Yes Marcus I agree that nothing is 100% but your argument must have some resolution, it's not just good enough to throw away the key, and let people become worse, as prison will no doubt do to these people.
I am not saying give special treatment to just one section of a prisons population but provide wholesale treatment for all those who require it.
There are measures to ensure that those released into the community are regularly monitored, counselled and put on the Sex Offenders Register.
My snippet about the Krays was the old shaggy dog story of "you could leave your door open when the Krays ruled the East End". I lived in Plaistow, and there were plenty of old 'uns who said that this was bollocks, and crime (all crimes)were just as prevallent then as today.
Zipper (with a rather intense hang-over so excuse the spelling).
Privacy etc.
-
Zipper
Re: Privacy etc.
Ted please see my previous reply which I did say that nothing will ever be 100%, and I agree, it was a shamefull and a tragedy, for this to happen.
My reference to the 4th richest country was to mean that we have the means monetary wise to tackle, and address these issues.
Zip
My reference to the 4th richest country was to mean that we have the means monetary wise to tackle, and address these issues.
Zip
-
marcusallen
Re: Privacy etc.
Chrispornstar's list of priorities almost leaves me mute.
He's got some balls for publishing it.
As for the Monsters being "genuinly sick" and therefore curable, that is fiction.
Nobody offered to "cure" me as I said before, but then perhaps vaults and safes are a far higher priority than children.
He's got some balls for publishing it.
As for the Monsters being "genuinly sick" and therefore curable, that is fiction.
Nobody offered to "cure" me as I said before, but then perhaps vaults and safes are a far higher priority than children.
-
Officer Dibble
Re: Privacy etc.
There?s a lot of hysterical ball-bag talked about paedophilia - which is just what the rabble-rousing newspaper proprietors and cynical politicians intended. So Officer Dibble thought he'd better weigh in with his talent for thoughtful objectivity.
The simple rational facts are that paedophiles are not ill, they are not ?evil? they simply have tastes that are ? at this point in time ? socially unacceptable in the extreme. They are simply at the opposite end of the spectrum where some guys fancy 70-year-old grannies. They cannot help their taste in sexual partners and more than many of us can help our taste for say ?chicken tika massalla? That?s not to say they don?t deserve a slap for not having the fibre to resist their appetites or for trying to justify themselves. And if they were to fuck with anyone you know I would suggest that a more rigours ?slap? might be in order.
But it is a mistake to say, or repeat the tabloid mantra that there is something ?wrong? with them or that they are 'evil?. This is just part of the demonising process which tabloid newspapers and politicians use to whip you up into an irrational mob ? which we discussed earlier in the week. There is nothing as such wrong with them, they are just part of the normal variation that occurs in the natural world, a variation that is necessary to fuel all sorts of natural processes and systems. I guess you could even pity them - they have this hard wired appetite, can?t do anything about it and so must either bite their lip or suffer the slings and arrows of societies unbounded wrath.
Of course it?s wrong to engage with a child in sexual activity. But not because the News of The World, or The Mail says so. It?s ( as jj pointed out) because they cannot give their informed consent ? like sex with your dog or sheep you would be doing it to them instead of with them.
But before we cast the first stone maybe we should look to ourselves ? Have you any idea why you find Sylvia Saint so beautiful and attractive? It?s the doe eyes and the qute little nose ? the features of a child.
Officer Dibble.
The simple rational facts are that paedophiles are not ill, they are not ?evil? they simply have tastes that are ? at this point in time ? socially unacceptable in the extreme. They are simply at the opposite end of the spectrum where some guys fancy 70-year-old grannies. They cannot help their taste in sexual partners and more than many of us can help our taste for say ?chicken tika massalla? That?s not to say they don?t deserve a slap for not having the fibre to resist their appetites or for trying to justify themselves. And if they were to fuck with anyone you know I would suggest that a more rigours ?slap? might be in order.
But it is a mistake to say, or repeat the tabloid mantra that there is something ?wrong? with them or that they are 'evil?. This is just part of the demonising process which tabloid newspapers and politicians use to whip you up into an irrational mob ? which we discussed earlier in the week. There is nothing as such wrong with them, they are just part of the normal variation that occurs in the natural world, a variation that is necessary to fuel all sorts of natural processes and systems. I guess you could even pity them - they have this hard wired appetite, can?t do anything about it and so must either bite their lip or suffer the slings and arrows of societies unbounded wrath.
Of course it?s wrong to engage with a child in sexual activity. But not because the News of The World, or The Mail says so. It?s ( as jj pointed out) because they cannot give their informed consent ? like sex with your dog or sheep you would be doing it to them instead of with them.
But before we cast the first stone maybe we should look to ourselves ? Have you any idea why you find Sylvia Saint so beautiful and attractive? It?s the doe eyes and the qute little nose ? the features of a child.
Officer Dibble.
-
jj
Re: Privacy etc.
Cracksmen, are not, on the whole, mentally ill: paedophiles, without exception, are.
Not all cracksmen are curable of their predilection for doing what they know to be wrong, for which they are rightly punished: paedophiles, being ill, do not merit punishment even though some of them may be aware of the wrongness of what they do. You can reform a criminal, you can only cure someone who is ill. And if, as I contend, the latter is not at present possible with a cast-iron guarantee for paedophiles, then Society needs to be protected from the consequences of their illness by their indefinite incarceration or rendering them unable to commit such acts.
Not all cracksmen are curable of their predilection for doing what they know to be wrong, for which they are rightly punished: paedophiles, being ill, do not merit punishment even though some of them may be aware of the wrongness of what they do. You can reform a criminal, you can only cure someone who is ill. And if, as I contend, the latter is not at present possible with a cast-iron guarantee for paedophiles, then Society needs to be protected from the consequences of their illness by their indefinite incarceration or rendering them unable to commit such acts.
-
jj
Re: Privacy etc.
Most of this I agree with, with the caveat that most mental illnesses are defined as behaviour so far from the norms of a given society that it cannot be classified as mere crime, and/or is manifestly not to the subject's benefit.
-
magoo
Re: Privacy etc.
This whole debate has left me unsure of what my views are. I can undurstand the anger and revulsion that people like Marcus and Ted feel. On the other hand I can see the logic in Dibbles post. I saw a wildlife documentary which said it was common practise amongst chimpanzees to have sex with any passing youngster. Of course we as humans are advanced enough to realise it is wrong. And the reason it is wrong is because it damages the victim. Dont know wether or not the baby chimps lives were ruined or not. If something happens in nature does this mean it is natural? I dont have the answer.
I dont accept that possession or distribution of child porn is a victimless offence. Anyone demanding such material is an accessory after the fact to the abuse (not legally so but in my view they are). If Chrispornstar thinks freedom to look at what you want should come before protecting kids then hes clearly wrong. Protection of the weak and vulnerable should be a much higher priority than the freedoms of some spotty kiddy fiddler. Thats why its a special case because the kids cant consent. They need laws to protect them.
I do think treatment of these deviants is a better solution than hanging them. It may lead to discovering how to stop people becoming peadophiles or at least detecting and intervening BEFORE they offend.
I would ban animal porn if I had my way. As Dibble pointed out animals cant consent either.
I dont accept that possession or distribution of child porn is a victimless offence. Anyone demanding such material is an accessory after the fact to the abuse (not legally so but in my view they are). If Chrispornstar thinks freedom to look at what you want should come before protecting kids then hes clearly wrong. Protection of the weak and vulnerable should be a much higher priority than the freedoms of some spotty kiddy fiddler. Thats why its a special case because the kids cant consent. They need laws to protect them.
I do think treatment of these deviants is a better solution than hanging them. It may lead to discovering how to stop people becoming peadophiles or at least detecting and intervening BEFORE they offend.
I would ban animal porn if I had my way. As Dibble pointed out animals cant consent either.
-
St Francis of Assissi
Re: Privacy etc.
.....but they can't say No either.
Sorry, I just thought a bit of levity was needed.
Now, where's me gumboots?
Sorry, I just thought a bit of levity was needed.
Now, where's me gumboots?
-
Officer Dibble
Re: Privacy etc.
But JJ, they are not ill. You?re falling into the trap that the media has set out to demonise pedos and try to make us believe that their desires are so unnatural that they must be evil, ill or insane.
Is the guy who fancies 75-year-old grannies ill? Is the guy who likes being tied up and have hot candle wax dripped on his ball-bag ill? Is the guy who likes other guys ill? Are they insane? Should they be locked up? Or do they just have different sexual tastes?
Pedos are not ill they just have unacceptable tastes. And since they are not ill they cannot be "cured." They can be given aversion therapy but this is just simple brain washing the underlying desires remain - in a repressed state if the therapy is successful. If not, it may be that they need to be incarcerated just to prevent them preying on societies kiddies.
Officer Dibble - he has it on good authority from his pal 'Dr No'
Is the guy who fancies 75-year-old grannies ill? Is the guy who likes being tied up and have hot candle wax dripped on his ball-bag ill? Is the guy who likes other guys ill? Are they insane? Should they be locked up? Or do they just have different sexual tastes?
Pedos are not ill they just have unacceptable tastes. And since they are not ill they cannot be "cured." They can be given aversion therapy but this is just simple brain washing the underlying desires remain - in a repressed state if the therapy is successful. If not, it may be that they need to be incarcerated just to prevent them preying on societies kiddies.
Officer Dibble - he has it on good authority from his pal 'Dr No'