My Plan for Paedophiles

[lo_res_man]

Let's just give the death penalty to all crimes. That will deter everyone from committing crimes. No more robberies, drive bys, or tax fraud, right? Also, what happens when someone is wrongfully accused of rape and murdered by the state? Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs?

I stole a cherry candy from a store at age 8, should I die?
*fixed*

[Stupot]

All criminals should be slaughtered at birth.

[FSi++]

All criminals should be slaughtered at birth.

Nobody's criminal at birth!

[Meowster]

a) Why are we still looking for Madeline McCann? How many other children have gone missing since she did? How many of these children would have been found by now if the police weren't all concentrating on one child in particular?

Oooh, okay, I'm being serious now.

Saying that more children would have been found if the police hadn't been concentrating on one child shows a massive lack of understanding of how missing child cases work.

Also, there have been few cases of children under the age of, say, 15, being abducted/raped/probably murdered by paedophiles. Most missing children cases are not as highly publicised because the children have been "kidnapped" by a parent, or in a few sad cases are obviously already dead. The case of Madeleine was highly publicised and I think rightly so, because there was a fair chance the little girl may still be alive, and she was in immediate danger unless found quickly.

There are a lot of things that you could point out as wrong or a waste of time in the madeleine coverage, but to say that other children may have been found had she not been in the "limelight" is laughable.

b) Why haven't the parents been charged with child abandonment?

I find this very annoying. It's an annoying attitude that isn't going to help anybody.

There isn't a parent in the world who hasn't, at some point, left their child vulnerable. Leaving their child a few metres away in their house at a family-friendly holiday resort may have seemed no different to eating in their back garden with their child asleep upstairs. Looking back, of course they're going to realise that it was a terrible mistake, but what is the point in charging them with child abandonment? I mean, honestly, get real. I'm sure you'd be an absolutely faultless parent, but unfortunately everybody else in only human and we all make mistakes.

Yes they made a mistake, and no, they absolutely don't deserve to be charged for it and thankfully since few other people have such a ridiculous notion in their heads, they won't be.

[SSH]

I stole a cherry candy from a store at age 8, should I die?

Not for that reason... but perhaps for not being able to quote people properly...

[Hudders]

a) Why are we still looking for Madeline McCann? How many other children have gone missing since she did? How many of these children would have been found by now if the police weren't all concentrating on one child in particular?

Oooh, okay, I'm being serious now.

Saying that more children would have been found if the police hadn't been concentrating on one child shows a massive lack of understanding of how missing child cases work.

Also, there have been few cases of children under the age of, say, 15, being abducted/raped/probably murdered by paedophiles. Most missing children cases are not as highly publicised because the children have been "kidnapped" by a parent, or in a few sad cases are obviously already dead. The case of Madeleine was highly publicised and I think rightly so, because there was a fair chance the little girl may still be alive, and she was in immediate danger unless found quickly.

There are a lot of things that you could point out as wrong or a waste of time in the madeleine coverage, but to say that other children may have been found had she not been in the "limelight" is laughable.

OK, so maybe I'm wrong and that's not the way missing child cases work, but how many other children have gone missing since she did? How many of them can you name? If it's none, then that very accurately demonstrates my point. Why does Madeleine McCann appear so often in newspapers despite how long it's been since she went missing? Why is this case any more important than all the others? It's a whoring of a tragedy.

b) Why haven't the parents been charged with child abandonment?

I find this very annoying. It's an annoying attitude that isn't going to help anybody.

There isn't a parent in the world who hasn't, at some point, left their child vulnerable. Leaving their child a few metres away in their house at a family-friendly holiday resort may have seemed no different to eating in their back garden with their child asleep upstairs. Looking back, of course they're going to realise that it was a terrible mistake, but what is the point in charging them with child abandonment? I mean, honestly, get real. I'm sure you'd be an absolutely faultless parent, but unfortunately everybody else in only human and we all make mistakes.

Yes they made a mistake, and no, they absolutely don't deserve to be charged for it and thankfully since few other people have such a ridiculous notion in their heads, they won't be.

Perhaps child abandonment is the wrong offence to accuse them of, but like it or not, the simple fact remains that these parents are at fault. It may be that they realise that they made a mistake, and I'm sure plenty of drunk drivers convicted of manslaughter regret their actions too, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour.

Imagine that something else had happened in that hotel room. Imagine that rather than be kidnapped, Madeliene had an accident and smashed her head open on the floor. What's the first thing the police ask? Do you think for one moment that the parents wouldn't be blamed?

[SSH]

Simply having an adult present doesn't stop kids from banging their heads on things, believe me... and since they were checking on them every half-hour or so, the police would never have got involved if there was any kind of accident. I presume they didn't leave any sharp objects lying around the room.

On the other hand, I'd never leave my girls alone when they are asleep, because if they woke up and no-one was there, they'd be terrified.

If they'd had a baby listener running, it all would have been so much better. But what would be the point of prosecuting the parents? They sure as heck aren't going to leave their other kids alone ever again.

[Stupot]

If MM was taken by a paedo or just kidnapped for some other purpose, then surely the fault lies with the guy/woman who kidnapped her.  Not the parents.

If I steal a packet of Hobnobs from Sainsbury's, and got caught, I'd be the one to blame.  Noone would defend me by saying "Well it's the shops fault for allowing the Hobnobs to be left on the shelf."

Mr and Mrs McCann will always regret letting Maddy out of their sight. It will haunt them for ever.  That, surely is punishment enough.  To suggest convicting them is foolhardy.

[Hudders]

But what would be the point of prosecuting the parents? They sure as heck aren't going to leave their other kids alone ever again.

So that's saying that so long as I'm sorry and I'm full of remorse about my actions, I shouldn't be prosecuted?

I think it'd be a different tune being played out in the media if Madeliene was in the care of someone other than her parents when she disappeared.

[Meowster]

meh edited

[TerranRich]

But what would be the point of prosecuting the parents? They sure as heck aren't going to leave their other kids alone ever again.

So that's saying that so long as I'm sorry and I'm full of remorse about my actions, I shouldn't be prosecuted?

I think it'd be a different tune being played out in the media if Madeliene was in the care of someone other than her parents when she disappeared.

In certain situations that would probably be the better way of going. If you sold marijuana (here in the States), or were involved in a physical altercation, for example. Judges sometimes give harsher sentences for those who lack any remorse or regret, so it should work the other way around. This is not, however, what should be done for the more extreme crimes like murder and child rape.

On a different note, in my head there are two different types of pedophiles: those who commit rape, and those who just have an attraction. I once knew somebody (who will remain nameless for obvious reasons) who had an attraction to younger girls (mostly like 12 or 13), but would never harm them. He was realistic in his desire, and still found women his own age attractive as well. I've always thought it was interesting that, if he were ever exposed, there would be a lynch mob after him for fear that he might, in the future, commit a crime. Which he never would, and never had...any type of crime, actually.

The ones who kidnap, rape, etc. should be punished to the full extent of the law, and perhaps beyond that. Even just being accused of such a crime is something that lives with you and follows you for most of your remaining life. This is why punishing the crime is such an issue: people who are indeed guilty of the crime deserve nothing less than the harshest punishment available by law...people who are not guilty are often ostracized and do not deserve it (assuming they are, in reality, innocent).

[LimpingFish]

I agree with the point about the stigma involved with even being accused (regardless of guilt) of such crimes, and is, if not equal to, at least comparable to being actually found guilty.

And should people be held responsible for what may or may not go on in their heads?

In cases like this, we'd probably be surprised at how many people would say yes...

[lo_res_man]

Well count me out of the many. We think many things, its what we DO that's important. Actions speak loader then words, and that includes thoughts, if not more so. Just like what you wether you thought you were justified or not should not have any bearing in a murder trial, what you think shouldn't become a crime. Its like holocaust deniers. I think they are wrong , and they are sick fucks, HOWEVER, I do not think they should be prosocuted under the law, unless they make an action that can be considered a hate crime, like vandelising a synagogue or something. free speech is for EVERYONE. We have the Right to be Wrong

[Stupot]

We have the Right to be Wrong

Haha, I like that.  Did you make it up?

I agree that you can't punish people for what they think, but if they think about little girls then maybe, Terran, that guy you once knew should still consider seeking professional advice before his passing attraction for 12-year-olds turns into something darker.

[lo_res_man]

  yes I did actually. And I agree with you, these men (and woman, rare but true) should seek professional help before they do something they will regret. These human beings deserve help.

[Hudders]

I once knew somebody (who will remain nameless for obvious reasons) who had an attraction to younger girls (mostly like 12 or 13), but would never harm them. He was realistic in his desire, and still found women his own age attractive as well. I've always thought it was interesting that, if he were ever exposed, there would be a lynch mob after him for fear that he might, in the future, commit a crime. Which he never would, and never had...any type of crime, actually.

Further to that, I would suggest that there are stark differences between being attracted to a 15-year-old, being attracted to a 12-year-old, and being attracted to a 3-year-old; differences which aren't reflected in the law.

Don't get me wrong, rape is wrong in any situation, but there are grey areas in the law where a man could pick up a girl who he believes to be over the age of consent but turns out not to be. Next thing he knows he's a convicted paedophile.

[Stupot]

Serves him right for not being vigilant.

[TerranRich]

We have the Right to be Wrong

Haha, I like that.  Did you make it up?

I agree that you can't punish people for what they think, but if they think about little girls then maybe, Terran, that guy you once knew should still consider seeking professional advice before his passing attraction for 12-year-olds turns into something darker.

That's the thing. He didn't see anything wrong with it, and neither did I. I knew him well enough to know that he'd never act on his occasional attraction. He has a girlfriend that he's going to marry, as a matter of fact.

If somebody you knew was angry at the world, and told you he had the occasional desire to kill someone, but said he'd never act on it, would you demand that he seek professional help? Would you want to prosecute him and imprison him? I wouldn't. I'd probably laugh it off, and agree with him that the world does indeed suck...as long as I knew he had a good head on his shoulders and wouldn't actually kill someone.

It's just that the fear and loathing of pedophiles is so strong that we can't even tolerate the thought that those kinds of desires might exist in someone's head.

Stupot, you're assuming that all pedophiles (even mild ones) will act on their attractions at some point. I don't assume that at all. Knowing what (and who) I know, I still think that there are those who have the desire to act, and will do so...and then there are those who just have an attraction to younger girls and would never harm them, and therefore never act on them.

[Hudders]

Thoughtcrime.

[lo_res_man]

I agree, this is what this is becoming. However all society have deviants, the true question is how we handle them. I have a theory why pedophiles have the status they do now in the western world. its the low birth rate. Since less children are being born, even though by choice, those fewer children are being protected more. I read in the news feed that reverent who likes to jog in the nude, is  being charged with public exposure, he says he sweats to much in a jogging suit. If he is convicted he would have to register as a sex offender. Weird, yes. But THAT?