Pedophiles - 'Brand' them like the animals they are

Originally posted by Brood
how are we supposed to learn that killing is the wrong way to address a situation if we kill the people that we don't want to deal with?

...executing rightfully convicted pedophiles is dealing with them and it is the only viable way of dealing with them because it is the only way to make sure they never rape another child...

Originally posted by Brood
Last time I checked, every kindergarten student knew that two wrongs don't make a right. This basic principle somehow does not carry over to many adults because they are too blinded by bias and ignorance.

...exactly when did you personally check out what kindergarten students know - or - are you just confusing conjecture with fact again?...

...since you're defending pedophilia, it would be wise to leave off your perceptions of the opinions of innocent children...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


What more can I say but Thank YOU for your post!

Second line

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


I second the Thank You to Wyn Hawks!
___________________________________________________________________________________

The scum bags can not be rehabilitated and if not locked up for life they should be executed when there is no doubt of guilt.
There should be no mercy for these animals as they show no mercy with our children.


S&F

sl

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by BiohazardsBack
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

Check again good sir. You seem to have mistaken me for someone else. I have never in my life gone to college, as school is bad for me.

...no mistake and i'm not a sir...

Ok well, I made an assumption and was wrong. I tend to assume gender based on avatar picture if I have nothing else to go on, and your scorpion looked manly to me, since so many men's jewelry items have scorpions on them.

And yes. You did make a mistake. You called me a 6th year psychology student, and I have never been to college.

Pedophilia is a MENTAL DISORDER.

...that is merely conjecture, dear - not fact...

Do your research, legally it is considered a fact, as it is classified as such medically. Or are you telling me that you know more about mental disorders than the people who literally wrote the book on them?
The DSM labels pedophilia as a Paraphilia, which is a medical mental disorder as decided by the top mental experts. You can disagree all you want, but it IS legally a fact, as anything written in the DSM can be used as fact in a court of law.

Originally posted by IceHappy
ATS has gone down in my opinion. Intellectuals talk about the topic - you don't have to agree, but rather discuss the subject or better put the spirit of the OP which has merit and the truth is that something needs to be done and if you did not like their idea well IMHO an intellectual would suggest a better one. There was no suggestions and yet a few of us repeatedly asked for a conversation. It saddens me this attitude... Branding is not a good idea well what is.... Leaving the status quo since the start of time has not and is not working.

So what will???? as one poster stated Beeeep (buzzer sound here) out of time!

Once again, skipping what you did not want to see. I have said a minimum of 3 times my alternate suggestion, and only one sentence was given to me in return, and not by you. When I then replied to that response, nothing more was said.

My suggestion was to revoke their citizenship and permanently ban them from whichever society they had broken the rules of. The response was along the lines of it being wrong to force your problems on someone else, to which I said that they would be accepting the new citizen in full knowledge of their past crimes, as any immigration process takes into account past crimes.
So please tell me what legal or moral quandaries there are with telling someone to leave the society whose rules they broke, if they broke them in a violent way, and repeatedly, as Silo is suggesting should be the case for branding?

Giving someone else your problems is not really a "problem" here, because you cannot legally immigrate to a new country without being willfully accepted into it, and certainly if it were done the way I suggested (organized by the government, being brought to the new country by someone like a police or immigration officer which happens in most deportations that are at risk of refusing to leave) the government receiving the new ex-convict would be fully aware of the situation, and if they choose to accept them despite what laws they have broken, so be it. It would not in any way be "forcing" another country to take them, it would be giving the criminal a chance to convince another country to let them in.
I should think that that would be appropriate for anyone who kills another.


Certainly, I would prefer for safety that they be locked up indefinitely, but people in the US refuse to allow that due to the cost in tax dollars. It would cost approximately $2,000 to fly someone elsewhere (with a guardian to ensure no escapes happen), which is less than the cost of keeping someone in prison for two months.

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

I second the Thank You to Wyn Hawks!
___________________________________________________________________________________

The scum bags can not be rehabilitated and if not locked up for life they should be executed when there is no doubt of guilt.
There should be no mercy for these animals as they show no mercy with our children.


S&F

sl

A) there are no circumstances in which there can be no doubt of guilt. DNA evidence can and has been planted in the past, filmed evidence could simply be someone very similar looking, etc etc. There is no absolute proof that someone did or did not do something, ever, except to the person who did it. They are the only one who can know if they did or did not do it.

B) Your OPINION that they cannot be rehabilitated was disproven on the last page. The rate of re-offending (any crime) is less than 50%, and the rate of re-offending sexually is 35%. This means a minimum of one half to a maximum of two thirds of those convicted will never be convicted of it again, which usually means they did not re-offend, since they are very closely watched by both police officers and local "vigilantes" due to there being a neighborhood search option on the National Sex Offender Registry.
The claim that they simply do it and do not get caught is irrelevant, since first-time criminals can do it without getting caught as well. Those who are not caught cannot possibly be included in statistics, because we do not know they exist, but it can be assumed that those "good" enough at what they do to not get caught again under current circumstances should have been "good" enough to not get caught the first time. People who make one mistake are not meticulous enough as a person to avoid making another later on.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

...executing rightfully convicted pedophiles is dealing with them and it is the only viable way of dealing with them because it is the only way to make sure they never rape another child...

I'm going to assume that you mean child molesters, and not pedophiles, although you will continue to use that word as if you know what it means. It is not the only way of ensuring that they do not rape another child, many ideas of separate correctional facilities and other strange ideas have been brought up but you all quickly brush them off because you have this sick bloodlust to kill you fellow human beings because you don't argee with what they do. I don't agree with it either, I think it's outright disgusting, but I'm not going to kill them for it. You're right, I do defend "pedophiles"; because I'm aware of what they actually are -- clearly none of you are, assuming all pedophiles molest children -- so ignorant . You people are really showing who the REAL animals are here by immediately resorting to violent behavior to solve your problems. Go back to 17th century Salem where you belong.

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks


I'm going to assume that you mean child molesters, and not pedophiles, although you will continue to use that word as if you know what it means. It is not the only way of ensuring that they do not rape another child, many ideas of separate correctional facilities and other strange ideas have been brought up but you all quickly brush them off because you have this sick bloodlust to kill you fellow human beings because you don't argee with what they do. I don't agree with it either, I think it's outright disgusting, but I'm not going to kill them for it. You're right, I do defend "pedophiles"; because I'm aware of what they actually are -- clearly none of you are, assuming all pedophiles molest children -- so ignorant

. You people are really showing who the REAL animals are here by immediately resorting to violent behavior to solve your problems. Go back to 17th century Salem where you belong.

edit on 14-10-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

You confuse me. Child molesters are not pedophiles? Yet you defend pedophiles? No blood lust here. Just want to corral the misfits into a place they can do no harm.

Hopefully you are finishing your psych. degree and writing a peer reviewed paper in an ultra liberal paper.

We are all animals btw. Some are far more intent on harm than others. Lock down the pedo's!

reply to post by brilab45


No actually, most child molesters are not medically defined as Pedophiles, and most Pedophiles are never arrested for child molestation, or even accused by a victim, only by people who hear the term for a sexual preference and assume without knowing any details that they are a rapist.

Defending pedophiles is NOT defending child molesters or child rapists, because a very small amount of pedophiles turn out to be child molesters.
Saying that all pedophiles rape or molest children is statistically equivalent to saying all heterosexual men rape or sexually abuse women. Having sexual urges towards someone does not mean you will forcibly take sex from them. The ones who do commit a violent crime often have another mental issue that caused them to rape someone, not an excuse for it but simply a matter of fact that a normal, well-adjusted person will not force ANYONE to have sex with them against their will, and many people who have the sexual orientation (or paraphilia as it is legally defined as, and paraphilia includes fetishists, people who use S&M in sex or want to use it, and pedophilia, technically legally making it some sort of fetish, and most of the population has a fetish of some sort) of pedophilia ARE normal, well adjusted people, who happen to have what is assumed to be a genetic flaw that allows them to view children as sexually attractive.

Regardless, whether it is a paraphilia or a sexual orientation, neither makes them more likely to commit sexual aggression against someone's will.
Pedophilia does not affect the part of the person's brain that controls violent urges, only the part which controls who a person is attracted to. Unfortunately, the only info on brain scans of pedophiles I can find online are those who have already been convicted of a sex crime, since most of the population never gets a brain scan, and the diagnosis by a mental health professional of Pedophilia is left out of any non-psychological medical records, so even if they got one there would likely be nobody who thought to look into the differences, because the doctor at the hospital is unlikely to know you have the diagnosis unless you were sent for a brain scan for it.

reply to post by BiohazardsBack

Once again, skipping what you did not want to see. I have said a minimum of 3 times my alternate suggestion, and only one sentence was given to me in return, and not by you. When I then replied to that response, nothing more was said. My suggestion was to revoke their citizenship and permanently ban them from whichever society they had broken the rules of. The response was along the lines of it being wrong to force your problems on someone else, to which I said that they would be accepting the new citizen in full knowledge of their past crimes, as any immigration process takes into account past crimes.

I did warn you that I was not going to read muddled writing several times so don't acted surprised that this was not read!

Now that I have seen your suggestion in the last post from which the above quote came from I am ignoring your solution as it was not a real solution.

Let me explain why.

In what world or what country would take in a child molester for free of charge and only cost to the USA tax payer would be a airplane ticket, 1) a round trip and the 2) one way which historically is more expensive that a round trip ticket! The guard escort will require travel time payment as any courier or guard would incur which is not cheap and of course the escort will need to eat both ways! I know this for 27 years flying to and from UK to USA and back.

The next problem IMHO to your solution: In my recollection only the USA has taken in foreigners criminals, sex offenders and mental patients and that was United States from Cuba. As far as I know the American Tax Payer is still paying for that one! Oh we did not know what these prisoners were in jail for and thought they were political prisoners if my memory serves me right. This has become Castro's little joke on America!

As I see it the only other way a foreign country would takes these sexual monsters in would be to enslaved them into some kind of commercial tasks which would enabled that country to sell in order to pay for the molester's guard, room and board, hospitalization etc. I don't see this idea of yours as a real solution or a workable one and since you have given no mechanics of this solution to the how this will work.

Re: Branding no poster seems to think that is a bright idea even if there is perfect DNA evidence and the branding is done under medical conditions which would not be torturous conditions for the offender then I cannot believe these posters in this tread would be willing to give the molesters over to slavers in favour of your idea over the OP's! How else would these sexual molesters eat and have housing cost met????? Do you know of a vacant country with no way out, that none of us has heard about yet, to magically solve this incarceration problem? Please enlighten me to the mechanics of your humane solution so we can all understand it.

Branding might be workable. Your so called improvement solution I don't see it or the mechanics on how it works. If it doesn't work out side of magic island somewhere with ample year round food naturally then you are making fun of me requesting a serious solution!

reply to post by IceHappy


I have stated that I am 19 years old. Where did you get the impression that I was an English teacher?

Again, show me where I am attacking you, because I am not personally insulting you anywhere as far as I am aware. All I said was that your opinion that someone could be stupid enough to parade a child around town with "child rapist" essentially written on their forehead was preposterous.
Pointing out ways in which your opinion is flawed is not insulting you, and I am sorry you feel that I am, because I try very hard on this thread not to. I have, in fact, backspaced over several snide remarks within the past 2 days, because once I type them out I feel better without having to subject the person to viewing them.

Anyone used to visiting forums, as you obviously are from your comments about my supposed lack of knowledge would be able to read my clearly defined post that involves putting empty lines between comments to allow your eyes to rest and see clearly where one point ends and another begins, a tactic which you do not yet appear to have mastered in your longer posts.
I do not see how my post could be "too muddled to read" unless your vision is exceptionally bad, in which case any long post would be difficult to read.

I am beginning to believe that you must be one of those smarter people you referred to in the first paragraph.

Please more accurately describe what you mean by this, as to most people that reads as if you just also accused me of being a child molester, despite that being a blatant TOS violation for which posts in that very page have already been deleted, considering the fact that if that IS what you were implying, you are doing so without evidence, and insinuating that someone with a medical diagnosis of pedophile is somehow unworthy of reading the posts of despite them being full of proven facts. So it would be both needless insulting, AND discrimination.

And please, if you did mean to imply that, tell me how you think a 19 year old female (statistically very unlikely to be a molester due to both age and sex) who has no siblings or child family members (even more statistically unlikely to be a molester due to only 10%ish of molesters abusing a stranger) and who has not babysat (so where would I meet the children, and when would I be alone with them?) managed to become a child molester?
Oh and add to that the fact that I do not and nor have I ever owned a car, and therefore could not really manage to abduct a child.

reply to post by IceHappy


The USA and Canada both regularly deport people by this method, and nobody complains about the tax cost of removing a harmless illegal immigrant from the country, so why would they complain about someone who is a danger to society? Travel time and food allowance for an immigration officer is usually approximately $200, IF they are gone for two days. My mother has been employed by immigration, and I am close friends with one of her coworkers who was often sent on such trips, so I am well aware of government travel time costs, since she travels to conferences quite often.

Many countries will take convicted felons, because medical science has shown that child molesters can manage their urges, and the US is pretty much the only country that refuses to even attempt to help them, rather than simply punish them.

As I see it the only other way a foreign country would takes these sexual monsters in would be to enslaved them into some kind of commercial tasks which would enabled that country to sell in order to pay for the molester's guard, room and board, hospitalization etc. I don't see this idea of yours as a real solution or a workable one and since you have given no mechanics of this solution to the how this will work.

So you would rather, what? Brand them and make their lives a living hell and leave them available to molest or rape more children, rather than make their lives a potential living hell and keep them away from your society's children? And all children in their country too, if they are literally enslaved.
What is the difference between a life in jail and a life of being a working "slave" who gets adequate room and board? The slave would get more fresh air, and be less likely to be beaten if they are a child molester, because in case people still are not aware, child molesters get roughed up A LOT in prison.
You are pretending to express sympathy for these people, but your proposed solutions show none.

I cannot believe these posters in this tread would be willing to give the molesters over to slavers in favour of your idea over the OP's!

You get that many child molesters have money, right? They have enough money to buy themselves out of slavery, usually, considering the major culprits are middle class men.
How else would they eat? Or have a roof over their heads?
Oh, I don't know, perhaps the exact same way they have one here before they are arrested? By WORKING?

Do you know of a vacant country with no way out, that none of us has heard about yet, to magically solve this incarceration problem?

Almost every country accepts some immigrants. There doesn't have to BE no way out, they would not have to be incarcerated in the new country, they would only need to be prevented from returning to the place in which they committed the crime, which is actually quite easy for technologically advanced countries such as any western country, simply by blocking them when they get off the plane, as so many are.
Canada prevents certain rappers from entering the country, the US prevents suspected terrorists from entering the country, why would they be unable to type in that person's passport number and refuse them access?
Not to mention, they would hardly WANT to return, as they would most likely be imprisoned if caught going back, and be completely free in their new country.

Child molesters, once off probation, are legally allowed to travel wherever they please. Now this would simply lock them out of one country. Some countries refuse access to criminals, but they are few and far between.

www.ehow.com...

Some countries, such as the United States, require travelers with criminal records to get a waiver, which is a matter of a fee and an application. In the U.S., this good for five years, but validation varies by country. Other countries have no restrictions to criminal records, while some deny entry to only those convicted of specific crimes, such as murder, or anything having to do with guns or drugs.

Bolding mine. The main point is that some countries have literally no restrictions based on criminal records and entering the country, which means that some will not have restrictions on criminal records and immigrating to the country.

reply to post by BiohazardsBack
1


We are in a different age than the early 19th century. Yes, there are people that want a mate that is young and immature. But then, it was nearly a requirement to impregnate a young women for years to farm the land. However, lifespans were much shorter.

We do not farm the land anymore. Big corporations do that for us.

Certainly, we have ascertained that people should not propagate until they are older and more mature.

Guess my issue is more with men having sex with boys. Big NO NO NOT!

I'm livid about this issue!

reply to post by brilab45


Where did I reference the 19th century in that post?

More importantly, what does this post have to do with my reply to you, which explained that pedophiles are not equivalent to child molesters, and child molesters are not equivalent to pedophiles?

Pedophiles are physically attracted to PRE-PUBESCENT children, meaning they cannot physically propagate anyways, so the supposed "right" age at which to conceive a child is useless in this situation.


And wow, really? Your issue is with men having sex with boys not children?
Sounds like your real issue is related to homophobia, not child welfare.

Originally posted by IceHappy
ATS has gone down in my opinion. Intellectuals talk about the topic - you don't have to agree, but rather discuss the subject or better put the spirit of the OP which has merit and the truth is that something needs to be done and if you did not like their idea well IMHO an intellectual would suggest a better one. There was no suggestions and yet a few of us repeatedly asked for a conversation. It saddens me this attitude... Branding is not a good idea well what is.... Leaving the status quo since the start of time has not and is not working.

There have been suggestions and discussions about that etc ... Perhaps haven't read the whole thread? Suggestions such as making help lines, execution, leaving it up to the professionals etc etc ...

It's a bit difficult to make suggestions in a thread such as this without being called a defender of child sex offenders etc ... or being accused of not having any compassion. This isn't a thread predominantly populated by intellectual discussion unfortunately.

It's full of conjecture and emotional lashing out.

The topic is generally surrounded by an invisible layer of protection that scares most intellectuals away from the discussion. People need to be able to keep level heads to discuss things like this but I doubt it will ever happen.

reply to post by BiohazardsBack


Oh no, guessed wrong. Read earlier posts. I was molested by adults when I was eleven. They were men. I was a boy. Tell me what is wrong with my HOMOPHOBIA. I am gay. Was it forced? Was it because of my experience? Did I choose this? NO!

Walk in my shoes buddy. I hate pedophiles and I want to seek a way to control these venomous creatures from harming another.

I feel very vengeful.

Edit: I was threatened with my life and life of my family. Tell me what?! *Snip*. All child predators must be jailed.


please don't circumvent the automatic censors.
Thanks

reply to post by brilab45


Regardless of sexual orientation, saying that men having sex with boys is the ONLY problem with child molestation is homophobia. What exactly makes it less difficult on little girls than little boys, in your opinion?

And no, if you are mostly or exclusively sexually attracted to men, NOBODY made you that way. Not a molester, not you, not your upbringing. You simply are that way. Statistically, boys molested by men have an equal rate of homosexuality once grown as non-molested boys in the same area (obviously countries which offer a death sentence as a punishment for homosexuality have a "different rate" due to not allowing themselves to come out as gay)
There are some cases of people taking on a sexual preference that is not their own, but those cases are almost all of females raped by males, and once they are treated for phobia of penises caused by their rape (or simply with time as they grow to accept what has happened to them), they are usually bisexual.


You are still, by the way, referring to child molesters as "pedophiles", despite my pointing out that most child molesters are NOT clinically defined as a pedophile once examined, and most pedophiles do not resort to child molestation. Saying that they do is the same as saying that all or most heterosexual men will rape a woman, or that all or most homosexual men will rape a man. The rate of rape is pretty comparable to those seen in other sexual preferences, with no significant difference between pedophiles and non-pedophiles.



Edit to add, now that I have seen your edit.
Nobody (as far as I have seen) is saying do not jail child predators. What people have mostly said while disagreeing with someone in favor of this thread has been
a) pedophile is not equivalent to child predator/child molester/child rapist/baby rapist, along with an explanation of what pedophilia is, medically, and why that makes the assumptions wrong and not legally viable nor real-life viable.
b) branding child predators is inhumane/cruel/not effective.
I mainly go with "not effective", basing my opinion on facts and medical studies, whereas those who disagree with me seem to be basing it on emotions or gut feelings while reacting to the idea of someone raping a child.
If you would like to see my opinions on why a branding would be ineffective to cease child molestation, read back a couple of pages. 2 or 3 should do it, I get accused of illegible posting when I explain the facts, seeing as there are simply too many of them for most people to absorb at once.

I have never said jailing is ineffective at preventing molestation while the person is jailed. I have said that jailing alone, with no psychological help, is ineffective at preventing molestation once they get released, and that psychological help (while incarcerated) has been proven to help lower the rate of re-offending better than a longer jail sentence alone has.

reply to post by BiohazardsBack


You are completely reveled in ideological illiteracy regarding this issue. Henceforth, I bid you adieu. Good luck on your poor evaluated understanding of this issue.

reply to post by brilab45


As far as I can tell, your assumption is based on an experience or multiple experiences with child molesters, not with non-molesting pedophiles.

My assumption is based on research including both offending and non-offending pedophiles, and non-pedophilic child molesters, done by people who have committed their lives to discovering the truth behind pedophilia and molestation, and most people do not go into research on such things assuming that molesters and pedophiles are innocent. I certainly did not begin my research thinking that people sexually attracted to children were in any way "normal" or "good", but medical science thinks that it is possible and likely, and just as I trust a doctor to prescribe me with medication when I am ill, I trust a mental medicine expert to know what is behind mental disorders.
The law trusts their opinions as well, so really, your personal opinions on the validity of mental health experts and their findings doesn't matter, and will not be taken seriously in a court of law.


I do not want to make an offtopic post to respond to your comment below me, but that makes no sense, and still does not address facts.
What on earth is a "common court of admirality"
The closest google result I can get involves captains being in charge of making rules on their ships?

I did not make this stuff up, hundreds of medical experts said it. By all means, believe they just made it up, I really don't care because it still won't be accepted in any court room due to medical opinions being viewed as facts in Western society.

reply to post by BiohazardsBack


Now your a judge in the common court of admirality. Where do you stop? A mister know-it-all.

Honestly, you are way out there.