http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4575628.ece

 

Paedophiles may be mad or bad. But not both

Source: timesonline.co.uk

 

If Gary Glitter is a criminal, and not mentally ill, then he has paid the price and we should not punish him again.

by Carol Sarler

 

With impeccably spun timing, while Gary Glitter hunkered down at Bangkok airport to avoid police interrogation at Heathrow, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, took to the airwaves yesterday to announce new initiatives to prevent paedophiles from travelling as “sex tourists”. Snatch their passports, she cried. Ground them for five years. Nail their filthy feet to the floor.

 

Her plans, no doubt, resonated with public opinion. In announcing them, however, she reinforced a largely unacknowledged muddle at the heart of all debate on the subject of paedophilia: is it an illness, or is it a crime?

 

At the moment, galvanised by the desire to be as punitive as possible, we mix and match. When it suits us to invoke the idea of uncontrollable urges, we do exactly that - look how readily the tabloid press appends “sick!” to any mention of child abuse. On the other hand, when it suits us to argue for the throwing away of keys, as befits any rotten but otherwise common criminal, we do that instead. The truth is, it's time to choose.

 

If we accept that paedophilia is an illness - and there are reasoned voices who say that it is - then, by definition, we accept it as being beyond the control of its sufferer in exactly the way that we accept schizophrenia. Therefore, we should respond as such: if a man, for reasons not remotely his fault, is posing a risk to others, he should be subject to sectioning under the Mental Health Act, with all the appropriate regret, sympathy and kindness that accompanies such a move. Given the grip of the current bogeyman frenzy, it is hard to see that one playing in Peoria; nevertheless, it would be the only humane response.

 

Background

Friends, family and the world have shunned Glitter

The fight to stay one step ahead of the abusers

The vilest mind games

Within these walls: the Jersey childcare scandal

If we accept that it is a crime, however, then it is something which the perpetrator can control. He may choose to offend or not, and if he chooses what is unacceptable, again we should respond as such. We catch the bast*rd, try him, lock him up by way of penalty and then - this is the crucial bit - once he has served his sentence we restore his liberty. In full.

 

This has been the fundamental principle of justice, at least within crime and punishment, that has stood us in reasonable stead since Magna Carta. Now, just because one particular category of behaviour is exciting public consciousness - pressing, as it does, all the right buttons such as “sex” and “children” - is collective gut revulsion really enough to challenge copper-bottomed, tried, tested and trusted legal tradition?

 

We already have 30,000 people on the sex offenders register; people who paid the decreed price for their offence and now will spend the rest of their lives paying again. This sounds as titillatingly vast a number as it is meant to sound - although closer scrutiny shows that it certainly does not mean 30,000 icons of unparalleled evil are out on the loose; among those whose details are kept and lives monitored for ever, a great many are included for nothing more dreadful than slightly under-age, consensual sex. But never mind. Keep the figure high and the hysteria higher still.

 

Increasingly, on the back of that hysteria, authorities of law and order expect Brownie points for imposing yet more restrictions, clampdowns and controls - and, thanks also to the hysteria, they are permitted to do so without attention being paid to the anomalies thus created.

 

Take, for instance, a man who had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl or boy. If caught, and especially if force were involved, he would expect a severe sentence - at the end of which, he would emerge into the light of day and have his every movement monitored for the rest of his natural life. And so what, you say, shedding not a tear.

 

Quite so. But if that same man had broken every bone in that same 14-year-old child's body, he would similarly expect a severe sentence - at the end of which the prison gates would slam behind him and he would be totally free.

 

By the same token, Gary Glitter might deserve not a jot of our concern. None the less, in his disinclination to chat with a police officer at Heathrow, presumably before being added to the sex offenders register, he does have a point. For had his crime been other than fiddling with little Vietnamese girls, had he instead been convicted and imprisoned for, say, drug smuggling or a gang-related killing spree, he could return to Britain without a shred of further official intervention in his life.

 

It is, of course, understandable that there is a fear of recidivism; few of us really believe that the Vietnamese girls were Glitter's first victims. But recidivism is rife in almost all crimes, and the law does not allow for the pre-emption of the next occurrence; when a released armed robber returns to his trade, with the accompanying risk to the lives of innocent people, he will be punished after the event, not in case of it.

 

Further, until that time, he will not be spied upon - in part because we do not have the resources, but in greater part, I fancy, because we would consider perpetual surveillance and control an unacceptable step towards a police state. In short, we sacrifice potential future victims of the armed robber's gun for a system that we find morally more palatable.

 

Harder to sacrifice Glitter's potential future victims? Of course. Putting children in danger outweighs almost any other consideration - except, perhaps, the danger of the precedent set by singling out one identifiable group and excluding it from the principles of law that apply to all others.

 

The solution, therefore, is either to declare all those on the sex offenders register to be unwell and apply open-ended treatment, compassionately, according to the severity of their condition - or to declare them criminals, take our several pounds of flesh and let them go. Mad or bad. But we can't, in conscience, have it both ways.

 

So you pick.

Hmmmm, well, if it's stark choice such as the article suggests, I think I would opt for Open-ended treatment in a secure Mental ward.... There's really no chance of these people being "cured" merely being imprisoned... They should be given serious, intensive psychiatric treatment in which they are forced to confront their wrong-doings, it should be relatively humane, but not namby-pamby, touchy-feely cr@p.... The real problem with these sorts of people is that they think they're not doing anything wrong and don't actually voluntarily seek treatment...

the problem with paedophillia is far more complex then this black or white answer. indeed not only paedophillia but ALL paraphillia is a very complex subject that we simply do not understand. we are only now accepting homosexuality as 'normal' and thats a simple thing to accept, let alone understand the many various facets to human sexuality.

It might be and illness and a crime at the same time... Feeling sexually atracted by children might be classified as "illness". People do not choose whom they are atracted by - if we go by what gay people say, at least.

 

The problem is when they turn their desire into action... and there the "crime" starts. Imagine if we could be justified to abuse any person we ever felt atracted in life who didn´t feel the same way about us???

 

And by the way, I think there is no real treatment to make paedophiles stop feeling atracted by children - just like it doesn´t work for men who want to stop feeling atracted by other men, for example. People should just learn to control their insticts.

It might be and illness and a crime at the same time... Feeling sexually atracted by children might be classified as "illness". People do not choose whom they are atracted by - if we go by what gay people say, at least.

 

The problem is when they turn their desire into action... and there the "crime" starts. Imagine if we could be justified to abuse any person we ever felt atracted in life who didn´t feel the same way about us???

 

And by the way, I think there is no real treatment to make paedophiles stop feeling atracted by children - just like it doesn´t work for men who want to stop feeling atracted by other men, for example. People should just learn to control their insticts.

 

on this we concur! :)

 

however, isnt it already pre-destined by god that these people will have these feelings? hasnt your god PUT them feelings there? because thats the logical conclusion if you truely believe that our lives are pre-destined.

What god? :heehee:

 

Seriously though, I think alot of this whole 'Paedophilia Generation' that we apparently live in is down to the media. It's hard to understand but some say it's an 'illness'. Yet according to the papers these people are the devil and should be hunted down (i.e. Gary Glitter), although I personally think he (like all other Perverts/p****'s) should be locked up away. These people think that what they're doing isn't wrong, and you won't be able to stop them doing it.

 

So yeah, it is mad, but it's just to us that it seems bad.

Whenever people lurch towards the whole mental illness thing with paedophilia, it strikes me as fairly illogical for people to say that by the same token homosexuality is as well...I wouldn't consider it a mental illness tbh, just a paraphilia, but the difference is that homosexuals by and large don't break the law in their practices, whereas it's impossible for a child to give their consent...unless it's ephebophilia really. There's a blurry line I think (somewhere around the age of 14) where I think consent can be given, and really I don't think this can be referred to as paedophilia - if this is the case, where does paedophilia begin? Is an 18 year old who has sex with a 14 year old (regardless of gender) a paedophile? Is a 22 year old one? How about a 26 year old? Where does it change from underage sex to a full-blown Sun cover sheet calling the accused the devil and evil on earth etc. etc. (although doubtless in conjunction with a countdown on page 7 until some teen popstress's (as they did for Charlotte Church) 16th birthday so the readers can legally get off on her pictures :rolleyes:)? With the tabloids it seems to me that they're very hypocritical on this subject...

Whenever people lurch towards the whole mental illness thing with paedophilia, it strikes me as fairly illogical for people to say that by the same token homosexuality is as well...I wouldn't consider it a mental illness tbh, just a paraphilia, but the difference is that homosexuals by and large don't break the law in their practices, whereas it's impossible for a child to give their consent...unless it's ephebophilia really. There's a blurry line I think (somewhere around the age of 14) where I think consent can be given, and really I don't think this can be referred to as paedophilia - if this is the case, where does paedophilia begin? Is an 18 year old who has sex with a 14 year old (regardless of gender) a paedophile? Is a 22 year old one? How about a 26 year old? Where does it change from underage sex to a full-blown Sun cover sheet calling the accused the devil and evil on earth etc. etc. (although doubtless in conjunction with a countdown on page 7 until some teen popstress's (as they did for Charlotte Church) 16th birthday so the readers can legally get off on her pictures :rolleyes:)? With the tabloids it seems to me that they're very hypocritical on this subject...

 

but until 1967 homosexuality WAS illegal, so they DID break the law as the law stood.

 

paedophillia will never be legal, nor should it, as obviously kids cant give consent and it is abuse when an older person coerces a child into 'adult' activities.

 

i dont think any paraphillia is a mental illness, and theres still people around who think homosexuality is! i just believe all aspects of sexuality are inherant traits , different in each person, which get animated or not according to every persons environment. most of us dont have any p**** traits so they will never get to be a problem.

 

on monday my local rag reported that a 23 year old male was jailed for 2 years for having sex with a 14 year old girl... she was 'consenting' as they were bf/gf. he is now branded a p**** and is on the sex offenders register... I THINK THIS IS WRONG. he aint in the same class as glitter.

but until 1967 homosexuality WAS illegal, so they DID break the law as the law stood.

 

paedophillia will never be legal, nor should it, as obviously kids cant give consent and it is abuse when an older person coerces a child into 'adult' activities.

 

i dont think any paraphillia is a mental illness, and theres still people around who think homosexuality is! i just believe all aspects of sexuality are inherant traits , different in each person, which get animated or not according to every persons environment. most of us dont have any p**** traits so they will never get to be a problem.

 

on monday my local rag reported that a 23 year old male was jailed for 2 years for having sex with a 14 year old girl... she was 'consenting' as they were bf/gf. he is now branded a p**** and is on the sex offenders register... I THINK THIS IS WRONG. he aint in the same class as glitter.

 

I agree with that... the 14yro knew exactly what she was doing, but then again the 23year old should have been mature about it and told her to wait 2 years and see how things worked out... i don't know how this age issue thing can be worked out tbh.. because i dont view a 15yro sleeping with a 18/19 yro as wrong but maybe this is because they are technically still teens?

Whenever people lurch towards the whole mental illness thing with paedophilia, it strikes me as fairly illogical for people to say that by the same token homosexuality is as well...I wouldn't consider it a mental illness tbh, just a paraphilia, but the difference is that homosexuals by and large don't break the law in their practices, whereas it's impossible for a child to give their consent...unless it's ephebophilia really. There's a blurry line I think (somewhere around the age of 14) where I think consent can be given, and really I don't think this can be referred to as paedophilia - if this is the case, where does paedophilia begin? Is an 18 year old who has sex with a 14 year old (regardless of gender) a paedophile? Is a 22 year old one? How about a 26 year old? Where does it change from underage sex to a full-blown Sun cover sheet calling the accused the devil and evil on earth etc. etc. (although doubtless in conjunction with a countdown on page 7 until some teen popstress's (as they did for Charlotte Church) 16th birthday so the readers can legally get off on her pictures :rolleyes:)? With the tabloids it seems to me that they're very hypocritical on this subject...

 

A relationship with a 13, or 14 years old might not be acceptable in society, but biologically it´s pretty normal. Such things vary from culture to culture, and it´s comprehensible that back when human beings life expectancy was like 25 years old, that people started to marry as soon as they achieved puberty. So in that sense, paedophilia might be considered imoral by society but it´s less of an "illness" then homossexuality is, because it still allows the reproduction, while a men feeling atracted only by other men can be considered a "failure" in human nature´s natural selection, cause it doesn´t lead people who pursuit that characteristic to pass their genes to the next generation.

A relationship with a 13, or 14 years old might not be acceptable in society, but biologically it´s pretty normal. Such things vary from culture to culture, and it´s comprehensible that back when human beings life expectancy was like 25 years old, that people started to marry as soon as they achieved puberty. So in that sense, paedophilia might be considered imoral by society but it´s less of an "illness" then homossexuality is, because it still allows the reproduction, while a men feeling atracted only by other men can be considered a "failure" in human nature´s natural selection, cause it doesn´t lead people who pursuit that characteristic to pass their genes to the next generation.

 

are you suggesting here that paedophillia is more 'normal', 'acceptable' , 'natural' then homosexuality?... oh dear...

A relationship with a 13, or 14 years old might not be acceptable in society, but biologically it´s pretty normal. Such things vary from culture to culture, and it´s comprehensible that back when human beings life expectancy was like 25 years old, that people started to marry as soon as they achieved puberty. So in that sense, paedophilia might be considered imoral by society but it´s less of an "illness" then homossexuality is, because it still allows the reproduction, while a men feeling atracted only by other men can be considered a "failure" in human nature´s natural selection, cause it doesn´t lead people who pursuit that characteristic to pass their genes to the next generation.

 

Since you insist on taking a hardline Social Darwinism approach to this (in an attempt to prove atheists are all soulless barbarians, no doubt), let me suggest this. A man's choice of an underage wife to deliver his offspring is riskier than choosing a woman of the age at which one is mentally able to fully consent. Studies have shown for years that in places with high rates of teenage pregnancy, there has been a breakdown of family structure, and an increase in crime, lower life expectancy, high infant mortality rate, etc.

 

So a man chooses a 14 year old to impregnate. She has his child at 15 and is neither capable of remaining in a relationship with the father, nor raising the child properly. This child then has a vastly reduced probability of survival. So there's a (admittedly rudimentary) scientific justification to condemn and prohibit pedophila.

are you suggesting here that paedophillia is more 'normal', 'acceptable' , 'natural' then homosexuality?... oh dear...

 

It's not surprising given JJN's past posts. It's important to challenge and question certain issues, of course, but JJN often takes this too far. He is an ideologue, the kind that believes that Pope John Paul II and Charles Darwin are beating the $h!t out of each other somewhere in the after-world right now.

 

But there is an entire world in between extremes and most of us comfortably reside there...

Since you insist on taking a hardline Social Darwinism approach to this (in an attempt to prove atheists are all soulless barbarians, no doubt), let me suggest this. A man's choice of an underage wife to deliver his offspring is riskier than choosing a woman of the age at which one is mentally able to fully consent. Studies have shown for years that in places with high rates of teenage pregnancy, there has been a breakdown of family structure, and an increase in crime, lower life expectancy, high infant mortality rate, etc.

 

So a man chooses a 14 year old to impregnate. She has his child at 15 and is neither capable of remaining in a relationship with the father, nor raising the child properly. This child then has a vastly reduced probability of survival. So there's a (admittedly rudimentary) scientific justification to condemn and prohibit pedophila.

 

The highlighted part has more to do with social/cultural reasons the biology itself. That´s why I say these things vary from culture to culture... Imagine a time when the average life expectancy was under 25 years. You couldn´t really expect people would reproduce only when their past the *cultural* mark of 14 or 16 years old... The cut line of what is acceptable or not is *cultural*, which explains why the age of consent is different from country to country, and so what is considered "paedophilia"... In some countries to have sex with a 15 year old girl is "paedophilia"... In others, a 15 year old is expected to be married with at least 3 kids already. And I was never tryng to prove you are a soulles barbarian... people like you prove for themselves by inserting the whole religious subject in every damn bloody topic that is not remotely related to it. It´s not possible to have a civilized debate with people who demonize you in EVERY SINGLE TOPIC, just because you commited the bloody sin of revealing your religion in past threads. That is sickening because I hate all fanatics, wether their christian, muslim or atheist like yourselves.

are you suggesting here that paedophillia is more 'normal', 'acceptable' , 'natural' then homosexuality?... oh dear...

 

"normal" and "acceptable" are 2 terms that depend on your culture. What´s acceptable in NY is not acceptable in Saudi Arabia, and vice versa.

 

About the term "natural", I don´t touch it... Do you think that primitive humans, before civilizations started, were waiting until a female was fully *18 years old* or *16 years old* before they tried a sexual intercourse??? You´re bloody dellusional... In nature, mammals start to have sex and reproduce as soon as they past puberty, and *biologically* there´s nothing wrong with it...

 

Don´t demonize me because I don´t go with your politically correct cliches. I´m not touching the subject of homossexuality (a holly untouchable taboo in the politically correct world)... just the fact that biologically, paedophilia is less of a deletery phenomenon then homossexuality. Just like Consie pointed in his self admitted rudimentary argument, the son of a 14 years old girl will have a reduced life expectancy, maybe of about 5 to 10% less? (I´d say that´s an exageration myself...) On the other hand, and homossexual couple would have their expectancy of reproducing reduced in comparison with an heterossexual couple, by a margin of, say... 100% :unsure:

And by the way, I must say I AM AGAINST paedophilia obviously, in any case, because that violents the will of the children/adolescents. I just wouldn´t call that DISEASE, because people who do that are following their *natural* instincts, when they should use their reason instead. Someone who abuses children is conscient of what is doing, it´s no disease, and if a "different" type of sexual actraction should be considered "disease" then homossexuality and bissexuality should be too, cause they´re not the "mainstream" sexual preferences, either their lead to human reproduction which is the only known way to pass the genes on to future generations, and as Dawkins points, it´s the "egoist gene" that makes evolution happen.

The highlighted part has more to do with social/cultural reasons the biology itself. That´s why I say these things vary from culture to culture... Imagine a time when the average life expectancy was under 25 years. You couldn´t really expect people would reproduce only when their past the *cultural* mark of 14 or 16 years old... The cut line of what is acceptable or not is *cultural*, which explains why the age of consent is different from country to country, and so what is considered "paedophilia"... In some countries to have sex with a 15 year old girl is "paedophilia"... In others, a 15 year old is expected to be married with at least 3 kids already. And I was never tryng to prove you are a soulles barbarian... people like you prove for themselves by inserting the whole religious subject in every damn bloody topic that is not remotely related to it. It´s not possible to have a civilized debate with people who demonize you in EVERY SINGLE TOPIC, just because you commited the bloody sin of revealing your religion in past threads. That is sickening because I hate all fanatics, wether their christian, muslim or atheist like yourselves.

 

Look, I have defended you before on this board in the past, so it's not personal. "Revealing your religion" is not a mistake or a problem. Personally I think the anti-religious rhetoric on this board is overly hostile and atheists, as I am, aren't going to convince the rest of the 6 billion people on the earth with hostility. Having said that, I know that in previous discussions you have defended religion by claiming non-religious people can't have ethics or morals. You have blamed science, Darwinism, "survival of the fittest" etc. etc. for all kinds of genocide, murder and destruction. Murder in the name of atheism, you have said. And you have said religious people are more tolerant of homosexuality because atheists would dismiss it as utterly nonhuman in that is does not allow reproduction.

 

I'm sorry, but when you start the "well, homosexuality doesn't permit reproduction so it could be considered worse than pedophilia" stuff, I feel as though you're just prodding for the sake of prodding. I sincerely doubt you (a tolerant person, so you have said) actually considered this question seriously. You know what, people who are atheist and scientists and believe in evolution - many of them DO still respect homosexuality, despite its stifling of procreation. It's true. You've found yourself a loophole. Congratulations, you win.

 

Now if I'm alllll wrong about all this, then I do apologize. But I just feel you try to get a rise out of people for the sake of doing it, then blame political correctness when you're challenged for it.

Edited September 12, 200816 yr by Consie

And by the way, I must say I AM AGAINST paedophilia obviously, in any case, because that violents the will of the children/adolescents. I just wouldn´t call that DISEASE, because people who do that are following their *natural* instincts, when they should use their reason instead. Someone who abuses children is conscient of what is doing, it´s no disease, and if a "different" type of sexual actraction should be considered "disease" then homossexuality and bissexuality should be too, cause they´re not the "mainstream" sexual preferences, either their lead to human reproduction which is the only known way to pass the genes on to future generations, and as Dawkins points, it´s the "egoist gene" that makes evolution happen.

 

Well let's move this out of the theoretical realm and into the real world. Because even if you think pedophilia and homosexuality are similar theoretically ("natural instinct" and such), you must agree the reality, the physical action, the end result is different.

 

So what would you change about the laws, if anything?

"normal" and "acceptable" are 2 terms that depend on your culture. What´s acceptable in NY is not acceptable in Saudi Arabia, and vice versa.

 

About the term "natural", I don´t touch it... Do you think that primitive humans, before civilizations started, were waiting until a female was fully *18 years old* or *16 years old* before they tried a sexual intercourse??? You´re bloody dellusional... In nature, mammals start to have sex and reproduce as soon as they past puberty, and *biologically* there´s nothing wrong with it...

 

Don´t demonize me because I don´t go with your politically correct cliches. I´m not touching the subject of homossexuality (a holly untouchable taboo in the politically correct world)... just the fact that biologically, paedophilia is less of a deletery phenomenon then homossexuality. Just like Consie pointed in his self admitted rudimentary argument, the son of a 14 years old girl will have a reduced life expectancy, maybe of about 5 to 10% less? (I´d say that´s an exageration myself...) On the other hand, and homossexual couple would have their expectancy of reproducing reduced in comparison with an heterossexual couple, by a margin of, say... 100% :unsure:

 

Also in nature, there is homosexuality. Homosexuality has been observed in lions, lizards, dolphins, birds and bonobos. And a lot of other species.

Also in nature, there is homosexuality. Homosexuality has been observed in lions, lizards, dolphins, birds and bonobos. And a lot of other species.

 

i dont agree with that tbh... as i understand it animals just get randy and 'bonk' anything in sight. as far as i know theres NO homosexual animals...that is... an animal with a sexual attraction for only its own sex.