What are your thoughts on rehabilitating child molesters? Do you think it is even possible? Personally when it has been proven that someone has molested a child, I believe that they should not see the light of day. These people are getting sentences that are way to light for the crime they have commited. It makes me sick that so many children have to be hurt or god forbid die before the laws are even changed. I guess I bring this up because this morning on our local news there was a guy who was arrested for molesting a six month old baby girl. Come to find out he spent five years in prison for molesting another child. How do you regabilitate a person that has the mind set to look at a six month old child and see basically a sex toy. This just make my stomach turn. Something needs to be done.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Child molesters and rehabilition?
- Thread starter tater03
- Start date
Werbung:
Having personally known somebody who was wrongfully committed of being a child molester, I do not appreciate the prison hierarchy as it is symptomatic of the broad problems of anti-social politics in the inmate community.
Also, trying to treat the legal system as a method of exercising righteous anger at the infraction of personal beliefs, as in "Personally when it has been proven that someone has molested a child, I believe that they should not see the light of day." is downright dangerous. I would hope that such sentiment stays where it belongs- out of the courts. But this is being too idealistic.
That said, perhaps it may be illuminating (but not particularly useful) not to think of "child molesters" or, if one could safely make the presumptive leap, pedophiles, as being in a class of their own (among other criminals). What makes their infractions of the law appear so heinous is mainly a product of our regard for children, and the sentiments from such are on the whole also rather misguided, in my opinion. The main issue at stake here is the assumption that children under the age of consent cannot be said to have their own judgment and therefore any sexual conduct initiated upon them by an adult is automatically manipulation.
Why I take this angle is not because I want to validate "child molestation." It is the case that there are many child abuse victims who have fallen prey to the predatory types. It can also be said that much of the manifestations of pedophilic predilections is thus selfish, and under almost any generalised relatively parsimonious moral set of guidelines, these actions are not justifiably condoned. But the over-reaction and knee-jerking of people has essentially sparked off a witch hunt which results in the burning of many innocent people at the stake. The criminality of pedophilia has become a political and social weapon, and this, rather, is something that should never have seen the light of day.
To answer the original question more directly, perhaps what Tater is asking is to what extent behavior is reflective of predilection. I could not be sure, but I would be willing to wager that in many documented cases there is some kind of predisposition to either predatory actions or else simply a sexual/generalised attraction to prepubescent people. Rehabilitation, then, could only reasonably be a case of mediating behavior, although there have been cases of convicted pedophiles who have recognised the hardwiring of their behavior voluntarily undergoing chemical sterilisation, and so thus have resumed a socially acceptable life (albeit sex-free).
I know that mine will be a controversial position to take, but I suggest that it is the moral revulsion and reprehensibility that might be making the problems worse for some (could hardly say most or all) of the people who might fall into a pedophilic/predatory profile. To summarise, I would be loath to draw up any generalised principles here as to the 'rehabilitability of convicted sex-offenders' but rather, as seems to be in practice, refer to a case by case basis. For some, I think they are indeed simply driven to selfish ends, and it is just unfortunate that we humans have come to hold the relevant values in low regard. Such can hardly be restricted to talk of child molesters, either.
Also, trying to treat the legal system as a method of exercising righteous anger at the infraction of personal beliefs, as in "Personally when it has been proven that someone has molested a child, I believe that they should not see the light of day." is downright dangerous. I would hope that such sentiment stays where it belongs- out of the courts. But this is being too idealistic.
That said, perhaps it may be illuminating (but not particularly useful) not to think of "child molesters" or, if one could safely make the presumptive leap, pedophiles, as being in a class of their own (among other criminals). What makes their infractions of the law appear so heinous is mainly a product of our regard for children, and the sentiments from such are on the whole also rather misguided, in my opinion. The main issue at stake here is the assumption that children under the age of consent cannot be said to have their own judgment and therefore any sexual conduct initiated upon them by an adult is automatically manipulation.
Why I take this angle is not because I want to validate "child molestation." It is the case that there are many child abuse victims who have fallen prey to the predatory types. It can also be said that much of the manifestations of pedophilic predilections is thus selfish, and under almost any generalised relatively parsimonious moral set of guidelines, these actions are not justifiably condoned. But the over-reaction and knee-jerking of people has essentially sparked off a witch hunt which results in the burning of many innocent people at the stake. The criminality of pedophilia has become a political and social weapon, and this, rather, is something that should never have seen the light of day.
To answer the original question more directly, perhaps what Tater is asking is to what extent behavior is reflective of predilection. I could not be sure, but I would be willing to wager that in many documented cases there is some kind of predisposition to either predatory actions or else simply a sexual/generalised attraction to prepubescent people. Rehabilitation, then, could only reasonably be a case of mediating behavior, although there have been cases of convicted pedophiles who have recognised the hardwiring of their behavior voluntarily undergoing chemical sterilisation, and so thus have resumed a socially acceptable life (albeit sex-free).
I know that mine will be a controversial position to take, but I suggest that it is the moral revulsion and reprehensibility that might be making the problems worse for some (could hardly say most or all) of the people who might fall into a pedophilic/predatory profile. To summarise, I would be loath to draw up any generalised principles here as to the 'rehabilitability of convicted sex-offenders' but rather, as seems to be in practice, refer to a case by case basis. For some, I think they are indeed simply driven to selfish ends, and it is just unfortunate that we humans have come to hold the relevant values in low regard. Such can hardly be restricted to talk of child molesters, either.
I find it hard to draw any sort of distinct line as far as the proper punishment of child molestors and the like. In prison, they do wind up on the bottom of the barrel and with good reason. However, they receive shorter prison terms than some of the less offensive convicts, (IE people who have received drug convictions) which I believe is wrong. There really is no good rehabilitation for child molesters, nor is they’re any real way of properly monitoring their actions without putting the life and liberties of the convicted men at risk. I don’t think they should loose all of their rights simply because they had committed some wrong in the past, but I also do not believe they all deserve to see the light of day again. The punishment has to vary from person to person, as does the “rehabilitation” which is given to them. This is just overall a sticky situation, and I have a great deal of trouble wading through the bull, and finding any sort of real solution for the many problems involved.
I guess my short answer to the original question is that so far there doesn’t seem to be any real rehabilitation that works. Even chemical sterilization does not work in many cases.
I guess my short answer to the original question is that so far there doesn’t seem to be any real rehabilitation that works. Even chemical sterilization does not work in many cases.
Furious George
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 223
I'm willing to bet, if we as a society, removed the presumption that all children are weak, child molestations would cease to exist. What is wrong with child molestors, is that they see children as weak beings, and they prey on them to feel dominant. If we detach the social stigma of children being weak individuals, this complex would cease to exist. Sure, there would still be SOME predators, with other illnesses, but I feel confident in saying that a majority of the cases would dissapear. (Good parenting couldn't hurt either!)
I don 't really see it disapearing with this and I think people will feel this regardless. The problem is those who feel the need to go after others who they percieve as weaker.
And while I do certainly agree their is a need to make sure innocent people are not convicted and that it does not turn into a whitchhunt I also think we do have to recognize that their are dangerous people who are a threat to children.
I think one problem may be that the category sex offender is too broad and may include things that one may not necessarilly consider a sex offense like urinating in public in some areas could be considered one.
And while I do certainly agree their is a need to make sure innocent people are not convicted and that it does not turn into a whitchhunt I also think we do have to recognize that their are dangerous people who are a threat to children.
I think one problem may be that the category sex offender is too broad and may include things that one may not necessarilly consider a sex offense like urinating in public in some areas could be considered one.
I'm willing to bet, if we as a society, removed the presumption that all children are weak, child molestations would cease to exist. What is wrong with child molestors, is that they see children as weak beings, and they prey on them to feel dominant. If we detach the social stigma of children being weak individuals, this complex would cease to exist. Sure, there would still be SOME predators, with other illnesses, but I feel confident in saying that a majority of the cases would dissapear. (Good parenting couldn't hurt either!)
And while I do certainly agree their is a need to make sure innocent people are not convicted and that it does not turn into a whitchhunt I also think we do have to recognize that their are dangerous people who are a threat to children.
I think one problem may be that the category sex offender is too broad and may include things that one may not necessarilly consider a sex offense like urinating in public in some areas could be considered one.
This is a good way to sum it up. I think George is right to a limited extent, in that the cultural perception of children goes a long way to mediating our treatment (and that of "sex offenders") of them but it's more complex than even that.
What I have an issue with is the theory that some people are simply more predatory than others due to their predispositions. This really causes a dilemma in my mind as to how "fair" could thusly be defined, for our current ideals of fairness could not be acheived without widespread implementation of, say, some aggressive eugenics.
I never meant to imply that all sex offences are the same. I believe my very first sentence says if it has been proven you've committed molestation you should not see the light of day. My whole post (and maybe I didn't explain it correctly) was meant for the ones where it has been proven this crime has been comitted or the ones that even admit that they did the crime. They should not see the light of day. And this happens all the time where someone admits to the crime of molestation, eventually does get out and reoffends. This is just not acceptable to me. I was in no shape or form talking about things like staturtory rape, urinating in public.....I never claimed to have all the answers, I was just saying that the crime that was committed above should not be allowed to happen and if it does surely not from someone that has already been convicted for the same offense previously.
I believe my very first sentence says if it has been proven you've committed molestation you should not see the light of day. My whole post (and maybe I didn't explain it correctly) was meant for the ones where it has been proven this crime has been comitted or the ones that even admit that they did the crime. They should not see the light of day.
But Tater, this belief is exactly what I am attacking. You also presume that none of these people are rehabilitable and I find this questionable for the reasons I outlined in the first post.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Treatment for paedophiles
I recently read the wikipedia article on treatment for paedophiles.
It said that the three main treatments are:
1- cognitive behavioral therapy.
2- electroshock and aversion therapy.
3- chemical castration therapy.
It also mentions in passing the lobotomization procedures which basically seem to turn the recipients into vegetables. And it mentions the faith-based 12-step style recovery approach, which it also dismisses as inadequate.
I think the problem in viewing paedophilia is a limitation of paradigm. The academician can theorize about it, but the clinician tends to see people in pain and be more open to actual solutions.
I suggest the faith-based approach is probably the most effective, but it cannot be applied in a naive way, allowing freedom to people who are most likely going to repeat offend.
I think the wisest way is to establish intermediate zones between prison and free life which allow limited degrees of freedom and enforce participatiion in a spiritually based 12-step group.
What do you think?
I recently read the wikipedia article on treatment for paedophiles.
It said that the three main treatments are:
1- cognitive behavioral therapy.
2- electroshock and aversion therapy.
3- chemical castration therapy.
It also mentions in passing the lobotomization procedures which basically seem to turn the recipients into vegetables. And it mentions the faith-based 12-step style recovery approach, which it also dismisses as inadequate.
I think the problem in viewing paedophilia is a limitation of paradigm. The academician can theorize about it, but the clinician tends to see people in pain and be more open to actual solutions.
I suggest the faith-based approach is probably the most effective, but it cannot be applied in a naive way, allowing freedom to people who are most likely going to repeat offend.
I think the wisest way is to establish intermediate zones between prison and free life which allow limited degrees of freedom and enforce participatiion in a spiritually based 12-step group.
What do you think?
I'm sorry, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I will say that maybe they are rehabilitable, but then something needs to be done on making darn sure they are before they are let out. Because no matter how you look at it a large percentage end up reoffending. I am sorry, but I really do have a hard time trying to understand the thinking of why someone would want to commit these types of crimes. And again I am talking about the worst ones, not the ones peeing in the park.
I recently read the wikipedia article on treatment for paedophiles.
It said that the three main treatments are:
1- cognitive behavioral therapy.
2- electroshock and aversion therapy.
3- chemical castration therapy.
...
Thank you for that post, whoever you are. If you ain't registered, please, sign up!
The wiki is obviously referring to clinical approaches from a psychiatric perspective (and therefore precisely up my alley). Therapy 1 is the first line of treatment, but the others suggested are absolute last resorts under any circumstances.
Under current medical guidelines, any condition regarding predilection, cognition, behavior, and affectation (feelings) can only be described as pathological if they are maladaptive and perpetuating/non-corrective. When one discusses pedophilia then, in a medical context it appears presumed that just like other forms of sexual orientation, this influences a person's behaviors such that the degree of choice they have over such is reduced and skewed in the direction of predilection (and thus I refer to the distinction between orientation and behavior, which is the manifestation of such).
The problem here is that the behaviors associated with pedophiles, and likely for a great proportion the cognition entail a generally uncontroversial reprehensible moral conduct (i.e. "taking advantage of children"). Ignoring for the moment the way such discussions take place now (which is much more controversial), attempting to "treat" a pedophile, under our current social guidelines, to be much trickier as it is not purely a matter of allowing behavior to manifest itself in particular ways and managing the identity issues to protect the individual from a hateful public. Because the implications of such impact upon a special class of moral agent- children, and so our therapeutic guidelines shift towards trying to biologically curb the behaviors.
I think the problem in viewing paedophilia is a limitation of paradigm. The academician can theorize about it, but the clinician tends to see people in pain and be more open to actual solutions.
I cannot stress how important I think this is. I might sound harsh, but much of the discussion on this topic is usually done by people who have next to no insight into the actual experiences of not just the victims but also the perpetrators (whichever way around this may be). What then follows is a dehumanising process that reduces the person to an object of hatred. Sure, you might feel justified in doing it, but that certainly isn't going to improve matters. In fact, you're making it worse by perpetuating and exacerbating the problems.
Try drawing parallels with arguments about legalisation of drugs. Mediating social processes as opposed to stamping out the evil may be impossibly idealistic, but when it's the only solution, the only alternative is ignoring our inherent flaws and changing nothing.
The studies thusfar seem to have concluded that for the most part sexual predators are not able to be rehabilitated.But Tater, this belief is exactly what I am attacking. You also presume that none of these people are rehabilitable and I find this questionable for the reasons I outlined in the first post.
Werbung:
A common error with many laypersons is the failure to distinguish between few and none, most and all, and probably and certainly. Until I can be confident that this is no longer a common error with the broad implications that it plainly entails, I will continue to haggle for an appreciation of all perspectives.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 44
- Views
- 2K