Should molesters be killed?

[TheReasoner]

Yes, but you're advocating changing one person's body to protect another person, as opposed to changing someone's body to protect the person themselves. That is the difference.

Not necessarily. We change the bodies and minds of potential murderers. How is that different?

Paedophiles are not always incapable of relationships with adults. Many are married, in fact. Many will never commit a single child sex offence.

And yet some do. And those who do are the ones this thread is about. Like the infamous 'pocket man' here in Scandinavia. It is estimated that he abused hundreds if not thousands of kids. I seem to recall that he had about 300 accusations. And as many abused children are too afraid to mention it the number is almost certainly way higher.

Again, the difference is that a homicidal person's desire to kill is not related to any healthy or appropriate desires. The desire to have sex is healthy, even though it can be misdirected. So to remove someone's desire to kill is more acceptable than to remove someone's desire to have sex.

I am sure some people who do kill think they are doing good deeds. Think of doctors who kill patients who are bound to die. Euthanasia. Here we have murder, yet under the guise of compassion.

You are overstating it.

It is an uncomfortable truth that some victims of child sexual abuse recover totally. The reality of the matter is bad enough. You need not over-egg the pudding.

Yes. I know some recover totally. And others don't. I don't think I am overstating it. I have some fairly intimate knowledge about the victim's side of this particular story. In the past I was helping out at support centre for incest and child abuse victims. People well up in their forties come by. Some completely deranged because of this abuse. Paranoid. Extremely depressed. Angst ridden. Suicidal...
Most people do not know the scope of the damage caused by pedophiles who act on their drives.

I would suggest that you give them the choice between chemical castration, or incarceration in a secure mental hospital until such time that they are deemed to be safe to release, having undergone psychiatric treatment.

To that, I would agree.

Right, and are you going to do that before or after you castrate them?

Both. Castration, as you point out, is not a light issue. It shouldn't be used unless it is judged to be the only way out.

Yes. But he or she may still enjoy their sexuality in other ways, via masturbation, for example. To neuter them is to remove the potential for that enjoyment.

Masturbation to what? Thoughts or porn? How do we keep it from escalating to porn? Because for a pedophile it would naturally have to be that kind of porn...

You need to stop using emotive language. You find paedophilia and necrophilia disturbing. So do I. But I remain hopeful that people can be helped to enjoy healthy sexual relationships, and also that they can enjoy their sexuality alone.

Emotional language? These sexual deviations are clear indications of something being wrong. Hence sick. It is neither normal nor healthy to have these drives. It is sick. Mental or chemical imbalances or both is still sick.

Yes, you are. The difference is that with hypnosis you could potentially treat the unhealthy desires while leaving the healthy ones untouched, thus not denying someone all sexual enjoyment for the rest of their life.

Does hypnosis work by suppression, or total change?

I'm glad you agree.

Can't deny the power of personal experience

I strongly believe these things are changeable. (I am a living example of someone who has successfully changed her sexual orientation.) Truth is important, as is people's wellbeing. I would rather that people were helped to become healthy, and that the LGBT rights movement had to find a new tack for its campaigns, than that we leave people in a state of psychological discomfort to avoid treading on anyone's toes.

I agree

Of course, I happen to believe that there are almost no good reasons to want to change from, say, homosexual to heterosexual, or heterosexual to homosexual. I do think there are good reasons to want to change from hetero- or homosexual to bi- or pansexual, though. I also think there are good reasons to want to remove desires to have sex with children, animals, or corpses.

I would almost agree.
Homosexuality is a debate we may have in another thread

Paedophilic desires are only dangerous if they are acted upon. I can assure you that many - perhaps even most - paedophiles never act on their desire to have sex with children.

And some do. These people are the ones we should focus on in this thread. No offense, no punishment.

 

[quatona]

Btw., I like the Asimov quote in your sig-line, faith guardian.

 

[Exhausted]

I mentioned it in my first post in this thread, but I bet most people didn't catch it.

Not all porn depicting children actually involves children. You can make porn spring forth from the mind, either with drawin' or computer graphicin'

Just a thought.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I mentioned it in my first post in this thread, but I bet most people didn't catch it.

Not all porn depicting children actually involves children. You can make porn spring forth from the mind, either with drawin' or computer graphicin'

Just a thought.

And looking at such porn, whether it involves real children or simply animation, feeds the illness of pedohilia. Something like this needs to be starved. If fed, it becomes stronger. The pedophile begins to feel, "Hey, I'm not alone, this is normal," and is more inclined to act out.

A native american grandfather tells his grandson, "There are two wolves within me, each trying to gain control over me, a good wolf and an evil wolf. They fight constantsly." The grandson is horrified. 'Grandfather, which one will win?" The grandfather replies, "The one that I feed."

 

[Exhausted]

And looking at such porn, whether it involves real children or simply animation, feeds the illness of pedohilia. Something like this needs to be starved. If fed, it becomes stronger. The pedophile begins to feel, "Hey, I'm not alone, this is normal," and is more inclined to act out.

A native american grandfather tells his grandson, "There are two wolves within me, each trying to gain control over me, a good wolf and an evil wolf. They fight constantsly." The grandson is horrified. 'Grandfather, which one will win?" The grandfather replies, "The one that I feed."

Your metaphor is not scientific data, your claims are false.

 

[quatona]

Something like this needs to be starved. If fed, it becomes stronger.

This doesn´t match my experiences nor my observations. Urges get stronger if oppressed.

The pedophile begins to feel, "Hey, I'm not alone, this is normal," and is more inclined to act out.

If he begins to feel that it´s normal to satisfy his urges by looking at virtual children and is more inclined to act this out, that´s not a problem, in my book.

A native american grandfather tells his grandson, "There are two wolves within me, each trying to gain control over me, a good wolf and an evil wolf. They fight constantsly." The grandson is horrified. 'Grandfather, which one will win?" The grandfather replies, "The one that I feed."

In my experience and observation "The one that I fight" would be the better answer.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Why are we the only civilized country that still uses the death penalty, then, if it's such a good thing?

First of all, this is a myth. There are other civilized countries that continue to use the death penalty. The mark of "civilization" is many things, but written language is at the top of the list. Did you mean democracies? This would still be untrue. Do you not accept Israel or Japan as democracies?

I have sneaky suspicion that what you really might have meant is that no western european countries have the death penalty, and then you made the mistake of letting us know you think they are the only civilized countries.

I would never use Europe as my measuring rod for morality or sensibility.

 

[GeratTzedek]

This doesn´t match my experiences nor my observations. Urges get stronger if oppressed.

You didn't stick with it long enough. At first the obsession grows, but then over time dims. It never goes away. But it is less of an irritant.

We are not, btw, talking about OCD. The obsessions and compulsions in that disorder are caused by an entirely different set of chemical imbalences.

If he begins to feel that it´s normal to satisfy his urges by looking at virtual children and is more inclined to act this out, that´s not a problem, in my book.

When I use the expression "act out" I'm referring to the molestation of children. "Acting out" is slang for either acting on inappropriate impulses or to act out one's fantasies. Looking at child porn makes a pedohile more likely to MOLEST KIDS. Hope I was clearer this time.

 

[quatona]

You didn't stick with it long enough. At first the obsession grows, but then over time dims. It never goes away. But it is less of an irritant.

Well, maybe we have different experiences and observations, but to me the best way of gaining control over my urges is to embrace them. I am talking long term.

We are not, btw, talking about OCD. The obsessions and compulsions in that disorder are caused by an entirely different set of chemical imbalences.

Yes, we are not talking about OCD.

When I use the expression "act out" I'm referring to the molestation of children. "Acting out" is slang for either acting on inappropriate impulses or to act out one's fantasies. Looking at child porn makes a pedohile more likely to MOLEST KIDS. Hope I was clearer this time.

Your claim is understood. Now, if you could give us something in support of your claim that
a. looking at child porn makes a pedophile more likely to molest kids and
b. looking at porn that doesn´t involve real children has the same effect
we would have a basis for a rational discussion, for starters.

 

[comana]

I would say no. I think the death penalty for molestation gives more incentive to murder the victim so that no witness can turn him in. Elevating the penalty for child molestation to the level of murder just means more murders.

 

[Ramona]

Absolutely. As slowly and painfully as possible.

 

[Khameo]

Absolutely. As slowly and painfully as possible.

Burn them at the stake, perhaps?

 

[GeratTzedek]

Your claim is understood. Now, if you could give us something in support of your claim that
a. looking at child porn makes a pedophile more likely to molest kids and
b. looking at porn that doesn´t involve real children has the same effect
we would have a basis for a rational discussion, for starters.

I've sat in Level 3 S.A.A. meetings and listened carefully. This is what I've learned from the offenders.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Research suggests pedophiles and child molesters don't get rehabilitated. Should they be killed for their indiscretions?

Depends on the circumstances. Castration is an option I think would be better.

 

[StarCannon]

Research suggests pedophiles and child molesters don't get rehabilitated. Should they be killed for their indiscretions?

I have a better solution. How about chemical castration? Grant them the Peace of Eunuchs and an oppurtunity to make restitutions.

 

[Khameo]

Depends on the circumstances. Castration is an option I think would be better.

For some reason, I think forcible castration isn't the answer.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Would one rather be castrated or dead? I think the first one would be the most chosen.

 

[Khameo]

Would one rather be castrated or dead? I think the first one would be the most chosen.

You imply that death is the only viable alternative, which is false.

 

[cantata]

I mentioned it in my first post in this thread, but I bet most people didn't catch it.

Not all porn depicting children actually involves children. You can make porn spring forth from the mind, either with drawin' or computer graphicin'

Just a thought.

Unfortunately, it is illegal to own any images of minors involved in sex acts in America and in the UK, even if no actual children were harmed in the making of the images.

Yes, it's unbelievably stupid.

 

[cantata]

Not necessarily. We change the bodies and minds of potential murderers. How is that different?[/qupte]

Offering therapy as an option with a view to ultimate releasing someone or improving their quality of life is perfectly acceptable.

And yet some do. And those who do are the ones this thread is about. Like the infamous 'pocket man' here in Scandinavia. It is estimated that he abused hundreds if not thousands of kids. I seem to recall that he had about 300 accusations. And as many abused children are too afraid to mention it the number is almost certainly way higher.

Very sad. Would chemical castration fix that, do you think? I don't.

I am sure some people who do kill think they are doing good deeds. Think of doctors who kill patients who are bound to die. Euthanasia. Here we have murder, yet under the guise of compassion.

We clearly disagree about the ethics of euthanasia. But in any case, this doesn't address the point I was making. Do the many doctors who euthanise patients out of a sense of compassion have an uncontrollable homicidal urge to kill? I doubt it. I should think that most actually find it very difficult to make the choice to put someone out of their misery. I know that I would. They usually do it for perfectly reasonable reasons, not because of wild impulses. I do not think compassion is a dangerous urge.

So while if it's against the law in their country, they must unfortunately face whatever penalty that country's legal system deems appropriate, I don't think therapy to rid them of the urge to euthanise is necessary. Apart from anything else, they'll obviously be struck off, so they won't have the opportunity to do it again anyway.

The homicidal maniac is a different kettle of fish. Their actions are likely to be irrational, and they are probably not born of compassion. That is why removing their desire to kill is acceptable. A child sex offender has urges we would prefer them not to have, and offering them treatment to rid them of those urges is fine; but forcing them to have not only their urges for sex with children, but all their sexual desires purged altogether is not acceptable.

Yes. I know some recover totally. And others don't. I don't think I am overstating it. I have some fairly intimate knowledge about the victim's side of this particular story. In the past I was helping out at support centre for incest and child abuse victims. People well up in their forties come by. Some completely deranged because of this abuse. Paranoid. Extremely depressed. Angst ridden. Suicidal...
Most people do not know the scope of the damage caused by pedophiles who act on their drives.

I'm not denying any of this. I just think you should be careful not to overstate the consequences.

Both. Castration, as you point out, is not a light issue. It shouldn't be used unless it is judged to be the only way out.

Further: it shouldn't be used unless the patient agrees to it.

Masturbation to what? Thoughts or porn? How do we keep it from escalating to porn? Because for a pedophile it would naturally have to be that kind of porn...

Introduction to other kinds of pornography could be appropriate as part of therapy. Also, child pornography need not have involved real children in its production. I do not think saying "Oh but they might want child pornography" is an adequate reason to deprive someone of their sexual functioning.

Emotional language? These sexual deviations are clear indications of something being wrong. Hence sick. It is neither normal nor healthy to have these drives. It is sick. Mental or chemical imbalances or both is still sick.

'Sick' has connotations which are not conducive to a reasonable discussion. 'Unhealthy' or 'damaging' might be preferable.

Does hypnosis work by suppression, or total change?

It depends on the therapy.

And some do. These people are the ones we should focus on in this thread. No offense, no punishment.

Well firstly, this is an odd position to take, because a paedophile who intends to act on their desires but has not done so yet is just as dangerous as one who has not. So I would have thought that you would be interested in preventative measures against them too.

Secondly, I do not think we should be thinking in terms of punishment. I think it is a problematic notion, especially with regard to the penal system, which is there for the protection of the public, for reparation, for rehabilitation, and so on, but absolutely not for vengeance.