Paedophile gets 6 yrs

Skive

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
i could be the Mother of the child he abused .You could be the Dad, Brother, Uncle........

But I'm not.
And you seem to be implying that the opinions of those without kids arn't as valid as valid as those with kids?

I'm sure there are many out there who have fantasies involving children, yet will never touch a kid indecently in their whole lifetime.
Becky, if somone admited to being sexually atrracted to children would you want them banged up, even before they'd committed any offence, or are you into punishing people for things they havn't yet done?

Former Member

Originally posted by morrocan roll
it may well be legitamate but i would call it perversion.
if it is legitamate ...it doesn't mean we have to tolerate it.
no one is suggesting cutting someones nuts off for thinking about it.
but ...as far as i'm aware no society has ever tolerated child abuse.
if your actualy born that way ...then tough shit. society can not work with people behaving like that.

And that was why I brought in homosexuality. 100 years ago, homosexuals were viewed in the same way as paedophiles are today. The difference is consent, but the point is the same. Society viewed homosexuality as a dreadful crime, but now it is an acceptable lifestyle choice.

So we can either ignore paedophilia and lock people up when we catch them abusing children, or we can accept it is a given and make strict guidelines for those working with children to avoid the problem occurring.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
And that was why I brought in homosexuality. 100 years ago, homosexuals were viewed in the same way as paedophiles are today. The difference is consent, but the point is the same. Society viewed homosexuality as a dreadful crime, but now it is an acceptable lifestyle choice.

So we can either ignore paedophilia and lock people up when we catch them abusing children, or we can accept it is a given and make strict guidelines for those working with children to avoid the problem occurring.

i'm not quite sure about your thinking here.
modern enlightened society now sees no problem with consenting adults ...are you suggesting that one day we will become enlightened enough to accept sex with 4 yr olds?
i don't think you are.
but you are suggesting we see it more as normal which to my mind is dangerous ground indeed.
if one day it can be 'treated' ...fine. for now it seems it cannot so ...we protect our children by giving out a clear message by way of very harsh sentences.
or ...the offer to take away urges that led someone to harming an innocent child.
when nicking a few quid carries a bigger sentence than harming another person ...especialy a child ...things are going wrong.

Former Member

Originally posted by Skive

And you seem to be implying that the opinions of those without kids arn't as valid as valid as those with kids?

I'm sure there are many out there who have fantasies involving children, yet will never touch a kid indecently in their whole lifetime.

didnt say that, I said views can change. I cant explain it, but im not just digging at anyone here, im being really serious when you have you own kids your views not just on his topic but many others can change.
I would want someone treated if they admitted to being sexually attracted to kids.....course I would. Id probably want them tagged so police could always trace them and Id wanna make sure that they were not allowed near schools, youthys etc etc.....probably wouldnt happen, but hey thats my view. If someone has admitted to the police or a doctor that they have a sexual attraction to kids and nothings done and they then go onto sexually abuse a child then they should be done as well for letting them out in the community knowing they were a risk to children.

Former Member

Originally posted by morrocan roll
i'm not quite sure about your thinking here.
modern enlightened society now sees no problem with consenting adults ...are you suggesting that one day we will become enlightened enough to accept sex with 4 yr olds?
i don't think you are.
but you are suggesting we see it more as normal which to my mind is dangerous ground indeed.

Certainly not.

I've already said the difference is consent. You could never get consent from a child so I'm not suggesting society will one day find paedophilia acceptable.

Call it enlightened, but society accepts that people have homosexual thoughts now, whereas 100 years ago it was utterly dispicable. If our society accepts that paedophiles will always exist then maybe we could have a decent policy and debate on preventing abuse. Perhaps society doesn't want to face up to that fact. It's not a pleasant thought.

if one day it can be 'treated' ...fine. for now it seems it cannot so ...we protect our children by giving out a clear message by way of very harsh sentences.
or ...the offer to take away urges that led someone to harming an innocent child.
when nicking a few quid carries a bigger sentence than harming another person ...especialy a child ...things are going wrong.

To be honest, I rarely have an opinion on prison sentences, partly because I'm not convinced prison works in its current form. But I'd agree that sentences for paedophiles need to give a clear message to society that child abuse is unacceptable.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
But I'd agree that sentences for paedophiles need to give a clear message to society that child abuse is unacceptable.

six years was not enough then considering he'll more than likely be out in three.

Former Member

Originally posted by morrocan roll
six years was not enough then considering he'll more than likely be out in three.

OK, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing. 3 years doesn't seem long - agreed - but he's on the register and won't have as easy access to children so it's not as if he'll be straight back into his old job with children around.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
3 years doesn't seem long - agreed -

Halleluyah

Former Member

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Halleluyah

That wasn't a change of opinion but, hey, as long as you're happy...

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
That wasn't a change of opinion but, hey, as long as you're happy...

oh god, get real.

Shit cant you chill.........just a bit.

Former Member

:cool:

Former Member

Originally posted by Skive
Even if he's never going to abuse again? Who are you, the thought police?

yeah.. he fantasizes about those things and what not..

and people can have sick fantasies.. whatever..

but he acted upon it.. maybe he didn't rape and kill the child.. but he still molested her..

i don't care what he did.. molestation is molestation.. and it does affect the person for the rest of his/her life...

and how do you know that this is the first time that he did it?? there's a good chance that it isn't.. and how do you know he's not going to do it when he gets out??

TONS of people go back to jail for repeating the same offense they were in there for the first time...

6 years of jail (which will probably be shortened like roll said) is not equivalent to the years of damage that he has caused those children

Former Member

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paedophile gets 6 yrs

Originally posted by Kentish
You disagree with AA?

Yes.

Former Member

Originally posted by Felix Da Housecat
Memory is tied to emotions right? We as humans remember most what gives us a good feeling and what doesn't. The feelings for an alcaholic towards a drink are strong they never forget what it was like to drink. Not only are they constantly reminded to drink, but their constantly reminded in strong emotional terms.

Why do you think that an alcoholic isn't allowed to drink? Not just because it's damaging effect but there's risk of drinking full time again. Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic.

Again, rubbish. Depends on the person, depends on lots of things. Some people can learn to drink in moderation.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
Quite.

And we aren't allowed the debate because of the strong homosexual lobby which has fought hard for its existence, so we're left with locking them [paedophiles] up and putting them on a register for life.

Is paedophilia a legitimate feeling?

If you can't see the difference between paedophilia and homosexuality, then you truly are an idiot.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
It matters not. I have heterosexual feelings, which most people in the country can understand. Others have homosexual feelings, which fewer, but a significant number of, people can understand. Some people have paedophlilic feelings, which even fewer people can understand. But just because they are a minority, does that make the feelings unacceptable?

As far as I can see, the only objection to paedophilia can be the lack of consent of the child, which is what makes it a crime. The feeling may be normal for some, I don't know.

If paedophilia is a result of nurture (which may well be impossible to prove) then improving child welfare [e.g. preventing abuse etc.] can be an aim for reducing future paedophilia, but if it is a nature thing then I don't see how the feeling itself can be condemned.

I see what you're getting at, but peadophilia can not lead to a healthy sexual relationship. So it can be defined as an illness I guess.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
If you can't see the difference between paedophilia and homosexuality, then you truly are an idiot.

That's not what I said is it. I was saying that if paedophilia is 'treatable' then one could argue that homosexual is 'treatable'. And heterosexuality for that matter, if you want to be PC. The point being that it would undermine the homosexual lobby, hence it is never debated, and we don't know if you can 'cure' someone of paedophilic desire.

Originally posted by Blagsta
I see what you're getting at, but peadophilia can not lead to a healthy sexual relationship. So it can be defined as an illness I guess

But only "healthy" in your eyes. The obvious problem is the lack of consent, but does that automatically make it an illness?

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish

The obvious problem is the lack of consent,

your thinking is getting a little worrying.
for a luckybag and a sticky bun i may well be able to get consent from a five year old ...what on earth are you trying to say?

Former Member

Originally posted by morrocan roll
your thinking is getting a little worrying.
for a luckybag and a sticky bun i may well be able to get consent from a five year old ...what on earth are you trying to say?

No no no no no no.

I don't think you could ever get consent from a child to have sex/be molested so I think paedophiles could never be allowed to act out their fantasies.

However, if we are to accept that some people (very few, but some) have sexual feelings towards children then we need to sort out whether they need treatment or locking up or something else.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
we need to sort out whether they need treatment or locking up or something else.

isn't this what BBOO was saying?

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
That's not what I said is it. I was saying that if paedophilia is 'treatable' then one could argue that homosexual is 'treatable'. And heterosexuality for that matter, if you want to be PC. The point being that it would undermine the homosexual lobby, hence it is never debated, and we don't know if you can 'cure' someone of paedophilic desire.

Errr...no. As I said - a homosexual has a very good chance of having a consenting, loving and equal relationship. A peadophile doesn't.

Originally posted by Kentish
But only "healthy" in your eyes.

Is homosexuality not healthy in your eyes?

Originally posted by Kentish
The obvious problem is the lack of consent, but does that automatically make it an illness?

Well seeing as there is no scope for a consenting, loving and equal relationship, I'd say its an aberration of some sort, yes.

Former Member

Originally posted by morrocan roll
isn't this what BBOO was saying?

Kind of. Boo was saying that 6 years (or 3 years) wasn't enough and was then just re-iterating how awful paedophiles are. I never found out what she thought about paedophilia itself and what society can do about it apart from locking up those who have committed such crimes. I was more interested in preventing the crime in the first place, but maybe I wasn't making that clear enough.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Errr...no. As I said - a homosexual has a very good chance of having a consenting, loving and equal relationship. A peadophile doesn't.

That's what I said. I don't disagree, but that wasn't my point.

Is homosexuality not healthy in your eyes?

I have never said that and I don't think that, no.

Well seeing as there is no scope for a consenting, loving and equal relationship, I'd say its an aberration of some sort, yes.

Probably. So what should we do about people who have these thoughts and feelings?

Indrid Cold

...Am I the only one here who understands what Kentish meant? Or does everyone else understand it too and pretend they don't?

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
That's what I said. I don't disagree, but that wasn't my point.

What is your point?

Originally posted by Kentish
I have never said that and I don't think that, no.

Glad to hear it.

Originally posted by Kentish
Probably. So what should we do about people who have these thoughts and feelings?

I don't know. Keep them away from children and attempt therapeutic intervention I guess.

Former Member

Originally posted by Zalbor
...Am I the only one here who understands what Kentish meant? Or does everyone else understand it too and pretend they don't?

Thanks Zalbor, I'm glad someone did.

Indrid Cold

Originally posted by Kentish
Thanks Zalbor, I'm glad someone did.

No problem. Some people seem to have trouble understanding that one can think on ideas (s)he disagrees with.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
What is your point?

That if paedophilia can be cured then any other sexuality can be altered. Which weakens the argument for being gay from birth, for example.

I don't know. Keep them away from children and attempt therapeutic intervention I guess.

All that fuss and you end up just agreeing with what's already been said. You must love to argue.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kentish
That if paedophilia can be cured then any other sexuality can be altered. Which weakens the argument for being gay from birth, for example.

I believe you are making what is called a "category error". Paedophilia is not (IMO at least) a sexuality. It is a distortion of sexuality, probably caused by some deep emotional trauma in infancy, childhood or adolescence.

Originally posted by Kentish
You must love to argue.

Yep.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
I believe you are making what is called a "category error". Paedophilia is not (IMO at least) a sexuality. It is a distortion of sexuality, probably caused by some deep emotional trauma in infancy, childhood or adolescence.

That's fair, but my point was whether sexual desires can be altered or not.