170 replies to this topic

[Big Guy]

Bishop Raymond Lahey had pleaded guilty to importing child pornography and has been sentenced. He will probably not spend any more time in jail. He certainly is not the picture of the sinister, unshaven, lowbrow who lurks in the shadows with other vermin.

I understand that the criminality of his act is in providing a market for those who actually physically abuse the children to produce the materials and gain financial benefit from the process. That makes one wonder why the courts are so lenient with “john’s” who support prostitution and drug users who finance drug pushers and dealers.

Any time another of these child sexual abuse cases comes up, the public reaction varies from “string him up” to “castrate that dirty … “. As distasteful as I find this deviant behaviour against children to be I do wonder why we deal with sexual abuse of children as a criminal act as if the perpetrator is a normal individual who is able to control his his/her actions. To gain erotic pleasure from the exploitation of innocent children is bizarre. The act itself indicates that the person is wired wrong. The behaviour is so repugnantly abnormal that the individual must have some form of mental illness. The recidivism rate tells us that throwing these mentally ill people into jail serves only to temporarily separate them from us at a very high cost of incarceration.

There must be a better way.

[The_Squid]

The behaviour is so repugnantly abnormal that the individual must have some form of mental illness.

Then they can plead not guilty by reason of mental defect.

However, your statement above is wrong. Pedophilia itself is not a recognized mental illness, so in fact, these perverts do know that what they are doing is wrong and should be sentenced accordingly (harshly).

Murder is repugnant too, but not every murderer (in fact, very few) are mentally ill.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's not mental illness, these people just find children sexually attractive the same as men find women attractive and gays find someone of the same sex attractive. It's how they're wired.

They can't help the feelings of attraction just as man can't help lusting for women. But someone attracted to children should NEVER act on it because it's obviously wrong.

The problem is, how do you prevent pedophilia or help/"cure" them? It's the same as asking: how do you stop a man from being sexually attracted to women?

Castration has proven to relieve the symptoms of desire, and some pedophiles have voluntarily undergone it, but forced castration presents obvious problems.

I feel bad for these people that have this desire that's not their fault, but they should all realize it's wrong and refuse to act on it. The alternative is prison, simple choice.

[cybercoma]

Even voluntary castration is a problem. We put the "feebleminded" into asylums in BC and offered them their freedom if they would agree to be sterilized. It's not much of a choice when put into that sort of context. In any case, the government can't pass any laws requiring this any longer. Section 7 of the Charter forbids it.

[jbg]

My vote would be to find a way to encourage these people, pre-arrest, to seek treatment. There should be some way they could get treatment in a non-stigmatized manner.

[cybercoma]

My vote would be to find a way to encourage these people, pre-arrest, to seek treatment. There should be some way they could get treatment in a non-stigmatized manner.

I think I agree with jbg here that there can be treatment. While you can't treat someone to change their sexuality, you could treat them to control their urges and not act on them. In other words, you can help someone remain celibate. You're not going to change their sexualit; you just want them not acting on it.

[Scotty]

I understand that the criminality of his act is in providing a market for those who actually physically abuse the children to produce the materials and gain financial benefit from the process.

I think that was one of the justifications for the law, but I've never seen any evidence of any truth to it. Downloading and possessing child porn is criminal because, basically, people are disgusted by those who are sexually attracted to children. People make excuses about cause and effect reasons but none have ever been demonstrated to be true.

That makes one wonder why the courts are so lenient with “john’s” who support prostitution and drug users who finance drug pushers and dealers.

Why don't you wonder why we send people to prison for downloading pictures of sixteen year old girls but let them legally have sex with sixteen year old girls?

[Scotty]

Then they can plead not guilty by reason of mental defect.

However, your statement above is wrong. Pedophilia itself is not a recognized mental illness, so in fact, these perverts do know that what they are doing is wrong and should be sentenced accordingly (harshly).

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary)

[Scotty]

It's not mental illness, these people just find children sexually attractive the same as men find women attractive and gays find someone of the same sex attractive. It's how they're wired.

You don't think that constitutes a mental illness? If you had a desperate urge to have sex with toads wouldn't you call that a mental illness of some sort? I mean, c'mon! These people are incapable of normal relationships with adults. Clearly that's a mental disease and is described so by psychiatrists.

[guyser]

Why don't you wonder why we send people to prison for downloading pictures of sixteen year old girls but let them legally have sex with sixteen year old girls?

Huh?

You can download pics all day of 16 yr olds. No problem.

But go and have sex with one , you will be in trouble

[guyser]

These people are incapable of normal relationships with adults. Clearly that's a mental disease and is described so by psychiatrists.

Hmm.....pedophiles come in all m,anners of dress including the majority being fathers, mothers, Aunts Uncles and even clergy.

One thing they all have in common is relationships, normal ones, with adults.

Edited by guyser, 04 January 2012 - 05:42 PM.

[Moonlight Graham]

You don't think that constitutes a mental illness? If you had a desperate urge to have sex with toads wouldn't you call that a mental illness of some sort? I mean, c'mon! These people are incapable of normal relationships with adults. Clearly that's a mental disease and is described so by psychiatrists.

Ok well fine then. But I don't see how the label changes anything.

Also, agreed with what jbg said, give them some non-judgmental treatment that 100% protects their privacy and teaches them how to control their urges. Maybe give them free passes to a local strip-club too lol.

[cybercoma]

I think that was one of the justifications for the law, but I've never seen any evidence of any truth to it. Downloading and possessing child porn is criminal because, basically, people are disgusted by those who are sexually attracted to children. People make excuses about cause and effect reasons but none have ever been demonstrated to be true.



Why don't you wonder why we send people to prison for downloading pictures of sixteen year old girls but let them legally have sex with sixteen year old girls?

The problem is that demand for child pornography creates victims. The theory is that reducing the demand, by making it criminal, will reduce the number of children that are victimized by the "industry." This applies to pictures of 16 year olds as well. However, if a 16 year old sends pics of herself to another minor, who she could legally have sex with, I don't believe that should be a crime.

[cybercoma]

Huh?

You can download pics all day of 16 yr olds. No problem.

But go and have sex with one , you will be in trouble

Download pics of them in various stages of undress or engaged in sexual activities and it absolutely would not be "no problem" if you're caught.

[jacee]

You don't think that constitutes a mental illness? If you had a desperate urge to have sex with toads wouldn't you call that a mental illness of some sort? I mean, c'mon! These people are incapable of normal relationships with adults. Clearly that's a mental disease and is described so by psychiatrists.

Doesn't mean pedophiles aren't guilty of crimes.

The legal test isn't the presence of mental illness ... "mental defect" ... but knowingly committing a crime ... forming the intent and carrying out an action that the perpetrator knows is wrong.

A paranoid and delusional psychotic might kill someone under the delusion that he/she is being attacked by aliens. In that state, he doesn't know he's doing something wrong, but thinks he's defending himself, takes no precautions against getting caught, even carrying out the act in front of witnesses if that's where the delusion strikes.

A pedophile knows what he/she is doing is wrong, may spend years intending, planning and 'grooming' a child to submit to sex acts, does it in secret, threatens victims against telling anyone, and may never admit to the heinous acts even when confronted by the police, courts, etc. He/she, thus, shows awareness that the act is wrong, against the law, criminal, and is thus liable for criminal conviction.

Regardless of the presence of mental illness, the 'not guilty by reason of mental defect' defense only applies to criminal acts committed unknowingly: If a perp knows it's wrong, he/she is criminally liable, despite the presence of biological 'urges'.

"I couldn't help it"
"She led me on with her sexy little diapers"
"His parents wanted me to ... gave him to me ..."
"I didn't hurt any child ... I could never hurt a child ..."
"I just looked at the pictures ... doing research ... they came to my inbox and I opened them by accident ..."

These are not delusions ... they are excuses, planned, premeditated rationalizations for doing something the perp knows to be wrong.

Edited by jacee, 05 January 2012 - 04:40 AM.