Paedophiles and Sex Offenders

[pjm007]

I appreciate this is a touchy subject, but this a spin off from joules99's question about 'Hanging'. What do people (especially parents) think the fate of (forensically proved) paedophiles and sex offenders should be ? I've made my feelings on the subject perfectly clear and you can see these by clicking on the link in the following post. Does anyone else share my views, or am I alone in my 'vigilante' style of thinking ?

[netibiza]

 Fine - yes help them BEFORE they hurt innocent children - but what help is there - someone told me that chemical castration only takes away the ability- not the urge therefore they are still dangerous.  I agree if a person asked for help then yes, sympathise and help them (but I would keep an eye on them nevertheless.)Call me what you like but as long as I'm protecting children that's fine.

[ludwig]

MargeB said Quote

Does it occur to you that young children in this country are more likely to be the victim of an attack from a paedophile as a result of the attitude you display
(I direct this mostly at Philtaz).

Unquote

Blimey Marge, so it's all Philtaz's fault?, and there was me thinking it was the paedophiles! What will you be telling us next - Hitler wasn't a bad guy, he was just misunderstood.?

[Gilli]

As a mum, my instinct would be to rip to shreds anyone who harmed either of my children. The only thing which might (possibly) stop me is the fear that I'd be jailed in turn, thus depriving my child of their mum at a time when they need me most .......

[Philtaz]

I'll reciprocate El D.  I find YOU sad and disturbing.  You would probably put a comforting arm around someone like Huntley and say "there there mate, don't worry, you're just misunderstood.  Given time, those girl's parents might get over their tragic loss.  In the meantime, you can spend time studying and even write a thesis on why you committed the most heinous acts since Brady and Hindley".

Yours is the far too liberal attitude that ensured Roy Whiting was freed early after his first offence, only to continue his depraved acts.  Unfortunately for poor Sarah Payne, he went one step further the next time, didn't he?

Paedophiles with his profile(avoided treatment, psychiatrist warned he would doubtless re-offend with added intensity) should NEVER be given a chance to re-offend, under any circumstances.

[Ducati]

Philtaz - hear hear.

No doubt the bleeding heart hand wringers will be out in force to condemn you shortly!

[Philtaz]

But there are very many who would NOT wish to be drawn towards children, but are, and stay away from treatment that would protect themselves and children from evil, because they are treated as demons by the likes of about half the people on this thread. The irony is that as a result of all this misguidedness, more children end up being abused. Yeah, well done guys, keep up the good work.  MargeB.

Pardon?  They are treated as demons by about half of us because that is what they are!  Have you read any of the other posts/threads on this?  Roy Whiting 'stayed away from treatment' whilst he was in prison for his previous offence of indecently assaulting a little girl.  The authorities were powerless to make him undergo treatment and he actively avoided it, to the cost of poor Sarah Payne.

The real irony is that as a result of your misguidedness and atitude people like Whiting are always freed far too early in their sentence, only to carry out the same acts again, but with even more horrific consequences.

[pjm007]

They should be put in a proper prison, like a rat-infested dungeon (not a glorified hotel) and should never be let out to re-offend, These sicko's are not worthy to spend there lives with normal human beings !

[MargeB]

No, I think that where it is obvious someone is a paedophile and they have been convicted of a crime, then children should be protected from them. As for 'Roy', you are inflating his situation into a generalization. Many 'paedophiles' (I use this expression in its literal sense) would undergo treatment, if it weren't for the demonization of them by a great many people in the UK. So I'll ask you a few questions:

-do you think that basically, before any decision to act, paedophiles have mental constructs that are different from your own?

-do you think paedophiles would be put off commiting the acts they do if the deterrents that Philtaz suggests were put in place?

-do you think all paedophiles actively choose to be attracted selectively to underage people?

-if psychological intervention were the only means available (and it is in the case of any unconvicted paedophile), how do you think we should go about such an intervention, and why?

[MargeB]

Can treatment stop paedophiles from offending? YES

Does the approach of Philtaz make paedophiles less likely to seek support? YES.

Therefore the approach brings about an increase in offences against children.

[pjm007]

MargeB, Is your post based on opinion or proven facts ? If the latter applies perhaps you could kindly supply supporting evidence. Personally, I am not convinced, nor could I be swayed by my thoughts on the matter. As for the 'Therefore the approach brings about an increase in offences against children' comment, my belief is that these animals would continue to carry out their deplorable and vile acts on children regardless of other peoples opinions about them.

[silly moo]

I would like to throw 2 more points into this thread - partly playing devil's advocate.

Paedophilia literally means one who loves children, and I can't remember the word that we should be using for people who enjoy inflicting pain, sexual or otherwise, on children.

Thepeople we are all talking about are sexually attracted to children in much the same way as most other people are attracted to adults. Most people are attracted to people of the oppositre sex, homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex.
They cannot help this attraction, it's how they are made genetically.
Thery can however help their actions, and it is their actions that are utterly deplorable; and their actions that make most people react in the way shown on here.
We need to differentiate between those who feel an attraction and control themselves and those who do not OR cannot practise such self control.
We have to prove ourselves to be more civilised than we have been.
Chemical 'castration' is not permanent, and actual physical castration is not as yet an option.
I honestly don't know what the answer is but we cannot become a civilisation that tortures and kills.
As I said in an earlier answer my first reaction would be to very slowly and painfully kill any person I found hurting my children in this way, but my rational mind tells me I cannot o this.
By the way my own daughters are now adult and I am maybe not quite as emotional now as I was when they were young.
Sorry to go on, but it is an extremely difficult and emotional subject that like most others I feel strongly about.

[stevie21]

Marge, if what you're saying is factually accurate and paedophiles have no choice but to be attracted to children (and act upon it) then this is symptomatic of a mental illness.
Anyone free from mental illness would otherwise be able to control their behaviour and suppress any "urges".

I'd love to go out and do all sorts of things but I understand the consequences of my actions and choose not to. I don't think for a second that paedophiles don't understand the consequences.

Also, what treatment is there for unconvicted paedophiles? What could be more of a deterrent than being caught, convicted, universally and VERY passionately despised, imprisoned and at risk of a daily beating?

[MargeB]

It's SEXUAL. It's a paraphilia. The circuits in the human brain are wired not to accept the same degree of wilful override as the likes of 'overeating' or smoking. You need to cognitively realign the thoughts these people have. Humans, like all other primates, can very successfully be treated by aversion therapy.

[Philtaz]

IF they elect to undergo treatment, IF.

Sex Offender Treatment Issues

Many sex offenders do not want treatment.When Langevin and colleagues asked sex offenders (37 �paedophiles�, 20 rapists and 30 incest offenders) what treatment they saw as necessary, only half of them (sex offenders child) considered treatment desirable or necessary, and of those who considered it important, the required therapy goals were more often to improve social relationships via individual psychotherapy with a male therapist and socials kills training.

[stevie21]

Marge, your last post neither adds nor explains anything.
Whether it's sexual or not is immaterial. "It's paraphilia" merely gives us a bit of jargon for what we've already outlined. In fact, most of your last post adds nothing but jargon.

You initially say that paedophilia is hard wired and resists learning:
"The circuits in the human brain are wired not to accept the same degree of wilful override [I'd assume you mean in paedophilia] as [in] the likes of 'overeating' or smoking."

Yet these same people can learn to curb their desires and/or think differently:
"You need to cognitively realign the thoughts these people have. Humans, like all other primates, can very successfully be treated by aversion therapy."

I'm sorry but throwing jargon around without actually making a convincing point implies that you've read and failed to understand a textbook rather than formulated an opinion based on scientific (or otherwise) fact.

[ludwig]

Marge, maybe you should spend some time with the victims of these crimes, and I don't just mean abused kids but also bereaved families. Try to understand their thought processes.
I might have had more respect for your views if you hadn't immediately branded everyone who was going to express a different one as 'the daily mail ignorati' in true knee-jerk reactionary style.
Who was it that said 'Scratch a liberal and you find a facist.'?
Personally I believe some people are beyond treatment. I can't go along with the death penalty but I do believe life should mean life.

[londondave]

I agree with the death penalty, but only IF that is what the victims family want,

[MargeB]

Stevie, look the words up in a psychology textbook, then you might understand the point. We can all just try to 'go against' impulses, but if they are sexual, they are notoriously difficult to override in this way. THINK ABOUT IT. Think about the whole sphere of sexual misdemeanours. They tend to happen despite the will of the person involved. That is WHY paraphilias have a specific term of reference (look it up, rather than slagging it off as jargon) because they cannot be understood just like other disorders are understood.

Why do you think the sexual component does not set it apart from other non sexual disorders?

Why do you think cognitive approaches are used? Do you think they are just used to get people to 'use a bit more willpower'? I was setting a cognitive approach against the suggestion of using mere willpower.

Why should thinking about the thought processes of the victims help me? I resent the suggestion that I am immune to their grief. You should chew on the fact that only those who are genuinely direct victims of abuse have no choice but to see past the vigilantism and find an approach that definitely works.

There's a bit of confusion around the term 'paedophilia' I think, generally. Even though it literally means "'liking for/preference for children' in a sexual context", in the UK it's pretty much used to cover those who carry out offences against children. Those who have been found to commit crimes against children should definitely be put out of the reach of children. However, if you consider 'paedophilia' in its strictest sense, it encompasses the tens of thousands in the UK (partly thanks to the internet?) who are harbouring paedophile tendencies, many of whom will go on to abuse, and this will never reach the courts let alone be found out. How do you go about dealing with that?

[elleroo]

give each of them a rope when they first go into their cells. hopefully, most of the ******** will hang themselves.

[stevie21]

Marge, it's not jargon in itself that I object to. Just your attempts to baffle people with science and magniloquence. The fact remains that you proffered no convincing argument whatsoever in the the post that I challenged.

I have a degree in Psychology so aside from being familiar with the jargon ("look up the words in a textbook") and the research, I'm also familiar with the self righteous opinions that Psychology graduates have where anything whatsoever of the mind is involved. This self rightoeousness sticks out like a sore thumb in anyone who has read 3 pages of Gleitman.

To repeat your point (and mine), if I behave in any antisocial way, "despite my own will" (your words) then that's strongly indicative of mental illness and I should be locked up for that alone.

At the risk of quoting you too heavily:
"Why do you think the sexual component does not set it apart from other non sexual disorders?"
Because that's akin to saying "red is apart from all the other colours. It's not just any colour. It's special".

"Why do you think cognitive approaches are used?"
Because it's the latest fashion. Sorry to burst anyone's blind faith in Psychology here but once it was psychoanalysis, then behaviourism, the cognitive therapy, then cognitive-behavioural therapy. Next it'll be something like genetic evolutionary treatment.

Please re-read your last sentence. "How do you go about dealing with something that will never be found out".
You don't. No-one ever finds out about it. No-one ever deals with it. It's a rather simple concept really.

Again I get the impression that your argument consists of words lifted from a textbook without actually understanding what the words mean. To quote Winston Churchill,
"It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."