Originally posted by Sonya610
I guess it really depends on how you define a pedophile. Most here would define a pedophile as someone that has "acted" on that attraction in some way by either molesting children or indirectly victimizing children by collecting child pornography.

Then most here are wrong. A paedophile can be attracted to children and not act upon that attraction. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Originally posted by Sonya610
Now if a guy has THOUGHT about it, but has rejected those thoughts because he knows it is wrong, and he has never ever acted on that impulse in ANY WAY I don't think most here would consider him to be a pedophile.

Then again they would be wrong. If someone is sexually excited by children then they are a paedophile.

Originally posted by Sonya610
No one here claims to be the thought police. People have the right to think whatever they like, however when their actions turn outward and other people REALIZE that they are thinking about it then it becomes a problem.

Speak for yourself, i see several posters that would be ahppy to kill anyone with these thoughts. It is why i've been arguing that law should be emotionless formt he very start. We cannot punish for thinking, otherwise the prisons would be full 10 times over for all sorts of crimes.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984Speak for yourself, i see several posters that would be ahppy to kill anyone with these thoughts. It is why i've been arguing that law should be emotionless formt he very start. We cannot punish for thinking, otherwise the prisons would be full 10 times over for all sorts of crimes.

Well until they find a way to read people's minds I guess they won't know who these pedophiles are now will they?

The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:

A) Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);

B) The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;

C) The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.



[edit on 13-10-2008 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
So again, should we prosecute on their thoughts?

Am I communicating in english here? I have stated that if they keep their fantasies to themselves no one will know. Furthermore I have not seen anyone state that they would prosecute or kill pedophiles that never acted out in anyway.

If someone in this thread has suggested that we test everyone in order to find "hidden pedophiles that have never acted out" and then prosecute or kill them please point out that post to me.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

So again, should we prosecute on their thoughts?

I personally don't think we should and I've had exactly the same argument elsewhere. It's a very frightening road to go down, but I'd place a wager that there's some on this thread that would and wonder why anyone else would think it a problem. Even though this is possibly a conspiracy theorist's worse nightmare - prosecution and conviction for 'thought crimes' - you only have to say 'but think of the kids!' and there's otherwise cautious people demanding that it be done.

It's the same mentality with RFID chipping kids: what a sorry road that will be. Yet mention the word 'McCann' and you get people musing 'at least I know where my kids will be'.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir but I'd place a wager that there's some on this thread that would and wonder why anyone else would think it a problem.

Well I suggest we keep the discussion focused on what people actually SAY. We can imagine all sorts of things about other posters.

I for one have thought some of the comments in this thread could suggest that some here seem to empathize, identify with, and defend pedophiles a bit too much! They seem to take this a bit too personally if you get my drift!

Do we really want to go down that road and start pontificating on things that have NOT been stated?

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
So again, should we prosecute on their thoughts?

Am I communicating in english here? I have stated that if they keep their fantasies to themselves no one will know. Furthermore I have not seen anyone state that they would prosecute or kill pedophiles that never acted out in anyway.

Obviously you're not able to read english because i listed above several instances in which paedophiles can reveal their drives but are not acting paedophiles. So should these paedophiles who are attracted to children but don't act be prosecuted is my question.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Well I suggest we keep the discussion focused on what people actually SAY. We can imagine all sorts of things about other posters.

Unfortunately, a lot of the comments on this thread are actually founded on imagining things: 'what if was your child' and 'if it was my child that was hurt, I'd kill the scum'. These, thankfully aren't real, past events for the over-riding majority of the lynch-mob.

I for one have thought some of the comments in this thread could suggest that some here seem to empathize, identify with, and defend pedophiles a bit too much!

Well, there appears to be only one person on this whole 14 page thread who claims to empathise with paedophiles, although I'm not entirely sure they actually mean 'empathise' as that's a bold claim to make considering the general reception to this thread.

As for "defending" paedophiles. Again, I throw the question out, how many people are actually defending paedophiles here? I've had that thrown at me this morning, but have yet to see someone actually point out where I defend paedophiles.

They seem to take this a bit too personally if you get my drift!

Not really. Do you want to be a bit more explicit?

Do we really want to go down that road and start pontificating on things that have NOT been stated?

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Sonya610]

That actually happened many pages ago with the 'what if it was your child' type comments.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

Wow... 14 pages of this and no clear answer...

The sicko is dead, he will no longer attempt to hurt anymore children, he will no longer act upon his urges to rape or abuse a little girl or boy anymore.

I'm 99% against violence of any form, but if anybody tried to hurt any of the younger members of my family, then they would find themselves waking up covered in petrol and being offered a final cigarette.

Simple. These bastards are sick, demented and perverted... some people will excuse them and say 'oh they are obviously ill, they need treatment'..... But, at the end of the day, there have been so many cases of re-offences that either they get chemically castrated or they get locked away permanently or they are terminated.

If the law is there to protect the public, then it should be used, failing that... vigilantism is natures way of protecting the weak.

In my opinion, the offenders should be left in a room with the family of the victim. There is no excuse for the abuse of a child, none at all.... Everyone knows it is wrong...

The principles of justice has been slowly slipping in the UK, particularly since the 1960s.

It isn't just the judges, it it is the politicians, after all, they pass the laws which the judges then use

Originally posted by yellowbeard
I really don't like talking about this but my father was convicted of sexually abusing four young girls a few years ago, he was sentenced to four years in prison, which is nowhere near enough, and only served just over two years. Now my point is, I want to kill him MYSELF for what he has done and if I ever set eyes on him again I don't know if I'll be able (or want ) to stop myself. This man got what he deserved, children are the only future we have got and these sicko's destroy their innocence and their lives. I personally would sentence them to be put in a room full of mothers and there be no comeback on the mothers for what they do.

The problem is the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The damage done to children through sexual abuse is neverending. If we don't value the sanctity of children and only give a 4 year sentence, what does that say about justice? The issue is the same with rape. Personally I think the crime is a capital offense, right up there with murder. In the least they should be castrated. It just shows how upside down the penal system is.

Statistically, your children are more likely to die in a Car Crash than to be molested. They're more likely to die from Second Hand Smoke.

The number of things that are more likely to happen to your child than they are to get molested/raped/killed far outweigh the possible likelihood of this happening. It does happen though.

There are a few studies out there examining prevalence of Childhood Sexual abuse. A lot of them have ridiculous numbers, like "A Pedophile tends to have 200 more victims than the victims they are brought to trial for."

Is anyone on earth who ISN'T labelled a Pedophile able to claim they've had sex with over 200 people? The likelihood of most statistics for such cases NOT being inflated to scare and startle the public is very low.

Second, there is a non-insignificant portion of the Child-Rape and Murder cases that are not perpetrated by Pedophiles, but by Serial Killers or people with some other psychological dysfunctions OTHER than Paedophilia.

Third, I am fairly certain that those calling for the death of pedophiles also want any pedophiles who sate their appetites on Erotic Fiction and Erotic Art murdered as well, because they care less about the children getting hurt and more about the actual MENTALITY existing that would be aroused by such content.

In a court case in the UK, a Man was put on trial for taking pictures of adult female models and using advanced Computing programs regressing them to younger ages, thus making "CHILD PORN" that did not involve a child; only a willing adult. He was not prosecuted for this because there was no basis for the claim that a child was harmed.

However, those here would probably want this man dead. If I'm incorrect in that, by all means tell me.

What it essentially boils down to is that Pedophlia is a sexual attraction to inappropriately aged children. Some people get off on girls with twenty boobs, or obsess over platform shoes, or find anthropomorphic animals the height of sexual stimulation.

And any of those people can say that to a shrink and the shrink will talk with them about it. In confidentiality.

However, with someone admitting Pedophilia, there is a decent to good chance that the Shrink will call the police, breaking confidentiality. Even if the person had done nothing to harm anyone.

I think that a frontal lobotomy would be appropriate as well.

About the guy taking pictures of adults and regressing them into children on a computer, is not acting on an actual child so no he does not need slain, probably just scolded.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
So again, should we prosecute on their thoughts?

Am I communicating in english here? I have stated that if they keep their fantasies to themselves no one will know. Furthermore I have not seen anyone state that they would prosecute or kill pedophiles that never acted out in anyway.

Obviously you're not able to read english because i listed above several instances in which paedophiles can reveal their drives but are not acting paedophiles. So should these paedophiles who are attracted to children but don't act be prosecuted is my question.

If they are proven to be a pedophile then yes truth is they have all ready acted on it at some point so your argument is silly They dont just wake up one day and go wow im a pedophile

The typical offender is male, begins molesting by age 15, engages in a variety of deviant behavior, and molests an average of 117 youngsters, most of whom do not report the offense.
-Dr. Gene Abel in a National Institute of Mental Health Study.

As far as treatment it appears to not work

The behavior is highly repetitive, to the point of compulsion, rather than resulting from a lack of judgment.
-Dr. Ann Burges, Dr. Nicholas Groth, et al. in a study of imprisoned offenders.

More than 1/2 of all convicted sex offenders are sent back to prison within a year. Within 2 years, 77.9% are back.
-California Department of Corrections

So now we release them they hurt more kids again. So in my view if they cant control there compulsions and want to act like a beast we have the right to put them down like one. They are no longer human at that point because we know right from wrong and we can make a choice. There is no excuse to destroy the life of a child and society should make this very clear.

[edit on 10/13/08 by dragonridr]

[edit on 13-10-2008 by T0by]

Originally posted by Daz3d-n-Confus3d
• "There are 400,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, and an estimated 80 to 100,000 of them are missing. They're supposed to be registered, but we don't know where they are and we don't know where they're living.
- Ernie Allen, President of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childrento co-anchor Hannah Storm on The Early Show
[edit on 13-10-2008 by Daz3d-n-Confus3d]

Okay. So let's be conservative. 1 million Sex-Offenders in the U.S. Let's assume there's 70 million kids in the U.S.

I'd conservatively cut the Sex-Offenders in one third, since there are a lot of things that can get you put on the Sex Offenders Registry. So, let's just say 300,000 Pedophiles.

You're saying that for every Pedophile, they have molested 233 children Per person.

I ask again, do you know ANYONE at all who has had 233 Sexual partners?

For that matter, do you know how hard it would be to sexually abuse THAT MANY kids and have nothing out on it?

These numbers are inflated, and these are conservative estimate.

The reason the numbers are inflated is because there is an agenda to scare the public about Pedophiles. Do these things happen? Yes.

But not as frequently as the lies, damn lies and Statistics would have you indicate.

If you were even honest about it, you'd cut the actual amount a lot less... while still retaining about the same number I gave you of children molested (Mind you, I underestimated the number of children in America vastly, and I did not factor in the 1/3 and 1/4 amounts.)

70 million would be 23 million kids... which if you were being realistic would be more like 40 million, and the Actual Paedophile ratio of sex offenders is probably 2/10 or less. Using the actual number of registered sex offenders you get 100,000 Pedophiles with FOUR HUNDRED molestation/rapes.

No, I am sorry. It is not happening that frequently. The numbers your stats are quoting are grossly exaggerated.

While the people running these stats will assume a lot more crimes will not be reported due to embarrassment, shame, or whatnot... they don't take into account all the reasons someone can be falsely accused for life, which tend to balance out the numbers quite a bit.

I'll reiterate one more time.... yes, child rape and molestation happens. Yes, it is a terrible thing. I am not saying it isn't with the above.

I am specifically saying that the numbers are full of schiste (A flaky and brittle rock).