|
|
trevor
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: November 2002
Messages: 732
|
|
|
but I really don't understand. Tim, can you please explain? I didn't see any PERSON being judged. I didn't seen any hostility. I saw some opinions expressed, but even when strongly expressed the apparently-offending writers seemed open to more information to adjust opinions.
Tim - why did you ask the "Is it wrong" question if you didn't want an answer? To me it looks like we're just sharing our opinions on the consentual-age morality issue, which is certainly debateable.
I feel like I'm in a roomful of children who have been severely reprimaded, yet I don't know what "we" did and therefore if I even participated or not.
Kanga - I am sorry for my inaccurate phrasing. My point was, if we talk about a totally anonymous couple knowing only their ages and gender, I don't think this can be considered an "invasion of privacy" in any way. But, knowing there IS such a couple, this is not simply a theoretical discussion.
I could be wrong, but I doubt Tim would ask "is this wrong" regarding an identifiable couple who reads this message board because it could hurt their feelings - maybe that's what you're thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
I think that society must strike a very delicate balance when setting its priorities of punishing offenders and guarding the welfare of victims. But there is a third concern as well and that is the protection of the next potential victim. Particularly in cases involving sexual predators there is a high likelihood that the predator will continue to victimize children if he/she (yes they come in both flavors) is not removed from society. I think this contributes greatly to the zeal of society to place punishing the offenders well ahead of looking after the welfare of a single victim. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, just offering it as another factor to be considered as part of any discussion of setting society's priorities on such matters.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I think that your reaction tends to underline my point. Paedophile offenders come in many guises. Some are, in a very real sense, predators; I agree entirely that they should be removed from free society. Many, however, are not predatory. They are screwed-up, inadequate adults who in many cases have been starved of affection or abused themselves at some stage in their lives. They have no wish to dominate or rape; perhaps they give in to temptation - a hug becomes a feel becomes an overtly sexual act... I am not defending or justifying their actions; I am simply making a plea for acceptance of the self-evident truth that there are degrees of culpability.
A Scout Leader has become involved with a boy in his care. The relationship is consensual - though no doubt it was engineered (not necessarily consciously) by the adult. I'd guess that this is by no means an uncommon scenario. OK, the adult must be taken out of youth leadership or any other activity bringing him in contact with children. He should be under official supervision, maybe for the rest of his life. Ideally, he should receive counselling and rehabilitation (or whatever you like to call it!) - apparently there is a reasonable chance that this will be effective. All this the law (at least in the UK) can achieve by consent without dragging the victim through the Courts. From my own limited experience - the sum total of which is admitted in the postings above - this makes a great deal of sense. But, as ever, you may think differently - such is the attraction of debate!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
e
|
|
On fire! |
Location: currently So Cal
Registered: May 2002
Messages: 1179
|
|
|
I would agree that paedophiles are not necessarily predatory. I would agree there are different degrees of culpability. However a paedophile who actively pursues sex with children is by definition predatory. It does not matter whether the paedophile intended to cross the line into sexual acts with children or even whether or not it was a conscious decision. Once the line is crossed the paedophile has become predatory and generally speaking it becomes easier to cross the line a second time.
I will add a disclaimer here stating that the definition of paedophile can become rather blurry when the child involved is a teenager. The age of consent and age of majority are set arbitrarily by various governments around the world.
By some definitions paedophilia can be considered a sexual preference although it is not acceptable in most societies and is considered to be a psychological disorder even in paedophiles who are not predatory. Most research into treatment modalities has shown that treatment of paedophilia is largely unsuccessful. If you consider it to be a sexual preference consider the 'successful' treatment of homosexuals as an analogy. This makes 'what to do' with predatoy paedophiles a legitimate problem as recidivism rates are quite high.
It is good that in the UK they have developed methods of dealing with predators that can help to reduce the stress on the victim. Here in the US it can be done only with the cooperation of the offender who would have to accept a plea bargain rather than go to trial. At trial the offender has the right to cross examine his accuser, therefore the child is subject to questioning. Often the is done using closed circuit TV where the offender can watch his attorney question the victim, but the victim cannot see the offender or even the jury.
Think good thoughts,
e
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
