I am all for finding a better way to prevent, identify and treat this "disease", and I have no problem spending money on it either,

If it isn't a disease, what is it then? Where and how does it start? Do children just one day up and think, "Oh, I think I'm going to become a pedophile? Why are pedophiles more prevalent in some societies than others? So many people here seem just to be angry and vengeful about it, without trying to understand why it happens in the first place, or that very possibly their own children could one day become a pedophile. There must be a reason. Instead of concentrating on pitchfork and torch Frankenstein justice, wouldn't it do everyone much more good if we looked hard at what causes pedophilia in the first place and preventing it? Sure, our children are the dearest things in the world, but the propensity to automatically put them into that haloed esteem at the same time automatically makes us blind to the plight of the pedophile. No one wants to become society's most reviled lowlife. Something spurred it on, and most likely there is a seed of the problem in the attitudes of the society itself.

Miguel, I think it is a disease. The wired sexual attraction toward children is a disease. There are a number of pedophiles that have recognized this and are doing all they can to avoid acting out those desires. Some, like any other criminal, don't care who gets harmed in their way, and those I look at differently, still as people that need help; but while we figure this out, I do not want them around kids.
It is a subject that would best be studied without any demonizing, because those that suffer from it could come forward before they act on it, to get the help they need. It is also hard wired into a parent, to do all they can to protect their children, and if they advocate that measures be taken so that we don't have more victims, they should not be demonized either. I certainly am not out there with a pitchfork.

Just another similarity between BSA and the Catholic Church.

"Sure, our children are the dearest things in the world, but the propensity to automatically put them into that haloed esteem at the same time automatically makes us blind to the plight of the pedophile."

Do you think before you write? Plight? Really?

Alright Dave T.! Another forum thread for you to run religion and the Boyscouts through the mud! You must be excited!

Merely stating a fact. Can't change facts. Had you not heard of the wide-ranging issue of the Catholic Church secretly shuffling child-molesting priests from church to church? If you haven't, you should research it. It's shameful.

Also, if you actually read the Boy Scout thread, instead of assuming it's a broad attack on religion and the BSA, you might find that my comments are more narrowly focused on whether the BSA should be allowed accept government access, funding, and support while simultaneously discriminating based on religious beliefs and/or sexual orientation. Anyway, chaff away.

Edited by DaveT on 11/09/2011 08:01:33 MST.

I guess Universities are not safe for our children either:

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/sports/local_sports/exclusive%3A-victims-double-in-penn-state-case-110811

Oh, the plight of the pedophile.

Notice Joe Paterno, didn't tell police. People need to know how important it is
to report this stuff.

Education about abuse is very much needed. And this education is needed is needed
in the schools.

Schools have been as much villains as any organization in my experience.

Had you not heard of the wide-ranging issue of the Catholic Church secretly shuffling child-molesting priests from church to church? If you haven't, you should research it. It's shameful.

the Obama Admin moved to help protect this "shuffling" behavior. just saying...

Not so fast! Many of you are committing an error- you are accepting Dave's 3% recidivism statistic just because he found it on the internets.

""Even among child molesters, about 18 percent had been arrested for similar offenses before, and only 3.3 percent of those released in 1994 were arrested again for a crime against a child.
http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_18/myths_facts_recidivism.htm""

But that study only started in 1994 and was released in 2003. That's AT MOST an 8-year study interval, and child molesters are known to generally have a low arrest rate because their victims are easily intimidated. They often go a LONG time before being caught. I'm also suspicious of any website that doesn't post a reference for this study they are listing so that I can't read it myself. For more on that, see below.

Further down the page there is mentioned another study on child molesters. But it isn't a very good study, either. It says:

"Offenders who completed the programmes had a recidivism rate of 5 per cent. In two control groups that did not receive treatment, rates were 21 per cent and 25 per cent, Wellington Stop manager Hamish Dixon said."

So 5% isn't quite as good as what you quoted above. But the BIGGER issue is that they only had a 4 year follow up, so that was 5% recidivism in four years, not lifetime. Four years is way too small a study interval for this subject.

Now, let's consider your source. What is the IPCE? Well, their website says:

"Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults."

Poking around a bit on the website reveals that they are a sort of international version of NAMBLA.

Wow. Not a very disinterested source, eh? Call me silly but I suspect that they have an agenda. No wonder they don't want to list their references so that I can read them critically! So sorry, brother, but I am not going to believe that statistic simply because you found it on the IPCE website. Work harder- get us a primary source.

Now, to back you up a bit- yes, I understand that the "orientation" for an adult to be sexually attracted to children cannot realistically be cured. If I recall correctly from my AbPsych class this was pretty well proven with tumescence studies and is why current therapy does not try to do this. However, that isn't the same as recidivism- being attracted to a child is not the same, ethically or in any other way, as actually molesting that child. Dave is quite right on that one.

To digress to personal opinions:

I will say that I am one of those people who believe that a person can commit a crime so horrible that the debt they have incurred to society is beyond their ability to pay. In other words- a person can commit a crime so grave that they forfeit their right to live. I believe this as axiomatic. To me, sometimes our justice system needs to be about JUSTICE, not rehabilitation. The problem is defining which offenses are so grievous and then PROVING that they committed the crime to an acceptable standard. That is difficult, and thus my opinions on capital punishment are as yet poorly-formed. If I could read minds and prove beyond any doubt that they had committed the crime, frankly, I would have no issues with making forcible or serial child rape a capital crime. (The issue gets fuzzier with minors who are 'consenting'- clearly, statutory rape isn't as grievous as forcible rape.)

If you are willing to cut pedophiles some slack because it isn't really their FAULT that they have such strong misplaced urges I would ask you to cut some slack to the parents whose uncontrollable urge to protect their child at any cost is NORMAL. As urges go that one is right up there with self-preservation. There are few things that would move me to extreme and insensate violence- but a threat to my daughter is one of them. God help me, when I ask myself this question honestly and do some soul-searching I'm forced to conclude that if my daughter were molested I just might be pushed to that point. I would then turn myself in and go to prison with a smile on my face, but I very well might do it- especially if presented with an opportunity before I'd had time to really think the issue over. So, may God have mercy on the molester that I catch in the act with my child, because I probably would not. I simply do not think that I would be able to control myself- merely imagining the scenario in my mind moved me to agitation, and I'm normally a pretty level-headed guy.

That is a rather frightening self-realization to make, eh?

Edited by acrosome on 11/19/2011 03:58:24 MST.

> That is a rather frightening self-realization to make, eh?
Nope.
Just makes you out to be a NORMAL protective parent. And self-defence of you and yours has ALWAYS been recognised as perfectly legal and morally justified.

Cheers

"Just makes you out to be a NORMAL protective parent. And self-defence of you and yours has ALWAYS been recognised as perfectly legal and morally justified."

+1

There is a legal defense in the US called temporary insanity, in practice all too often abused. If ever there were a situation where its use would be justified, it is the one Dean describes.

Well put Dean, well put.

(and thanks for the support in a way)

"Just makes you out to be a NORMAL protective parent. And self-defence of you and yours has ALWAYS been recognised as perfectly legal and morally justified."

No, Roger, I think that I may have communicated poorly.

What I was trying to get across with that scenario is that I don't think I could STOP hurting the perpetrator even after he/she ceased to be a threat to my daughter. That's why I specified "insensate" violence, and THAT is a frightening realization. I'm a bit too stoic/type-A/whatever to be comfortable with that sort of loss of control.

Edited by acrosome on 11/19/2011 21:01:36 MST.

Dean,

I don't know that it is a frightening realization. I also would hunt the person down and dispense with them. Yes, maybe I would end up in prison away from my kids, but they would never have fear of that person, who WILL eventually be released unless they committed murder.

Having an attraction to a person is a lot different than attacking them without their permission or capacity (physical or mental) to resist. I am attracted to beautiful women, but never act out any fantasy... it takes a conscious decision to cross the line, and pedophiles know it is wrong, because they go to great lengths to hide their crimes.

"I am attracted to beautiful women, but never act out any fantasy..."

Or, as a wise old man once counseled me: "Son, it don't matter where you get your appetite, as long as you eat at home." ;-)

Or, as a wise old man once counseled me: "Son, it don't matter where you get your appetite, as long as you eat at home." ;-)

--------

My wife must have known him. She tells me the same thing but it is worded a little differently. But not to worry, I would never cheat on her... well I might not tell exactly what that last piece of gear cost :)

"the Obama Admin moved to help protect this "shuffling" behavior. just saying..."

Money has nothing to do "protecting" pedophiles. So do you think that there should be thousands of lawsuits that bsa should have to pay out? Obama just prevented the lawsuits that would have ensued.

>> "the Obama Admin moved to help protect this "shuffling" behavior. just saying..."

> Money has nothing to do "protecting" pedophiles. So do you think that there should be thousands of lawsuits that bsa should have to pay out? Obama just prevented the lawsuits that would have ensued.

Aside from victims, nobody hates pedophiles more than those who work directly with the children.

As a very proud, very active BSA adult leader who came up in Boy Scouts, has a son now in Boy Scouts, and has two daughters that are very eager to join Boy Scouts, I can say that I MOST CERTAINLY believe the BSA should have to pay out to all the victims they failed to protect (as should any churches, schools, or other organizations). Paying out those settlements (and all the bad press that comes with it) helps motivate changes that better protect our youth. Politics and religion aside, regardless of what anyone thinks of the underlying goals of the BSA, the bottom line is that we participate because we love our children and want the best opportunities for them. I'm all for anything that makes an organization I love even better and safer.

"Money has nothing to do "protecting" pedophiles. So do you think that there should be thousands of lawsuits that bsa should have to pay out? Obama just prevented the lawsuits that would have ensued."

geez - are you playing apologist for our favorite Monsanto corporatist, Mr. Bushbama? Cuz Bushy was extending the same policy for the Vatican as well... is your next trick to cheerlead Obammer's extension of fiscal support to Indonesia's death squad, the Kopassus? I really enjoyed Obama's move away from the Congressional mandate to suspend fiscal aid to countries that openly use children for soldiers, not even the conservatards could get away with that one

no worries, I am probably just misreading your post