# Paedophile found dead in home - vigilantes suspected **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2003, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160 "2003-12-01T02:45:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/61 "2003-12-03T01:20:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Metacom \* > \*\*The rest of that quote is a huge cut & paste job that goes all over the place–much of it doesn’t seem relevant to what we’re discussing. I feel a bit like someone is trying to drown me in cites that they haven’t bothered to read or scrutinize themselves, and it doesn’t make for an enjoyable debate. ☹ \*\* Well, that’s a bit rude. My point was that different studies have different findings. I don’t necessarily trust the 3.3 figure any more than I trust the ones I cited. Each study has its own flaws. Unless you check the methodology, scope, length and definitions in each study, merely citing a statistic means little. No study seems to account for all of the possible variables. ---
**Author:** ![Intent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5e9695/32.png) [@Intent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intent)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/62 "2003-12-03T04:09:18Z")
First off, a quote I found interesting, from the DSM-IV “pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children, and requires that the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” So, by definition a pedophile is a recurrent offender. And, a study I read showed that child molestors recurrency rates are higher several years after thier release “finding that pedophiles relapse with the highest frequency several years after discharge”, from canadian correctional services. So it’s possible that the recurrency rates are even higher than what we know. I’ll take the 20% metacom came to, and if we consider that over time those rates will increase, that will go up. To what? Even twenty percent is 1 in 5 (cite, basic math), and I found another study that shows the recurrency rate to be 26% (sadly, I lost the link), and even that is over a limited time period. That’s more than 1 in 4. I find it a little to disturbing to attempt to argue that pedophiles actually hurt children. If you think that a grown man having sex with a twelve year old is ok, whatever, I don’t want to communicate with you, that seems more of a moral problem than something that can be explained through facts, but if you don’t believe that, than how can you look at 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 pedophiles hurting another child, and say that is ok? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/63 "2003-12-03T05:33:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Intent \* > \*\*First off, a quote I found interesting, from the DSM-IV “pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children, and requires that the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” > > So, by definition a pedophile is a recurrent offender.\*\* Not so. According to that definition, someone who has recurrent _fantasies_ about prepubescent children is a pedophile, if they happen often enough to be distressing. Fantasies are still legal. > [@](#): > > **I find it a little to disturbing to attempt to argue that pedophiles actually hurt children.** When you’re talking about hurting children, it’s important to distinguish between encounters that are willing and unwanted, from the child’s perspective. (I would say “consensual” and “nonconsensual”, but the legal sense of those words doesn’t apply here.) According to [this study](http://www.itp-arcados.net/sonder/totengraeber/rtbstudie/rtb.meta.analysis1998.html), children who have only unwanted sexual encounters are psychologically harmed, but children who have willing sexual encounters are not: > [@](#): > > For these male college students, 37% viewed their CSA [child sexual abuse, defined as “sexual interactions between children or adolescents and significantly older persons”] experiences as positive at the time they occurred; 42% viewed these experiences as positive when reflecting back on them; and in the two studies that inquired about positive self-perceived effects, 24% to 37% viewed their CSA experiences as having a positive influence on their current sex lives. Importantly, SA men across all levels of consent (i.e., both willing and unwanted experiences) did not differ from controls in current psychological adjustment, although SA men with unwanted experiences only did, implying that willingness was associated with no impairment to psychological adjustment. Of course, I’m not making any claims about the number of wanted vs. unwanted encounters, or the individual mentioned in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/64 "2003-12-03T05:33:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Intent \* > First off, a quote I found interesting, from the DSM-IV “pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children, and requires that the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” > > So, by definition a pedophile is a recurrent offender. Wrong. Reread the definition. A pedophile has recurrent sexual fantasies about prepubescent children. He need not engage in actual activity to be considered a pedophile. And since it says “recurrent fantasies, urges **or** behaviors,” a pedophile is not necessarily a repeat offender (since that would imply action on his part). > [@](#): > > If you think that a grown man having sex with a twelve year old is ok, whatever, I don’t want to communicate with you, that seems more of a moral problem than something that can be explained through facts, but if you don’t believe that, than how can you look at 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 pedophiles hurting another child, and say that is ok? I don’t think anyone in this thread has claimed that having sex with children is OK. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/65 "2003-12-03T05:48:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Intent \* > \*\*If you think that a grown man having sex with a twelve year old is ok, whatever, I don’t want to communicate with you, that seems more of a moral problem than something that can be explained through facts, but if you don’t believe that, than how can you look at 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 pedophiles hurting another child, and say that is ok? \*\* Several hundred years ago, it wasn’t all that uncommon for a girl to be married at twelve or thirteen. Margaret Beaufort (grandmother of Henry VIII) had her first (and only) child at age thirteen. In the modern era, we stringently de-sexualize children, but in the past, such a mindset would have been foreign. Females were generally considered to be marriageable as soon as they began menstruating. (Though some physicians counseled waiting for consumation out of fear that giving birth might injure the girl at such a tender age, their advice was not always followed.) Going further back in time, in some cultures, it was perfectly acceptable (even laudable, in the eyes of the poets) for an adult man to take a prepubescent boy as a lover. All I’m saying is that it’s a matter of perspective. We judge what is moral through the lens of our culture. ---
**Author:** ![SnoopyFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d07c76/32.png) [@SnoopyFan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnoopyFan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/66 "2003-12-03T05:53:26Z")
FWIW I think that study is a crock. Statutory rape a “positive” experience? It’s okay if children have “wanted” sexual experiences? PUHLEZE. THEY ARE CHILDREN! Hell yes it’s damaging if an 11 year old has sex even if she’s 11 going on 32 and a walking hormone! Lots of 11 year olds can get pregnant!!! And what happens when she’s in her 20s and wakes up and realizes that Jimmy was totally playing her? Another thing I want to know: how did they define “significantly older person?” The study cited allowed for sexual experiences as teenagers. What guy isn’t going to say “why yes, I _did_ enjoy screwing my friend’s hot older sister when she was 18 and I was 14?” Who funded this study, anyway? NAMBLA? ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/67 "2003-12-03T06:25:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SnoopyFan \* > \*\*And what happens when she’s in her 20s and wakes up and realizes that Jimmy was totally playing her? \*\* What happens to a twenty year old woman who sleeps with a man professing true love, only to find out he’s ditched her in the morning? Pain is pain, no matter what age you may be. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2003, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/68 "2003-12-03T07:16:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SnoopyFan \* > **Statutory rape a “positive” experience?** Don’t let the word “rape” confuse you there. Back when I was a young lad with a younger girlfriend, I engaged in some activities that would have been considered statutory rape if they occurred a few hundred miles away. It was indeed a positive experience for both of us. > [@](#): > > **It’s okay if children have “wanted” sexual experiences? PUHLEZE.** Well, according to the… wait… hold on, something’s coming in over the ticker. > [@](#): > > _Newsflash!_ Study Discredited Through Innovative New “PUHLEZE” Method! > > CHICAGO, IL (SDMB) - A significant leap in scientific reasoning was made today, with the discovery that certain hypotheses can be proven false simply through the power of assertion. **SnoopyFan** , who posts at a popular web site, is credited with discovering the “PUHLEZE Method of Assertive Disbelief”, or “PUHLEZE”. > > At its core, PUHLEZE relies on the principle that certain ideas are so contrary to popular beliefs that they cannot possibly be true. In practice, the PUHLEZE method is applied to a study in three phases: First, the study is called “a crock”, alluding to a ceramic vessel filled with excrement. Second, the code word “PUHLEZE” is invoked; the powers of this word have not yet been fully investigated, but it is vital to the method. Finally, the study’s source of funding is called into question. > > The mechanism by which PUHLEZE disproves theories is still unknown. Several explanations for the PUHLEZE effect have been proposed, but unfortunately, none of those explanations have stood up to the PUHLEZE test so far. It goes on, but I think you get the gist of it. Something about a Nobel prize nomination in there, I think - you might want to check it out for yourself. I bet it’s all over Google News by now. 😉 > [@](#): > > **Another thing I want to know: how did they define "significantly older person?"** From the section “Definitions of CSA, Prevalence Rates, and Types of CSA”: > [@](#): > > Most studies (88%) reported specific upper age limits for children or adolescents in defining CSA. Of these studies, most (75%) focused on middle to later adolescence with the oldest includable age for “child” usually being 16 (35%) or 17 (25%); a minority of these studies (25%) included only experiences that occurred when participants were younger than 14 or were prepubescent. Regarding age discrepancy, more than half of the studies (59%) defined sexual experiences with someone at least 5 years older to be CSA. This criterion generally applied to experiences that occurred when participants were less than 12 or 13. About a quarter of the studies (27%) also defined adolescent sexual experiences with someone at least 10 years older to be CSA. Others (17%) specified experiences with an adult, an authority figure, someone over 16, or someone older to be CSA. About a third of the studies (32%) also included in their definition peer experiences that were unwanted or forced. Fourteen percent of the studies defined sexual experiences with relatives as CSA, although this criterion generally included an age discrepancy. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/69 "2003-12-05T01:37:59Z")
Mr2002- that was brilliant & very very funny. Kudos!🆒 And you are correct, I should have added consensual sex between two minors, but AFAIK, IANAL YMMV that isn’t illegal in all juristicions. And, it sort of depends on the type of sexual encounter and the ages, yes? I have met 15yo’s who are VERY mature, and AFAIK IANAL there are some States where kids that young can get married- with parental consent. Now, if it is perfectly legal to have sex with a 15yo if you are married to her/him- we must assume that such a sexual encounter is not mind-scarring. :dubious: Thus- why should it be all that EVIL if the parties are NOT married? Then also, if Mr Pervert takes pics of little Suzy on the swing when her skirt flies up, and then goes home and masturbates to them- how does that hurt little Suzy? Even if she knows Mr Pervert took the pics? That’s the problem- too many “pedophiles” and “registered sex offenders” are just products of our current morality. Let’s concentrate on the REAL sickos, and just keep an eye on the rest, OK? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/70 "2003-12-05T02:37:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lissa \* > \*\*Several hundred years ago, it wasn’t all that uncommon for a girl to be married at twelve or thirteen. Margaret Beaufort (grandmother of Henry VIII) had her first (and only) child at age thirteen. > \*\* Actually, it wasn’t uncommon in the upper classes, but quite rare amongst the ordinary folks. I’ve read a study, for instance, mentionning that the average age of first marriage in France (according to still existing registers) was around 26 for males and 20 for females in the XV° (IIRC) century. ---
**Author:** ![sleeping](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@sleeping](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleeping)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/71 "2003-12-05T03:08:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > > Then also, if Mr Pervert takes pics of little Suzy on the swing when her skirt flies up, and then goes home and masturbates to them- how does that hurt little Suzy? Even if she knows Mr Pervert took the pics? Although I agree with you in general, I want to point out that, AFAIK, there is an issue of consent here. The child’s parents must agree to someone taking a picture of her. If we take “little Suzy” to mean a girl of, say, 12 years old, I don’t think she can understand the situation enough to give a rational decision. Of course, that just applies to most–but not all–children; kids do in fact mature at different ages (both physically and mentally). ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/72 "2003-12-05T04:37:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sleeping \* > **Although I agree with you in general, I want to point out that, AFAIK, there is an issue of consent here. The child’s parents must agree to someone taking a picture of her. If we take “little Suzy” to mean a girl of, say, 12 years old, I don’t think she can understand the situation enough to give a rational decision.** Legally, that may be. But I think **DrDeth** ’s point was that even if Mr. Pervert takes a picture against the wishes of Suzy and her parents, if all he does with the picture is take it home and jerk off, there’s no harm being done. He isn’t nearly as much of a threat to anyone as an actual rapist, and shouldn’t be treated as such. And that’s the problem with talking about “sex offenders” as a group - you get the real sickos mixed up with harmless perverts and horny teenagers. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/73 "2003-12-05T18:03:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\*Legally, that may be. > > But I think **DrDeth** ’s point was that even if Mr. Pervert takes a picture against the wishes of Suzy and her parents, if all he does with the picture is take it home and jerk off, there’s no harm being done. He isn’t nearly as much of a threat to anyone as an actual rapist, and shouldn’t be treated as such. > > And that’s the problem with talking about “sex offenders” as a group - you get the real sickos mixed up with harmless perverts and horny teenagers. \*\* Right. I am not saying that “Mr Pervert” isn’t a minor criminal- but he is hardly a “dangerous sex offender”. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/74 "2003-12-05T22:27:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\*That’s the problem- too many “pedophiles” and “registered sex offenders” are just products of our current morality. Let’s concentrate on the REAL sickos, and _just keep an eye on the rest_, OK? \*\* (Italics are mine) Isn’t it illegal to “keep an eye” on people who haven’t done anything wrong yet? Do you mean keep an eye on those we think might progress from whacking off to little Suzy’s picture to making a garb at little Suzy herself? Or someone who reminds him of little Suzy? How would we know who will be content with fantasy and who will take it to another level? ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/75 "2003-12-05T22:30:27Z")
That would be “making a _grab_ at little Suzy.” ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/76 "2003-12-06T16:01:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EJsGirl \* > \*\* How would we know who will be content with fantasy and who will take it to another level? \*\* Haven’t you ever had a sexual fantasy that you’ve never acted upon? If you fantasize about the latest hot Hollywood stud, does that mean you’re a risk to movie stars? Self-control plays a large part in this. Most people have it. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/77 "2003-12-07T04:58:58Z")
Right. Unless you are a pedophile driven by compulsion rather than rational thought. My question about **Dr. Deth** ’s post still stands. PS- I am afraid we may have a similar story reported here in SoCal soon. In the first case affected by a 1996 sex offender law, San Bernardino county officials are getting ready to release a serial sex offender into the community. From the news reports, this man was convicted of raping two children while still a juvenile himself, then convicted of raping two women when he was 22, and then convicted of molestation in his 30’s. Not only is he getting out, but the time limit on his parole has actually expired, so when he is released _he will be under no surrveilance of any kind_. Can this be a good idea? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/78 "2003-12-09T23:34:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EJsGirl \* > \*\*(Italics are mine) > > Isn’t it illegal to “keep an eye” on people who haven’t done anything wrong yet? > > \*\* Already- “Mr Pervert” is a criminal- with prison time & all. And is also a registerd sex offender. So- lets keep him a criminal, but with no prison time, and not have him cluttering the database of 'register sex offenders". But since he’d be a convicted criminal, yes, we CAN keep an eye on him. I didn’t say do_nothing_ with the minor & more or less “harmless” 'sex offenders". I said lets take a lot of the resources we waste on them, and spend it on those who are truely dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160/79 "2003-12-10T04:03:21Z")
Wrong thinking leads to wrong (behavior) actions. This applies to so called mental ilness as well. This is not to say that all so called mental illnesses are not real but the majority are simply role playing so that all the participants, psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, and patient can carry on ad infinitum and never arrive at a cure. There are a few genuine cases of physicalogical malfunctions in the brain but most are simply ingrained wrong thought processes. See: The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct by Thomas S. Szasz (Author) There are other titles by the same author. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paedophile-found-dead-in-home-vigilantes-suspected/216160.md?page=3)