Poll: Should Paedophiles be allowed a Second Chance?

[Housebroken Lunatic]

That sounds like a terrible idea, to be honest. That forces people to make uninformed decisions and instead of helping a small group of people from eternal ridicule, it would damn so many more. Countless more innocents would be falsely labeled "Criminal Offenders."

No, like I said, I think only certain people should be privy to the information. Who? I dunno'. And I know that it'll get leaked countless times, but... *Shrug*

But if you think about it, how many "informed decisions" are made with todays practice? How many people actually stop to consider that a person who is on the sexual offenders list might just have been involved in quite the circumstantial and accidental case?

Let's say that someone finds out that their neighbour is on that list. What would be the very first thought flying across their brain?

"Pervert!/Rapist!/Child molester!"

or

"Hmm, I can't be certain of exactly what happened, perhaps I should ask him or the police or someone before brining out the torch and pitchfork and joining the angry mob outside his/her house."

The way I see it, the people already make uninformed decisions as it is...

 

[ShotgunSmoke]

If a human being has an intent to commit rape on another human being, I shoot the bastard.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Never. They all deserve collective death penalty for their sick, sick fetish.

 

[Koeryn]

My answer, I don't know how many people will echo, but...

While they ARE monsters, and psychologically there is NOTHING that will change that (Pretty much every attempted case to rehabilitate fails.), there are people who get caught and charged, despite all evidence showing their innocence. That is the ONLY reason people deserve a second chance. It's not for the monster, it's for the innocents who are wrongly accused and have their lives ruined because of it.

 

[Eri]

No.

I would maybe forgive thieves, and even murderers. But rapists and paedophiles to me are the worst kind of criminal. They should all be shot on sight, or spend the rest of their days rotting in a tiny cell.

Yeah because touching a child is worse than ending someone's life forever. ...What?

 

[irishdelinquent]

Despite the crimes the person has committed, there is one simple question that must be answered; are they a human being (biologically, not as in their moral beliefs). Yes, yes they are. Therefore, they get their shot at changing their life. While their crimes may have been terrible, they were punished for them. They were sent to prison, served their time, and were released. In my view, that means that the slate is clean legally; they were sentenced to jail time by a jury of his/her peers, and served that time. Thiefs, murderers, rapists and embezzelers are all given a second chance, so should pedophiles.

Secondly, I love how the theme of the thread is he should be castrated/neutered. Not all pedos/sexual offenders are males. Look at Karla Homolka(sp): She helped with the torture, rape, and murder of three teenaged girls. She served her time, was released on parole, and changed her name to try and start again. If she can do it, everyone else should be given their chance.

 

[Shadowfaze]

They absolutly should not. that sort of feeling towards kids never goes away. they should be locked up for life.

 

[KaiusCormere]

TBH the death penalty was appropriate. That he wasn't killed for his crimes is the injustice. I don't think there is any hope of redemption for a person who commits such an act.

 

[TheRealCJ]

I don't even think that he should have been thrown into jail.

And people who do things like that to people that have been to jail, they're lowest form of life on this planet.

Also, it's frightening to see that so many of you seem to think that branding a person for the rest of his/her life is a proper way to act... It is also quite sickening...

And you, sir, have demonstrated yourself to be less terrifying than most people in these types of threads. As a result, I welcome you aboard my floating doom fortress.

OOh, can I come too?

I'm a Whizz-bang at making meals out of things not normally considered 'food' (or 'edible'). I could be a valuable asset when everybody else is dead!

 

[Jedoro]

There's a reason we have those nifty little "three strikes, you're out" procedures. If the guy abuses his second and third chances, he does life. The really bad people hopefully get taken out of society, while those who learned the first damn time should be left alone to live out their lives.

 

[Parallel Streaks]

This is a lot like that Kevin Bacon film, The Woodsman, but on a grander scale. Good film though, better than most of the mindless pap Kevin Bacon has appeared in.

On topic: Once somebody has payed their debt to society they should be free to live their lives, but under strict regulations to make sure they don't do it again. Not being aloud to be staying in a place within 100 meters of a playground or school, and a harsh warning if he hangs around outside the area.

They are still, albeit very immoral, human beings. A lot of pedophiles can't help feeling that way, it's wired in with all of the other sexual preferences in the brain. Not all pedophiles are child molesters, after all.

(P.S., I am not, absolutely not, in any way a supporter of child abuse or molestation. In my opinion it's horrible, I'm simply talking about human rights).

 

[Tears of Blood]

But if you think about it, how many "informed decisions" are made with todays practice? How many people actually stop to consider that a person who is on the sexual offenders list might just have been involved in quite the circumstantial and accidental case?

Let's say that someone finds out that their neighbour is on that list. What would be the very first thought flying across their brain?

"Pervert!/Rapist!/Child molester!"

or

"Hmm, I can't be certain of exactly what happened, perhaps I should ask him or the police or someone before brining out the torch and pitchfork and joining the angry mob outside his/her house."

The way I see it, the people already make uninformed decisions as it is...

Whether they are making good, thoughtful decisions doesn't mean they're making uninformed decisions.

The other scenario in this case is that the person could quite possibly be a child molestor and their children could indeed be in danger.

They, quite honestly, have a right to know.

And like I said before, in the end, I am going to side with the families rather than convicted rapists. You know, 'cause a lot of people who get convicted actually did what they were convicted of.

Oh, and lastly, wrongful conviction has no place in how the rest of it should work. Should we go easier on everyone for every crime they commited simply because there's a small chance they were wrongfully convicted? No. Now, if you want to go combatting wrongful conviction and think up new ways to do so, then that's entirely another topic. But to bring up those issues in this type of discussion is simply naive.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The other scenario in this case is that the person could quite possibly be a child molestor and their children could indeed be in danger.

Yeah, but then the individual parent could simply make a habit out of keeping their children away from criminals altogether, without having to get so goddamned personal about it as they tend to get as soon as they hear someones listed on the incriminating sexual offenders list.

They, quite honestly, have a right to know.

They do? Since when?

I thought that was just some lame cliché line that bad publicity journalists used when they don't get their way.

And like I said before, in the end, I am going to side with the families rather than convicted rapists. You know, 'cause a lot of people who get convicted actually did what they were convicted of.

Can't say I agree. I have witnessed too many travesties on court justice to have any faith at all in any legal system.

Oh, and lastly, wrongful conviction has no place in how the rest of it should work. Should we go easier on everyone for every crime they commited simply because there's a small chance they were wrongfully convicted? No. Now, if you want to go combatting wrongful conviction and think up new ways to do so, then that's entirely another topic. But to bring up those issues in this type of discussion is simply naive.

Well considering the fact that im against any form of death penalty, mainly because of the far from infallible nature of human legal systems, and if you lock someone up for life you can at least let them out if evidence arise that proves their innocence. If you kill them however, you can't bring them back to life if you make a mistake.

So im gonna have to say yes to that question. But that mainly concerns the death penalty, something no intelligent society should support in any form...

 

[Tears of Blood]

You're still completely evading the point and not focusing your energy where it belongs. Go protest wrongful conviction instead of this.

We have differing opinions on this. You see possible victims, I see potential victims. You see victims of ridicule, I see victims of rape. You want to protect convicted sex offenders, I want to protect innocent families.

Although everything is not as black and white as that, I am always going to want to prevent rapes rather than prevent people from being a little bit blue because society rejects them. Someone sexually abusing you is always going to be a lot worse to me than someone rejecting you.

My bet is that you've got some history with this. You or someone close to you have been on the receiving end of some sort of injustice like this. That's a shame, and it's not like I naively believe that my government is always right, but since this justice system is a core part of our society and helps to hold us together, I am willing to overlook a few flaws like wrongful conviction.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

You're still completely evading the point and not focusing your energy where it belongs. Go protest wrongful conviction instead of this.

Why?

No amount of protest or advances in criminal science will ever guarantee the end of wrongful convictions anyway now will it?

We have differing opinions on this. You see possible victims, I see potential victims. You see victims of ridicule, I see victims of rape. You want to protect convicted sex offenders, I want to protect innocent families.

Although everything is not as black and white as that, I am always going to want to prevent rapes rather than prevent people from being a little bit blue because society rejects them. Someone sexually abusing you is always going to be a lot worse to me than someone rejecting you.

My bet is that you've got some history with this. You or someone close to you have been on the receiving end of some sort of injustice like this. That's a shame, and it's not like I naively believe that my government is always right, but since this justice system is a core part of our society and helps to hold us together, I am willing to overlook a few flaws like wrongful conviction.

It's not that I want to protect convicted sex offenders really. It's more like questioning the point of even lettin them out even when they have served their time, because you seem to claim a sort of "right" to know every persons past and have the ability of effectively keeping them shut out from society in general.

I mean, why not just put a bullet into every person suspected of any crime what so ever? It doesn't really seem to matter that they serve jailtime because you and everyone else will keep them from ever becoming rehabilitated anyway, so why not just indiscriminately shoot any man accused of rape? Why even bother with a trial? Why even bother with the burden of evidence? Why bother with the benefit of a doubt?

We all know that as soon as someone ends up on the sexual offenders list (regardless of whether the person in question actually was guilty or not) that person won't be able to lead a normal and productive life anymore. Individuals like you will try to prevent him from it.

So the question is, what's the point with having a justice system at all? Why not just hang em all and let the invisible man in the sky sort them out?

And also, if you have such "faith" in society and the justice system that you are even willing to overlook wrongful conviction, isn't it a bit hypocritical to still demand information about people who the justice system has deemed served their time for the crime they may or may not have committed, just so you and everybody else can discriminate these people at the best of your abilities?

I mean, if you're going so far as looking between the fingers, even if your government wrongfully executes people, who are you to question the governments decision of letting out former "killers" or "rapists" on the street? They wouldn't do that if they thought that these people might commit the same crimes again now would they? : )

My point here of course is that if you feel a need to question the legal system on one part, it makes no sense having blind faith in all the other parts of it. If you want to question the judgement of a legal system letting rapists and murderers out of jail, then you should question the methods in which these people were convicted and judged as well...

 

[Sovvolf]

Well there's nothing illegal about being Paedophiles and it's not really there fault, just the way your born, the same way it's not a homosexuals fault that they are attracted to the same sex and in the same way it's not a heterosexual's fault they are attracted to the opposite sex.
However the act of sleeping/ raping/ molesting a child is illegal and I'm not %100 about if they should be given a second chance or not. If they can learn to control there urges then yes other wise no.

 

[Tears of Blood]

~

You really just don't get it, do you? I was the one who said they should help be protected from ridicule, but only at no cost to innocents and families.

You're getting worked up and taking what I say way farther than it should be taken. Rape is a particularly terrible crime that happens when something is seriously wrong with someone mentally and isn't easily rehabilitated. Should it doom them to ridicule for the rest of their life? Maybe not. But it is, to a degree, a necessary evil to protect others.

I really think you or someone you know has been convicted of sexual harassment or some other crime like that, and it has had a great effect on you. Otherwise, you would be able to see things from multiple perspectives. People who have had family members or friends raped are equally as biased, perhaps, but the clincher here is they are on a side that is far more victimized.

What you need to be focusing your energy on is spreading your opinion on courtroom practices and other nonsense more fair for the defendants. You're not getting angry with the problem at the source, you're getting angry at the most controversial part of it. Let's say, for a moment, you were able to make a reform in this area. People would still be wrongfully convicted of sexual offense just as much. They'd still serve their time, they'd still suffer. If, however, you made a reform in practices that come before conviction, you could save way more people from ever even having to go to jail.

 

[Doktor Merkwurdigliebe]

No.
If my child were a victim of a paedophile, I would neither forgive, nor forget.
Sorry for not hopping into that hey-lets-give-a-second-chance-like-Jesus-would-do wagon, but there are some cases where I wouldn't show mercy, just like this guy.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

~

You really just don't get it, do you? I was the one who said they should help be protected from ridicule, but only at no cost to innocents and families.

You're getting worked up and taking what I say way farther than it should be taken. Rape is a particularly terrible crime that happens when something is seriously wrong with someone mentally and isn't easily rehabilitated. Should it doom them to ridicule for the rest of their life? Maybe not. But it is, to a degree, a necessary evil to protect others.

I really think you or someone you know has been convicted of sexual harassment or some other crime like that, and it has had a great effect on you. Otherwise, you would be able to see things from multiple perspectives. People who have had family members or friends raped are equally as biased, perhaps, but the clincher here is they are on a side that is far more victimized.

What you need to be focusing your energy on is spreading your opinion on courtroom practices and other nonsense more fair for the defendants. You're not getting angry with the problem at the source, you're getting angry at the most controversial part of it. Let's say, for a moment, you were able to make a reform in this area. People would still be wrongfully convicted of sexual offense just as much. They'd still serve their time, they'd still suffer. If, however, you made a reform in practices that come before conviction, you could save way more people from ever even having to go to jail.

What makes you think im angry or worked up? : )

Im as calm as a hindu cow. You see I discuss for the pure joy of it, not because of any particular emotional reasons. I have learned to separate my personal feelings from the matter being discussed, it keeps things more clear that way.