Poll: Should Paedophiles be allowed a Second Chance?

[Joa_Belgium]

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?

I like your second suggestion.

What I meant to say, was to put them away and execute them as soon as possible. No guarantees, no promises, except that they'll be put out of their misery asap.

 

[EchetusXe]

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...

Your saying that your own testicles are a privilege and not a right?

Anyway, if the offender is only attracted to children and refuses to have the operation to reduce his sex drive then surely he intends to continue having sex with or fantasising about having sex with children?

His refusal to go ahead with the procedure is a statement of intent that he intends to commit more crimes upon release.

However, what about those paedophiles who are not exclusively attracted to children? Who 'take what they can get'. They might wish to have a consensual partner upon release and might not want to be castrated in jail.

 

[ironlordthemad]

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...

also if a paedo has truely reformed he won't want to commit something like that again so they will go through with the castration on their own free will, some paedophiles do this anyway once they get out (some but not many)
by providing an incentive to paedophiles (i.e. leniancy with the courts etc) to get the chemical castration they would be more willing to get it done and make the world a slightly safer place

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Your merging the two here.

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

Yes, mainly because people who arent even related to the victims in even the most remote ways still consider themselves having the right of "holding a grudge" towards the criminal in question. That doesn't make any sense. He didn't molest your children, and you can't even beign to understand why he chose those particular children in the first place, therefor you have no reason what so ever in holding a grudge towards someone who's crime hasn't really affected you or your loved ones in any way at all.

Yet still, some retards act as if the guy ha commited the crimes against them personally. That's a form of extreme narcissistic and arrogant thinking, and it degrades the crime that actually has been commited against some other people.

No one is expecting these total strangers to just forget about the crime (that would be nonsensical), but they have no right in punishing the ex-con any further than he has already been punished...

 

[polygon]

Saying that it shouldn't be done is like letting a proven and convicted mass murderer have access to firearms.

It's more like letting a proven and convicted mass murderer not get his arms cut off.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Your saying that your own testicles are a privilege and not a right?

If my sexdrive can be proven to be harmful to others and have proven to make me commit crimes against other people (be it molesting children or raping adult women), then yes, I have forfeited my right to my testicles.

Like I said, it is the same way with murderers not being allowed access to firearms.

 

[AvsJoe]

Wow... I cannot with clear conscience answer the question asked. These people may have committed the worst kind of crime, but my religion tells me to forgive past trespasses.

So I'll give a simple answer: I'll give the offender a second chance, but the day I get a child I'm moving the shit away from him/her.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

In the case of a clear and obvious child molester or sex offender, it is important to realize that these behaviors cannot change.

This is complete bullshit and you have no idea what you're talking about.[/quote]

I'd say that it's you who has no idea what you're talking about, good sir. The fact is that most paedophiles have something in them that attracts them to children. Look at it this way: what if you were lambasted for wanting to be with a woman. Now while that appears to make little sense, the concept is still true: both people would be persecuted for what they want.

It's a sad, but true fact. The difference is there are those that can handle these desires and those that can't.

 

[outcast_within]

playing vigilante is hardly the just thing to do. Last time i checked threatening, bullying and harassing weren't allowed by law.

 

[TheRealCJ]

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.

Absolutely not sexual. As I said, I'm a trained child carer, and I absloutely love kids, they're great fun! However, the idea of hurting them sexually is repulsive to me.

 

[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.

Absolutely not sexual. As I said, I'm a trained child carer, and I absloutely love kids, they're great fun! However, the idea of hurting them sexually is repulsive to me.

As much as I appreciate your input, I'm talking about unhealthy fixations.

 

[TelHybrid]

Paedophilia is a grey area. For example if a 16 year old is flirting with a 15 year old, and the 15 year old sends pictures of "that" kind of variety, according to the law if the 16 year old looks at those pictures that is actually paedophilia. Seriously.

I think in cases like that and some few others forgiveness could perhaps be provided. I mean jeez in that example it's a bit extreme don't ya think?

 

[polygon]

I'd say that it's you who has no idea what you're talking about, good sir. The fact is that most paedophiles have something in them that attracts them to children.

...and?

Let's say I am hungry and have no money, and there is a man down the street selling apples. I want the apples, but I can't pay for them. Nature would dictate that I find a way to get the apples without paying for them; there's "something inside me" that makes me want to steal those apples.

If I steal the apples, does that mean I am a thief for life? That my behavior will never change, and I should be locked up for life to stop my thieving instincts from harming others?

Astonishingly, when people commit a crime, they tend to realize at some point in the future that they made a mistake and what they did was wrong. The ones that don't should be dealt with appropriately, but punishing all the ones that do for life because a few of them don't is stupidity.

 

[Doug]

Once you've paid your debt to society, you're fully entitled to a second chance. That debt, however, should be a debt that in some way ensures that you will not recommit.

I would argue that these people represent a continuing threat to members of society; Someone who steals or murders MIGHT have done so as a one off, so they don't represent a continuous threat. A rapist or pedophile, on the other hand, is a behavioural compulsion, from what I understand, and at the very least requires extreme pyschotapy to fix them - unless they undergo that treatment, and it is 100% effective, they should never be released; same with serial murderers. Thieves, well, it depends on the context and degree of their crimes.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Paedophilia is a grey area. For example if a 16 year old is flirting with a 15 year old, and the 15 year old sends pictures of "that" kind of variety, according to the law if the 16 year old looks at those pictures that is actually paedophilia. Seriously.

I think in cases like that and some few others forgiveness could perhaps be provided. I mean jeez in that example it's a bit extreme don't ya think?

Nah, that's more of a US-only phenomenon.

Also, when a someone is after a teenager, that's Ephebephilia, not Paedophilia. (although I'm just being nitpicky at this point.

 

[Agema]

Paedophilia is a grey area. For example if a 16 year old is flirting with a 15 year old, and the 15 year old sends pictures of "that" kind of variety, according to the law if the 16 year old looks at those pictures that is actually paedophilia. Seriously.

I think in cases like that and some few others forgiveness could perhaps be provided. I mean jeez in that example it's a bit extreme don't ya think?

It's not that bad.

If the 16-year old (or any age) had received the pictures without prompting, he couldn't be done for paedophilia. In the same way, if someone sends you a letter bomb, you won't be arrested for illegally owning explosives. You'd want to delete the pictures immediately, though.

 

[Fauxity]

Once you've paid your debt to society, you're fully entitled to a second chance. That debt, however, should be a debt that in some way ensures that you will not recommit.

I would argue that these people represent a continuing threat to members of society; Someone who steals or murders MIGHT have done so as a one off, so they don't represent a continuous threat. A rapist or pedophile, on the other hand, is a behavioural compulsion, from what I understand, and at the very least requires extreme pyschotapy to fix them - unless they undergo that treatment, and it is 100% effective, they should never be released; same with serial murderers. Thieves, well, it depends on the context and degree of their crimes.

That is extremely untrue. There are a very small minority of rapists and pedophiles that you could classify as suffering from behavioral compulsions, and although you might reasonably want to put them into psychotherapy, a lot of the time, simply being arrested and having to register as a sex offender would be enough to stop them from becoming repeat offenders. The rest are likely single-serving sex crimes.

EDIT: Fixed this to make it make sense. I knew that damn not sleeping yet tonight would come into play.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

I'd say that it's you who has no idea what you're talking about, good sir. The fact is that most paedophiles have something in them that attracts them to children.

...and?

Let's say I am hungry and have no money, and there is a man down the street selling apples. I want the apples, but I can't pay for them. Nature would dictate that I find a way to get the apples without paying for them; there's "something inside me" that makes me want to steal those apples.

If I steal the apples, does that mean I am a thief for life? That my behavior will never change, and I should be locked up for life to stop my thieving instincts from harming others?

Astonishingly, when people commit a crime, they tend to realize at some point in the future that they made a mistake and what they did was wrong. The ones that don't should be dealt with appropriately, but punishing all the ones that do for life because a few of them don't is stupidity.

Sorry, but I've read through your post multiple times now and can't understand what you're getting at. Also I like the way you cut out the second part of my post; as I mentioned at the end there is a divide between the people who can control their urges and those who can't: those who can't are paedophiles. I think that's the point that you're trying to make that, but I had already previously acknowledged that.

 

[Trivun]

I take a zero tolerance approach to all sexual crimes, but if a paedophile can be cured then that's fine, and they should be released (under close supervision) only after the cure has been shown to be successful. Then, they most likely won't reoffend. If they do then try castration, without anaesthetic. That's a zero tolerance approach right there.

 

[EchetusXe]

That is extremely untrue. There are a very small minority of rapists and pedophiles that you could classify as suffering from behavioral compulsions, and although you might reasonably want to put them into psychotherapy, and the rest are likely single-serving sex crimes.

Just because they are only serving for a single crime doesn't mean they don't have a past history that they have successfully concealed. Still, once they have been rehabilitated they should still be able to control their urges.