97% success rate? Are you kidding? Given the extremely high recidivism rates for sexual offenders? (sound of a chainsaw being revved) “Bring em on!”
Seriously, a lot of the problems we are having now in dealing with the problems posed by child molesters of various stripes is that we don’t KNOW enough about how it works yet. We know a great deal more than we used to, but we are still in the dark about much of it. So how about this … federally funded research on the topic? Not a Manhattan Project, but if we COULD prevent it, think how much human misery we could avoid. We seem OK with spending money to incarcerate, to punish in other ways, etc. How about some money to UNDERSTAND so we can deal more effectively with the problem? Until we have complete understanding, we’re going to continue with flawed solutions. Anything we come up with in this thread is gonna be a stopgap measure, though some are a lot better than others.
I certainly don’t think he’s innocent, nor do most people here. However,
at least acknowledging that a perpetrator was also a victim would put us in a position of looking seriously at the issue, rather than punishing the guilty, end of story.
If someone had intervened early in his life, Cecil New probably wouldn’t have committed his crime. He demonstrated altruism in a violent situation, which is not something seen in other types of sexual predators. By ignoring New’s past and simply punishing his crime, we are reacting to the action and ignoring the root cause. That is something we can address, but we get visceral vindication out of punishment that we are deprived of when we instead address the root cause.
By making relevant circumstances part of the punishment narrative, we can start to separate the incurable predators from those attracted to sexually mature but legally immature persons from victim/perpetrators, and begin to develop more effective public policy. I don’t think we can do full justice to sexual abuse victims unless we also more effectively prevent the abuse from happening in the first place.
I do not think an attraction should be regarded as a crime, a sin, or a sickness if it does not lead to actual behavior. The crime is sexual abuse, or actual statutory rape. That is is a serious crime, and I am glad that it is being stigmatized. I also think 18 is an appropriate age of consent, and I do not want it to be lowered.
The only issue is that he fucking murdered a four-year-old boy.
In the immediate sense, that’s true. And he should be punished appropriately.
Part of that punishment SHOULD involve psychological services and examination of his history and behavioral influences, so we can maybe prevent the next killing of a small child, yes?
Is the issue “This one person, in a vacuum, killed a kid” or is the issue “how do we, as a society, minimize the number of killings of innocent kids?”
The court heard the guy’s history of having been abused and still sentenced him to
The court heard about the abuse, the court understood, the court took it into account… and still found him to be a monster.
As for the bigger picture… the lives of murderers and sex-offenders are already being studied–they have been for decades. IIRC, the “cycle of violence” has been largely discredited.
“He was abused as a child, himself” is not a valid indicator that some future person might kidnap, poison, rape, and murder a four-year-old kid.
How is that relevant to my point again? Oh, right, it’s not at all. Did you maybe not read “he should be punished appropriately”?
As an aside, the judge saying “in fear of prison justice every day” as part of the sentencing is IMHO nearly as bad as the actual molestation (both involving people in a position of power abusing that power in extra-legal ways, after all), and should be immediate grounds for a mistrial.
Link me a study instead of an IIRC and I might give a shit about your opinion. Or I might not, since you’ve come out in favor of extra-legal abuse by an agent of the legal system (which makes you a dangerous asshole).
Your tone indicates you are thinking emotionally rather than rationally. A thought terminating cliche does not help anyone.
Catching criminals after the fact is not enough. If we can find the triggers that make people more predisposed to these behaviors, we can actually prevent deaths instead of just punishing people. The only thing the death penalty does is provide deterrence, and deterrence does not stop people who are sufficiently irrational.
(Well, if the deterrence is in the form of corporal punishment, it works on a primal level. But lessons you learn from someone else require rational thought.)
I really have nothing left to say to you. Later.
Not so, if you’ll look to Vlad / Igor’s posts in this thread. I was pointing out that Mr. New was on trial, not for abusing the kid or for being a pedophile or for anything sex-related, but for murdering the boy.
Agreed, but as I said earlier, I believe that the “cycle of violence” idea has been largely disproven. I’ll try to find some reputable cites in a bit.
Cite from the US Accountability Office.
A link to the full .pdf is at the top of the page. The study is from 1996, though, and only applies to the cycle of sexual abuse, not to other types of physical abuse or to neglect.
I honestly believe that a lot of people have a sadistic side to them, a side that enjoys the idea of other people being brutalized and actually gets gratification at the notion of an acceptably “evil” person being tortured, raped and killed. And since child molesters are pretty much the only people about whom it is societally acceptable to feel this way, they’re the ones who draw all the rhetoric about “prison justice” and castration and all of that. I think, as bad as their crimes may be, we have to remember they are still human beings and still entitled to the rule of law. But since lots of people apparently just have to let their inner rabid dog of righteous rage out for a romp, pedophiles are the target.
You’ve been here long enough to know that there is no excuse for calling other posters assholes in Great Debates.
This is a Warning to avoid that behavior.
[ /Moderating ]
I’d add terrorists to that; look at all the people who enthuse about torturing accused terrorists.
You’re right, I got emotional. The insult was uncalled for, and I apologise.
I think there is difficulty around the term “pedophile” as if it meant only one thing. I know that the OP avoided this, but it seems to be a popular way of looking at the issue. I’m prepared to be corrected on this, but my understanding is that a fairly large number of people who are sexually attracted to children, and thus potential pedophiliac offenders, may also be attracted to adults. I think those cases tend to be more of the ‘ep/hebephilia’ types, but that category is just as much, if not more, of a problem as that with young children.
Not that I can think of a good solution. But if ostracism is a proposed solution, then these cases would need to be dealt with as well. Making it voluntary is not effective — the truth is there are some people who are comfortable with these desires and argue for it being legal. But casting someone out merely on the basis that they might be part of the group seems to be the wrong way to go, especially if they might well lead an acceptably normal sexual life with adults and never offend.
a) sexuality is about more than just sexual attraction
I agree. But do you think that pedophilia is just sexual attraction? Is a sexuality, meaning that some people can (and are) romantically and emotionally attracted to children. You have never talked with a pedophile, have you? What makes you to conclude that pedophilia is just sexual?
b) it depends on a partner who can truly be a partner. A pre-pubescent or early teen child can’t. Saying paedophilia is inborn is kinda like saying wanting to rape is inborn.
Completely false analogy. Wanting to rape children is different from wanting to have consensual sex with one.
The opposite would be like saying that wanting to fly is the same as wanting to die from falling from the sky. If you dream of flying, you dream of flying, you dont dream of splashing your brains on the pavement because of gravity.
Also, saying that a child cant be a truly partner depends on your definition of partner.
PS: Of course that pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. It doesnt mean its bad either.
Why its ‘wrong’? Because you find it difficult to understand?
And what that difference being? Children (pre-pubescent children) are extremely beautiful on their own. Not to mention their amazing and lively personalities.
I think there is a strong anti-pedophile bias just because its the attraction to pre-pubescent children. Can you explain why that would be “wrong”? It seems that people are saying “oh, if you are attracted to teens, dont worry, you are not like the truly sick pedophiles”. Why is that?
This kind of comment really show how people “think”.
If an idea its easy to understand (attraction to opposite sex, etcetera) then it must be OK. If an idea its difficult to understand (pedophilia) then it must be wrong and people who think that are clearly bad (full stop!)
Children can consent. They can say yes or no, they can feel sexual pleasure and have sexual emotions. They can fall in love with someone older, although they certainly dont have the same notion of sex as we do. They are not allowed to consent, which is a different issue. People think that children are “asexuals”, which is laughable.
See? Why do you think that someone who is not attracted to the “Sexually mature” is an “incurable predator” but someone who is can be redeemed? :smack:
This is typical heterosexual bullshit. You think that a criminal who is like you, who shares your sexual orientation, is ‘not that bad’, he is ‘curable’, he is ‘NORMAL’. While a criminal who does not share your sexual orientation is ‘an incurable predator’.
You dont see any bias there?
Treating “ACTUAL PEDOPHILIA” (sic) as a sickness while ephebophilia as completely “natural” and “normal”. It might be, but so is pedophilia.
There is a clearly heterosexual bias that favors ephebophilia (attraction to teens, mostly girls) against pedophilia. Under your view, anything that resembles “normal” normative heterosexuality (teens with big breasts, sluty 15 yo wearing make up., etc.) is OK, while liking an extremely beautiful, lively and cute 7 yo girl is “sick” and “abnormal”.
TL; DR: There is clearly an heterosexual bias that favors attraction to teens girls over attraction to children.
Ephebophiles are more similar to heterosexuals,
thus I can understand them,
so they must be OK
while pedophiles are BAD!
:smack:
This…is going to go well.
“Wanting” to have consensual sex with children is anon-issue, because they are not capable of informed consent. (See below.)
Given that the post to which you are responding addresses both Hebephilia and Ephebophilia, your injection of homosexuality to the discussion is an unwarranted straw man argument.
You have confused two issues in a troubling way.
First, children cannot consent in an informed way to sexual activity with an adult. It is analogous to society “preventing” children from entering legal contracts. They lack the knowledge, the experience, and, frankly, the mental maturity to consent in the manner that we expect adults to consent. (Before you try to argue this point, read enough of Piaget and his fellow researchers to have a serious basis for your opinion.)
Next, I see no one saying that children are asexual.