Myoldnamebroke on 24/5/2006 at 17:08
I'm sure we have and will do so many times again, but from the point of a justice system you can't treat them all the same because they are simply not doing the same thing.
Turtle on 24/5/2006 at 17:09
Quote:
The number of people who think that "paedophile" == "child abuser" is astonishing.
While I don't agree with the rest of his points, he is correct here.
Wanting to do something isn't the same as doing it.
Naartjie on 24/5/2006 at 17:36
He's correct but such a total muppet that it's a struggle agreeing with him :erg:
Jonesy on 24/5/2006 at 17:37
Quote Posted by Turtle
While I don't agree with the rest of his points, he is correct here.
Wanting to do something isn't the same as doing it.
I'd have to agree on this, because I'd be in prison for a long time if the THOUGHT POLICE were hearing my secret desires to lead a forum coup and assassinate Daveh.
oh shi gave out my plans damn you big brother where is my tinfoil
WingedKagouti on 24/5/2006 at 17:43
Desire isn't Action.
OrbWeaver on 24/5/2006 at 18:07
Quote Posted by fett
You didn't really just say that, did you? Do you have kids? If someone sticks their dick in your 10 year old daughter, I bet your word associations change real quick.
As others have pointed out already, having a pathological attraction to prepubescent children ((
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm) as specified in the DSM-IV's definition of paedophilia) is not the same as actually abusing children. It is possible to be (either) one without being the other.
Quote Posted by Dia
You don't have kids, do you? Go have some & we'll talk in a few years.
And your point is?
The fact that any one person can change their views based on their emotional situation does not undermine the principle that such emotion should
not be a basis on which laws and sentences are determined (in fact it would reinforce it, by showing that nobody is immune from irrationality).
EDIT: I just saw your 'arguments' in the linked thread StD posted. Apparently you believe that sexual attraction to
biological adults who happen not to have reached the societally-determined and arbitrary age of consent is paedophilia also. Perhaps a basic course in human biology might be in order?
Dia on 24/5/2006 at 18:32
Quote:
Desire isn't Action.
Agreed.
While I think a life sentence is a bit stiff, it's obvious that in most cases convicted pedophiles who've actively abused/molested children are never rehabilitated while they're serving prison sentences for their offenses. The only rehabilitation method for pedophiles I've ever heard of that worked was castration.
It sounds like the judge just cut the crap and threw away the keys to prevent at least three sick bastards from ever preying on innocent children again.
OrbWeaver:
In the United States and some other countries, the term pedophile is frequently used also to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents, as well as those who have sexually abused a child. In countries where the legal age of consent is lower, like France or Brazil, the mainstream media avoid using the terms pedophilia or pedophile to refer to consented relationships between adults and adolescents.
Being biologically mature doesn't mean the young person in question won't be physically, emotionally, or mentally harmed by such an act.
Oli G on 24/5/2006 at 18:43
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Indeed. In fact I don't understand this at all - assuming the average life expectancy is 80 years, if you abuse a 10-year-old they have to live with the consequences for the next 70 years. If you abuse an 18-year-old, they have to live with the consequences for the next 62 years.
For some reason, causing somebody 70 years of psychological damage is considered to be OMG TEH EVIL whereas causing somebody 62 years of the same is just run-of-the-mill crime.
Sexual abuse is never a 'run-of-the-mill' crime. But if you can't see the difference between abusing an adult and abusing a child (and there is a massive one) there's something seriously wrong with you.
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Nevertheless, the fact is that when sex offenses and children are mentioned, there is a certain class of people that will abandon the idea of a scale of punishment and call for the maximum possible sentence no matter what
Quote:
think the point is that having paedophilic desires doesn't automatically entail child abuse, just like any other sexual attraction just guarantee you're getting any either. The men in this case may well all be paedophiles, but that doesn't mean they've all raped children.
Read the BBC article linked to in the first post of this thread. No, the men weren't all convicted of rape - but so what? I'm not going to go into the mechanics of sex, but there are any number of things which can be done to children which are as repulsive as rape and just as deserving of life in prison. Even being involved in the abuse without actually committing it should merit the same level of punishment: at the end of the day you're aware of the crime and allowing it to happen. Similarly, viewing images of such abuse is just as deserving of the maximum punishment: however much perpetrators of this kind of crime tell themselves that they're giving harmless vent to their natural but perverted inclinations, in reality they're supporting the abuse and making it possible. And once again, they're aware it's happening and doing nothing to stop it. This isn't an 'emotional' attitude as OrbWeaver would have it. Whatever the specifics, when you consider the nature of this kind of crime logically criminal actions of this kind are uniformly deplorable and deserving of identical treatment by the law.
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Apparently you believe that sexual attraction to biological adults who happen not to have reached the societally-determined and arbitrary age of consent is paedophilia also. Perhaps a basic course in human biology might be in order?
Perhaps a basic course in common sense is in order. You need to get your priorities straight. Apparently linguistic inaccuracy riles you more than sexual abuse of children. You're point is wrong anyway: In legal terms Dia's definition of what a paedophile is is correct, whatever the precise biological reality is. And in my view abuse of teenagers below the age of consent is only marginally less repugnant than outright abuse of children. Sexual maturity comes a long time before psychological maturity (I point to you as an example - you clearly haven't reached it), and even if the underage party 'consents' it should be self-evident that engaging in sex is wrong.
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
No, you're a drooling hysterical freak without the mere mention of children. So don't worry your little psychotic head.
Glad to see I'm not the only one speaking sense in this thread. ;)
