Child Molesters

[olpluvr]

The Problem: Can child molesters be rehabilitated?

Most people would say that it is impossible for them to be treated. If you were to ask anyone walking down the street about this subject, they would most likely agree that pedophiles should be locked up forever. If this is the case, then why do many get out of prison, why do they even get the

Comments

[xratedouroboros]

Probably no one is responding to this because no one is willing to make the case that convicted felons who have served their debt to society should, at that point, be treated like normal people.

If anyone did, you can bet the countering anecdotes would not be about an 18 year old getting caught after prom with his 16 year old girlfriend in the backseat. It would be about the most insanely indefensible acts imaginable. Except the Law makes no distinctions. Uncle Al who stuck it to his 14 year old niece and the teenager caught heavy petting his underage date both end up Registered Sex Offenders with "Lewd and Lascivious Acts with a Child" on their record. How many self-righteous busybodies that skim the sex offenders database for someone to harrass this weekend do you think are going to go ask either child molester about what they actually did?

But we've narrowed it down to genuine abhorrent child molestation... and I don't think anybody is going to make any argument that could come across as "Look, guys... Child Rape isn't so bad, really."

Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[olpluvr]

Some people may fear making the case that convicted felons should be part of an everyday productive society because of the general consensus that child molesters should be shunned. Of course, this is a debating community and I would hope that people can voice their opinions and be proud of their own thoughts; I say my share and will answer questions from people who ask about the validity of my responses.

It has been narrowed down to the Look, guys... Child Rape isn't so bad, really.", but I was hoping to bring more of a focus to the actual offenders themselves: are they "monsters" or just people who have mental illnesses that are hard to overcome? Many of us can debate what "mental illnesses" are in a future debate, so that's what I was hoping to get down to. Unfortunately, I don't think my post stressed that, but I do enjoy interpretations of the overall post.

As for the information I presented, I wanted to bring people outside their comfort zones by showing that some studies have proven that 9/10 pedophiles have been successfully rehabilitated. Now, there are questions about the material I present which should be addressed:

1. Define "successfully rehabilitated". Does that mean that the person hasn't reoffended again or that the urges are completely gone?
2. What kind of studies have been done to come up with this figure? Was it through medical studies or through social workers? How do we know that the offender did not lie since we cannot be with the offender at all times? (I understand that we could also give them the benefit of the doubt instead of convict them only based on previous events)

I can only show others the sort of material online that prove/ disprove a theory. It's up to you, as an individual debater, to decide which of these sources are reasonable. Giving people the alarming figure of "9/ 10" for a rehabilitated figure alarms people and makes them think. That's another purpose of this site. My opinions haven't been voiced yet in a post, which I will consider doing quite soon, but it's nice to see both takes on a situation and the many factors to consider.

As for online sex offender registries, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is that where you can pull up an offender's name in Google (for instance) and see the charges brought upon him/ her? It is great to ostracize them for what they have done to other children, but the question is whether they consciously know what they're doing is wrong, how remorseful is the offender, what kind of effort did he/she put into rehab, etc.

I do not see this issue as being as easy as "black or white" because of the many factors you must consider within each individual. Nonetheless, you are correct about informing your children about the dangers of strangers but that doesn't change the fact that some children are snatched out of their beds in the middle of the night, children who wouldn't get into a stranger's car to "help them with their puppy in the backseat".

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[xratedouroboros]

Sure, sure, but I have the feelinf the general consensus here is that child molesters should be shunned. It's not going to be a very interesting discussion if someone has to play devil's advocate all the time. Just sayin', pose question that could rationally be answered several different ways.

1) "Successfully rehabilitated" means they don't show up in the system again for sexual offenses. There's also not much to the distinction between "hasn't reoffended again" and "hasn't offended yet". Focusing on released sex offenders blinds people to that fact. They're too busy looking at that depraved pervert across the street to pay any attention to Good Ol' Uncle Al... even though, statistically speaking, a friend or relative is a greater risk to a child than a stranger... much less a stranger you've told your children to beware.
2) It's your bottom link. Whatever systematic errors the study might have had, it would still hold that sexual offenders have about half the recidivism rate of violent offenders. Hmmm. Where's the online violent offenders registry?

"It is great to ostracize them for what they have done to other children."
It's even better to find out what they did first. Wouldn't it be so cool to be shunned by your neighbors and treated like a subhuman piece of shit because you diddled your wife back when you were both teenagers, only she was a minor, and you got caught?

But, yeah, this isn't about sex offender registration.

I don't think the questions you've asked an be answered on anything other than a case-by-case basis. Some sex offenders might need medication for an unrelated condition. Some might need therapy. Some might need constant supervision. Some might need chemical castration. Some might need actual castration followed by being torn apart by rabid hyenas. But "sexual offender" with the word "child" thrown in there automatically starts people making calls to Africa for a second-hand hyena and sending someone out looking for a rusty pair of pruning shears... when the actual situation could be more complex.

Can child molesters be rehabilitated? Yes, obviously some can. Some can't, but we only need one to rehabilitate in order to answer the question with a definite yes.

Everything else gets an "it depends".

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[ferret_angels]

I just have two questions that I want you to answer honestly.
1. If you have/had children, would you live near a registered child molester?! Would your belief in rehabilitation make you feel THAT comfortable!?
2. I know this is a debating community, but are you going to go against "the majority" just to be the one who always causes controversy?! I am wondering if the things you say are because you actually believe in them, or if it's because you like to be the one to argue.

Just questions, I in no way mean them to come across as rude, I am just curious.

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[xratedouroboros]

1. I have reproduced, yes. There are 32 RSOs living in my zip code according to the VA registry. 15 of them have "child" appearing somewhere in their record. Do I think my level of comfort or faith in the judicial/correctional system has any bearing on where they can live? No.
Knowing this guy has been convicted of "Taking Indecent Liberties with Children" and that other guy hasn't doesn't automatically make the second guy any safe(r) for my kids to be around.
So I have the option of all-encompassing paranoia, which isn't very productive, or not worrying about it unless somebody is acting weird... which is what I would have to do even if there were no RSOs within 300 miles.

2. It wouldn't be a very interesting debate community if everyone always agreed on everything, would it? I do like to argue. I do play the devil's advocate from time to time, but I'll tell people I'm doing it. And I haven't disagreed with the majority, so much as pointed out that the issue is more complex. Not everyone who can meet the legal/technical definition of "child molester" deserves the atavistic reaction most people have to the concept of "child molester".

Bob mets Janet at a club. Bob and Janet get along pretty well. Bob thinks Janet drinks too much, but this is a 21-and-Up club, so she's old enough to take care of herself, he reasons. On one of those nights, Janet ends up going home with Bob.
Turns out Janet is 17 and has a fake ID.

Bob's situation isn't what would come to mind if you saw the words "RAPE" and "CHILD" on a police record, is it?

If everone agrees Bob is (apologies to nuke_mercenary) nothing but a sick fuck who deserves to be castrated and thrown away for life, then I guess I am being controversial.

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[nuke_mercenary]

Yeah that senario is different then the crime im speaking of.
When I speak of child molesters. Im talking about people who seek out children under the age of concent. These are the ones I concider the "sick fucks" The ones who lure children on the internet or hang around the school yards. Men and Women who sexually touch babies and young kids. Or those who takes picture out of enjoyment. These are the ones who deserve to be sent away for life. Sorry for confusing you.

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[xratedouroboros]

I'm not confused. I know that's the type of person you mean to talk about, and for the most part I agree with your sentiment on the issue... so far as it concerns that type of person.

I'm just pointing out that there are people that can be labeled with "child molester" that are perhaps not deserving of that level of prejudicial hate.

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[nuke_mercenary]

Well Your correct. There can be mislabled people. But in that senerio he is not the one at fault, She is.

She is in a club that is for people of age. If she is not of age then what ever happens is her fault. if she is a hoe she a hoe. Not Bobs fault at all.

And Im sure if he case was taking to court and they presented the facts that he would get off with it.

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[xratedouroboros]

If I were going to assign blame for that situation going awry legally, I'd place the blame squarely on the Law.

Nice way to attack the victim, though. "She's a whore." "She deserved it." "It was her own damn fault."
Just because she commited several crimes over her own to get into the situation doesn't make her free prey.

Mix it up a bit. Suppose that before Bob can make his sly move suggesting Janet come back to his place to check out his Star Trek action figures, Stan drags Janet into a disused lavatory and forcibly sodomizes her. Stan is certainly a rapist, no arguing that. But are you going to also defend Stan against the charge that he's a child rapist?

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[nuke_mercenary]

Again. In the first situation she is not a victim whatsoever!
How can you call her the victim. Thats like you going to a bar finding a attractive lady and take them home to find out that are a man in Drag.

She misled him. SHE posed as being 21, the choices she made are her fault and hers alone. She was a fraud and HE was the victim No her. Like I said before. If she were to try to take him to court on charges and the Defence laid out the case that SHE lied about her age they would never convict him of child molestation!

And as for you new situation The guy is a rapist which is worse then anything imaginable. I dont concider him a child rapist as again she did present herself as an adult. THAT STILL DONT GIVE HIM THE RIGHT TO RAPE HER. There is no justifying that. But I dont think he should be charged as a child rapist.

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[xratedouroboros]

Two points for consistency.

Incidentally, criminal charges are brought by the State, not the victim. The whole idea of "pressing charges" is that it's a non-starter, for the most part, to pursue a case in which the victim sympathizes with the defendant.

Here's how this piece would probably play out for a DA looking for a case to get him some free press before the upcoming elections...

DA would coerce cooperation from the child by threatening her with charges stemming from the fake ID and drinking underage. From this he would probably get her to agree not to testify, rather than testify against Bob. If Bob's defense attorney wanted to call Janet, he'd make an argument about her being a minor, too traumatic, blah blah.

Eventually, Bob's sense if righteous indignation at being used as a pawn for the DA's re-election media bid would be replaced by concern over the fact that he might really get tossed in the pokey with a bunch of violent criminals with a big "CHILD RAPIST" printed across his forehead. Self preservation does wonderful things.

I'd predict it would plea down to aggravated sexual battery and the relevant lewd acts with a child type stuff. He still ends up a RSO, with people that don't know his story assuming he should be castrated and shot in the back of the head based on the charges listed in his registry entry.

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[nuke_mercenary]

Look, Needless to the rare crazy case like this situation you have come up with. Most sexual offenders do it on purpose. It is a mental problem and there is no rehabilitation for them. Those who SEEK OUT children for sexual purposes be it to take photographs touch them or rape them. Should be locked up far away were they can do no harm again.

Those who look at photographs... well that is just leading to more serious problems... Those who offend will do it again and again till there cought. Then when they are released will go underground for a while to keep a low profile and start back up again once they start feeling comfortable. They are not people they are monsters and should not have the right to live among those who could be potential victims.

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[xratedouroboros]

What about Uncle Al who had a little too much beer during the superbowl party and got frisky with his 15 year old niece?

What are the pobability that a strange confluence of events will bring together alcohol, Uncle Al, and a young female relative together with no one else around? Further, what do yousuppose the chances are that Uncle All, having spent the last 3 years in a Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison is going to make the same choice if the situation does re-occur?

Seems a bit daft to keep confined on the taxpayer's dollar when it is pretty unlikely that he'll re-offend... even though what he did is inexcusable and horrible. There are no more "potential victims" because the circumstances cannot happen again.

Now, the guys that swap human sex toys at Disneyworld? If there's any argument on what should happen to them, it's going to be about who can come up with the most painfully creative way of killing them slowly.

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[nuke_mercenary]

your fetching at straws now buddy...

and booze dont excuse

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[xratedouroboros]

I'm just poking holes in your generalization. If you're trying to dismiss drunken groping as an implausible scenario... I recommend visiting a bar/club near a college campus on a friday night.

And the "booze don't excuse" thing is a nonsequitur. No one has suggested alcohol justifies anything.

I can think of a couple other scenarios where somone could end up charged with a sex crime involving children that doesn't fit your Sadistic Child-Sex-Slave Trader Pedophile sterotype.

Re: Sources and Thinking Outside the Box

[nuke_mercenary]

So what your saying is... depending on the circumstance it is Alright to play with little boys and girls?

am I hearing you right?