Convicted paedophile found strangled and dumped in woods

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



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



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.

reply to post by Merriman Weir

---

To answer you genuine question - that being - if my child who was raped as a child - turned into a child rapist later on in life - and would I be just as willing to pull the trigger on my own child as the original child rapist?

Yes.

What’s more abhorrent than the act of raping a child?
The ones who uses the excuse *oh it happened to me as a kid*.

If you were raped/molested as a child you should be THE VERY LAST PERSON to perpetuate this crime!

You KNOW first hand what it felt like!
You KNOW first hand the sheer TERROR!
You KNOW first hand the pure evil!
And you think you can get away with the same thing, by using the excuse that it happened to you as a kid?!!!?

I’d kill ‘em twice...


...taps...

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]

reply to post by Sonya610

---

There was a news article several months back that showed brain scans showed sexual attraction to paedophiles.

As for your definition of paedophiles according to that handbook, i find it strange because there are people out there who are attracted to children but lead an absolutely normal life. I know that because i knew someone who worked at a civil counselling bureau. She told me such things when she was drunka dn probably shoudln't have mentioned it. They cried apparently over their attractions but never acted upon them.

So again, should we prosecute on their thoughts?

But you undermine your own argument here. Surely it's abhorrent because of the unprovoked, unsolicited damage that it does to the child?

On the one hand, you're saying the damage that's being done to a child is so terrible that the perpetrator must be killed. Then, you appear to be suggesting they should 'get over' that damage and not let it affect them in ways they might not be able to control.

Are you saying that children that have been raped or assaulted have the choice to be damaged or not? What if they can't get over it and they perpetuate the cycle? They should be killed?



Hysteria, much?

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.

reply to post by silo13

---

If you're not just grandstanding by trying to be a tough guy here, I suggest your infantile desire to kill strangers for seemingly abhorrent crimes itself is a manifestation of PUre evil. So, instead of rising above those you see as demons, you have been sucked in by the devil himself and join them in your lust for blood and revenge.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by verylowfrequency]

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'.

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]

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.

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.




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.



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



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

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.

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.

reply to post by TheColdDragon

---

Show us those statistics. I could not find anything statistics to prove you right in this matter.

How about this for statistics.

According to www.Sex-Offenders.us:
• A child is molested every four seconds. Nearly one out of every three girls and one of every four boys is molested by age 18. This difference in these numbers may be because boys report molestation less frequently than girls.

• "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

• Dr. Gene Abel estimates that between 1% and 5% of our population molest children.
- CNN Specials Transcript #454-Thieves of Childhood.

• About 14% of child victimizers carried a weapon during the violent crime, compared to nearly 1/2 of those who victimized adults.
- BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991

• About 10% of violent offenders with child victims received life or death sentences and the average prison term was 11 years, somewhat shorter average sentences than received by those with adult victims.
- BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991

• Like rape, child molestation is one of the most underreported crimes: only 1-10% are ever disclosed.
- FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

• 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


This is my source for this info www.yellodyno.com...


Edit to fix link

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Daz3d-n-Confus3d]

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



As far as treatment it appears to not work







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]