This talk of mental illness is disgusting. Take two examples:

1) J is schizophrenic and hears voice that tell him to rape the little girl. He is out of control of his own actions. He does it.

2) S can't stop thinking about little girls. He decides to act out his fantasy and rape one. He does it.

J, though guilty of the crime, perhaps deserves lifetime institutionalization and treatment for his condition. Why? Because a real mental condition prevented him from exercising judgment.

S is not mentally ill and no treatment will "fix" him. He chose an act of absolute evil, and he should be prepared to face the consequences.

So, are there mentally ill molesters? Of course. Is peadophilia a mental illness? No, unless evil is a mental illness and the human condition is entirely without ethical value, moral choice, and any hope of real redemption.


Another point:

We all know deep down that this is a choice and not a mental illness. Why? Let me ask you men this. Which man among you has not looked at a pubescent teenaged girl and percieved her in a sexual way? This is not something to be ashamed of. This is hard wired into our brains. It is only since we as a society adopted standards to protect our children that young girls were considered off limits after their sexual maturity. We do not respect the boundaries of children because a mentally well person would do so, we respect them because we have a choice, and we choose to do what is best for the child, at the cost of our own instinctive pleasure and potential procreation.

Those who break this social contract are not "ill," they are criminals. They are people who choose their pleasure over consideration for others. We call them "animals" because that is quite clearly what they have chosen - to ignore the intelligence they have been given in order to satisfy their basest desires.


By the way, just imagine if John McCain had run on a platform of a mandatory death penalty for all child molesters. He would win in a landslide. Despite the protests of the social scientists, people are very, very angry over this continued problem, and they will continue to put down the animals who threaten their children.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Grumble]

A pedophile is the lowest of the low in the scum department. The only thing that comes close is a rapist.

In my opinion, whomever killed this piece of trash should be thanked for handling a job that should have been handled by the "proper" authorities.

IF the court system fails to bring justice to a child rapist/killer/etc, it should be the responsibility of the citizens to ensure that the proper justice is handed down.

It seems as if pedophilia is more and more becoming a 'lesser' offense in the eyes of the court system and even some citizens of the states (as evidenced by replies here..you people disgust me.)

While some might find it wrong that sexual relations with a child be regulated by the government, one would have to be mentally deficient to not see an adult kidnapping, raping, killing a HELPLESS child as grounds for SEVERE punishment.


If things keep on the same path, I fear we'll be having "PedoPride" parades before too long.

Back to definitions for a moment please?

Again, by definition a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children (of either gender). Some studies and reports would seem to indicate that pedophilia is "hard-wired" in some people just as heterosexuality (and being attracted to ADULTS of the opposite gender) is "hard-wired" in most people. A pedophile can (and I think probably many do) choose not to act on his sexual preferences, just as some "normal" people choose celibacy for life.

A pedophile who has acted on them can then properly be called a child rapist or a child abuser, and THIS is the person we are (or should be?) concerned with. A person who has harmed a child.

Another thing to remember is that not all people who torture, abuse, or even rape children are actually pedophiles. Some are simply carrying out their desires for control, violence, torture, etc. on the most vulnerable and easiest to control victims - children.

So could we get our terminology straight and differentiate if we are talking about a child abuser/rapist, someone who has actually harmed a child, and if no outside action is taken, will do so again, or all pedophiles regardless of whether they act on their sexual deviance?

---

What is the difference between revenge and punishment? I say it is that punishment is intended to teach a lesson. Revenge doesn't care. If there is no lesson which can be learned, then punishment is only revenge. Many (most?) child abusers who are pedophiles can not actually be taught to feel differently than they do, and most (in my personal opinion) can not be deterred from acting on their desires because the compulsion is too strong (especially after it has been satisfied even once) by any punishment. So the real question is, do we condone revenge? If we do, are we not back to "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"? Did we not collectively, as civilized society, give up revenge in favor of justice?

And then, what is justice when there can be no punishment, only revenge? I would say that justice is protecting society; protecting the public and most especially the children who can not protect themselves.

So here, in my opinion, is the real question: What is the best way to protect children from child abusers? Jail sentences are clearly not the answer; jail is intended to be a punishment that teaches the criminal not to act in that manner again. But, (again in my opinion), the child abuser, especially one who is a "real" pedophile, can not be effectively taught this lesson. No amount of jail time will change his sexual preference or his compulsion to act on it, regardless of good intentions, guilt, remorse, etc.

So what then? Can we collectively agree that execution is the best justice? Certainly it does protect the children, permanently. Do we collectively agree that it is fair and reasonable justice? Or what about castration? If it worked, would that be acceptable?
What other choices are possible, and how would we go about changing the legal system to work for us and provide reasonable justice (permanent and infallible protection of the children) in these cases?

These are the issues, concerns, and questions we should be discussing. Otherwise all of you "hooray for the person who killed him, he deserved what he got" people may just as well say "I believe in revenge rather than justice" and be done with it. Some of us may then feel personally that you are somewhat less than what we normally consider a "civilized" member of our society, but so be it, right? You don't really care, do you? Steal from anyone who steals from you, hurt anyone who hurts you, kill anyone who kills one of your loved ones .. does being able to say "but he started it!" or "he did it first!" like a child caught in wrong act of vengeance really make you any better than them now? If you think so, so be it, but be honest and admit to it.

For the rest of us, let's consider what is appropriate and civilized justice instead of arguing the merits of various means of revenge with those who are trying to disguise it as punishment.

Originally posted by Grumble
This talk of mental illness is disgusting. Take two examples:

1) J is schizophrenic and hears voice that tell him to rape the little girl. He is out of control of his own actions. He does it.

J, though guilty of the crime, perhaps deserves lifetime institutionalization and treatment for his condition. Why? Because a real mental condition prevented him from exercising judgment.

Careful with that rational thinking, you'll have someone's eye out if you're not careful.

Reading through this thread, it's quite apparent that there's many people on here that believe 'J' should also be lynched too. Mental illness is no excuse, apparently, and everyone has control over their actions, apparently.

He's a dirty paedo and that's all that matters and there can only be one verdict.

Sounds like a suicide to me. LOL

Originally posted by CA_Orot
All insults aside gentlemen... You are just going to have to agree to disagree on this particular topic - as there is no way in swaying either opinion one way or another...

I just pose one question to Sanctum.....

What if it was your child...and what if that man was the man who assualted him or her, would you still hold the same position? Would you stand idly by as the courts granted a sentence (that perhaps you don't necessarily agree with), and how would you feel on the day that they were released from prison...? Would you feel that his debt to society was paid, and that justice was served for your child?

Just a question..

- Carrot

You're very clever. Are you trying to side with BlueOrder or impress him with your intellectual trap on me with a moral Catch-22?

Let me put it this way. Even if there was temptation to go and cry for blood, I let the State deal with it. Because it is their job to carry out the sentencing, provided they have evidence. If he served 20 years, that's how long he'll serve. By then, he won't be able to find me nor my child (if I had a child, that is).

If I did'nt like to see what's going on in the courtroom, all I have to do is turn off my hearing-aid.

If I was obsessed with this criminal, cried a river for 20 years wanting him to die, then I just wasted 20 years of my life not moving on for my child. Get it? Those who cry for blood are wasting their lives and breath away and just have to find a way to move on. I'll say that even if family and victim are traumatized by the event, there are avenues for them to deal with psychological treatment.

Crying for blood, waiting 20 years for a death sentence to be carried out on the criminal is borderline obsessive and sick. To the State, it's business, not personal. To the victims, it's personal and yet they have to learn to get past that. A death sentence is NOT going to help the victim get past it.

So if my child gets abused, I'm on his/her side regardless. I have to make sure my child grows up and learn how to adapt, move on and live.

The sweetest revenge is living well. Not living a bitter one.

But I have a more interesting question for you. What about those pedophile priests in church that have gotten away with it over 10 or 20 years? Should there be justice or blood revenge for them?

[edit on 16-10-2008 by Sanctum1972]

You know, the people here that are against killing this man are probably the same ones who are pro-abortion, oh excuse me, "pro-choice". You get what you give, and this man was scum, along with any other child molester, screw 'em. Someone that would have the audacity to molest an innocent child deserves to die, yes I said DESERVE. If I molested a child, I only HOPE someone would take it in their hands and put a bullet in my head.


^^^ oh and yes, for the priests in the church that have done it for you say 10-20 years, i would put a bullet in one of their heads as quick as anyone else.



[edit on 17-10-2008 by Slazer]

Originally posted by Slazer
You know, the people here that are against killing this man are probably the same ones who are pro-abortion, oh excuse me, "pro-choice". You get what you give, and this man was scum, along with any other child molester, screw 'em. Someone that would have the audacity to molest an innocent child deserves to die, yes I said DESERVE. If I molested a child, I only HOPE someone would take it in their hands and put a bullet in my head.


^^^ oh and yes, for the priests in the church that have done it for you say 10-20 years, i would put a bullet in one of their heads as quick as anyone else.



[edit on 17-10-2008 by Slazer]

Even if the priests are convicted from the lawsuits from all over the country recently, they should go to prison. The people who sued are already grown young adults or adults over the age of 30, in most of the cases. The cases are generally settled out of pocket because they are at least 10 plus years old and not much evidence is presented let alone the witnesses who present their word against them.

The problem with the logic of taking revenge in your hands, killing those people that you don't know personallly, the system will catch you regardless. In other words, they commit the crime, people like you kill them, and the System KILLS you. Now, if the System kills you, should people take revenge on the System itself?

It's not eye for an eye. It's an eye for an eye, for an eye. The System is there in place so civilization does'nt fall back into medievalist attitudes. Would you rather live in the 21st Century or the 14th Century of the Great Inquisition? Trust me, the 14th Century is NOT where you want to be at.

Originally posted by blueorder

I shall drink a glass of merlot over your passing too and perhaps play some Kinks record- and you can be assured that although I disagree with your assessment of someone being a bigot because they want firm justice for kiddie f***ers, you can be assured that bigotry will live on- think I'll make that two glasses.

yes yes, and your tin foil hat suits you sir


Or I could live in a society where the state does that, as used to happen, you stick to your wee comic books , I think you are probably a serious comic book collector, Im not wrong am I

you pervert meanings, Ill teach my kids to hate those who would molest them, and drink a glass of wine over sad little men with their comic books as they pass


[edit on 15-10-2008 by blueorder]

Merlot? I'd prefer Cabernet-Sauvignon and some cuban cigars. And still, your point of view is too bigoted for this world. You must fit right in with Nazi Germany.

I don't collect comics and work in the design industry.

And I'll drink a glass of wine over sad little men with children who continue to spew ignorance and hatred.

And you're now on ignore.

Yesterday in Chat we had an awesome discussion on this thread, right Heike? I want to clarify, that I am not of the opinion that Revenge SHOULD be carried out by the Parent; but I don't know that I could personally exercise self restraint.

---

Originally posted by Sanctum1972
You're very clever. Are you trying to side with BlueOrder or impress him with your intellectual trap on me with a moral Catch-22?

I'm not trying to be clever. I'm not trying to lure you into an intellectual trap. I'm not trying to side with/impress BlueOrder. Your assumptions, and throwing accusations in my direction is a feeble attempt at making me look like jerk for asking you those questions. I assure you, I'm not a jerk, and you and I probably have more in common that either of us think when it comes to this topic.

I asked you those questions becuase I believe you should consider the possible feelings that the parents are feeling. The feelings that MIGHT push someone into murdering their childs abuser. I asked you to see the issue in a different light, from a different perspective. I asked you to turn on another light in this room, who knows, in the corner there might be something worth seeing. THAT was the goal here - Perspective.

Even if there was temptation to go and cry for blood, I let the State deal with it. Because it is their job to carry out the sentencing, provided they have evidence. If he served 20 years, that's how long he'll serve. By then, he won't be able to find me nor my child (if I had a child, that is).

I wish, that I had the ability to trust the Justice System as much as you do; I however do not share your enthusiasm on this particular topic. The option of Parole, and getting off on Good Behavior - are terms that would be on my mind constantly. NOT to mention to Defense attorney is going to TRY THEIR hearts out searching for a technicality, and to make a Plea Bargain.

What if he got off? What if he NEVER went to Jail? What if there was Insufficient Evidence to Convict him? What if, Justice was never served for your child...I pose to you another question, hypothetically:

How do you think you would feel? What do you think you would do? What would you tell your child? How would you tell your child that this man will not be paying for his crimes?

In this situation, I don't know that I could exercise the self control NOT to put a bullet in his head. I don't know that I could do nothing...

Crying for blood, waiting 20 years for a death sentence to be carried out on the criminal is borderline obsessive and sick.
...
A death sentence is NOT going to help the victim get past it.

I agree that crying for blood is not a healthy way to live your life. Obsessing for a death sentence, is not healthy. Seeing a Psychologist to help work through the problems, and cope with the situation is a much better approach.

However, the second part of your quote I disagree with. I think that for some people, knowing that their abuser is dead, could offer them a sense of closure; it doesn't make it right (and that is NOT what I am suggesting), but, it could help them move on.

So if my child gets abused, I'm on his/her side regardless. I have to make sure my child grows up and learn how to adapt, move ona and live.

The sweetest revenge is living well. Not living a bitter one.

Agreed. Making sure the child grows up and learns to cope with their experience is essential in their development into adults. Later on in life though, these children will shows signs of abuse. These children will be affected for a long time, and long term therapy is probably one of the best ways to deal with an issue such as this.

My mother (45) just started dealing with her abuse as a child. Nearly 40 years later, and she is JUST coming to terms with it now. She has problems with sex, and problems with trusting men. After my Great Uncle Died, it all came out in the open. It turns out, not just my mother, but all of her brothers and sisters, suffer from the same problems when it comes to sex and relationships...Would they be better off had they all had therapy and counselling to help them cope? Probably.

After the discussion in Chat yesterday, I'm leaning towards your idea : The sweetest revenge is living well. Not living a bitter one.

This is true. But if I was a parent, and my child was a victim, I don't know that I could take the high road. I don't know that I wouldn't put a bullet between his eyes. I don't know how I would act, or if I could surpress my anger. I would like to think that I wouldn't be spending the rest of my life in prison - for murdering the sorry SOB - but, I just don't know.

But I have a more interesting question for you. What about those pedophile priests in church that have gotten away with it over 10 or 20 years? Should there be justice or blood revenge for them?

Good Question. The victims of abuse by the said priests, would probably want revenge. And I can't blame them, as I don't know what they are feeling. Justice, not revenge, is what I would want for the Victims. And the Priests(as well as other pedophiles) removed from Society, as I believe they are a threat.

I leave you with your question as well: What do you think should be done about the pedophile preists? *Assuming there is no statute of limitations which protects them from being convicted of a crime* (Do they have a statute of limitations on Rape/Child Molestation Cases? Probably differs with each state..right?)...

- Carrot

Edit: Spelling

[edit on 10/17/2008 by CA_Orot]

the real crime here is that he made it to 73. no telling how many lives he ruined.

honestly i think the human race would do well without this sort of thing polluting the gene pool. unfortunately there is no ethical way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

capitol punishment should be extended to include aggravated sex crimes, with the same requisite of proof beyond the shadow of doubt.

so until that time comes perhaps it would be best to spare the world that much more misery by lining them up against a wall.