Poll: Should Paedophiles be allowed a Second Chance?

[Escapist_V]

Generally, yes. I'm among those who think it's a sickness and we need to find out a way to help them. (Favorite E.R. episode is the one where the pedophile carves evil into his forehead to scare away children because he can't help himself.) Everybody should have the chance to turn their lives around.

As I see it the problems are in:

1. Are we sure that everyone of them can be helped? It could be deeply rooted problems that are hard-wired to the brain, making the behaviour emerge again in a few years. This might be helped, in some degree, if a person with these urges didn't get crucifed on sight when they try to seek help.

2. Not everyone wants to be helped, and you can't help those who don't want to be helped. Some will fake all the way through treatment and have no plans on stopping for real. Sexual urges lie very close to our most basic nature. Some find a threat to their sexual preferences a threat to their very being. I do think that this is one of the few cases where the good of the general public outweigh the rights to privacy.

3. How can we make sure they don't re-offend? We can't. A system isn't that hard to fool when every organisations and goverment agencys constantly overworked and is being forced to handle cases within minutes and not days. To keep check on them assistance from the public is needed and for that we need the lists.

4. No matter how society evolves there will always be parts of the public who act like the villagers from Frankenstein's Monster. If we put offenders on a list they'll still be punished for life, no matter what judge, jury and victim thinks. Only way they'll ever be left alone is if they save the lives of every single person who is persecuting them, or something equivalent.

5. In many places, if two young teenagers have sex they're both guilty of a crime and can be labeled a sex offenders, even if they both are the same age and it was consentual. No, I'm not saying they should be doing this, there's an age limit for a reason, but do you really need to be labeled for life for such a thing? The again, there's nothing else stopping a underaged child to rape another.

The problems are connected to each other and you can't solve one without make at least another one worse. If it was an easy question, it'd be solved by now.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

I am disappointed in this thread. while some people are taking the time to articulate discussion, most posters on this thread are just screaming hatred.

I don't support child molestation, but is it to much to ask that you stop and think before shouting?

 

[ace_of_something]

Depends on which level of sex offender they are. For example a boy who is 12 years of age and is being sexually abused by an unkown assailent goes and molests his 9 year old sister in turn. Technically speaking on his record he is a pedophile. (This sort of scenario is way more common then you can imagine) He ends up behaiving well and never has any sexual weirdness the rest of his life.
Because He is given a 2nd chance.

Furthermore, most pedophiles hurt children they know. Yes, there are some that grab random kids. But not very many we should look closely at their modus operendi when considering this.

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?

The amazing thing is sexual based offenders have the HIGHEST recidivism rate [a href=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm](the source)[/a] Even higher than most kinds of drug addicts.

There are a few reasons for this.
a) they simply commit more crimes and have a hard time with impulse control which is how they got in to trouble in the first place.
b) A lot of times after being convicted once you'll get people coming out of the woodwork saying, they too, were molested (catholic priest scandle) the offender in question will return to jail/prison and this counts as recidivism on paper
c) Many of them flat our REFUSE to register, do the door to door thing, or any of the other little things they have to do to alert their neighbors that they're a danger. They go to jail for failure to register as a sex offender which is it's very own offense. (as opposed to failure to comply with a court order which is a lesser/non-sexual based offense) Many times going to jail for this only results in a couple months sentance so they get out, still refuse, and keep coming back.

I do not feel strongly one way or the other because I feel the problem is too complex to be given a black and white answer.

 

[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.

What the fuck? Are you seriously suggesting torture?

It isn't torture, it's punishment. They're given a chance at rehabilitation, and if they fail then they get punished. If they can be rehabilitated successfully then all is well, water under the bridge and all that. Their crimes can't be forgiven, but they can be forgotten, at least a little bit. If they reoffend then the cure obviously doesn't work so a more permanent solution is then needed. The whole 'without anaesthetic' thing is to scare them into not reoffending so that the whole situation can be avoided. It isn't torture, it's simply an inspired solution to a hideous problem.

 

[Fauxity]

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.

What the fuck? Are you seriously suggesting torture?

It isn't torture, it's punishment. They're given a chance at rehabilitation, and if they fail then they get punished. If they can be rehabilitated successfully then all is well, water under the bridge and all that. Their crimes can't be forgiven, but they can be forgotten, at least a little bit. If they reoffend then the cure obviously doesn't work so a more permanent solution is then needed. The whole 'without anaesthetic' thing is to scare them into not reoffending so that the whole situation can be avoided. It isn't torture, it's simply an inspired solution to a hideous problem.

Uhh...no, that's torture.

That's cruel and unnecessary punishment.

 

[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.

What the fuck? Are you seriously suggesting torture?

It isn't torture, it's punishment. They're given a chance at rehabilitation, and if they fail then they get punished. If they can be rehabilitated successfully then all is well, water under the bridge and all that. Their crimes can't be forgiven, but they can be forgotten, at least a little bit. If they reoffend then the cure obviously doesn't work so a more permanent solution is then needed. The whole 'without anaesthetic' thing is to scare them into not reoffending so that the whole situation can be avoided. It isn't torture, it's simply an inspired solution to a hideous problem.

Uhh...no, that's torture.

That's cruel and unnecessary punishment.

Okay then, what would your solution be, if it was down to you?

 

[Fauxity]

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.

What the fuck? Are you seriously suggesting torture?

It isn't torture, it's punishment. They're given a chance at rehabilitation, and if they fail then they get punished. If they can be rehabilitated successfully then all is well, water under the bridge and all that. Their crimes can't be forgiven, but they can be forgotten, at least a little bit. If they reoffend then the cure obviously doesn't work so a more permanent solution is then needed. The whole 'without anaesthetic' thing is to scare them into not reoffending so that the whole situation can be avoided. It isn't torture, it's simply an inspired solution to a hideous problem.

Uhh...no, that's torture.

That's cruel and unnecessary punishment.

Okay then, what would your solution be, if it was down to you?

Go read some of my earlier posts in this thread and you'll get a better understanding of my opinion on this.

 

[Arcticflame]

I'm just going to drop a quick thought here...

I don't understand why people bother to come into this topic. Scream out "PEDO'S NEED THEIR BALLS CHOPPED OFF" and then run out the door.

It doesn't help at all, what do you mean by a Pedophile? Under-age rape? Molestation? Someone who had downloaded simpsons porn?

Pedophilia takes many forms, while I don't agree that carstration should ever be an option for sentencing pedophilia, I can understand the carstration viewpoint on child rape/serious molestation. However someone who say, was perving on kids at a carpark, or at a public pool. While it's very dodgy, and shows the guy is a serious threat for more serious offences, carstration is just way too far. Our legal systems do not sentence people for crimes that they may perform, and that's how they should be.

People automatically see pedophilia and assume that they have comitted the worst offences possible. You cannot lump all of them at the same level.

It isn't torture, it's punishment. They're given a chance at rehabilitation, and if they fail then they get punished. If they can be rehabilitated successfully then all is well, water under the bridge and all that. Their crimes can't be forgiven, but they can be forgotten, at least a little bit. If they reoffend then the cure obviously doesn't work so a more permanent solution is then needed. The whole 'without anaesthetic' thing is to scare them into not reoffending so that the whole situation can be avoided. It isn't torture, it's simply an inspired solution to a hideous problem.

Once again, I don't think carstration should ever be on the cards, but if you are going to carstrate them, at least do it WITH anesthetic.

For one thing, that's putting our legal system on the same level as a serious criminal, for another thing it could have a serious psychological effect on the person, don't think I am thinking about the offender's well being, I'm just saying he might decide to go on a bit of a murder spree because of his balls being very violently removed.

If that would occur to me, I know that there is a strong chance I would flip out and decide to take out a few judges/jury myself.

It's been proven many times, mandatory sentencing doesn't work very well, especially in these cases. They do these crimes and hope they don't get caught. No matter how bad the sentence is.

Besides, it's well known that even the biggest assholes in prison save a special place of hell for pedophiles. If that doesn't stop them, torture wont.

 

[bluepilot]

Two ideas in the concept of `punishment` are retribution and rehabilitation.

Retribution is that that punishment fits the crime while rehabilitation is that the criminal will not re-offend. If both of these tools are implemented effectivly then I see no reason why someone should not be given a second chance.

Even though his crimes were horrendous, I do no think that anyone has the right to partake in vigilante justice.

But if prison was really prison, noone would have any need to punish hom any further.

 

[Malkavian]

The man should clearly be given a second chance. For one thing, a punishment is a punishment. The courts have handled him as they see fit, and should the man want to establish a normal life, he should damn well be given the opportunity to do so.
Furthermore, pedophilia is not something people can control. We don't chose whether we are straight, gay, into leather, animals, cartoons, and we don't choose whether we're into children either.
Now, what we can choose, is whether to act on the impulses we have - being a pedophile in itself is not illegal, but acting it out is. Now, I'm not gonna defend the act of child molestation, but sexual urges are hard to repress. You shouldn't compare a child molester to a thief or an arsonist, you should rather compare them to someone suffering from kleptomania or pyromania.
These people need help, not reproach from society. If they commit a crime, they should be punished, but when they have done their time, they should get the opportunity to live their life normally.

 

[Charli]

I really don't know, strength of will is relative from person to person and their ability to change, and society as a whole is very blind sighted by those that never change. (Understandably so)

I dunno, I want to believe that all people have it in them to make a fresh start. But experience teaches you that harsh lesson otherwise. I would hope that this guy has gone through some therapy in jail. Otherwise he's just sat there mind, festering on his crime and nothing gets done either way.
But even that is sometimes not enough and this guy will just have to live with the consequences of what he's done, in Jail or out there and if he truly is over it, should just live life with his head high and go about his new life, he deserves any mistrust he gets and he has the same right to stop it when it gets too far with legal action. Hopefully should do some self searching work to try and gain some personal pennance for what he's done. I find it helps a great deal to selflessly work until you feel you can tackle any mistrust you've gained.


On another note Child Sex offenders do creep me out alot, but probably the same as psychopathic murderers. I don't condone it at all, so sorry if my post sounds that way, but I'm talking about the aftermath of a prison stay. For those of you that have never had someone close to you come out of a REAL jail, after an extended time (Totally innocent of all crimes, laughably)... Well, I hope none of you have that experience.
There be lessons to be learned in those places and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt just once to those that go through it.

 

[space_oddity]

Definately a second chance. Paedophiles area actually quite friendly.

 

[alex1314159]

difficult question to answer

 

[Uncompetative]

Deportation?

 

[awesomeClaw]

Hard question. Time for a Qoute:

"Have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Then you should have your arms removed, it´s the only relaiable way, with your logic, Right? Wrong. If someone who has gotten a speeding ticket they can reform without having their arms cut of. Why should molesters be treated diffrently?"

 

[SmartIdiot]

No. He committed those crimes and he pays the price for it. The worst thing you can do is harm a child. I have no sympathy for the man at all. He's fucked up his own life and has no one to blame but himself. I'd say he doesn't even deserve the attention he's getting now for the people harassing him.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Quite a moral dilemma there; I think the best answer is that they're all just as bad as each other.

This is, essentially, my thoughts on the subject matter.

The truth is that a vast majority of Australia is descended from criminals that have re-payed their debt to society and have continued as normal citizens following their time spent as a convict. I would expect for most Australians to be a little bit aware of that fact.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one that has any trust in the legal system. Lynch mobs, vigilantism and a philosophy of 'never forgive, never forget' seems to run too rampart in Australian society and possibly many others. I blame a lack of understanding concerning the legal system. It is a popular belief that the legal system is set out to provide revenge for the victims, for the criminal to get what he deserves. This is not the case, however. The legal systems in industrialised countries is in place to rehabilitate the criminal and allow for him or her to return to society as a fully functioning and normal citizen, normal being not a law breaker.

The problem arrives with pedophiles whom many people believe that can't be returned as normal citizens. I have not ever seen proof for this belief and would am rather disappointed that no one has even bothered supplying proof. I would like to see statistics and reports showing whether or not convicted pedophiles can be rehabilitated. Personally, I believe they can. I'm well aware that someone shouldn't blindly trust their government, but I don't believe that a convicted pedophile would be released unless there was proof showing that they can return as a normal citizen.

The statement that pedophilia is worse than murder is something that has always confused me. Why do we live in a world in which we would rather have a dead child than a violated one? Don't get me wrong here, I wouldn't want any of my possible (although maybe unlikely) children to be raped, but I'd rather them live. Are we so afraid of things going against the norm that we would rather have them removed from our lives? Do we believe that everything must be normal or not exist.

The Ferguson issue seems to prove that. I don't like pedophiles, said simply enough, and I would want nothing more than to have their disease removed. I have trust in the legal system and believe that he can, for lack of a better term, be fixed. The people who live in his suburb however (or the protesters at least) don't have a trust in the legal system and want him gone from their community or possibly gone from this planet. Ultimately it's a fear of the strange and each person has a breaking point concerning this fear which is influenced by outside factors.

The fact that Ferguson is a rather strange looking and sounding man certainly doesn't help his case. I think that if Ferguson looked and acted less strange the treatment he is undergoing would be far less, which is disappointing.

I'd like to point out that I don't have a complete trust in the Australian legal system. It has problems, sure, but these I believe are all fixable. I would much rather have what we have now than a mob rule and vigilantism which is what I feel a large amount of people would rather.

 

[tsb247]

The trouble is that he is not only a pedophile, but he is also a sex offender since he both kidnapped and molested/raped three children. 14 years is a HORRIBLY light sentence for the crimes he commited. Here in the U.S., he would mot likely get 60 years to life for such crimes.

No, he should not get a second chance. He got off easy, and should not be given the benefit of the doubt. He was convicted of not only child molestation but kidnapping. Such crimes should not be forgiven after a mere 14 year sentence.

 

[matnatz]

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

How do you know that they'll re-offend? The guy has done his time, so, he's now back on the same level as everyone else.

Also, murder is worse than rape or child molesting.

 

[MortisLegio]

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.

I agree, lets shoot all rapists.
(not Sarcasm)