Partial Cure for Child Molestation....?

[arizonavet]

We know that prison is pitifully inadequate for the beasts that prey on our most helpless citizens.
They get out and continuing satisfying their dangerously warped sex-drive....

I honestly want input on these two "modest" suggestions.

Put GPS anklets on a child molester the very first time they are found guilty, and leave it on for the LIFE of the molestor...no matter what.....when he is buried, I want the device firmly attached.

Offer greatly reduced sentences for common molestation, not involving death or serious bodily injury of a child....
If the perp will voluntarily submit to actual surgical castration....the chemical variety is worthless.

[beez0811]

Microchip them just like pets are microchipped.

[arizonavet]

Jun 9, 2011 10:37:56 GMT -5 beez0811 said:

Microchip them just like pets are microchipped.

Wouldn't work with today's technology Beez...

The purpose of child molestors being fitted with the GPS devices is to be able to see if a given molestor has been near, where a child was molested....the perp KNOWS this ability.
Also, in the case where an abduction is involved....they might even be able to find the child before they are killed.
Molestor's can, and have cut the device off their leg.....it instantly sends a signal to a command center & an APB is issued for his arrest, and the neighborhood where he was last "tracked" can be put on alert.

Microchips only give the info of the person being scanned with a hand held device.

[Erasmus]

I don't know where to dig it up but Canada claims around 80% success with preventing re-offence. They have taken the trouble to distinguish between paedophiles and paederasts. There is no crime in finding children attractive, any more than in finding men or women attractive. There is a crime when it comes to forcing yourself on somebody you find attractive. Only abnormal people feel entitled (or even want) to rape anybody they happen to find desirable and most of us don't feel the need to seduce every attractive person either.

So they have concentrated on the lack of social control that allows some people to put themselves where they are not wanted, not on the desire itself, which they think an incurable deviation, and on the self-deception that children really understand what's going on.

What I don't remember is details, because paederast covers all too many categories, from men who will rape anything so children are just in line but not a special interest, to forms of emotional retardation that believe there is a genuine relationship, and then the under-age cases created by varying laws of consent that may be quite legal elsewhere.

I would guess that it's mostly the sadists and generic rapists who are the failures and those who believe they genuinely care for children, the most likely to realise that they are seriously screwing them up and desist.

[arizonavet]

Jun 9, 2011 13:29:16 GMT -5 Erasmus said:

I don't know where to dig it up but Canada claims around 80% success with preventing re-offence. They have taken the trouble to distinguish between paedophiles and paederasts. There is no crime in finding children attractive, any more than in finding men or women attractive. There is a crime when it comes to forcing yourself on somebody you find attractive. Only abnormal people feel entitled (or even want) to rape anybody they happen to find desirable and most of us don't feel the need to seduce every attractive person either.

So they have concentrated on the lack of social control that allows some people to put themselves where they are not wanted, not on the desire itself, which they think an incurable deviation, and on the self-deception that children really understand what's going on.


What I don't remember is details, because paederast covers all too many categories, from men who will rape anything so children are just in line but not a special interest, to forms of emotional retardation that believe there is a genuine relationship, and then the under-age cases created by varying laws of consent that may be quite legal elsewhere.

I would guess that it's mostly the sadists and generic rapists who are the failures and those who believe they genuinely care for children, the most likely to realise that they are seriously screwing them up and desist.

Serious thought went into this Erasmus....I appreciat it.

Who cares what anyone thinks....it none of our business, any more than who cares if a person is hopelessly predjudiced....that, of course is their right.

It's when they act upon these feelings that we take serious exception.

I for one don't care one whit what a person is thinking if they molest children.

Canada has had no success at all in this area.....I lived & worked in Seattle & vacationed in beautiful British Columbia frequently...
It seems that every day you hear of a child molester being given a light sentence, over & over.....(LWOP in Canada is a joke).....and assaulting children over & over.

I really don't believe that this is something to be over-intellectualized....

It's pretty simple why they do it, and why their rate of recidivism is so abysmally poor.

It's time to protect our innocents and let the "social-intellectuals" go mumble in the corner...they've never protected one child, quite the contrary they seem to glory in releasing child molesters.

Erasmus....what did you think of my (GPS & voluntary castration) proposals?

[mouse]

pity there isnt a way of inserting some chip that will cause blinding headaches when the part of the brain which sexual desire comes from is activated

[Erasmus]

The biggest human sex organ is the brain. Denmark, possibly other Scandinavian countries use chemical castration that seems to have some success. Just chopping their goolies off is only going to create as paedophile with a grudge and eunuchs have always features as preferred torturers. In any case, it's not going to address the women or the women procuring for rings. Most links rom here seem to lead to abstruse abstracts covering what was done without saying anything.

Unfortunately, all sorts of different things get lumped together without distinction. If somebody rapes or has an affair with a girl, that does not make a paedophile just because she is under age. If somebody only seduces immature children then we can say that it does. If a rapist doesn't give a damn what the victim is or even if human, that is one problem but not a specifically paedophile problem. You can't put a 17 year old having sex with a 14 year old girlfriend in the same category as a 17 year old seducing an 8 year old or either with a violent rapist of 17. What about sex offenders who are themselves underage?

We're trying to deal with something that has suddenly exploded into public awareness as if it never existed before. One reason it does look such an explosion is the number of years cases cover, all coming to light in the same short period, whether they were committed yesterday or thirty years ago. It's something that has always gone on, even with men who were otherwise well catered for in normal sexual terms, so it's hard to conclude that there is a distinct separate paedophile mentality.

What there is, I suppose, is a change of social attitude just as there was a change of social attitude against slavery (which included paederasty). The return of women to admitting sexual desire of their own without social condemnation gives a much stronger appreciation that sex should be mutual, not just something men do. If it's mutual, that gives a stronger inhibition against non-mutual sex and stronger social condemnation of it. I find the prospect of non-mutual sex quite off-putting but that is not true of seducers, rapists or prostitute clients (and it is only through being a client that I found it needed more than physicality to be interesting). Eventually perhaps we will come to see all forms of sexual desire that don't require mutuality as forms of rape, but I know that a lot of people think otherwise and even classing sex with a woman too drunk to refuse as rape has led to a lot of indignant spluttering. Who that had any more concern for her than a rapist would want it in the first place?

[mouse]

Jun 22, 2011 12:20:54 GMT -5 Erasmus said:

The biggest human sex organ is the brain

. Denmark, possibly other Scandinavian countries use chemical castration that seems to have some success. Just chopping their goolies off is only going to create as paedophile with a grudge and eunuchs have always features as preferred torturers.

we need to find a way to either take away the sex drive..but that would leave the grudge[as you mention
or we need to find a way ofgetting the brain to cause pain when sex is thought of in any way
though i am sure human rights would jump up and down screaming

[arizonavet]

I like the idea of somehow, majically creating a massive headache when they first turn on to children.
Not withstanding the fact that you would punish someone who may have their abnormal urges completely under control from any form of action.....few as they may be.

They would resent, to the point of murderous action, the voluntary cutting off of their "goulies"?
Just don't see this as realistic.

I thought I was being "benevolent"....hell, the second time they violently, sexually assaulted a child...I'd cut them off with a can opener...with great predjudice.

Erasmus....we do agree that there is a "blurring" of the age/guilt deal.

Also, I personally KNOW of a case in my home town, where the 15 year old girl desparatly wanted an 18 year old boy to make love to her...
He refused on several occasions...she admitted it.
She succeeded eventually, then, because he wouldn't fall in love with her,
she went to the police and simply told them the truth...

He was found guilty, given a short sentence, and is now (as is his parients home) on the "register" as a sex offender/residence.

The young man has no previous offences, and simply cannot get a job.

Totally wrong, but a far cry from real child molestors.

Read about this sweetie...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana

Kennedy is still "stealing oxygen" in a Louisiana state pen....still dangerous as hell.

[Deleted]

Sorry, folks, castration doesn't work; it's been tried, and it failed. We had a man volunteer for (chemical) castration in a plea deal, in return for a reduced sentence.

Two years later he did it again.

There is also the problem of many, many people having been ruined by being declared "sex offenders" when no offense was committed in the first place.

[arizonavet]

Sept 9, 2011 11:29:10 GMT -5 @lewis said:

Sorry, folks, castration doesn't work; it's been tried, and it failed. We had a man volunteer for (chemical) castration in a plea deal, in return for a reduced sentence.

Two years later he did it again.

There is also the problem of many, many people having been ruined by being declared "sex offenders" when no offense was committed in the first place.

Accusing ANY person falsely, "ruins their lives"....it doesn't mean that we shouldn't protect children, because of that possibility.

Like I said, chemical "castration" is worthless....

That doesn't mean that voluntary castration to achive a lessor sentence.....wouldn't be
very effective.
I tend to not believe the "grudge" theory....
I don't believe the majority of child molestors kill or rape children because they are anti-government, or authority.
They do it because children "turn them on", and society won't just let them "date" them, like they could, if the object of their sex drive were over the age of consent.

OK, what about the GPS anklet?

Sounds pretty "moderate" to me.