| (Pages: 1, 2, 3) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3986 Joined: 16 May 2008     | |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 571 Joined: 22 Apr 2008    |
What Mr. Sarcasm said ;) Keep treating them like shit rather then trying to help them live with the affliction that they have. After they've done their time, people should be helped in trying to get back as a functioning member of society. For paedophiles this should of course come with several obvious limits (no living/working near children etc) but branding them publicly and treating them like shit sure as hell won't make anything better. |
Muckraker  Posts: 239 Joined: 18 Apr 2009     | I thought people were born Paedophiles or pushed that way because of their upbringing. Well anyway they don't deserve that because of what their genes drive them to do. Damn that makes me sound like a Paedophile sympathiser, they are heavily disturbed individuals but they don't need that. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3785 Joined: 29 Dec 2007   |
Most people in this situation are not paedophiles, because a paedophile isn't living under a bridge, he is living next to a school. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3587 Joined: 6 Aug 2008   |
Think more supervised freedom. They have things not allowed in prison, they just also have trackers and internet filters, it lets them feel more free and in return we can keep an eye on them, it works and it allows them to be treated as people instead of spending the rest of their lives in a box. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 71 Joined: 8 Apr 2009     | I would say that any reasonable law system works under the premise that if you commit a crime, you get punished and after that you are free to live a normal life within the constrains of the law. These people obviously have no such possibilities, hence the laws are unreasonable. It also strikes me as an extremely bad idea to brand a person as a pedophile for the rest of their life(it is no secret that people generally act as people expect them to act, so by branding people pedophiles and forcing them to live apart from society you are defiantly increasing the chances of them repeating their crimes) |
Paperboy  Posts: 48 Joined: 1 Apr 2009   | Paedophiles need a bullet to the neck. Alot more cheap then putting them in prizon, and we'd make the world a better place for all. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1440 Joined: 8 Jan 2009  | hmmm, sucks to be them Not so much "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and more "don't do the crime if you can't do the time and can't afford some high powered binoculars" |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 446 Joined: 14 May 2008  |
This is the only thing that makes sense to me, as far as looking at the problem practically is concerned. You have a paedophile. Now, the law isn't going to let you execute him, or chemically castrate him, or keep him locked away for fifty years, no matter how big your Daily Mail vengence erection is. So do you let him integrate with society, but keep an eye on his activities, let him have a job, a home, but keep him from working with children, or living next to a school; or do you force him to sleep rough under a bridge with dozens of other paedophiles? I mean, you're just making someone hate the society that put them there, while providing a natural forum for the propogation of paedophile hints-and-tips? How can anyone think that's a good idea? I appreciate that there's going to be a reoffending rate whichever you do, but seriously, a paedophile slum under a bridge? It's not going to be a breeding ground for healthy, positive thoughts. Maybe I'm talking nonce-sense, but this sounds like something from Brass Eye: |
On the Record  Posts: 5383 Joined: 10 Aug 2008 |
No, I'd rather prefer that people with opinions like this got a bullet to the neck. Would be rather ironic. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 216 Joined: 4 Mar 2009    | As sick as they make me, this is appalling. They've done their time, it is unfair to keep punishing them. |
BANNED  Posts: 2994 Joined: 16 Aug 2008   |
This, find them a house-kind thing. User was banned for: Ketchup Packets... Why in the heck are they sooo small?. (Permanent) |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 568 Joined: 19 Feb 2009  |
but that way they are the only ones that will survive the zombie apocalypse AWKWARD |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2849 Joined: 8 Jul 2008   | I could care less, but I feel sorry for the guy who had sex with a 16 year old (legal in Britan remember) and isn't allowed to live with his family. That's just unfair. |
Anonymous Source Posts: 4 Joined: 17 Jan 2009    | Weeeeeeeeeird.....why don't they just lock them up and forget that they ever existed just like with normal criminals...sounds a lot easier..... |
Paperboy Posts: 50 Joined: 28 Jan 2009  | This shit goes on in every thread related to pedophilia on every forum ever and I'm tired of it. Before I rant, I shall define some terms: Pedophilia (n): The sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Now allow me to blow your fucking mind by suggesting that neither of these are inherently bad things. Molesting and raping children is an inherently bad thing, and it could be argued that consensual sex with a child is an inherently bad thing whether due to them simply being psychologically unable to handle it or due to society shitting itself over it so much, but the attraction to them is not. An attraction is just that: an attraction. Of course there wouldn't be any virgins here, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who are attracted to the opposite sex yet have never in their life touched a member of it. Thinking about killing your boss does not make you a murderer. Pedophiles are attracted to children for the same reasons homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Maybe it's psychological, maybe it's genetics; the specific reasons vary in each case, but it is not their fault. They did not decide one day that they would get off to little girls just to get on everyone's tits, they just do, and they can do jack shit to stop it. It's like having six fingers on one hand. Yeah, maybe you'll use the sixth finger to poke someone's eye out, and that's bad, but you should punish someone for poking someone's eye out not for having an extra finger with which you could. Let me recap: pedophile != child molester, stop confusing the two. Hell, in a lot of cases, child rapists aren't even strictly pedophiles, they just get off on rape and go for the easier targets. Before you run out with your flamethrowers, I'm not sympathizing with actual child molesters. Getting sexually abused as a child can fuck you up nine ways to Sunday and no one should ever have to go through that, but I want to emphasize that the difference between getting off to little girls and fucking them is equivalent to the difference between thinking about a girl naked and having sex with her. If a thousand fuckheads didn't bust out torches and pitchforks every time someone admitted an attraction to kids, some of the more extreme cases could actually get help and stop themselves before they're pushed over the edge, but the social and legal consequences for being involved in anything even vaguely related to children and sexuality have most people so scared that they'll never say anything about it. Pedophiles are more commonplace than you think. Again, pedophiles, not child molesters. These are people who, for whatever reason, are sexually attracted to children, and they're just fucked because they have to deal with the utter demonization of the subject. They can never act on their sexuality without psychologically harming someone, so they suppress it. Some bust, most don't. Which brings us smoothly into another fun subject: child porn! Being the only way to really act on their urges without harming someone, a lot of pedos find solace in this, but of course then they're "supporting the act of molestation and rape by viewing the files," which is a load of bullshit, but whatever I'm getting off track and that's a debate for another day. Another popular escape is lolicon, which is currently taking the ever-popular "but looking at it might make you do it" argument along with violent video games, but you're still mostly safe with it in any case. Getting back on-topic, I'll bring up the fact that everyone is one perturbed 14-year-old away from being a registered child sex offender. Or one shirtless afternoon. Or one mistaken click of a link. There is a vast gulf between being a registered sex offender and being someone who's actually committed a sexual crime, and even the actual child molesters don't deserve this kind of bullshit. Even the worst of the worst can change, provided everyone doesn't treat them like a fucking animal for the rest of their lives. Oh, and here's something to think about: if registered child sex offenders should be forcefully herded away from any type of children for the rest of their lives, shouldn't that apply to regular sex offenders, too? They're just as dangerous, right? What's that? You can't do that, because people of the opposite sex are everywhere, and that would leave them with nowhere to go? Well, shit, isn't that a pickle. Good thing children are so rare that we don't have the same problem with child sex offenders, hm? |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 4768 Joined: 17 Mar 2009    | Escapist law: Whenever paedophilia is mentioned in a thread, the describing of many vile and disgusting torture fantasies will almost certainly follow. |
Muckraker Posts: 250 Joined: 14 Jun 2009    |
Thank Christ, some sense. Excellently put. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 360 Joined: 19 Mar 2008  |
Give this guy a medal. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 61 Joined: 3 Jun 2009  |
Agreed, completely. The collective reaction of The Escapist community in this regard sickens me to my stomach. These sex offenders have already served their sentence, and not only do you people think that we're perfectly justified in stripping them of what little dignity society allows them, forcing them to live under a bridge like some sort of inhuman monsters, but you insist that even then, we are being too lenient.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. People don't change? I'm sure the field of clinical psychology would like a word with you. And developmental. And behavioural. And every educational system ever. And every court which has ever issued a sentence to someone other than the death penalty. In fact, I think you will find, people like this don't change because society as a whole automatically assumes that they won't, or can't, and treats them accordingly. You treat them like inhuman monsters and how the hell do you think they'll act? As I was reading the OP, I figured that a better solution would simply be to force them to wear some sort of identification. But if the responses in this thread are any indication, I figure the current system is less of a punishment. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1794 Joined: 23 Apr 2009   | I say either keep them in prison the rest of their lives, or give them all the death sentence. I feel no sympathy for those people, none at all. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 139 Joined: 4 Jan 2009  | no surprise this is happeneing in an american place... i feel sorry for the few interlectual americans who have to put up with this sort of violation of human rights... i suspect it's more to do with the panic media and the spineless politicians that seem to rule the world now. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1286 Joined: 10 Mar 2009 |
If he/she was a rapist, okay. But what if the "sex offenders" crime was being caught taking a piss in public? Showing your weiner, even if it's by accident, can get you in to the register. Should those people also be forced o live under a bridge? The world isn't black and white. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2242 Joined: 6 Apr 2009  |
Pedoisland? I like it. OT I have to admit that personally these people are animals in my book but they at least deserve basic amenities. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2068 Joined: 11 Jan 2009  | This whole thing just strikes me as being extremely stupid. And like some other people here have mentioned i am also disgusted by the people here who want too treat these people like there sub-human and should not have any human rights. It does not matter if the offendors are bad people, take there human rights away and treat them like animals and you lose your rights too call yourself someone who values the idea of democracy and freedom. You can't be someone who values human rights when it comes too one kind of people and then be someone who does not value them when dealing with some other kind of people at the same time. Either you value human rights or you don't, it's as simple as that. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 190 Joined: 4 Mar 2009  |
Dude, you just can't compare raping children with drunken driving.
Again, raping children is not comparable to any other crime, really. People who rape children should be killed, end of story. It's like killing a horse that has two defective legs. Unless someone think of a way to have different brain transplanted into rapists, society is better off without them. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1435 Joined: 4 Feb 2009  |
Child sex offenses cover a huge range of behaviour, this includes raping children but there is plenty more. Example: You go around a friends house to a party, everyone gets drunk, someone puts on a porno, you sit around watching it. Someone in the room is drinking underage and watching it. You are now a child sex offender. So if I drive drunk I risk killing or maiming a child, or a parent of that child then I've done less harm than in the above cases? I highlighted some acts on the minor end of child abuse but can you honestly say sexually assaulting a child is more damaging than an accident leaving a child dead/unable to walk/feed/clothe themselves because I wanted a beer buzz? I don't feel I can rate them best to worst. Enough to say all are terrible.
You make some valid points although I disagree on child porn. First, its not porn, its child abuse material. a child cannot consent even if he/she wanted to. Children are harmed and abused to make the material so viewing it is encouraging and or endorsing this. Often children are harmed for the sole purpose of producing the images to be shared. Victims also have the added trauma of knowing that other Paedophiles are getting sexual gratification from their misery and abuse, for years after the actual abuse finished. You can't ever get those images back, they get passed around and around. Child pornography is serious, although I feel the recent sexting thing should be treated differently. My biggest issue is that this makes people feel "safe". Us and them. It's not real safety though. If youre abused chances are it will be by a friend or relative your parents/carers trust or your parents/carers. Not the shifty looking man in the long coat. |
Paperboy Posts: 50 Joined: 28 Jan 2009 | Well, it's another day, so let's have this debate.
So how do you suggest pedos find a safe alternative for their sex drive, then? You don't rape the child again by looking at the picture, and, like you said, the images can't be taken back anyway. They're out there already and the misery of knowing that people are masturbating to pictures of yourself being raped is not in any way compounded or lessened by one person's viewing or lack of viewing of it. Before I give the wrong idea, I don't think the ban on child porn should be lifted. All of it falls under the same purview rape photos fall under because they literally cannot consent, and to produce it you're required to irreversibly harm a child and that's unacceptable. But the consequences for viewing it are far, far too steep, especially considering that it's the only way pedophiles can act on their sexuality without physically harming someone.
That's what makes all these "think of the children" laws such egregious bullshit. They don't even address the primary causes of child abuse. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1435 Joined: 4 Feb 2009 |
If you want to see children there are hundreds of places, Kids TV, clothing catalogues etc that don't involve harming children to produce. You can have a sex drive, you do not have to act on it. Here's an example: Children are constantly harmed to produce more and more of this material and while there is a "demand" for it, it will continue to be produced. Often by the same people who view it. There is also a percentage who access more and more extreme material leading up to actually abusing a child. I also dont think there would be many victims who are very sympathetic to your "one more viewer doesn't hurt" argument. Taking a different approach, by viewing child abuse materials you are witnessing a very serious crime. How many do you think forward the files on to the police to protect the child and catch the abuser? You are an accessory to the abuse by viewing it and keeping silent. You are holding valuable evidence the police could use to protect children. In a way the internet has ruined a lot of lives. There are a lot of people who would never have abused a child who, because they had access to it, started viewing child abuse over the internet. They are now convicted sex offenders, lost jobs, been to prison etc. While I find this unfortunate I still think "child porn" should be dealt with as a serious offence, and is not dealt with harsh enough in the UK. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 179 Joined: 24 Dec 2008 |
Wow an actual sex offender, people note the WE in his opening sentence (I just hope he ain't a child sex offender). Now listen I had a girl in High School and yes she screamed out my name in passionate embrace more than once but the big difference is that she was 1 week older than me. This meaning that we were both underaged, consensual and I had already openly declared my intentions to the world. Besides that I was the slightly younger guy so I could never have been the Offender in that relationship according to your twisted logic. I did however once saw a kid looking at a bag of sweets I was eating and after asking her mum if it was alright to give her one I gave her one and was not immediately tackled by police and charge with sexual offence against a minor. SEX OFFENDER, means that one has made the attempt or had plans or committed the act on his/her name. Kiddy porn is also a Sex offence though one will be charged with Illegal possessions and slapping a (underaged or not) waitress on the ass is sexual harassment not a sex offence. The MAKER of that kiddy porn however is A CHILD SEX OFFENDER, because he forces children to have sex with each other for profit so also prostitution, extortion, endangerment of live if no condoms are used and so on. Let me recall a little thing that happened when we won the Champions League, a whole fucking fleet of shirtless men in the street celebrating 30 feet from my school. None charged with child endangerment or child sex offence. Now standing shirtless in front of a highschool whilst making suggestive poses at first Grade is a fucking Sex Offence and one that should be punished with imprisonment or banishment. So in short the people that are TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY as sex offenders have all (attempted to) committed or planned to commit a sexual offence against a child or peer whilst they them selves being of age. Thus we should all give em a nice ticket to Pedo-reservation (18+ for entry) and be rid of their poison. And for your information no HETERO SEXUALLY SOUND MAN IS ATTRACTED TO A 14 YEAR OLD and it is probably for a VERY good reason it is illegal below 18. Did you know a pedophile political party tried to press the sex limit from 18 to 12 in Holland. Can you believe what would happen when all the boys and girls turned 12, we'd have a fucking epidemic of rapes. And @ Altorin no that would be a reservation, much like 1800's Indians used to live in. |
Paperboy Posts: 50 Joined: 28 Jan 2009 |
Actually, yeah, I agree. Bad reasoning on my part.
But does this merit ruining the lives of anyone who's ever caught being connected with it (Even if they didn't actually seek it out!)? Obviously the demand is still going to be there no matter how severe the consequences are, and children are still going to be abused to create it.
This is a good point, although most abusers with sense would (presumably; my faith in people's common sense is ever-dwindling) make sure they didn't leave any type of traces that could be helpful in tracking them down. What are the consequences for other situations like this?
A lot? What's "a lot?" Most people (including pedophiles) actually have a decent understanding of the separation between fantasy and reality and the consequences of ignoring it; I would think the blame would belong on the person for breaking down rather than the internet for having child porn on it.
>>We are discussing the lowest of the low... Reading comprehension. I had a nice response written out for the rest of your post, but I've decided against posting it because you are an idiot and I don't care to waste my time arguing with you ad nauseum. |
Beat Writer Posts: 179 Joined: 24 Dec 2008 | It is just poor judgement on your part of putting WE at the front of a post about sex offenders without clarification. It is called poor writing skills and the blame can only be put with you. But you have struck a good point there what people are now trying to do is put the blame on others. THE PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED THESE CRIMES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS AND MUST BARE ALL CONSEQUENCES. If having sex with an 8 year old means that sick fuck will need to live under a bridge the rest of his live WHOOPIE, HUURAY. Better than the POSSIBILTY of going back to prison when POSSIBLY caught again (he might never be apprehended again. But there should be alternatives, like what i already suggested PEDO VILLE/STATE/RESORT or a government program or reduction with a certificate which just keeps you 100 feet away from public schools and the likes instead of miles. It would be better to solve this problem than to further it with punishment. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1435 Joined: 4 Feb 2009 |
Its nice to have this discussion without it turning into name calling, although I still disagree. I'll start from the top. No ones life is ruined by an attraction to children, however there are consequences for acting on this attraction. Ive already outlined my reasons why CP should be treated so harshly. I would imagine the amount of people with a conviction for making/distributing/owning CP who "didn't look for it" or found it "by accident" is very very rare. I work with high risk offenders. I have heard "it was slipped in amongst the regular porn I'd been given and I never knew" but only by a man who already had a conviction for child sex offences. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he was lying. Generally you have to look for this material, not always very hard but you do need to be looking. I'd hope that someone who came across it by accident would hand it over to police to help protect children. I'm glad you see the point over it being evidence of abuse. Most sex offenders producing this material do go to great lengths to remain anonymous. They do get caught though. You can sometimes identify the kid, people have been caught from watches, tattoos and clothing that is on camera as well as from the background location. The consequences are the same as for owning child abuse material. People who download/swap CP don't hand their pictures or videos over without getting caught. I'd like to say sorry as I don't think I made myself very clear when I said "In a way the internet has ruined a lot of lives..." You are responsible for your actions. Most people who download/upload CP know its wrong but do it anyway (Although you would be gob smacked at the level of denial and minimalisation in some people). The internet is a tool to exchange information. The individual users are responsible for how they use it. It is just easier to gain access to information now than it was 20 years ago, whether it is the secret areas on doom or pictures of children being hurt. I can't clarify "a lot", I don't have the figures, but there are people who would never have harmed a child, would have kept their fantasies in their heads but found it easy to access pictures of child abuse via the internet. So they did. 20 years ago photos would have been harder to come by and they would not have bothered. I am all for harsh sentencing of people convicted on child porn charges, along with treatment, close monitoring on release, the sex offenders register and a ban from using computers/the internet. I am against this push for megans/sarahs law where sex offenders are "outted" to the public. It does far more harm than good. |
Nobel Laureate  Posts: 16101 Joined: 26 Dec 2008  | I find my sympathy severely limited. Maybe it's all being siphoned off to the victims of their crimes. |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
for the record, the lot of you make me sick.
The point is, they're free, and they're stuck under a bridge because geography?
Geography? Miami is densely populated, so there's no way to NOT be within the limit of children and be thrown back in jail?
These are people who are trying to follow a law that's retarded. Real sex offenders don't give 2 shits, and would be back into the town stalking the school yard or whatever. These are people who are trying to get their lives back on track, and because they live in a densely populated area, they're stuck under a bridge, fuck that.