Royal Ascot - 18 - 22 June 2024
Other Sports1 min ago
No best answer has yet been selected by pjm007. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.pjm007 I was actually following this thread with interestas I gave my thoughts quite clearly on the hanging thread, and had actually been thinking what my views really were about sex offences against children. Unfortunately, I was distracted by Marge's extreme rudeness to Steve and I apologise for this.
My view is that I would like to see these people imprisoned for life, with no chance of ever being freed, in a special unit devoted to cases of this type.
Netibiza, thanks for your reply.
I was expanding the definition to what I see as a group comprising those who have acted against children as well as those who are inclined to do so but who have not. I do deplore those paedophilic acts we all know about, and they do become very well covered in the press very quickly. But to do something to protect children, something must be done to address the much much larger number of people who have a sexual attraction towards children but who cannot be touched under current legislation, partly because they are not known publicly as being paedophilic, or simply because they have not committed any acts. There must be tens of thousands of such people in the UK (if police net-paedophilia figures are to be believed). Among their number must be a sizeable group who know that they will present a danger to children, and wish to have some kind of treatment. To put the situation in perspective, if someone is into looking at child porn on the internet, if they are not stopped from looking at child porn again, then child abuse is increased, since behind every such indecent image is a child abused, and the development of a market for these images leads to an increase in child abuse to support it. This phenomenon is now spiralling out of control in the UK (police figures support it). So what is to be done? You cannot simply curb the child abuse at source: many are probably created in random countries where civilized government has no reach.
Thanks for the clarification FP, thought it was out of character for you, sincerest apologies again and all that!
El D,
Yet again, failure to answer any of the questions put to you. I'll ask again, how do you intend to treat people like this who refuse treatment even when they are incarcerated for previous similar crimes?
You are incorrect, I am not implying that by increasing fear of punishment their urges will be restrained I am saying that their punishment does not fit the crime.
that's right Phil, feel like you are dealing with the problem. I guess that's all that matters to some people.
Er, yes it does actually! What matters to you? Seeing paedophiles released without voluntary treament time after time to re-offend again? I understand that for some people it is de rigeur to comfort, counsell and understand paedophiles whilst paying far less attention to their victims, but some of us see them for the cunning, devious violators of children they are.
Lastly, can you explain what the 'bigger issues at stake' are? After all, a discussion about the re-introduction of the death penalty for child rapists and murderers is a fairly 'big issue' topic, is it not?
The direction of efforts other than punishment is not centrally about the interests of the paedophile but the interests of the innocents that would go on to be harmed if intervention did not take place. If you cannot understand the paedophile, you cannot change the way they behave.
Philtaz, you have two poles in your mind, liberal on the one side and 'tough approach' on the other, and people's approaches do not readily fit into this framework. People can still advocate a tough approach to paedophiles and have the utmost grief for the victims, while applying an intelligent approach to try to change people.
No worries FP, It would seem to me that whilst myself and other posters on this thread seem to agree on the fate of these vile and sick people, who are knowingly carrying out these appauling offences on innocent children, they are cunning and clever individuals who know exactly what they are doing, how else would you explain paedophile rings ? where, for example, groups of well respected people including Doctors, teachers, police, etc. are leading double lives and lying to their wives and their own children.
While some people (including myself) would like to see the kind of people involved in these deplorable acts punished in such a way that they could NEVER re-offend again, others would rather give them a hug and say 'There, there I know you didn't mean it, your just misguided'.
I think that the majority of paedophiles would carry on offending, regardless of what the general public's opinion of them is.
So Lorcan, who said we have no right to "kill them" ? Did all these right come from some superior alien being ? Rights are man made you can vote for one or against one or even sit on the fence if you arent sure, but they are all of human design and most of them are based around human emotions and thats the problem.Why not an eye for an eye etc. A male lion, on finding a new pride will, if there any cubs, kill them all so that he can then mate and ensure his genes are proliferate. Out and out murder, is it right or is it wrong ? You with your human emotions decide.
No, even if they were based around a human design dimension, that dimension wouldn't be emotion.
El D, I have to tell you that it IS interesting and informative to read your post, however, you will probably have guessed by now that many of those to whom you are speaking have a distorted view of even the basics of human mental design.
That's right Marge, we are not even on the same intellectual level. We have little idea as to the nuances and workings of the criminal mind and all its intricacies. We don't really care too much for understanding and treating those with no wish to be treated. We care not for their circumstances or the hard luck stories that drove them to rape and murder innocent tots.
We prefer to see the life and welfare of a child as sacrosanct, above all others, but especially those who wish to harm and violate them. I guess we're just giving in to our protective, maternal and paternal instincts, aren't we?
Because coming to a site like this to hear someone just spout their opinion is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. What is of use is reasoned debate, but El D has hit the rocks is in trying to engage in reasoned, informed debate with those who think they are qualified to talk about the workings of the human mind, but are not. It may seem that if you do not delve into psychology you can work with what you have from personal experience and common sense, but this is just not the case at all, in fact very many concrete findings in psychology run directly contrary to "common sense". This is not surprising, since the mind is subject to a miriad of biases which, unless controlled for, will lead to false conclusions.
If I have not informed myself enough about a subject, I will not presume to dictate to others what I have as a only as a matter of opinion. I know a little bit about physics and astronomy, but I will spend all my time with a physicist/astronomer listening, not offering my 'opinion' on the matter. Just because you have a 'mind' doesn't make you qualified to spout out about how it might work.
Philtaz, if a psychologist is approached by someone who has paedophilic tendencies, but wants shot of them, what approach do you think the psychologist have? What do you think they should do?