# Louis Theroux - A Place For Paedophiles



## cliche guevara (Apr 19, 2009)

About to start on BBC2.

Looks like it'll incite rage in me, so I'm watching.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 19, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> About to start on BBC2.
> 
> Looks like it'll incite rage in me, so I'm watching.



Good reason to watch 

I'm not sure. I'm torn between this and Nuts in May. And bed ...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 19, 2009)

Mr Paw is watching it. I might saunter over and have a look.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 19, 2009)

They mostly seem like normal people with an unfortunate attraction to underage kids. Poor sods. Nuts in May is more entertaining.


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Apr 19, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> They mostly seem like normal people with an unfortunate attraction to underage kids. Poor sods. Nuts in May is more entertaining.


Isn't that like most paedophiles?


----------



## bemused (Apr 19, 2009)

Watched it until we got to the guy with pictures of ballet dancers on his wall then worked out it was just going to piss me off. Looks like a good way of handling them however.


----------



## Augie March (Apr 19, 2009)

OMG they were singing The Addams Family tune. How very surreal.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 19, 2009)

That was brilliant. A load of paedophiles singing the tune to the Addams Family.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 19, 2009)

This has not pissed me off in the slightest.


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Apr 19, 2009)

its interesting.  theroux seems less sneering than he usually is


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 19, 2009)

Well that was about as insightful and educational... something. 

Fairly interesting but about as deep as Big Brother.


----------



## El Jefe (Apr 19, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> That was brilliant. A load of paedophiles singing the tune to the Addams Family.



i'm glad i wasn't just me that laughed at the absurdity of that


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 19, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> That was brilliant. A load of paedophiles singing the tune to the Addams Family.



I am waiting for it to come on to youtube then it is going to be my new ringtone.


----------



## Augie March (Apr 19, 2009)

They're singing again...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2009)

Weirdness.....


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Apr 19, 2009)

there must be a reason why only ugly looking men are paedophiles


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Apr 19, 2009)

ivebeenhigh said:


> its interesting.  theroux seems less sneering than he usually is


My thoughts too.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2009)

ivebeenhigh said:


> there must be a reason why only ugly looking men are paedophiles



That's clearly not a reality.


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Apr 19, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> That's clearly not a reality.



i think we need a venn diagram.  Crispy?


----------



## _pH_ (Apr 19, 2009)

I had to turn over, too creepy.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 19, 2009)

Why does the rehabilitation centre name sound like a sexual act?


----------



## cliche guevara (Apr 19, 2009)

Well I didn't think much of that.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 19, 2009)

Louis Theroux lite.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 19, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Why does the rehabilitation centre name sound like a sexual act?



It's the same over here. Felcham Young Offenders Unit.


----------



## Madusa (Apr 19, 2009)

ivebeenhigh said:


> there must be a reason why only ugly looking men are paedophiles


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 19, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's the same over here. Felcham Young Offenders Unit.



I like that though.  It sounds like it's part of the punishment. 

Coalinga (sp?)  sounds too hippyish.


----------



## cliche guevara (Apr 19, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Louis Theroux lite.



Exactly. There was nothing to it. Louis is so good because he manages to get the truth out of people who would otherwise be very restrained or defensive in their interviews, these paedophiles where quite willing to discuss themseleves and what they had done, as it was what their treatment had been based on. I don't feel like I've gained anything from watching.


----------



## Dovydaitis (Apr 19, 2009)

i thought it was interesting, but a bit sad. the woman doctor thingy, i wanted to smack her one, she was a condescending cow!!!


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 19, 2009)

My dear old mum just said, "they should put bad lads in there instead of giving them yobbo orders."


----------



## Augie March (Apr 19, 2009)

There was something very Nurse Hatchet about her.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2009)

I flicked over when there were ads in Secret Millionaire. 

Disturbing was what I saw. 

One chap deluding himself that it only happenned twice and he is not attracted to kids .. 

Another on the program who had had more than 1,000 housing opportunities checked for him, all of which declined to have a former sex offender near them, nimby, but can you blame them?


----------



## bemused (Apr 19, 2009)

The best thing about the small bit of the program I saw was the idea of putting these people in a secure hospital forever once they finish their prison sentence.


----------



## cliche guevara (Apr 19, 2009)

bemused said:


> The best thing about the small bit of the program I saw was the idea of putting these people in a secure hospital forever once they finish their prison sentence.



Yeah I didn't really understand that, and was upset that the program didn't delve deeper into it. How is that ever aceptable?


----------



## bemused (Apr 19, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Yeah I didn't really understand that, and was upset that the program didn't delve deeper into it. How is that ever aceptable?



They are detained until they are better, then never seem to get better. I think you can do the same in the UK. Seems a good idea to me, some of these people can't help themselves.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Yeah I didn't really understand that, and was upset that the program didn't delve deeper into it. How is that ever aceptable?



cliche I think you misunderstand bemused, I think bemused means it is good to lock these people for good into a secure unit. And I am not sure I disagree. 

I think people can do things that disqualify them from living amongst the free. And I think child abuse could well be one of those things. 

In Britain there is no debate with the locals about the housing of sex offenders IIRC their location is only known to the police. 

What a different situation it seems in the USA.


----------



## cliche guevara (Apr 19, 2009)

weltweit said:


> cliche I think you misunderstand bemused, I think bemused means it is good to lock these people for good into a secure unit. And I am not sure I disagree.
> 
> I think people can do things that disqualify them from living amongst the free. And I think child abuse could well be one of those things.
> 
> ...


Whether or not they deserve to be locked up indefinitely is not my point, what I am saying is that it is wrong for the state to imprison them for x amount of time, and then upon them completing their sentence, transfer them to another prison.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Whether or not they deserve to be locked up indefinitely is not my point, what I am saying is that it is wrong for the state to imprison them for x amount of time, and then upon them completing their sentence, transfer them to another prison.



Yes, there seems to be some confusion over whether they are ill or criminals.


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Apr 19, 2009)

also using polygraph tests to determine anything is fundamentally flawed


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2009)

ivebeenhigh said:


> also using polygraph tests to determine anything is fundamentally flawed



Indeed.  Very ropey.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Whether or not they deserve to be locked up indefinitely is not my point, what I am saying is that it is wrong for the state to imprison them for x amount of time, and then upon them completing their sentence, transfer them to another prison.



Yes, I understand your point I think. 

But do you not think it also crazy to let offenders out who have the same tendencies and attractions that they had when they went in. 

I guess it is about honesty in sentencing no? I would happily keep them in until they are cured and say that from the outset. 

And if it cannot be proven they are cured, in they stay.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2009)

8ball said:


> Yes, there seems to be some confusion over whether they are ill or criminals.



Well, yes, sexual activity and age has varied considerably across cultures and time. 

If Picasso were living in Britain today he would be a paedo.

eta: sorry that is not very clear. 

What I mean is society cannot determine if they are ill, because in other times such acts were more normal, society can decide they are criminal but that does not lead to a cure unless they are also ill .. 

Hmm,... thats not any clearer is it :-(


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Well, yes, sexual activity and age has varied considerably across cultures and time.



Indeed.  But I just meant, if they were diagnosed ill they should have gone to a hospital in the first place rather than prison.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Hmm,... thats not any clearer is it :-(



Dunno, I'm still confused, though.


----------



## cliche guevara (Apr 19, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I understand your point I think.
> 
> But do you not think it also crazy to let offenders out who have the same tendencies and attractions that they had when they went in.
> 
> ...



It's very difficult. Honesty in sentencing is the main point. They barely touched on the subject, but it seemed like the goal posts had been moved. Regardless of the crime, if the penal system (representing us as a society) sets a punishment, they should not change the criteria ata a later date. However reprehesible the acts are that have been committed, that is not fair. If we say that we are not happy for these people to ever be released, then we should say that at sentencing.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2009)

Are there any women paedophiles?

And if not, why not?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Are there any women paedophiles?
> 
> And if not, why not?



There are, but it's much rarer.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Are there any women paedophiles?
> 
> And if not, why not?



Yes there are, 22% of people who have been abused (iirc) have been abused by women 

I felt the programme should have discussed the issue in more depth - is it ethical etc? 

and yes, i found the woman doctor really annoying too .. 

Some fucked up people in there though, like the guy who kept saying that you can have an attraction to children you aren't aware of ... 

It's an all right way of handling them though I guess, and a lot of the social workers there are clearly doing their best


----------



## kalidarkone (Apr 19, 2009)

8ball said:


> Indeed.  But I just meant, if they were diagnosed ill they should have gone to a hospital in the first place rather than prison.



Even though they committed a crime? Its not just as simple as them being mentally ill is it? Its right they should serve time.


I was quite shocked by the guy that opted to have a physical castration, or more sad that, that was the extreme he felt he had to go to in order to ensure he did not offend again. I guess it just highlighted to me how overpowering the urge is for pedophiles.

I can not imagine having such a powerful and obsessive sexual urge that I felt I had to act on it regardless of the consequences, so I an unable to empathise.


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 19, 2009)

8ball said:


> There are, but it's much rarer.



Not strictly true, there are less convicted women paedophiles and because of the patriarchal construct of society it is seen as less heinous for women to have sex  with minors. As a result, not as many women are reported.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2009)

kalidarkone said:


> I was quite shocked by the guy that opted to have a physical castration, or more sad that, that was the extreme he felt he had to go to in order to ensure he did not offend again. I guess it just highlighted to me how overpowering the urge is for pedophiles.


...and studies show it doesn't work. It's not about the penis, it's about the mind. I read a study done in Scandanavia years ago that showed that castrated paedophiles (chemical or otherwise) still abuse children, but using objects 
It is about the paedophile recognising the harm they've done, facing up to it taking responsibility for what they've done and having support when they they feel tempted or isolated. We need not to shun and isolate paedophiles or they will abuse again. Ray Wyre has done some very interesting work in this field.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2009)

kalidarkone said:


> Even though they committed a crime? Its not just as simple as them being mentally ill is it? Its right they should serve time.



Would you extend that to all mentally ill people who committed crimes?

There is a system whereby the ill get treatment and the 'bad' get punished.
It may well be not as simple as that in reality, but punishing people as criminals and then conveniently shifting to the 'illness' paradigm cos you can't think what do next isn't fair.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 19, 2009)

I dunno how the hell they reintegrate after finishing their sentences but anything that contributes to an hysteria free debate is welcome imo. Well done Louis, well done California for taking the risk and letting him in.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I dunno how the hell they reintegrate after finishing their sentences but anything that contributes to an hysteria free debate is welcome imo. Well done Louis, well done California for taking the risk and letting him in.



Well, it seems only a tiny percentage ever get out, except on legal appeals.

The place has a capacity of a little over a thousand (it was about half full when Theroux was there), and only 13 have ever got out by way of the 'treatment' programme.  Nothing was said about the recidivism rate that I saw (I was in and out of the room).


----------



## weltweit (Apr 19, 2009)

But I am not at all sure that Paedophiles are ill in any conclusive way.

I think there is probably a bell curve with some people being attracted to the young and others to the old. At the moment, society says sex with the young is bad so people who are attracted to it must be either bad or ill [1]

It seems convenient for them to be ill because this suggests a cure may be possible and suggests a way to keep them locked up longer, in search of this cure.

There have been times in our history when it has been normal to have sexual relations with people we now consider to be children. Or am I mistaken?


[1] I exclude the toddler fiddlers from this as I think they probably are ill !!


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2009)

Juliet in the Shakespeare play was 12 apparently (though personally I think the text implies she was a shade under 14).


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2009)

Problem is that a lot of them aren't ill IMO. Even with the abusers of very young children it's often more about having total power and domination over someone else and such people are very good at fiddling the system so it seems like they're remorseful ... lie detector tests etc prove nothing with these people and that's why it's a flawed system ...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Problem is that a lot of them aren't ill IMO. Even with the abusers of very young children it's often more about having total power and domination over someone else and such people are very good at fiddling the system so it seems like they're remorseful ... lie detector tests etc prove nothing with these people and that's why it's a flawed system ...


I don't entirely disagree, but it's also worth realising that the vast majority of paedophiles were abused as children themselves (not that that's an excuse) and many delude themselves into thinking it's a consensual act.

Also, while looking for a link to Ray Wyre's work I came across his obituary. I was out of the country when he died, so I've only just found out.  
He was an amazing man.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/aug/08/psychology.ukcrime?gusrc=rss&feed=science


----------



## Herbert Read (Apr 19, 2009)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I don't entirely disagree, but it's also worth realising that the vast majority of paedophiles were abused as children themselves (not that that's an excuse) and many delude themselves into thinking it's a consensual act.



That is what really pisses me off about a "person" on here who wants them all hung drawn and quartered.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2009)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I don't entirely disagree, but it's also worth realising that the vast majority of paedophiles were abused as children themselves (not that that's an excuse) and many delude themselves into thinking it's a consensual act.
> 
> Also, while looking for a link to Ray Wyre's work I came across his obituary. I was out of the country when he died, so I've only just found out.
> He was an amazing man.
> ...



Oh, I am with you entirely there. I think a lot of paedophiles are genuinely remorseful and they do know that its wrong, a lot of them are probably also a bit subnormal intellectually as well. 

Im not saying "hang em/kill em all!" whatever, im not that type of person, but i do think that there are sadistic offenders who enjoy inflicting pain rather than just a socially/sexually inadequate person who cant have real relationship, and im not quite sure what you can do with people who know what they are doing is wrong and don't care, or enjoy the fact they're hurting someone else


----------



## mentalchik (Apr 19, 2009)

weltweit said:


> But I am not at all sure that Paedophiles are ill in any conclusive way.
> 
> I think there is probably a bell curve with some people being attracted to the young and others to the old. At the moment, society says sex with the young is bad so people who are attracted to it must be either bad or ill [1]
> 
> ...




Whilst not disagreeing with what you say the problem is where do you draw the line then ?

and if for arguments sake it's more in the way of being a type of sexual orientation for some at least should they then be locked away for the protection of others ?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2009)

I would also say that when I said it wasn't about the penis, it was about the mind, I did not mean it's a mental illness. I meant really that the biggest sexual organ is the mind. I think it's a mental disorder, but that's not the same as a mental illness.

A lot of what turns people on is fixed in childhood. If your first sexual arousal is because you are being sexually abused, that can warp the way you feel about sex forever. This does not put the blame on the abused, arousal is a physiological reaction that is not easily controlled which is why the abused child feel that it is somehow their fault. It isn't.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2009)

Herbert Read said:


> That is what really pisses me off about a "person" on here who wants them all hung drawn and quartered.


Well quite. There was an awful incident here some years ago when someone (permabanned) said all people who didn't want paedophiles burnt at the stake or something were child abusers. 
A number of people who had that stance of non-witchhunt were abused children and a lot of children don't tell because of the 'witch hunt' mentality and they may well love their abusers (a father, a brother or whatever) but just want them to stop abusing. 
The hysteria around child abuse makes a lot of abused children suffer in terrified silence because they don't want their house torched and their dad to be beaten to death by a baying mob.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2009)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well quite. There was an awful incident here some years ago when someone (permabanned) said all people who didn't want paedophiles burnt at the stake or something were child abusers.
> A number of people who had that stance of non-witchhunt were abused children and a lot of children don't tell because of the 'witch hunt' mentality and they may well love their abusers (a father, a brother or whatever) but just want them to stop abusing.
> The hysteria around child abuse makes a lot of abused children suffer in terrified silence because they don't want their house torched and their dad to be beaten to death by a baying mob.



It also puts distance between "us" and "them" (paedophiles). the reality is a paedophile can be anyone - and most abuse happens in the home and all the hysterical crap is helping to actually obscure that fact 

so actually its contributing to the problem ...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 19, 2009)

Exactly frogwoman. I worked with someone who turned out to be a child abuser. He was great with kids and was a 'nice bloke'. Which is why he was undiscovered for so long because he wasn't an ugly social misfit with two heads.....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 20, 2009)

Actually, I think the point where I sussed he might be a child abuser was when I overheard him make a joke about how he had been abused and that it was somehow a positive experience.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 20, 2009)

Right, I'm off to bed, this thread has made me stay up past my bedtime, and I didn't even see the TV programme! Night all, sleep well.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 20, 2009)

Actually before I turn in.....as many of you know I'm a big fan of restorative justice because I've seen it work....here's some food for thought....

http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/?Past_Events:RJC_Conference_2002:-Circles_of_support


----------



## JWH (Apr 20, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Louis is so good because he manages to get the truth out of people who would otherwise be very restrained or defensive in their interviews...


Meh - I disagree. Theroux is a big fat puff of air. His speciality isn't sensitively nudging the truth out of hesitant people, it's hanging around people (sometimes desperately needy people) and giving them enough rope to hang themselves with. He's not as much faux naif as just shallow.


----------



## bemused (Apr 20, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> Whilst not disagreeing with what you say the problem is where do you draw the line then ?
> 
> and if for arguments sake it's more in the way of being a type of sexual orientation for some at least should they then be locked away for the protection of others ?



They aren't being detained because of their orientation they are being detained because of the risk they present being unable to control their impulses. The risk that serial sexual predators present requires something along the lines of what was shown in the program.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2009)

So is anyone here in favour of Megans law. 

Is that right its Megans law here in the UK and something else in the USA or have I got that cockeyed. 

As I understand it, the right for the community to know who is living in their midsts in the way of sex offenders.


----------



## bemused (Apr 20, 2009)

weltweit said:


> So is anyone here in favour of Megans law.
> 
> Is that right its Megans law here in the UK and something else in the USA or have I got that cockeyed.
> 
> As I understand it, the right for the community to know who is living in their midsts in the way of sex offenders.




I'm torn about that one, but I would like to know if convicted sex offenders lived near me and my family.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2009)

The thing is, what would you realistically do differently?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2009)

Where I used to live in Essex, some of the locals decided there was a paedophile living in their midsts. Some of the mums took up residence at the entrance to his estate with banners saying "paedo out" and the like, kids went round and smashed all the windows in his flat, later when he was out for a mo they went inside and trashed the place, eventually the police had to take him away for his own protection. 

And I am still not sure that he was even a convicted paedophile.


----------



## bemused (Apr 20, 2009)

weltweit said:


> The thing is, what would you realistically do differently?



I think is would be people hyper sensitive to their children's behaviour, but I also think it would alter the behaviour of the offender. Ultimately I think their are people too dangerous to be let out, the idea of prison hospital seems a good one to me.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 20, 2009)

weltweit said:


> So is anyone here in favour of Megans law.
> 
> Is that right its Megans law here in the UK and something else in the USA or have I got that cockeyed.
> 
> As I understand it, the right for the community to know who is living in their midsts in the way of sex offenders.



Sarah's law here?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 20, 2009)

bemused said:


> I think is would be people hyper sensitive to their children's behaviour, but I also think it would alter the behaviour of the offender. Ultimately I think their are people too dangerous to be let out, the idea of prison hospital seems a good one to me.



But I am already sensitive to my kids behaviour and don't let them spend time with strangers until I have gotten to know them reasonably well. I think the majority of abuse goes on within families rather than the stranger danger which people seem to get most excited about. 

That (within families) means I am probably more likely to put my kids at risk with firm family friends than I am with strangers.


eta: Surely the statistics mean that we should be looking after our children as if there were sex offenders around, because there are! Rather than having to know precisely which person it is we should simply know, they are about, always.


----------



## JWH (Apr 20, 2009)

Rutita1 said:


> Sarah's law here?


"Megan's law" is a semi-formal name given to US state laws that disclose the home address of certain convicted sex offenders to the public. IIRC (and I am not promising), the provisions vary between states: in some places, the cops will go around putting up flyers and in other places, it's just up to the citizen to look online. Not all sex offenders are listed on public registers.

You can see the California example here: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/Search.aspx?lang=ENGLISH Try entering a common name like "Smith", "Jones" or "Hernandez", or entering a valid ZIP code (90210, of course).

Sarah's Law is the Sun-approved suggestion to have similar laws in the UK. I am not convinced it's a great idea, but am open to persuasion.


----------



## butterfly child (Apr 20, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's the same over here. Felcham Young Offenders Unit.




Is that some attempt at humour?

If so..... lol.

If not, it's Feltham. Felt-ham, or Felth-ham, if you are posh.

And it's a whole prison, not a unit.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 20, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Oh, I am with you entirely there. I think a lot of paedophiles are genuinely remorseful and they do know that its wrong, a lot of them are probably also a bit subnormal intellectually as well.



On what basis are you saying that?  I don't think many of them are at all. Surely that's why they still carry on offending, because they convince themselves the children they abuse want to be abused


----------



## purplex (Apr 20, 2009)

I think programs that leave the impression that once the pedophile within gets out its out forever do not further the discussion. They leave the viewer with an assumption that all pedos will reoffend. 
So to take a few high profile examples graham rix and bill wyman will have further relationships (sexual or otherwise) with underage girls and langham and townsend will not only be downloading child porn again but will definitely go on to abuse kids. 
That may well be happening, but I  suspect it isnt. 
Rather than being helpful programs that leave the impression that pedophilia is an untreatable lifelong condition probably do more harm than good.  
Yes Im sure there are some who do reoffend, but does treatment fail in all cases? If so who is challenging the effectiveness of the treatments?  What are the recidivism rates?
I doubt that everyone goes on to reoffend, for those that are released what support facilities are made available to them outside prison? Would more facilities help prevent further abuse? 
The discussion really needs to be widened IMO.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

trashpony said:


> On what basis are you saying that?  I don't think many of them are at all. Surely that's why they still carry on offending, because they convince themselves the children they abuse want to be abused



I mean the ones who are in prison on therapy programmes like this, not necessarily the ones who are still doing it ...


----------



## bemused (Apr 20, 2009)

weltweit said:


> But I am already sensitive to my kids behaviour and don't let them spend time with strangers until I have gotten to know them reasonably well. I think the majority of abuse goes on within families rather than the stranger danger which people seem to get most excited about.
> 
> That (within families) means I am probably more likely to put my kids at risk with firm family friends than I am with strangers.
> 
> ...



I'm talking about the very dangerous serial offenders. When Craig Sweeney is released I'd really want to know if a man who broke into a house to abduct a child was living near me. 

Although I'm not convinced that someone who abused their own children or children of friends is beyond attempting to do it to one they don't know.


----------



## madzone (Apr 20, 2009)

trashpony said:


> Good reason to watch
> 
> I'm not sure. I'm torn between this and Nuts in May. And bed ...


 Nuts in May??? When/what channel was that on?


----------



## Espresso (Apr 20, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Oh, I am with you entirely there. I think a lot of paedophiles are genuinely remorseful and they do know that its wrong, *a lot of them are probably also a bit subnormal intellectually as well. *
> 
> Im not saying "hang em/kill em all!" whatever, im not that type of person, but i do think that there are sadistic offenders who enjoy inflicting pain rather than just a socially/sexually inadequate person who cant have real relationship, and im not quite sure what you can do with people who know what they are doing is wrong and don't care, or enjoy the fact they're hurting someone else



I've never heard that before. I don't see why that would be the case. Surely anyone who is attracted to anyone can be of any level of intelligence?  If education could change what you thought about sexual matters, there'd never be any illegal sexual behaviour among the educated classes. And that's certainly not the case. 

Maybe a stupid paedophile is more likely to get caught than a clever one, but I'd say that's about it.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 20, 2009)

madzone said:


> Nuts in May??? When/what channel was that on?



BBC4. Although the cringeworthiness of NiM is almost as bad as the disturbing paedophiles ...


----------



## Cloo (Apr 20, 2009)

I watched some of this... it's something of an issue at the moment, as a friend of the family is about to come out of prison after a low-grade sexual offence against a minor. I'm not sure what it was, I'm not sure of the age of the child. 

This guy had got through life totally blameless, never been in trouble until this (he's in his early 70s now) - he's been in for nearly two years and been through a programme to examine his actions. As far as I can tell, they occurred while he was drinking and depressed - I don't believe he has disclosed any other sexual behaviour/thoughts towards minors, although whether he actually has or not is another question. He will be on the child sex offenders list, which I guess would make others class him as a paedophile if they were to know about it, even though I don't believe he should be classed as one if this was an isolated incident.

My mum is letting him stay at her house when he comes out, because it's near the probation centre where he'll have to report. He's been through a programme and is truly devastated by what he's done. My mum and another friend met with him at his probation meeting where the officer said he wished the other people he saw had support like this, as it meant he wouldn't be seeing them again as he too often did - and he was confident our family friend wouldn't be coming back there.

It makes you think about the individuals behind the stark label of 'sex offender', that's for sure.


----------



## Rollem (Apr 20, 2009)

Cloo said:


> He will be on the child sex offenders list, which I guess would make others class him as a paedophile if they were to know about it, even though I don't believe he should be classed as one if this was an isolated incident.


 so coz he only did it once, he's not a paedophile 

i watched teh programme and could not make up my mind. I think my overwhelming view is that whilst some of the men seemed truly sorry, i dont think they can ever be "rehabilitated" personally. alot seemed to still hold on to their 'reason / excuse' for their behaviour, however small and insignifcant they tried to make it.


----------



## Espresso (Apr 20, 2009)

Cloo said:


> He will be on the child sex offenders list, which I guess would make others class him as a paedophile if they were to know about it, even though I don't believe he should be classed as one if this was an isolated incident.



That's an interesting thought - how many offences do you think someone should have committed before they're classed as a sex offender?


----------



## zenie (Apr 20, 2009)

Watched bits of it and couldn't actually watch it all the time. 

I thought the whole system where the men were released from prison but then shafted off to a mental hospital pretty bad tbh. I couldn't imagine that happening here, think it'd go against human rights laws wouldn't it? You go to prison OR you go to a mental hospital, has to be one or the other really. How do they decide which pedophiles go there after prison and which don't? And of the 70% that are refusing treatment, how many think they don't have a problem, and how many don't CARE that they have a problem and are willing to reoffend? 

Can pedophiles be rehibilitated? I don't know, I don't know how something can be seen as acceptable to someone on one day, can now be seen as unacceptable with rehabilitation? If someone couldn't control themselves on one (or numerous) occasions with children/minors, then how can we as a society be sure that they can control themselves in future? 

I'm not sure that 'removing the risk' really works either, you come across kids ALL the time. 

I also wonder where the distinction between pedophile or sex offender comes? And would you willingly want your kids to be around either?


----------



## Sadken (Apr 20, 2009)

zenie said:


> you come across kids ALL the time.



Well, speak for yourself.  My conscience is clean.

Good show as always, good idea-ish and tricky morality all round, really.  Ideally, the aim should be full rehabilitation but, ultimately, people will not accept that now and probably won't do for another X years, till the remaining humans left on Earth decide that they can overlook the crimes committed by schedule 1 sex offenders, so along as they are prepared to muck in with scavenging and running recon missions on what used to be Tescos.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 20, 2009)

Espresso said:


> That's an interesting thought - how many offences do you think someone should have committed before they're classed as a sex offender?


The problem is compounded because it must then become the only offence _he's known_ to have committed.


----------



## Sadken (Apr 20, 2009)

Espresso said:


> That's an interesting thought - how many offences do you think someone should have committed before they're classed as a sex offender?



I can't see there are many people knocking about going "Yeah, I do a bit of sex offending, free-lance, like..."  

I think it's one offence and then you are a sex offender until proven otherwise.  Somehow.  Ie - you can't.


----------



## og ogilby (Apr 20, 2009)

Slightly off topic.

I was cutting my hedge at the front of my house the other week, and four kids were walking past with their fishing tackle. Three lads and a girl, about 10 or 11 years old.

I said ' did you catch anything', and they said 'we're only just going'.

I said 'where are you going'? And the girl said 'over the hill and far away, where you can't find us'.

I felt fucking awful, like they thought I was a paedo. I don't even wear thick rimmed glasses, or have a combover hair style.

I can't fault the girl for saying it, better safe than sorry. It just made me feel sad that it's come to this.


----------



## zenie (Apr 20, 2009)

Sadken said:


> Good show as always, good idea-ish and tricky morality all round, really. Ideally, the aim should be full rehabilitation but, ultimately, people will not accept that now and probably won't do for another X years, till the remaining humans left on Earth decide that they can overlook the crimes committed by schedule 1 sex offenders, so along as they are prepared to muck in with scavenging and running recon missions on what used to be Tescos.


 
Is it about people_ accepting_ pedophiles can be rehabilitated, or whether they actually_ can_ be? I mean if kids is your thing won't they always be your thing? 

Isn't it just your sexual preference, however immoral that may be?

og ogilby - you may have taken it the wrong way, or do you genuinely believe they thought you were a nonce? She could have just meant away from adults couldn't she?


----------



## girasol (Apr 20, 2009)

weltweit said:


> So is anyone here in favour of Megans law.
> 
> Is that right its Megans law here in the UK and something else in the USA or have I got that cockeyed.
> 
> As I understand it, the right for the community to know who is living in their midsts in the way of sex offenders.



Only if people didn't become hysterical about it, but that's unlikely...  'Little Children' was on last week and was a good example why it might be a bad idea to do such a thing.

But yes, ideally, it would be good to know and also to accept them into the community.


----------



## purplex (Apr 20, 2009)

Rollem said:


> i dont think they can ever be "rehabilitated" personally. alot seemed to still hold on to their 'reason / excuse' for their behaviour, however small and insignifcant they tried to make it.



I wonder if that is backed up by recidivism rates. One would expect then that 100% of convicts will reoffend if you are correct. I honestly dont think that is the case, and if it is then why is no-one challenging the effectiveness of the therapies? 
I dont think keeping someone incarcerated because they might reoffend is very fair to be honest.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 20, 2009)

purplex said:


> I wonder if that is backed up by recidivism rates. One would expect then that 100% of convicts will reoffend if you are correct. I honestly dont think that is the case, and if it is then why is no-one challenging the effectiveness of the therapies?
> I dont think keeping someone incarcerated because they might reoffend is very fair to be honest.





> Several studies have involved follow-up of extra-familial child molesters. One such study (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988) included both official and unofficial measures of recidivism (reconviction, new charge, or unofficial record). Using both types of measures, researchers found that 43 percent of these offenders (convicted of sex offenses involving victims under the age of 16 years) sexually reoffended within a four-year follow-up period....
> 
> Barbaree and Marshall (1988) found a substantial difference in the recidivism rates of extra-familial child molesters who participated in a community based cognitive-behavioral treatment program, compared to a group of similar offenders who did not receive treatment. Those who participated in treatment had a recidivism rate of 18 percent over a four-year follow-up period, compared to a 43 percent recidivism rate for the nonparticipating group of offenders.
> 
> ...



So, in conclusion, the jury's still out. While someone refuses to accept they've done anything wrong, the liklihood of reoffence is surely unacceptably high isn't it?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

Espresso said:


> I've never heard that before. I don't see why that would be the case. Surely anyone who is attracted to anyone can be of any level of intelligence?  If education could change what you thought about sexual matters, there'd never be any illegal sexual behaviour among the educated classes. And that's certainly not the case.
> 
> Maybe a stupid paedophile is more likely to get caught than a clever one, but I'd say that's about it.



Quite a lot of regular criminals have pretty severe learning disabilities and i'd not be surprised if the same was true of sex offenders. such people really shouldn't be in prison imo.


----------



## Sadken (Apr 20, 2009)

zenie said:


> Is it about people_ accepting_ pedophiles can be rehabilitated, or whether they actually_ can_ be? I mean if kids is your thing won't they always be your thing?
> 
> Isn't it just your sexual preference, however immoral that may be?
> 
> og ogilby - you may have taken it the wrong way, or do you genuinely believe they thought you were a nonce? She could have just meant away from adults couldn't she?



Naaaaaaah!  When I was younger, I found a completely different kind of person attractive to the ones I fancy nowadays.  When I was about 14 or so, I was all mixed up about who and what I was but that's now passed as well.  Sexuality evolves like anything else, so I definitely think it can be curbed.  

Whether it'll ever be accepted en masse that people like this can change is quite another story.  I just don't see it happening - it's hardly the civil rights movement in terms of garnering public sympathy is it?


----------



## Rollem (Apr 20, 2009)

zenie said:


> Is it about people_ accepting_ pedophiles can be rehabilitated, or whether they actually_ can_ be? I mean if kids is your thing won't they always be your thing?
> 
> Isn't it just your sexual preference, however immoral that may be?


thats why i made the point that personally i dont think a paedophile can be 'rehabilitated' didn't they used to try to 'cure/rehabilitate' homosexuals not so long ago 

not entirely convinced that locking them all away for the rest of their lives for fear of them re-offending is the way to go though.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

I have to say i find the idea of someone "trying out" paedophilia to see what its like and never doing it again pretty fucking unlikely, and if you are twisted enough to do something like that in the first place even once you're still a risk to the public imo


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

Rollem said:


> thats why i made the point that personally i dont think a paedophile can be 'rehabilitated' didn't they used to try to 'cure/rehabilitate' homosexuals not so long ago
> 
> not entirely convinced that locking them all away for the rest of their lives for fear of them re-offending is the way to go though.



thas what makes it so difficult


----------



## Sadken (Apr 20, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I have to say i find the idea of someone "trying out" paedophilia to see what its like and never doing it again pretty fucking unlikely, and if you are twisted enough to do something like that in the first place even once you're still a risk to the public imo



I can totally imagine a total loser with little or no prospect of getting a consenting adult partner- the way a lot of these people are - just looking for sexual release any which way he or she can get it and slowly getting dragged deeper in.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

Sadken said:


> I can totally imagine a total loser with little or no prospect of getting a consenting adult partner- the way a lot of these people are - just looking for sexual release any which way he or she can get it and slowly getting dragged deeper in.



right, agree there, but someone whose served time for sex offenses probably isn't in much more of a position to have a consensual adult partner after he/she has left prison, than before ... so when they get out they'll still be a risk 

i mean if you found out your girlfriend/boyfriend was a convicted paedo, would you still want anything to do with them? seriously?


----------



## Sadken (Apr 20, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> right, agree there, but someone whose served time for sex offenses probably isn't in much more of a position to have a consensual adult partner after he/she has left prison, than before ... so when they get out they'll still be a risk
> 
> i mean if you found out your girlfriend/boyfriend was a convicted paedo, would you still want anything to do with them? seriously?



Well, it's just too hypothetical to be able to tell isn't it?  I mean, it'd be easy for me to say "yes" or "no" but in the real situation, I might just go "aaaaarrrggggghhhhh!!" for a bit instead.  

Re: release from prison, yeah, I see what you mean there but I suppose it would be down to a programme of abstinence which, whilst difficult, definitely isn't impossible.  If someone told me I could either be restricted to wanking for the rest of my life, or spend the rest of my life in prison, I know which I'd go for.  Christ, I had a three year period of total sexual abstinence pretty much forced upon me during my spots and frizz days, which just happened to coincide with me hitting my sexual peak so, y'know, cheers for that, God.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

yeah ... 

i did read a case study of a guy who was jailed for attempted rape while psychotic and under the influence, who was treated with anti-depressants and never did it again, got into a stable relationship etc. 

I can try and dig it out if anyone's got access to Athens etc. 

i dont know what i would do if someone i knew told me that they had been convicted for sex offenses, like you said i might just go "arrrgh" 

im really tired and so apologies if i dont make much sense ...


----------



## Sadken (Apr 20, 2009)

You make so much more sense than me it's just not even funny.  

I've got access to athens, but don't break your back on my behalf.  Does sound intriguing though, so if you get the chance in future, give me a shout please.


----------



## rioted (Apr 20, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> i mean if you found out your girlfriend/boyfriend was a convicted paedo, would you still want anything to do with them? seriously?


Paedophiles, convicted or not, are usually seriously damaged individuals. It is the nature of things that damaged people often seek each other out. You might walk past a group of street drinkers and think "how could anyone normal have a relationship with someone like that?" But street drinkers come in both sexes and varied sexuality. Just like all damaged groups. Treat "paedos" as evil and it may be difficult to see the attraction, treat them as damaged and it's not so very hard to see them as partners to other damaged people.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

Sadken said:


> You make so much more sense than me it's just not even funny.
> 
> I've got access to athens, but don't break your back on my behalf.  Does sound intriguing though, so if you get the chance in future, give me a shout please.



i'll PM you the linmk wen i get home x


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

@ rioted - yep 

it must be a real struggle for the ones who actually want to change once they are out of prison tbh.


----------



## London_Calling (Apr 20, 2009)

All this is very interesting but surely the point of this programme was to flag up the problem of what you do with people who are  potentially still pre-disposed to certain behaviour once they’ve completed their sentences for committing that behaviour. 

I mean, society has said they’ve paid their dues . . . but.

So that introduces the issue of criminal offence vs. mental condition/illness, and whether paedophilia is a mental condition. If it is, why are we putting these men in prison, and if it isn't they've served their sentence  . . . I’m confused just writing that.


----------



## STFC (Apr 20, 2009)

Iemanja said:


> Only if people didn't become hysterical about it, but that's unlikely...  'Little Children' was on last week and was a good example why it might be a bad idea to do such a thing.
> 
> But yes, ideally, it would be good to know and also to accept them into the community.



I brought that film up last night while watching Louis Theroux with the missus. That bit where the mother said to her son something about getting a girlfriend his own age, to which he replied that he wished he did want someone his own age but he just didn't. Some of the men on the programme last night, like the one who'd been castrated, seemed genuinely to want _not_ to be attracted to kids.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> All this is very interesting but surely the point of this programme was to flag up the problem of what you do with people who are  potentially still pre-disposed to certain behaviour once they’ve completed their sentences for committing that behaviour.
> 
> I mean, society has said they’ve paid their dues . . . but.
> 
> So that introduces the issue of criminal offence vs. mental condition/illness, and whether paedophilia is a mental condition. If it is, why are we putting these men in prison, and if it isn't they've served their sentence  . . . I’m confused just writing that.



it sometimes is and sometimes isn't a mental condition imo. 

you get "situational offenders" who will commit crimes against kids either becuase they are totally inadequate in every way, and can't get someone their own age, or because they like pain, sadism and the like, and you get people who actually abuse kids becuase they fancy them (and dont fancy adults) - ive herad that the latter case is a relatively small minority

the types of "situational offenders" who will abuse because they want domination and power over someone else and dont care if its a woman, kid, man, whatever, are the most dangerous ones ...


----------



## Pieface (Apr 20, 2009)

A bunch of paedophiles singing the Adam's Family round a piano.  Louis was probably creaming himself when they got that.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 20, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> i mean if you found out your girlfriend/boyfriend was a convicted paedo, would you still want anything to do with them? seriously?



i know i have a baby face but i'd be very supprised


----------



## og ogilby (Apr 20, 2009)

PieEye said:


> A bunch of paedophiles singing the Adam's Family round a piano.  Louis was probably creaming himself when they got that.


We sang along, but changed the words to the Fritzel family.


----------



## foo (Apr 20, 2009)

JWH said:


> Meh - I disagree. Theroux is a big fat puff of air. His speciality isn't sensitively nudging the truth out of hesitant people, it's hanging around people (sometimes desperately needy people) and giving them enough rope to hang themselves with. He's not as much faux naif as just shallow.




i think this about Theroux too. 

haven't watched this latest one though...


----------



## Sadken (Apr 20, 2009)

foo said:


> i think this about Theroux too.
> 
> haven't watched this latest one though...



Yeah, that is definitely true, but you can't argue with the fact that it's a style that he has used to great effect in the past.  Some of the stuff people have come out with to him - on camera - is fucking unbelievable at times and you just would not get it from them with a hardheaded Panorama approach I don't reckon.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 20, 2009)

I just heard a load of blokes in the park talking about the show, calling them all 'nonces' in a Harry Enfield style 

It was pretty boring I thought, much like the one he did hanging around Corner Kids in Philadelphia.

And that Adams Family song rehearsal was creepy to watch.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 20, 2009)

STFC said:


> Some of the men on the programme last night, like the one who'd been castrated, seemed genuinely to want _not_ to be attracted to kids.



Well would you?  It's an affliction innit.

I once had a gf who worked in a home for Down's Syndrome sufferers.  One of them was a paedophile, but because of his mental condition he didn't understand that there was anything wrong with it.  He used to watch kids from his window and start wanking.  Very disturbing, but I suppose you'd have to call him innocent.


----------



## STFC (Apr 20, 2009)

Not all of them gave the impression that they'd rather not have those urges.

Down's Syndrome _sufferers_?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 20, 2009)

STFC said:


> Not all of them gave the impression that they'd rather not have those urges.



your sexuality plays a fairly large part of who you are i can imagine not wanting to lose a part of yourself 

many might think it  better to fight against your inner desires than to  have them removed

it's probably better to live with celibacy  and  masturbation  than  to  go through some process that kills a part of yourself


----------



## camouflage (Apr 20, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> right, agree there, but someone whose served time for sex offenses probably isn't in much more of a position to have a consensual adult partner after he/she has left prison, than before ... so when they get out they'll still be a risk
> 
> i mean if you found out your girlfriend/boyfriend was a convicted paedo, would you still want anything to do with them? seriously?



This film dealt with that very interesting question quite well in my opinion. The answer is not such a no-brainer as you may presume.


----------



## purplex (Apr 20, 2009)

.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

cheers looks like an awesome movie. i've heard of it before


----------



## JWH (Apr 20, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I once had a gf who worked in a home for Down's Syndrome sufferers.  One of them was a paedophile, but because of his mental condition he didn't understand that there was anything wrong with it.  He used to watch kids from his window and start wanking.


That's very similar to my friend's position: I don't know how it came about but he was essentially hired as a kind of chum/minder for someone with quite severe learning difficulties/intellectual difficulties (don't know the right words because I don't know the details that well). 

The guy was mid 20s but couldn't function terribly well out in the world. He had got himself on the sex offenders' register for wanking in a park near a children's playground (I think it wasn't clear whether the wanking was connected to the playpark or whether it was just a coincidence - he wasn't being discreet at all). IIRC, he didn't really have an understanding why it was so wrong and didn't do it with intent, but also didn't seem to really understand why it could hurt/scare people that much either - which I guess was the risk.

The whole situation was very bizarre, as he just ended up tagging along with my mate during his working day (self-employed tradesman), but it seemed to work out well because he wasn't dangerous as much as just needing constant supervision. I think.

Anyway, the point is that although it was a good thing that he was on the sex offenders' register (he did present a risk, for sure), having the NotW out him to the lynch mob would not have accomplished much. 


Sadken said:


> Some of the stuff people have come out with to him - on camera - is fucking unbelievable at times and you just would not get it from them with a hardheaded Panorama approach I don't reckon.



Yeah, but so what? Shock horror - Nation of Islam not that keen on Jews, whites! Men who use Thai wedding agencies are a bit odd! Afrikaner nationalists don't like Africans! 

You could go to the (metaphorical) pub at the end of the street and find people saying more racist, ignorant, creepy stuff. The reason why you don't hear people saying that stuff is because you don't talk to them in the first place.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 20, 2009)

I watched this last night, still not sure what to make of it, or why the documentary was made in the first place.


----------



## Cloo (Apr 20, 2009)

Espresso said:


> That's an interesting thought - how many offences do you think someone should have committed before they're classed as a sex offender?





Rollem said:


> so coz he only did it once, he's not a paedophile



I didn't say he's not a sex offender - he is, he's committed a sexual offense. What I'm not certain of is whether or not he's a paedophile. If, say, it was a 'moment of madness' with a post-pubescent minor, while drunk and depressed, I would say that doesn't suggest he necessarily harbours or has harboured sexual desires for children. But, as I say, I don't know all the details. It's an interesting and difficult thing to consider.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 20, 2009)

they should just kill them all then everyone would shut up about it.


----------



## Cloo (Apr 20, 2009)

tribal_princess said:


> they should just kill them all then everyone would shut up about it.


 It would certainly save on many tediously self-righteous tabloid editorials, that's for sure.


----------



## og ogilby (Apr 20, 2009)

tribal_princess said:


> they should just kill them.


Bummed to death by polar bears.


----------



## purplex (Apr 20, 2009)

.


----------



## Espresso (Apr 20, 2009)

Cloo said:


> I didn't say he's not a sex offender - he is, he's committed a sexual offense. What I'm not certain of is whether or not he's a paedophile. If, say, it was a 'moment of madness' with a post-pubescent minor, while drunk and depressed, I would say that doesn't suggest he necessarily harbours or has harboured sexual desires for children. But, as I say, I don't know all the details. It's an interesting and difficult thing to consider.



I beg your pardon, that is what you said.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 20, 2009)

Espresso said:


> I beg your pardon, that is what you said.



i didn't read it that way

i read it more as a noting of the possible difference between sex offender and a peodophile


----------



## bemused (Apr 20, 2009)

Why aren't all serial sex offenders detained indefinitely? If raping and abusing adults is your thing I don't see that as a lesser crime that doing to a child - although the latter is more emotionally repugnant by a very slim margin. 

As far as I'm concerned if you get convicted of this sort of crime twice that should mean you forfeit your rights to life outside a secure facility again.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2009)

rapists are also likely to abuse children as well and display a generalised pattern of sexually violent behaviour ... i agree with your post, i don't think child abuse should be seen as uniquely worse than all other crimes, the chances are if someone engages in that sort of behaviour they are often lacking in empathy and violent towards adults as well.


----------



## chico enrico (Apr 21, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Where I used to live in Essex, some of the locals decided there was a paedophile living in their midsts. Some of the mums took up residence at the entrance to his estate with banners saying "paedo out" and the like, kids went round and smashed all the windows in his flat, later when he was out for a mo they went inside and trashed the place, eventually the police had to take him away for his own protection.
> 
> And I am still not sure that he was even a convicted paedophile.



still, sounds a fun enough way to spend a few hours...brings the community together and all that.


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 21, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> rapists are also likely to abuse children as well and display a generalised pattern of sexually violent behaviour ... i agree with your post, i don't think child abuse should be seen as uniquely worse than all other crimes, the chances are if someone engages in that sort of behaviour they are often lacking in empathy and violent towards adults as well.



.


----------



## chico enrico (Apr 21, 2009)

Sadken said:


> I can totally imagine a total loser with little or no prospect of getting a consenting adult partner- the way a lot of these people are - just looking for sexual release any which way he or she can get it and slowly getting dragged deeper in.



yes. like going to line-dancing classes.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 21, 2009)

chico enrico said:


> yes. like going to line-dancing classes.



that's disgusting

yes i mean we might not like it  but is it really ok  to compare it to something that  foul  

you have besmirched the name of  pedophiles


----------



## The Octagon (Apr 21, 2009)

Cloo said:


> I didn't say he's not a sex offender - he is, he's committed a sexual offense. What I'm not certain of is whether or not he's a paedophile. If, say, it was a 'moment of madness' with a *post-pubescent minor*, while drunk and depressed, I would say that doesn't suggest he necessarily harbours or has harboured sexual desires for children. But, as I say, I don't know all the details. It's an interesting and difficult thing to consider.



Just a point - 

Paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescents.

Ephebophilia is a word indicating sexual preference for mid to late adolescents.

The term Hebephilia is reserved for those who prefer pubescent-aged individuals over adults.

The misuse of the term paedophilia irritates me beyond belief.

From what Cloo says in their post (I've bolded the relevant bit), it's a reasonable point to make regarding sex offender vs paedophile.


----------



## purplex (Apr 21, 2009)

chico enrico said:


> yes. like going to line-dancing classes.



All adults should be checked by these therapists, and locked away if they show the slightest urge. If you dont have any dodgy thoughts you have nothing to worry about.
Maybe we can check them in the womb, play a little country if the foetus moves in a co-ordinated fashion - kill it. Its worth the small percentage of error I think.


----------



## aylee (Apr 21, 2009)

Some very thoughtful posts in this thread .... and given that there's been an influx of foam-mouthed people on Urban recently, that's refreshing, given that there is nothing more likely to provoke the foam-mouthed than an attempt to discuss this issue in terms more sophisticated than "castrate them" or "hanging's too good for them".

I didn't see the programme but anything that promotes mature public debate about the problem of child sexual abuse and its perpetrators has to be a good thing.

I think it's very dangerous to assume that people with a sexual interest in children are necessarily unintelligent, educationally subnormal or "ugly", whatever that word means.  And I think it's also very dangerous to treat them all in the same way.  There are different levels of offending of this sort, and the tendency to treat people who download indecent pictures as being on the same level as the most dangerous, cunning, incorrigible predators (all being labelled as "paedos") is also dangerous.  I don't seek to minimise the seriousness of the downloading of indecent pictures of children but they present a very different challenge in terms of how they should be dealt with, and this isn't recognised by public opinion at all.

I would like to see much more research and funding into treatment-based programmes.  However, as with addictions, the first step is getting the individual to admit that they have a problem.  If they don't, you won't get anywhere.  In any case, the expense of such programmes and the inability of the public to debate this problem in a calm way means that it's highly unlikely that the sort of programmes that Mrs Magpie linked to earlier in the thread would become widely available in the UK.  Which is a pity.


----------



## sim667 (Apr 21, 2009)

purplex said:


> All adults should be checked by these therapists, and locked away if they show the slightest urge. If you dont have any dodgy thoughts you have nothing to worry about.
> Maybe we can check them in the womb, play a little country if the foetus moves in a co-ordinated fashion - kill it. Its worth the small percentage of error I think.



Im still trying to work out if that was a joke or not.


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 21, 2009)

about line dancing?
i would hope so - i know and like some line dancers


----------



## camouflage (Apr 21, 2009)

I watched the program and thought the facility looked like a campus at MIT or something.

Why do the paedo's look like physics proffesors?

I wouldn't trust my paedos to the councillor that looked like George Michael, that's for sure.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2009)

Exactly how many paedos do you have?


----------



## Espresso (Apr 21, 2009)

aylee said:


> I would like to see much more research and funding into treatment-based programmes.  However, as with addictions, the first step is getting the individual to admit that they have a problem.  If they don't, you won't get anywhere.  In any case, the expense of such programmes and the inability of the public to debate this problem in a calm way means that it's highly unlikely that the sort of programmes that Mrs Magpie linked to earlier in the thread would become widely available in the UK.  Which is a pity.



Seeing as you say you didn't see the telly programme, here's a bit of info that backs up what you're saying about accepting that you* have a problem : 70% of the inmates of the place in the documentary refused the therapy programme and rehabilitation on offer there.

Mind you, I'm sure a lot of them were refusing it on principle, seeing as they had already served their penal sentences and then they were put in there. So I suppose we don't know how many of them were rebelling against the powers that be pulling a fast one, as distinct from them _actually_ denying that there was anything amiss about them. But 70% of those convicted offenders is still a lot. Especially when you think that living  life of duplicity and mendacity must be second nature to yer average paedophile. And if you are a lifelong liar, why not lie some more to the people in charge, if it means you have a better chance of getting out?

* Not "you" = aylee. "You" = Person who's a paedophile. 
Blimey. I don't want anyone to think I'm calling them on a board I've only been a member of for half a wet week.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 21, 2009)

Also, there's the fact that doing 'the programme' takes up a lot of time that could be spent on legal appeals, and they're far more likely to get out on legal appeal than through 'the programme'.


----------



## scifisam (Apr 24, 2009)

Louis was a bit cowardly during this episode. He _really_ didn't want to seem to be sympathetic to any of those men. Hell, even with the extremely bad acts they've commited, I was sympathetic to some of them, who really were trying to change (and only want to be released with supervision, therapy, etc). People _can_ change. 



8ball said:


> Juliet in the Shakespeare play was 12 apparently (though personally I think the text implies she was a shade under 14).



And her BF was around the same age. Even if Paris, the man her parents wanted her to marry, was older (it's not clear either way), in those days a marriage was often literally just a contract, and there wouldn't be any sexual contact expected for a few years. 

Rome and Juliet are often brought up in this sort of discussion, but it's not a good example.



weltweit said:


> The thing is, what would you realistically do differently?



There isn't anything extra you could do really, is there? It's not as if you can look up paedophiles on a list, see that there are no convicted ones living near you, breathe a sigh of relief and know that your kid is safe. There are lots of prior offenders who aren't convicted, lots who will do it in the future, and other convicted paedophiles who can catch the bus. 



Sadken said:


> I can totally imagine a total loser with little or no prospect of getting a consenting adult partner- the way a lot of these people are - just looking for sexual release any which way he or she can get it and slowly getting dragged deeper in.



I can't. They'd have to be attracted to those kids in order to enjoy sex with them. To most people, kids aren't sexually attractive. 



PieEye said:


> A bunch of paedophiles singing the Adam's Family round a piano.  Louis was probably creaming himself when they got that.



Perhaps the wrong choice of words, but yeah. 



The Octagon said:


> Just a point -
> 
> Paedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescents.
> 
> ...





8ball said:


> Also, there's the fact that doing 'the programme' takes up a lot of time that could be spent on legal appeals, and they're far more likely to get out on legal appeal than through 'the programme'.



There's also pederasty. 

I agree that there's a difference between being attracted to pre-pubescents and being attracted to later pubescents. The latter is even encouraged - 'barely legal' stuff, tabloid articles about Charlotte Church being legal now, the fashion for famous women to have the bodies of young teens.


----------



## pk (Apr 24, 2009)

bemused said:


> As far as I'm concerned if you get convicted of this sort of crime twice that should mean you forfeit your rights to life



I'm still of the "eradicate them for the sake of mankind" opinion.
Use 'em for medical experiments, whatever, I don't really care as long as they're not free.

Which is obviously far more logical and sensible that locking them up for 8 months then releasing them out into the public to rape again.

I didn't watch it because Theroux makes me angry enough, never mind a bunch of child rapists.

Anyone with the lack of self control that they would rape a child needs permamently removing from society, no compromise on that from me.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 24, 2009)

it did seem like an excuse to indefinitely detain these people under the guise that it was 'treatment' rather than punishment...


----------



## pk (Apr 24, 2009)

fakeplasticgirl said:


> it did seem like an excuse to indefinitely detain these people under the guise that it was 'treatment' rather than punishment...



Good. Indefinitely detaining people is just as effective as destroying them.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 25, 2009)

scifisam said:


> And her BF was around the same age. Even if Paris, the man her parents wanted her to marry, was older (it's not clear either way), in those days a marriage was often literally just a contract, and there wouldn't be any sexual contact expected for a few years.
> 
> Rome and Juliet are often brought up in this sort of discussion, but it's not a good example.



i remeber reading that romeos age is said to be about 18,  but  however it's not at all relevant to pedophilla   it's not even odd socially or legally...  in fact in italy the age of consent is  14  even now


----------



## scifisam (Apr 25, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> i remeber reading that romeos age is said to be about 18,  but  however it's not at all relevant to pedophilla   it's not even odd socially or legally...  in fact in italy the age of consent is  14  even now



There really is no way of knowing how old he was, just that he was pretty young - he hadn't been sent out to work in any way, hadn't been sent to war, wasn't contracted to marry anyone else, and, all in all, just acts young.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 25, 2009)

pk said:


> Good. Indefinitely detaining people is just as effective as destroying them.



How's that then?  As effective at doing what, exactly?  Do you want to "destroy" everyone who feels sexual attraction towards children, or only those who act on their attraction?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 25, 2009)

romeo always struck me as an arse  rosaline was lucky to get away


----------



## scifisam (Apr 25, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> romeo always struck me as an arse  rosaline was lucky to get away



This is true. At the Globe last Sunday, my daughter (Juliette) invited a Friar Lawrence charcater to guess her name. He cycled through them all, including Rosalind - from As You Like It - but had completely forgotten she was Romeo's first love in the play that he was supposed to be a character in. Juliet was just a rebound love.  In the play.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 25, 2009)

i supose this is why i liked baz's version quite a lot... my hate for dicaprio  resonated  quite happily with my hate   for romeo


----------



## Azrael (Apr 25, 2009)

aylee said:


> I would like to see much more research and funding into treatment-based programmes.


As it would probably cost less than detaining the men for life, I'd agree. 

Much as I dislike the idea, there will always exist some mentally ill people who must be imprisoned for life. Some will not have harmed others. So I have no problem with transferring paedophiles to the locked ward after they've served their sentence. Not as punishment, but as a precaution, founded on a proven crime. (So no _Minority Report_ issues.)

Those paedophiles who can be treated should be released after serving a long, arduous sentence at hard labour. But the authorities should constantly err on the side of caution, and never use these men's urges to excuse them. They chose to do what they do, and the law should make them suffer for it.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 25, 2009)

oh great suffering  in prisons

how wonderfully quaint and victorian


----------



## Azrael (Apr 25, 2009)

I'll leave aside my preferred penal regime, as that's been covered elsewhere, and isn't really relevant to the thread. 

The California programme appears the best solution to paedophiles who've served their prison sentence but remain dangerous. We should adopt something similar. It shouldn't be punitive in any way, as the inmates have already been punished, but they should have to present compelling evidence of change before they're released from lock up. The few inmates on the Theroux programme who had done so were the exception, so you'd probably be paying a lot of money to keep paedophiles imprisoned in comfort. 

I'd support that, as justice, not suffering, is my priority.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Apr 25, 2009)

how does one present evidence of ones sexual preference?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 25, 2009)

scifisam said:


> And her BF was around the same age. Even if Paris, the man her parents wanted her to marry, was older (it's not clear either way), *in those days a marriage was often literally just a contract, and there wouldn't be any sexual contact expected for a few years.*



(bold mine)

Ah - wasn't aware of that bit.  

Do you have anything to hand to back that up?


----------



## JWH (Apr 26, 2009)

scifisam said:


> There really is no way of knowing how old he was, just that he was pretty young - he hadn't been sent out to work in any way, hadn't been sent to war, wasn't contracted to marry anyone else, and, all in all, just acts young.


And is a fictional character!


----------

