not so glittery

[andymackem]

doesn't matter if they reoffend or not, the desire is still there. which must be a form of reoffending..

i've read some pretty stupid things on here over the years but that really raises the bar to a new level of idiocy. the desire to offend should be considered an offence in itself? bring on the thought police and preventative detention. oh, hang on, we've already got that haven't we?

i've been amazed lately at the way the majority of the population seem willing to be led sheep-like into a future where their civil liberties are stripped away layer by layer but reading a statement like that from an allegedly educated member of that population (and even more worryingly, one entrusted with the education of future generations) perhaps illustrates why.

because of the future generations. because of. depends how disgusting you think this offence is, in terms of the desire factor. presumably a rapist is assumed to have the capacity to love and have sex 'normally' and twists that, mentally and physically. and perhaps in some cases, can be rehabilitated. it's never normal when the object of an adult's desire is a child.

OK. I agree with you entirely, Ems.

But let's say I also find homosexuality utterly sickening, revolting and disgusting. It's never normal to desire sex with someone of same gender (cf Leviticus etc, etc). I'm not alone in believing this. The promulgation of gay culture through popular music, cinema, tv etc over the past 20 years or so has left countless young people at risk of being lured into this sick and disgusting world.

I wouldn't be alone in thinking this, so can we introduce full-term life imprisonment for homosexuals? Perhaps with an option of early release for gay men who agree to be castrated?

The difference isn't in the desire for something outside of social norms, it's whether meaningful consent can exist in an adult-child relationship. Probably it can't, but that doesn't make it acceptable to detain paedophiles on the suspicion that they might do something bad.

[MadameButterfly]

evil minds

I don't like that word "evil."

Good and Evil is based entirely on subjectivity.

But I do find the subject to be evil.

[nick the stripper]

evil minds

I don't like that word "evil."

Good and Evil is based entirely on subjectivity.

But I do find the subject to be evil.

I know, it just makes me cringe when people use words like good and evil. I dunno why, but it just does.

I really don’t think that what a paedophile does is good or evil. I don’t agree with it, and neither does the majority. And what the majority says tends to go in society.

[andymackem]

ok...

so, are you saying two wrongs don't make a right? or is that every person who sets out to commit a crime, infringing someone else's rights, should be secure in the knowledge that their own rights will be infringed in return, if caught?

The purpose of a legal system should be about protecting society as a whole, first and foremost. If we accept that by infringing another's rights we forfeit our own then there is no argument against any sort of punishment meted out either by the state or by individuals.

If you want to create a workable framework for a legal system you have to accept that removing someone from society permanently, whether by killing them or imprisoning them, is a grotesque over-reaction. It's a return to mob rule, eye-for-eye vigilante stuff. I know you're smart enough to see the distinction I'm trying to draw here, even if I'm not expressing it vey coherently.

And I was always told that two wrongs didn't make a right. Usually by a teacher right after I'd said 'Well, he started it Miss'. Maybe schools have changed a little bit.

[Obviousman]

I don't like that word "evil."

Good and Evil is based entirely on subjectivity.

But I do find the subject to be evil.

I know, it just makes me cringe when people use words like good and evil. I dunno why, but it just does.

I really don’t think that what a paedophile does is good or evil. I don’t agree with it, and neither does the majority. And what the majority says tends to go in society.

I don't like the use of the word evil either, but I'm affraid we have to admit taking a kid from growing up to something it should have nothing to do with, is far from good

[emilystrange]

no, lol, they haven't...

re mob rule.. removing people from society as a result of crime can also protect them from that.

and yes, i see..

[MadameButterfly]

But let's say I also find homosexuality utterly sickening, revolting and disgusting. It's never normal to desire sex with someone of same gender (cf Leviticus etc, etc). I'm not alone in believing this. The promulgation of gay culture through popular music, cinema, tv etc over the past 20 years or so has left countless young people at risk of being lured into this sick and disgusting world.

I wouldn't be alone in thinking this, so can we introduce full-term life imprisonment for homosexuals? Perhaps with an option of early release for gay men who agree to be castrated?

I do believe this argument to be biased. Your feelings to homosexuality are the total opposite of my own. Bringing Leviticus into the argument is the same old song. Countless young people find their sexuality but not at the risk of being lured into homosexuality. Why imprisonment for homosexuals? Just because of their sexual desire being that of the opposite sex? That would be a scary world we are living in then.

[emilystrange]

is it consent that's the issue, and being old enough to understand the consent?

i'm quite in favour of homosexuality myself.. just not on a personal level

[Obviousman]

But let's say I also find homosexuality utterly sickening, revolting and disgusting. It's never normal to desire sex with someone of same gender (cf Leviticus etc, etc). I'm not alone in believing this. The promulgation of gay culture through popular music, cinema, tv etc over the past 20 years or so has left countless young people at risk of being lured into this sick and disgusting world.

I wouldn't be alone in thinking this, so can we introduce full-term life imprisonment for homosexuals? Perhaps with an option of early release for gay men who agree to be castrated?

I do believe this argument to be biased. Your feelings to homosexuality are the total opposite of my own. Bringing Leviticus into the argument is the same old song. Countless young people find their sexuality but not at the risk of being lured into homosexuality. Why imprisonment for homosexuals? Just because of their sexual desire being that of the opposite sex? That would be a scary world we are living in then.

I think the main difference is it's grown ups doing it to eachother, and with mutual consent. Hard to know if a kid is completely okay or just said it's okay.

Homosexuality could lead to capital punishment in the US back in the days, IIRC a big man in computer history has been put on the electric chair somewhere in the 50s or 60s because of it.

[MadameButterfly]

is it consent that's the issue, and being old enough to understand the consent?

i'm quite in favour of homosexuality myself.. just not on a personal level

I know that it is a consent issue, adults should stay away from children sexually, full stop.

I'm not homosexual myself but do have friends...

[Planet Dave]

'Lock 'em up, throw away the key' is the only answer, I'm sure. Such people forfeit any rights or civil liberties the minute they impose their 'desires' on innocent, non-consenting individuals.

[MadameButterfly]

Homosexuality could lead to capital punishment in the US back in the days, IIRC a big man in computer history has been put on the electric chair somewhere in the 50s or 60s because of it.

Let's hope that the future years will help us learn from our mistakes, made in the past.

[markfiend]

I don't think Andy is really anti-homosexuality, he's using it as an example to make his point; that a large section of the population find homosexuality to be "evil"* and would wish similar punishments on gay people as have been suggested for paedophiles on this thread.

* incidentally IMO when people use "evil" in this sort of context, I tend to read "contradicts my religious dogma"
========

Anyway, consent is a grey area IMO. If I have sex with someone who is semi-comatose drunk, even if they say "yes" how informed is their consent? There are all sorts of situations in which the line between consent and coercion is blurred.

Admittedly, the power-structures in a relationship between an adult and a child are generally such that it's difficult to see how there could be consent from a child without any suggestion of coercion, but couldn't the same be said about relationships between men and women in countries where women's rights aren't taken as seriously as they are in the West?
========

On a pragmatic note, if any paedophilic act carried an automatic life sentence, I can imagine the following situation arising:

Paedophile thinks: "OK, I've had sex with this 12-year-old girl, if I get caught, I'm going down for life. What the fück, I'll get no worse sentence if I kill her, and this way she won't be able to give evidence against me..."

[andymackem]

But let's say I also find homosexuality utterly sickening, revolting and disgusting. It's never normal to desire sex with someone of same gender (cf Leviticus etc, etc). I'm not alone in believing this. The promulgation of gay culture through popular music, cinema, tv etc over the past 20 years or so has left countless young people at risk of being lured into this sick and disgusting world.

I wouldn't be alone in thinking this, so can we introduce full-term life imprisonment for homosexuals? Perhaps with an option of early release for gay men who agree to be castrated?

I do believe this argument to be biased. Your feelings to homosexuality are the total opposite of my own. Bringing Leviticus into the argument is the same old song. Countless young people find their sexuality but not at the risk of being lured into homosexuality. Why imprisonment for homosexuals? Just because of their sexual desire being that of the opposite sex? That would be a scary world we are living in then.

Look at the words 'let's' and 'say'. A clear statement of hypothesis, no? Later on we see the word 'wouldn't', again note the use of the conditional mode.

You talk about 'the same old song', but only because lots of other people sing it. Most of them also probably want paedos to be executed. Of course the argument is biassed and unfair - but it's not a million miles away from the logic of stringing up paedophiles.

To refer to your questions, why imprisonment for paedophiles, just because of their sexual desire for young people? Why is that less scary, if diverse sexuality is essentially a natural part of who we are rather than an unspeakable deviancy?

A further question: what is underage sex? In the UK if I have sex with a 15-year-old girl I am breaking the law and would face imprisonment plus a place on the sex offenders register. I would be unable to work in many professions and, were my identity publicised I would be made unwelcome in most communities.

In Russia if I have sex with the same girl, no crime is committed because the age of consent there is 14, not 16. Why is a Russian 14-year-old better able to engage in a consensual sexlife than a British 15-year-old?

[boudicca]

The main reasons for me not wanting the death penalty are watching its abuse in the countries where it is used, and also because it's my opinion that it is infinitely kinder than forcing someone to live a miserable life - where they may not be burdened by guilt but they have no future, essentially. And they can forget ever fulfilling whatever sick fantasies they have - essentially they will be tortured by these desires, which is exactly what they deserve IMHO.

I always find it slightly strange, though, when people are willing to acknowledge grey areas as far as the crimes committed are concerned, but when it comes to the punishment it's a black and white, blanket "No Nay Never" to the death penalty.

The desire for revenge, the desire even to murder as a revenge for an attack on a child, is surely more natural (and visible in nature) than the desire to... well, to do what a paedophile does.
I know there are some examples in the animal kingdom, but we are one particular species which has developed our own particular societies and ways of surviving.

I'm a strong believer that human beings' sense of morality, and moral indignation, is governed simply by what helps us succeed as a species. Paedophilia provides no benefit to us - it is not a "bond-strengthening" exercise as with some other mammals, on the contrary... with our complex psychology, high intelligence and the length of time it takes for our young to mature mentally as well as physically, it is positively damaging. Therefore we abhor it, instinctively.

But the instinctive fury that we would feel, hearing details of the abuse of a child, has a function. Our desire to punish the perpetrator, even to kill him, would seem to me to stem from the desire which is hardwired into most every living creature, which is to ensure the wellbeing and survival of you and yours.

It's a similar case with the desire to kill a murderer. Although I think murder is generally an act human beings find easier to comprehend. Hatred, anger, provocation, despair, fear and so on are familiar feelings, which can give us some insight into what drives someone to commit that particular crime.
With paedophilia, it's more difficult. It seems the mind of a paedophile has become so utterly warped that their desires and actions are incomprehensible to most people. With understanding comes the hope of redemption, of integration back into society, even of forgiveness. The thing about child abuse is the perpetrator seems... just too far gone.

[markfiend]

it's my opinion that it is infinitely kinder than forcing someone to live a miserable life - where they may not be burdened by guilt but they have no future, essentially.

It would be possible to argue that locking someone up for years (with no possibility of release) is more of an affront to human dignity than merely killing them.

On that basis, imprisonment for the rest of their life could be said to be a "worse" punishment than the death penalty.

I always find it slightly strange, though, when people are willing to acknowledge grey areas as far as the crimes committed are concerned, but when it comes to the punishment it's a black and white, blanket "No Nay Never" to the death penalty.

The desire for revenge, the desire even to murder as a revenge for an attack on a child, is surely more natural (and visible in nature) than the desire to... well, to do what a paedophile does.

Well, I (fortunately) have never been in a situation where I've felt the need to take that sort of revenge, but I can certainly see that it appeals on a deep level of the human psyche.

I'm a strong believer that human beings' sense of morality, and moral indignation, is governed simply by what helps us succeed as a species.

I'd agree with that.

Paedophilia provides no benefit to us - it is not a "bond-strengthening" exercise as with some other mammals, on the contrary... with our complex psychology, high intelligence and the length of time it takes for our young to mature mentally as well as physically, it is positively damaging. Therefore we abhor it, instinctively.

I deny that distaste for paedophilia is instinctive. You probably feel that your distaste for cannibalism is instinctive too, but the likelihood is that your great-great-great (etc.) grandpa back in palaeolithic times was a cannibal.

Whereas sexual preference itself is (probably) largely hard-wired into the brain by an early age (and therefore could be said to be "instinctive"), reactions to other people's sexual behaviour are in themselves learned behaviours, and therefore in no way instinctive. Indeed, until only a few hundred years ago, a girl's marriagable age was most likely calculated by that old saying "if she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed" and any ideas of consent be damned.

[MadameButterfly]

Look at the words 'let's' and 'say'. A clear statement of hypothesis, no? Later on we see the word 'wouldn't', again note the use of the conditional mode.

Here my apology for not seeing that clear statement of hypothesis.

[ruffers]

I'm a strong believer that human beings' sense of morality, and moral indignation, is governed simply by what helps us succeed as a species. Paedophilia provides no benefit to us - it is not a "bond-strengthening" exercise as with some other mammals, on the contrary... with our complex psychology, high intelligence and the length of time it takes for our young to mature mentally as well as physically, it is positively damaging. Therefore we abhor it, instinctively.

I refer you to the tribes of Melanesia, where boys gain their adult strength and ability to produce semen by ingesting that of the elder men in the tribe.

Although this may be an internet myth it raises the discussion of instinct vs learned behaviour, especially if you read the comments down the side.

eg http://www.gettingit.com/article/56

[Jaimie1980]

I agree. And although I tend to loose my temper over this topic I still refuse the death penalty for anybody. I'd just lock them away. Have them checked maybe every five years by a psychologist or something to keep in line with human rights, but keep them locked away. Safely. And loose the key.[/quote]

I think that's exactly right as well. What they do is harmful and they must'nt be allowed the chance.

[markfiend]

While we're on the subject, what are people's opinions on the calls for the (re)introduction of the death penalty for killing a police officer?

[emilystrange]

no.

[Jaimie1980]

While we're on the subject, what are people's opinions on the calls for the (re)introduction of the death penalty for killing a police officer?

I don't think there's any more case than for killing anyone else. I'm against the death penalty, totally. I think what happened was very tragic, that those who did it were just criminal scum but I think that to make one person's life more sacred than any other's in the eyes of the law is wrong and it would be a rule that could be used repressively by the state.

[markfiend]

I think that to make one person's life more sacred than any other's in the eyes of the law is wrong and it would be a rule that could be used repressively by the state.

Yup. That's what i think too.

[andymackem]

I don't think there's any more case than for killing anyone else. I'm against the death penalty, totally. I think what happened was very tragic, that those who did it were just criminal scum but I think that to make one person's life more sacred than any other's in the eyes of the law is wrong and it would be a rule that could be used repressively by the state.

So there's no reason to treat a paedophile differently from a rapist, then? If the issue is ultimately one of informed consent the crime is the same regardless of the age of the victim. A child's life, after all, is no more sacred than an adult's.

[Eva]

I'm totally against death penalty. Period.