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
'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.

Excuse me, but I am quoting YOU and what you wrote, if you also take the time to read the rest of my posts I specifically stated that this topic

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.

It is VERY easy to misunderstand your post with the comment that I quoted on more than one occasion. After your last post specifically this,

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.

I agree with you on parts 1 through 6 I only disagree with the part I highlighted in red, you wrote that not me, and it directly contradicts what you wrote in number 2, 3 and 5 (of course 6 as well). I would think that you want to say that a pedophile who does not have SEX with children is not doing anything wrong, right or wrong? Huge difference between having sex and rape isnt there?

That is the ONLY part I can not find equal ground with you on. If you look at it it contradicts your earlier statements.

We both agree on many of the points that we both stated, I just keep on having a hard time with the statement I quoted from you in red. If you can explain that and what it means to you, I think you will find that I am pretty much agreement with everything else that you wrote.
 
Have we not established that having sex with a child and raping them is the same thing? just look at point number 5! I am not contradicting anything!
 
Hachiro said:
Excuse me, but I am quoting YOU and what you wrote,
and then reading things in it that aren't there.

For example you say this:
Hachiro said:
You can not tell me that a child that age can "consent" to having sex.
I had clearly just said that children under 15-17 cannot consent to having sex. No matter which way you look at it. Yet you accuse me of saying they can! Look back in post 53:
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.


In my original post I said this:
"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."

Here I am clearly making a distinction between people who are attracted to children and don't have sex with them, and those who are attracted to children and then do. You have to work hard there to make it sound like I am making a distinction between people who have sex with children and those who rape them, however you even say it is 'very clear' that that is what I am saying. And anyway, that should have been cleared up in my next post when I said sex with children is always rape.
 
Last edited:
You contradict yourself here with almost every post.
Hachiro said:
ANY adult person having sexual relationships with a child under the legal age of consent, is guilty of rape.
I agree with you on parts 1 through 6
Huge difference between having sex and rape isnt there?

If having sex is raping someone, how can there be a huge difference? Do you agree that having sex with children is rape or not?!
 
Hachiro said:
"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.

How about:
'people that don't steal things, I have no problem with'
Can you never agree with this?

You also contradict the point you are making here by saying:

Hachiro said:
"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.

How can you both take no issue with it and never possibly agree with it? If anyone's argument is contradictory and vague here then it is yours.
 
KrazyKat said:
You contradict yourself here with almost every post.
If having sex is raping someone, how can there be a huge difference? Do you agree that having sex with children is rape or not?!

Read my posts you know damn well how I feel about it without asking this question.

Explain this statement directly please, no BS or anything else just this.......(You have bypassed it enough times already)

A paedohplie who does not rape children is not doing anything wrong.
 
Hachiro said:
Read my posts you know damn well how I feel about it without asking this question.
Explain this statement directly please, no BS or anything else just this.......(You have bypassed it enough times already)

I was fairly sure that you thought sex and rape with a child was the same thing. However in your last post you claimed that they were different, and if you did consider them the same there would be no confusion from the start.

OK, i'll explain what I mean by that. I don't think people should be punsihed for a crime they haven't commited, or attempted to commit. As Reiku said we could lock all paedophiles up in case they have sex with children, but I see that as an infringement of thier human rights. We could apply the same argument to stealing. It may be tempting to steal, but if this person doesn't steal or attempt to then they shouldn't be punsihed just for finding it attractive.

I also mentioned before that paedophiles are already hated just for their attraction to children, and that that may drive some to rape children who may not otherwise have done so.

I don't see why it is so hard for you to just appologise. Not once have I come close to suggesting that it is acceptable to have sex with children, and yet you have constantly accused me of this, ignoring everything I have to say. This has gone far beyond just a misunderstanding, it feels that you are deliberately trying to attack me.
 
Look, to be honest its not such a contraversial statement.
Lets look at the first part.

"A paedophile who does not rape children"
A paedophile is someone who is attracted to children before puberty. Not someone who has sex with children. I'm sure you understand this because you've said it yourself. So the problem can't be here.

'rape children' from the beginning I have insisted that beacuse children can't consent, any sex with children is rape, and we agree that it is wrong. So the problem can't be a misunderstanding there, because I have clearly stressed that point many times.

So we are left with saying:
someone who isn't doing a bad thing but is attracted to doing it, isn't doing anything wrong. All other things equal.

If you can explain your problem with the statement, maybe I can better explain?
If you could also explain how it contradicts ANY of my other points instead of just claiming it does then I would be greatful.
 
Firstly thank you for clarifying that statement, it is ambigious as heck and very easily could be read to justify or make an assumption that the writer of, you, were somehow justifying the case of a pedphile having sex with a child and that sex with a child was not rape.

I am repeating myself here, because of the nature of the subject it is necessary to be very clear in how you write what you mean. It is easy to misunderstand your point when written the way it is.

Look, to be honest its not such a contraversial statement.
Lets look at the first part.
"A paedophile who does not rape children"

I disagree with you, it is very much so a contraversial statement in and of itself. When the general public hears the word "pedophile" they don't EVER think of a person that is "just" attracted to children. They think of a pervert that is raping children under the age of consent.

Next how many pedophiles have you ever heard of that never "acted" out their fantasies? The only pedophiles that I have ever heard of are the ones you see on the 6 O'clock news being locked up in jail. I know of very few people that will ever think anything otherwise, whether the pedophile acts out their fantasy or not, the general public "THINKS" that anyone that claims to be a pedophile has had sex with children. They are guilty in the court of public opinion whether or not the action has taken place or not.
 
Hachiro said:
Firstly thank you for clarifying that statement, it is ambigious as heck and very easily could be read to justify or make an assumption that the writer of, you, were somehow justifying the case of a pedphile having sex with a child and that sex with a child was not rape.
However, at the very beginning I said that any sex with children under 15-17 was rape. How did you manage to continue to misunderstand after that? I don't believe after clarifying myself with that point that my argument was in anyway ambigious, and yet it was after that point that you began to attack me.

Also way back in post 60:
'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.

No ambiguity there right? Isn't that what you just accused me of avoiding answering as well?

And in post 63:
"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."
Here I am clearly making a distinction between people who are attracted to children and don't have sex with them, and those who are attracted to children and then do.

Hachiro said:
I disagree with you, it is very much so a contraversial statement in and of itself. When the general public hears the word "pedophile" they don't EVER think of a person that is "just" attracted to children. They think of a pervert that is raping children under the age of consent.
Next how many pedophiles have you ever heard of that never "acted" out their fantasies? The only pedophiles that I have ever heard of are the ones you see on the 6 O'clock news being locked up in jail. I know of very few people that will ever think anything otherwise, whether the pedophile acts out their fantasy or not, the general public "THINKS" that anyone that claims to be a pedophile has had sex with children. They are guilty in the court of public opinion whether or not the action has taken place or not.

You are right, I take back that it is not controversial.
No I haven't heard of paedophiles that haven't raped children(or owned child porn - also bad), but that is only to be expected. If you were a paedophile wouldn't you try to keep as quiet about it as possible? Becuase of the reasons that you just mentioned.
As a result we actually have no idea what share of the population are actually paedophiles. But just because of societies prejudices, doesn't mean that they have actually done anything wrong.

I am still waiting for an apology for you saying:
Hachiro said:
he condones paedophiles having sex with kids
without firm basis for doing so. Whether or not my statement was ambiguious I had clarified it before you said this, and its quite a thing to say about someone with so little evidence.
 
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.

This is from your 4th post in reply to this thread(#50), take out the portion in red and my replies to you would have been much different. The sentence by itself stands as a statement by you. The following sentence explains your position but leaves the entire point that you are trying to make in ambiguity. You appear to straddle the perverbial fence with a comment like this. Once again take it out and there is no problem.

Next, your comments can easily be misundertood, thereby confusing the entire situation. I commented to you that one needs to be very clear yet read these two statements that YOU made....
You are right, I take back that it is not controversial.
and
Look, to be honest its not such a contraversial statement.
These are both in reply to my questions to you once again about the sentence highlighted in red above. YOU wrote this not me, .....

I am still waiting for an apology for you saying:without firm basis for doing so. Whether or not my statement was ambiguious I had clarified it before you said this, and its quite a thing to say about someone with so little evidence.

You can keep on waiting as well, because you are not going to get one from me about this thread and the posts I wrote to you. I am tired of pointing out your ambiguity in your posts.
 
I insist again that any ambiguity from post 50 was cleared up by post 53 when I said that children can't constent until 15-17 and so sex with children younger than that is rape. Reiku also made it very clear what I was trying to say. (The same distinction was also presented by Yiduki in post 7). After this you continue to claim that I am arguing that people can have sex with children without it being rape. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

My argument has not contradicted itself, however yours have. You have repeatedly accused me of meaning the exact opposite of what I have clearly said in a number of places. I have illustrated some of these in the posts above.

I changed my mind over how controversial that statement was after considering the predjudices of public opionion in outlined in your post. It is common in debates for people to listen to what others say, and change their opinions based on this. However I stand firm to every other point that I have made and have not changed any part of my argument.

Saying that you didn't understand my posts (when you clearly made no effort to try) as an excuse for not apologising for making drastic and false accusations...I actually lack the words to describe it. No matter how vague someone's posts are, they deserve an apology if a false assumption is made about them.

I'm just going to leave this thread now, I've said all that I want to say.
 
KrazyKat said:
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.

How do you define rape with a child though? Penetration of the child like through the bum or vagina?
Just because a paedophile does not rape a child, does not mean that paedophile is not as bad. A paedophile may sexually interefere with a child, or make them do sickening things like force them to give them a blow job or touch themselves in a sexually stimulating way for the paedophile- many children that are the victums of paedophiles are not raped but simply made to go through sickening acts that do not involve penetration, but none the less psychologically scar the victum for the rest of their lives.
You also have to remember that many paedophiles who do not directly interfere with children, support the child porn industry. A single paedophile may have never raped a child in their life, but instead bought and watched thousands of peices of porn that involve children and thus reach out to victums much further afeild than what they would usually be able to directly do.
What are your feelings on this?
The sex drive is one of the strongest urges in the human body, and most paedophiles simply cannot control it to any successful degree. Yes, some or a lot of psychological help is often needed for paedophiles to control themselves, sending to the paedophile straight to prison without any usually does little in the long term, but you cannot rely on it to completely supress the sex drive 24/7 for an entire life.

And Reiku, what do you propose we do with paedophiles if you believe prison isn't a viable option? To me at least, the prospect of prison for doing crimes is not so much a cure, but more of a deterrant. We have psychologists for treating the mental issues, but they alone cannot solve the problems of crime in society. If we didn't have prison as a deterrent to potential criminals in society, i'm sure there'd be a lot more crime.
 
SortOf said:
I do believe that in many, many cases its provoked.

So if you went down to the beach tomorrow on a hot day wearing a swim suit and a man came and raped you, would you agree that you had provoked it by not wearing much in the way of clothes due to the circumstances? Do you believe that gay rape(i.e a gay person raping another straight person) like a man raping a man is as bad as a man raping a woman? Although i disagree with your opinions/viewpoints, i'm curious to see how you define them and to what extent you take them to "nods".
In what circumstances/situation exactly would you say that a woman who gets raped brings it upon herself/is partly to blame?
 
Reiku said:
This thread is officially dead do to participant ignorance...
...I had a long, polite explanation of the many mistakes and misconceptions being made here--but my computer reset and I don't feel like typing it again.
Suffice to say that if you do not understand what the terms "pedophile" or "rape" actually mean, you should not be participating in a discussion about pedophiles and rape.
The uninformed comments filling this thread remind me of another gem of sex-related internet ignorance:
Some may find the comparison offensive...
...but then there's this:
First off, all the things you refer to as "sexually interefering" are actually rape, rape is engaging in any sexual activity without the other person's consent--children are unable to give consent, so any sexual act involving a child is an act of rape.


These are the definitions of "rape" and "paedophile" that i know of;

"rape 1 Pronunciation (rp)
n.
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
tr.v. raped, rap·ing, rapes
1. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.
2. To seize and carry off by force.
3. To plunder or pillage."

"Noun 1. paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children"

"Noun 1. paedophilia - sexual activity of an adult with a child"

Alot of people consider rape as to having forceful sexual intercourse or sexual intercourse with somone without their consent only though, and not all the other acts that go with it, which is why i asked how KrazyKat personally defined rape.

Reiku said:
In answer to you question, Tokis-Phoenix:
I think we should feel sorry for them.
I have a chance of having a loving, sexual relationship with my prefered type of partner--a pedophile can never have that, because the object of their desires is incapable of it.
Their only choices are abstinance or rape, while we at least have hope of finding a willing parter. If they do give in to their desires and commit rape, then they are a rapist, and should be treated as such--but until they do they should have our profound sympathy.
As for what should be done with a rapist, I really don't know. Prison is not a deterrant for emotion-driven crimes--nothing is. For a deterrant to work you have to logically consider the consequences just before going through with your crime, and someone who loses control of their emotions is not in a logical state.
Be it murder, rape, or some other kind of assault, these crimes are not usually committed from a logical, sane frame of mind.
Psychiatric care would seem to be the best option currently available, but I have doubts as to it's effectiveness. If this was pursued, however, it would be important to distingush between correcting a rapists lack of self control and "correcting" their sexual preferences.

I agree its wrong to "change" people, but raping children is none the less very wrong too, and thus i think people should do everything they can to supress such urges- you cannot change somones sexuality, you can though help them deal with it. In any society you go to, there will always be laws or negative feelings towards the subject of raping/having sex with children on the whole.

I feel sorry for somone who feels sexually attracted to children and cannot help it, but i would never feel sorry for somone who acts on those feelings- such actions not only often physically injure the victum but also seriously mentally scars the victum for their entire life. Sympathising for paedophiles who have committed crimes(as this is what this thread originally started out as with a specific example at the start), i think is completely out of the question.
Do i sympathise for the man who rapes a woman because he cannot get laid? No.
Do i sympathise for the cannibal who murders and eats somone because they cannot get human meat legally and freely? no.
Do i sympathise for the paedophile who rapes a 6 yr old child because no 6 yr old child in their right mind would consent to somthing like that? No.
I sympathise for these people that they have such conditions, but i do not symthasie for them when they cross the line i.e. do somthing so horrific and illegal.

I do believe prison is a deterrant for "emotion-driven crimes" as you put it, as if prison did not exist most people would cross those lines in an instant that they had so struggled not to cross before because of the consequences. Do you honestly believe that if we didn't have prison, that crime rates would be pretty much the same?


Reiku said:
As for the child pornography argument...
1) It's not that easy to get. Believe me, I've tried. When I first began puberty I became very interested in sex but did not want to see pornography of people almost a decade older than me, so I tried very hard to find materials involving people of my own age group.

I honestly wouldn't know how difficult it is to get hold of child porn, but if you look at glitters case you will note he managed to find thousands of it;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/517604.stm
 
Yay, this is actually what I wanted to discuss. And it seems someone can do it in a civilised manner too.

I was including all sexual acts when I said rape. I belive this is the definition of rape. dictionary.com
"The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse."

I haven't really covered child porn, although I beleive that I breifly denounced it above. The child porn industry leaves a child victim behind and so is completely unjustified. However written stories and drawn pictures are a different story. I would consider these to be acceptable as long as they do more to satisfy the paedophiles sex drive, than encourage them to rape children. Although I don't know which way it is in reality.

I feel I need to bring up two more points.
1)We don't know if someone is a paedophile before they commit a crime anyway, so we can't lock them up beforehand.
2)If people could come out, at least to medical proffesionals, as being a paedophile, without being locked away, they may be able to get help and more child rape cases could be avoided.
 
Hopefully this thread is getting back on track now. To avoid further confusion, let's assume these definitions from now on:

Paedophile An adult who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, although s/he may not have acted on those feelings and has therefore committed no crime

Paedophile rapist An adult who has had sexual relations with a pre-pubescent child and is therefore guilty of sexual abuse of a minor
KrazyKat said:
1)We don't know if someone is a paedophile before they commit a crime anyway, so we can't lock them up beforehand.
2)If people could come out, at least to medical proffesionals, as being a paedophile, without being locked away, they may be able to get help and more child rape cases could be avoided.
I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, I think that the outrage that people feel against paedophiles makes it unlikely that many would seek help.
 
I feel I need to bring up two more points.
1)We don't know if someone is a paedophile before they commit a crime anyway, so we can't lock them up beforehand.
2)If people could come out, at least to medical proffesionals, as being a paedophile, without being locked away, they may be able to get help and more child rape cases could be avoided.

If wishes were horses and grass were free......

To make myself very clear here, I understand the reasoning and thought pattern behind these statements. I also agree that it would be nice if we lived in a Utopian world where this could happen, yet for arguments purposes
I submit the following statements and questions in reply to this....


This question is to the first sentence, So the supposition that could be made is that you are saying that if you knew about the crime going to be committed ahead of time you would lock up the pedophile, right? Would you make the same supposition about people who commit other similar crimes?

Now this discussion goes into the twilight zone,
This is to the (2nd) statement; They are facts that's true, and I am willing to suppose that the majority of the population would agree with you as well. Why do you believe that a pedophile would "come out" on their own?

Why do you or why would anyone presume to assume that pedophiles view themselves as being "sick" and therefore neccessary for them to seek treatment. Many people that are institutionalized see no reason for their being there. They don't consider themselves to be sick.

I useThe following analogies for comparison purposes only, not to inflame To equate them with having a mental illness would be like saying that gay and lesbians need to seek professional help as well because it is not a normal behaviour. There are many in society that view these to be "behaviours" and not lifestyle choices. Or for that matter like here in Japan, many men thinking that a unmarried woman is not "natural" or "normal", that women should be married and having children, not working and being a viable part of society. Some would argue that this too is a type of "mental illness", that by choice of lifestyle there is something wrong with them.

Hopefully this thread is getting back on track now. To avoid further confusion, let's assume these definitions from now on:
First if KrazyKat had not made ambigious posts there would have been no problem in the first place, I believe, IMO that some of her comments come from her youth, which is not a bad thing, dont go and misunderstand that as well.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 55526 times.

Back
Top