# General Discussion > Opinions >  Paedophiles, Justice and prison sentences...

## Tokis-Phoenix

A paedophile rapes a 6 year old child. The paedophile is caught and there is a huge amount of evidence stacked up against the paedophile for his crime, the paedophile is proven guilty and sent to prison and is punished.
What do you think is an adequate punishment or sentence for this paedophile in this particular scenario/poll and you general feelings of the justice system in your country?

----------


## Tsuyoiko

There is a similar thread here http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21228. That thread is more general than your specific scenario though.

----------


## Hachiro

I have children and if anyone of them was molested by a ped' they would have to lock me in prison for the things I would do to him. 

The poll doesn't include options for torture and likewise treatment as a punishment before castration and death by being drawn and quartered.

There is no room in my mind for ped's in any way shape or form. 

People will probably disagree with me and make their cases that people who are ped's are normal and have as much "right" to their forms of pleasure the same as any homo/heterosexual but I vehemently disagree and say that imo that anyone who thinks ped's have a place in any society deserve to be in prison with them as well.

I can not get anymore honest than that.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> I have children and if anyone of them was molested by a ped' they would have to lock me in prison for the things I would do to him. 
> The poll doesn't include options for torture and likewise treatment as a punishment before castration and death by being drawn and quartered.
> There is no room in my mind for ped's in any way shape or form. 
> People will probably disagree with me and make their cases that people who are ped's are normal and have as much "right" to their forms of pleasure the same as any homo/heterosexual but I vehemently disagree and say that imo that anyone who thinks ped's have a place in any society deserve to be in prison with them as well.
> I can not get anymore honest than that.


Even though i do not have children, i have to generally agree on your feelings in this situation.
The reason why i put castration as an option though, is because i believe that paedophiles have a chemical imbalance in their brain that makes them sexually attracted to children instead of people their own age. The sex drive is one of the most powerful instincts in the human body and mind, and is incredibly hard to get rid of it- this is why i believe that so many paedophiles that come out of prison after serving their sentence, only go to re-offend somewhere down the line again. If you remove the testicles, you basically remove the sex drive for the most part- and to be honest, i dont think that paedophiles should have the right to raise children of their own anyways if they offend.
There's a close line between human rights and punishment/justice with people, i was tempted to add torture as an option, but this is more about what you believe is an adequate or good solution or justice to an offending paedophile, and torture itself is a lowly barbaric act that will often only further psychologically mess up the individual- so as much as i honestly would want to torture a paedophile if he raped one of my children, i don't see it as much of a solution if any.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> People will probably disagree with me and make their cases that people who are ped's are normal and have as much "right" to their forms of pleasure the same as any homo/heterosexual but I vehemently disagree and say that imo that anyone who thinks ped's have a place in any society deserve to be in prison with them as well.


I do disagree with you, but I can understand why you feel so strongly. I don't see what torturing a paedophile would achieve, except to indulge a victim's desire for revenge. I think it would be much more constructive for the victim to get some kind of compensation (not necessarily financial) from the criminal. I've never heard anyone say that paedophiles are normal and have a right to abuse children. It seems more likely to me that they are criminally insane and should be treated as such.

----------


## Hachiro

> I do disagree with you, but I can understand why you feel so strongly. I don't see what torturing a paedophile would achieve, except to indulge a victim's desire for revenge. I think it would be much more constructive for the victim to get some kind of compensation (not necessarily financial) from the criminal. I've never heard anyone say that paedophiles are normal and have a right to abuse children. It seems more likely to me that they are criminally insane and should be treated as such.


Thank you for saying that, I appreciate your honesty. 

Personally I think that if torture or an "absolute" pushiment was mandated it would also help to serve as a deterent. 


There is no compensation, IMO, that would suffice for victims of abuse such as this. The scars remain for a lifetime. What "lifetime" scars could one give to such a person that committed such a crime that would affect them in the same manner as their victim?

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Personally I think that if torture or an "absolute" pushiment was mandated it would also help to serve as a deterent.


I seriously doubt that any deterrent will prevent a paedophile from abusing a child. The hatred felt towards them by the general public, the beatings they often get from other prisoners (and probably guards), the threat of being placed on the sex offenders register - all these seem like pretty strong deterrents, but they don't seem to work at all. It might be a better deterrent if they thought they were more likely to get caught. Perhaps we should be educating children to know what is inappropriate, but how that would be possible I can't begin to imagine.


> There is no compensation, IMO, that would suffice for victims of abuse such as this. The scars remain for a lifetime. What "lifetime" scars could one give to such a person that committed such a crime that would affect them in the same manner as their victim?


I agree, no compensation would ever be adequate. But I'm not convinced that revenge would truly assuage those feelings either. I think the desire for revenge is a negative emotion, and I don't believe that indulging in negative desires is psychologically healthy in the long run.

----------


## yidaki

There's too many options in the poll.

I think we need to define "pedophile".
There's a huge difference between getting turned on by underage people and going out raping them.
I mean, heterosexuals don't go out raping people, so why should pedophiles do it.
Sexual preference is not a crime.

Child molesters are ofcourse despicable,
but there's a different question there that complicates matters.
Are they really sane enough to go to prison?
If a child molestor is sane, that means that it's sane to molest children.
So logically, a child molestor should go to a mental asylum.
And in sweden, that's about the only way you can get 'life',
if you're irreparable psychologically, you'll never get out.
Which is smart ofcourse, because sane people shouldn't be in asylums.
And the point of punishment of criminals in sweden is not to take out revenge on the criminal, that's pointless. The idea is to discourage others from committing the same crime, socialise the members of society into what's right and wrong, show them the sanctions of their behaviour.

----------


## KrazyKat

While I agree with what Yidaki says above, we can find that we were given a definition, in a way, at the beginning of the thread ie. someone convicted of raping a 6 year old. Also, of course and unfortunately, some heterosexuals do 'go out and rape people'




> A paedophile rapes a 6 year old child. The paedophile is caught and there is a huge amount of evidence stacked up against the paedophile for his crime, the paedophile is proven guilty and sent to prison and is punished.


I would also like to put my opinion towards avoiding punishment in the name of revenge. Thinking about your own children or those of your friends being molested make make one angry, but I think situations like this have to be looked at objectively. Personally I think the mental asylum suggestion above holds some weight, as well, of course, as the victim recieving compensation.

----------


## Hachiro

> If a child molestor is sane, that means that it's sane to molest children.
> So logically, a child molestor should go to a mental asylum.


I'm sorry I can not agree with that logic, to me it is flawed. 

Think about this is, murder an act of a sane person? Sometimes yes sometimes no, by using your thought line then it is sane for someone to commit the act of murder, therfore logically a murderer should go to a mental asylum correct?

In the first line here, if a child molester is sane........using that logic any crime against any person could be justified and noone would ever be crimminally responsbile for their actions.

----------


## SortOf

Pedophile in my definition would be having intimate relations with anyone under 14-15 years of age. If the younger party consents I dont see a large problem with it, unless that is they are under the age listed above. Its pretty common in many latino countries for girls to get married at 12-13, although I think that is exceptionally pushing the limits. 

I may stand alone on this but im one person in general who thinks that sex crime punishments are in general extremely to harsh, 20-60 years for a rape is somewhat insane, I think 2-5 is more acceptable.

----------


## Hachiro

> I may stand alone on this but im one person in general who thinks that sex crime punishments are in general extremely to harsh, 20-60 years for a rape is somewhat insane, I think 2-5 is more acceptable.


Ok then what would do do in the case of repeat offenders? Seems to me that I read somewhere that the majority of sex offenders will repeat their crimes. Also that most sex related crimes are not about sex, but power.

I also remember hearing and reading somewhere that sex offenders when placed in prisons need to be kept out of the general population because they are considered to be the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of criminal's.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> Pedophile in my definition would be having intimate relations with anyone under 14-15 years of age. If the younger party consents I dont see a large problem with it, unless that is they are under the age listed above. Its pretty common in many latino countries for girls to get married at 12-13, although I think that is exceptionally pushing the limits.


If a 15yr old has sex with a 13yr old though, does that make them a paedophile too though? Some children go through puberty as young as 9 years old, sometimes even younger. The way i see it, until you are 13 you are still essentially a child, and then afterwards you become a teenager, and so forth. But would you consider a 15yr old a paedophile if they have sex with somone who is 2yrs younger than them or do they have to be alot older to be considered one, and if so, how old would somone have to be to be considered a paedophile for having sex with a 13yr old in your opinion? Is there any particular reason why you think a 2-5 year prison sentence is adequate or why a longer one is not  :Doubt:  ?

----------


## SortOf

> Ok then what would do do in the case of repeat offenders? Seems to me that I read somewhere that the majority of sex offenders will repeat their crimes. Also that most sex related crimes are not about sex, but power.
> I also remember hearing and reading somewhere that sex offenders when placed in prisons need to be kept out of the general population because they are considered to be the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of criminal's.


Double the sentence with each offence, 3 strikes your out.



> If a 15yr old has sex with a 13yr old though, does that make them a paedophile too though? Some children go through puberty as young as 9 years old, sometimes even younger. The way i see it, until you are 13 you are still essentially a child, and then afterwards you become a teenager, and so forth. But would you consider a 15yr old a paedophile if they have sex with somone who is 2yrs younger than them or do they have to be alot older to be considered one, and if so, how old would somone have to be to be considered a paedophile for having sex with a 13yr old in your opinion? Is there any particular reason why you think a 2-5 year prison sentence is adequate or why a longer one is not  ?


Because its not really a big deal. I mean the majority the good looking women get around _alot_ anyway, and chance are an older married woman isnt going to be the target of a rapist to begin with!

For example, a prostitute gets raped? Honestly why would anyone care!? Most teenage girls who dress attractive enough to attract a rapist have 20+ boyfriends in there high school career, and probably even banged the bum down the street to. So why would it be such a major crime!? if I was a computer I would say "doesnt compute" maybe I have screwed up moral ethics, its just the way I see things.

Dont get me wrong women, there are many good moraled women out there, and usually its very rare that these women are targeted. I however sometimes laugh at those who do, walking around dressed half way like a stripper, and switching boyfriends every week, those women deserve it, its the devils revenge for there own sins! 

This thread gets a:

----------


## Hachiro

In a way thread has gone off topic in some of its points but I hope the OP doesn't take offense at the "road" that it is headed on. In some respects the OP is related to rape as many ped's do actually "rape" their victims. 




> Double the sentence with each offence, 3 strikes your out.


In the mean time the predator leaves behind a victim each time. I'm sorry I can't agree to that, why give them the second and third chance. It isn't a white collar crime, it is a crime of violence. Oh yes and after the "third" strike what are you going to do? Put the offender on death row for 25 to 30 years at taxpayers expense? I hope not. 




> Because its not really a big deal. and chance are an older married woman isnt going to be the target of a rapist to begin with.


Tell that to the people that get raped that it isn't a big deal, I don't think you will find one person that was a victim that will agree with you. And maybe older women may not be the target but many are raped as well while 44% of the victims of rape are under the age of 18. 
http://http://www.rainn.org/statistics/




> For example, a prostitute gets raped? Honestly why would anyone care? Most teenage girls who dress attractive enough to attract a rapist have 20+ boyfriends in there high school career, and probably even banged the bum down the street to. So why would it be such a major crime? if I was a computer I would say "doesnt compute" maybe I have screwed up moral ethics, its just the way I see things.
> Dont get me wrong women, there are many good moraled women out there, and usually its very rare that these women are targeted. I however sometimes laugh at those who do, walking around dressed half way like a stripper, and switching boyfriends every week, those women deserve it.[/


I hope you know the crap is going to fly, or should fly, with this statement. So by your logic it is ok for men to change "women" at leisure and for men to prey on women that work in the sex industries of this world as well? Is that a fair conclusion to make from this statement of yours? I hope that there are some women here on this board that would take the time to respond to this. I really would be interested in hearing how they view the issue. 

Without men around to purchase, use, and abuse the women that you refer to there would be no problem whatsoever. So what do you do about that? I have yet to hear of a woman that would not give up doing such work if they had the means to make a decent living some other way. Have you? 

To me at least your statements here smack of sexism. 

I'm sorry but I can not agree with anything you wrote on this post.

----------


## SortOf

Im in general not a passionate person, women who work in the "sex industry" as you call it are lowly, freaking lazy bums, get a job somewhere, anywhere, even McDonalds would do. And im not sexist, men who sleep around also deserve to have there balls cut off, or spend a nice long night in a lonely jell cell with a large black man named bubba.

Im against cheating or sleeping around of any type in general, those who do are lower than the dirt stuck between my shoes.

----------


## Hachiro

> Im in general not a passionate person, women who work in the "sex industry" as you call it are lowly, freaking lazy bums, get a job somewhere, anywhere, even McDonalds would do.
> And im not sexist, men who sleep around also deserve to have there balls cut off, or spend a nice long night in a lonely jell cell with a large black man named bubba.


Ok so then working at McD's these women will earn enough to support a family and kids because their husband ran off with some other "younger" version? I dont think so. 

You say you are not sexist, but from your previous post you basically wrote that, (para-phrasing here) they deserve what they got, and it isn't a big deal? So any guy that walks down the street in a tank top or shirt-less deserves to be raped or abused as well? Extend your logic to the "other" sex and then tell me that you are not being sexist please.

Sorry but that certainly smacks of sexism to me. So then all the guys that use hookers, and rape young victims should get their balls cut off huh? Geez kind of contradicting yourself don't you think. First you say they should only get 2-5 years in the joint right?

Society is mostly to blame for the socio-economic problems that literally force women into these types of situations wouldn't you think?

----------


## SortOf

The man who does the raping will of course go to hell as well, two sinners, like two peas in a pod. There is always a way to by, even if it means working around the clock at a fast food joint, applying the the government for help, pick tomatoes, beg for money on the street!

My parents were both dirt poor when I was born! My mother sure as hells fire didn't sink to being a prostitute nor did my father sink to being a THEIF! BOTH ARE COMPELLED BY LAZYNESS! Effort and hard work can avoid sinking and becoming a wad of trash, there is ALWAYS a way out you just have to look for it.

Contradicting myself? How am I? They should at least get it semi easy on earth since there going to burn for all eternity anyway, and there also punishing other sinners.

----------


## Hachiro

> Contradicting myself? How am I? They should at least get it semi easy on earth since there going to burn for all eternity anyway, and there also punishing other sinners


Yes, imo you are contradicting yourself. So the victims have to suffer? Come on now, not everyone believes in an after life either.




> My parents were both dirt poor when I was born! My mother sure as hells fire didn't sink to being a prostitute nor did my father sink to being a THEIF! BOTH ARE COMPELLED BY LAZYNESS! Effort and hard work can avoid sinking and becoming a wad of trash, there is ALWAYS a way out you just have to look for it


I'm sorry about your parents, but you can not assume that all people are the same. Society does not work that way. Also there is no need to "SHOUT" at me or anyone else to make your points. Not everyone has a "way" out, you are thinking about American's and American's only, the sex industry and this problem is world-wide, can't find too many McD's in Thailand or the P.I. for example. Take off the blinders and start thinking global and not myopically please. The "If there is a will there is a way" kind of thinking doesnt always work in the USA either. 




> The man who does the raping will of course go to hell as well, two sinners, like two peas in a pod. There is always a way to by, even if it means working around the clock at a fast food joint, applying the the government for help, pick tomatoes, beg for money on the street


So you blame the woman as well?  :Okashii:

----------


## SortOf

Chances are the victom was guilty of sin to begin with.

----------


## Hachiro

> Chances are the victom was guilty of sin to begin with.


Now I know for sure that you are just trolling here. Bye Bye :Angry:

----------


## SortOf

Im not trolling im truthfully stating my opinion, however unpopular it may be. Thats the problem with todays society, unwillingness to accept eccentic opinions. You may call me a troll, but im not, I 100% support everything I have said and would sign my name to it if needed.

----------


## Hachiro

> Im not trolling im truthfully stating my opinion, however unpopular it may be. Thats the problem with todays society, unwillingness to accept eccentic opinions. You may call me a troll, but im not, I 100% support everything I have said and would sign my name to it if needed.


Let me say one last thing in reply to you.......an internet troll is this;



> An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.


and



> troll is trying to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him.


and
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT

You fit all the definitions included.....if someone else wants to answer you thats fine by me, but I am done with you on this thread.

----------


## KrazyKat

I am deeply offended by what SortOf is saying here, at least as far as I can take him seriously.
A victim of rape is just as much to blame as a rapist?
Rapists shouldn't be punished because they will be punished in Hell?
Prostitutes only work in the sex trade because they are lazy?

Dawkins said something like "Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. Only religion can make Good people do bad things." I think we may have a case of that here.

Many porstitutes don't have any choice? Have a read of some of Amnesty's information on trafficing. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/sextraffic/index.shtml

To suggest that any crime is a victims fault stikes me as being insane. Nobody deserves to be raped. If a woman or man has lots of sexual partners that doen't make it any more acceptable to rape them! And neither is it even a crime! Rape is a serious crime that can cause severe emotional and physical damage, and even pregnancy. To call it 'not really a big deal' is extrememly insulting and offensive.

To suggest that people shouldn't be punished because they will be in Hell doens't even make any sense. The point of the justice system is to act as a deterrent to prevent crimes, and then to prevent repeat offences. It can also be used to enact revenge, whether or not that is a good thing. In the first place how is divine punishment going to deter Athiests in any way? If all acts should only recieve their rewards and punishments after death then we would be under no obligation to punish anyone for anything. Lets just let Sadam go free, he'll get his punsihment in Hell after all!?!

I recommend making an appointment with a mental health professional, you need to get yourself sorted out because at the moment you are a threat to everyone around you.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

I agree with KrazyKat, your opinions/views SortOf are very narrow-minded/arrogant and ignorant, aside from being from being offensive. Its not that i believe they are wrong(which i do, but anyways..), but i do not think you have thought them out well and thoroughly enough- they have many flaws from almost any veiwpoint you at them from.

----------


## Hachiro

> I agree with KrazyKat, your opinions/views SortOf are very narrow-minded/arrogant and ignorant, aside from being from being offensive. Its not that i believe they are wrong(which i do, but anyways..), but i do not think you have thought them out well and thoroughly enough- they have many flaws from almost any veiwpoint you at them from.


Tokis, the posts that Sort of made on this thread tend to make me think that he is either a troll just "stirring the poo" as his profile reads under occupation or a rather disturbed person.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/member.php?u=19757

I find it difficult to believe that any "18" year old person could have views that drastic. Unless of course they were brainwashed in a cult commune environment from birth. 

I fear that if Sort of and his "way" of thinking are an example of what the "religious-right" is teaching their children than the world is going to be a much less safer place to live in, in the not too distant future.

----------


## Clawn

> "Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. Only religion can make Good people do bad things."


KrazyKat, first off, I must disagree with you on that point. Greed, passion, lust, anger, stress, etc. can cause even the best of us to do bad things. As well, we must remember that "good" and "bad" mean different things to different people.

Other than that, I generally agree with what is being said here. Only in extremely rare circumstances should the victim be grouped together with the aggressor as at fault. I believe that those pedophiles that rape and/or sexually abuse/harass children should be punished. Harshly.

----------


## yidaki

> [_ _ _]
> Think about this is, murder an act of a sane person?
> [_ _ _]


Exactly, murder is usually done by people who aren't psychologically stable.
When it's an accident, or 'crime of passion', it's not murder but manslaughter.

People who plan to murder someone for months/yrs, and then go through with it,
are crazy. Just look at the assassins of JFK and John Lennon.

I'm not sure where that puts soldiers of war,
but it's no wonder they need eternal therapeutic consolation.
Killing someone is not a small ordeal.

Considering how society wants to sanction child molestation and murderers,
they are equal in severity and should go to the same place;
which imho is an institution for the criminally insane.
Sending insane people to prison is useless,
they won't learn anything by it,
and it would make it ok to send children to prisons aswell.

----------


## Hachiro

> Considering how society wants to sanction child molestation and murderers,they are equal in severity and should go to the same place;
> which imho is an institution for the criminally insane.
> Sending insane people to prison is useless,they won't learn anything by it,
> and it would make it ok to send children to prisons aswell.


Then what would you do with them?

----------


## SortOf

A good spanking and the removal of some fingers.

----------


## yidaki

> Then what would you do with them?


With who? Children who commit crimes?
To a juvenile correction facility,
where they are socialised into society like proper adults.

Insane people usually go to asylums.
Sane people don't go to asylums.
So when an insane person is corrected to fit the standard of society, he gets out. That's why it can be a life sentence, some people just never learn.

Sending a murderer to prison for 15yrs,
means that you'll have a murderer coming out of prison in 15yrs.
It doesn't help anyone.

Child molestors probably have some deep issues to deal with, being molested themselves, seeing it as normal, loving, behaviour. They need help. As do the children ofcourse, so that they don't become traumatised and go out to become sinister adults themselves.

----------


## SortOf

Thats what a shrink is for, actually.

----------


## KrazyKat

> KrazyKat, first off, I must disagree with you on that point. Greed, passion, lust, anger, stress, etc. can cause even the best of us to do bad things.


This is getting way off topic here, so I'll only briefly explain what I was trying to say. First of all my opinions, don't excalty reflect the words of the quote, especially in the word 'only', any system based on faith rather than reason could have this effect. Of course greed and lust can make people do bad things, but what I'm trying to say is that Religion can cause people to do bad things, while all along believing that what they are doing is right. Thats what I think the quote is getting at when it says 'bad people do bad things'. If any good person is overcome by greed etc. and does something bad, they will surely consider themselves as have being 'bad'. And how much that happens would have no connection to religion at all, but the morals of society.




> As well, we must remember that "good" and "bad" mean different things to different people.


hehe, very philosiphical. I like utilitarianism, but I haven't studied enough to be sure of it yet.  :Blush:  

And my contribution to the main topic: I think criminals need help, not punishment, although the presence of a deterrent is also necessary.

----------


## Hachiro

> I think criminals need help, not punishment, although the presence of a deterrent is also necessary.


What deterent would be "enough" per say to stop a predator? Worldwide one can find examples of people using and abusing children. 

IMO there is no deterent stringent enough beyond the possiblity of public humilitation, lengthly prison sentences, and or the death penalty, depending on the severity of the crime.

----------


## Hachiro

> ......Sane people don't go to asylums.
> So when an insane person is corrected to fit the standard of society, he gets out. That's why it can be a life sentence, some people just never learn.
> Sending a murderer to prison for 15yrs, means that you'll have a murderer coming out of prison in 15yrs. It doesn't help anyone. Child molestors probably have some deep issues to deal with, being molested themselves, seeing it as normal, loving, behaviour. They need help. As do the children ofcourse, so that they don't become traumatised and go out to become sinister adults themselves.


There are many mentally disturbed people in the world, yet through identification and treatment, many are helped as well. Not all disturbed people commit crimes such as this. I also find it disturbing that society allows these predators to use an insanity defense as a means to get away from going to prison for their crimes. I wonder how many actually stay in an asylum for the rest of their lives and the ones that do get out repeat the same crime for what they were placed in an insitution for?

Sorry about that I was refering to the adults and not the children. How can one guaruntee that a sexual predator will not commit the same crimes again once released from either an asylum or prison? There is none that I know of, do you?

----------


## Tsuyoiko

I have to agree with Yidaki on most everything here. I have always felt that any violent crime against children just has to be insane. 

I also think that if considered so, the possibility of their being released is much less - they would have to prove that they have been cured of their insanity, rather than just serve their time. 

Think of it this way - what better deterrent could there be against child abuse than the knowledge that on proving guilty you would automatically be deemed insane and sent to an asylum where you would stay until you are proved sane? Any trial would just have to prove the person's guilt. There would be no need for sentencing as if the person is proven guilty they would be locked up indefinitely. 

The same would go for other violent crimes - such as serial killing, patricide and serial rape. For any serious violent crime I would suggest one repeat crime should be enough for an insanity verdict. I certainly don't like the idea of a society in which it is considered mentally healthy to force someone to have sex with you - once might be a terrible mistake, but not twice.

Offtopic, but on the rape issue, is a woman ever 'asking for it'? I can certainly envisage a situation in which a woman takes a man to 'the point of no return' then changes her mind, although I doubt that is a common occurrence. I would feel some sympathy for the man in that situation - although after the fact any decent man would be racked with guilt and would show remorse. 

If a man solicits a prostitute and refuses to pay the fee it is rape and he should face the consequences. Prostitutes provide a good service to men who might otherwise have little chance of fulfilling their desires and they should have every right to earn a living in this way if they so choose. Also, many prostitutes have been forced into the profession (particularly young girls) and we certainly shouldn't condemn them. 

Dressing provocatively doesn't give a man any right to rape a woman - I think most of us like to show a bit of skin in summer, and we have every right to do so. As Hachiro says, men like to go shirtless in summer too, and I don't think I've heard anyone accuse such a man of being provocative.

The same goes for promiscuous women. If a woman chooses to have lots of partners, that's her choice (although I would consider it a dubious one), and doesn't give anyone the right to take that choice away from her.

----------


## kirei_na_me

Kudos for Tsuyoiko! Once again, she's summed up how I feel perfectly.

I think we were separated at birth, Tsuyoiko!  :Poh:

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> With who? Children who commit crimes?
> To a juvenile correction facility,
> where they are socialised into society like proper adults.
> Insane people usually go to asylums.
> Sane people don't go to asylums.
> So when an insane person is corrected to fit the standard of society, he gets out. That's why it can be a life sentence, some people just never learn.
> Sending a murderer to prison for 15yrs,
> means that you'll have a murderer coming out of prison in 15yrs.
> It doesn't help anyone.
> Child molestors probably have some deep issues to deal with, being molested themselves, seeing it as normal, loving, behaviour. They need help. As do the children ofcourse, so that they don't become traumatised and go out to become sinister adults themselves.


Paedophiles are not insane, they just have a chemical imbalance that messes up their sex drive and makes them attracted to children- this is not insanity in the same way that being gay is not insanity, its just a sexual imbalance. The key to curing paedophiles i believe is not to send them to an asylum, but to castrate them to take away the sex drive. It probably sounds harsh, but i actually believe it would be a very effective way of getting rid of a paedophiles urge to have sex with children. Having sex with or being attracted to a child for a paedophile is not a psychological factor or type of insanity, its the sex drive gone wrong, which is an urge.

----------


## SortOf

> Offtopic, but on the rape issue, is a woman ever 'asking for it'? I can certainly envisage a situation in which a woman takes a man to 'the point of no return' then changes her mind, although I doubt that is a common occurrence. I would feel some sympathy for the man in that situation - although after the fact any decent man would be racked with guilt and would show remorse.


Thats one simple thing, its called the woman lacking common sense, and the man should not be punished for it ever. The woman is to blame for getting the man in that state and to think he is going to stop just because she says to is highly unlikely.



> If a man solicits a prostitute and refuses to pay the fee it is rape and he should face the consequences. Prostitutes provide a good service to men who might otherwise have little chance of fulfilling their desires and they should have every right to earn a living in this way if they so choose. Also, many prostitutes have been forced into the profession (particularly young girls) and we certainly shouldn't condemn them.


Prostitutes also operate an illegal business in the states (except in Nevada, and small parts of Texas). And how is it rape honestly? How is someone who goes around having sex and smoking crack every day be consitered equal to anyone else? Yeah the laws say this, and they say that, but an upstanding citized isnt going to get anything but a slap on the hand for raping a prostitute, and she is going to be sent to prison for being a prostitute in the first place, ive seen it happen many times.

Dont get me wrong though, I do support prostitution in fact I celebrated my 18th birthday in Nevada, but those are professionals, not street, crack people. My brother actually got busted in Chicago because a police woman was posing as a prostitute.



> Dressing provocatively doesn't give a man any right to rape a woman - I think most of us like to show a bit of skin in summer, and we have every right to do so. As Hachiro says, men like to go shirtless in summer too, and I don't think I've heard anyone accuse such a man of being provocative.
> The same goes for promiscuous women. If a woman chooses to have lots of partners, that's her choice (although I would consider it a dubious one), and doesn't give anyone the right to take that choice away from her.


Yes all woman have the "right" to dress that way, and the "right" to sleep around, but im definatly not going to feel sorry for a woman who does this as she was tempting fate by doing it in the first place. Its like hoping through a mine field on a pogo stick, your tempting fate.

----------


## Reiku

> Paedophiles are not insane, they just have a chemical imbalance that messes up their sex drive and makes them attracted to children- this is not insanity in the same way that being gay is not insanity, its just a sexual imbalance. The key to curing paedophiles i believe is not to send them to an asylum, but to castrate them to take away the sex drive. It probably sounds harsh, but i actually believe it would be a very effective way of getting rid of a paedophiles urge to have sex with children. Having sex with or being attracted to a child for a paedophile is not a psychological factor or type of insanity, its the sex drive gone wrong, which is an urge.


For the record, castration doesn't work unless it's done before puberty--otherwise the sex drive has already developed. Besides, most sexual preditors aren't doing it for the sex, they're doing it for power, control, or to inflict pain on others.

Also, I have to say I don't really buy into the whole "they have a chemical imbalance in their brains" explanation that seems to be coming out for everything lately.

Yes, that may be the case for some people, but I'm willing to bet that some pedophiles just like kids--or maybe something happened to them that messed with the way their mind works. Even if their is a detectable differance in the levels of various psychoactive chemicals, that could be the _result_ of the behavior or thought process and not the cause.

Look at it this way: If you punch me in the face, and then my brain shows a chemical pattern consistant with rage disorders, am I angry because of a chemical imbalance or just pissed that you hit me?

Blaming every abnormal behavior from pedophillia to _love_ (I'm not making this up, there was a whole article about it in National Geographic) on chemical imblances is just an excuse to medicate people when you don't like their behavior.

(I believe it was _prozac_ they were pimping in the National Geo article)

That little rant being said, I really don't think we should be punishing criminals.

_WTF DID HE JUST SAY!?!?!?_

Seriously, it works for little kids--_sometimes_--but if you're still hitting your sister and sticking your hand in the cookie jar when you're all growed up then obviously punishment isn't working for you.

The only reasons to punish criminals is to teach them not to do whatever it is they did and to discourage other people from trying to do the same thing, but if we haven't taught a person that such and such behvior isn't OK by adulthood, then I think a better use of law enforcement resources would be in actually _enforcing_ the law--keeping people from breaking it in the first place.

What we do now isn't enforcement, it's just threatening.

"Yeah, go ahead and shoot that person, rob this bank, molest that kid--we won't stop you--we'll just kick your butt afterwords."

Well, if the person's willing to risk a legal buttkicking for it or just doesn't think about the consequences beforehand (often the case with crimes like murder, rape and child molestation) then a threat just isn't going to stop them.

Seems kind of bass ackwards to me...

----------


## Hachiro

> What we do now isn't enforcement, it's just threatening.


I agree with you 100%. Enforcement also means educating people about consequences of their actions. Prevention is also a part of criminal law enforcement. 

There are times that I hope that technology and the human brain can get to the point of prevention of crime similar to the movie "Minority Report"

----------


## Reiku

But without the whole part where they go after innocent people, right?

----------


## Hachiro

> But without the whole part where they go after innocent people, right?


Gotta fine tune the system first right? Just joking, but could you image a society that was 100% crime free? What would people have to talk about?

----------


## Mitsuo

Sortof, It is your opinion, but you put God and Hell into the equation, which is illogical. Can you prove that they are going to Hell? Nope. Ok, so let's start thinking rationally here.
It is never the victims fault in rape! 

I think that pedophiles should get about 5-10 years in prison. Then after they get out or while they're still in, they will automatically be put on the list of your local and national pedophiles.

I don't think that they should be sent forever. I think they should have a chance to redeem themselves in society. Of course with some exceptions, which should be decided by the victim and judge, which they will work something out. They will of course have very little freedom, but just enough to try to become a normal citizen. If they repeat the offense, then the sentence should be life.

Like Yidaki said. If the offender was mentally ill, then they should go to a mental health hospital and get treated.

----------


## Reiku

The thing is, prison isn't exactly suited for _redeeming_ people.

In most cases, all being locked up with a bunch of dangerous people does is make you _more_ messed up when you get out. Sure, some people may change their ways out of terror of having to go through it again--but fear is not the kind of motivator a society should be using, if only because it doesn't work against the truly dangerous people.

When I was a teenager, I was falsely accused of assault by an adult. (not sexual assault, just the regular kind) I wasn't doing what they told me to do, so they called the cops and told them they had placed me under "citezen's arrest" for assaulting them. Well, the cops showed up, and since it was the word of an angry kid with black clothes and long hair against a "nice" middle aged lady, they took me to Juvinille Hall.

I was there for months, getting strip searched by the officers, harrassed by the other inmates, always worried that I'd be convicted and this would become my life for some unknown number of years...

...that place wasn't redeeming anyone--just making them scared and angry. The kids got scared, so they got viscious--so cruel and scary that nobody would mess with them--then they wouldn't have to be afraid.

I still remember the time an officer walked by, staring at his hands with an odd expression on his face--surrounded by a cloud of mace fumes so strong it made my eyes water from across the room.

I found out later the kid involved was a girl, she told me that she'd gotten maced so many times now, that she didn't even feel it anymore--so she'd just go off every once in a while and make them spray her down with the stuff "just for fun".

I saw what that place did to people--and what it was doing to me, and not a bit of it was redeeming.

Luckily, the ***** eventually dropped the charges--I guess she figured I'd been punished enough for disagreeing with her--but I'll never be the same after all that.

That was just juvinile hall--real prison must be much worse, and I don't ever want to see it. So you could say it worked--I go out of my way not to break laws now, I don't even jaywalk...

...but there's another side to it:

I'm more afraid of prison than I am of death, and I've been locked up for something I didn't do before, so I know it could happen again.

If the cops ever try to arrest me, they're going to have to kill me to get me into that squad car--and it's going to take alot of them.

So much for redemption...

----------


## Ma Cherie

> Im not trolling im truthfully stating my opinion, however unpopular it may be. Thats the problem with todays society, unwillingness to accept eccentic opinions. You may call me a troll, but im not, I 100% support everything I have said and would sign my name to it if needed.


Explain something to me, it seems to me that you believe if someone is raped they've done something to deserve it, correct? Do you think that rape is about sex? Do you believe that the woman somehow seduced a man and he ended up raping her? This is nothing more than a self-rightous attitude. I bet you believe that poor people somehow deserve their lot in life, don't you?  :Okashii:

----------


## Mitsuo

Im not saying that prison redeems you. Trying to live a normal life and doing good in society will redeem you. Maybe...But I see what you mean though. You're right, they do have a diff view of life.

----------


## godppgo

The way I looked at it, instead of using the term "mentally ill" or "insane", I think paedophiles are better characterized by saying that they are a group of people who's sexual preferance is not acceptable by today's moral standard.

We are all animals. Social constraints and moral are all product of man. But in nature, we're just animals; paedophiles are just born in this particular time of human history that having sexual intercourse with a person under 18 is considered "immoral" and "wrong". 

The caveman probably only managed to make it to 20 or so years. In the time of Charlemagne, 800 AD, the life expectancy was about 35 years. Therefore, back then it was "okay" to impregnate female under the age of 18 if human race is to continue. 

So my point is, don't view paedophiles as some crazy, insane people who should be locked up. It's just that their behavior is not acceptable under today's moral standard.

----------


## Mitsuo

Well Godppgo. Most of them are just pervs. They watch too much porn or have some weird fetish. They need to be locked up. Because people can't go off having sex with people against their will, and having sex with children and/or minors.

----------


## KrazyKat

The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with. Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime.

----------


## Hachiro

> Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with.


Where do you draw the line between a paedophile "raping" an underage child and just having "sex" with them?

----------


## Reiku

That isn't what he said.

Being a pedophile simply means you're _attracted_ to children--just like being heterosexual means you're attracted to women, it doesn't nessescarily mean you've acted on that desire--just ask my freinds from computer science class.  :Laughing: 

Seriously though, it's an important distinction--a person could really like the idea of killing people, but if he goes his whole life without ever actually trying to do it, is it a problem?

I'd say just for him.

Of course, it's hard to trust that someone with such a desire won't ever try it--so we're likely to lock them up if we find out about it just to make sure--but the point remains:

If they never try, who cares what it is they wanted to do?

----------


## KrazyKat

> Where do you draw the line between a paedophile "raping" an underage child and just having "sex" with them?


Reiku understood what I was trying to say there, but I'll answer your question for you anyway.
I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1T-17.
I just had one more thought that hating people for a crime they were never going to commit may well ned up with them commiting it in the end.

----------


## Hachiro

> That isn't what he said.


Reiku he did say it VERY clearly....



> The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with. Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime


Sure sounds like one could safely assume that he did say that...hmmmm
Read that line and the following one as well, from this post he condones paedophiles having sex with kids.  "I have no problem with...." . The following sentence sounds like an appeasement to society and his conscience.



> Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime


He also comes across rather ambigiously here. Kind of hard to read what people are "thinking" when discussing an issue like this. It is very easy to be misunderstood. IMO people should try to be very clear in what they are trying to say, particularly with sensitive subjects. Would you agree with that?
But since he responded to my question it makes it easier...



> I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1T-17.


With a child at that age I highly doubt you would find a paedophile having sex with them. THe average age of a paedophiles victim is 10. How can you justify or overlook that? 
I guess my next logical question would be, what age are you thinking about that classifies a person as being a victim of a pedophile? Pedophiles are not looking to have sex with people between the ages of 15 to 17, at that age people are physically adults not children.

----------


## KrazyKat

OK, cool off a bit Hachiro. I'd get a bit offended here if I didn't know that it was just a misunderstanding.
Lets just go through what I said again.

1)Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with.
2)I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1T-17.

So where have I condoned sex with children? In fact I have said the opposite, if anyone has sex with a child under 15-17 it is rape and a horrible crime.

The point I made is that if someone doesn't have sex with a child then they haven't done anything wrong.

"THe average age of a paedophiles victim is 10. How can you justify or overlook that? "
I don't and haven't.

"I guess my next logical question would be, what age are you thinking about that classifies a person as being a victim of a pedophile?"
I think paedophiles are attracted to people before puberty. But someone might want to check that.

And by the way its customary to refer to women with she and not he.

----------


## KrazyKat

'today's moral standards' was jsut a referance to the post before. If I take that out do my views become clear then?:
Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to (rape/have sex with children) are commiting a hidious crime


This misundersating may be arising if you think that people can have sex with children without raping them. I disagree, see my argument about consent above.

Also, please re-read reiku's post.

----------


## Hachiro

> OK, cool off a bit Hachiro.


No I don't have to cool off here....you are not my mother and your condescending attitude makes matters worse....write what you want to say more clearly and then your posts will not be misinterpreted or misunderstood OK!
I read that post and I disagree, These two quotes contradict themselves, I choose to bypass that...read them again. By extension of the logic in the first quote about pedophilesand if a person is a killer, because they are attracted to murdering someone or thinking about it, either way they are guilty of one or the other. 



> Being a pedophile simply means you're attracted to children--just like being heterosexual means you're attracted to women, it doesn't nessescarily mean you've acted on that desire--


The definition of Pedophilia is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children. Puberty being defined as when your body is physically capable of reproduction. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophilia 



> Seriously though, it's an important distinction--a person could really like the idea of killing people, but if he goes his whole life without ever actually trying to do it, is it a problem?


Same thing is it a problem for society if a person is a pedophile?
Read on; these are quotes from your posts; 



> The point I made is that if someone doesn't have sex with a child then they haven't done anything wrong.


I don't take issue with that statement at all.



> 1)Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with.
> 2)I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1T-17.


So then from this quote I can safely assume that you think that any adult that has sex with a person under the age of 15 to 17 would be considered a pedophile and guilty of rape? Noone ever said that a person having sex with a 15 to 17 year old would be considered a pedophile.



> This misundersating may be arising if you think that people can have sex with children without raping them. I disagree, see my argument about consent above.


ANY adult person having sexual relationships with a child under the legal age of consent, is guilty of rape. You confuse the issue by bring in the age of consent. Adults that have sex with children under the legal age of consent are GUILTY in most country's in the world of statutory rape. You can not tell me that a child that age can "consent" to having sex. 
You make the supposition that a child under the accepted age of consent, can agree to have sex with an adult and it not be rape, is that correct?
Then what is your definition of rape? What is your definition of a pedophile? 
Age of consent is different from country to country but I will agree for the purpose of this discussion that it is between 15 to 17 years old. I still take issue with this comment that you make.



> Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with



I can not and never will agree with that, purely because CHILDREN, are under the age of consent.



> And by the way its customary to refer to women with she and not he


My my bit pedantic aren't we, did know you not a he but a she...THAT I apologize for...mea culpa, mea culpa.

Either way interesting debate, like I wrote in my previous post, with subjects like this is is very necessary for people to be precise in what they are writing or misunderstandings can occur. This topic is of and by itself explosive to many people, myself included.

----------


## KrazyKat

> You make the supposition that a child under the accepted age of consent, can agree to have sex with an adult and it not be rape, is that correct?
> Then what is your definition of rape? What is your definition of a pedophile?


I clearly stated the exact opposite. You even quoted it:
"if you think that people can have sex with children without raping them. I disagree,"
I also defined both these things already.

If we look through my points you will see that they do not contradict each other. If you can't find any of these points in my posts please tell me. 

1) Rape is a sexual act forced on someone who doesn't consent.
2) Children under 15-17 cannot consent to sexual acts.
3) Therefore, any sex with chlidren under this age is rape.
4) Paedolphiles are attracted to pre-pubertal children.
5) If paedophiles have sex with these children (because nobody goes through puberty after 17!) it is rape.
6) I do not condone rape. (I also do not condone violent acts against children, but I'm not sure that I said this already)
7) As you said paedohpilia is sexual preference, not perforimng sexual acts. A paedohplie who does not rape children is not doing anything wrong. All other things equal.






> I can safely assume that you think that any adult that has sex with a person under the age of 15 to 17 would be considered a pedophile and guilty of rape?


That's not what I said. They aren't necessairily a paedophile, but it is rape. Paedophiles are attraced to children before puberty.




> You confuse the issue by bring in the age of consent.


I haven't mentioned the law. Because children mature at differnet rates its not very helpfull.



You have accused me of condoning sexual acts with children, and come close to accusing me of being a paedophile myself, by finding imaginary holes in my argument and ambiguity when none was there.

If we can leave this behind us, we can come to the much more interesting question that seems to be coming up of whether people shold be guilty/punished becasue of of crimes that they haven't commited.

----------


## SortOf

> Explain something to me, it seems to me that you believe if someone is raped they've done something to deserve it, correct? Do you think that rape is about sex? Do you believe that the woman somehow seduced a man and he ended up raping her? This is nothing more than a self-rightous attitude. I bet you believe that poor people somehow deserve their lot in life, don't you?


I do believe that in many, many cases its provoked.

----------


## KrazyKat

I said before that I wasn't offended, hwever that is not true any more. After explaining that it was a misunderstanding you continued to accuse me of defending a crime which I despise. You ignored whole parts of my argument and tried to made up definitions for me, for things I had already defined! to make it sound like a didn't have a problem with sex with children. You even accused me of meaning the exacpt opposite of some very clear statements that I made.

'paedophiles who don't rape children, I don't have a problem with'
does not imply that they can have sex without raping them, or that i condone it. This is just what you wanted to see in it yourself, even when I explained it in the next post by saying that sex with children under 15 is rape and Reiku too said that that isn't what I said.

You are clearly going out of your way to see and say negative things about me and I am offended by this. I don't beleive that I have done anything to deserve this from you.

----------


## Hachiro

> 'paedophiles who don't rape children, I don't have a problem with'
> does not imply that they can have sex without raping them, or that i condone it. This is just what you wanted to see in it yourself, even when I explained it in the next post by saying that sex with children under 15 is rape and Reiku too said that that isn't what I said.


Excuse me, but I am quoting YOU and what you wrote, if you also take the time to read the rest of my posts I specifically stated that this topic 




> is very necessary for people to be precise in what they are writing or misunderstandings can occur. This topic is of and by itself explosive to many people, myself included.


It is VERY easy to misunderstand your post with the comment that I quoted on more than one occasion. After your last post specifically this, 




> 1) Rape is a sexual act forced on someone who doesn't consent.
> 2) Children under 15-17 cannot consent to sexual acts.
> 3) Therefore, any sex with chlidren under this age is rape.
> 4) Paedolphiles are attracted to pre-pubertal children.
> 5) If paedophiles have sex with these children (because nobody goes through puberty after 17!) it is rape.
> 6) I do not condone rape. (I also do not condone violent acts against children, but I'm not sure that I said this already)
> 7) As you said paedohpilia is sexual preference, not perforimng sexual acts. A paedohplie who does not rape children is not doing anything wrong. All other things equal.


I agree with you on parts 1 through 6 I only disagree with the part I highlighted in red, you wrote that not me, and it directly contradicts what you wrote in number 2, 3 and 5 (of course 6 as well). I would think that you want to say that a pedophile who does not have SEX with children is not doing anything wrong, right or wrong? Huge difference between having sex and rape isnt there?

That is the ONLY part I can not find equal ground with you on. If you look at it it contradicts your earlier statements. 

We both agree on many of the points that we both stated, I just keep on having a hard time with the statement I quoted from you in red. If you can explain that and what it means to you, I think you will find that I am pretty much agreement with everything else that you wrote.

----------


## KrazyKat

Have we not established that having sex with a child and raping them is the same thing? just look at point number 5! I am not contradicting anything!

----------


## KrazyKat

> Excuse me, but I am quoting YOU and what you wrote,


and then reading things in it that aren't there.

For example you say this:



> You can not tell me that a child that age can "consent" to having sex.


I had clearly just said that children under 15-17 cannot consent to having sex. No matter which way you look at it. Yet you accuse me of saying they can! Look back in post 53:
I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1T-17.


In my original post I said this:
"The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with."

Here I am clearly making a distinction between people who are attracted to children and don't have sex with them, and those who are attracted to children and then do. You have to work hard there to make it sound like I am making a distinction between people who have sex with children and those who rape them, however you even say it is 'very clear' that that is what I am saying. And anyway, that should have been cleared up in my next post when I said sex with children is always rape.

----------


## KrazyKat

You contradict yourself here with almost every post.



> ANY adult person having sexual relationships with a child under the legal age of consent, is guilty of rape.
> I agree with you on parts 1 through 6 
> Huge difference between having sex and rape isnt there?


If having sex is raping someone, how can there be a huge difference? Do you agree that having sex with children is rape or not?!

----------


## KrazyKat

> "Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with"
> 
> I can not and never will agree with that, purely because CHILDREN, are under the age of consent.


How about**:
'people that don't steal things, I have no problem with'
Can you never agree with this?

You also contradict the point you are making here by saying:




> "The point I made is that if someone doesn't have sex with a child then they haven't done anything wrong."
> I don't take issue with that statement at all.


How can you both take no issue with it and never possibly agree with it? If anyone's argument is contradictory and vague here then it is yours.

----------


## Hachiro

> You contradict yourself here with almost every post.
> If having sex is raping someone, how can there be a huge difference? Do you agree that having sex with children is rape or not?!


Read my posts you know damn well how I feel about it without asking this question. 

Explain this statement directly please, no BS or anything else just this.......(You have bypassed it enough times already)




> A paedohplie who does not rape children is not doing anything wrong.

----------


## KrazyKat

> Read my posts you know damn well how I feel about it without asking this question. 
> Explain this statement directly please, no BS or anything else just this.......(You have bypassed it enough times already)


I was fairly sure that you thought sex and rape with a child was the same thing. However in your last post you claimed that they were different, and if you did consider them the same there would be no confusion from the start.

OK, i'll explain what I mean by that. I don't think people should be punsihed for a crime they haven't commited, or attempted to commit. As Reiku said we could lock all paedophiles up in case they have sex with children, but I see that as an infringement of thier human rights. We could apply the same argument to stealing. It may be tempting to steal, but if this person doesn't steal or attempt to then they shouldn't be punsihed just for finding it attractive.

I also mentioned before that paedophiles are already hated just for their attraction to children, and that that may drive some to rape children who may not otherwise have done so.

I don't see why it is so hard for you to just appologise. Not once have I come close to suggesting that it is acceptable to have sex with children, and yet you have constantly accused me of this, ignoring everything I have to say. This has gone far beyond just a misunderstanding, it feels that you are deliberately trying to attack me.

----------


## KrazyKat

Look, to be honest its not such a contraversial statement.
Lets look at the first part.

"A paedophile who does not rape children"
A paedophile is someone who is attracted to children before puberty. Not someone who has sex with children. I'm sure you understand this because you've said it yourself. So the problem can't be here.

'rape children' from the beginning I have insisted that beacuse children can't consent, any sex with children is rape, and we agree that it is wrong. So the problem can't be a misunderstanding there, because I have clearly stressed that point many times.

So we are left with saying:
someone who isn't doing a bad thing but is attracted to doing it, isn't doing anything wrong. All other things equal.

If you can explain your problem with the statement, maybe I can better explain?
If you could also explain how it contradicts ANY of my other points instead of just claiming it does then I would be greatful.

----------


## Hachiro

Firstly thank you for clarifying that statement, it is ambigious as heck and very easily could be read to justify or make an assumption that the writer of, you, were somehow justifying the case of a pedphile having sex with a child and that sex with a child was not rape. 

_I am repeating myself here, because of the nature of the subject it is necessary to be very clear in how you write what you mean. It is easy to misunderstand your point when written the way it is._ 




> Look, to be honest its not such a contraversial statement.
> Lets look at the first part.
> "A paedophile who does not rape children"


I disagree with you, it is very much so a contraversial statement in and of itself. When the general public hears the word "pedophile" they don't EVER think of a person that is "just" attracted to children. They think of a pervert that is raping children under the age of consent. 

Next how many pedophiles have you ever heard of that never "acted" out their fantasies? The only pedophiles that I have ever heard of are the ones you see on the 6 O'clock news being locked up in jail. I know of very few people that will ever think anything otherwise, whether the pedophile acts out their fantasy or not, the general public "THINKS" that anyone that claims to be a pedophile has had sex with children. They are guilty in the court of public opinion whether or not the action has taken place or not.

----------


## KrazyKat

> Firstly thank you for clarifying that statement, it is ambigious as heck and very easily could be read to justify or make an assumption that the writer of, you, were somehow justifying the case of a pedphile having sex with a child and that sex with a child was not rape.


However, at the very beginning I said that any sex with children under 15-17 was rape. How did you manage to continue to misunderstand after that? I don't believe after clarifying myself with that point that my argument was in anyway ambigious, and yet it was after that point that you began to attack me.

Also way back in post 60:
'paedophiles who don't rape children, I don't have a problem with'
does not imply that they can have sex without raping them, or that i condone it.

No ambiguity there right? Isn't that what you just accused me of avoiding answering as well?

And in post 63:
"The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with."
Here I am clearly making a distinction between people who are attracted to children and don't have sex with them, and those who are attracted to children and then do.




> I disagree with you, it is very much so a contraversial statement in and of itself. When the general public hears the word "pedophile" they don't EVER think of a person that is "just" attracted to children. They think of a pervert that is raping children under the age of consent. 
> Next how many pedophiles have you ever heard of that never "acted" out their fantasies? The only pedophiles that I have ever heard of are the ones you see on the 6 O'clock news being locked up in jail. I know of very few people that will ever think anything otherwise, whether the pedophile acts out their fantasy or not, the general public "THINKS" that anyone that claims to be a pedophile has had sex with children. They are guilty in the court of public opinion whether or not the action has taken place or not.


You are right, I take back that it is not controversial.
No I haven't heard of paedophiles that haven't raped children(or owned child porn - also bad), but that is only to be expected. If you were a paedophile wouldn't you try to keep as quiet about it as possible? Becuase of the reasons that you just mentioned. 
As a result we actually have no idea what share of the population are actually paedophiles. But just because of societies prejudices, doesn't mean that they have actually done anything wrong.

I am still waiting for an apology for you saying:



> he condones paedophiles having sex with kids


without firm basis for doing so. Whether or not my statement was ambiguious I had clarified it before you said this, and its quite a thing to say about someone with so little evidence.

----------


## Hachiro

> The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with. Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime.


This is from your 4th post in reply to this thread(#50), take out the portion in red and my replies to you would have been much different. The sentence by itself stands as a statement by you. The following sentence explains your position but leaves the entire point that you are trying to make in ambiguity. You appear to straddle the perverbial fence with a comment like this. Once again take it out and there is no problem.

Next, your comments can easily be misundertood, thereby confusing the entire situation. I commented to you that one needs to be very clear yet read these two statements that YOU made....



> You are right, I take back that it is not controversial.


and



> Look, to be honest its not such a contraversial statement.


These are both in reply to my questions to you once again about the sentence highlighted in red above. YOU wrote this not me, .....




> I am still waiting for an apology for you saying:without firm basis for doing so. Whether or not my statement was ambiguious I had clarified it before you said this, and its quite a thing to say about someone with so little evidence.


You can keep on waiting as well, because you are not going to get one from me about this thread and the posts I wrote to you. I am tired of pointing out your ambiguity in your posts.

----------


## KrazyKat

I insist again that any ambiguity from post 50 was cleared up by post 53 when I said that children can't constent until 15-17 and so sex with children younger than that is rape. Reiku also made it very clear what I was trying to say. (The same distinction was also presented by Yiduki in post 7). After this you continue to claim that I am arguing that people can have sex with children without it being rape. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

My argument has not contradicted itself, however yours have. You have repeatedly accused me of meaning the exact opposite of what I have clearly said in a number of places. I have illustrated some of these in the posts above.

I changed my mind over how controversial that statement was after considering the predjudices of public opionion in outlined in your post. It is common in debates for people to listen to what others say, and change their opinions based on this. However I stand firm to every other point that I have made and have not changed any part of my argument.

Saying that you didn't understand my posts (when you clearly made no effort to try) as an excuse for not apologising for making drastic and false accusations...I actually lack the words to describe it. No matter how vague someone's posts are, they deserve an apology if a false assumption is made about them.

I'm just going to leave this thread now, I've said all that I want to say.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with. Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime.


How do you define rape with a child though? Penetration of the child like through the bum or vagina? 
Just because a paedophile does not rape a child, does not mean that paedophile is not as bad. A paedophile may sexually interefere with a child, or make them do sickening things like force them to give them a blow job or touch themselves in a sexually stimulating way for the paedophile- many children that are the victums of paedophiles are not raped but simply made to go through sickening acts that do not involve penetration, but none the less psychologically scar the victum for the rest of their lives.
You also have to remember that many paedophiles who do not directly interfere with children, support the child porn industry. A single paedophile may have never raped a child in their life, but instead bought and watched thousands of peices of porn that involve children and thus reach out to victums much further afeild than what they would usually be able to directly do.
What are your feelings on this? 
The sex drive is one of the strongest urges in the human body, and most paedophiles simply cannot control it to any successful degree. Yes, some or a lot of psychological help is often needed for paedophiles to control themselves, sending to the paedophile straight to prison without any usually does little in the long term, but you cannot rely on it to completely supress the sex drive 24/7 for an entire life.

And Reiku, what do you propose we do with paedophiles if you believe prison isn't a viable option? To me at least, the prospect of prison for doing crimes is not so much a cure, but more of a deterrant. We have psychologists for treating the mental issues, but they alone cannot solve the problems of crime in society. If we didn't have prison as a deterrent to potential criminals in society, i'm sure there'd be a lot more crime.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> I do believe that in many, many cases its provoked.


So if you went down to the beach tomorrow on a hot day wearing a swim suit and a man came and raped you, would you agree that you had provoked it by not wearing much in the way of clothes due to the circumstances? Do you believe that gay rape(i.e a gay person raping another straight person) like a man raping a man is as bad as a man raping a woman? Although i disagree with your opinions/viewpoints, i'm curious to see how you define them and to what extent you take them to "nods".
In what circumstances/situation exactly would you say that a woman who gets raped brings it upon herself/is partly to blame?

----------


## Reiku

...eh, nevermind--this topic's a loss...

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> This thread is officially dead do to participant ignorance...
> ...I had a long, polite explanation of the many mistakes and misconceptions being made here--but my computer reset and I don't feel like typing it again.
> Suffice to say that if you do not understand what the terms "pedophile" or "rape" actually mean, you should not be participating in a discussion about pedophiles and rape.
> The uninformed comments filling this thread remind me of another gem of sex-related internet ignorance:
> Some may find the comparison offensive...
> ...but then there's this:
> First off, all the things you refer to as "sexually interefering" are actually _rape_, rape is engaging in _any_ sexual activity without the other person's consent--children are unable to give consent, so any sexual act involving a child is an act of rape.



These are the definitions of "rape" and "paedophile" that i know of;

"rape 1 Pronunciation (rp)
n.
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
tr.v. raped, rap&#183;ing, rapes
1. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.
2. To seize and carry off by force.
3. To plunder or pillage."

"Noun	1.	paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children"

"Noun	1.	paedophilia - sexual activity of an adult with a child"

Alot of people consider rape as to having forceful sexual intercourse or sexual intercourse with somone without their consent only though, and not all the other acts that go with it, which is why i asked how KrazyKat personally defined rape.




> In answer to you question, Tokis-Phoenix:
> I think we should feel sorry for them.
> I have a chance of having a loving, sexual relationship with my prefered type of partner--a pedophile can never have that, because the object of their desires is incapable of it.
> Their only choices are abstinance or rape, while we at least have _hope_ of finding a willing parter. If they do give in to their desires and commit rape, then they are a rapist, and should be treated as such--but until they do they should have our profound sympathy.
> As for what should be done with a rapist, I really don't know. Prison is not a deterrant for emotion-driven crimes--nothing is. For a deterrant to work you have to logically consider the consequences just before going through with your crime, and someone who loses control of their emotions is not in a logical state.
> Be it murder, rape, or some other kind of assault, these crimes are not usually committed from a logical, sane frame of mind.
> Psychiatric care would seem to be the best option currently available, but I have doubts as to it's effectiveness. If this was pursued, however, it would be important to distingush between correcting a rapists lack of self control and "correcting" their sexual preferences.


I agree its wrong to "change" people, but raping children is none the less very wrong too, and thus i think people should do everything they can to supress such urges- you cannot change somones sexuality, you can though help them deal with it. In any society you go to, there will always be laws or negative feelings towards the subject of raping/having sex with children on the whole.

I feel sorry for somone who feels sexually attracted to children and cannot help it, but i would never feel sorry for somone who acts on those feelings- such actions not only often physically injure the victum but also seriously mentally scars the victum for their entire life. Sympathising for paedophiles who have committed crimes(as this is what this thread originally started out as with a specific example at the start), i think is completely out of the question. 
Do i sympathise for the man who rapes a woman because he cannot get laid? No.
Do i sympathise for the cannibal who murders and eats somone because they cannot get human meat legally and freely? no.
Do i sympathise for the paedophile who rapes a 6 yr old child because no 6 yr old child in their right mind would consent to somthing like that? No.
I sympathise for these people that they have such conditions, but i do not symthasie for them when they cross the line i.e. do somthing so horrific and illegal.

I do believe prison is a deterrant for "emotion-driven crimes" as you put it, as if prison did not exist most people would cross those lines in an instant that they had so struggled not to cross before because of the consequences. Do you honestly believe that if we didn't have prison, that crime rates would be pretty much the same? 





> As for the child pornography argument...
> 1) It's not that easy to get. Believe me, I've tried. When I first began puberty I became very interested in sex but did not want to see pornography of people almost a decade older than me, so I tried very hard to find materials involving people of my own age group.


I honestly wouldn't know how difficult it is to get hold of child porn, but if you look at glitters case you will note he managed to find thousands of it;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/517604.stm

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> ...eh, nevermind--this topic's a loss...


No need to edit all that post, i found it very interesting.I will take your tiredness into account though if you prefer.

----------


## KrazyKat

Yay, this is actually what I wanted to discuss. And it seems someone can do it in a civilised manner too.

I was including all sexual acts when I said rape. I belive this is the definition of rape. dictionary.com
"The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse."

I haven't really covered child porn, although I beleive that I breifly denounced it above. The child porn industry leaves a child victim behind and so is completely unjustified. However written stories and drawn pictures are a different story. I would consider these to be acceptable as long as they do more to satisfy the paedophiles sex drive, than encourage them to rape children. Although I don't know which way it is in reality.

I feel I need to bring up two more points. 
1)We don't know if someone is a paedophile before they commit a crime anyway, so we can't lock them up beforehand.
2)If people could come out, at least to medical proffesionals, as being a paedophile, without being locked away, they may be able to get help and more child rape cases could be avoided.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Hopefully this thread is getting back on track now. To avoid further confusion, let's assume these definitions from now on:

*Paedophile* An adult who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, although s/he may not have acted on those feelings and has therefore committed no crime

*Paedophile rapist* An adult who has had sexual relations with a pre-pubescent child and is therefore guilty of sexual abuse of a minor


> 1)We don't know if someone is a paedophile before they commit a crime anyway, so we can't lock them up beforehand.
> 2)If people could come out, at least to medical proffesionals, as being a paedophile, without being locked away, they may be able to get help and more child rape cases could be avoided.


I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, I think that the outrage that people feel against paedophiles makes it unlikely that many would seek help.

----------


## Hachiro

> I feel I need to bring up two more points. 
> 1)We don't know if someone is a paedophile before they commit a crime anyway, so we can't lock them up beforehand.
> 2)If people could come out, at least to medical proffesionals, as being a paedophile, without being locked away, they may be able to get help and more child rape cases could be avoided.


_If wishes were horses and grass were free......_

_To make myself very clear here, I understand the reasoning and thought pattern behind these statements. I also agree that it would be nice if we lived in a Utopian world where this could happen, yet for arguments purposes 
I submit the following statements and questions in reply to this...._

This question is to the first sentence, So the supposition that could be made is that you are saying that if you knew about the crime going to be committed ahead of time you would lock up the pedophile, right? Would you make the same supposition about people who commit other similar crimes?

Now this discussion goes into the twilight zone, 
This is to the (2nd) statement; They are facts that's true, and I am willing to suppose that the majority of the population would agree with you as well. Why do you believe that a pedophile would "come out" on their own?

Why do you or why would anyone presume to assume that pedophiles view themselves as being "sick" and therefore neccessary for them to seek treatment. Many people that are institutionalized see no reason for their being there. They don't consider themselves to be sick.

_I useThe following analogies for comparison purposes only, not to inflame_ To equate them with having a mental illness would be like saying that gay and lesbians need to seek professional help as well because it is not a normal behaviour. There are many in society that view these to be "behaviours" and not lifestyle choices. Or for that matter like here in Japan, many men thinking that a unmarried woman is not "natural" or "normal", that women should be married and having children, not working and being a viable part of society. Some would argue that this too is a type of "mental illness", that by choice of lifestyle there is something wrong with them. 




> Hopefully this thread is getting back on track now. To avoid further confusion, let's assume these definitions from now on:


First if KrazyKat had not made ambigious posts there would have been no problem in the first place, I believe, IMO that some of her comments come from her youth, which is not a bad thing, dont go and misunderstand that as well.

----------


## KrazyKat

> Unfortunately, I think that the outrage that people feel against paedophiles makes it unlikely that many would seek help.


I agree. Thats why I feel that paedophiles should be able to recieve support, so that they don't act on thier attraction to children, knowing that they wouldn't be hated or seen as sick for it. However this would require people to become less prejudiced, which is never an easy thing for them to do.

----------


## Hachiro

> . Thats why I feel that paedophiles should be able to recieve support, so that they don't act on thier attraction to children, knowing that they wouldn't be hated or seen as sick for it. However this would require people to become less prejudiced, which is never an easy thing for them to do..


Firstly who is the "them"? People in general like you and me? You are of course entitled to your opinion and I respect that, yet society is not that forgiving and imo shouldn't need to be either. 

If you are saying that society needs to be less prejudiced against pedophiles than I heartly disagree with you on that. IMO society should laws that make the death penalty mandatory for ANY convicted pedophile, that would be a great deterrent. 

Pedophilia is a crime. Just as rape is a crime. Pedophiles should be treated in the same manner as any other criminal. Would you want society to be less prejudiced towards rapists as well seeing as how both pedophiles and rapists commit the same crimes, yet the pedophile's crime is even more henious because it is acted out upon the weakest members of society, children? 

Would you give special treatment to one class of rapist and not another?

_Just to let you know that since you bypassed answering my direct questions to a previous post of yours on this thread, if I disagree or agree with any of your posts or want to comment the gloves are going to come off now_.

----------


## KrazyKat

First of all I refer you to Tsuoiko's post.




> Hopefully this thread is getting back on track now. To avoid further confusion, let's assume these definitions from now on:
> *Paedophile* An adult who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, although s/he may not have acted on those feelings and has therefore committed no crime
> *Paedophile rapist* An adult who has had sexual relations with a pre-pubescent child and is therefore guilty of sexual abuse of a minor


Note that I said paedohiple, not paedohile rapist or anything to imply that they may have comitted a crime. I even said 'so that they don't act on thier attraction to children' which, if anything, implies that they haven't yet comitted a crime. 

I have made a my position very clear on how I think people who who haven't comitted crimes should be treated. 'knowing the crime was going to be commited before hand' would mean being able to read the future. What is interesting however is at what point it would be appropriate to arrest someone before they commit the crime. To take the example of stealing that I have used before would it be when they begin to think it might be a good idea to steal? When they start acting plans to steal something, but don't commit any crimes in the process? Or when they actually try to steal it or break the law in any way?

I'm not sure but personally I don't think someone should be guility until they actually break the law, not if they just intend to, and for this purpose making plans to break the law (conspiracy etc) should itself be illegal and I think it already is.

I also never said that paedophiles have a mental ilness. I do however think that medical professionals are probably in the best position to help them. Someone doesn't have to actually be insane to see a counselor or a therapist, and I never implied that they do.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> If you are saying that society needs to be less prejudiced against pedophiles than I heartly disagree with you on that. IMO society should laws that make the death penalty mandatory for ANY convicted pedophile, that would be a great deterrent. 
> Pedophilia is a crime.


Hachiro - I understand that you feel strongly about this issue. But I think you are using the word 'paedophile' to mean someone who has raped a child. That isn't necessarily the case. I think you and KrazyKat agree on almost everything - except that when she says 'paedophile' she means someone who is attracted to children. That is not a crime until it is acted upon - so a paedophile is not necessarily a criminal. KrazyKat certainly does not advocate tolerance of convicted paedophile rapists - she is only suggesting that we are unprejudiced enough to allow a paedophile to come forward and seek help _before_ s/he commits a crime. I think we all agree that once a crime has been committed the consequences for the rapist must be severe.

_Edit_: Sorry KK, I was posting at the same time as you.

----------


## Hachiro

You know what, probably only this message board makes a distinction between the the one who has and the one who hasn't. Society makes NO distinction between them, none at all, they are one and the same. 
Tsuyoiko I'm sorry but I don't agree with your supposition that there is a difference, you are attempting to draw a line where noone will be able to see it. Until a pedophile is diagnosed as such by a mental health professional there is no way to know either way what they are or are not, unless of course they have commited a sex related crime.




> she is only suggesting that we are unprejudiced enough to allow a paedophile to come forward and seek help before s/he commits a crime. I think we all agree that once a crime has been committed the consequences for the rapist must be severe.


I know what she is suggesting and here is a further reply to that, 

Many people have fantasies about raping people, or abusing them during sex, that could be considered criminal, I think you will agree with that. 

Are you suggesting as well that all these people should be called something like "Raper" because they haven't actually carried out the crime of rape but need mental health attention. Oh yes and if they commit the crime of rape then then are called rapists? 

To use KrazyKat's logic ithen in all actuality all "rapists" in the world were only guilty until they committed the crime of rape, but previous to that if society would have been less prejudiced towards them they should have been able to come forward and seek mental health assistance. I dont think so.

----------


## Hachiro

> I also never said that paedophiles have a mental ilness. I do however think that medical professionals are probably in the best position to help them. Someone doesn't have to actually be insane to see a counselor or a therapist, and I never implied that they do.


Good lord, open your eyes, you dont have to say it, but a mental health professional is the only doctor that is going to be able diagnose a patient with a mental health disease. 

By saying this, you come across as if a pedophilac could go see the doctor like he would for a "tummy ache" and get some medicine to "cure' himself of the illness.

----------


## Reiku

Like I said, the topic's a loss...

...people don't listen when it comes to issues this emotionally charged, they don't hear what you say--just that you're disagreeing with them.

All we're doing here is stating our personal opinions over and over again--and half the time we aren't even talking about the same thing.

I'm sorry my post got quoted before I removed it. I realized as soon as I hit post that _I_ was just speaking out of anger, and that it wasn't going to do any good...

...seems I was right considering my post about pedophiles who _don't_ rape children was responded to with a litany of reasons why pedophiles who _do_ should be locked up.

For the record:




> I do believe prison is a deterrant for "emotion-driven crimes" as you put it, as if prison did not exist most people would cross those lines in an instant that they had so struggled not to cross before because of the consequences. Do you honestly believe that if we didn't have prison, that crime rates would be pretty much the same?


No, the crime rate would be much lower.

First, even if we assume that prison is a deterrant for emotion-driven crimes, the lack of prisons woud provide an even stronger deterrant:

Fear of being murdered by an angry lynchmob.

While it's true that many child molesters are killed in prison, they'd be in far more danger if the kid's family didn't have to worry about going to prison for killing them.

While certainly not a system I'd want to live in, you can't deny that fear of a lynchmob appeals to the self-preservation instinct far more than fear of having armed gaurds and fortified defenses between you and that mob.

Secondly, prison is a punishment--not a means of behavioral correction.

I know they call them "Correctional Facilities", but hey, I guess some people see George Orwell's "1984" as a strategy guide intead of a cautionary tale.

I could write a book on the many reasons why locking a person up and forcing them to live with multitudes of people who weren't able to funcion in society is a bad idea--but I don't like dwelling on my past, so I won't bother outlining it here either.

If you can't figure out why a prison environment makes people _more_ prone to criminal behavior, then I doubt you've ever really thought about what being incarceated is like...

...and how can you advocate putting _anyone_ in a stuation you don't clearly understand?

----------


## KrazyKat

> Like I said, the topic's a loss...
> ...people don't listen when it comes to issues this emotionally charged, they don't hear what you say--just that you're disagreeing with them.
> All we're doing here is stating our personal opinions over and over again--and half the time we aren't even talking about the same thing.


I agree. I quit. Any reply I make now to the parts of Haciro's posts would just be repeating things that I have already said. Briefly though, fantasies are not a crime, rape is. People are only guilty after commiting a crime. Therapists are probably the only people that can help paedophiles live with and control themselves, if they want help they should be able to get it and we should encourage this. People with rape fantasies should also be able to get therapy.

----------


## Reiku

Or just watch a lot of hentai.  :Laughing: 

God knows watching DBZ did wonders for my anger control issues...

----------


## Clawn

> God knows watching DBZ did wonders for my anger control issues...


Amen to that.  :Wavey:

----------


## Reiku

Playing Bushido Blade 2 helped also...  :Blush:

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> Like I said, the topic's a loss...
> ...people don't listen when it comes to issues this emotionally charged, they don't hear what you say--just that you're disagreeing with them.
> All we're doing here is stating our personal opinions over and over again--and half the time we aren't even talking about the same thing.
> I'm sorry my post got quoted before I removed it. I realized as soon as I hit post that _I_ was just speaking out of anger, and that it wasn't going to do any good...
> ...seems I was right considering my post about pedophiles who _don't_ rape children was responded to with a litany of reasons why pedophiles who _do_ should be locked up.
> For the record:
> No, the crime rate would be much lower.
> First, even if we assume that prison is a deterrant for emotion-driven crimes, the lack of prisons woud provide an even stronger deterrant:
> Fear of being murdered by an angry lynchmob.
> ...




I'm sorry but can you describe your logic on how a lack of prisons would lower crime rates? On one hand you say people should be more open minded about paedophiles and on the other hand you say angry lynchmobs would be better at controlling crime? 
You may not have had a good prison experience but then again thats an off-topic matter for there are good prisons as well as bad ones and as far as i know your experience was not related to children and stuff. But i can say while we are on this subject that prison can work though, i had a friend once(well, the sort of person you just get along with for the sake of it at least), who was always going on about all the people he'd beaten up or the cars he'd stolen. He'd been banned from driving so many times due to drinking offences and not having a license etc- anyways, he got sent to prison for 3months eventually and when he came back he was much better- he'd grown up/matured a huge ammount, he told me that he really needed somone to just put their foot down on his behavior and overall he was glad that he got punished for it. So despite your one-off prison experience, i don't see it as a good reason to damn the whole system.

And how exactly do you define "emotion-driven crime" since we are using this phrase a lot? Somone who murders somone in a fit of rage, a paedophile who cannot control his life long urges to have sex with a child, a women who becomes addicted to stealing because of her emotional insecurity etc? These are all very different things you see that could go under the catagory of emotion-driven crime.

Prison is there for punishment. I don't imply it is there for other reasons. It is not there to cure people of their issues. Psychologists and docters are there for doing those things, but you cannot force everyone to abide by them and be cured- people have to ask for those things if they want it, as im sure if the government forced people to go to rehab there would be much disagreement and controversy from the general public even if it was in the peoples best interests. 

But are we talking about justice, cure or punishment here? 
What about the victums family of their 6yr child who was raped?

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> I agree. I quit. Any reply I make now to the parts of Haciro's posts would just be repeating things that I have already said. Briefly though, fantasies are not a crime, rape is. People are only guilty after commiting a crime. Therapists are probably the only people that can help paedophiles live with and control themselves, if they want help they should be able to get it and we should encourage this. People with rape fantasies should also be able to get therapy.


Just because you do not agree with Hachiro's point of view does not mean "the thread is a loss", this is a debate after all about sharing your viewpoints or opinions on the subject and not a war about trying to convert as many people as posible to your way of thinking- please be respectful of each others opinions or way of thinking/points of view.

----------


## Hachiro

> Prison is there for punishment. I don't imply it is there for other reasons. It is not there to cure people of their issues. Psychologists and docters are there for doing those things, but you cannot force everyone to abide by them and be cured- people have to ask for those things if they want it, as im sure if the government forced people to go to rehab there would be much disagreement and controversy from the general public even if it was in the peoples best interests. 
> 
> But are we talking about justice, cure or punishment here? 
> What about the victums family of their 6yr child who was raped?


I agree that prison is there for punishment, yet it is also there to protect society from criminal's 

There are different "levels" of prisons as well, some for more hardened criminals and some for those that committed "white" collar crimes. 
Maybe it is time that the system set up a prison system specifically for sex crime offenders to include pedophiles. 

I am not so naive to think that society will execute all pedophiles convicted of their crimes, so there does need to be a location that they can go to that the system will keep them all locked up for the time that the court has deemed appropriate for their sentence. Whilst there they should be forced to work for their keep and also forced to work to pay any compensation to the victim or their families. If they choose not to work then the system should not be forced to look after them either. Let them die of starvation if necessary. There is much to be said of the "chain-gangs" of yesteryear, at least at that time people "re-paid" their debt to society for crimes committed. 
That may be hard line to many people, yet it also acts as a deterrent to others that would follow in their footsteps. 

IMO, rehabilitation for serious criminals, such as pedophiles, is a fantasy and is the same as asking a zebra to change the color of their stripes. Ain't gonna happen.

Oh yes, there is no compensation that anyone can give to the victim or family of a 6yr old child that has been raped or possibly murdered by a pedophile. If the child lives through the experience they will be scared for life, and I think the only thing that can give the family and or victim peace of mind is knowing that the perpetrator of the crime is locked away forever or had been sent to the gas chamber, (or other appropriate way of execution). 
There will always be the lingering fear that it could happen again, if the perp' was ever released.

I choose not to feel any sympathy, for pedophiles, in any way shape or form. I have VERY strong reasons for feeling as I do, and they are justified as well.

----------


## Hachiro

> Just because you do not agree with Hachiro's point of view does not mean "the thread is a loss", this is a debate after all about sharing your viewpoints or opinions on the subject and not a war about trying to convert as many people as posible to your way of thinking- please be respectful of each others opinions or way of thinking/points of view.


I agree with you here as well Tokis, I also stated in a previous post that I respect KrazyKat's opinions as well. I just don't agree with her ambiguity.

----------


## Tokis-Phoenix

> I agree that prison is there for punishment, yet it is also there to protect society from criminal's 
> There are different "levels" of prisons as well, some for more hardened criminals and some for those that committed "white" collar crimes. 
> Maybe it is time that the system set up a prison system specifically for sex crime offenders to include pedophiles. 
> I am not so naive to think that society will execute all pedophiles convicted of their crimes, so there does need to be a location that they can go to that the system will keep them all locked up for the time that the court has deemed appropriate for their sentence. Whilst there they should be forced to work for their keep and also forced to work to pay any compensation to the victim or their families. If they choose not to work then the system should not be forced to look after them either. Let them die of starvation if necessary. There is much to be said of the "chain-gangs" of yesteryear, at least at that time people "re-paid" their debt to society for crimes committed. 
> That may be hard line to many people, yet it also acts as a deterrent to others that would follow in their footsteps. 
> IMO, rehabilitation for serious criminals, such as pedophiles, is a fantasy and is the same as asking a zebra to change the color of their stripes. Ain't gonna happen.
> Oh yes, there is no compensation that anyone can give to the victim or family of a 6yr old child that has been raped or possibly murdered by a pedophile. If the child lives through the experience they will be scared for life, and I think the only thing that can give the family and or victim peace of mind is knowing that the perpetrator of the crime is locked away forever or had been sent to the gas chamber, (or other appropriate way of execution). 
> There will always be the lingering fear that it could happen again, if the perp' was ever released.
> I choose not to feel any sympathy, for pedophiles, in any way shape or form. I have VERY strong reasons for feeling as I do, and they are justified as well.



I agree prison also has its uses for keeping criminals off the streets like serial killers and rapists etc- after all, without prison these people would be walking freely in a neighborhood/town near you. This is where prison sentences come in though, as in how long you keep these people off the streets after they have been caught for their crimes.
Here are some examples where i believe the sentence was not harsh enough;

A paedophile who raped his niece when she was just nine years old is jailed for *12 years*;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4446680.stm

A paedophile who abducted a 12-year-old boy from Staffordshire and subjected him to a sexual assault in his car has been jailed for *seven years*;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/4632128.stm

A 60-year-old paedophile drug addict who gave an eight-year-old girl crack cocaine in order to sexually abuse her is jailed for *five years*;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4479404.stm

A former headmaster of a Londonderry primary school who admitted a series of sex offences against three teenage boys has been sentenced to *four years*.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4495131.stm

.... .... .....These people will be out given just some years.
You cannot repair the damage done to the victums but i do believe the sentence given to the paedophile effects things greatly, these sentences though i would feel only add insult to injury. What do you think?

----------


## Hachiro

Here is some information that I found, rather depressing if you ask me, and also makes me wonder what good counselling is going to do to improve the situation. The average number of molestations is particularly henious...




> ....to increase the mandatory minimum sentence from two years to four years for sexual assault on a victim under the age of 16 if the offender is three or more years older than the victim or if the offender inflicts bodily injury upon anyone in course of committing the sexual assault.  The intent is to keep pedophiles off the streets, out of our homes, and away from our children. Sixty percent of child rapists are on parole.  
> 1. Almost 95 percent of victims know their perpetrators. 
> 2. The medium age of victims is 13 years. 
> 3. Half of the rape victims in the United States are under the age of 18. 
> 4. Girls are sexually abused three times more than boys. 
> 5. Approximately 13 percent of women in state prison say that they have been sexually abused as children. 
> 6. Ninety-five percent of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused prior to prostitution. 
> 7. The typical child-sex offender molests an average of 117 children and most of these instances are never reported to law enforcement.


That information is from a "google" that I did and refers to a requested change in law for one state in the US. Going to have to do a bit more research now about sentences.

----------


## Reiku

What site did you get it from?

I know you said you googled it, but that doesn't tell us much...

One thing I'd like to point out though, is that some of those statistics seem too vauge too be believable.

95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused prior to prostitution?

That sounds reasonable, but where did they get their information?

Am I actually expected to believe that whoever compiled these statistics was able to identify 95% of all teenage prostitutes and get this information about them?

For that matter, what do they mean by 95% of _all_ teenage prostitutes?

Worldwide?

In the US?

Just this one town in Iowa somewhere?

It's misleading.

----------


## Hachiro

> What site did you get it from?
> 
> I know you said you googled it, but that doesn't tell us much...
> 
> One thing I'd like to point out though, is that some of those statistics seem too vauge too be believable.
> 
> 95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused prior to prostitution?
> 
> That sounds reasonable, but where did they get their information?
> ...


Not Iowa but in Montana of all places, like I wrote it is for one state, the information comes from this site. Like I also wrote before I need to do more research to get better information. I also agree with you that it could be misleading....sorry about that.

http://http://72.14.203.104/search?q...n&ct=clnk&cd=1

----------


## Hachiro

Here is more that may be a bit more accurate for information from the USA.




> Convicted rape and sexual assault offenders serving time in State prisons report that two-thirds of their victims were under the age of 18, and 58% of those--or nearly 4 in 10 imprisoned violent sex offenders--said their victims were aged 12 or younger.
> 
> In 90% of the rapes of children less than 12 years old, the child knew the offender, according to police-recorded incident data.


from 
http://pedophilehunter.iblog.com/ind...articleId=5121

http://www.glgarden.org/ppp/statistics.html




> Kevin Bishop, an admitted pederast (pedophile), is promoting the work of the North American /Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in South Africa. Bishop, who was molested at the age of six, is also an admitted homosexual who is blunt about the relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. "Scratch the average homosexual and you will find a pedophile," said Bishop in an interview with the Electronic Mail & Guardian (June 30, 1997).1 (1. Angella Johnson, gThe man who loves to love boys,h Electronic Mail & Guardian, June 30, 1997, http://www.mg.co.za/mg.)





> 153 pederasts had sexually molested 22,981 boys over an average period of 22 years. 
> 
> 224 pedophiles had molested 4,435 girls over an average period of 18 years. 
> 
> The average pederast molested an average of 150 boys, and each heterosexual pedophile molested an average of 20 girls, a ratio of 7.5 to one. 12 (12. Dr. Paul Cameron, gHomosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil,h Psychological Reports 57 (1985): 1227-1236.)


from
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils...statistics.htm

I know that one of these sites is religiously based, but the facts contained are frightening to say the least.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> I know what she is suggesting and here is a further reply to that,Many people have fantasies about raping people, or abusing them during sex, that could be considered criminal, I think you will agree with that.


I certainly would not agree with that. Having fantasies about committing a crime is a long way from actually going ahead with it. Believe me, I have had some vivid fantasies about kicking the crap out of one or two people, but I would never act on them!


> Are you suggesting as well that all these people should be called something like "Raper" because they haven't actually carried out the crime of rape but need mental health attention. Oh yes and if they commit the crime of rape then then are called rapists?


If they don't commit any crime I don't know what I would call them - people with sick fantasies probably. If they commit a crime then they are rapists.


> To use KrazyKat's logic ithen in all actuality all "rapists" in the world were only guilty until they committed the crime of rape, but previous to that if society would have been less prejudiced towards them they should have been able to come forward and seek mental health assistance. I dont think so.


I agree wholeheartedly with KK's logic there. I think it might say somewhere in the Bible that thinking something is as bad as doing it, but I don't believe that, and I don't know of any justice system that does either.

----------


## Revenant

> I think it might say somewhere in the Bible that thinking something is as bad as doing it, but I don't believe that, and I don't know of any justice system that does either.


Mars Man was saying that he read an article on neuroscience that put forth that thoughts often began before we could even make a judgement on them. Were this true, then in some circumstances, believing that thinking something was as bad as doing it could be very detrimental to one's self-image. I like more the idea of being aware of one's awareness, and simply watching a thought that one decides not to act on. The analogy is that thoughts and emotions are like bubbles rising from the deep depths of an ocean. One cannot see the origins of the thoughts and emotions. It is better just to know that one often can't control the kinds of thoughts that make their way up, but one can choose how to react to them, or in some cases how not to react to them, but simply watch them wink out of existence.

----------


## Rich303

> The man who does the raping will of course go to hell as well, two sinners, like two peas in a pod.........since there going to burn for all eternity anyway, and there also punishing other sinners.



Wouldn't it be great if bad people went to hell and good people went to heaven? If only life was that simple.
Unfortunately it's not.

I think people just invent the idea of hell because they cannot get over the fact that people can be cruel / evil / 'sinners'(!), and they will get away with it. It might be comforting to think that all the 'sinners' will pay later, but I think it's just a fantasy. They used to tell people that if they didn't pay their tax to the church, that they would go to hell.

On the flip side, I am proud that as a non-religous person, I don't need the 'reward' of heaven to try to be a good person.

I don't believe in heaven or hell, it's just a theory that was invented long ago to help people make sense of the world.
Well, the world doesn't really make sense - deal with it!

----------


## Templar

I believe that pedophiles should either be sent to jail/mental-illness institute for life or killed (depending on the severity of what they did).

----------

