to disagree that "name and shame" policy with paedophiles is wrong and dangerous?

[Gigantaur]

i was sent a request to join a facebook group that is printing names and photo's of apparent convicted paedophiles.

When i had a look at the site some of the ignorance and general scaremongering was ridiculous so i joined so that i could post that what they were doing was dangerous and please could they not publish names on the page as it will inevitably lead to some poor innocent person getting harmed.

I also gave my opinion that I simply do not believe that such actions are anything but harmfull to the police and supporting agencies attempts to moniter and observe these people so as to try and prevent further incidents.

I have been (unsurprisingly) rounded on. now i must admit that at one stage i got so angry at the sheer ognorance of some of the comments that i got my judgy pants on over the content and substance of some of the posts.

but really, am i the only clear thinking person in the land? or, as they tell me, am i merely a "peedo sympethiser" ?

YANBU- but you know that. I can't believe soe of the dross on facebook.

LeQueen, I think Giganteur's point is that if the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent for murderers in the US, then stringing paedophiles up by their balls will not serve as a deterrent for paedophiles. That's a pretty straightforward analogy, isn't it?

To those in the 'string 'em up' brigade: I would like to reiterate earlier points by asking:

If your 16 year-old son had a sexual relationship with a 15 year-old girl and was found out and placed on the SO register; would you be amongst the baying mob calling for his blood? Would you be happy for him to be publicly 'named and shamed'?

Oh dear.

Why do people give this kind of thing any credence at all?

The Peado Panic is a modern witch hunt - they are the boguey men that we see under every bush.

While peadophillia is a terrible thing, this tabloid-led panic is not going to do anything to solve the problem. It's a childish, medieval witch hunt - nothing more.

Oh and regarding the death penalty issue.

1. The Human Rights Act forbids it.

1. If we have the death penalty for both sexual offences and murder (I'm assuming that people are going to regard murder as worse than rape) than there is an incentive for sex offenders to kill their victims. If the penalty for a sexual offence is the same as that for murder, you have nothing to lose by killing the victim and making it less likely that you will be indentified.

I have recently come across some information (but can't find the link) that basically said that rehabilitation of padophiles is nigh on impossible. Reason is that the person's sexual preferences, which are at the most basic unconscious level in your brain, have to be broken down which is very hard.

Some people have managed to be rehabilitated, but in most cases this amounts to understanding that their sexual preference is wrong, without being able to change their preference at all.

I do remember reading a letter in the paper once, from a paedophile, which basically said he'd had a lot of therapy to understand his feelings and was now able to look at children as just children, not sexual objects. If this was correct, it must be very rare.

gigantaur - I agree with you re such lists being dangerous but also re your posts on that Facebook page, you are living in a fantasy world if you think "I wouldn't leave my kids with anyone I don't trust" is protecting them from sexual predators. People who leave their kids with these pedophiles do so because they trust them. They are uncles, fathers, priests.

It is interesting, ILove. I can, just about, accept that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, possibly inborn, and certainly difficult to change, but I can't understand why, if this is the case, paedophiles cannot practise abstinence. Am I being naive? As a heterosexual, the need to have sex has never led me to try to seduce someone against their will, attack them, break the law, or share explicit photos with strangers. I wonder whether the 'sexual preference' towards paedophilia is so strong that it leads all paedophiles to try to do at least one of my list or whether, in fact, as with crimes such as rape, which is maybe a human instinct taken far too far, there are millions of men out there who share the same desires ("ooh, I'd give 'er one") as paedophiles but just don't act on them through not wanting to cause pain/fear/break the law.

God, I sound like one of the "All men are rapists" brigade, but I'm not, I promise! I just wonder if the fraction of men with 'normal' desires to shag a woman who go on to rape, as they have no inhibitions, is equivalent to 'active' paedophiles being the tip of the iceberg. Or is paedophilia more of a 'control' thing like, in fact, some people claim rape is: i.e. a desire to hurt, not 'pure lust' at all? In which case, why children rather than adults? Because they're easier to intimidate? In which case, surely the defence that it's a 'natural' to them sexual tendency is rather shaky?

Not sure I'm making sense here at all.....

LeQueen, I am not asking what you would do to change the law...I'm asking what you would do in the current situation in that anyone over the age of consent involved sexually with someone under the age of consent, is liable to be put on the SO register. In the light of that, I am asking whether you still think it is a good idea to name and shame people on the SO register?

I am also trying to point out that 'stringing up' paedophiles by their balls will not serve as a deterrent.

Cote - no of course only leaving my children ith those i trust is not 100% safe. as i said on the facebook page, a very high percentage of all abusers are the uncle/father/brother/trusted friend of the victim.

but there is only so much cotton wool to wrap ones children in.

Lequeen - no one is confusing your argument with grey areas. a 16 year old boy sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend is balck and white breaking the law. he is a sex offender under the current legal system. as such, should a complaint be made, he would be arrested and if convicted placed on the SOR.

There is a significant difference between actual children and teenagers that have developed adult physiques but are considered children for legal reasons.

If you are attracted to a 3 yr old, you are a pedophile. If you are attracted to 15 yr old Miley Cyrus, you are a normal man. Acting on these impulses would indeed be a crime but you still would not be a pedophile.

I agree that the public needs to know if they are living next door to a real pedophile, whose sexual orientation is towards small children. I don't agree that a teenage boy who is only a year older than his consenting girlfriend should be in this list.

I wonder the same things, AwesomeWellies.

Gah.

I agree with you about the differences between a 16/15 year-olds' relationship and an older paedophile targeting younger children.

What I'm trying to explain that this is one reason why making the SOR public is a dangerous thing to do.

Not to mention the possibility of identifying people wrongly e.g. someone looking like someone whose photo has been published; someone having the same name or someone living at an address where a paedophile was formerly living.

Plus the general vigilantism is likely to drive these potentially dangerous people underground- not a good thing.

Have name changed... I have never been in favour of naming and shaming on FB or similar mediums. As OP says, it encourages vigilante behaviour and risks innocent parties being attacked as mistakes are often made. The criminal justice system is far from perfect, and many crimes are given unduly lenient sentences but 'the mob' do not have the right to take over when the courts fail.
Approx 2 years ago my nephew was arrested, pleaded guilty and was given an indeterminate sentence. We always suspected he was gay but are still reeling from the shock of his actions- we never suspected a thing. He does not fit the profile of a 'dirty old man' at all, he is young, articulate and intelligent. He has apparently felt that way since he was 12, knows it is unacceptable but it felt right to him in the same way a gay person feels right with a same sex relationship. He is having rehab but I don't know if that could/does work or how they check.
Our hearts of course go out to his victims and their families.
The other unseen victims are his parents. My sis has been suicidal at times, both hers and xh marriages have broken down under the strain and she feels constantly judged by association. She has found out who her friends are.
For him to be outed on a website would identify her, and probably finish her off. She is already heartbroken, and I am for her.

wow, what an interesting discussion. I agree with so much of what has been said here, lots of common sense. Do we want vengence against a minority of convicted paedos at the price of a majority of wrongly identified similar-named people or those 16 year olds with the 15 year old girlfriends, and as sadtobewritingthis says, dragging in unsuspecting and innocent family members too.

I can completely understand the gut wrenching hate that drives these vigilante groups, but they don't do any good at all. Go much further down this route and we will all report our suspicions about our neighbours who will be getting carted off in the middle of the night by the secret police.

I heard something about voluntary castration being considered in the US - I think some convicted paedophiles who felt they could not control themselves and knew it was wrong were asking for this. I think that would be a very responsible thing to do if your sexual preference was dangerous and could not reliably be "fixed" by therapy.

If you are caught weeing in a public place, ie a bit drunk and having a wee in a bush on the way home from the pub, you can be prosecuted and put on the Sex Offenders List for exposing yourself. If the police sent blanket lists out, a whole lot of people would face a whole lot of problems....

This list just incenses people who would be extreme anyway...if it wasn't this it'd be something else.

The only thing I don't understand is the whole, if we out them they will only go underground. They are hardly having a Pedo Pride Parade and shouting for their freedom of choice in the streets. They may have urges but if they felt they were innocent it wouldn't all be so covered up would it. They know they are doing wrong.

I hate visiting my FIL in Thailand, you see pedos parading round the streets there with a 14/15 year old on each arm, who are of course with them for their thick spectacles and big swinging guts, not their £9000 annual salaries and a chance of getting out of the slums.

Funny thing is, they can never look you in the eye when you, as a grown woman, try to catch their attention and have a word about their actions....

Where paedophilia is a sexual orientation and hence impossible to change, the way to go is lifetime imprisonment or voluntary chemical castration, imho.

FB groups like the one in the OP are just a way of bigging up the egos of the thickos who start them. It makes them feel important.

It does nothing to solve the problem of paedophilia. (which let's not forget tends to go on behind the closed doors of the family home more often than not- it's not the dodgy looking bloke sitting in the park, it's Uncle Jimmy doing the feeling usually)

Oh anyone who supports naming and shaming has immediately outed him/herself as a sentimental, thuggish fuckwit you can safely cross off your friendship list.

Please tell me no one actually ever confused pediatrician with pedophile?

YANBU

I do think we should know the areas where they live however so people can decide if they are happy with their children playing outside or not.

I am from the US and in my state you could find out how many were in your area... I was fucking horrified by how many registered sex offenders live in my area. And yes, I know that being a sex offender is not necessarily the same as being a pedophile. But it did remind to be extra cautious with where I went and not taking back alleys etc

When I was TTC I used to lurk on another forum and saw a post from a lady who had been sent info through FB or something basically along the lines of "My BIL's next door neighbour's auntie's son" you get my drift) works with someone who works as a prison guard and he tells me that Jon Venables' new identity is XYZ and he lives in such and such street in Bolton. Of course all of the posters were up in arms, demanding retribution etc etc, over 11 pages of calling for action before someone pointed out hpw unlikely it was to be true, veracity of sources etc etc. They were quickly shouted down, and that whole episode made me very suss of just how many people can be trusted with this kind of info.