Paedaphiles' brains 'different'

[emzie]

Do you hold someone responsible for actions outside of their control... say a diabetic in an automatous where there is absolutely no control?

Do you just lock up a mentally ill person who killed/attacked someone while quite literally out of their mind? I'd suggest the better course is holding them and treating them, they're a risk while they're ill, not more inherently dangerous than any other person.

It's the 'out side of one's control' where I differ. No one should be locked up for an attraction. It's acting upon the attraction that is criminal. Being gay is not a crime. Having non-consensual sex with another guy is still rape.

 

[skadistic]

No child rapists go in to get help or get caught. That's what makes them child rapists. Their is no legala justifications for locking up pedophiles for thought crimes. There is even less of an argument for locking up pedophiles with this report.

Yeah but how are you going to know if they don't get caught? 99.99% hide the fact. Other then that idiot out west its not something they advertise.

 

[JZ_UK]

comparing child raping deviants to diabetics is just ridiculous.

My choice of diabetics is coloured by case law, theres a number of different ways criminal responsibility for an action can be removed or lessened, one decided case where no responsibility at all could be attached involved a diabetic hence my using it, while another diabetic in a different state (I don't remember off hand if its hypo or hyper) was held to be insane and thus criminal sanction was applicable, but the range of sanctions for insane criminals are different to other criminals.

Yeah but not all pedophiles are child rapists. Since, ya know, pedophilia is strictly defined as sexual attraction towards prepubescent children, not necessarily acting on it - that's what people are saying that therapy should be used as intervention, not after an actual crime. I don't think anyone is saying that they arn't responsible for their actions, though. Predisposition is not the same thing as a cause.

Locking someone up simply because they are a pedophile despite making all measures to not act on that desire screams of thoughtcrimes, though.

Actually, I am suggesting that a possible out come of this is that there maybe situations where they are not responsible for their actions, someone with a brain tumor that causes them to lash out violently isn't responsible for the actions in the way that someone who's just bad tempered is...

Of course, the law doesn't always punish people just because they're responsible for something, it may well punish someone who can't really be blamed for their actions on the grounds that they're dangerous to the rest of society.

Of course, theres some beautiful obiter in either a Denning or Diplock case where they waxed lyrical about how there should never be any thoughtcrime... I'll have to look it up again coz it made me smile when I read it...

 

[Japanrocks12]

herbert the pervert rules.

you win

 

[Bill3000]

And how many pedophiles are found out before they offend by raping kids or possessing child porn and got caught. Or caught for something else and discovered? How many are just gonna go in and get "help"?

Child porn is actually probably a good idea for catching them for therapy, since it's the creation thereof (assuming that it's not simulated) that is the moral problem, not the consumption thereof. But having an incentive such as the death penalty or the current I-am-not-human-so-I-have-no-rights theme isn't really going to give them an incentive to go for help, though.

Yeah but how are you going to know if they don't get caught? 99.99% hide the fact. Other then that idiot out west its not something they advertise.

Well, if you're just going to put them on the sexual offender list without them actually committing a crime, it isn't going to give them much incentive to ask for help to repress their urges, no?

 

[cubsfan6506]

Yeah but how are you going to know if they don't get caught? 99.99% hide the fact. Other then that idiot out west its not something they advertise.

You know I think we should just walk everybody in the country up. They might be future rapists.

Are you attracted to woman? Does that mean you're going to rape a woman.

 

[Elrohir]

Perhaps, but it's not a good justification. Let's look at obesity as a counterexample. There's genetic predisposition towards obesity, such as a lower metabolism, making the choice that much unbalanced, but ultimately it's still the responsibility of the person to get fat in the first place. It may make it more sympathetic, but it's not even remotely a true justification if the deed is done.

I prefer comparing it to alcoholism, as that can result in illegal actions, while an inclination towards obesity generally can't, unless you're stealing the food to get fat on.

I may feel a little bit of sympathy towards a compulsive drinker who drinks often because he has a biological predisposition to do so. But I'm not going to let him off the hook if he runs over someone while driving drunk, either. Everyone has predispotions towards certain things, some good, some bad, most depending on how they're uzed and in what circumstances. We can't absolve someone of moral responsibility if they still have a choice as to how they act, which alcoholics - and pedophiles - certainly do.

 

[Bill3000]

I prefer comparing it to alcoholism, as that can result in illegal actions, while an inclination towards obesity generally can't, unless you're stealing the food to get fat on.

I may feel a little bit of sympathy towards a compulsive drinker who drinks often because he has a biological predisposition to do so. But I'm not going to let him off the hook if he runs over someone while driving drunk, either. Everyone has predispotions towards certain things, some good, some bad, most depending on how they're uzed and in what circumstances. We can't absolve someone of moral responsibility if they still have a choice as to how they act, which alcoholics - and pedophiles - certainly do.

Yeah, alcoholic was probably a better choice of an analogy, but I didn't know at the top of my head if there was a biological disposition towards it.

 

[Elrohir]

Yeah, alcoholic was probably a better choice of an analogy, but I didn't know at the top of my head if there was a biological disposition towards it.

Apparently that's what the evidence shows.

 

[Bill3000]

Apparently that's what the evidence shows.

Not surprising - but I believe I said "at the top of my head"

 

[woody60707]

But but, dateline still has so much more money to milk this for all its worth.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

How to deal with pedophiles? A noose and a tree. After due process and all that jazz, of course...

 

[cubsfan6506]

Hey pasi don't you think you're new sig is a bit off from what bill actually said.

 

[Bill3000]

yeah, the correct line was

[00:36] <Bill3000> child porn = awesome simply because it pisses off pasi

You even got the damned timestamp wrong.

 

[LightFang]

This is how real media works. They take quotes out of context and edit them to their content so that it looks like Bill's saying things that he never meant to say!

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

yeah, the correct line was

[00:36] <Bill3000> child porn = awesome simply because it pisses off pasi

You even got the damned timestamp wrong.

Actually I'm saying exactly what Bill said. Bill said that child porn is awesome. I didn't state why, I didn't state that he is a pedophile or anything, I merely provided the quote that he thinks child porn is awesome, which is, in itself, entirely true.

 

[woody60707]

This is how real media works. They take quotes out of context and edit them to their content so that it looks like Bill's saying things that he never meant to say!

This is true. And oddly enough, still very much related to topic.

 

[LightFang]

Actually I'm saying exactly what Bill said. Bill said that child porn is awesome. I didn't state why, I didn't state that he is a pedophile or anything, I merely provided the quote that he thinks child porn is awesome, which is, in itself, entirely true.

I'll bring my argument out in public so the denizens of CFC as a whole and not just #fiftychat can enjoy this.

You're misrepresenting him because that was not his whole statement. His whole statement was:

"<Bill3000> child porn = awesome simply because it pisses off pasi"

Now: I'm not necessarily angry at the fact that you put "<Bill3000> child porn =awesome". But you're misrepresenting him. He stating a fact and then gave a justification for it. By removing it, you're removing the bit that makes Bill look like an earnest pedophile rather than a man who said something sarcastic to make people grin. Even so, even if you really think that he meant it seriously, the least, the very least you could do is add an ellipsis to show that that was not the complete and full quotation.

This is true. And oddly enough, still very much related to topic.

I'm clever like that! You may think it's unrelated, but it all is. I never spam.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I'll bring my argument out in public so the denizens of CFC as a whole and not just #fiftychat can enjoy this.

You're misrepresenting him because that was not his whole statement. His whole statement was:

"<Bill3000> child porn = awesome simply because it pisses off pasi"

Now: I'm not necessarily angry at the fact that you put "<Bill3000> child porn =awesome". But you're misrepresenting him. He stating a fact and then gave a justification for it. By removing it, you're removing the bit that makes Bill look like an earnest pedophile rather than a man who said something sarcastic to make people grin. Even so, even if you really think that he meant it seriously, the least, the very least you could do is add an ellipsis to show that that was not the complete and full quotation.

Again, the fact of the matter is that he said "child porn = awesome." To say that there is justification for that (I believe the word you were looking for was qualification) is about the same as saying "holocaust = awesome + justification." What I provided is completely true in that he said exactly what is in my signature. I misrepresented nothing.

 

[LightFang]

Again, the fact of the matter is that he said "child porn = awesome." To say that there is justification for that (I believe the word you were looking for was qualification) is about the same as saying "holocaust = awesome + justification." What I provided is completely true in that he said exactly what is in my signature. I misrepresented nothing.

A. Godwin's Law.
B. Maybe so, but that's still misrepresentation. Bill was making a sarcastic comment and providing false qualification (I will admit that I don't actually know the proper term, and justification seemed close) with the specific intent to make you angry. At least, that is my interpretation of the events. Now, with your truncated version, nobody can tell anything. In fact, that's just a simple quote. You don't even show that there's more to the story. And that's misrepresentation.

At least, the very least you could do is put an ellipsis in there. They look like this: ... and they help people get their facts straight.