Pedophiles - 'Brand' them like the animals they are

After reading the posts and initial article, there are a few things that must be addressed.
There are states, that have on the law books, where a sexual predator, including child molestors and pedophiles, and sex offenders, can be surgically castrated. But the results vary from individual to individual so, according to the results of the reports, are inconclusive that such would even prevent or deter people from doing such.
But not to draw a down side to this idea, but there is. Now the laws are very clear cut when it comes to pedophiles and the distiction that seperates them from the other sexual predators, is that they prey on children.
But once you open that door, then that line of reasoning can be used against all sexual predators. So that means rapists, this can be applied to. But how about the 17 year old who has sex with a 15 yo? Would this apply? After all the 17 yo is technically an adult and the 15 yo is underage, and would be guilty of molesting a underage minor. And how would you protect the first time offender, who served his time, follows all of the rules and does that individual deserve protection under the law. Disfiguring as a means of punishment is considered cruel and unusal punishment, as it would only serve to create a piriah society.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...you're wrong AGAIN - and - that includes your ridiculous notions that pedophiles dont act on their thoughts... if you want to continue to believe that fantasy, go right ahead... i'm sure you've got reasons...

I'm a sixth year psychology major and nothing you've said so far has been based on any facts at all. If you want to continue arguing with the adults, I suggest you start sourcing; you're embarrassing yourself. Stop telling people they are wrong when they are telling the truth, whether or not you know about this truth is irrelevant to those of us who do. Pedophiles are on a completely different spectrum than sociopaths and psychopaths.

By my definition, judging people and segregating them -- sentencing them to death -- for something you don't understand represents a lack of social conscience, would you not? I guess you're closer to being a sociopath on this one.

Sociopath
–noun Psychiatry .
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

But I guess the final say rests with you -- the all-knowing knower of everything that's never been written, taught, or accepted by anyone who would put it through more than 10 minutes of omnipersonal thought.

Originally posted by Brood
I'm a sixth year psychology major and nothing you've said so far has been based on any facts at all.

...according to you - an alleged student...

Originally posted by Brood
If you want to continue arguing with the adults, I suggest you start sourcing; you're embarrassing yourself.

...practice your own preachin', kiddo...

Originally posted by Brood
Pedophiles are on a completely different spectrum than sociopaths and psychopaths.

...sources?... sources?... sources?...

...maybe one day you'll have to deal with pedophiles up close and personal and, then, you'll realize that many are sociopaths or psychopaths and that a lot of what you learned in school was merely conjecture...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


Well, you're still only someone who "allegedly" has experience with pedophiles. Everyone on the internet is "allegedly" things they might not actually be. You never said how you had experience, so there is no way to prove it. You have experience? Tell us how.
The only way you would know pedophiles is either as someone close enough to you for them to admit it (doubtful, considering your feelings regarding them, because they wouldn't admit it to someone with that) or as a mental health professional, which you are not because you do not understand the term.

You've dealt with "pedophiles" plural?
I don't see how. Most psychiatrists don't even deal with ONE in their lifetime. Neither do most law enforcement officers. Unless, of course, you're working in a specific Sexual Deviancy mental hospital of some sort, this is just not possible.

reply to post by silo13


So what about the ones who get wrongly convicted? Sure sucks to be them. By the way, research the CIA's MKULTRA and "Monarch Programming". There's apparently a worldwide conspiracy of elite pedophiles that make NAMBLA look like Goonies. It's very dark stuff, so be forewarned. If somebody reallly raped children, then I agree they should learn their lesson the hard way. However, there's a lot of people in high places that get away with it, and plenty that may have been convicted but were innocent like with any other criminal. We put people to death that are innocent sometimes. The criminal justice system isn't perfect, and it's also part of a greater pyramid of corruption that keeps the worst offenders away from punishment.

I say brand them on the face, firmly!! I will tell you why I think this should be done. We bought and moved into a new house and neighborhood a year ago. It was winter and we didn't become acquainted with neighbors until Spring. Finally 9 months later I was talking to the woman 2 doors down. I mentioned that the man next door sure was quiet and out of site most of the time (the only time I had seen him was when he mowed the grass). She said he is a convicted pedohile - I just about fell over - we have lots of kids in the neighborhood. My grandkids will visit from out of state and I just now find this out. If he had been branded on the face I would have seen this when he was out mowing the grass. Brand them, send them off to a deserted island, castrate them - I don't care - just get them away from the kids!!

Brand them?
That wouldn't solve their problem.
I'm all for executing them. Why do we need them? They are burden upon society and a constant threat to our peaceful pursuit of happiness.
Behavior is inherited, therefore it is important to find these creeps early before they father children who may take after them.

reply to post by crazydaisy


Uh-huh. What if he's never re-offended? What if he keeps to himself and just mows his grass?

I don't understand this line of reasoning that says that if someone is convicted of a sex crime, that they can never, ever be productive members of society ever again.

But, what if they want to hold jobs and live in neighborhoods and be upstanding citizens? Who's to deny them the right to do so?

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by crazydaisy

 

Uh-huh. What if he's never re-offended? What if he keeps to himself and just mows his grass?

I don't understand this line of reasoning that says that if someone is convicted of a sex crime, that they can never, ever be productive members of society ever again.

But, what if they want to hold jobs and live in neighborhoods and be upstanding citizens? Who's to deny them the right to do so?

I think a little reason has to be used. First time offender - no shady history....give him a chance.
Currently there are too many incidents labled as sex offences against minors, that are not. Such as a 18 year old boy with his 15 year old girl friend. Several similar such cases have been discussed.

Our one size fits all laws and those who apply them need some serious attention from someone with a brain..

Shady history, multiple minor offenses, (touching/fondling, exposeing himself), more than one major offense.....get him out of our world.

reply to post by crazydaisy


The problem with that little story she told you is that you don't know the circumstances. For example if a kid in the UK is 15 and has sex with her 16 year old boyfriend then the boyfriend can be charged as a paedophile. That individual would then have to spend the rest of his life with that label.

Also what if someone is falsly convicted? It has happened and then you have someone branded with something they can never get rid of. Oh they can cover it up, get some surgery to fix it when their sentence is overturned but it'll always be there and they'll have to explain it to anyone who gets close to them.

It just makes no sense to brand them. Personally if someone is convicted of paedophilia i think they should receive a simple life sentence, at the same time we need to adapt laws so in the situation where two kids have sex they both don't end up on a sex offenders register. Finally the alternative would be to place a tracking bracelet on a paedophile. This has already been done and found to be quite effective.

There is something else you need to think of as well. When i was 14 the girls at my school looked 18 and they went to nightclubs. Imagine for a moment a guy in a club hooks up with one of these girls. He's in a club where it's 18+ to get in but if he takes her home and then discovers she's 14 after the act, that guy would be branded even though he isn't a paedophile.

Branding won't help society in any way at all, it is simply a device to entertain the barbaric and ignorant natures of some backward people.

reply to post by crazydaisy


"Pedophile" is not a crime. He is not a convicted Pedophile. He is probably a convicted Sex Offender.
You can look it up yourself if you live in the US, he will be listed on a website which is easy enough to find. He may have done something to children, or he may not have. He may be convicted of exposing himself at the mall, which a child happened to see. This is not the same as seeking out and molesting a child. Your neighbor claimed he is a sex offender but did you ever look to see for yourself? They may have misunderstood or simply been lying.

And if you hadn't known he was previously convicted of a sex crime, would you have let him, a perfect stranger, near your grandchildren alone? Would you have let him babysit them because you didn't know for sure he was a danger? Probably not.

You're saying this man should have been branded in the face so you would "know".
Know what? He is a stranger and you shouldn't let children near strangers in any case, regardless of whether or not they've committed a crime to your knowledge so far. You shouldn't let people near your children unless you know them well enough to tell if something is "off" about them!
What would you have done differently if he had been branded across the forehead? Would you have averted your eyes? Refused to wave hello, or make small talk? What would that do to protect children? Nothing.
In fact, it would make the branded person feel completely isolated from society, and prone to re-offend.

Part of the problem with the justice system here in the US IMO is that jails overflow with petty crimes such as prostitution and drug possession that there is little room to permanently house serious criminals like sex offenders. These criminals are turned back out onto the street very quickly (and then re-offend) in large part because prisons are over crowded. If prostitution and the use of certain illegal drugs were legalized, there would be plenty of room in the clink for sexual predators, rapists and other violent offenders and plenty of resources to track them down and lock them up.

Something like a "Scarlet Letter" (again, there is an example of the sort of thing that certain societies won't tolerate that no one would bat an eye for these days here in the US) probably wouldn't work very well for reasons others here have outlined.

IMO permanent incarceration is the best bet for serious and chronic offenders (I agree that first time offenders could be given a non-life sentence depending on the severity of the crime; or something really not criminal like a 17 yr old having consensual sex /w/ a 15 yr old, for example) - no need to violate the constitution, just offenders that will be forever separated from any chance to re-offend.

reply to post by searching411


Some of the worse offenders...........those that are promoting this on a large scale are the richest and most powerful people on the planet.

Start researching sex slavery in connection with pedohiles.........the rabbit hole goes real deep on this one conspiracy.

It seems the more power and money you have, by it's very nature of being able to afford the luxury of having too much time, money, power on your hands - they get "bored" and it takes more and more to "get them off" so many resort to sex with children and also hunting humans like wild game..............read "Thanks For The Memories" by Brice Taylor.

This isn't totally about the sad little odd guy that lives a couple block over. It's about presidents, parliment, prime ministers, congressmen, senators, political figures, heads of corporations, movie and rock stars.

As stated before, you want to get rid of the entire cancer you have to cut the root tumor out and the rich and powerful elite are the root tumor. But and this is a big but, there is no justice for the common man. The people that are doing this on a large scale are currently above the law. If you have enough money you can literally get away with mass murder and mass pedophilia.

If all of a sudden a magic P would appear on someone's forehead when they did this dirty deed, most of the VIP in Washington and Hollywood would be wearing veils.

If anyone wants to really see this horrible practice stopped, you will need to get to the very heart of the problem.

David Icke, Cathy O'Brien and Brice Taylor talk about this and it's connection with mind control.

reply to post by ofhumandescent


I've seen various statistics regarding the incidence of paedophilia and it generally hovers between 5-10% of all adults (that's men and women btw). Not all of these people offend it's a statistic regarding attraction to children and of course it's difficult to get a good accurate figure because even in anonymous studies people don't like to answer that question honestly.

So lets take the lower figure of 5%, well there are a ton of people in various powerful positions so it would make sense that some of them are indeed paedophiles. I don't think these people offend because they get bored, i think it's more to do with the fact that they can more easily get away with it. If you are rich and powerful you are under closer scrutiny but at the same time you have resources that enable you to hide things more effectively. If these people are caught they can use their powerful connections to bully the abused victim into silence. It's very sad this happens but i have absolutely no doubt it does.

Holly Grieg, search that in google as it pretty much proves the point.

Btw i think your input in this thread has been great.

Originally posted by OhZone
Behavior is inherited, therefore it is important to find these creeps early before they father children who may take after them.

...thats the premise of eugenics (a very bad thing)...

...the trouble with pedophiles and/or child molesters breeding is not that their children will be like them - but - that their children will be victimized by them...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...the trouble with pedophiles and/or child molesters breeding is not that their children will be like them - but - that their children will be victimized by them...

Probably not often. Our genes stifle attraction to close genetic relatives, so many pedophiles would never want to be with their child sexually, the same as most adults with adult children are not attracted to their adult children, no matter how attractive they are.
If they are already a convicted child predator, meaning they have shown that they actively prey on those weaker than them, then the chance of their children being abused is more likely than someone who has not been. But most people who have pedophilic urges ignore them as best they can, so they are not prone to victimize someone just because they can, so that genetic bond that comes from knowing someone from their birth and watching them grow should make it so they don't even have such thoughts about their own children.

And children and young teens are victimized by people who are not pedophiles but just predators, they show no signs of being attracted to children until it comes to their own child and for whatever reason, they decide to molest them. It is more about victimization than about sexual urges though.

I certainly dispute the idea that genetics can completely dictate sexual preference though. There are sets of identical twins in which one is gay and the other is not. Same genes to the T, same upbringing, different results. And gay parents certainly do not genetically make gay children. They may raise children to be more open-minded towards different sexualities thereby making them more comfortable "coming out" to their parents whom they know will accept it, but it doesn't affect their sexual preference, it just affects their acceptance of it.
And pedophilia IS just a sexual preference, so it can be therefore assumed that it, too, is not passed on genetically.

Agree with the idea, though it would be politically incorrect today.

Its too bad the laws do not make a difference between say a 17 year old and a 16 year old being together as far as sex offenders are concerned. That's not my problem, I don't make the laws and I see no way to change it. And yes I say brand them (and I would not let a total stranger near my grandkids) but if I knew he was an offender I would make sure that the kids were not in the back yard which is closer to his house as he could easily lure one to the fence when an adult turned around. What about kids walking to the bus stop to school, I would be walking with them if I knew this pervert was in the area. We have to give kids a little bit of freedom so they can grow and become adults but its difficult with this type of criminal around. I knew of a 7 year old on a school bus, she was the last child to get off at a stop - the driver pulled over before he got to her stop and went to her seat and molested her. The laws need to be stricter to hopefully deter this type of crime!

reply to post by crazydaisy


Or how about you teach your children/grandchildren not to go into stranger's yards? What is he going to do through a fence? Snatch one? You have more than one, the other could run over and tell an adult that the first one had somehow been picked up and pulled over the fence, which wouldn't happen because people who have already been convicted of something are not likely to commit a crime in broad daylight with witnesses around.

They certainly wouldn't commit a crime within their own block, they would be the FIRST person the police would look into if a child went missing! You're just allowing yourself to succumb to overhyped fear. Even child molesters don't molest every child they see, they do it maybe once or twice a year if they manage to not get caught. And if they're young enough to not know how to scream if someone tries to get them to come with him, they are not old enough to walk to the bus stop alone. I wasn't allowed outside alone until I was 11, and I wasn't irreparably damaged by it. Friends who had older siblings were allowed more freedom because they had someone to look after them, but most kids these days do not walk to school or a bus stop alone until they are at least 10, at which point you can obviously tell them strangers are not to be trusted and expect them to understand that.

And that bus crime would not have been prevented by branding. School districts do not hire anyone who has a police record of any crime associated with a child. That would have still happened regardless of laws and punishments.

Not to mention, you couldn't retroactively brand someone for a crime they committed and had already been punished for. It would take over a decade for this to be a legitimate means of telling if someone had been convicted of a sex crime against children.
And do you have any idea how many people are wrongfully accused of and proven guilty of crimes in a decade? More than you would think. Children are growing up much earlier than they did when you were a child, and it is commonplace nowadays for an unruly child in a grocery store to scream that their parent they are shopping with is not their parent, they can and do accuse parents of crimes that have not been committed. I know a woman who tapped her daughter on the leg (not even leaving a red mark for a second) and her daughter told her father that the mother BEAT her, which prompted a social services inquiry. The fact of the matter is that this type of punishment would cause innocent people to lose all social connections, and would cause reformed criminals to revert back to criminal activity due to people refusing to allow them into their lives because of the branding. It would also cause curious 5 year old children to ask their parents what a pedophile is, why that man is being punished for something. I highly doubt that you would have wanted to explain pedophilia to your children or grandchildren at the ages they are most likely to notice the difference and ask those kinds of questions (3-5 years old). It is better for their mental health to be simply told not to go anywhere with strangers, than to tell them that only the people with a P on their foreheads are bad. There is such a thing as first-time offenders, and this would not protect you against them.

childprotection.lifetips.com...


"In one year alone, approximately 4,300 child molesters in 15 states were released from imprisonment.
* Of the 4,300 child molesters released, approximately 3.3% were rearrested within three years for another sex offense against a child. "
3% reoffend in the near future? That is almost nothing. Assume that that number repeats itself, give the offenders an average age of 30. ("* Approximately 25% of child molesters were age 40 or older. ")
142 reoffend in 3 years. Now, immediately afterwards is when someone is most likely to re-offend (* Of those released sex offenders who were accused of another sex crime, 40% were arrested for the new offense within a year after their release.), but we'll take the more pessimistic view and say those rates continue. Assume an average death at 80 years old, or at least an average onset of dementia making the person unable to continue committing crimes. This brings us a total of 2151 out of 4300 who reoffend. So about half of those convicted will NOT reoffend in their lifetime. This means that you are unfairly punishing half of all those who commit the crime. You are literally branding them for life for something they feel shameful of and never intend to repeat. You are causing them a life of solitude, because no compassionate person would want to be with a child molester especially if everyone they met would know about it and judge them both based on it.


And once again illustrating that strangers are not the only danger, "One-third of the convicted offenders had committed a crime against their own child." And that's just those who were convicted. Those molested or raped by their parents are much less likely to report it to the police than those attacked by a stranger, because the second parent is not going to pretend not to believe their child was molested by a stranger.


And for those claiming that people who commit sex crimes against a child cannot be rehabilitated, perhaps this is why they so rarely are: "According to the Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, the judge ordered approximately 13% of child victimizers into a treatment program."
How are you supposed to rehabilitate someone without even trying?
Oh right, by refusing them access to real counseling, and isolating them from society by branding them across the forehead. Right. Make them better by making their entire lives a living hell. Great way to make someone be a better person.

I have a friend that was accused by his ex-wife of molesting their daughter. He claimed the charges were false, but was arrested, convicted & had to register as a sex offender. There was no physical evidence, only the testimony of the mother and the child. Years later the ex-wife got "religion" and admitted that she made it all up in order to get custody and to make his life miserable. The daughter, now an adult, also admitted that she was coached by her mom to lie. Even though the wife and the child have now admitted that the molestation never happened, he must still register as a sexual offender.

Our court system is far too flawed to allow such a harsh and irreversible punishment.