to think being a paedophile isn't a crime?

[KissingFish]

I see posts from people both on here and other places (Facebook) about how paedophiles should all be killed and confusing the terms paedophile and child molester / child abuser.

They're not the same thing and honestly I don't think being a paedophile is a crime. It is a sexual orientation that nobody chooses to be born with. The same way people are born straight or gay.

Just because someone is a paedophile it doesn't mean they have acted on it and so it doesn't mean they are a child molester.

Surely if we all accepted that paedophilia is a sexual orientation we could help these people before they commit a crime. Before they act on it. I bet there are a LOT more paedophiles out there than we know about. They just don't act on it because they know it's wrong to act on it.

I am of course not saying being sexually attracted to children is a good thing or that it should ever be OK to act on it. No way. Just that I don't think people choose to be a paedophile and it must be pretty scary to realise you are attracted to children. Much the same way it used to be about being gay. And I don't imagine you can just ask friends, family or many people actually for help and advice.

I think in order to deal with a problem you need to understand it first.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise though if anyone has a good argument?

Disclaimer: I am not a paedophile, I just don't believe they are all evil.

Though I was just now wondering why pedophiles don't extend to perhaps severely disabled people or animals if it was solely to do with power and control

They frequently do.

Oh I accept there are people with those types of fetishes I just wondered why the understanding of what a paedophile is doesn't extend to include that or assume that

accepting it as a mental illness is a horrific idea, it would grant peadophiles protection as an excelent post by a pp pointed out, anti discrimination laws could mean peadophiles could get jobs in schools, or like the recent cases of rolf harris etc, granted leniency in prosecution

IF it IS a mental illness then you would have to accept it as a mental illness!
Of course it would not mean they could get jobs in schools! The very nature of what the illness involves would mean they could not work in schools with that illness! Certain mental illnesses mean you could never work in certain jobs because of the nature of the job - it is NOT discrimination!
Of course any mental illness is taken into account when standing trial for something.
There are many prisoners who can never be released because of their mental condition.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i thougt that whilst in prison, inmates including sex offenders and peadophiles receive therapy and counselling to try and rehabilitate them.

Looking at the re-offending rates for released peadophiles, whilst being monitored, "Monitoring these offenders is costly, time–consuming and very challenging" makes for some depressing and eye opening reading.

That would suggest to me that treatment is not nearly as viable a possibility as some posters like to think.

There is access to therapy and treatment in the community

www.stopso.org.uk/client.htm

Looking at the re-offending rates for released peadophiles, whilst being monitored, "Monitoring these offenders is costly, time–consuming and very challenging" makes for some depressing and eye opening reading

Well you can blame politics and economic reasons for that MySordidCake Secret
Decisions are based on cost and not need.

well yes gottagetmoving, because say if today we wanted new funding to implement effective monitoring, pre-emptive counselling and intensive therapy, what other services would we cut and reduce funding to to provide that?

The article I read stated almost 1000 peadophiles had re-offending within a 1 year period. (anyone interested in help for peadophiles, there does actually seem to be quite a few projects going on)

And in terms of monitoring cuts in probation service provision have not helped.

yes mary, to peadophiles who have broken the law by either abusing a child or harbouring indecent images.

There have been cuts everywhere, in my area as i've said before you're waiting 6 months for counselling or cbt. There's no longer breastfeeding support nurses and far less home visits due to cuts. (i know not relevant but cuts are felt everywhere not just in rehabilitation)

But my point stands, if you say there should be increased funding for peadophiles, where will that money come from?

some peadophiles can abuse children but not all people who abuse children will be peadophiles maybe the reoffending rates are so high because it is such a taboo subject that not enough is understood about it and all people who abuse children are treated the same way but the abuse will not all have the same reason. Maybe if people were not too scared to discuss things more effective treatments could be found.

I do generally feel though that sentencing guidelines for sex offenders and child abusers are far too lenient.

What it boils down to for me is that if we fail then there is a child victim who suffers, I'd rather we did something to help peadophiles before they offend so that the child never becomes a victim in the first place.

so is rolf harris a peadophile?

What you seem to be suggesting is that the two are mutually exclusive and peadophiles don't view images or abuse children, which is ridiculous and as pp have pointed out there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that there are hundreds of innocent peadophiles who have never acted on their urges or perpetuated abuse by viewing images.

If you are so concerned about funding, have you considered how much more expensive it is to keep people in jail?

I'm just trying to be realistic, it's all well and good speculating on what wonderful services could be provided, but the reality is they would have to be paid for. And if you're serious about it and you would push this as a motion to the government, it's a question that would be asked, where is the money going to come from? which other services or provisions will have to be cut?

It would appear Rolf Harris is a paedophile who committed a crime and therefore also a child abuser

He is a child abusing paedophile

As opposed to one who hasn't abused a child which is simply a paedophile

No. Rolf Harris is probably not a paedophile.

What a statement.

If there are not people out there struggling not to act on their impulses how does the organisation I linked to earlier manage to be a viable concern?

I've completed their training, by the way.

No. Rolf Harris is probably not a paedophile.
**
His convictions were for abuse of teenage girls.

And I have just given an example of why I should have checked the story first as I wasn't aware who or what he'd done anything to, only that he was convicted

Sorry!

so they do exist hairbrushed? because according to mary they don't

there is a difference between a paedophile (as in someone who finds children sexually attractive) and a child abuser (as in someone who abuses a child).

Mary there are a vast number of peadophiles who due to their sexual attraction abuse children both directly and indirectly through child porn which is just as bad.

there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that there are hundreds of innocent peadophiles who have never acted on their urges or perpetuated abuse by viewing images.

Exactly, there is zero evidence to prove or disprove that. If a figure posted upthread is to be believed it estimates 1% of the male population. That is a HUGE number, and there is very little to prove or disprove that it isn't higher. It could be 10% for all we know because its not something anyone admits or is asked. Equally though, it could be 0.1% of males and 99% of paedophiles turn into child abusers eventually.

We just don't know, and to me thats one of the scariest things about it all.