Moderated Should pedophiles never be forgiven.

[lionking]

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.

Life isn't fair. I was being honest, and would do the same again, even if a "working with children" clearance wasn't required.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I didn't see anything in the article stating what percentage of adults are engaged in such behavior. Maybe that's because all I did was skim it while wondering what you think we should do, Ivor.

It's a very rough estimate from the figures quoted in the article and the population of the world, hence the 10:1 range. A better title would have probably been 'What should we do with the world's 10's-100's of millions of child molesters?'

 

[bookitty]

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 your solution is to change the definition to that of good/harmful behavior. Which means that you have, once again, set the stage for a conversation in which you can discuss specific and detailed sexual acts with children.

Bonus: Because that conversation will not directly affect children (only adults who have experienced childhood sexual abuse), we should indulge you. And of course, we are all just uptight prudes if we aren't "open-minded" enough to do so.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Did I miss something? Where did the 1-10% perpetrators figure come from. It didn't seem to be in the quote in the OP. I doubt there is a 1:1 correspondence between number of victims and number of perpetrators.

 

[truethat]

A huge number of people engage in murder as well what are we stupid bookitty? Lets's make it legal too.

And shoplifting, a Lottta people do that, so why continue to demonize these people? After all if they are clever enough to get away with it, more power to them.

 

[bookitty]

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.

I agree that it can be troubling. Sex offender recidivism rates are somewhat lower than general crime.

*Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
*Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43% of sex offenders versus 68% of non-sex offenders.
* Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3% of sex offenders versus 1.3% of non-sex offenders.
*On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
*The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.
*An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.
* Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
*Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.
*Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.
*Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, 60% had been in prison for molesting a child 13 years old or younger.
*Offenders who had victimized a child were on average 5 years older than the violent offenders who had committed their crimes against adults. Nearly 25% of child victimizers were age 40 or older, but about 10% of the inmates with adult victims fell in that age range.

But the bolded part (mine) shows part of the reason for the hostility towards people who rape children. While many people try to portray child molestation as sex with young teens, the majority molested pre-teens. This is also not a same-age crime, the perps were adults, in many cases there is a significant age difference.

Even if we are to accept Ivor's wholly unproven assumption that a small percentage of children seek out sexual experiences with adults, it is ridiculous to assume that the majority of them are targeting 30-50 year olds. It is far more simple to assume that adults are using their greater intelligence, life experience and authority to target children.

A person who obtains sexual gratification from abusing a much weaker victim by force or manipulation will have a very difficult time proving that they can be trusted in any capacity. It is that aspect of the act which follows them after incarceration. This is pretty normal. Someone who embezzles will have a hard time finding work as an accountant, even if they spend time in jail.

 

[Almo]

...For the pedophile, the child is not a human being, it is a sex object and harm is the secondary consideration...

I agree with your post, except this bit. I don't think you can make this blanket generalization. The power imbalance and potential emotional scarring is enough for me to be sure that sex acts with children are not to be excused.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Dan Savage's article on gold star pedophiles

For persons who have the desire to have sex with minors, there does not seem to be a treatment to the best of my limited knowledge (see Dan Savage's column). I am under the impression that it is not a matter of choice to begin with. If he or she does not act on that desire, I would not treat them any differently than I treat anyone else. I am not sure that it would be correct to say that I "forgive" them. I might forgive them a single lapse, if it had been followed by a long period in which the person controlled their urge. I would shake the hand of a former perpetrator who had helped me catch a guilty person.

 

[Cainkane1]

I agree with your post, except this bit. I don't think you can make this blanket generalization. The power imbalance and potential emotional scarring is enough for me to be sure that sex acts with children are not to be excused.

You're right. Unfortunantly when the abuse is in the family the abuser often bribes the child into silence. My forst cosin had a room full of dolls so large that she got hugh sums of money when she sold the collection. She got a car at 16 and a paid for college education. No one knew what her father had done until he was dead and buried.

I believe in his own horrible way he did love her.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

This American Life episode

A complex and challenging alternative weekly story was read by its author last week on American Public Media's program, "This American Life."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

follow up on David Holthouse

"I arrived at a point in my mind," David Holthouse says, "where it seemed to me that murder was entirely rational, justifiable and even a morally responsible course of action." The second page of this ABC story is pertinent to the question of the OP.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Summary of David Holthouse's article

I will summarize David Holthouse's story, which is pretty long and linked in my previous comments.
Spoiler Alert
Mr. Holthouse found out that he lived in the same city as a teenager who molested him when he was seven. He decided to kill the man, partly out of revenge, and partly because he was afraid that the man was molesting others (though he had no evidence). His plans got derailed, and he decided to confront his attacker (not physically). The man said that it only happened that one time. Mr. Holthouse published the story but left the man's name out. Later Holthouse offered conditional forgiveness, the condition being that it only happened on that one occasion. I found that I learned something about molestation from the victim's point of view.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Our attitudes to various crimes are apt to reflect the degree to which such crime is likely to affect us personally.
I'm less concerned about rape than most women, because I'm male.
I'm less concerned about paedophilia / pederasty / whatever, because I don't have kids (and if I'm honest, don't actually like them much ).
I'm concerned about burglary, because I own my own home.
So if I have to live next door to a convicted paedophile or a convicted burglar, I'll choose the paedophile. (Though I probably won't ask him to the barbeque).

It's evident on this forum that most people seem to find crime against children unforgivable, whereas any other form of crime may be forgivable due to extenuating circumstances of one form or another- for example, the drunk driver whom I would simply hang, is apt to be forgiven because "that could happen to anyone and I'm a recovering alcoholic". Sorry. I disagree. No paedophile will ever target me, but any damned drunk in a car could kill me tomorrow, so I'm apt to be less forgiving of drunks in cars than some folks might be.

So my own selfish angle is, yes, paedophiles are forgivable, though I'd expect their access to children to be controlled.

My attitudes are no more logical than anyone else's and I reckon self interest is at the heart of most laws. I do feel there's a certain degree of hysteria and hypocrisy about paedophilia. I have seen known criminals protesting on TV about the release of a paedophile in their area- people who routinely involved themselves in drug related violence. Frankly, I felt the area concerned would be safer with more paedophiles and fewer protesters. Better yet with parents who knew where their kids were.

 

[Jono]

Perhaps a more relevant question is whether paedophiles can ever be trusted to not engage in what they are driven to do.

Short of castration, chemical or otherwise, it is what they are. There's no cure for psychopathy and there's no cure for paedophilia etc. It is what they are. That doesn't mean a paedophile can't restrain himself, however I would say their ability of self-control is something we can't or even should trust.

 

[Astrodude]

One thing I that I have learned from Christianity is forgiveness. If a person sincerely believes that their actions were wrong for the correct reasons, he/she should be forgiven. This doesn't necessarily mean that all remorseful prisoners should be released from prison, often they should not be, but it does mean that they should be acknowledged and encouraged to rehabilitate themselves.

 

[bumlet5]

I have to be up front that I have only read the first and last pages of this thread so some things may have been said before. I apologize if I am repeating someone.

I also have to say that I agree that adults touching children in a sexual way (with or without the child's consent) is wrong. Period. They should be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

THAT SAID:

1. People get put onto the sex offender registry for things other than rape and molestation. A 17 year old girl has sex with her 18 year old boyfriend that her parents know about and accept. He gets arrested when the wrong person finds out and next thing you know he's gone to prison and has to be lumped in with a 42 year old rapist for the rest of his life.

2. I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion. There are people who register every year, and people who run from the law when they get out of prison. Who is more dangerous- the guy who is meeting with his officer every month and has an updated photo of himself online or the guy who is down the street using a fake name because he wants to live right next to the schoolyard? I'm not in any way forgiving them for what they did, just acknowledging that they are TRYING to comply.

3. Pedophile- a person sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Hebephile- a person sexually attracted to mid-pubescent children. Ephebophile- a person sexually attracted to post-pubescent children. All of these have different meanings and implications. Please use the correct terms.

Please remember that I am not forgiving anyone for any crime committed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Are there cases which are outliers?

Short of castration, chemical or otherwise, it is what they are. There's no cure for psychopathy and there's no cure for paedophilia etc. It is what they are. That doesn't mean a paedophile can't restrain himself, however I would say their ability of self-control is something we can't or even should trust.

What about a person who at 15 rapes a person of 7 and then never does it again?

 

[ravdin]

I will summarize David Holthouse's story, which is pretty long and linked in my previous comments.
Spoiler Alert
Mr. Holthouse found out that he lived in the same city as a teenager who molested him when he was seven. He decided to kill the man, partly out of revenge, and partly because he was afraid that the man was molesting others (though he had no evidence). His plans got derailed, and he decided to confront his attacker (not physically). The man said that it only happened that one time. Mr. Holthouse published the story but left the man's name out. Later Holthouse offered conditional forgiveness, the condition being that it only happened on that one occasion. I found that I learned something about molestation from the victim's point of view.

I don't believe there's any statute of limitations on bringing criminal charges for rape. I'm glad the author didn't take revenge into his own hands (although I wouldn't blame him if he did), but he still can and probably should file a police report.

Also, I don't believe the claim that it's the only time this has happened and he never has and never will do it again.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

An interesting thread with some voices of reason. The arrogance of some is just breathtaking though. There are tens of millions of teenagers they've dismissed as sub-humans - no capacity for handling sex when first of all by age 17 nearly half of them have already had sex despite all the abstinence propaganda in school, in church, and at home. Likewise with our generation. So nearly half of every generation growing up with sex below the supposed age of mental capacity to handle it according to some here - and almost none of them with emotional scarring or incapacity to handle what they did. Since girls mature sexually before boys, it is logical that girls that are generally having sex with guys older than them.

It is obvious objectively that every "sex crime" is different, spanning the drunk getting cited for peeing in front of a minor at the country club ball to the 18 Y.O. and his 16 Y.O. girlfriend to the serial killer/child rapist/cannibal. I think the record is a guy down in south america with something like three hundred child rape/murders.

One end is very easy to forgive by everyone - victim, family, society even to the point of trust. At the other end forgiveness and trust are both zero.

I married the youngest of three sisters that were all raped for years by their father. All three handled it differently. The eldest was the one who came back from college, organized the sisters, and agreed she would be the one to confront the father: Stop or we go to the Sheriff. That sister turned out to be the one who handled it best for the rest of her life and had healthy intimate relations with men.

The worst off was my wife who was permanently dysfunctional for life. I could say I have a reason to be angry at the father, but I don't. I did call the sheriff's office but the statute of limitations was past. On the eve of divorce she finally told me, a last-ditch manipulative effort to keep me on board. "Oh, by the way I am this wretched bitch because my father raped me regularly for years...so what the heck, I thought I would punish you for what my father did to me."

All three sisters forgive and love their father, mine in the most twisted way - getting back at him by dating black men whom she has no favor with but since her father is prejudiced against blacks, she enjoys parading same in front of him...

Why can't we? The law provides a statute of limitations. The girls forgive him. The mother walked in on him raping my ex-wife - saw him doing it - she forgives him. Change the law if you disagree with it, but I doubt you can get it changed.

The whole extended family was angry at me for calling the sheriff. Because they did not want to take the grandchildren from him. This was the middle sister telling me this. I reacted a bit shocked, so she eagerly explained that they never leave him alone with the grandchildren.

That's a pretty strong statement on forgiveness. So why do others who are not even remotely related to this circle of disaster unable to? To me, he quickly became more of a non-entity. This was more than ten years of outright rape on three different daughters.

 

[LibraryLady]

Our attitudes to various crimes are apt to reflect the degree to which such crime is likely to affect us personally.
I'm less concerned about rape than most women, because I'm male.
I'm less concerned about paedophilia / pederasty / whatever, because I don't have kids (and if I'm honest, don't actually like them much ).
I'm concerned about burglary, because I own my own home.
So if I have to live next door to a convicted paedophile or a convicted burglar, I'll choose the paedophile. (Though I probably won't ask him to the barbeque).

It's evident on this forum that most people seem to find crime against children unforgivable, whereas any other form of crime may be forgivable due to extenuating circumstances of one form or another- for example, the drunk driver whom I would simply hang, is apt to be forgiven because "that could happen to anyone and I'm a recovering alcoholic". Sorry. I disagree. No paedophile will ever target me, but any damned drunk in a car could kill me tomorrow, so I'm apt to be less forgiving of drunks in cars than some folks might be.

So my own selfish angle is, yes, paedophiles are forgivable, though I'd expect their access to children to be controlled.

My attitudes are no more logical than anyone else's and I reckon self interest is at the heart of most laws. I do feel there's a certain degree of hysteria and hypocrisy about paedophilia. I have seen known criminals protesting on TV about the release of a paedophile in their area- people who routinely involved themselves in drug related violence. Frankly, I felt the area concerned would be safer with more paedophiles and fewer protesters. Better yet with parents who knew where their kids were.

I guess my reaction to these various crimes is the long range effect. I have no children, although I love a large number of them dearly, but I do own a home. I have a much stronger reaction to people like pedophiles and drunk drivers because the effects of their crimes last so much longer. When someone did indeed burgle me I was upset, but did want the burglar to spend the rest of her life in jail. The money got replaced and I got on with my life. If I had been molested as a child, I doubt if the results would have been so easily mended.