Poll: Should Paedophiles be allowed a Second Chance?

[Jadak]

Depending on the case, I might be okay with pedophiles getting a second chance, but this guy actually kidnapped the kids he molested. The mental image I've got going of some sick fuck with a bunch of kids locked up in his basement for sexual pleasure makes me wonder why he ever got of prison in the first place.

That's something you pay for with your life, whether it be a death sentence or life imprisonment, either is fine.

 

[Fauxity]

I think we should, for the purposes of this thread, classify paedophiles as those who attempt to have sexual encounters with children of age 12/13 and below. Agreed?

Those who attempt to have sexual encounters with teenagers (and are say 25+) are usually sexual predators and should be stopped and punished if they attempt to seduce young teens. But the media tends to classify say a 30 year old who has sex with a 15 year old as a paedophile, which is inaccurate. I wouldn't condone that behaviour but its not paedophilia.

Also, having sex with a person age 12 or below is by definition rape.

I think that's defined as statutory rape, though, and there's a pretty big difference, although it can be both normal and statutory rape.

Statutory rape is defined as consensual sexual activity when one person is underage and the other is not.

 

[Puzzles]

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.

Ha, what?

Surely you would be a bit more upset if your wife was murdered than you would be if she was raped. But then again, that's assuming you loved her

Plenty of people I know have been raped. The rape rate is surprisingly high, even if not always reported. However, to compare rape to murder and say it is worse is insane.

These people I know go on with their lives, rarely complaining about it except when baring their souls.

Dead people cannot go on with their lives, and their familys face a lot of hardship as a result. Use your f**king brain.

 

[EchetusXe]

Depending on the case, I might be okay with pedophiles getting a second chance, but this guy actually kidnapped the kids he molested. The mental image I've got going of some sick fuck with a bunch of kids locked up in his basement for sexual pleasure makes me wonder why he ever got of prison in the first place.

That's something you pay for with your life, whether it be a death sentence or life imprisonment, either is fine.

Well it could have been for a few hours, not necessarily for days. If the paedophile is a stranger to the kids then they will usually have to kidnap them before they molest them. The only real alternative is if they win the child's trust through their position as a neighbour/family member/authority figure. Which shows planning over a period of some time, which at the end of the day is no better than kidnapping them on impulse.

So, can't really say for sure just how sick and twisted this guy is/was by the 'bonus' kidnapping charge on there.

 

[AWC Viper]

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.

it's Cheaper for 1 bullet than 15 years in prison.

 

[Joa_Belgium]

Although I truly despise rapists an paedophiles and think they deserve to have their testicles cut off, I do think they deserve a second chance at redemption.

However, there's a big "but" involved. That's the only chance I'd give. If they are given a second chance, they should be monitored very closely and should they fall back in to their old habits, the entire lot deserves to be locked up for life with absolutely nothing. No TV, no clothes, no human decency, no respect. Just a box 6 feet underground.

As one of my most favorite characters of all time put it so eloquently: "Men get arrested. Dogs get put down."

 

[EchetusXe]

I think we should, for the purposes of this thread, classify paedophiles as those who attempt to have sexual encounters with children of age 12/13 and below. Agreed?

Those who attempt to have sexual encounters with teenagers (and are say 25+) are usually sexual predators and should be stopped and punished if they attempt to seduce young teens. But the media tends to classify say a 30 year old who has sex with a 15 year old as a paedophile, which is inaccurate. I wouldn't condone that behaviour but its not paedophilia.

Also, having sex with a person age 12 or below is by definition rape.

I think that's defined as statutory rape, though, and there's a pretty big difference, although it can be both normal and statutory rape.

Statutory rape is defined as consensual sexual activity when one person is underage and the other is not.

I think they only have the statutory charge in the US.

All I know is that in Britain the maximum penalties for 0-12 are much more severe than the charges for 13-16. 16 and up being legal of course.

 

[Agema]

Pretty much everyone deserves a second chance.

But you need to be very careful. Some criminals, paedophiles particularly, seem to have a very strong compulsion or predisposition, so they need to be watched over.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I can forgive, but I will not forget. Forgetting is giving the other party license to commit the same offense again. Which they usually do.

Seriously, I give the Frank Castle method of conflict resolution serious thought at times.

Also, to clarify: He's had one chance for EACH kid he molested. So he's actually on his fourth chance right now. If I steal 3 cars, I had a chance to STOP stealing cars somewhere in between the first and third one.

He's paid his debt to society, but I wouldn't necessarily consider his debt to ME paid if it were my kid.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

it's Cheaper for 1 bullet than 15 years in prison.

In that case, why not shoot everyone found guilty of a crime, regardless of the nature of the crime in question? It's always cheaper to kill someone than it is keeping them locked up, right?

Just a thought here: what is it that makes paedophilia and rape so inherently "uncure:able" in comparison to any other crime? Why are some of you so capable of forgiving murder, grand larceny, extortion, drug related crimes etc. etc. but not these two?

Does anyone actually hae a more viable and sound argument other than "well rape and paedophilia are just 'too horrible' so they can't ever be forgiven or solved"?

Anyone?

 

[bladeofdarkness]

its simple math
child molester = sex offender
Paedophiles =/= child molester (thats roughly the same as saying all men are rapists)
ergo
Paedophiles =/= sex offender

 

[EchetusXe]

the entire lot deserves to be locked up for life with absolutely nothing. No TV, no clothes, no human decency, no respect. Just a box 6 feet underground.

Do you mean kill them or literally just keep them alive and locked in a box under the ground?

 

[Fauxity]

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.

it's Cheaper for 1 bullet than 15 years in prison.

Of course, that's not how society functions anymore. And really, it's usually much more expensive to keep an inmate on death row and then execute him than to keep him in prison. For life.

Here, read this: http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

 

[ironlordthemad]

i think chemical castration should be factored in
the idea is that children are the focus of a paedophile's sex drive so if we take away the sex drive the children might be safer

with chemical castration, i think there is a chance
without chemical castration they will simply re-offend at some point

so im casting my vote for the middle, because i think that nuetering should be factored in

 

[EchetusXe]

Just a thought here: what is it that makes paedophilia and rape so inherently "uncure:able" in comparison to any other crime? Why are some of you so capable of forgiving murder, grand larceny, extortion, drug related crimes etc. etc. but not these two?

Does anyone actually hae a more viable and sound argument other than "well rape and paedophilia are just 'too horrible' so they can't ever be forgiven or solved"?

Anyone?

Your merging the two here.

Issue one is: "Can they be cured?"
Issue two is: "Can they be forgiven?"

 

[Fauxity]

i think chemical castration should be factored in
the idea is that children are the focus of a paedophile's sex drive so if we take away the sex drive the children might be safer

with chemical castration, i think there is a chance
without chemical castration they will simply re-offend at some point

so im casting my vote for the middle, because i think that nuetering should be factored in

Like a dog, eh? Now you're playing god just as much as the people who think they should be put to death.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

He's paid his debt to society, but I wouldn't necessarily consider his debt to ME paid if it were my kid.

That's certainly understandable. I would feel the same way.

However this doesn't excuse the behaviour of total strangers when they take it upon themselves to punish an ex-con for crimes he's already done time for. They have no reason what so ever to vandalise his home, shouting in the middle of the night or leaving coffins outside his door. They have no real relatuionship with his victims other than what they have seen on TV, and should therefore stick to their own business and leave the ex-con alone.

 

[EchetusXe]

i think chemical castration should be factored in
the idea is that children are the focus of a paedophile's sex drive so if we take away the sex drive the children might be safer

with chemical castration, i think there is a chance
without chemical castration they will simply re-offend at some point

so im casting my vote for the middle, because i think that nuetering should be factored in

Like a dog, eh? Now you're playing god just as much as the people who think they should be put to death.

He hasn't said the castration should be without the offender's permission.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Like a dog, eh? Now you're playing god just as much as the people who think they should be put to death.

There is no such thing as "playing god". Castration is a perfectly viable method if a paedophile breaks the trust society puts on him by acting on his sex drive and molest a child.

It's not to punish him, but to keep children safe from his sex drive while still allowing him to co-exist with children in the same society.

Saying that it shouldn't be done is like letting a proven and convicted mass murderer have access to firearms. He has broken a sort of trust once, and society can't really afford to grant the same amount of trust again. Because if society were to do so, then it would be on the burden of potential victims in the future. You can't value a criminal's "rights" higher than the people who are at risk from suffering from potential future crimes...

 

[Fauxity]

i think chemical castration should be factored in
the idea is that children are the focus of a paedophile's sex drive so if we take away the sex drive the children might be safer

with chemical castration, i think there is a chance
without chemical castration they will simply re-offend at some point

so im casting my vote for the middle, because i think that nuetering should be factored in

Like a dog, eh? Now you're playing god just as much as the people who think they should be put to death.

He hasn't said the castration should be without the offender's permission.

My bad. Although I do doubt that many people would give that permission.

Also, I'll add that sometimes fixations on children (and more often, people of age or teenagers) are not entirely and sometimes not at all sexual. It would be a temporary fix of a problem that might not even exist.

Like a dog, eh? Now you're playing god just as much as the people who think they should be put to death.

There is no such thing as "playing god". Castration is a perfectly viable method if a paedophile breaks the trust society puts on him by acting on his sex drive and molest a child.

It's not to punish him, but to keep children safe from his sex drive while still allowing him to co-exist with children in the same society.

Saying that it shouldn't be done is like letting a proven and convicted mass murderer have access to firearms. He has broken a sort of trust once, and society can't really afford to grant the same amount of trust again. Because if society were to do so, then it would be on the burden of potential victims in the future. You can't value a criminal's "rights" higher than the people who are at risk from suffering from potential future crimes...

It's supposed to be taken into account that the criminal justice system has taught the criminal his lesson.

Also, child molestation does not always end in the child being murdered. And then there are things like the differences between a purchased gun and an organic belonging that is currently attached to his groin.