Is Phillip Garrido a Serial Killer?

I think judges are often a weak link too. They often give inexplicably light sentences for sex crimes which is what makes the predator eligible for parole so quickly.

There is something very strange about the attitude toward sex crimes. it isn't taken very seriously. maybe it's because so much of our entertainment industry depends on sex and violence to sell their productions. i've been following a website that points out the appalling dehumanization and glorification of sadism toward models in fashion photography. There is also the rampant porn industry that goes on just below the surface of respectable society. athletes and movie stars are given a pass for outrageous sexual behavior. we are beginning to look askance at some politicians, but still there is the attitude that it's only sex, that americans are so puritan, that it's no big deal. but with this attitude that sexual abuse is not that big a deal, then what's the surprise that our court system doesn't take it seriously. that's aside from the things discussed earlier, that probably many judges, DAs, cops, parole officers and who know what else are involved in these pedophile rings.

it doesn't help for a few of us to say this is outrageous, if most people think it's no big deal.

Well, if you search the news on the story, it seems that there is more coming out on how poorly the system operated when it let Garrido out.

www.mercurynews.com...

How a sex offender managed to walk out of prison so soon after his conviction and allegedly perpetrate a similar crime right under the noses of authorities is an outrage that has left federal, state and local officials grasping for explanations.

It seems that until voters got involved, offenders convicted of lengthy sentences were regularly released after such a short time.

"This guy's a dinosaur," said Mike Reynolds, who after his daughter's murder pushed for passage of California's "three strikes you're out" law, which took effect in 1994. "This guy Phil got in before the wire."

Under federal laws in place in the 1970s, a convicted kidnapper such as Garrido, facing a sentence of 30 years or more, would be automatically considered for parole after just 10 years, said Tom Hutchison, chief of staff to the U.S. Parole Commission. That changed in 1987, when the government switched to a new system aimed at eliminating widespread sentencing disparities that effectively ended parole for federal crimes.

So it seems that under the old rules, instead of things being looked at on a case by case situation, the system basically operated on auto mode, letting everybody out after they had met the minimal requirements of good behavior, irregardless of the seriousness of their crime, and their potential threat to the community.

Yeah, having to deal with family court and traffic court a few times that I fought a ticket, that sounds right. It is all about two things, first, doing what is best for the system, second, doing the minimum. The needs of the public, or what is fair is not even considered. Talk to anyone in the system, they will tell you, this is how the system works, and that is the way things are done, even though the system in place is all screwed up.

Why is our legal system so screwed up?

The thing is, the article starts out talking about how could this happen, but ends doing nothing but providing excuses for the system.

California parole agents checked on Garrido in both announced and surprise visits, Hinkle said, but they never saw anything that would violate his parole. Hinkle added that it's unreasonable to expect agents to turn parolees' homes upside down with "shovels and sniffing dogs" looking for violations with each visit.

"Our parole agents do have search and seizure rights, but you have to keep in mind in a typical parole visit, they're checking to see that there are no drugs or alcohol, nobody around the house who doesn't belong there," Hinkle said. "None of those things were evident."

Federal authorities were equally at a loss to explain their oversight.

Asked to explain how the officers could have missed the presence of Dugard or her two young daughters, Dick Carelli, spokesman for the agency that oversees the federal parole service, paused, then said: "It's a very hard question, for which no answer will be satisfactory."

This last part gets to be pathetic. Nobody expects the parole officer to arrive with the dogs and turn the guys house inside and out on a typical visit.

If they are supposed to check to see that nobody is around the house that isn't supposed to be there, shouldn't that include taking a walk out into the guys extensive backyard?

Just in case the guy is operating an internment camp for girls snatched off the street and forced into sexual slavery in his backyard?

Also, the article doesn't bother to talk about Garrido's parole violation, and why a closer look wasn't made at the guys large compound at that time.

If they are looking for a satisfactory answer, they should start by admitting that they screwed up every step of the way, and that there needs to be a hard look at how people are doing their jobs.

Wow, this is extremely sad.

How did Garrido get out?

Apparently he passed a psych test.

voices.washingtonpost.com...

Obviously, the possibility that Garrido might offend again was crucial. To measure it, the parole examiner relied on a questionnaire which produced a Salient Factor Score (SFS). The SFS is an “empirically tested risk prediction instrument,” designed by the commission’s staff to calculate the likelihood that prisoners would revert to crime if released, according to Tom Hutchinson, the commission’s current chief of staff. The SFS, which is still in use, has an excellent forecasting record, Hutchinson says.

In hindsight, though, it clearly wasn’t created for a man like Phillip Garrido. The SFS focuses largely on the prisoner’s age (the older, the less likely to reoffend) and past behavior, as demonstrated by prior convictions. Since Garrido was in his late 30s and had no prior offenses, his SFS score would have been promising: nine points out of a possible 11.

Off his file went to Washington, where members of the parole commission concluded that he had done the right amount of time. None had a chance to look into Garrido’s face, which Leland Lutfy, the former assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the case, will never forget. “His eyes were dead,” Lutfy recalls. “It was clear in my mind he would do it again. He had no remorse. He was scary.” But Lutfy did not weigh in on the parole decision. Neither Lutfy nor Garrido’s victim received any notice of his parole eligibility; that, too, was normal at the time.

WOW, that is a lot of verbage to try and excuse what was obviously a horrendously managed system. Clearly this system was designed to completely ignore evidence, history, or anything to do with reality, and rely completely on some psyche test.

In other words, this system was designed to provide an excuse to allow anyone, with enough brains to give the answers the system was looking for, to be kicked back out onto the street.

How hard could it be to pass a test like this, telling authorities everything they want to hear about how reformed you now are? This Garrido was no master mind.

Mind you, this was not happening under a liberal administration, this was under Reagan, the man who sold our country back the the PTB.

IF anything, this was a system designed to put criminals back out onto the street, irregardless of their crimes.

WHY??????????????????

Because it allowed crime to run rampant, which provided the excuse to build the police state which has surrounded us.

Crime and perversion are everywhere around us.

WHY???????????????????????

Because our law enforcement system was designed to put the perps back onto the street to create more crime.

I'm sorry, but research shows that this Salient Factor score has nothing to do with any type of psychological testing.

Basically, the Salient factor score say that a criminal must be convicted several times before they will make the prisoner serve his whole sentence. Seriousness of the crime is taken into factor, but seems to be a small component.

In other words, they must get so much business out of criminal before they will lock him up for good in order to protect the public. Also, as he ages, we will give him more chances.

No wonder so many sick psychos wind up back on the streets. They barely consider the seriousness of their crimes, and do not look at the circumstances at all.

www.docstoc.com... actor-Score

This method was developed in 1972, under the Nixon admin..

www.usdoj.gov...

Apparently when Garrido was about 21 he kidnapped his first victim, but was not convicted.

www.latimes.com...

In 1972, Antioch police allege, he met a 14-year-old girl at the city library, gave her barbiturates and took her to a motel, where she passed out. Garrido raped her while she was unconscious, police said, and when she awoke, he did it again.

Garrido was arrested on April 17, 1972. But the girl did not want to press charges, so he was free to go.

This is another thing, why should the victim have to press charges. Shouldn't the DA have prosecuted anyway?

I had heard stories about other people known by acquaintances I have who also live lives or crime, and yet seem to have this charmed ability where the laws ignores them, even though many people have reported the activities of these people.

I hear these stories and ask why no one has ever called to police about this stuff, and they say the police refuse to do anything.

Is there some hidden agenda to allow certain criminals to operate?

Garrido seems to be one such person.

This is the first time I have seen such a situation in the news that was this big.

I think other people have heard these same types of tales, or read them in the paper and thought, how could this have been overlooked.

reply to post by poet1b


i don't know if you remember that horrible case in idaho a few years ago. someone came to a household and killed the two adults and several kids, then abducted the two youngest children, a boy and a girl. The boy was eventually killed but the little girl was kept for sex. eventually someone recognized the little girl and the guy was caught.

seems like it was a similar situation with that predator. he had been convicted ad paroled in another state, then they "lost track" of him, leaving him free to do his horrible deeds. I can't really remember the outcome. he plead guilty to a bunch of stuff and so there was no trial. we never learned why he murdered that whole family etc. the purpose was to "protect the little girl" from having to testify but i wonder if there were people involved who protected that predator. if i could remember some of the names, I'd look it up. the point is, these things keep happening ad they are inexplicable.

for that matter i read a book about the son of sam case that was written years after it happened and exposed a number of things that never came to light because they involved coverups. that wasn't about children (that we know of) but it is about coverup. I just don't understand the desire to protect these vile activities.

reply to post by earlywatcher


No, don't remember that one. Normally I ignore these stories, but this one just screams of incompetence on the part of our justice system, that I had to dig into the story.

However, I can imaging that one also repeats the pattern.

It like the story of the little beauty queen found dead in her parents home. They find semen on her, of a different DNA of the family, yet they still hold the family as the primary suspects. It screams of incompetence.

Why is our justice system so screwed up?

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by poet1b

 

i don't know if you remember that horrible case in idaho a few years ago. someone came to a household and killed the two adults and several kids, then abducted the two youngest children, a boy and a girl. The boy was eventually killed but the little girl was kept for sex. eventually someone recognized the little girl and the guy was caught.

seems like it was a similar situation with that predator. he had been convicted ad paroled in another state, then they "lost track" of him, leaving him free to do his horrible deeds. I can't really remember the outcome. he plead guilty to a bunch of stuff and so there was no trial. we never learned why he murdered that whole family etc. the purpose was to "protect the little girl" from having to testify but i wonder if there were people involved who protected that predator. if i could remember some of the names, I'd look it up. the point is, these things keep happening ad they are inexplicable.

for that matter i read a book about the son of sam case that was written years after it happened and exposed a number of things that never came to light because they involved coverups. that wasn't about children (that we know of) but it is about coverup. I just don't understand the desire to protect these vile activities.

I remember that case. That one wasn't all that long ago, either.

Wasn't the family from Idaho or something? Or was it Iowa? I'm leaning towards Idaho though.

reply to post by Jessicamsa


outside of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. that's where the murders took place. I'm from Oregon so close by, which is probably why we heard more about it. i just searched for it and found that a lot has happened since. read this to see that garrido is not the only serial predator out there:
Joseph Duncan

how many more are out there? and WHY?

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by Jessicamsa

 

outside of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. that's where the murders took place. I'm from Oregon so close by, which is probably why we heard more about it. i just searched for it and found that a lot has happened since. read this to see that garrido is not the only serial predator out there:
Joseph Duncan

how many more are out there? and WHY?

Only God knows how many more are out there. The world is filled with evil.

These people need to be kept where they can never harm anyone else.

I knew it was an 'I' state, but I knew it wasn't Illinois.

I don' think the problem is that there are so many out there, but that our justice system insists on putting these people back out there even though it is obvious that they will continue to prey on the public.

Here is some history on Joseph Edward Duncan III

Edit - Oops, forgot the link.

www.freerepublic.com...

Court and police records paint a picture of Joseph Edward Duncan III's life as one without roots and a criminal record that started early.

In January 1980, a month before he turned 17, Duncan broke into a neighbor's home in Tacoma, Wash., and stole four semi-automatic pistols, according to Pierce County (Wash.) Sheriff's Department investigators' reports.

Notifying the public about Duncan Later that day, Duncan pulled a gun on a 14-year-old boy walking home from school. Deputies said Duncan took the 14-year-old to a wooded area and raped him.

Duncan also beat the boy with a branch and burned him with a cigarette lighter, deputies said.

Duncan pleaded guilty to a charge of first-degree rape while armed with a firearm and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

On the recommendations of a Pierce County probation officer, a judge suspended the sentence and ordered Duncan to enter the sexual offender program at Western State Hospital in Steilacoom, Wash.

While there, Duncan told doctors he had his first homosexual and heterosexual experiences when he was 12.

He said when he was 15 he forced a 9-year-old to have sexual contact with him at gunpoint.

Duncan told doctors that when he was 16 he tied up six boys, ages 6 through 10, and forced them to have sexual contact with him.

Duncan later said he made up those stories to be accepted into the hospital and avoid prison.

In March 1982, state hospital officials said Duncan was no longer amenable to treatment after he left the hospital grounds and peeped in the windows of nearby homes.

A judge revoked his suspended sentence and Duncan began serving his time in a state penitentiary.

Duncan was paroled several times and returned to prison for parole violations, including failing to register as a sex offender in Kansas City, Mo., where the FBI arrested him in August 1997.

Once again, the guy proves that he will continue to prey on the public, and yet they keep releasing the animal back out there to kill and rape.

What this succeeds in doing is upping the crime statistics, keeps feeding the system, more money for courts, jails, judges, and police and all the other associated people.

I don't see how anyone could view this as anything but intentional.



[edit on 6-9-2009 by poet1b]

Somewhere, I've saved details of a 20 year study (approx) in the UK, after which researchers stated it was apparent that despite strenuous efforts to rehabilitate paeophiles over a prolonged period, such 'rehabilitation' was now admitted to be a failure. The researchers also stated that of all criminals, and with regard particularly to sexual offenders --- peodophiles continued to offend and to attempt to offend into advanced old age. If memory serves, the article gave as examples peodophiles in their late 70s and well into their 80s, who continued sexual crimes against children. The conclusion was that paeophiles sought child victims until the paeophile died.

It's difficult to find information these days online --- such a lot is being purged. I'll continue to look for the article in order to post here, but in the meantime, there's this:

A number of paedophiles at a psychiatric prison in Groningen were found with cd-r discs containing child porn during an inspection, reports Wednesday's Telegraaf. Soft drugs were also found

cartooncat.newsvine.com...

Currently used methods to treat paedophiles are largely useless, reports YLE's investigative journalism programme Silminnäkijä. Treatment must be voluntary, and few convicted child molesters chose this option.

pasi.newsvine.com...

Paedophiles may have reduced concentrations of nerve cells in key areas of the brain compared to normal people, according to a study published by German researchers.

www.newsvine.com...

Now, for attitudes demonstrated within the Legal and other fraternities,
please scroll down to the second article, entitled: ' Truth, Justic, Honour' at the link below, to see the astounding attitudes of some sentencing judges and other 'worthies' within communities who have gone so far as to describe the rape of a child by a gang of males aged 17, 18 and 26 years as 'naughty' and 'just experimentation' !

I haven't read it in full yet, but see if it outrages and sicken you as much as what I've read so far has sickened and depressed me

absolutezerounited.blogspot.com...

here are some excerpts:

First up we have Australian Judge Sarah Bradley. Her case involved a 10 year old girl who was gang raped by 9 men. The prosecuting attorney described the rape as "a form of childish experimentation, rather than one child being prevailed upon by another" and said the males including a 17, 18 and 26-year-old, were "naughty".
And Her Honor based her judgment on her own opinion that the girl
"probably agreed to have sex with all of the offenders"

This ten year old child had previously been molested multiple times AND she contracted a venereal disease during this encounter. She was subsequently removed from her foster family and returned to the community where all her victimizations had occured and in which her victimizers lived within their prestigious and now obviously influental families.

With this decision, Judge Bradley told this girl she was unimportant. That what these men did to her was just something she would have to accept. Every single one of the rapists pleaded guilty. Every single one of them received a slap on the wrist except for 6 of them who received........nothing.

The information about other cases detailed on the page beneath 'Truth, Justice, Honour' and the law's attitude TO paeophiles, will make you speechless in disbelief

absolutezerounited.blogspot.com...

And to see how citizens' action groups uncover paedophiles that SOMEHOW the law 'can't find',

see this page from one such anti-peodophile group

which is part of a much larger site devoted to protecting the children that judges and parole officers seem to regard as inconsequential .. while the offenders themselves are offered tea and sympathy

absolutezerounited.blogspot.com...

I do not think those in power care about the children at all. They do nothing to protect the victims.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
I do not think those in power care about the children at all. They do nothing to protect the victims.

It's sickening to read through various sites which deal head-on with paeophilia, but it's the only way to become informed

Because ... although governments are being seen to take a 'hard line' approach to crimes against children via 'help' lines and seminars, public-awareness campaigns and formal sex-education -- such have usually been achieved via strident and prolonged public campaigning. It's been people-driven. With governments being pushed to take action

Or, we might regard a government's seeming interest in child welfare as being the umbrella via which governments might push 'sex education' upon our children

Various threads in ATS and many other fora during the past five years have brought to attention what is often regarded as inappropriate 'sex education'

As well, we might consider the inappropriate 'toys' .. supposedly for small children ... which sneak their way into children's lives. The 'Barbie pole dancing doll' for example, which is subject of a current ATS thread.

Then, cases like the Garrido horror emerge in the mainstream media. Such cases prompt questions and quite rightly so

So then the outraged public begins researching crimes against children. The public wants harsh sentencing or execution as a means of ridding society of these vermin

Which prompts certain others (paid to post, as part of the 'editorial intelligence' agenda, via which vested interest groups PAY slugs to 'form and shape' public-opinion) to spring to life in fora and whilst not openly defending paedophilia, they certainly attempt to portray it as an 'illness' with the paedophile a victim. And, by extension, the public is encouraged to regard the actual victims .. the children .. as 'collateral damage' resulting from the 'illness' that is claimed to be paedophilia.

Each time, the Garrido type cases flash and burn and capture the headlines. Many (who would NEVER admit it to themselves) gain sexual satisfaction vicariously through reading the sordid details of paedophile cases

Then the headlines die down. They can't compete against ever more sensationalistic news items. It's announced the paedophile has been sentenced to life. The public breathes a sigh of relief and begins allowing its children to walk to the park alone again.

Those who care sufficiently might seek the sentencing judge's pronouncements re: the case. The might learn that the judge has deemed the crime to be 'minor', or even 'naughty' (as revealed in one of my above posts). In many instances, the judge states outright or at least implies, that the child victim was not an altogether unwilling partner. Some judges have even accused the child victim of being 'promiscuous' and 'flirtatious'.

And in the above processes, some members of the public have been persuaded by 'experts' and online apologists that 'paedophilia is an illness', just like alcoholism or drug-addiction. And people who regard themselves as 'decent folk' tell themselves that it would be similar to 'racism' for them to hold paedophiles responsible for their 'illness'.

So, bit by bit, the public (and children of course) are being slowly and ruthlessly persuaded (via all the above) to regard children as sexual beings .. as 'sex partners'

It's an insidious process that's being played out right under our noses. But because we have lives to live outside the arena of paedophile crimes (unlike paedophiles, pornographers, lawyers, police, sentencing judges, parole boards) we dont' see the jig-saw pieces being determinedly put in place

There's an agenda at foot, in the opinion of those members of the public who have MADE it their business to stay on top of developments.

And that agenda is the sexualisation of children in tandem with the softening of opinions re: paedophilia.

Some have likened it to the 'gay agenda' -- which of course makes people immediately take issue that homosexuality and paedophilia would be mentioned in the same page. They stridently insist that gays are 'normal folk' with every right to be recognised as such by society. Yet less than 50 years ago, gays were despised as 'perverts' by society at large. And gays themselves as a rule kept their sexual preference and activities to themselves, even marrying to escape the stigma. Nowadays it seems every sixth person insists you know they are gay and 'speshull' and more deserving of society's 'acceptance' than the heterosexual majority.

I have no opinion to express here about homosexuality, other than to draw comparisons between the engineered acceptance of gays and the orchestrated agenda working now to push the same 'acceptance' of paedophiles in the near future

[edit on 6-9-2009 by St Vaast]

reply to post by poet1b


i still think that our society doesn't take sex crimes all that seriously. the official view is "just terrible" but the real attitude is boys will be boys, that it's kind of normal. maybe a little beyond normal but not much. it's understandable. no big deal.

there is a sense in many people that the need for sex is so potent that it cannot and must not be denied, even if some people are hurt.

i know this sounds crazy, but it is the only explanation that fits the facts.

reply to post by St Vaast


this is a good point about pedophilia being an illness, and therefore a person isn't responsible. it's a very difficult concept to argue. this pretty much removes responsibility from anything icky. to say it's an illness.

another think i find difficult to understand is the emphasis on children recognizing inappropriate touching, as though it's up to the child to say something and make it stop. the adult isn't responsible, the child is. that's crazy.

i don't know what is really going on with this situation. it is so terrible to put all children and women at risk because some men have uncontrollable sexual urges to pair sex and violence. i don't accept that you can call it an illness and make it not an intentional crime. people do have a choice.

that doesn't explain the serial parole for pedophiles.

If we return at this point to Garrido, it's been revealed in a UK online news source (Mail Online UK) that Garrido's preference for children as sex partners was already apparent when he was in his early teens. And by his mid-teens, he was already exposing himself and masturbating in his car outside primary schools, etc.

The picture has been muddied to an extent by the fact Garrido kidnapped and raped a young woman in his mid-20s. It's this crime which the media focuses upon as it was for this crime that Garrido was sentenced to 50 years (although paroled after 11 years).

Now his earlier crimes are emerging, it seems apparent that Garrido's sexual preference for young children was established by puberty.

A recent tragic case in the UK reveals that a man of 40 sexually molested his girlfriends nine year old daughter before murdering her and killing himself. Initially, the mainstream media was at pains that it be known that prior to commencing his relationship with the mother of his final victim, the man had been involved in a ten year relationship with an adult woman. So .. initially .. the public would have drawn the impression that the man had been 'normal' (i.e., preferred sex with adult women) and that his molesting of the little girl was an aberration.

Since then however, it's been disclosed that the man had been known to the police at least since his teens and that he'd revealed paedophile tendencies before. These had been concealed behind his seeming preference for grown women.

In Sydney Australia a few years ago, a man was finally jailed for a lifetime's paedophile offences. He was a gardener in the city, near a drug-clinic. He met women there when they attended the clinic. Many of the women were single-mothers (divorced, widowed, separated, etc.). He established relationships with them. The women were lonely. They had low self-esteem due to a number of reasons.

The women were thrilled to have a man in their lives and it might be assumed their children were also happy to have something akin to a 'real family'.

The women were of the impression that the gardener was attracted to them. What woman, after all, would consider that a man would be pretending to have a sexual relationship with them in order to get at the real source of his desire .. the children ? Most women's egos wouldn't allow the woman to think such a thing. Yet it's very common. Paedophiles use it a lot.

The gardener, having established himself as the women's lover, was trusted by these women. He encouraged the women to go out for a night with the girls, or to take up evening classes. The women gratefully agreed. It was a chance for them to do something on their own, for themselves. They believed their lives had been turned around for the better and that they'd established a 'new family' and provided a 'new daddy' for their children.

This of course was the payoff for the gardener (and all those paedophiles who use the same method). With the mother away and trusting him implicitly, he began cultivating the children as sex partners. The poor children, deprived of a natural father's love .. and afraid of losing their 'new daddy' .. were drawn into the web.

The paedophile has an armory of techniques to be used to render children compliant. One is the threat that their mother or siblings will be killed if they don't comply. At other times the paedophile threatens the life of the child victim, or threatens to lie about the child to adults. The child knows the paedophile would very possibly be believed. And, if the child has shown the slightest willingness to accept the paedophile's 'love', no matter how innocent at first .. then the paedophile uses this as blackmail .. threatens to tell the world that the child 'liked it, initiated it, agreed to it' etc.

The gardener was sexually abusing the children of several of the women he was involved with, simultaneously.

He said, when arrested, that some of the women 'were aware' that he was sexually molesting and raping their children, but the women had been prepared to ignore it, in order to keep him (the gardener) in their lives. In short, he was saying the women were prepared to sacrifice their children, in order to have a sex partner themselves.

The gardener admitted that his sexual preference was for children, first and foremost. Yet clearly he'd been prepared to engage in sexual relationships with women in order to gain access to their children.

Some people choose to have sex partners of the opposite sex
Some people choose to have partners of the same sex
Some people choose to have partners of both sexes

And some people prefer children as their sex partners. It is their primary sexual preference.

Expecting paedophiles to be 'cured' or 'rehabilitated' is as unrealistic as expecting heterosexuals, homosexuals and bi-sexuals to cease having sex because .. 'society doesn't like who you're having sex with'.

Therefore, imo, life imprisonment of proven paedophiles is the ONLY way society can deal with them.

Sentencing judges, lawyers, certain 'experts' and members of society would argue that incarceration of paedophiles is 'inhumane'

and would argue that paedophiles ' have as much right to a fulfilling sex life (with the children who are their choice) as anyone else'. THIS is the argument (in many versions, hard and soft sell, etc.) that is being pushed at the moment, bit by bit.

Children, meanwhile, have NO say in these 'adult discussions'. Instead, they are being sexualised via the media, via toy-producers, via 'sex education', the music and tv industry and other means, to regard themselves as 'attractive and sexy' little creatures who are in high demand.

The paedophiles' motto is said to be: ' Sex before eight or it's too late'.

If society succumbs to this agenda and agrees, bit by bit, to sacrifice its children to sex with adults .. then we might as well stop pretending to have evolved at all, throw off our clothes, eat with our hands and go back to swinging through the trees again. imo

reply to post by earlywatcher

i don't know what is really going on with this situation. it is so terrible to put all children and women at risk because some men have uncontrollable sexual urges to pair sex and violence. i don't accept that you can call it an illness and make it not an intentional crime. people do have a choice.

that doesn't explain the serial parole for pedophiles

.


I'm glad you've picked through and picked-up on the salient motives within the agenda: i.e., the 'responsibility' being foisted on the child victims and the watering-down and ignoring that the responsibility lies with the adult, for example

If you work back through the various aspects of the agenda (which is to sexualise children via 'sex education', the media', inappropriate toys and constant emphasis upon sex generally in tv, movies, music, children's books and magazines, etc.) THEN compare that side of the agenda with the manifestly inappropriate sentencing of paedophiles and the leniency demonstrated by many sentencing judges and parole boards, etc. --- then I think you WILL grasp why so many proven, repeat paedophiles are being paroled early