Moderated Should pedophiles never be forgiven.

Jerry Sandusky had access to hundreds if not thousands of children through his charity; yet it's only alleged (so far) that he molested around a dozen. If he is found guilty, do you think the judge should take into account the fact that he didn't molest hundreds of kids when deciding on a sentence?

"Not molesting children" doesn't count for anything for the same reason that "not running a stop sign" doesn't account for anything. It's not praiseworthy, it's normal and expected behavior.
Sandusky is alledged to have raped boys multiple times including his own son. The man in my OP improperly touched a child once. He did ten years for the crime. He's been out for well over ten years. He hasn't repeated the crime.

I personally wouldn't spend time hanging with him but he's not the pervert Sandusky is alledged to be.
 
Sandusky kept on. The man in my OP quit and hasn't committed the crime since he was released from prison for over ten years. Sandusky hasn't been incarderated yet. Big difference.

You can dispute the analogy, but the point was in the second paragraph and remains: there is nothing especially noteworthy about not molesting children, so of course it doesn't count for anything. *If someone is carrying a grudge or shuns a person for having molested a child, then why should not molesting other children make a difference to them? *The reason for their attitude towards him still exists: he molested a child.
 
Sandusky is alledged to have raped boys multiple times including his own son. The man in my OP improperly touched a child once. He did ten years for the crime. He's been out for well over ten years. He hasn't repeated the crime.

I personally wouldn't spend time hanging with him but he's not the pervert Sandusky is alledged to be.


Again, it makes no difference. Molesting a child is what leads individuals to shun him. No matter how many children he doesn't molest, it's the one(s) he did molest that got him what he gets.

His reward for not molesting any children is not being incarcerated again.
 
Again, it makes no difference. Molesting a child is what leads individuals to shun him. No matter how many children he doesn't molest, it's the one(s) he did molest that got him what he gets.

His reward for not molesting any children is not being incarcerated again.
I have to agree with you. A former molesters best efforts will no uncondemn him or her. The man in the TV drama who helped the Criminal minds team catch other molesters comes the closest but I understand the team not wanting to shake his hand nor congratulate him for a job well done.

This happens more often than youd think. A molester who has a change of heart or realises that what he does is wrong often help the police catch other predators. I've seen them on TV warning children to avoid certain situations and to tell someone if someone touches them improperly.

It doesn't matter. Nobody wants them around. If your a thief you can pay the money back but if you molest a kid theres noforgiveness.
 
Again, it makes no difference. Molesting a child is what leads individuals to shun him. No matter how many children he doesn't molest, it's the one(s) he did molest that got him what he gets.

His reward for not molesting any children is not being incarcerated again.

Murders and con men are shunned too, assuming you know they were murders and con men.

So why is it a murder doesn't need to go door to door in their neighborhood telling everyone they killed someone, but a sex offender does?

If a White Supremacist kills a black man purely because of skin color, when he gets out of jail there is no limitation that says he may not live near to any black people.

I have a wife and a child;, I understand the irrational terror, disgust and anger sex offenders produce. That doesn't mean it is fair or rational, and a lot of people posting here are highlighting that irrationality.
 
Murders and con men are shunned too, assuming you know they were murders and con men.

So why is it a murder doesn't need to go door to door in their neighborhood telling everyone they killed someone, but a sex offender does?

I don't know what jurisdiction it is where sex offenders have to do what you describe, so I couldn't tell you why that is.

Sex offender registries have the same genesis as Amber Alerts and Meghan's Laws, et al: somebody gets raped or killed, the victim's family and friends reason that it could have been prevented if x had been done, and they gather enough public support to push for a new law. If there were a visible public demand for a murderers' registry I'm certain there would be one. Of course it wouldn't be very populated; most capital murderers are either executed, die in prison, or are so old by the time they're released that they couldn't kill someone if they hired a hitman.
 
If we are going to use the standard of "no apparent immediate harm equals no crime" than this woman should go free. All she did was convince children to exchange their own gold jewelry for some cheap costume jewelry.
Authorities said the woman did not use threats, fear or force in any of the cases, but only "gained the victim's trust and cooperation."

During the crime, the children enjoyed the interaction. Therefore it is good. If later they feel guilt, shame, anger or remorse because an adult abused their trust in order to fulfill their own sick agenda - why, that's just society telling them that they are victims! They need to admit to themselves that they liked it and therefore it is their own fault. They probably benefited. Most people don't get to be cynical and distrustful until they are adults. Being distrustful and ashamed might even help them stay away from others who may abuse them.

If a film was made of these transaction so that other people could enjoy watching someone take advantage of a child's trust, it would be churlish of us to condemn the viewers. Look how happy these children are! They come from good homes, they have gold necklaces. Obviously no one is sticking a gun to their head. They liked it. Why shouldn't other people enjoy it?

These are the pro-adult/child sex and pro child-porn arguments that have been put forth. Pedophiles should be accepted if they are very good at manipulating children. (Yes, children. Not young teens but children as young as 6.) At no point has the known harm to childhood victims of sexual abuse been recognized. It has been hand-waved away as a social construct, or been turned into victim blaming. The idea of consent has been twisted until it is meaningless and all evidence that adults can have influence over a child's emotions or actions has been ignored.

Childhood sexual abuse has known and harmful consequences. Although a single study showed that not all sexual abuse has the same consequences, there is no way to mitigate harm in all cases. Every child who is sexually abused by an adult is at risk for long-term trauma. The only adults who want to have sex with children are attracted to children and have their own sexual agenda. An adult who is attracted to children will manipulate normal sexual exploration in order to benefit. An adult who is not attracted to children will encourage safe, age-appropriate sexual exploration. (Safe, normal options for age appropriate exploration has also been ignored. Sexual relations with pedophile adults has been presented as the primary choice for curious children, although without evidence.)

This is why pedophiles are so universally reviled. They take a normal aspect of childhood development and selfishly pervert it for gain with no concern for harm or risk of long-term damage.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention the "they enjoyed it, so it's okay, it's society's fault for turning them into victims". :rolleyes: What a bunch of feces.
 
I
These are the pro-adult/child sex and pro child-porn arguments that have been put forth. Pedophiles should be accepted if they are very good at manipulating children. (Yes, children. Not young teens but children as young as 6.) At no point has the known harm to childhood victims of sexual abuse been recognized. It has been hand-waved away as a social construct, or been turned into victim blaming. The idea of consent has been twisted until it is meaningless and all evidence that adults can have influence over a child's emotions or actions has been ignored.

Thanks for pointing this out.

It is especially confusing considering how great they contend society's influence is on children who have been abused, that it can actually turn them into victims when they originally thought nothing of what happened to them. Yet pedophiles are incapable of such influence and anything a child decides involving them is reasoned, logical, and completely the kid's own. That's what we're supposed to believe, evidently. Curious this "societal brainwashing" never happens until after a kid is molested.

The multiple, remarkably consistent narratives by the alleged victims in the Jerry Sandusky debacle serve to illustrate the far more common reality of nonviolent adult-child sexual "relationships".
 
I've gone through and cleaned out all the off-topic discussion (moved to here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226443); please re-read the OP and ensure your posts are on-topic for this thread.

If you have a question as to why your post was moved, why a post was not moved, you are welcome to PM me, post a question in FM: Questions or file an Appeal.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
To the original thread title:
I don't think they should be forgiven. Here's my sense of it.

1) If we are arguing based on some innate sexual urge a pedophile has, I should be allowed to act on my own innate, visceral disgust with the same justification. Insofar as they cannot help themselves, neither can I.

2) If the argument is made sterile and abstract, removing emotional content, then I'd still not forgive them, based on the obvious affront to societal standards of behavior. Regardless of moral principle, they are breaking the law as set down and doing it willfully and with full knowledge. If they aren't doing it willfully and with full knowledge, see #1.

There are no justifications needed beyond these two. Reductionism and analysis will not overcome these basic objections to the practice, nor will logic make the horrendous nature of it even a tiny bit less foul.
 
Clean-out redux.... I've gone through, again, and cleaned out (or edited in some cases) posts that were approved but in retrospect considered to be off-topic for this Moderated thread. The moved posts can be found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226490

As I stated above, if you have a question as to why your post was moved, why a post was not moved, why a post was edited, you are welcome to PM me, post a question in FM: Questions or file an Appeal.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
What should we do with the world's 55-550 million child molesters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

Child sexual abuse is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation.[1][2] Forms of child sexual abuse include asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities (regardless of the outcome), indecent exposure (of the genitals, female nipples, etc.) with intent to gratify their own sexual desires or to intimidate or groom the child, physical sexual contact with a child, or using a child to produce child pornography.[1][3][4]

The effects of child sexual abuse can include depression,[5] post-traumatic stress disorder,[6] anxiety,[7] propensity to further victimization in adulthood,[8] and physical injury to the child, among other problems.[9] Sexual abuse by a family member is a form of incest, and can result in more serious and long-term psychological trauma, especially in the case of parental incest.[10]

The global prevalence of child sexual abuse has been estimated at 19.7% for females and 7.9% for males, according to a 2009 study published in Clinical Psychology Review that examined 65 studies from 22 countries. Using the available data, the highest prevalence rate of child sexual abuse geographically was found in Africa (34.4%), primarily because of high rates in South Africa; Europe showed the lowest prevalence rate (9.2%); America and Asia had prevalence rates between 10.1% and 23.9%.[11] In the past, other research has concluded similarly that in North America, for example, approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[12][13][14] Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as 'friends' of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.[12] Most child sexual abuse is committed by men; studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls.[12][13][15] Most offenders who sexually abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles,[16][17] although some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.[18][19]

What should we do with ~1-10% of the world's adult population that engage in or observe sexual behaviour with children?
 
I can say what I did with one. I google people I consider employing. I found that one man had recently served time for molesting a young girl in the basketball team he coached. I didn't give him the job.
 
I can say what I did with one. I google people I consider employing. I found that one man had recently served time for molesting a young girl in the basketball team he coached. I didn't give him the job.

Why? was the job he was interviewing for one that would give him access to teenage girls?
 
Why? was the job he was interviewing for one that would give him access to teenage girls?

Yes. All staff need to get a "Working with children" clearance from the police, which he, presumedly, would not get. In addition, if I found out about him through google, others would, and whether anyone likes it or not, it would have had a negative impact on our business.
 
I'd say "Hang on a minute! That's a huge number of humans engaging in a behaviour. Perhaps we should see if our definition of child sexual abuse is a poor tool for dividing the good/harmful people/behaviour from the bad/harmless."

But from previous conversations I suspect you and many others have complete faith in the definition of child sexual abuse and see no need to take into account context, so you probably accept the statistics without question.

I therefore ask you: What should we do with ~1-10% of the world's adult population that engage in or observe sexual behaviour with children?
 
So if a certain percentage of people (as low as 1%) break a law, you just look at the law? Really?
 
Yes. All staff need to get a "Working with children" clearance from the police, which he, presumedly, would not get. In addition, if I found out about him through google, others would, and whether anyone likes it or not, it would have had a negative impact on our business.

The first point is fair, the second is not. If his prior conviction indicates a problem with job duties or an opportunity to re offend (like your case or a convicted embezzler applying for a job that gives him access to company finances), then it is a legitimate employment concern.

I am sometimes bothered by the whole perception issue with ex-cons. It effectively punishes somebody beyond the societally determined punishment for the crime committed.
 

Back
Top Bottom