about as meaningless a statement as you could make.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I don't think that paedophillia is a 'sexual tendancy' like, say, heterosexuality or homosexuality. In fact, to describe it as such is to unwittingly normalise it.

It's more akin to rape or other forms of sexual abuse or dysfunctional behaviour. This is supported by the fact that most people are 'made' paedophilles (through previous sexual abuse leading to inappropriate sexual development) rather than being 'born' that way.

Depends how you define sexual tendency as well though doesn't it?

Homosexuality was once considered a crime. As you put it, it is now a sexual tendency alongside Heterosexuality.

Paedophilia and Homosexuality both aren't normal sexual instincts so does that rule them both out of being a sexual tendency, or both being a tendency, or does the consentual aspect of Homosexual relationship affect it being a tendency or not?

[ArabHibee]

What is your opinion based on? Supposition? As it stands that's about as meaningless a statement as you could make.
No, I read an article about it in a scientific magazine.

[Betty Boop]

Sexual behaviours that are classified as mental disorders are known as paraphilias. Paedophilia is classified in the DSM 1V (the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) as a paraphilia, characterised by recurrent intense sexual urges or sexual behaviours.

[GlesgaeHibby]

No, I read an article about it in a scientific magazine.

You can't scientifically prove someone is born that way. It comes down to the old nature over nurture argument.

I don't believe any kid is born evil.

[Mo!]

Depends how you define sexual tendency as well though doesn't it?

Homosexuality was once considered a crime. As you put it, it is now a sexual tendency alongside Heterosexuality.

Paedophilia and Homosexuality both aren't normal sexual instincts so does that rule them both out of being a sexual tendency, or both being a tendency, or does the consentual aspect of Homosexual relationship affect it being a tendency or not?


After watching this the other night. My wife and a friend of mine and i were discussing the program. Ur point about paedophiilia and homosexuality came up. Natural attractions and so on. Anyway, during our drunken discussion this question arose...

Being a heterosexual male. What is considered more normal?

1) Having consensual sex with a adult male.

or
2) Having consensual(although still against the law) sex with a 14 y/o female.

I don't see many .netters actually answering this:greengrin:wink:

oh forgot to say. I think the place is more than worth the money. If the u.s government can spend the ridiculous amount of money it does on wars, then his drop in the ocean is money well spent. Keep them all locked away for life.

[Dashing Bob S]

Depends how you define sexual tendency as well though doesn't it?

Homosexuality was once considered a crime. As you put it, it is now a sexual tendency alongside Heterosexuality.

Paedophilia and Homosexuality both aren't normal sexual instincts so does that rule them both out of being a sexual tendency, or both being a tendency, or does the consentual aspect of Homosexual relationship affect it being a tendency or not?

I think you've nailed it with the consensual aspect. It's very hard to consider anything abnormal these days, as long as it is practiced in private by consenting adults.

It's simply nobody else's business.

[Dashing Bob S]

In my opinion, they are born that way.

The evidence i've seen on this is contradictory; there are all sorts of ranges of this terrible behaviour. Aggregated, it seems to suggest that around twenty per cent of paedophilles are indeed 'born' like that, with some sort of mental deficiency/lack of empathy, similar to a psychopath.

The vast majority, however, have undergone life trauma (usually as victims of sexual assault as children) which has resulted in them growing up displaying inappropriate sexual behaviour. This is not always paedophilla, (in fact it rarely is) but inappropriate sexualisation of non-sexual circumstances, objects, events, persons etc). Many people treated for what we now term 'sex and love addiction' would fall into this category.

[BravestHibs]

No, I read an article about it in a scientific magazine.

Which one?

[Phil D. Rolls]

After watching this the other night. My wife and a friend of mine and i were discussing the program. Ur point about paedophiilia and homosexuality came up. Natural attractions and so on. Anyway, during our drunken discussion this question arose...

Being a heterosexual male. What is considered more normal?

1) Having consensual sex with a adult male.

or
2) Having consensual(although still against the law) sex with a 14 y/o female.

I don't see many .netters actually answering this:greengrin:wink:

oh forgot to say. I think the place is more than worth the money. If the u.s government can spend the ridiculous amount of money it does on wars, then his drop in the ocean is money well spent. Keep them all locked away for life.

Normal is what the majority of people do - it doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. The majority of people thought the world was flat for example. We shouldn't make decisions based on the ignorance of the majority.

I believe that the only way we can live life on our own terms. We are all unique individuals with our own stories and trying to fit into systems that are imposed on us causes a lot of distress.

That's where I'm coming from on this whole issue. I don't think the Paedophiles are wrong to think they way they do, it is how they are. However, I think the greater good has to be considered.

[Phil D. Rolls]

No, I read an article about it in a scientific magazine.

Keep digging pal. :thumbsup:

[Removed]

Being a heterosexual male. What is considered more normal?

1) Having consensual sex with a adult male.

or
2) Having consensual(although still against the law) sex with a 14 y/o female.

I don't see many .netters actually answering this:greengrin:wink:

I will, defo no 2.


I think you've nailed it with the consensual aspect. It's very hard to consider anything abnormal these days, as long as it is practiced in private by consenting adults.

It's simply nobody else's business.

:agree: But as soon as they start posting on dodgy websites with their .net names then fair game to get it on Bombay TV and take the piss imo

[BravestHibs]

Normal is what the majority of people do - it doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. The majority of people thought the world was flat for example. We shouldn't make decisions based on the ignorance of the majority.

I believe that the only way we can live life on our own terms. We are all unique individuals with our own stories and trying to fit into systems that are imposed on us causes a lot of distress.

That's where I'm coming from on this whole issue. I don't think the Paedophiles are wrong to think they way they do, it is how they are. However, I think the greater good has to be considered.

I'd agree with that. I don't think you really get good and bad people. Just people. The human race will never be perfect. That is a fact.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I will, defo no 2.



:agree: But as soon as they start posting on dodgy websites with their .net names then fair game to get it on Bombay TV and take the piss imo

A Wig Wam Bam, how Sweet! :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Normal is what the majority of people do - it doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. The majority of people thought the world was flat for example. We shouldn't make decisions based on the ignorance of the majority.

I believe that the only way we can live life on our own terms. We are all unique individuals with our own stories and trying to fit into systems that are imposed on us causes a lot of distress.

That's where I'm coming from on this whole issue. I don't think the Paedophiles are wrong to think they way they do, it is how they are. However, I think the greater good has to be considered.

Have you studied Sociology? :greengrin

[majorhibs]

I don't think that paedophillia is a 'sexual tendancy' like, say, heterosexuality or homosexuality. In fact, to describe it as such is to unwittingly normalise it.

It's more akin to rape or other forms of sexual abuse or dysfunctional behaviour. This is supported by the fact that most people are 'made' paedophilles (through previous sexual abuse leading to inappropriate sexual development) rather than being 'born' that way.

It IS rape, it is also about as evil an act imo any "human being" could descend to, to try to defend this is wrong also imo, how can anyone come out with the "they are victims too" line then say they shouldnt be punished, two wrongs dont make a right but to defend any creature that harms a smaller, virtually defenceless child, that "person" imo has given up the right to rational thoughts and punishments, it is a truly evil wicked act which is not carried out by "victims" but evil bullying sick individuals preying on the people we should ALL be looking to protect above any other. Just think some people get lost in looking for excuses, lets face it is there a worse crime can be commited, and dont say when they're alone with their victims they arent responsible or to blame, for any act on any child like that.

[GlesgaeHibby]

It IS rape, it is also about as evil an act imo any "human being" could descend to, to try to defend this is wrong also imo, how can anyone come out with the "they are victims too" line then say they shouldnt be punished, two wrongs dont make a right but to defend any creature that harms a smaller, virtually defenceless child, that "person" imo has given up the right to rational thoughts and punishments, it is a truly evil wicked act which is not carried out by "victims" but evil bullying sick individuals preying on the people we should ALL be looking to protect above any other. Just think some people get lost in looking for excuses, lets face it is there a worse crime can be commited, and dont say when they're alone with their victims they arent responsible or to blame, for any act on any child like that.


If you read the thread I don't think you'll find anybody that has said they don't think these people should be punished.

[Mo!]

Normal is what the majority of people do - it doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. The majority of people thought the world was flat for example. We shouldn't make decisions based on the ignorance of the majority.

I believe that the only way we can live life on our own terms. We are all unique individuals with our own stories and trying to fit into systems that are imposed on us causes a lot of distress.

That's where I'm coming from on this whole issue. I don't think the Paedophiles are wrong to think they way they do, it is how they are. However, I think the greater good has to be considered.

Well i think paedophiles are completely wrong to think how they do. This has nothing to do with the majority of people. I can't see in any way shape or form how it can be right for any person to have sex with a child. Maybe i'm wrong, just too caught up in the system(s) to realise. So on that note, for the greater good. In my opinion and hopefully yours filled rolls (the majority?) lets keep these beings locked up for life.

[Mo!]

I'd agree with that. I don't think you really get good and bad people. Just people. The human race will never be perfect. That is a fact.

are good and bad not just words of expressing your opinions about people/things/feelings? there are good and bad people.

[BravestHibs]

are good and bad not just words of expressing your opinions about people/things/feelings? there are good and bad people.

This is true enough, but who gets to decide who is good and bad? Where are the guidelines? Is it the bible/kuran? Or is it each individuals view of what is right or wrong? Right and wrong, good and bad differ in everyones mind so how can they hold any concise meaning whatsoever?

Also, just out of interest, and this goes out to everyone, if you could swap all the murderers that there are, for paedophiles, would you? Swapping a murderer would mean that someones life would be saved however you would then have another paedo to contend with so the chances are one or more more child would be placed at risk. Which would you choose?

The above is obviously hypothetical so if we could just put aside the inpracticalities of swapping murderers for paedophiles for a moment and concentrate on the concept that would be great.

[majorhibs]

This is true enough, but who gets to decide who is good and bad? Where are the guidelines? Is it the bible/kuran? Or is it each individuals view of what is right or wrong? Right and wrong, good and bad differ in everyones mind so how can they hold any concise meaning whatsoever?

Also, just out of interest, and this goes out to everyone, if you could swap all the murderers that there are, for paedophiles, would you? Swapping a murderer would mean that someones life would be saved however you would then have another paedo to contend with so the chances are one or more more child would be placed at risk. Which would you choose?

The above is obviously hypothetical so if we could just put aside the inpracticalities of swapping murderers for paedophiles for a moment and concentrate on the concept that would be great.

Far too much crap like this comes out all the time. Paedophiles are adults- they prey on children- there is nothing hypothetical about it- it is a disgusting evil form of bullying and abusing and preying on a victim who is basically defenceless against an adult- bad is NOWHERE near enough of a word for it- in these cases the victims are ALL anyone needs to think about- the perpetrators know what they are doing, they get there victims alone by whatever means- and an innocent child is the victim. No justification- it is not just bad it is evil and I wish there was'nt so many rushing to side with these abominations, so they could be thrown in the jail where the prison population would deal with them a lot more justifiably than they currently get.

[BravestHibs]

Far too much crap like this comes out all the time. Paedophiles are adults- they prey on children- there is nothing hypothetical about it- it is a disgusting evil form of bullying and abusing and preying on a victim who is basically defenceless against an adult- bad is NOWHERE near enough of a word for it- in these cases the victims are ALL anyone needs to think about- the perpetrators know what they are doing, they get there victims alone by whatever means- and an innocent child is the victim. No justification- it is not just bad it is evil and I wish there was'nt so many rushing to side with these abominations, so they could be thrown in the jail where the prison population would deal with them a lot more justifiably than they currently get.

Look, nobody likes paedophiles ok. Nowhere have I seen anyone 'rushing to side' with them either. Frankly I resent the implication that I'm somehow aiding and abetting them. All this thread is trying to do is look into the causes of it so as to try to come up with a viable solution to get it to stop. From what I gather you would want to deal with each one on a case by case basis completely ignoring the causes but punishing them very harshly. This is effectively just sitting around witing for another victim to be created. It is in fact this thought process that sides with paedophiles, not the other way round as you suggest. Your way is pretty much what's happening now and it doesn't seem to be stopping new paedos being created does it?

[majorhibs]

Look, nobody likes paedophiles ok. Nowhere have I seen anyone 'rushing to side' with them either. Frankly I resent the implication that I'm somehow aiding and abetting them. All this thread is trying to do is look into the causes of it so as to try to come up with a viable solution to get it to stop. From what I gather you would want to deal with each one on a case by case basis completely ignoring the causes but punishing them very harshly. This is effectively just sitting around witing for another victim to be created. It is in fact this thought process that sides with paedophiles, not the other way round as you suggest. Your way is pretty much what's happening now and it doesn't seem to be stopping new paedos being created does it?

Locking them all up together in a secure unit in Peterhead with psychiatrists "trying to understand them" isnae deterring them either, everything about it is wrong and throwing them in a wing of a jail where they arent getting pandered to would show them a bit more about how their victims feel, ie defenceless, scared, terrified out of their wits with no-one around to protect them. The punishment doesnt fit the crime imo. Your last 6 lines are your opinion, but nonsense to me. Everybody wants a "solution" but paedophiles are not victims. They are adults and KNOW what they are doing is wrong. Children are their victims.

[BravestHibs]

Locking them all up together in a secure unit in Peterhead with psychiatrists "trying to understand them" isnae deterring them either, everything about it is wrong and throwing them in a wing of a jail where they arent getting pandered to would show them a bit more about how their victims feel, ie defenceless, scared, terrified out of their wits with no-one around to protect them. The punishment doesnt fit the crime imo. Your last 6 lines are your opinion, but nonsense to me. Everybody wants a "solution" but paedophiles are not victims. They are adults and KNOW what they are doing is wrong. Children are their victims.

All this thread is trying to do is look into the causes of it so as to try to come up with a viable solution to get it to stop. From what I gather you would want to deal with each one on a case by case basis completely ignoring the causes but punishing them very harshly. This is effectively just sitting around witing for another victim to be created. It is in fact this thought process that sides with paedophiles, not the other way round as you suggest. Your way is pretty much what's happening now and it doesn't seem to be stopping new paedos being created does it?

By my last six lines are you referring to the bit in bold here? How is it nonsense? To be fair and to quote Brasseye it seems more like 'nonce sense' if you ask me. You also seem to be completely missing the point of what I'm saying.

You say the punishment doesn't fit the crime; what would you suggest? Getting children to sexually abuse paedophiles, a la Guantanamo Bay? Or perhaps we should just cut their balls off and let them bleed to death? If that's the case then you might as well just say 'I don't know and I'm not even going to bother trying to think of a way to do it' at least that would be honest.

"Everybody wants a "solution" but paedophiles are not victims."

Where are you getting that anyone thinks that they are victims? Have you fully understood this thread? No one is saying don't punish them when they are caught, what I'm trying to say is that we have to focus on prevention rather than cure and that is not going to happen by just locking them up as and when you happen to catch them and letting all the other maniacs in jail deal with them is it?

Just out of interest what do you think about the question I asked earlier on, swapping beasts for murderers? Would you swap one for the other if you could?

[Woody1985]

This is true enough, but who gets to decide who is good and bad? Where are the guidelines? Is it the bible/kuran? Or is it each individuals view of what is right or wrong? Right and wrong, good and bad differ in everyones mind so how can they hold any concise meaning whatsoever?

Also, just out of interest, and this goes out to everyone, if you could swap all the murderers that there are, for paedophiles, would you? Swapping a murderer would mean that someones life would be saved however you would then have another paedo to contend with so the chances are one or more more child would be placed at risk. Which would you choose?

The above is obviously hypothetical so if we could just put aside the inpracticalities of swapping murderers for paedophiles for a moment and concentrate on the concept that would be great.

No.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Have you studied Sociology? :greengrin

I might have done, but I know Foucault. :greengrin (somebody is going to get this joke eventually.)


Well i think paedophiles are completely wrong to think how they do. This has nothing to do with the majority of people. I can't see in any way shape or form how it can be right for any person to have sex with a child. Maybe i'm wrong, just too caught up in the system(s) to realise. So on that note, for the greater good. In my opinion and hopefully yours filled rolls (the majority?) lets keep these beings locked up for life.

I suppose I'm getting at how the thoughts they have are formed. I am suggesting that we have no real control over who we are, and so we have no choice. If you accept that (and I accept it is only one way of looking at things) then you have to accept that how people are is neither right nor wrong.

However, when you broaden it beyond the individual, and consider the rights of society, then how a person is becomes right or wrong. What is wrong is that their behaviour deviates from the norm. Personally I don't like paedophiles, but I find it hard to judge them for just being themselves.

I think it is very dangerous for any of us however to use simplistic, almost biblical responses to the issue - as some of our posters have been doing though. My question to them is "what do you want to happen" - do you want to punish paedophiles, or do you want to stop children being abused?

Seems to me that a lot of people focus on the punishment, rather than the wrong. Maybe if we spent our energies trying to understand what makes these people do what they do, we'll have a chance to "cure" the problem. If we kill or torture them, all we are doing is removing one possible route to the solution, and - dare I say it - giving some people an excuse to work through their own deviant tendencies (violence, torture, inhumanity).

[Hibby D]

IMy question to them is "what do you want to happen" - do you want to punish paedophiles, or do you want to stop children being abused?

I want both :agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I want both :agree:

Which is more important though?

[Dashing Bob S]

It IS rape, it is also about as evil an act imo any "human being" could descend to,

Agreed.

to try to defend this is wrong also imo, how can anyone come out with the "they are victims too" line then say they shouldnt be punished, two wrongs dont make a right but to defend any creature that harms a smaller, virtually defenceless child, that "person" imo has given up the right to rational thoughts and punishments, it is a truly evil wicked act which is not carried out by "victims" but evil bullying sick individuals preying on the people we should ALL be looking to protect above any other.

Agreed.

Just think some people get lost in looking for excuses, lets face it is there a worse crime can be commited, and dont say when they're alone with their victims they arent responsible or to blame, for any act on any child like that.

Agreed again.

Can't see where I'm saying that paedophilles shouldn't be punished, and I resent the implication that I am.

I'd like to go further however, and get to the stage where crimes of this sort didn't exist. Rather than have us simply living in fear and grinding our teeth, I really want us to try and understand - and therefore change or eliminate - the mechanisms by which these people operate, thus freeing children from the lifetime sentences of hurt and pain those self-indulgent, pathetic creatures dish out.

[1two]

Mandatory Chemiacal Castration for them all!

[Steve-O]

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article2418277.ece

What do we think about this mob?

Also, does anyone recognise any of this lot (mainly from Edinburgh). I am almost certain I recognise 'IT worker' (aka Colin Slaven) from somewhere, possibly from working at Scottish Gas?? Can't be certain though.

Quite a sickening story when you read into it all.

As for opinions on what to do, I am definitely not in the castration/death penalty/let the other prisoners deal with them, camp.

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article2418277.ece

What do we think about this mob?

Also, does anyone recognise any of this lot (mainly from Edinburgh). I am almost certain I recognise 'IT worker' (aka Colin Slaven) from somewhere, possibly from working at Scottish Gas?? Can't be certain though.

Quite a sickening story when you read into it all.

As for opinions on what to do, I am definitely not in the castration/death penalty/let the other prisoners deal with them, camp.

I was speking to a girl from Reliance a couple of weeks back. She told me that these people have been responding to the taunts of other prisoners by saying things like "we love it". My stomach is turning as I write this.

[Woody1985]

There was a programme on last night about the thai sex industry and with help of the british child protection agency (or similar group) they managed to catch 4 beasts selling kids to foreigners.

[ancienthibby]

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/article2418277.ece

What do we think about this mob?

Also, does anyone recognise any of this lot (mainly from Edinburgh). I am almost certain I recognise 'IT worker' (aka Colin Slaven) from somewhere, possibly from working at Scottish Gas?? Can't be certain though.

Quite a sickening story when you read into it all.

As for opinions on what to do, I am definitely not in the castration/death penalty/let the other prisoners deal with them, camp.


Easy!

Judge gives sentences:

Sledgehammers meet goolies!

[Flynn]

Castration or using the ****ers instead of animals in cancer research trials or such human guinea pig type medical experiments is the only way to deal with these perverts. They deserve no less.

As aside did anyone, think, as I did, that a bunch of paedophiles singing the Adams family was one of the creepiest things they've ever seen. Made my skin crwl. Urrrrrgh!

[Fantic]

There are not many apologists for these people and quite rightly so. Satan still lives among us and evil does exist. No ifs, no buts.

I hope that when their judgement day comes, no mercy is given.

[LeithWalkHibby]

There are not many apologists for these people and quite rightly so. Satan still lives among us and evil does exist. No ifs, no buts.

I hope that when their judgement day comes, no mercy is given.

Anyway, moving on...