Moderated Should pedophiles never be forgiven.

Marduk said:
ok, everyone done, lets settle this shall we
so you've forgiven a pedophile, now who's the first here to volunteer to let him look after your children ?

anyone ?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If I forgave a friend who was once a horrible violent drunk but was now a recovering alcoholic, I wouldn't invite him to a birthday party where everyone was drinking. This doesn't mean that I think just the smell of beer will put him on a bender. In the past, social drinking led to bad outcomes, which I would want to avoid.

One aspect of restitution is responsibility for your past actions and accepting that your life and your relationships with others have been harmed. That harm has changed the way people will interact with you.

That being said, many of our current laws regarding convicted child molesters are counter-productive. They punish those who are willing to do the work to change because they don't allow them to experience the reward of that action - carving out some type of normal life.
 
Should a pedophile be forgiven? Well, are they a true pedophile or some guy who had sex with his girlfriend who is a few years younger? A lot of times the law treats both cases the same and the media paints all sex offenders as child molesters. I don't believe that a lot of the public actually understands not all sex offenders are child molesters. Some were just young and made a stupid mistake.
 
Marduk said:
ok, everyone done, lets settle this shall we
so you've forgiven a pedophile, now who's the first here to volunteer to let him look after your children ?

anyone ?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Forgiving someone is a different thing from trusting someone on something.

I don't trust all of my friends to take care of my cat. That doesn't mean I have something against them, or that I think less of them, I just know some of my friends are careless to take care of animals and they will forget to feed them and such.

The same applies to pedophiles. Forgiving them doesn't mean you have to agree to let them take care of your children. Trust and forgiveness are two completely different things.
 
Cainkane1 said:
Watching an episode of Criminal Minds there was a pedophile who has been treated for his problem and not only did he accept the treatments
Click to expand...
That's fine, but treatment can't make a pedophile no longer sexually attracted to children any more than Michelle Bachmann's husband can turn gay people straight.

All the treatment can do is teach them to resist their urges, but the urges will always be there. A pedophile will always be a danger to children.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
A person has to live with the memories of everything good, bad or indifferent than happened to him or her for the rest of his or her life. However, people have a choice how to try to live after such events. Or perhaps they don't. Perhaps people have no control over whether or not bad experiences in their past spoil the rest of their lives.
Yeah, I'm going to go will the latter. Once something bad happens to you, the rest of your life is either ********** or it isn't, and you have zero control over which it is.
Click to expand...

rant- Well, this isn't so far off, really. Of course we have a choice as to how we live our lives, but events really can scar you.
Let me tell you a little story- I was raped when I was 14. I really didn't want to be a victim. I went on just like nothing had happened, told almost no one, and pretty much just pretended I was fine- even to myself. I wound up in a wonderful, fulfilling relationship, living, to all appearances, a perfectly normal life. Just what you're saying I should be able to do. I made the choice not to let what had happened to me affect my life.

Problem was, I got pregnant. It was planned, my husband and I were happy, excited-I wasn't expecting my past to rear it's ugly head. After all, I have control over how I live my life, right? But I didn't. The trauma of labour gave me flashbacks. I lost my grip with reality- I couldn't accept that I was giving birth to my child because some unsolved piece of my formerly traumatized brain was telling me that I was being raped again. I didn't push properly- I fought the birth and he wound up having to be delivered by c section. After my son was born, my milk never came in- I was forced to formula feed him from the start, and as a result he had many more health problems in his infancy then my subsequent children (both delivered by elective c section and breast fed). I wish very very much that I could have taken control of that situation- but I couldn't. There was a trauma in my life that I wouldn't allow me to live like someone without the same trauma. I can live around it, live with it, cope, find ways to make my life as close to normal as possible, but it took this event for me to stop swallowing the bull that people spew about "choosing not to live as a victim".

There's a reason we call certain events scarring- they leave a mark on you that you can't just choose to get rid of. /rant
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
I think the problem is that the public perception of paedophiles is rather narrow: they're all monsters who get off physically abusing young children and have no self-control, compassion or good in them at all.
Click to expand...
**emphasis added**

You surmise there is a problem with a distorted public perception of pedophiles, and give a description. Is this really distorted? Not exactly. Let's take your concept and break it down:

By definition, a child molester (which for many people is thought to be the same as being a pedophile) is someone who lacks the self-control to resist sexually abusing children. Since that almost always takes physical contact, yes, that IS physically abusing children. And the motivation is that they get off on it. So most of the 'perception' is included the definition of the crime.

How young the victim is depends on the molester, of course, but young victims are less able to realize they are being mistreated and often lack the vocabulary and/or understanding to describe the abuse. I would think that would make them 'desirable' victims, because they're safer for the abuser.

Similarly, teens can be a good target for an opposite-sex abuser, because the kid can be encouraged to view the molestation as being a "real adult" having a "real" relationship. But the understanding of a young teen (and many older ones) of what sexual relationship really entails, and what impact it will have on their lives and psychology, is likely lacking. And even for a rather mature teen, the imbalance of power between an adult--usually someone in a position of trust and authority--and the kid remains. There is no 'informed consent' from a 16-year-old who is being led down the primrose path by a 40-year-old abuser...any more than there would be if they were signing a contract to trade all of their earnings for the next 20 years in exchange for piano lessons. The child does not understand the value of what they are trading away.

As to lack of compassion--well, they certainly lack compassion for the victim, the victim's loved ones, the victim's future partner and likely their children, all of whom have to deal with the impact of this intense personal violation and all the social stigma attached to it. Also, children tend to blame themselves for bad things that happen; it's something that psycholgists often need to deal with. (This is often true for children of divorce, for example, who often think that their parent leaving is somehow their fault.)

Is there good in them? Quite likely there is, given that they're alive. But is there enough good in them to make them seek treatment so they don't abuse? Apparently not. Is there enough good in them to make them report themselves to the police? No, not generally. Enough good to recognize they should not allow themselves to be in situations with children--that like an alcoholic avoiding bars, they should avoid being a scout leader? No, in fact part of the typical abuser's pattern is that they seek out positions where they can be around children.

You use the interesting modifier "any". Does the presence of *some* virtues mean that we (the public) should just ignore the very real and serious problems this person has? Or the very real and serious damage they do?

I have a hard time seeing your logic here.


As to the issue of why this crime evokes such powerful angst in the public:

I cannot speak for the world at large on this part, but to me the abuse of children--be it sexual, corporal, psycho-emotional, or just severe neglect--is heinous because it is done to the defenseless, innocent, and inherently trusting child. And because the boundaries for sexual abuse are so very clear, it's not possible to make the argument, "I didn't mean to do any harm" and have it hold up. No more than if you put the child's hand on a hot burner and held it there.

The impact of any form of abuse is lasting, but because our sexual identity and experience is so central to our lives and happiness, what the molester does is particularly monstrous.

I have respect for the legal rights of the abuser; but I also have a vested interest in the safety of the future generation.

Just my thoughts, MK
 
Checkmite said:
I've got a better idea. Let's refrain from hijacking the thread and stay on topic. Does that sound interesting?
Click to expand...
:boxedin: right.
Re- the OP, I personally don't think I could ever forgive someone for touching one of my children. Just as a general principal, I am not forgiving of acts of that nature- child molestation, and rape are hot button, emotional issues for me, and I see someone engaging in one of those acts -ever- as a major personality defect. Do I, in some cases, have sympathy for them? Yes. Do I think that they should be able to avail themselves of treatment? Absolutely, and if they are not repeat offenders, they should be allowed to take up a normal part in society, without being further persecuted for a crime they have already paid for. However, on a personal level, I can not imagine myself continuing a friendship, for example, with someone whom I found out had molested a child, and certainly would not want them around my own children.

That said, I don't think the sex offender registry is particularly effective or helpfull as there are cases like those cited above- public urination, 18 year old with a 15 year old girl friend, and probably many other cases where the facts of the persons individual case make the blanket label of "sex offender" seem a bit extreme- certainly these are people who do not deserve to be viewed by their peers and neighbors as the same as someone who violently raped a 3 year old. . .
 
When I was younger I would have had more compassion. I may have not allowed the person to be around my children but still have maintained a friendship in the name of forgiveness. However once there is something "to forgive" it shows me that a crime has been committed and a child has been harmed and this is unforgivable IMO. The damage is done.

If, as I said before, I met a pedophile who come out about his urges to me but had never touched a child, I would feel great compassion for them for being stuck with this lot, I do think they are born this way and that there is a mental glitch of some sort. It is very sad all around.
 
Checkmite said:
I believe the fact that your best example of this kind of hysteria in action is something that happened more than a decade ago illustrates that this "hysteria" is not as deep or widespread as some people assert; in my experience from what I've read in many places, there are some who it seems will characterize any reaction whatever to allegations of child molestation as hysteria if it is greater than how a community might react to a traffic violation. Further, things like "victims' lives are made worse by people telling them they are scarred for life when they originally wouldn't have felt so bad" are pure unsupported speculation.

One's attitude towards a person who has molested a child, or for whom the evidence is incredibly suggestive (Jerry Sandusky, for instance), is not an instance of hysteria in action.
Click to expand...

Dear Checkmite,

The present “sexting” phenomenon is legal hysteria in action, with legally-defined minors being threatened in various jurisdictions with criminal records as sex offenders for taking nude photographs of themselves.

Cpl Ferro
 
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer said:
What factors may be important as to whether or not a paedophile is forgiven?
Click to expand...

1. The forgiver's estimation of what behaviors or expressions qualify an offender for forgiveness with respect to an offense, and

2. The forgiver's opinion of whether or not the offender has met that criteria.
 
Very debatable topic. From a legal standpoint, when a person serves their time they shouldn't be penalized after the fact. Yet with the crime of child molestation, that view is overlooked. And perhaps with good cause. Notifications of a known sex offender in the area may save children from harm; laws about distances from schools seem to be something that allows parents to sleep at night. But yes, there is a distint difference between a killer and a child molester. The latter are compelled from a deeper place psychologically. They are difficult to trust.

I do, from a devil's advocate frame of mind, think that there are cases where their vilification goes too far. I have felt some sympathy at hearing stories of post-time served people being unable to find a place to live or work. I find it hard to stomach that not 1 former child molester would go on to do something good in their life. I want to believe in goodness.

But forgiveness...that's another matter entirely. It's not forgotten about, it doesn't go away. Forgiveness isn't really...a social acceptance. Forgiveness, especially for child molesters, may be an entirely Christian concept. I struggle with the idea of forgiveness in my own life; for many things I can "forgive," many wrongs can be overlooked. But I cannot forgive something that I believe would be impossible for me to do. If it is an evil that is so heinous that I can't fathom the darkness leading up to the actions, then that's where my line is drawn. Child molesters aren't "forgivable" from my viewpoint. But they may be something else.
 
slingblade said:
What are you talking about, specifically?


I mean by that, I've heard of people forgiving the perpetrators of violent crimes, on occasion.

What sex magic, exactly, are people engaging in? As a pissed-off, slightly vengeful, and not at all forgiving survivor of sexual abuse, I'd really like to hear this.
Click to expand...

In other crimes, even crimes which result in the deaths of people, the crime, victim, and criminal do not get this level of stigma, especially not the magical duration.

Look at what can get you on, and the difficulty of getting off of, for example sex offender lists. Look at the level of stigma and legal ramifications those lists can entail

Even murderers do not deal with this

A living victim of a sex crime is still alive. They have the choice to die if they want I suppose. A murder victim is not and does not
 
Marduk said:
I
The victim will be suffering in one way or another because of the abuse for their entire lives
Click to expand...

Is there evidence for this? I suppose it can be true sometimes, but in reality's terms is it any different than a car crash in this regard?

These seems to be special pleading because its sex

I would argue that most of what separates this from a car crash is societal in nature and not reality
 
pipelineaudio said:
In other crimes, even crimes which result in the deaths of people, the crime, victim, and criminal do not get this level of stigma, especially not the magical duration.

Look at what can get you on, and the difficulty of getting off of, for example sex offender lists. Look at the level of stigma and legal ramifications those lists can entail

Even murderers do not deal with this

A living victim of a sex crime is still alive. They have the choice to die if they want I suppose. A murder victim is not and does not
Click to expand...

Does OJ Simpson suffer much stigma in the USA?
 
pipelineaudio said:
Is there evidence for this? I suppose it can be true sometimes, but in reality's terms is it any different than a car crash in this regard?

These seems to be special pleading because its sex

I would argue that most of what separates this from a car crash is societal in nature and not reality
Click to expand...

No, because it's just as commonplace for the victim of a car crash to never forgive the responsible party as well.

It is also just as common for a murder victim's family to never forgive the murderer.

When was the last time you saw a person who had done time for stealing from an employer ever get a job handling cash with any employer again?

And on it goes. A victim finding it difficult or impossible to "forgive" a perpetrator is not something specially confined to sex crimes at all.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Is there evidence for this? I suppose it can be true sometimes, but in reality's terms is it any different than a car crash in this regard?

These seems to be special pleading because its sex

I would argue that most of what separates this from a car crash is societal in nature and not reality
Click to expand...

Maybe it is societal in nature, but I would still argue that sex crimes are damaging on a different level then most other crimes. I acknowledge that my opinions on this are colored by my own experiences, but I still believe this. Unlike murder or theft, sex crimes are taking something that should be enjoyable, fun- emotional and highly personal and twisting it- by taking away consent and turning it into an act of violence. No victim of theft finds himself, years later, struggling to have a normal relationship with a mugger, because no one goesout and gets robbed for enjoyment.
Furthermore, there aren't the same possible justifications for sex crimes. Not to say that every, or even most other crimes have thee justifications, but te fact that they can exist is saying something. Eg. it is possible that a murderer could be killing in self defense, in defense of another, or even in some some feeling of vengeance that, while it may be reprehensible is still something sort of relatable. Theft has other possible justifications. What possible justification does a rapist have? No one has to have sex with someone or their family won't eat... No one has to touch a child in order tostay alive. I'm not saying that all, or even most non sexual crimes have these justifications for, but the fact that they could, while a sex crime could not, in my mind makes the stigma surrounding sex crimes more understandable.
 
Forgiveness belongs to the victim(s), not a third party IMO.

We as a society can do a lot of things. Punish, not punish, declare the person rehabilitated and unlikely to re-offend, etc. The government can pardon. To forgive seems to me to go a bit too far.
 
Gods Big Toe said:
Adult-minor sex has many faces of which violence is one.
Click to expand...

My apologies- I didn't exactly mean violence- violation perhaps would have been a better word. I agree that there are gray areas in sexual abuse cases, particularly those that involve age of consent laws and post pubecent "young adults". My post, however was simply an attempt at explaining why there is so much stigma surrounding sex crimes, and why that stigma makes some sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom