Big Guy Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Bishop Raymond Lahey had pleaded guilty to importing child pornography and has been sentenced. He will probably not spend any more time in jail. He certainly is not the picture of the sinister, unshaven, lowbrow who lurks in the shadows with other vermin. I understand that the criminality of his act is in providing a market for those who actually physically abuse the children to produce the materials and gain financial benefit from the process. That makes one wonder why the courts are so lenient with “john’s” who support prostitution and drug users who finance drug pushers and dealers. Any time another of these child sexual abuse cases comes up, the public reaction varies from “string him up” to “castrate that dirty … “. As distasteful as I find this deviant behaviour against children to be I do wonder why we deal with sexual abuse of children as a criminal act as if the perpetrator is a normal individual who is able to control his his/her actions. To gain erotic pleasure from the exploitation of innocent children is bizarre. The act itself indicates that the person is wired wrong. The behaviour is so repugnantly abnormal that the individual must have some form of mental illness. The recidivism rate tells us that throwing these mentally ill people into jail serves only to temporarily separate them from us at a very high cost of incarceration. There must be a better way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 The behaviour is so repugnantly abnormal that the individual must have some form of mental illness. Then they can plead not guilty by reason of mental defect. However, your statement above is wrong. Pedophilia itself is not a recognized mental illness, so in fact, these perverts do know that what they are doing is wrong and should be sentenced accordingly (harshly). Murder is repugnant too, but not every murderer (in fact, very few) are mentally ill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 It's not mental illness, these people just find children sexually attractive the same as men find women attractive and gays find someone of the same sex attractive. It's how they're wired. They can't help the feelings of attraction just as man can't help lusting for women. But someone attracted to children should NEVER act on it because it's obviously wrong. The problem is, how do you prevent pedophilia or help/"cure" them? It's the same as asking: how do you stop a man from being sexually attracted to women? Castration has proven to relieve the symptoms of desire, and some pedophiles have voluntarily undergone it, but forced castration presents obvious problems. I feel bad for these people that have this desire that's not their fault, but they should all realize it's wrong and refuse to act on it. The alternative is prison, simple choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Even voluntary castration is a problem. We put the "feebleminded" into asylums in BC and offered them their freedom if they would agree to be sterilized. It's not much of a choice when put into that sort of context. In any case, the government can't pass any laws requiring this any longer. Section 7 of the Charter forbids it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 My vote would be to find a way to encourage these people, pre-arrest, to seek treatment. There should be some way they could get treatment in a non-stigmatized manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 My vote would be to find a way to encourage these people, pre-arrest, to seek treatment. There should be some way they could get treatment in a non-stigmatized manner. I think I agree with jbg here that there can be treatment. While you can't treat someone to change their sexuality, you could treat them to control their urges and not act on them. In other words, you can help someone remain celibate. You're not going to change their sexualit; you just want them not acting on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I understand that the criminality of his act is in providing a market for those who actually physically abuse the children to produce the materials and gain financial benefit from the process. I think that was one of the justifications for the law, but I've never seen any evidence of any truth to it. Downloading and possessing child porn is criminal because, basically, people are disgusted by those who are sexually attracted to children. People make excuses about cause and effect reasons but none have ever been demonstrated to be true. That makes one wonder why the courts are so lenient with “john’s” who support prostitution and drug users who finance drug pushers and dealers. Why don't you wonder why we send people to prison for downloading pictures of sixteen year old girls but let them legally have sex with sixteen year old girls? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Then they can plead not guilty by reason of mental defect. However, your statement above is wrong. Pedophilia itself is not a recognized mental illness, so in fact, these perverts do know that what they are doing is wrong and should be sentenced accordingly (harshly). As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 It's not mental illness, these people just find children sexually attractive the same as men find women attractive and gays find someone of the same sex attractive. It's how they're wired. You don't think that constitutes a mental illness? If you had a desperate urge to have sex with toads wouldn't you call that a mental illness of some sort? I mean, c'mon! These people are incapable of normal relationships with adults. Clearly that's a mental disease and is described so by psychiatrists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Why don't you wonder why we send people to prison for downloading pictures of sixteen year old girls but let them legally have sex with sixteen year old girls? Huh? You can download pics all day of 16 yr olds. No problem. But go and have sex with one , you will be in trouble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) These people are incapable of normal relationships with adults. Clearly that's a mental disease and is described so by psychiatrists. Hmm.....pedophiles come in all m,anners of dress including the majority being fathers, mothers, Aunts Uncles and even clergy. One thing they all have in common is relationships, normal ones, with adults. Edited January 5, 2012 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 You don't think that constitutes a mental illness? If you had a desperate urge to have sex with toads wouldn't you call that a mental illness of some sort? I mean, c'mon! These people are incapable of normal relationships with adults. Clearly that's a mental disease and is described so by psychiatrists. Ok well fine then. But I don't see how the label changes anything. Also, agreed with what jbg said, give them some non-judgmental treatment that 100% protects their privacy and teaches them how to control their urges. Maybe give them free passes to a local strip-club too lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I think that was one of the justifications for the law, but I've never seen any evidence of any truth to it. Downloading and possessing child porn is criminal because, basically, people are disgusted by those who are sexually attracted to children. People make excuses about cause and effect reasons but none have ever been demonstrated to be true. Why don't you wonder why we send people to prison for downloading pictures of sixteen year old girls but let them legally have sex with sixteen year old girls? The problem is that demand for child pornography creates victims. The theory is that reducing the demand, by making it criminal, will reduce the number of children that are victimized by the "industry." This applies to pictures of 16 year olds as well. However, if a 16 year old sends pics of herself to another minor, who she could legally have sex with, I don't believe that should be a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Huh? You can download pics all day of 16 yr olds. No problem. But go and have sex with one , you will be in trouble Download pics of them in various stages of undress or engaged in sexual activities and it absolutely would not be "no problem" if you're caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) You don't think that constitutes a mental illness? If you had a desperate urge to have sex with toads wouldn't you call that a mental illness of some sort? I mean, c'mon! These people are incapable of normal relationships with adults. Clearly that's a mental disease and is described so by psychiatrists. Doesn't mean pedophiles aren't guilty of crimes.The legal test isn't the presence of mental illness ... "mental defect" ... but knowingly committing a crime ... forming the intent and carrying out an action that the perpetrator knows is wrong. A paranoid and delusional psychotic might kill someone under the delusion that he/she is being attacked by aliens. In that state, he doesn't know he's doing something wrong, but thinks he's defending himself, takes no precautions against getting caught, even carrying out the act in front of witnesses if that's where the delusion strikes. A pedophile knows what he/she is doing is wrong, may spend years intending, planning and 'grooming' a child to submit to sex acts, does it in secret, threatens victims against telling anyone, and may never admit to the heinous acts even when confronted by the police, courts, etc. He/she, thus, shows awareness that the act is wrong, against the law, criminal, and is thus liable for criminal conviction. Regardless of the presence of mental illness, the 'not guilty by reason of mental defect' defense only applies to criminal acts committed unknowingly: If a perp knows it's wrong, he/she is criminally liable, despite the presence of biological 'urges'. "I couldn't help it" "She led me on with her sexy little diapers" "His parents wanted me to ... gave him to me ..." "I didn't hurt any child ... I could never hurt a child ..." "I just looked at the pictures ... doing research ... they came to my inbox and I opened them by accident ..." These are not delusions ... they are excuses, planned, premeditated rationalizations for doing something the perp knows to be wrong. Edited January 5, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I'd call it a mental illness to be attracted to members of the opposite sex who are prepubescent. Scientifically, the norm would be to desire sexually mature companions to produce offspring. It should be legislated against and punished criminally because that's what our laws do, prevent behaviour that our civilized society deems repugnant that remains from our evolutionary times (Theft, Physical Assault, etc). That being said, I think we spend too much time legislating sexually mature encounters. I had a 16 yr old friend who really wanted to bang older women and would have taken that offer up, had it arisen. I knew 15 yr old girls who swore they'd give "really hot college boy" a BJ, if they had a chance. When I was 16, I liked girls my own age. Younger was gross, older was gross. That was me. My wife is only 9 months apart since we met in high school. Teenagers aren't completely retarded, they have desires and act on them. I sought someone my age, some wanted older, some wanted younger. They will seek out that end. There was the one girl who had an affair with her married 33 year old driving instructor and it suddenly made sense as to why she always argued that "love has no age boundary" the Canadian Family course. If it is abusive in nature (physical, psychological) punish it. If it is consensual in nature and both people are of sexual maturity, what does it matter? We are meant to have sex, it's not like the act of sex is permanently damaging or people would be having much less sex. Edited January 5, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 I'd call it a mental illness to be attracted to members of the opposite sex who are prepubescent.How about members of the same sex? For pedophiles, it usually doesn't matter what sex the child is. They're attracted to them for the fact that they're androgynous before puberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 How about members of the same sex? For pedophiles, it usually doesn't matter what sex the child is. They're attracted to them for the fact that they're androgynous before puberty. Absolutely, my wording was off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Huh? You can download pics all day of 16 yr olds. No problem. But go and have sex with one , you will be in trouble Clearly I meant naked pictures, sexually explicit pictures. And sixteen is the age of consent, so it's entirely legal for adults to have sex with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) The problem is that demand for child pornography creates victims. I realize that's the party line, but I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate any truth in that. All child porn I'm aware of, having looked into this matter and read quite a few studies, is made up of the 'souvenirs' taken of their victims by child molesters, or of teen pictures taken willingly by themselves and their friends, or of old pictures from the seventies or earlier. The theory is that reducing the demand, by making it criminal, will reduce the number of children that are victimized by the "industry." There is no "industry". And reduce demand for what? For kiddy porn? Well, I suppose you can reduce demand for anything by making it criminal. But what's it all in aid of? It's not going to reduce the interest of pedophiles in children. We're talking about a mental illness here, right? A mental illness which causes certain people to have their sexual wires crossed so that they lust after per-pubesent children. I mean, if we have no gay porn, does that mean it will reduce the number of gay people? This applies to pictures of 16 year olds as well. However, if a 16 year old sends pics of herself to another minor, who she could legally have sex with, I don't believe that should be a crime. But what is the purpose? Are we trying to reduce the interest in adult men of lusting after sixteen year old girls? If so, why is it legal to sleep with them? And besides, you can't eliminate a normal human sexual response, which is what an attractive sixteen year old girl produces in adult men. Edited January 5, 2012 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 Doesn't mean pedophiles aren't guilty of crimes. Well, no, but it doesn't automatically mean they ARE either. The legal test isn't the presence of mental illness ... "mental defect" ... but knowingly committing a crime ... forming the intent and carrying out an action that the perpetrator knows is wrong. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not speaking of those who molest children. In my opinion, we don't come down hard enough on such people. What I'm talking about is some guy downloading a picture in his basement. I just don't see that as being such a horrific thing that we need to destroy them and put them in prison. Maybe it's simply because I have a lot of empathy and imagination. I can imagine what would happen if some bluenose decided that anyone who had naked pictures of women must go to prison. I mean, huh? Why? Because you're lusting after what you're hard-wired to lust after? I think that society was so disgusted with these people, that it basically criminalized their fantasies. But these people can't control their fantasies, they can't control what they find sexually attractive. It's not like they wanted to find themselves sexually attracted to children, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 How about members of the same sex? For pedophiles, it usually doesn't matter what sex the child is. They're attracted to them for the fact that they're androgynous before puberty. I dunno. It seems to be boys far more than girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I dunno. It seems to be boys far more than girls. Accessibility ... and boys are less likely to talk than girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I'd call it a mental illness to be attracted to members of the opposite sex who are prepubescent. Scientifically, the norm would be to desire sexually mature companions to produce offspring. It should be legislated against and punished criminally because that's what our laws do, prevent behaviour that our civilized society deems repugnant that remains from our evolutionary times How about homosexuality? After all, evolutionarily, it's a dead end, since partners of the same gender cannot have offspring with one another. As to desiring someone of a younger age, it actually makes a lot of evolutionary sense for a male to want a younger female. With the lack of any medical knowledge and technology, human birth is very traumatic on the mother. A woman in ancient times would lose the capability to successfully bear a child long before the age where a male would no longer be able to sire one. Even today, pregnancy in one's 50s or 60s would be quite dangerous and most physicians would recommend against it, and not naturally possible at all much later than that. The oldest known woman to succesfully give birth was 70 years old and died shortly thereafter. Meanwhile a man can still be physically capable of impregnating a woman well into his 80s or even 90s, with several examples of fathers in their 90s. This bears out throughout historical times in a majority of human civilizations, too. Specifically, wealthy and powerful males would most often find female partners that were significantly younger than themselves. Again, this remains true to some extent even today. Anyway, this is all a bit beside the point. I'm just disputing the notion that modern day morality is rooted in evolutionary necessity or efficiency. Common notions of morality are cultural in nature, having only weak roots in biology if any at all. Pedophilia is considered revolting and criminal in modern Western culture, while marrying off girls of 12 or 11 years, or even younger, was a common practice worldwide until recently and still is in some places. Homosexuality is considered acceptable in most Western countries today and discrimination against homosexuals is considered wrong, and yet most other cultures find it abhorrent, as did Western nations until recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 Thread Q Part 2: Viewing Adult Porn - For Lonely Losers or Completely Awesome? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.