• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How much punishment is enough?

Let's also not forget that someone who's convicted of sex with a minor isn't necessarily a pedophile. A 30-year-old who has sex with a 16-year-old is a creep, but not a pedophile. A 30-year-old who has sex with a 6-year-old is a pedophile (and a creep, obviously). I actually find it odd if there isn't a legal difference between the two acts.
 
Let's also not forget that someone who's convicted of sex with a minor isn't necessarily a pedophile. A 30-year-old who has sex with a 16-year-old is a creep, but not a pedophile. A 30-year-old who has sex with a 6-year-old is a pedophile (and a creep, obviously). I actually find it odd if there isn't a legal difference between the two acts.

There is where I come from.

One is legal, the other is punishable by a very long time in prison.
 
Let's also not forget that someone who's convicted of sex with a minor isn't necessarily a pedophile. A 30-year-old who has sex with a 16-year-old is a creep, but not a pedophile. A 30-year-old who has sex with a 6-year-old is a pedophile (and a creep, obviously). I actually find it odd if there isn't a legal difference between the two acts.

It's not "odd," it's wrong.

A 16 yr-old girl in today's (American and Euro) culture who has consensual sex with a 30 yr-old (where there is NO coercion) is not being molested.

Here's another oddity: when a 35 yr-old male teacher has sex with a 16 or 17 yr old student, he goes to jail for 20 years.

When a FEMALE teacher has sex with a 12 yr old student, she gets probation for a couple or three years.

And a book deal.

Anybody see anything wrong with this?

None of the feminists, no...anybody who can think, though?

Tokie
 
And again your delusion of conspiracy are totally unsubstantiated.

Did feminsts really pass those laws?

I suppose the patriarchial pat on the back and a good cigar are the way you like things.

the people who passed the laws were not feminsists, funny how the beloved fundy Xians have more to do with it than the feminists.

As usual you just spout your nonsesne and forget that most of the laws were passed by Xian white males.

More laws passed by Xiam white males.


You aren't even making sense, go back to the FOX news forum.

Not sure what an "Xian" or "Xiam" might be....

Anyway, laws that go soft on females for crimes are indeed remnants of the male patriarchy in our criminal system.

I notice that no feminist is on the front lines trying to equalize THAT.

The more recent CULTURAL events that have led to the sexualization of younger and younger children and a loosening of traditional American mores across the board, derived directly from the leftist-feminist "revolution" of the late 60s early 70s.

Not a bad thing in many ways, but bad in this way.

Tokie
 
The more recent CULTURAL events that have led to the sexualization of younger and younger children and a loosening of traditional American mores across the board, derived directly from the leftist-feminist "revolution" of the late 60s early 70s.

The sexualisation of children is not a recent, nor an American, phenomenon. As I pointed out to you elsewhere, the entire concept of "childhood" is a recent socio-cultural construction, and if anything it's the *de*sexualisation of people under 16 that is a recent development.

That's not to say that the sexualisation of kids is a good thing, of course - just that it certainly is not directly linked to this mystical "leftist-feminist" revolution that apparently happened in the 1960s and 70s as you claim.

On a slightly tangential point - was America really a better place in the 1950s, Tokie?
 
Let's also not forget that someone who's convicted of sex with a minor isn't necessarily a pedophile. A 30-year-old who has sex with a 16-year-old is a creep, but not a pedophile. A 30-year-old who has sex with a 6-year-old is a pedophile (and a creep, obviously). I actually find it odd if there isn't a legal difference between the two acts.

There is a legal difference. I believe the relevant age boundary is 14 (as in, there's "lascivious behavior with a child under 14" versus statuatory assault. The former gets much more prison time.

Also, everybody here seems to be ignoring the fact that a lot of people who must register as sex offenders need only do so for a couple of years after release. It's not a "for the rest of their lives" thing unless the crime is particularly heinous.

And I'll agree with Tokie that there's an obvious disparity in the sentencing of male versus female perpetrators. However, I think the sentences of female perpetrators should be increased to correct that, rather than male sentences reduced.
 


Thank you. I've revised my knowledge base, but not my opinion. I still believe that anyone who would intentionally harm a child should serve a life sentence.

But that's just me, right?
 
Thank you. I've revised my knowledge base, but not my opinion. I still believe that anyone who would intentionally harm a child should serve a life sentence.

But that's just me, right?


As broadly as you just stated it, I should hope so.
 
Eh, either way their life is over as a result of one action that didn't involve anyone being killed.

Well, that depends on what you view the purpose of the judicial system is (punishment, rehabilitation, isolation, etc.).

I was forced to perform fellatio on an older man when I was just 8 years old. An anecdote that I think is relevant to the discussion and not silly.

Anecdotes are irrelevant to the discussion, even mine, which was long-term.
 
I have first hand experience about the effects of molestation. What about you?


So do I, yet I disagree with a lot of what you have said. Now, we're discussing immensely personal details about each other while accomplishing nothing meaningful.

People are born innocent, with the inherent right to be with, work with, and play with children. When somebody blows it by taking advantage, that's it. They've proven they're willing to do it, and there's no way to unring the bell. And the sad fact of the matter is, nobody wants to be around child molesters; nobody likes them, period.

Everybody, and I mean everybody, already knows how terrible and lifelong the aftereffects of being a convicted child molester are. So I have zero sympathy for someone who thinks abusing a kid is worth that risk. They rolled the dice and lost, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? To hell and gone with that, I don't care how good they're being now. They had their chance to avoid it all, and they deliberately chose not to.
 
I agree but.................

So do I, yet I disagree with a lot of what you have said. Now, we're discussing immensely personal details about each other while accomplishing nothing meaningful.

People are born innocent, with the inherent right to be with, work with, and play with children. When somebody blows it by taking advantage, that's it. They've proven they're willing to do it, and there's no way to unring the bell. And the sad fact of the matter is, nobody wants to be around child molesters; nobody likes them, period.

Everybody, and I mean everybody, already knows how terrible and lifelong the aftereffects of being a convicted child molester are. So I have zero sympathy for someone who thinks abusing a kid is worth that risk. They rolled the dice and lost, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? To hell and gone with that, I don't care how good they're being now. They had their chance to avoid it all, and they deliberately chose not to.

The original question was if a convicted child molester does his time and when he gets out and its ten years later and he has not committed the crime again should he be forced to move out of his wifes house so that he can be more than 70 yards from a school bus stop and where can he go to achieve this? Also say he does find such a place and after awhile people with kids move in the area and should he have to move again?
 
That's a tough call - not because I feel sorry for him in any way, shape, or form; but rather because I have an issue with retroactive measures like this. I have no problem with kiddy-fiddlers being prevented from living near places where kids congregate.
 
People are born innocent, with the inherent right to be with, work with, and play with children. When somebody blows it by taking advantage, that's it. They've proven they're willing to do it, and there's no way to unring the bell. And the sad fact of the matter is, nobody wants to be around child molesters; nobody likes them, period.

Everybody, and I mean everybody, already knows how terrible and lifelong the aftereffects of being a convicted child molester are. So I have zero sympathy for someone who thinks abusing a kid is worth that risk. They rolled the dice and lost, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? To hell and gone with that, I don't care how good they're being now. They had their chance to avoid it all, and they deliberately chose not to.

This could apply to a whole assortment of crimes, yet we are forced to live with their perpetrators.
 
This could apply to a whole assortment of crimes, yet we are forced to live with their perpetrators.

You're forced to live with child molesters also. They're typically not kept in prison for life - they get out, and get jobs, and walk the streets just like all the other ex-cons.
 
You're forced to live with child molesters also. They're typically not kept in prison for life - they get out, and get jobs, and walk the streets just like all the other ex-cons.

No, there's a difference.

Car thieves are not forced to live X feet away from a parking space.

Bank robbers are not forced to live X feet away from financial institutions.

Drunk and Disorderly offenders are nor forced to live X feet away from sources of alcohol.

Carjackers are not forced to live X feet away from intersections.

This is trying to deny the ex-cons a place to live. There can be no public objection to keep adding places they can't live and as such it makes it more certain there will be another offense because it becomes next to impossible to live legally.
 
Hello, I've been reading your posts for a while. This shall be my first post in this forum (I just registered yesterday) so I'll give you my vision of the whole thing as illustrated:



The issue of child molestation is a tricky one, and one that must be discussed with as much rationale as possible because even though it deals with non tangible things such as a child's feelings and emotions (Which are clearly corrupted and permantently affected after the act), we must try to clear ourselves from what some people have defined as "witch-hunting" and the whole issue of condemning a human being and labeling him as a "Bad Person".

The truth is we have created a culture of sexual repression. A culture of repressing our very basic instincts, and somehow the tables got turned on us.

Indeed, as many people pointed out already, everything in our culture has the word "****-me-right-here-right-now" written on it. You just need to walk a few blocks away from your home to see it on every single banner and ad. On the subway, on the bus, on your computer. It's the female body once and again used to sell stuff. And paradoxically, the ages of these women seem to be going under and under and under as the generations go by. A friend of mine defined the current advertisement as a needle that pinches you everyday with the message "Have sex, have sex, have sex".

So maybe we should take a moment and really, seriously try to understand why we do the things we do. Because I think we all have our little demons. And with this I'm not saying we're all pedohpiles deep inside. What I am saying, however, is that we're all potential pedophiles. We're also potential murderers, potential robbers and potential anythings. We have all the possibilities inside of us: the good ones and the bad ones.

So answering to this question:

"The original question was if a convicted child molester does his time and when he gets out and its ten years later and he has not committed the crime again should he be forced to move out of his wifes house so that he can be more than 70 yards from a school bus stop and where can he go to achieve this? Also say he does find such a place and after awhile people with kids move in the area and should he have to move again?"

I think that, like any other law, it should be reached by general concensus. I don't know if it had (I'm assuming it did). If it did, then the majority has decided that a child molestor has to change his whole life from now on. Too bad for him, but that's the price you pay.


But a law is a law. The good thing about a law is that it works. You catch someone shoplifting and he or she will go to prison. That's simple and it works. And for a while that's good. But we cannot spend the rest of our mankind settling up with that. We need to investigate our true human nature. We should develop (If it is that they don't exist already) rehabilitation centers for pedophiles, with therapists who patiently and kindly analyze the patient, who ask him about his childhood experiences (A great deal of child molestors were actually molested in their childhood), who dig deep into their life and try to reveal to them what they did.

I strongly believe there is no such thing as "Bad People". There's only Blind People. We have all done bad things, sometimes deliberately. ALL of us. That doesn't mean we're bad. It only means we don't really capture the significance of what we're doing. We haven't really internalized WHAT is it we're doing and WHY we're doing it. Children are the best examples of that. When my brother was like 8 years old, he and his little friend got possesed by a throw-every-old-toy-you-can-get-your-hands-on-out-the-window frenzy. And he was telling me, now that he's an adult and he's married, that back then he really wasn't doing it with a bad intention. He wasn't really conscious of what he was doing. He was just having naive innocent fun. To him, that wasn't really bad at all. He didn't find out until the next day when he got punished. So from an early age we learn we do bad things through the experience of guilt. I think that's something to take note on.

Try not to compare this literally to what a pedophile does. A pedophile is obviously an adult. It isn't like he wasn't aware of what he was doing. Same thing with a serial killer, who methodically plans his every move. It has nothing got to do with being aware. It's more about internalizing what you're doing. And to do that, you really need to do some sort of meditation. And it's really hard. We all struggle with that. Like the guy who smokes and he knows he's killing himself but he can't stop. You know, my dad tried to stop smoking for decades, literally decades. And one day, at like 52, he just quit. And I got the feeling that he simply internalized what he was doing and he realized he just wasn't interested in wasting his life breathing on a little piece of nicotine.

So what I think we need to do is two separate things: One one side define the laws by which we govern our actions whithin society. That will clarify the rules of the game. But that isn't enough. That is why on the other hand, we, each one of us individually, really need to meditate on the actions we do. Raping children is just one of endless mistakes a human being (any human being) can make.

And I think everyone really needs to ask themselves the question about "Bad People". Because I think that's where the whole Supersticious-Moralizing-Mental Bull**** starts to take over.
 

Back
Top Bottom