Paedophilia and child abuse - time to discuss the issue

[Rock Strongo]

So what's the difference between an "inactive" paedophile that looks something up online which has already been created, and for which they offer no exchange or recompense, and seeing something on the street or in a park and putting it in their toss bank? Assuming that the point of incarceration and/or therapy are to prevent harm, what grounds do we have for locking someone up when no harm has been caused?

Watching kids at the playground or pictures of kids doing normal stuff is not a crime, even if you do jerk off when you get home. Watching kids being molested is, no matter where or how, and I don't consider you an inactive paedophile if you're actively searching for such content.

 

[scaramanga]

Watching kids at the playground or pictures of kids doing normal stuff is not a crime, even if you do jerk off when you get home. Watching kids being molested is, no matter where or how, and I don't consider you an inactive paedophile if you're actively searching for such content.

I don't think that's a majority opinion. I suspect that if you canvassed the general public they would want someone doing that removed from society.

 

[LutonSpurs]

As a parent it is impossible to be objective about this issue. If I wasn't one then the policing desires thing would be a huge no no.

What I would say is that people who are attracted to pre pubescent children need an avenue to get help if they want it without being placed on a register or without being persecuted. If their brain is wired in this way, or if they were abused themselves and this has fudged them up then something should be available to help them. Obviously if they ever break the law then I think along with prosecution some therapy has to be in place.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Another aspect of this that I resent is that now every adult male is considered suspect. I have had to avoid comforting little kids who have hurt themselves and as a single parent of two daughters I feel uncomfortable being with them when they go clothes shopping. The atmosphere has changed for all men thanks to these deviants.

 

[thfcsteff]

How do you both as socially liberal people deal with the thought crime side of it? Should it be illegal just to be an "inactive" paedophile? What if he or she gets off on watching your kid in the park but doesn't act on it?

I find it a very difficult problem to answer. Obviously punishing thought crimes is incredibly wrong, but removing that person from the vicinity of children is also a preferable solution. I don't believe that the psychiatric answer works either. I have a preference for slim brunettes with big tits - if someone made that illegal tomorrow, I couldn't stop liking that. I'd like to think I have the self control not to act on it, but my preferences couldn't change.

You ask a couple of brilliant questions mate. I am really not sure. My short-term 'reactive' response is to smash them with a very large 2 x 4 repeatedly whilst screaming at them what disgusting tossers they are. However, we all know this is not particularly helpful. I used to think they deserved rehabilitation opportunities as it is often the case that victims become predators. However friends of mine who have worked cases involving pedophiles, not to mention a couple of friends in the medical profession, have told me that pedophiles they have had to deal with have said they will re-offend even though they know it is disgusting, and that they cannot help themselves. As I have got older, as my kids get older (son is out the door but daughter is nearly 2) my viewpoint has widened to take in the 'cannot be treated' scenario. VERY tricky, as in every other area I am liberal.

 

[thfcsteff]

They dont do it to appear more childlike, they do it to look better. Society has taught us to think that women shouldn't be hairy. Its not attractive for a woman to have hairy arms and legs.

Indeed...something I think is a bit of a shame, as good management of the lawn can enhance matters. Another discussion!

 

[thfcsteff]

At the risk of disappearing down a theoretical rabbit hole, I'd like to take that further along the path - there are few questions to which I would say that I genuinely don't have an answer so things like this intrigue me.

So what's the difference between an "inactive" paedophile that looks something up online which has already been created, and for which they offer no exchange or recompense, and seeing something on the street or in a park and putting it in their toss bank? Assuming that the point of incarceration and/or therapy are to prevent harm, what grounds do we have for locking someone up when no harm has been caused?

As a parent I feel entirely conflicted. I don't believe we should be locking people up for thoughts and preferences, but I also wouldn't want someone like that around my son.

Mate...I am right there with you.

 

[thfcsteff]

And we're back into the realms of a thought crime. Punishing someone who quite possibly didn't even have the intent to commit an offence.

Do we mark them out to everyone for public safety? I don't want to invoke Godwin here, but it does call to mind the idea of people bearing yellow stars.

Very very troubling, because of course yellow stars were awful, but I find getting sexual aroused by children disgusting, yet the point you raise is certainly a dilemma. I suppose I would have to say that if it is in someone's head and stays there, without harming anyone, then as long as I don't know it is what it is?

 

[thfcsteff]

As a parent it is impossible to be objective about this issue. If I wasn't one then the policing desires thing would be a huge no no.

What I would say is that people who are attracted to pre pubescent children need an avenue to get help if they want it without being placed on a register or without being persecuted. If their brain is wired in this way, or if they were abused themselves and this has fudged them up then something should be available to help them. Obviously if they ever break the law then I think along with prosecution some therapy has to be in place.

An excellent slice of rationale. Agreed and well said.

 

[braineclipse]

At the risk of disappearing down a theoretical rabbit hole, I'd like to take that further along the path - there are few questions to which I would say that I genuinely don't have an answer so things like this intrigue me.

So what's the difference between an "inactive" paedophile that looks something up online which has already been created, and for which they offer no exchange or recompense, and seeing something on the street or in a park and putting it in their toss bank? Assuming that the point of incarceration and/or therapy are to prevent harm, what grounds do we have for locking someone up when no harm has been caused?

As a parent I feel entirely conflicted. I don't believe we should be locking people up for thoughts and preferences, but I also wouldn't want someone like that around my son.

What's the difference between me seeing an attractive adult female outside and putting that image in my toss bank and me downloading a film of a *struggle cuddle* from the web (with no exchange offered or recompense given). A huge difference for sure.

And we're back into the realms of a thought crime. Punishing someone who quite possibly didn't even have the intent to commit an offence.

Do we mark them out to everyone for public safety? I don't want to invoke Godwin here, but it does call to mind the idea of people bearing yellow stars.

Thought crime is just a non-starter. Marking people out for their thoughts is as well.

How do these people get help is an important part of the question. Does alienating them from societies and marking them to everyone do that? I doubt it.

---------------------------------

The "stranger danger" of someone lurking in the park or down at the youth club gets blown out of proportion compared to family members, close friends, priests and others the child actually knows.

 

[scaramanga]

What's the difference between me seeing an attractive adult female outside and putting that image in my toss bank and me downloading a film of a *struggle cuddle* from the web (with no exchange offered or recompense given). A huge difference for sure.

Is there?

What if the latter were done in a manner so that nobody ever knew it had happened, nobody was ever affected by it, nothing in this universe has altered other than the act itself happening.

Does that still constitute a crime? For me, it's tough to justify making a crime out of something that has absolutely no effect whatsoever on anyone. After all, isn't the point of restricting crime to protect people?

 

[braineclipse]

Is there?

What if the latter were done in a manner so that nobody ever knew it had happened, nobody was ever affected by it, nothing in this universe has altered other than the act itself happening.

Does that still constitute a crime? For me, it's tough to justify making a crime out of something that has absolutely no effect whatsoever on anyone. After all, isn't the point of restricting crime to protect people?

Are you speaking strictly legally or also in terms of a moral difference? I'm not looking to limit the conversation to one of those at all, quite the opposite.

In terms of effect on people I think your example is somewhat contrived. It's like one of those mathematical solutions that require a perfectly spherical sheep in a perfect vacuum to work. Consumption of such videos online has a wider effect than just what happens at the end of the person doing the downloading. I also think stepping over to that kind of consumption (be it violence, murder or *struggle cuddle*) constitutes a difference in the "consumer" - crossing a line that should not be crossed. Crossing such a line is (imo) likely to have effects on that individual too. At least for some those effects will not be positive, quite far from it. Though on that I'm speculating, I don't think enough is known about actual causality in these issues.

TLDR: I'm not accepting your hypothetical scenario.

Crime is often a symptom, preventing crime is about more than protecting the victims of crime. A point of restricting crime is to prevent people from becoming criminals.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Really interesting posts in here. I must say i find @scaramanga "thought policing" point very interesting and i'm similarly conflicted and again as a parent i think my natural protective instincts and feelings of revulsion about paedophilia generally would make me very much fall down on the side of "lock 'em up and throw away the key if they think that sort of vile stuff."

However, at this stage these discussions of how you police such thoughts are very much secondary to my desire of just authorities doing their job and actually investigating AND giving out big sentences to those who are caught AND have a tonne of evidence against them. I've read about some sickos abuse their own children (like that mentioned by @Rock Strongo ) and get jailtime that is a complete joke.
Let's make the sentencing for those known to have acted out such thoughts REALLY a deterrent then sort out policing the thoughts further down the line.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

And we're back into the realms of a thought crime. Punishing someone who quite possibly didn't even have the intent to commit an offence.

Do we mark them out to everyone for public safety? I don't want to invoke Godwin here, but it does call to mind the idea of people bearing yellow stars.

If someone has had thoughts but has never told anyone or acted upon them then logically nothing would happen legally because by definition nobody knows.

For ones that have talked of, revealed, downloaded, groomed, any ounce of suggestion that pedophilia is their predisposition need monitoring. I'm not suggesting locking them all up, but some form of control, help, attempted rehabiltation (if that is possible) is paramount.

Any parent is predisposed to do anything for their children. Top of that list is protect them. The problem with this crime is it targets the most innocent & vulnerable group of society. We see someone gets six years for this, 3 years for that BUT as we have seen victims are buggered for life, often trying to take their own lives. If something happens when your 25,35,45 you may have the skills, awareness, maturity to process it. Kids have none of this, they can't process it, they cant even talk about it (inc parents), it ruins them.

I think actual offenders (like the football coach) are committing a crime right up there with the very worst. Long sentences and isolation (just like his victims) is what they deserve.