Pro-paedophilia campaigner locked up - too blinking right!!!

[tigerschick]

here

Sick

newlife-do you mean comments such as my 'let them rot'type attitude(which i have said on a few threads on a few different subjects then had other posters explain why things arent so clear-cut and i myself have come away haveing learnt something,or at least learnt to accept the views of others),or is it the 'peadophiles are human and have rights' type attitude that has got to you?

i think this thread went into fight mode for a couple of posts but did turn into a reasonable discussion after that.

well, because I think being too specific is more than some people can take and thus makes them angry and then even more firmly entrenched in their own narrow mindedness, unfortunately I will be vague in explanation.

Sentences about offenders deserving nothing but to be locked up/castrated, about how committing an offence must then mean they are to be denied all compassion and humanity themselves, the confused lumping together of paedophilia and child abuse and the lack of understanding as to what causes paedophilia. I sense that as much as the accusatory persons may deny it, they feel that to desire infants is a pure choice and that such individuals must be bad or lacking in remorse or wicked beings with no regard for others. Certainly the actions of paedophiles and child abusers, rapists and sex offenders are wicked and remorseless but the mind that drives such actions may not be.

I don't believe we should accept these things but equally I do not believe that castigation is the answer.

I do wonder if those who are so quick to air their distaste and shock and subsequent anger and need for resemblence of order through punishment and victimisation, ever in fact imagine themselves as the abuser and consider how they came to commit such acts.

I've said it before and will say it again; we must seek to understand before we punish for any act that seeks to bring justice or a solution but that is committed without understanding will be at best inadequate and at worst futile.
compassion may not be possible for all but there is no real excuse for not seeking to understand.

i dont understand why we should seek to understand what drives people to do such horrific things,though.

i find on this site there are different attitudes to differnt types of crminals.men who are violent to their partners,for example,are never given any understanding or compassion from what i have read on here.they may well have been driven to behave in that way by mental illness or events in their childhood,but generally the view is that,as adults,they are expected to control their behaviour,and that no amount of 'reasons' make it acceptable to behave that way.

why should it be any different for those who abuse children?

Divastrop, how can anyone change things they don't understand?

I have been a victim of domestic violence and my approach to that is the same.

Hatred, disgust, non-acceptance, etc. can all sit alongside compassion and understanding.

I am quite angry about being lumped in with vigilantes , 'pitchforkers' and narrow minded ignoramouses simply because I believe paedophiles should be given the toughest criminal punishment available. I don't understand what drives paedophiles or child abusers - does that make me ignorant?

i dont understand them, but i would never consider myself a vigilante

I have known sex offenders who are eloquent, kind, well-informed, use their intelligence, caring..and ..wait for it..incredibly brave.

Imagine you have a really dirty, dark secret, the sort of which others will want to kill you for, or have you locked up froever if it was ever found out..that disqualifies you in your mind to consider yourself inelegible for 'decent' company.
BUT, you are 'relieved' it is discovered, and submit yourself for an all-most total person make-over. In front of others. Describing your most fearfully dark sexual secrets in front of 'strangers' is quite a demand.

I say this not to garner sympathy for those at all. Or to suggest they should be liked for it. To live with this secret, and to demonstrate a 'recovery' is a big step, and can be done at no cost to any victim.

Why do you think someone who looks at mild child porn should be punished in exactly the same way as serial paedophile who rapes and murders children.

I think someone who is accused of being a paedophile should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. There have been far too many cases of innocent teachers having their careers wrecked by malicous allogations. Even if there is strong proof that the kids made up a story, the kids do not get punished in anyway.

Why is it considered a problem that judges and law courts use their brains when deciding how to treat paedophiles.

'mild child porn'? Good God.

I would also like to add that innocent until proven guolty is of course part of a democracy and an admirable and crucial one. However, I am all too often flabbergasted by the sentencing of paedophiles. 2 or 3 years in prison for raping a child? My God, you'd get four times that for robbery.

" I am all too often flabbergasted by the sentencing of paedophiles. 2 or 3 years in prison for raping a child? My God, you'd get four times that for robbery. "

doesn't this demonstrate your utter ignorance of sentencing policy??

What's your point, Pan? That paedophiles are human beings? OK, I accept that. Unfortunately, being kind, brave and intelligent does NOT in any way compensate for forcing yourself sexually on a child or using a child for your own sexual gratification. Perhaps the rare few paedophiles who do step forward and ask for help are 'brave', but I'm sure you can appreciate - nobody is going to give them a round of applause for it. If they and the profesionals who's task it is to help them genuinely feel they can rehabilitate them, then good luck to them. But I still say the safest way to make sure a paedophile doesn't attack a child is to imprison them. I can't see any other way to ensure the safety of our chldren, and surely that should come above ANY other concern?

Pan I find your manner extremely insulting. I am certainly NOT ignorant of sentencing policy, I can assure you. Why do you feel the need to attack those who's views oppose your own? I am only voicing my opinions - opinions shared by a hell of a lot of people. Please don't portray me as some sort of Daily Mail reading hate campaigner because I think that people who prey sexually on children should be dealt with in the harshest possible way.

I guess my point is that you nothing of sentencing policy. This was something you plucked out of your mind to be controversial, self-indulgent, and misleading, with no attempt to check if you are in anyway correct.

How very presumptuous of you. My background before I became a journmalist was law, actually. It's a shame that people don't all fit into neat little boxes isn't it? Detests child abusers = ignorant vigilante loudmouth? I'm glad life isn't that predictable.

I presume nothing. If your "background" is indeed law, then you will know that of which you speak is rot.

I don't wish everyone to agree with me. Just be a bit more responsible for that which you post on such a delicate subject. That is all.

much as pan can defend himself - loveAngel - really, you're a lawyer and you believe it to be the case that child rapists get 2 or 3 years? or are you comparing time spent in prison with actual sentences? (even then I'm not sure you're correct).

But anyway there is a massive difference between a rapist (whatever the age of the victim) and someone who looks at child porn surely?

'mild child porn'

i cannot accept this 'try to understand' attitude.not for paedophiles or wife-beaters.

it is simply wrong for an adult to be sexually attracted to children.if therapy and rehab actually worked im sure we would be seeing a major drop in many crime rates.i think all it serves to do is make such behaviour more acceptable,as its 'not their fault',and they need 'help' rather than punishment.

fwiw i dont agree with vigilante action,as there are far too many innocent people being accused of child abuse.but if somebody is covicted in a court of law then i still think they should throw away the key.

no, divastrop, it's wrong to act on sexual attraction towards children. the attraction itself usually can't be helped.

diva...to be fair, I think the 'mild' bit was an attempt to distinguish between varying levels of indecent images of children, from sexual poses up to the worst kind.(it is best IME expereince t oshy away from 'porn' regarding children - it isn't glamorous or done with consent).

Some perpetrators are too dangerous to be let out, undoubtedly. But, alot aren't. I know your view is shared. But it is unrealistic, unfair, impractical and ignores totally the wishes of the victims in many cases, as I posted earler.

pan-why on earth is it a 'delicate subject' on a parenting forum?i would have thought it was only a delicate subject for those who've been victims of abuse,and i cant imagine anyone who's been abused as a child objecting to people saying 'hang the bastards' or whatever.

if i am wrong then please correct me.

i dont see a difference between looking at child porn and actually going out and raping a child.to make those images,children have suffered,and anyone getting sexual gratification from them is as bad as the person who made the images in the first place IMO.

by nature it is a delicate subject, wheresoever it is raised. Not all victims share your view.