Judge tells teacher sex offender: I don't criticise you for being attracted to children

reply to post by ArMaP


I understand what you mean, and that's true. However, when a child is raped, what difference does it make? It still has the same outcome. As I mentioned before, the majority of these people can not be "cured", and they almost always re offend. Do we tell the child "I'm really sorry you were hurt by this person...we thought he could control himself". They can't be trusted because they can't resist any more than a junkie can be trusted not to do heroin if the opportunity presents itself.

Originally posted by OldCorp
There are drugs, like Depo Provera, and possibly others, that they could take to control the urges. One of those links I posted earlier made the claim that deviant sexual behavior is the result of excess testosterone production. If that is a cause, Depo would nip it in the bud.

Maybe I have a different way of seeing this situation because when I was five years old I had my first asthma attack that sent me to the hospital for a night to breath oxygen inside a plastic tent put over a bed, and since then my life depends on my taking of my medication. Some times I have to take the maximum dose (and sometimes even going over the maximum isn't enough) of all the medications, sometimes I can live with just half of it, but I can never control it, I can only try to compensate the more or less sudden changes in my organism.

That's why I said that, if it's a mental disorder (like any other natural disorder), then they cannot be blamed for having it, they can only be blamed for their actions.

Now, if they know how to control their urges and do not do it, they can be blamed for that negative action (if we can call it that), but they cannot be blamed for the source of the urge.

I don't know, honestly a lot of my common sense goes right out the window when it comes to pedos.

I think that's part of the problem of this subject, the people on "this side" of the problem aren't capable of controlling their feelings either.

I have two daughters and three granddaughters and the thought of someone abusing a child just makes me see red.

And that may be another part of the reason why I see things in a slightly different way, I don't have children, so while I see the actions of paedophiles as a terrible crime, I don't have any real personal feeling about it, so I may be less affected and look at it in a more detached way.

Originally posted by StealthyKat
Do we tell the child "I'm really sorry you were hurt by this person...we thought he could control himself". They can't be trusted because they can't resist any more than a junkie can be trusted not to do heroin if the opportunity presents itself.

It's not a matter of trusting them, or thinking that they couldn't control themselves, that would imply that someone knew about it already and didn't did anything, and this was not the case.

It's a question of blaming the person for their feelings or their actions or not. In that junkie example, do you blame them for feeling the need for another dose or do you blame them for committing crimes to get the money to buy more drugs?

Originally posted by ArMaP

In that junkie example, do you blame them for feeling the need for another dose or do you blame them for committing crimes to get the money to buy more drugs?

I blame the system of Prohibition that forces the price of that heroin so artificially high that the addicts resort to stealing to obtain it. In an open market it would cost pennies or the addict could keep a poppy garden and harvest the opium latex for free. Now he is forced to support organized crime as the garden would be too hard to conceal.

In the case of the teacher, I'm still not sure what age-range he prefers. I tend to blame the government sting operators that include photos of two-year olds in order to make their case and make the defendent appear more sinister. He may well be a very bad person but there is too much "evidence" apparently planted or supplemented to be able to tell.

I still have problems with the "thought-crime" aspects of all this. I don't know how possession of animated "porn" can be a violation of any law. Distributing graphic depictions of "obscene" acts would understandably be a violation.

Some years ago there were anti-discrimination laws that prevented banning families with children from renting in apartment complexes and such places. There are obviously people that should not live around children, would prefer not to live around children (for whatever reason), but were prevented by law from avoiding them. I understand that is changing, however.