nebristolred Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 bang on. could'nt agree more. You two keep saying untrue things! There are methods of treating it NOW. Not after, later, or next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamon Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Has Maynard signed his contract yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Risk assessment could be done by any decent psychologist. They'd be able to tell whether they're willing to help themselves, and how bad the problem is. Monitoring could be more difficult or expensive, but housing them in a mental home for several months during treatment would sound good to me. They are away from any potential temptation, can be monitored very well, and can have proper treatment. Up to a point, yes but the best assessment of risk and assessment of commitment to change comes from other offenders. Its similar to the way a recovering alcoholic will often know when another is heading for a relapse. Experienced and skilled counsellors will also have developed those 'sixth senses'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 You two keep saying untrue things! There are methods of treating it NOW. Not after, later, or next year. Like what?, I said there is no cure, you dispute that. RR said that the 12 step AA approach had some success. Alcoholics and drug addicts are never cured they are recovering not cured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 It's not a "cure" in that you take a pill and suddenly you're better. It's a number of methods designed for extinguishing the behaviour learned in return for new behaviour to replace it. You can't talk about it in the same light as an injection which cures a disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I dont get this idea that they should be allowed to live in this world and be a risk to children?? Kinda like saying why should we be allowed to live in this world as a risk to women? Just because we're attracted to them, doesnt mean we're just gonna go out n rape them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I've kept mostly quiet throughout this whole thread so far, but as someone involved in the safeguarding of children, I have to say that there is some nonsense being talked here, but refreshingly some good points too, from those brave enough to make them. A few points: To brand all offenders in cases involving children (i.e. below the age of consent) as genetic 'paedophiles' is inappropriate. Behaviour is learned as much as inherited, and inappropriate behaviour can often be eradicated by the right sort of education and support. The notion that there is nothing that can be done for anyone involved in such case is simply not true. The age differential needs to be taken into account. There is a huge difference between inappropriate behaviour by a socially awkward teenager, and systematic predatory behaviour by a fully adult male. To take it to extremes, there is an enormous difference between a man of 50 grooming an eight year old and a nineteen year old having inappropriate conversations with a twelve year old. If a 16 year old has a relationship with a 15 year old, does that make him (or her) a paedophile? No, of course it doesn't. Many professionals involved in safeguarding would say that it is the present broad brush 'hang 'em all' attitude of the tabloid media that is partly responsible for cases not being identified. An understanding of the behaviour of these people is key to being to identify cases of harm to children. It may be easiest to think of child abusers as that dirty old man down the road (a point controversially made by Chris Morris's famous 'Brass Eye' paedophilia special) but the uncomfortable truth is that the majority of cases of child abuse are carried out by a family member or friend. There are, of course, cases of offenders for whom there is no possibility of rehabiltation, for want of a proper word. For them, chemical castration might well be an option, and is sometimes requested by the offender. I don't know the facts in the present case, but given that the offender is still a teenager, and had not had actual contact with the children involved, I would not condemn him out of hand 'for life'. He may well just be a poorly adjusted and immature young man who has done something very stupid that he will probably be ashamed of for the rest of his life. I simply don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 EMB - I fail to see how any monitoring regime could have stopped him from using a computer short of paying someone to follow him all day long. It's not even close to realistic. The only thing that could have helped here is treatment leading to rehabilitation. Here's some things you should consider: - Most convicted sex offenders don't go to prison right now - Almost every sex offender who is imprisoned is released at some point - Very few of convicted sex offenders are treated. - Treatment does not in any way affect how long someone is imprisoned for. I don't understand why people seem to think that incarceration and treatment are mutually exclusive? I'm not and never have suggested we shorten imprisonment, we need to use that for protection of the public and yes for punishment. Equally imprisonment can't be lengthened. You start giving mandatory life terms and you will see a rise in deaths. There is no deterrent factor here. All I'm suggesting is that alone, imprisonment is provably insufficient and we should be providing sex offenders with treatment as well - and the strategy should be decided by experts not politicians. Also that we need to try and create circumstances where more victims come forward, not less. This isn't about paedos rights, it's about doing something to prevent child abuse rather than just postpone or ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Kinda like saying why should we be allowed to live in this world as a risk to women? Just because we're attracted to them, doesnt mean we're just gonna go out n rape them. We havent raped any women - so why would anyone think we are capable of doing so. I talking about convicted paedophiles - those that cannot contain the urge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 cje's post is very good. Basically what i meant but in much better words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lugger Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I'm no specialist, not the victim of, know no one who has been or knows anyone who has been victimised so perhaps my view doesn't hold much water but my parents, teachers, mates and colleagues don't have to tell me not to touch kids, because some bloke in years gone by decided it was a bad thing and called it law. I then go about my life making decisions about right and wrong and if at any point I'm not sure if its a good decision I'll ask someone what they think. Over a period of time you work out what is acceptable and what is not. If I'm walking down the street and like the look of some busty 20 something lady and perhaps momentarily picture us having a cuddle then I don't just pounce on her cos she might not be keen. 2 reasons, first being I don't want her to be unhappy due to my actions and the second being that its against the law. I'm guided by my moral and socially driven compass first and if that ever gets confused the law thing kicks in - simples! If these people who hurt kids had just come out of a cave with this urge and started doing it then rehabilitate them and condition them that it's not acceptable - that I'm all for that idea. The reality is that their urge is against the law and if they can't fight it then talk to someone about it before you become a criminal. The whole "daily mail" reader blow off shout is hollow. I'm a sensible guy, but if someone hurt either of my two children I'd turn into the worst caveman - hell hath no fury - I won't rest until he's dead - mother f*cker that walked the planet so I'm with the majority on here that says prevention first at all costs and then we'll think about rehabilitation afterwards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 How can you cure something you're born with? Death, that's how. Come on, mate, keep up. How can there be evidence that people are born with a 'paedophile gene' unless they start offending on the first day of their lives? (incidentally, there are many things that you can be born with and later cured of...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I'm no specialist, not the victim of, know no one who has been or knows anyone who has been victimised so perhaps my view doesn't hold much water but my parents, teachers, mates and colleagues don't have to tell me not to touch kids, because some bloke in years gone by decided it was a bad thing and called it law. I then go about my life making decisions about right and wrong and if at any point I'm not sure if its a good decision I'll ask someone what they think. Over a period of time you work out what is acceptable and what is not. If I'm walking down the street and like the look of some busty 20 something lady and perhaps momentarily picture us having a cuddle then I don't just pounce on her cos she might not be keen. 2 reasons, first being I don't want her to be unhappy due to my actions and the second being that its against the law. I'm guided by my moral and socially driven compass first and if that ever gets confused the law thing kicks in - simples! If these people who hurt kids had just come out of a cave with this urge and started doing it then rehabilitate them and condition them that it's not acceptable - that I'm all for that idea. The reality is that their urge is against the law and if they can't fight it then talk to someone about it before you become a criminal. The whole "daily mail" reader blow off shout is hollow. I'm a sensible guy, but if someone hurt either of my two children I'd turn into the worst caveman - hell hath no fury - I won't rest until he's dead - mother f*cker that walked the planet so I'm with the majority on here that says prevention first at all costs and then we'll think about rehabilitation afterwards! Well said I suspect many who opt for the softer approach would also feel the same as you if such an incident befell their family and I suspect most are single without children and until they actually become parents they can never understand the lengths parents are prepared to go to in the protection of their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Well said I suspect many who opt for the softer approach would also feel the same as you if such an incident befell their family and I suspect most are single without children and until they actually become parents they can never understand the lengths parents are prepared to go to in the protection of their children. Well, I dont think it matters if you have kids. I have always had my views, before I had kids of my own. Furthermore, the views I have, are not from reading tabloids.... I havent read a newspaper for about 6 years... why would I? all the news is on the net.... free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Well said I suspect many who opt for the softer approach would also feel the same as you if such an incident befell their family and I suspect most are single without children and until they actually become parents they can never understand the lengths parents are prepared to go to in the protection of their children. For about the fifth time, it's not an either/or. You don't have to opt for one approach here. The rest of your post is just pointless emotive supposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 For about the fifth time, it's not an either/or. You don't have to opt for one approach here. The rest of your post is just pointless emotive supposition. You sure about?, ask any parent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 You sure about?, ask any parent. That's right, ignore the actual point and focus on the irrelevant bit. It doesn't matter what lengths you think parents will go to blah blah blah because there need not be any difference in how long people are imprisoned for. I am really not sure how to explain it more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Well, I dont think it matters if you have kids. I have always had my views, before I had kids of my own. Furthermore, the views I have, are not from reading tabloids.... I havent read a newspaper for about 6 years... why would I? all the news is on the net.... free Me too, although the birth of my children and my grand children actually cemented those views and made the feeling real. ditto for point as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 That's right, ignore the actual point and focus on the irrelevant bit. It doesn't matter what lengths you think parents will go to blah blah blah because there need not be any difference in how long people are imprisoned for. I am really not sure how to explain it more clearly. But whilst they are in imprisoned they are not harming kids, that's clear enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 But whilst they are in imprisoned they are not harming kids, that's clear enough for me. Yes, that's very simple. Of course, when they get out, they'll be harming kids again but never mind eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.