Paedophiles, Justice and prison sentences...

Please answer/select the poll options honestly.

  • The paedophile should get the death sentence.

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • The paedophile should get life or more than 50yrs+ in prison.

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • The paedophile should get 40yrs+ in prison.

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • The paedophile should get 20-30yrs+ in prison.

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • The paedophile should get 10yrs+ in prison.

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • The paedophile should get 5-10yrs in prison or less.

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • The paedophile should be castrated/have his testicles removed.

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • The paedophile should get the smallest prison cell available.

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • The paedophile should get a medium sized prison cell.

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • The paedophile should be allowed a large prison cell since he is going to prison for many years.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The paedophile should get lots of protection from other prisoners.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The paedophile should be treated the same as any other prisoner.

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • The paedophile should be treated badly because of his crime in comparison to other prisoners.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don?ft think people are punished enough in general for their crimes in my country.

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • I think the justice system is fine/adequate for criminals in my country in general.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I think the justice system is maybe a bit to harsh in my country for criminals in general.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I think the justice system in my country is ok, but could be done better in general.

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • I think the justice system in my country is not good, and could be done better IMO.

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • I think the justice system in my country is often too harsh in general.

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • Other?c

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • Total voters
    17
What we do now isn't enforcement, it's just threatening.

I agree with you 100%. Enforcement also means educating people about consequences of their actions. Prevention is also a part of criminal law enforcement.

There are times that I hope that technology and the human brain can get to the point of prevention of crime similar to the movie "Minority Report"
 
Reiku said:
But without the whole part where they go after innocent people, right?

Gotta fine tune the system first right? Just joking, but could you image a society that was 100% crime free? What would people have to talk about?
 
Sortof, It is your opinion, but you put God and Hell into the equation, which is illogical. Can you prove that they are going to Hell? Nope. Ok, so let's start thinking rationally here.
It is never the victims fault in rape!

I think that pedophiles should get about 5-10 years in prison. Then after they get out or while they're still in, they will automatically be put on the list of your local and national pedophiles.

I don't think that they should be sent forever. I think they should have a chance to redeem themselves in society. Of course with some exceptions, which should be decided by the victim and judge, which they will work something out. They will of course have very little freedom, but just enough to try to become a normal citizen. If they repeat the offense, then the sentence should be life.

Like Yidaki said. If the offender was mentally ill, then they should go to a mental health hospital and get treated.
 
The thing is, prison isn't exactly suited for redeeming people.

In most cases, all being locked up with a bunch of dangerous people does is make you more messed up when you get out. Sure, some people may change their ways out of terror of having to go through it again--but fear is not the kind of motivator a society should be using, if only because it doesn't work against the truly dangerous people.

When I was a teenager, I was falsely accused of assault by an adult. (not sexual assault, just the regular kind) I wasn't doing what they told me to do, so they called the cops and told them they had placed me under "citezen's arrest" for assaulting them. Well, the cops showed up, and since it was the word of an angry kid with black clothes and long hair against a "nice" middle aged lady, they took me to Juvinille Hall.

I was there for months, getting strip searched by the officers, harrassed by the other inmates, always worried that I'd be convicted and this would become my life for some unknown number of years...

...that place wasn't redeeming anyone--just making them scared and angry. The kids got scared, so they got viscious--so cruel and scary that nobody would mess with them--then they wouldn't have to be afraid.

I still remember the time an officer walked by, staring at his hands with an odd expression on his face--surrounded by a cloud of mace fumes so strong it made my eyes water from across the room.

I found out later the kid involved was a girl, she told me that she'd gotten maced so many times now, that she didn't even feel it anymore--so she'd just go off every once in a while and make them spray her down with the stuff "just for fun".

I saw what that place did to people--and what it was doing to me, and not a bit of it was redeeming.

Luckily, the ***** eventually dropped the charges--I guess she figured I'd been punished enough for disagreeing with her--but I'll never be the same after all that.

That was just juvinile hall--real prison must be much worse, and I don't ever want to see it. So you could say it worked--I go out of my way not to break laws now, I don't even jaywalk...

...but there's another side to it:

I'm more afraid of prison than I am of death, and I've been locked up for something I didn't do before, so I know it could happen again.

If the cops ever try to arrest me, they're going to have to kill me to get me into that squad car--and it's going to take alot of them.

So much for redemption...
 
SortOf said:
Im not trolling im truthfully stating my opinion, however unpopular it may be. Thats the problem with todays society, unwillingness to accept eccentic opinions. You may call me a troll, but im not, I 100% support everything I have said and would sign my name to it if needed.

Explain something to me, it seems to me that you believe if someone is raped they've done something to deserve it, correct? Do you think that rape is about sex? Do you believe that the woman somehow seduced a man and he ended up raping her? This is nothing more than a self-rightous attitude. I bet you believe that poor people somehow deserve their lot in life, don't you? :eek:kashii:
 
Im not saying that prison redeems you. Trying to live a normal life and doing good in society will redeem you. Maybe...But I see what you mean though. You're right, they do have a diff view of life.
 
The way I looked at it, instead of using the term "mentally ill" or "insane", I think paedophiles are better characterized by saying that they are a group of people who's sexual preferance is not acceptable by today's moral standard.

We are all animals. Social constraints and moral are all product of man. But in nature, we're just animals; paedophiles are just born in this particular time of human history that having sexual intercourse with a person under 18 is considered "immoral" and "wrong".

The caveman probably only managed to make it to 20 or so years. In the time of Charlemagne, 800 AD, the life expectancy was about 35 years. Therefore, back then it was "okay" to impregnate female under the age of 18 if human race is to continue.

So my point is, don't view paedophiles as some crazy, insane people who should be locked up. It's just that their behavior is not acceptable under today's moral standard.
 
Well Godppgo. Most of them are just pervs. They watch too much porn or have some weird fetish. They need to be locked up. Because people can't go off having sex with people against their will, and having sex with children and/or minors.
 
The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with. Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime.
 
KrazyKat said:
Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with.

Where do you draw the line between a paedophile "raping" an underage child and just having "sex" with them?
 
That isn't what he said.

Being a pedophile simply means you're attracted to children--just like being heterosexual means you're attracted to women, it doesn't nessescarily mean you've acted on that desire--just ask my freinds from computer science class. :D

Seriously though, it's an important distinction--a person could really like the idea of killing people, but if he goes his whole life without ever actually trying to do it, is it a problem?

I'd say just for him.

Of course, it's hard to trust that someone with such a desire won't ever try it--so we're likely to lock them up if we find out about it just to make sure--but the point remains:

If they never try, who cares what it is they wanted to do?
 
Hachiro said:
Where do you draw the line between a paedophile "raping" an underage child and just having "sex" with them?
Reiku understood what I was trying to say there, but I'll answer your question for you anyway.
I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1?T-17.
I just had one more thought that hating people for a crime they were never going to commit may well ned up with them commiting it in the end.
 
Last edited:
That isn't what he said.
Reiku he did say it VERY clearly....
The important distinction to make is that between people attracted to children, and those who rape them. Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with. Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime
Sure sounds like one could safely assume that he did say that...hmmmm
Read that line and the following one as well, from this post he condones paedophiles having sex with kids. "I have no problem with...." . The following sentence sounds like an appeasement to society and his conscience.
Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to, even if its just by 'today's moral standards', are commiting a hidious crime
He also comes across rather ambigiously here. Kind of hard to read what people are "thinking" when discussing an issue like this. It is very easy to be misunderstood. IMO people should try to be very clear in what they are trying to say, particularly with sensitive subjects. Would you agree with that?
But since he responded to my question it makes it easier...
I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1?T-17.
With a child at that age I highly doubt you would find a paedophile having sex with them. THe average age of a paedophiles victim is 10. How can you justify or overlook that?
I guess my next logical question would be, what age are you thinking about that classifies a person as being a victim of a pedophile? Pedophiles are not looking to have sex with people between the ages of 15 to 17, at that age people are physically adults not children.
 
OK, cool off a bit Hachiro. I'd get a bit offended here if I didn't know that it was just a misunderstanding.
Lets just go through what I said again.

1)Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with.
2)I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1?T-17.

So where have I condoned sex with children? In fact I have said the opposite, if anyone has sex with a child under 15-17 it is rape and a horrible crime.

The point I made is that if someone doesn't have sex with a child then they haven't done anything wrong.

"THe average age of a paedophiles victim is 10. How can you justify or overlook that? "
I don't and haven't.

"I guess my next logical question would be, what age are you thinking about that classifies a person as being a victim of a pedophile?"
I think paedophiles are attracted to people before puberty. But someone might want to check that.

And by the way its customary to refer to women with she and not he.
 
'today's moral standards' was jsut a referance to the post before. If I take that out do my views become clear then?:
Of course it doesn't really need to be said that, those who do or intend to (rape/have sex with children) are commiting a hidious crime


This misundersating may be arising if you think that people can have sex with children without raping them. I disagree, see my argument about consent above.

Also, please re-read reiku's post.
 
OK, cool off a bit Hachiro.
No I don't have to cool off here....you are not my mother and your condescending attitude makes matters worse....write what you want to say more clearly and then your posts will not be misinterpreted or misunderstood OK!
I read that post and I disagree, These two quotes contradict themselves, I choose to bypass that...read them again. By extension of the logic in the first quote about pedophilesand if a person is a killer, because they are attracted to murdering someone or thinking about it, either way they are guilty of one or the other.
Being a pedophile simply means you're attracted to children--just like being heterosexual means you're attracted to women, it doesn't nessescarily mean you've acted on that desire--
The definition of Pedophilia is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children. Puberty being defined as when your body is physically capable of reproduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:pedophilia
Seriously though, it's an important distinction--a person could really like the idea of killing people, but if he goes his whole life without ever actually trying to do it, is it a problem?
Same thing is it a problem for society if a person is a pedophile?
Read on; these are quotes from your posts;
The point I made is that if someone doesn't have sex with a child then they haven't done anything wrong.
I don't take issue with that statement at all.
1)Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with.
2)I would consider rape to be an issue of consent, so once the child becomes mature enough to be able to consent, and then does so, I woulldn't call it rape. At what age this is obvously depends on the child but for most people I would guess that its probably between 1?T-17.
So then from this quote I can safely assume that you think that any adult that has sex with a person under the age of 15 to 17 would be considered a pedophile and guilty of rape? Noone ever said that a person having sex with a 15 to 17 year old would be considered a pedophile.
This misundersating may be arising if you think that people can have sex with children without raping them. I disagree, see my argument about consent above.
ANY adult person having sexual relationships with a child under the legal age of consent, is guilty of rape. You confuse the issue by bring in the age of consent. Adults that have sex with children under the legal age of consent are GUILTY in most country's in the world of statutory rape. You can not tell me that a child that age can "consent" to having sex.
You make the supposition that a child under the accepted age of consent, can agree to have sex with an adult and it not be rape, is that correct?
Then what is your definition of rape? What is your definition of a pedophile?
Age of consent is different from country to country but I will agree for the purpose of this discussion that it is between 15 to 17 years old. I still take issue with this comment that you make.
Paedophiles who don't rape children, I have no problem with
I can not and never will agree with that, purely because CHILDREN, are under the age of consent.
And by the way its customary to refer to women with she and not he
My my bit pedantic aren't we, did know you not a he but a she...THAT I apologize for...mea culpa, mea culpa.

Either way interesting debate, like I wrote in my previous post, with subjects like this is is very necessary for people to be precise in what they are writing or misunderstandings can occur. This topic is of and by itself explosive to many people, myself included.
 
Hachiro said:
You make the supposition that a child under the accepted age of consent, can agree to have sex with an adult and it not be rape, is that correct?
Then what is your definition of rape? What is your definition of a pedophile?

I clearly stated the exact opposite. You even quoted it:
"if you think that people can have sex with children without raping them. I disagree,"
I also defined both these things already.

If we look through my points you will see that they do not contradict each other. If you can't find any of these points in my posts please tell me.

1) Rape is a sexual act forced on someone who doesn't consent.
2) Children under 15-17 cannot consent to sexual acts.
3) Therefore, any sex with chlidren under this age is rape.
4) Paedolphiles are attracted to pre-pubertal children.
5) If paedophiles have sex with these children (because nobody goes through puberty after 17!) it is rape.
6) I do not condone rape. (I also do not condone violent acts against children, but I'm not sure that I said this already)
7) As you said paedohpilia is sexual preference, not perforimng sexual acts. A paedohplie who does not rape children is not doing anything wrong. All other things equal.



Hachiro said:
I can safely assume that you think that any adult that has sex with a person under the age of 15 to 17 would be considered a pedophile and guilty of rape?

That's not what I said. They aren't necessairily a paedophile, but it is rape. Paedophiles are attraced to children before puberty.

Hachiro said:
You confuse the issue by bring in the age of consent.
I haven't mentioned the law. Because children mature at differnet rates its not very helpfull.



You have accused me of condoning sexual acts with children, and come close to accusing me of being a paedophile myself, by finding imaginary holes in my argument and ambiguity when none was there.

If we can leave this behind us, we can come to the much more interesting question that seems to be coming up of whether people shold be guilty/punished becasue of of crimes that they haven't commited.
 
Ma Cherie said:
Explain something to me, it seems to me that you believe if someone is raped they've done something to deserve it, correct? Do you think that rape is about sex? Do you believe that the woman somehow seduced a man and he ended up raping her? This is nothing more than a self-rightous attitude. I bet you believe that poor people somehow deserve their lot in life, don't you? :eek:kashii:
I do believe that in many, many cases its provoked.
 
I said before that I wasn't offended, hwever that is not true any more. After explaining that it was a misunderstanding you continued to accuse me of defending a crime which I despise. You ignored whole parts of my argument and tried to made up definitions for me, for things I had already defined! to make it sound like a didn't have a problem with sex with children. You even accused me of meaning the exacpt opposite of some very clear statements that I made.

'paedophiles who don't rape children, I don't have a problem with'
does not imply that they can have sex without raping them, or that i condone it. This is just what you wanted to see in it yourself, even when I explained it in the next post by saying that sex with children under 15 is rape and Reiku too said that that isn't what I said.

You are clearly going out of your way to see and say negative things about me and I am offended by this. I don't beleive that I have done anything to deserve this from you.
 

This thread has been viewed 55502 times.

Back
Top