My Plan for Paedophiles

[Meowster]

I was just reading in the news about how one of the suspects in that Madeleine Mcann case is this known paedophile who is suspected to have kidnapped and probably killed another young girl last week... something like that... I only skimmed over it...

Made me think though,

What about Google Paedos, eh? It would be like Google Maps, but with paedophiles. Imagine that all Paedophiles had a chip implanted in their brain, so that it could never be removed unless they beheaded themselves. These chips are tracked using Satellites or whatever, so you can go to paedos.google.com and check to see whether there are any paedos in your area.

This works for so many reasons.

I mean, firstly... if there are any potential murderers/psychos out there, they can kill paedophiles and be a hero, instead of killing ordinary people and being ordinary psychos.

Secondly, you can google for paedos in your area! Imagine if this service had existed for the McCanns, they could have googled for paedos!





Also, people who are sexually attracted to children under the age of 12 should immediately be castrated.

I say 12, because unfortunately most men I know would fancy a 14+ year old girl... since I don't want all men to be castrated, we'll have to play it safe... go with 12... the mockery that men get for fancying underage girls should do for anyone 14 or older... as for the grey area inbetween 12 and 14... well... I dunno... Maybe you should get put on google paedos until the object of your disgusting obsession reaches maturity or something... I dunno... hmm.... I wish I was in charge of the world...

[HillBilly]

There are sites like that already.

By the way I hope that post was mostly a joke because your logic fails on so many levels.

[Meowster]

Yes it was mostly a joke.

My real plan is that there should be one big island where all the child sex offenders should live and they'll have to rape and murder each other. It would kind of be like Highlander but with child sex offenders.

[scotch]

It was mostly only funny because it could be quoted out of a tabloid newspaper.

[HillBilly]

My real plan is that there should be one big island where all the child sex offenders should live and they'll have to rape and murder each other. It would kind of be like Highlander but with child sex offenders.

This primitive way of punishment is so passé. I prefer Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" over this, where you'll more or less watch people having their lives destroyed on national television.

[Meowster]

I did originally draw inspiration for my ideas from The Sun....

[LimpingFish]

Stare at The Sun too long, and you'll damage your brain.

Sounds more Daily Mail, anyway.

[SSH]

So THATS where Beyond Reality came from?

[radiowaves]

I say 12, because unfortunately most men I know would fancy a 14+ year old girl...

Ugh, what kind of men are you socialising with? 14 year old hasn't got any titties yet, not mentioning extreme level of childness and immaturity. 14 yo was just a 13 yo.

[evenwolf]

Their lives are only destroyed because the faces aren't blurred out.    Which makes me think they signed a release form.

[ildu]

If they're convicted as felons, I think the state has the right to show their faces, same as they have a right to publish their names. Nevertheless, it's probably totally different in some states compared to others.

[HillBilly]

I think it's legal to film people at your own property without worrying about blurring anything, since they can leave at any time.

[lo_res_man]

I sometimes think sexual maturity should enter into it somewhat, some 14tyo look like they couldn't work at 'raisens' ( south park referance *shudder*)other look like they could work at hooters.I know a sharp cut off date is important, just like with alchohol, but...

[shbaz]

What's really strange about the whole public knowledge thing in America is that you can figure out who the convicted sex offenders are, what they were convicted of in broad categories, but not what the situation was or how it happened.  There are google maps that show the homes of convicted sex offenders in the US.  They're not allowed to live within such and such distance from churches, schools, day care facilities, youth recreation facilities, public parks, etc. so they're usually pretty concentrated in certain areas.

Suppose you accidentally get caught taking a piss in public by an unsuspecting youngster and are convicted of exposing yourself to a minor, now you're a convicted sex offender even though you aren't anywhere near the level of those other freaks.

I work with a guy who is convicted of forcible sodomy and rape on a minor, a weird mofo that everyone pretty much hates, but what sucks is that we'll never know what he actually did, just this vague description of it.  So should we really be filling his gloves with grease and running the batteries out of his power tools every day or is what he actually did not so bad as it sounds?  Maybe some 14 year old threw herself at him, because the law here still calls that rape.  He already has a super crappy low paying dead-end job and has lost any other good opportunities as soon as people found out his history, so how bad does life have to be for this guy before it's gone too far?

People practically form lynch mobs around these people before they're even convicted or confronted with substantial proof.  Bad divorces sometimes lead to completely fabricated accusations that will lead to a group called "Bikers against child abuse" to form a 24 hour bodyguard team around your child that might shoot to kill if you come near.  Oh yeah, they also drive back and forth in motorcycle gangs in front of your house for no reason sometimes.

A touchy issue that needs a lot of restraint sometimes, but really who wants to try and be compassionate with a child molestor?

[lo_res_man]

And here is a another thought. Anime porn, or Hentai. Can a drawn image count as child pornography?

[Stupot]

Back to the original post.

I can add to this by saying that if convicted nonces had special GPS unit's in their brain, then their wherabouts could be recorded, and in the case of the MaddyMcCann disappearance they would be able to check if he was guilty simply by going through his GPS record and seeing where he was at the time she went missing.

Paedo's don't deserve to be given any rights.  They are monsters, which makes them not human so human rights should be irrelevant when dealing with these "people".

[Redwall]

Paedo's don't deserve to be given any rights.  They are monsters, which makes them not human so human rights should be irrelevant when dealing with these "people".

I find it very depressing that I can't tell if you're serious or not.

[lo_res_man]

Stupot, I respect you I really do, but I think your going a tad overboard here. Yes society at present considers people to be sick people, but they are sick people. Yes for what they have done, rights should taken away for the time of their sentence, and if a felony, beyond.Yes they are deviants, and yes what they do is wrong. However to call them 'monsters' is deny the evil and the good that exists in all of us. We all at some point have had part of  inside us that  wanted to do something outside sick and fucked. Your telling me that no point in your life you never felt an urge to something despicable? Not the same thing of course, but something. You without sin cast the first stone.

[Stupot]

I've never felt the urge to do anything untoward to little children, no.

[lo_res_man]

I didn't mean specificly little children, I meant that we are all crazy on the inside, we all got something that most others would think is perverted, we all have had momets were we sencirly believed we wanted to do something horrible, the only differance between us and them is the nature of the crime,

[Redwall]

It doesn't matter. Everybody's human whether we like it or not. To label them as monsters and try to cut them off from "us" is to cross a fundamental line; once who's a "person" and who's not is a matter of public debate we step onto a slippery slope with no good endings.

[Stupot]

What kind of horrible things do you fantasize about LRM?

There's a difference between what some people might think is perverted, and kidnapping and raping a toddler.  Even if the child survives, he/she has had her childhood taken away and their life may never be normal again.  And these bastards are getting away with a couple of years here and there in prison and if we're lucky they might get their name put on a list which isn't even available public (this is to protect them, go figure).

These people are predators, sick, twisted, manipulative beasts with no compassion and no control over their urges.  They are monsters and don't deserve to be tolerated in the way that they seem to be tolerated in today's society.

Let me tell you about a man in my village.  I won't name him, the police already know who he is.  He hangs around the bus stop, eyeing up the litlte girls.  He once asked my sister, when she was 14, "Are you a virgin?", tried to kiss her and asked her to go to Brighton with him.

Almost every girl in the village has had some kind of similar encounter with him.  He drops his pants on the bus regularly and claims it to be an accident.  Once a guy moved into the flat above the shop where I worked, he was single, but had kids who once came to stay with him.  Two girls of about 5-7 years old.  They were playing outside the shop, by the busstop, when he started coming onto one of them... they ran home and told their Dad...

The father, being new to the village himself, didn't know that this was just [mr D], and that [mr D] was just being [mr D] and that's how he was.  So he phoned the police.  But that did no good.  The police already know about [mr D] and his wacky antics... honestly if this guy took his behaviour to another village he'd have been chucked in prison by now, but because he does it in my village, everyone is used to him and tolerates it. Even the police.

"oh thats just [mr D], he'll do no harm".. well i guarantee one day he will do harm, and I'll be there saying "i told you so you fucking nitwits"

Why put up with it.

[Vince Twelve]

Stu,  what they're trying to say is that if you call someone with a psychological disorder, no matter how bad or how harmful they are to others, non-human, then you're denying the fact that these illnesses exist in humans.  We need to recognize that these people are human, but they are very damaged, and we need to be able to understand the causes and signs of this damage so that we can prevent someone else from receiving similar damage or at the very least see the signs in someone else and prevent that damaged person from hurting someone else.  To blame their deeds on something outside of our control like their inhumanness is to relieve yourself from any responsibility in helping the world deal with the problem.

A close family member of mine was raped when he was twelve years old by his scout master and had some very serious psychological issues later in life because of it.  So I know the kind of damage that can done and have the utmost sympathy for the victims of this kind of criminal.  But treating them as something less than human brings us down, maybe not to their level, but to a level of inhumanity of our own.

If you'd like, you can certainly argue that the current punishment under the law for these people is too light.  But don't blame their psychological issues on something outside our own society.

[lo_res_man]

That is what I was trying to say,

Stu,  what they're trying to say is that if you call someone with a psychological disorder, no matter how bad or how harmful they are to others, non-human, then you're denying the fact that these illnesses exist in humans. .

That's exactly what I meant, thanks for clarifying.

[Stupot]

Yeh you're right.
Poor, misunderstood, rapists.

I see what point you guys are making but I just feel quite strongly about these people.
OK so it's an illness, I'll accept that.  But when I've got an illness, I usually go to the doctor, catch it early on and get treatment before it turns into something nasty.

If I started developing feelings for a little choirboy I'd either hang myself or go and seek professional help before I did something I'm gonna regret.  If someone has these urges, but feels terrible about it and tells someone before it's too late, then they have my full respect.

It's the predators, the liars, the one's who enjoy what they do and turn it into a game and have no feelings for the lives they ruin.  They should be named, shamed, (and maybe even maimed j/k). Not hidden away and protected.

[lo_res_man]

What kind of horrible things do you fantasize about LRM?

Let me be open and honest with you, you wonderd if I had a sick fantasy life, well I guess I do cuz let me tell you i find this young lady

VERY ATTRACTIVE. Inside LRM's twisted brain are some those tendancies you know and hate. I like petete spuncky thin small breasted leggy woman with sharp  animeish  features, and most of them are under 18 so guess what world that makes me a pediophile, I admit it, want to lynch me know huh, HUH?! I have NEVER acted on these desires, and one of my greatest fears is someday I will. IT SCARES ME! I don't WANT to sacr some young teen for life, its WRONG! Shy away from me now, hex me, X me, stake me.I don't care I guess the reason I object to calling them inhuman monsters is I know that black snake is coiled up inside me, And then what does that make me?
*Sob* :'(

[Stupot]

I have a bit of a preference toward petite anime girls, myself.  There are plenty of them over here in Tokyo and guess what, not all of them are underage.  Infact some of them are forty.  Having a preference or even a maybe a light fetish isn't monsterous. It's perfectly healthy.

If you had a choice of two otherwise identical girls but knew that one was 12 and one was 22, I'm sure (i hope) you'd go for the 22 year-old.  I would.  Okay this would basically be admitting that you find the 12-year old girl attractive, too, but theres nothing wrong in acknowledging beauty.

The kinds of people who should be stripped of their rights are the kinds who would choose the 12-year-old, because she's 12 years old, because they prey on younger children.  For me this is unacceptable and two years in prison is about as much of a punishment as a bowl dry porridge.

So cheer up, you're not a nonce yet.

[lo_res_man]

/quote]
gee thanks

[Vince Twelve]

They should be named, shamed, (and maybe even maimed j/k). Not hidden away and protected.

No one is suggesting we protect them.  In most cases, I'm sure most people would agree that they should be punished to the full extent of the law.  You're putting words into people's mouths in order to have something to argue against.

[lo_res_man]

and thats what we must remember the fullest extent of the LAW, not

(and maybe even maimed j/k).

yes you were joking, but just like racist jokes, that doesn't make it right.We as a society have developed to the point where the law holds the highest power, at least in theory. It has been a long and rockey road, we must not go down that road again, due to a lust for vengance

[Meowster]

I do think that people who have raped, then murdered a small and helpless child should be tortured and killed.

And that's actually not a joke.

I think it would be a great idea because that way, paedophiles would be less likely to kill the child to cover up their crime. They usually kill the child not for kicks, but because they're terrified of being discovered and it's the child or them.

But if killing the child could mean weeks of painful and cruel torture followed by an extraordinarily painful death for them, there're probably not going to risk it. They might even be deterred from taking the child in the first place. Hopefully they might even commit suicide.

I know that a lot of people will think that's absolutely shocking, but while I have some sympathy for people with mental sicknesses that make them fancy small children and babies, I have no sympathy for a coward who rapes a 3 year old girl, then murders her to cover his tracks.

[Stupot]

You're putting words into people's mouths in order to have something to argue against.

Not at all, if anything, I'm trying to defend my original arguement which was shat all over as usual.  When I suggested that these people should be exempt from the human rights that protect law-abiding citizens because they are inhuman,  it was in response to the post a few places above it talking about protecting the identities of these people.  I was suggesting their names and faces shouldn't be protected by the law, because the nature of their crime is so disgustingly wrong. Their names and faces have to be known to the public, for the safety of other children and for the prevention of further such crimes.

Apart from the maim comment (which was clearly a joke because it rhymes with name and shame and I even put it in bracketts with a j/k next to it to make absolutuely sure) I never suggested Lynching, Hex-ing X-ing, or Staking.  In that respect aren't you guys putting words in my mouth.   

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I don't think calling someone who rapes small children a monster is an inappropriate label at all.  One must wonder at what point our actions destroy our own humanity and turn us into something else, something altogether unpleasant and unworthy of the gift of life.  I definitely believe there are people in existence that have crossed that line.  Also, I find it more than a little unsettling that people would defend the right of child molesters etc not to be called monsters for some paper-thin reasoning like 'that's saying they're not human'.  Please check the alternate definitions of something before considering it inappropriate:

3.   any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character.
4.   a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.

Sounds like an excellent fit to me!

[Vince Twelve]

You can call them whatever you want.  I was only cautioning against dehumanizing them and their flaws, which at least at the start, are very human in nature, and, I believe, preventable or at least identifiable.  Meaning that if we recognize that what's creating these "monsters" is a societal, psychological, or upbringing problem, we can work to find solutions and help to prevent future atrocities.  Call them monsters if you'd like, but make sure that you don't let that be the explanation for their behavior.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying that we need to protect child molesters from punishment or public identification.  On the contrary, it seems that every one is unanimous on the point of publicly identifying past offenders and seeking harsh punishment for such people.  Not exactly a risqué standpoint... or a difficult one to defend.  Too many straw men flying around this thread.

[Stupot]

Nobody did say we should protect them, when I said that I was adding my two cents, not arguing with anyone.  That was when I used the word 'monster' and I've spent the rest of this thread trying to explain myself.

You guys tend to pick up on the one minor flaw in each of my posts and turn it around on me even when you know the point of my argument and that one minor flaw doesn't always have anything thing to do with the debate in hand.

I might not be as articulate as I'd like to be, but I enjoy healthy debate and it's frustrating that sometimes my lack of vocabulary or eloquence weakens my arguments and makes me look like I don't know what I'm talking about.

[m0ds]

My real plan is that there should be one big island where all the child sex offenders should live and they'll have to rape and murder each other. It would kind of be like Highlander but with child sex offenders.

Nice, Battle Royale-ophile.

[lo_res_man]

I might not be as articulate as I'd like to be, but I enjoy healthy debate and it's frustrating that sometimes my lack of vocabulary or eloquence weakens my arguments and makes me look like I don't know what I'm talking about.

Don't we all brother, don't we all.

[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?

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

[MrColossal]

I do think that people who have raped, then murdered a small and helpless child should be tortured and killed.

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?

[SSH]

How many of these children would have been found by now if the police weren't all concentrating on one child in particular?

Don't confuse the police with the media

[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?

[Stupot]

I don't assume that your friend, or anyone who has such thoughts, will some day act on his attractions.  I do however, think that if these attractions are sexual (as opposed to merely admiring a pretty face) then it's surely a wise idea to be very careful and tell somebody incase these thoughts turn into something unsavoury.

All paedos probably started off with a mild attraction for younger children.  But I bet they didn't tell anybody, kept it secret, hidden and allowed it to grow, and before you know it they've got a PC full of child pron, newspaper clippings and polaroids all over their bedsit walls and bloodied shovel in the cupboard.  Now if they'd sought advice early on when it was just a budding fetish they might have been able to avoid the whole fucking mess.

[TerranRich]

See, that's the difference between you and I. I've had the chance to talk to a "pedo" in depth and pick his brain. Your assumptions as to what all pedophilia-minded people will eventually do someday are pretty ridiculous. Sure, a percentage of them will do that, but not really. His attraction is a mixture of admiration for beauty and sexual attraction. Many people assume that pedophiles will all turn to a life of kidnapping, rape, and possibly murder. Some do, but not all. I've talked to people online that have semi-jokingly admitted to some pedophilia-related thoughts and desires. If as many people as I think have these thoughts, then we're soon going to be crawling with child rapists and murderers, according to your assumptions.

[Stupot]

I'll repeat.

I don't assume that your friend, or anyone who has such thoughts, will some day act on his attractions.

I'm not making any assumptions.  I'm simply saying all of the kidnapping and raping paedophiles didn't just suddenly decide one day to become a what they are.  It started from something seeminlgy innocent. 

I'm just saying people who have "seemingly innocent" attractions should be very careful not to let it get out of control.

How can you not agree with that?

[lo_res_man]

Well it seems to me that it was implied. We can all agree that TerranRich's friend was a "paedo" right? In the same sence even a normal homo-hetrosexual virgen is an adult-o-phile.

All paedos probably started off with a mild attraction for younger children.  But I bet they didn't tell anybody, kept it secret, hidden and allowed it to grow, and before you know it they've got a PC full of child pron, newspaper clippings and polaroids all over their bedsit walls and bloodied shovel in the cupboard

Of course a paedos could also mean someone who has already commited a crime, but then what is an virgan? Are yoo saying until they have asexual encounter they don't HAVE a sexual preferance. Surely your not implying that

[Raggit]

When we were little kids, I and my sister used to go to the same little church as a pedophile who molested his own daughters went to.  Ironic yes, that a pedophile went to church, but imagine how easy it would've been for him to get to me or my sister. 

Now, we were friends with these girls, and later on when we found out that he was doing all the sick stuff to them, we were shocked when we found out that they WEREN'T going to testify against him in court, and therefore he got away with what he did.   He probably threatened them, or guilted them, saying it was "their fault."  Whatever the case, he's still a free man as far as I know.  (They moved away a long time ago.)

Now a lot of people's reactions might be "CUT HIS BALLS OFF!!1," or "GIVE HIM THE CHAIR!!," but I don't honestly think that's the best course of action.  I know an eye for an eye is a popular philosophy, but it just seems that if we can't settle these issues in a humane way, we're in worse shape as a race than I thought.   

I'm not sure if there is or isn't a direct solution for this problem, or any other issues like these.  I haven't researched pedophilia as much as I have other criminal-types, like serial killers and so on.   But I still find this an interesting debate, so carry on!

Maybe a giant asteroid will strike the Earth and end complex issues such as these. 

[space boy]

Now a lot of people's reactions might be "CUT HIS BALLS OFF!!1," or "GIVE HIM THE CHAIR!!," but I don't honestly think that's the best course of action.  I know an eye for an eye is a popular philosophy, but it just seems that if we can't settle these issues in a humane way, we're in worse shape as a race than I thought.   

Of course I am all for a fair trial and the principle "innocent until proven guilty", but if it has been proven that a person has shown no respect for another persons human dignity then there should be no respect for the human dignity of the guilty person. Child molestors are scum. If their guilt has been proven they should be treated like scum.

[lo_res_man]

No they should be treated like criminals. That is what they are. The Law is the highest authority, and it is its job to decide what to do with these people. In a democracy we can change the laws, but we must NOT act outside it. Democrasy is a very fragile thing, we must not shatter it. Thousands of men and woman have given there all for this ideal, don't be so quick to discard it.

[space boy]

Damn it, I wasn't saying that we should act outside law or discard democracy(maybe you missed the "fair trial" and "innocent until proven guilty" bits in my post). Also "criminal" is a broad term. There are people who steal food because they are starving and cant afford food but they are otherwise "good" people and there are people who are driven by sick desires. Do you really believe that both should be treated equally after they have been proven guilty? I strongly disagree. A man who has raped a baby and then killed it is the worst kind of criminal. Treating that person with respect for his dignity is totally wrong.

[MillsJROSS]

I'm on the fence about this issue. I feel I should have more compassion to either side, but it's really hard to when we're attacking such a broad and general group of people. That being paedophiles. You just have to be attracted to young children to be grouped in this category. Rape, molestation, kidnapping, etc...Is wrong, no matter the age group. The only people I have any ill will against are those who act upon their thoughts, with no regard for anyone else, or even if they have regard, with no control over themselves.

I mean, I'm attracted to a lot of women my age, which society says is alright. But no one will throw a fit about that unless I rape them. So I can't really say I feel strong hatred to someone who hasn't acted on their thoughts.

Now once someone has acted, it becomes a different story. I don't like those people much at all. Of course, I can't perscribe a punishment on a general bunch of people. It should always be a case by case basis.

-MillsJROSS

[lo_res_man]

Damn it, I wasn't saying that we should act outside law or discard democracy(maybe you missed the "fair trial" and "innocent until proven guilty" bits in my post). Also "criminal" is a broad term. There are people who steal food because they are starving and cant afford food but they are otherwise "good" people and there are people who are driven by sick desires. Do you really believe that both should be treated equally after they have been proven guilty? I strongly disagree. A man who has raped a baby and then killed it is the worst kind of criminal. Treating that person with respect for his dignity is totally wrong.

but what of the man who has a stash of  child porn on his computer?This man is also considered a pedaphile. Yes, I agree somewhat that these men can metaphoricly be called scum,

[Stupot]

LRM

Sexual desire for young children is unhealthy.

Whether or not the person in question acted on this desire it is still not healthy.  I'm simply saying, and I'll say it again, that people with such desires should be very careful not to let them grow into  uncontrollable urges.

Paedophilia is an illness.  You've said it yourself LRM. Most people go to the doctor when they have an illness to try to avoid it from getting worse.

If I find a lump on my left breast, I go to the doctor to make sure it's nothing serious and stop it early if it is.  My point is that everyone who has a lump, however small and "seemingly innocent" it may be should get it checked out to make sure it doesn't grow into something altogether more unsavoury.

What are you saying?  We should wait until we have full blown Cancer before we decide if it's serious enough to tell someone about it?  Same with paedophilia, sometimes it might not be a serious criminal urge, but it's still unhealthy.  It's their duty to get it checked out and make sure it isn't going to get them into any trouble.  They'd be doing themselves a favour as well as the community at large.

[space boy]

but what of the man who has a stash of  child porn on his computer?This man is also considered a pedaphile.

Wacking off to movies of children being abused is not much different from abusing the children "directly". The only difference is that the scum and the children are not in the same place.

[InCreator]

So, that's why apes picked up things to use as weapons...

One can fantasize about anything, not a crime.

But active one, like one touching a child, well...
...I'd just shoot the fuckers. No court, no warnings, no imprisonment. A bullet.

[TerranRich]

Now once someone has acted, it becomes a different story. I don't like those people much at all. Of course, I can't perscribe a punishment on a general bunch of people. It should always be a case by case basis.

Bingo. That's how I look at it. My friend is perfectly capable of not raping a little child. There's a difference between an obsession and an attraction. I could be attracted to some girl, but until I become obsessed and start stalking her, it's not a problem. My friend doesn't go out of his way to ogle girls...he'll just happen to see one that he thinks is cute. Maybe she's wearing short shorts, or some other type of revealing clothing that he'll just glance at, then continue on his way. I'm open-minded enough to see what he sees, maybe even understand a little where his feelings come from, but they don't do anything for me, so I can't understand fully without literally being him.

Like I said, he lives a perfectly normal life with his fiancée.

[EldKatt]

[...] if it has been proven that a person has shown no respect for another persons human dignity then there should be no respect for the human dignity of the guilty person.

I know that this way of thinking is pretty common, so I might be disagreed with a lot, but as I see it this reasoning is so hypocritical and irrational that it makes me shudder. If that's a principle we want to act on, it's not hard to picture the human dominoes tumbling...

[Pumaman]

Wacking off to movies of children being abused is not much different from abusing the children "directly". The only difference is that the scum and the children are not in the same place.

So watching a porno is basically equivalent to rape?

[space boy]

I was talking about CHILD porn.

[Pumaman]

But you seem to be claiming that watching a video of a crime happen makes you as guilty as doing the crime yourself. Does this mean that if you watch a video of someone being beaten up, then you should also be jailed for assault?

[space boy]

But you seem to be claiming that watching a video of a crime happen makes you as guilty as doing the crime yourself. Does this mean that if you watch a video of someone being beaten up, then you should also be jailed for assault?

Of course not. I wasnt saying that merely watching those videos makes you a criminal. My point is that there are people who draw sick pleasure from those videos while not caring that what they are watching most likely happened against the childs will. They masturbate to children having sex. Watching jenna jameson do it is a different thing. It's adults who know what they are doing. No big deal. But we are talking about child porn and people who are turned on by children. Duh, do i really have to explain why this is wrong?

[Pumaman]

I'd agree that someone who is turned on by watching a child being molested is a very disturbed and sick individual. But if they would never actually go out there molest a child themselves, should they be treated as a criminal?
Disturbed? Yes. Criminal? Hmm.

[space boy]

Those people may never actually go out and rape a child but masturbating to child porn is definitely crossing the line.

[Tuomas]

As far as I know, though, it actually is a crime to have child porn on your computer or as videos. At lest in most countries. At least if someone finds out.

[Vince Twelve]

The problem is that buying such videos or pictures creates a market for such thing, leading to more children being sexually abused.  Child porn is created for profit just like adult porn.  Purchasing these things is definitely a crime, and definitely horrible.

[lo_res_man]

I don't think this was really got into but now is probably the time to bring it up again, now that we are talking about videos and such What about hentai. Let me be blunt, I can get quite turned on by hentai, in some cases even more so then real pics, I guess its a fetish for me. However there is quite a bit of sick twisted hentai that depicts characters that by no means could be even remotely considered over 18. What of that? Some of that may be drawn 'from life' and could be considered wrong, due to some child somewhere been the inspiration for the madness. But what of stuff drawn directly from the imagination, with no "real" source? Yes they are sickos, but should it be a crime?

[Stupot]

Hentai can be cool, but I shut it down if the characters look too young, it makes me feel very uncomfortable and doesn't turn me on.  I don't own any hentai myself, but if I was to go into a shop and browse for some I would make sure the characters looked old enough because then I'd be able to enjoy it properly.

Not Hentai, but still Japanese...
I walked into a shop into Tokyo because outside the sign simply said "Books Games, Videos"... Nothing else.  But when I walked in I was confronted by a shop full of porno mags and videos.   Being the red-blooded heterosexual male that I am, I wandered around and had a browse.  Then I walked down one aisle and saw a little girl on the cover, couldn't have been any older than 9 or 10.   Then I realised I'd stumbled into a whole section of the shop with this stuff and quickly hurried away, and indeed out of the shop.

Now I can only assume, because I didn't open the magazine, that the girls in the pictures aren't naked, just in swimsuits and stuff, because surely even in Japan it must be illegal to have naked children.   But who buys this stuff anyway?  And you can't defend it because whats it doing in a shop full of porn?... there is only one thing men use that magazine for and it ain't nice.

So, even though the magazines are legally sold, and even though the girls probably aren't completely naked, and even though they probably (hopefully) aren't doing anything other than standing there posing, I still think it's sick, and the people who buy this stuff need serious help before they're obsession gets the better of them.

[lo_res_man]

I agree its sick and twisted, and they do need help. But what about patient-doctor confidentiality? Many say looking at pics and wanking is crossing the line , does that mean the good doctor should go to the cops? But that would be most likely the point when they would go to the doctor, when they can no longer deny it turns them on. Its kind of hard to deny that you feel this way when you got guy-goo on your hand. Of course people are experts at lying to themselves but if they are going to get help this would be the time.
As well we should acknowledge that with the mostly justified attitudes of today, I can see how it would be very difficult for these people to admit to anyone else there is a problem let alone themselves.

[InCreator]

I personally think that no other human could criticize someone's else's turn-ons. Even not law.

If there wasn't porn, thousands of passive rapists, paedophiles, etc-you-name-it would be ACTIVE ones.
World if full of sick people. Most of them simply don't cross the line.

But who do --
-- should be punished as harshly as humanly possible.

[Stupot]

I don't think it's responsible to say that we should wait for these people to commit the crime before we do something... fair enough, you can't punish individuals before they've commited a crime, but it's a good idea to try to identify the ones who are likely to commit crimes before they do it... and this means encouraging them to own up about their obsessions and try to dull them, or even reverse them.

[space boy]

I personally think that no other human could criticize someone's else's turn-ons. Even not law.

If there wasn't porn, thousands of passive rapists, paedophiles, etc-you-name-it would be ACTIVE ones.
World if full of sick people. Most of them simply don't cross the line.

But who do --
-- should be punished as harshly as humanly possible.

Like vince said, people who buy child porn create a market for it. Owning child porn is illegal for a good reason.
I don't know if the absence of porn in general would increase the number of sex crimes(any statistics?) but that's no excuse for producing and owning child porn.

[Hudders]

I don't think it's responsible to say that we should wait for these people to commit the crime before we do something... fair enough, you can't punish individuals before they've commited a crime, but it's a good idea to try to identify the ones who are likely to commit crimes before they do it... and this means encouraging them to own up about their obsessions and try to dull them, or even reverse them.

Like Homosexuality in the '50s.

As you said, you can't punish people for things they haven't done. There's also no reason to assume that a convicted felon is any more likely to go out and commit a crime than someone who has never been convicted. With these two facts in mind, there isn't any other solution to the problem other than continuing to discourage the behaviour and punishing people for it when they're caught. Doing anything else would be an affront to civil liberties.

Then I walked down one aisle and saw a little girl on the cover, couldn't have been any older than 9 or 10.   Then I realised I'd stumbled into a whole section of the shop with this stuff and quickly hurried away, and indeed out of the shop.

Now I can only assume, because I didn't open the magazine, that the girls in the pictures aren't naked, just in swimsuits and stuff, because surely even in Japan it must be illegal to have naked children.   But who buys this stuff anyway?  And you can't defend it because whats it doing in a shop full of porn?... there is only one thing men use that magazine for and it ain't nice.

Could it be one of those magazines where photos of adult models are digitally manipulated to give the impression that you are looking at pictures of children? I remember there being a story about that on the news a while back. If it is the case, I think it's a much better, (although perhaps not healthier), alternative to abusing real children.

[Stupot]

Could it be one of those magazines where photos of adult models are digitally manipulated to give the impression that you are looking at pictures of children? I remember there being a story about that on the news a while back. If it is the case, I think it's a much better, (although perhaps not healthier), alternative to abusing real children.

Yeh, it's a better alternative as the children aren't being exploited, but it's still feeding the reader's obession which is a bad idea.   People can be addicted to porn, and I'm sure some people are addicted to pictures of children (or pictures of adults digitally enhanced to look like children).

Addictions have a tendancy to evolve.  Heroin addicts will rarely claim heroin to be their first drug.  the started of on pot, which is relatively harmless, then maybe took some shrooms, then got involved in coke and before long they're on the smack.

I'm sure its the same for child molesters and rapists.  They will rarely tell you that they just got up one day and raped a child.  They probably started off looking at these kinds of magazines, then started taking their own photos of kids in the park, then decided they want more than just to watch, so they start touching, and then if theyve been getting away with it so far they might try something worse.

I'm not saying this is the predestined course for everyone who looks at these magazines, but what I'm saying is that these magazines should be taken of the shelves inorder to prevent people from becoming addicted and going that way.

Any course of action that will stop even one person from turning into a child killer (even if it means causing an inconvenience to the "innocent paedophiles") can surely be considered the right course of action.

[lo_res_man]

Any course of action that will stop even one person from turning into a child killer (even if it means causing an inconvenience to the "innocent paedophiles") can surely be considered the right course of action.

That just gave me the shivers. Any course of action you say? Well there is one certen way to stop the problem, execute anyone who shows the slightest chance of becoming a  pediophile. that is the logical conclusion from that statement.
Like Homosexuality under the Nazis

[Stupot]

I'm not talking about executing potential paedophiles, I'm talkking bout taking magazines with  children in off of the shelves of porno shops.

You've done it again, taken one sentence from my entire post and taken it totally out of context.  You keep doing this even though you know full well the point I'm making.  You don't have to agree with everything I say, but at least look at my posts in their entirety.

And why has everybody started comparing paedophilia to homosexuality.  The two are completely different.

Homosexuality is a simple sexual preference.

Paedophilia is a '-philia'... by definition, a '-philia' is an unhealthy and irrational obsession. (Wiktionary say's "a psychological disorder characterized by an irrational favorable disposition towards something").

By definition, Paedophilia is a psychological disorder characterized by an irrational favorable disposition towards children.   

How can that be compared to homosexuality, and how can I be compared to a Nazi because I want to see this "psychological disorder" eliminated?

[space boy]

Yay, someone brought up nazis! The topic is complete!

[EldKatt]

Yeh, it's a better alternative as the children aren't being exploited, but it's still feeding the reader's obession which is a bad idea.   People can be addicted to porn, and I'm sure some people are addicted to pictures of children (or pictures of adults digitally enhanced to look like children).

And precisely the same thing can of course be said about pornographic literature. And then we're entering truly dangerous territory. If you ask me, I think we should burn the paper before anybody even thinks of writing books. Go, salamander!

[TerranRich]

I don't think it's responsible to say that we should wait for these people to commit the crime before we do something... fair enough, you can't punish individuals before they've commited a crime, but it's a good idea to try to identify the ones who are likely to commit crimes before they do it... and this means encouraging them to own up about their obsessions and try to dull them, or even reverse them.

Look up "thoughtcrime" and the novel "1984".

Like InCreator said, one's own thoughts and desires and fantasies are one's own business. If I want to fantasize about raping women (which many men do), that's my own deal. Hell, my wife and I roleplay with rape and binding, etc. Does that mean I'm going to go out and rape a woman, even because of my inner thoughts? No, not necessarily. I could have fantasies about doing it with men, but does that make me gay? No, because I haven't done it for real, and probably never will.

Fantasy and reality are separate, even in this case.

[Tuomas]

I could have fantasies about doing it with men, but does that make me gay? No, because I haven't done it for real, and probably never will.

Fantasy and reality are separate, even in this case.

You might be a bi though. Say you do have fantasies about men, and you could actually do it unless you weren't, like most of them, afraid of confronting that feeling. Then we have those who are willing to experience it, possibly because their sexlife feels boring or empty. Or that they can't find a woman. Oops, now I went offtopic. We had a discussion a few days ago. And it's easy to be young, you can still think of 14-year-olds as pretty in my age, even though there's a 6 year difference. and I think it helps if you grow up with someone your age, you'll get used to it. Could be, that if you first "fall in love" at 12, and then never find anything, you'll be stuck at 12-year-olds. Who the hell knows this stuff? Not me, I'm just an irritating wannabe-politician who can't even make a game.

[Stupot]

I'm not talking about thoughtcrime.  I'm talking about nipping potential child molesters in the bud.

If someone wants to fantasize about kids, go for it, but the day they start feeling the urge to touch one for real i urge them to go and see someone about it.  It could save a child's life.

[fuck me we just had a earthquake]

[TerranRich]

Ahhh, Stupot, now you're making sense. My friend has never had the URGE to touch a child...he looks and that's it. That's what I'm talking about...sure, once you start having urges to actually DO something, yes, you should be looked at...but you should not be forced to do so.

If it's only fantasy and thoughts, but no urges or wishes to actually do something, then it's fine.

And Tuomas:

Well, they way I see it, you're gay/bi if you have the ability to fall in love with, and be romantic with, men. I can't. The thought of kissing another guy is kinda gross. However, on the odd occasion, I've had fantasies about doing sexual things with men. Doesn't make me gay/bi. From what I understand, tons of straight men have had those thoughts at least once.

My wife, however, is bisexual. She's had relationships with girls, sexual as well as romantic. She's had relationships with guys, too. Personally, if you can be turned on by kissing a member of the same sex, then you are bi. You're gay if you can't do that with the opposite sex.

But sorry, that was WAY off topic.

[EldKatt]

I'm not talking about thoughtcrime.  I'm talking about nipping potential child molesters in the bud.

If someone wants to fantasize about kids, go for it, but the day they start feeling the urge to touch one for real i urge them to go and see someone about it.  It could save a child's life.

For practical purposes, what's the difference, really? Assuming we want to really make use of your ideas in the practical running of a society, how do we, from the outside as it were, see the difference between a fantasy and an urge?

[Pumaman]

As you said, you can't punish people for things they haven't done.

What about people convicted of planning terrorist attacks? Should we wait for them to blow something up and kill hundreds of people before saying "right, now you've committed the crime, you're going to jail"?

[TerranRich]

CJ, one can make the correlation to pedophilia: if you're actively planning to kidnap and rape a child, then yes you should be dealt with quite harshly. But, if it's all in your head and you just have fantasies/desires/thoughts, then no wrong is being done.

[lo_res_man]

Stupot
Woh, who is taking out of context, my "Homosexuality under the nazis" comment was a paraphrase of hudders comment "homosexuality in the 50's" who I moslty agree with.
How can we encourage these people to come out with it when they know that the repercussions are swift and nearly certain these days. People can lose there jobs, there family over this, even when the persons job has nothing to do with children and the family is just a couple. I am just saying we need to look at this and say are we really being truly honest in how we look at this. At one time in the not too distant past homosexuality, which we know and love,was considered a psychological disorder. Not now yes, but we are fools if we think we are a perfectly enlightened society. I was just pointing out that your 'any course of action' scared me. Nazi germany was a great example of peole willing to do 'anything' and yes I read all your comment, I was just pointibng out what I disagreed with most in your post.

[sharksweetheart]

I think we should saw off their hands and replace them with turtles.

[Hudders]

As you said, you can't punish people for things they haven't done.

What about people convicted of planning terrorist attacks? Should we wait for them to blow something up and kill hundreds of people before saying "right, now you've committed the crime, you're going to jail"?

Arrest them if they've committed a crime, (and that includes plotting to blow something up and kill hundreds of people), but if they haven't then don't. Plotting a murder or terrorist atrocity is a crime in itself and one which often goes hand in hand with other crimes, (theft of sensitive materials, unlicensed stockpiling of explosives, etc).

Terrorism is always the one that comes crawling back. People are so petrified they're going to be blown up that they're prepared to vote for anything that will supposedly stop terrorism. If someone has not committed a terrorist act then by definition they are not a terrorist and therefore should not be punished for something that they haven't done. Again, plotting is a perfectly legitimate crime and one which many "terrorists" have been convicted of.

my "Homosexuality under the nazis" comment was a paraphrase of hudders comment "homosexuality in the 50's"

I think there's a stark difference between the two time periods. Under the Nazis, homosexuality was punishable by segregation, ridicule, and ultimately death. In the '50s, gay men and women were encouraged to come out about their preferences so that they could be "cured" of the condition as if it were a disease; they were pitied and forced to live lives that were not their own - sometimes marrying and having children despite their orientation, and sometimes going into hiding. These men and women were still gay, they were just living a lie.

Just as we know now that it isn't possible to condition gay people so that they are "cured", I feel paedophila may also be a sexual preference that one cannot be talked out of by a counselor.

[Stupot]

Just as we know now that it isn't possible to condition gay people so that they are "cured", I feel paedophila may also be a sexual preference that one cannot be talked out of by a counselor.

Maybe not, but they can certainly be encouraged to admit they have such urges so that they may be prevented from the possibility of taking them too a criminal level.

[lo_res_man]

Then the criminal level is way to high. ANY  proven violent rapist,  weather homo hetro or paedo, should punished to the full extent of the law, But... now I understand that doing research on this subject would be very difficult to get support for, but it is very important I think that some scientist takes a deep breath goes in with a clean slate and does much needed research on the psychological impact of paedophile statutary rape. Which is defined as ANY paedophile sexual contact under the law. Any results would be immediately controversial but I think this reaserch is vital  to help us understand weather or not a society should accept paedsexuals the same way most accept homosexuals.

[TerranRich]

I had started to type a post earlier today, but stopped because I was going to say was lo_res_man said at the end of his: that we need to understand whether or not pedosexuality is similar in any way to homosexuality.

[Vince Twelve]

No, it's not at all similar to homosexuality.  Homosexuality has way more in common with heterosexuality than it does with paedosexuality.

When two people are in a homosexual relationship, they are both consenting adults(or at least of the age where the law considers them an adult) and no one is being taken advantage of who is unable to protect themselves.  And if someone is being taken advantage of, sexually, then it's rape, not a homosexual relationship.  The same could be said for a heterosexual relationship.

When someone is a paedophile, he or she is looking to take advantage of someone who is unable to protect themselves and likely wouldn't know the right choice in these situations.  This is comparable to the rape of an adult, in that someone is taking sexual pleasure from taking advantage of someone weaker than them but even worse because it's happening during that individual's period of growth and development, when serious psychological damage can easily been inflicted.  It's a horrible thing to do to someone, and can not be compared with a healthy homosexual relationship.

lo_res, I don't think any research would be controversial, I think it would find that the negative psychological impact of a consensual heterosexual relationship is similar to that of a consensual homosexual relationship, and that a non-consensual relationship (homosexual or heterosexual) has significantly higher impact, and that a peadosexual relationship (which by law cannot be considered consensual) has even higher impact.

Yes, I realize that there are grey areas like 15 year olds doing it with 19 year olds, which... creepy, but meh...  But in general, taking advantage of someone whose youth prevents them from knowing how or even if they should protect themselves is absolutely horrible, and cannot be compared to two dudes who want to have sex.

[lo_res_man]

lo_res, I don't think any research would be controversial, I think it would find that the negative psychological impact of a consensual heterosexual relationship is similar to that of a consensual homosexual relationship, and that a non-consensual relationship (homosexual or heterosexual) has significantly higher impact, and that a peadosexual relationship (which by law cannot be considered consensual) has even higher impact.

Yes, but how do we KNOW? We don't, the research isn't done. The Law isn't the final say, the PEOPLE are. We MAKE the laws. I agree the young examples should be considered violent rape. ( How the F### can a 4 year old 'consent'?! disgusting  .) But here is another example of your grey areas. and its not so 'creepy'
Most young woman like guys a little older, most guys like woman a little younger. what of 17 year old 'child' and a 19 year old 'adult'? under the law as it now stands, the young man is now a criminal, is that right? Back to my point, just because the law says its not consent, doesn't mean it wasn't. Just like I think its wrong if a boss uses his power to get in the sack with the hot secretary. As in, "if you don't sleep with me your fired". THATS rape. Now were the line is I don't know, that's for a  objective scientific study to decide. Not statements without the benefit of evidence. I agree taking advantige is wrong,  but I think there may be more leeway then the law currently allows for. I may be wrong. But we won't KNOW until someone finds out.

[Vince Twelve]

Just what research are you purporting hasn't been done, exactly?  Comparing the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex to the desire to have sex with someone very young?

I already mentioned those grey areas, and yes they exist, and that's what a jury of your peers is for.  If you've broken the law (which you haven't in most US states if you're 19 and sleeping with a 17 year old) then you should get the appropriate punishment.  If the law is wrong, suggest how to fix it.

[Stupot]

The day having sex with children becomes socially and legally acceptable will be a very scary day indeed.  And I hope my children are grown up when it comes.

[lo_res_man]

What I really dislike how it is the adult can be accused a crime when it is entirely possible that it was constual in a none law sesne, as in a commen sence sence. It is entirely possible that a 15 y.o. WANTS to have sex with a 30 year old. However if true violent rape has been found to occer then, the punishment should be very severe.

[Stupot]

A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think 16 is a perfectly acceptable age at which to draw that line.

You could propose a tier system whereby having sex with a 15 year-old gets you a slap on the wrist, a 12 year old gets you a small fine and a 4 year old gets you life in prison, but to be honest is this really practical?

If you can't wait a few months for the 15 year-old to have her special birthday then forget about her and find a chick who's old enough..  there are plenty out there, and they're far more mature and don't have "house points" to think about.

[TerranRich]

It's a gray area between 14 and 18, because in some areas of the world, 14 is perfectly legal, whereas in others anything below 18 is statutory rape. It's a fine line between the two places.

[Afflict]

Stare at The Sun too long, and you'll damage your brain.

Nope youll damage your eyes, but if you do this your brain is obviously already fired

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.

Dude sure why not let's do that, the child was raped let's now take away her parents. Think of a time when your parents weren't around. Now ad a pedophile and viola your raped Anyway are you insane, the child is at its most vulnerable now you want to take it's parents away! Your logic makes about as much sense as sticking your and in a blender when your thirsty.

Ok so I didn't get through all 6 pages cause it's early I need coffee & I couldn't take much more of this tuamatic comments (hint to the last one I quoted)

Anyway here's my thoughts:

An eye for an eye, he raped someone so let's strap him up with one of those crazy gimps and give him the ride of his life... he killed someone, well then we kill him in exactly the same manner. Yes it's cruel but that's exactly what he was to someone he could control manipulate and use.

I feel like this regardless of the victim being a child or a adult. I believe in the death penalty for reasonable cases, all life is sacred & if you kill for anything other then survival your life is not sacred anymore, you forfeit your right to anything imo.

In my country there is no death penalty, and guess what our prisons are so full that they release criminals because there is simply nowhere to put them... well let's not waste anymore time. Execute them and there is space viola. Ok don't execute the guy that stole a candy bar seriously the point here is simply that because there is nothing bad that will happen to the criminals they will continue their crimes and it will probably escalate

[EagerMind]

Now that we've made ourselves judge, jury, and medieval executioner of child molesters, what should the punishment be for parents who murder their own children?

[Stupot]

Ahaaaaaa.
I was wondering when this was gonna come up.
I really don't want to judge them one way or the other, but I have always thought they had been pretty suspicious.

Normally when people's daughter's go missing, what do they do?... They go homw and let the police do the investigation and wait.  Some parents ren't content to just wait, and that's perfetcly understandable.  They might occupy themselves with a bit of local publicity to raise awareness.  Maybe start a blog or write a column in a local rag.

What they don't normally do is go off adventuring around Europe doin press conferences in countries that have nothing to do with the holiday resort where from the child went missing.  They don't normally fly to America for special meetings with people who have previously been accused of murdering relatives.  They don't normally cause arguements with the police who are doing the best they can to find their child.

The McCanns remind me of the guy in a room who farts and then goes round saying "Who was it? It wasnt me?, Was it you? Was it you?... I'm not leaving until I find out who it was!!!"... Those guys invariably turn out to be the culprits.  Believe me... I'm usually that guy.

[Theme]

sexy children are the leading cause of pedophile

o/

[lo_res_man]

erm... couldest thou clarify that statement? for to me, tis like a freezing rain,my very bones ache, thy words seem to give me a kind of chill. What dost thou MEAN?!

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

I tell you one thing.

If this turns out to be true and the police don't get there in time, and if they're still in Algarve by then, those guys are gonna get *lynched*.

[Meowster]

I don't think trying to figure out who's farted in a room is comparable to trying to find your abducted daughter.

If the McCann's accidentally killed their daughter, I find it very unlikely that they would


1. be able to find a place to hide the body, that was not found by police, search dogs, searching people, and the media

2. be able to act completely normal at the dinner table with their friends, as though their daughter hadn't just died. This is particularly unlikely, given that it would almost definitely have been an accidental death... nobody can be completely calm and cool and collected after just accidentally murdering their own child. Even if they managed some kind of unbelievable act at the dinner table, there still would have been signs that for instance, Kate McCann had been crying before joining the table. Unless you really believe that someone who accidentally killed their daughter didn't shed a single tear of grief?

3. keep the body hidden for 25 days in the hot summer weather until they could move it with their hire car? Do you have any idea what happens to a body after 25 days in that kind of heat? Even if it was wrapped up extremely well, gasses would cause the body to bloat and probably burst/damage anything it was wrapped up in. Furthermore, it would absolutely stink. I once walked over a bridge with a dead body wrapped in black sacks underneath. It had only been there for two days but already the fairly cool Irish summer had caused the body to stink, making the entire area around reek of the unmistakable stench of rotting flesh. It was an unbearable, sickening smell... one that would be impossible to hide or cover up.

4. Assuming they somehow managed to do all of this, they then managed to sneak the body out of its hiding place and quietly dump it somewhere, and not get noticed by any of the watchful media!

5. keep and encourage the media whirlwind around themselves. This is not the behaviour of somebody with something to hide. It would have been perfectly easy to appear just as victimised while maintaining a much lower profile.




There's a lot of speculation about this DNA evidence they've apparently found... and the fact that there was the "scent of death" on Kate (not confirmed as far as I know, but for heavens sake the woman is a doctor! These dogs can detect the smell of corpses/blood from as long ago as, what was it... 7 years? I think it may be possible that a doctor could encounter a dead person in that time...)



What people say about the McCann's acting suspiciously by flying around europe... let's say you believe the theory that they accidentally killed her (I assume nobody thinks that it was a calculated murder in the middle of their holiday...) even if you did believe this, then there's still no reason that they would jet around europe, as you put it, to raise awareness of their daughter. These actions only show to me their determination to find their daughter. There was a real possibility at first (it seemed) that Madeleine may have been abducted and taken to foreign countries, and they were trying to raise awareness of her image so that people might recognise her. This, instead of sitting at home doing nothing. What's the problem with that?

Why do you find it suspicious that they would try to get their daughter back by raising awareness of her disappearance? Why do you think they'd find it advantageous to try and focus the attention of every single country on them, for even more people to scrutinise their every moment?

Finally, if you watch any interview or video of these people, you can see that they're people with nothing to hide. At no point have they shown signs of dishonesty, or fear of answering certain questions, or acted in any way suspicious.



In the face of all this apparent new evidence, I'm still quite certain that the McCann's are innocent. I think the arguments people have against them (How come Kate hasn't burst into tears on camera? How come they flew around Europe trying to raise awareness of their daughter? How come they haven't given up yet? How come Kate panicked the very moment she realised her daughter was missing? etc etc etc)... these arguments are all kind of lame and really, I think if people stand back and realise that these are people... parents of young children... not superhuman expert liars and calculated killers... they'll see that it would really be quite impossible for her parents to have "pulled this off".

In your head if you're imagining it like some kind of well-written murder mystery novel... yeah sure, the parents could be cold-blooded killers who laughed and dined as their first born daughter's body grew colder by the minute, expertly hidden by the mother, so well that nobody found it even though the area was combed...  until 25 days later when they smuggled the body to some genius burial ground... and all the while maintaining that they are victims and focusing as much of the worlds media attention on themselves as possible because they're trying to live out their dream of being famous...  I mean, that could be the plot of a story, sure. But it's actually not very likely. At all. Because really, human beings can't act like that unless they're clinically insane, and if someone was THAT insane then I reckon somebody would have noticed by now

I find it absolutely sickening that the vatican has removed all mention of the McCanns from their website. Whether or not it should have been up there in the first place is another story, but removing their support in the face of a twist in the investigation? Very, very cowardly.

[Andail]

I think one thing you can say for sure is that there is absolutely no way you can "see" if they're innocent or not by how they react or appear.

Finally, if you watch any interview or video of these people, you can see that they're people with nothing to hide. At no point have they shown signs of dishonesty, or fear of answering certain questions, or acted in any way suspicious.

No, Yufster, the human psyche is capable of marvellous things. Even if they did accidentally kill their daughter, they'd probably not believe it themselves by now. The human mind has incredible defense mechanisms.

It's perfectly natural that the police are investigating the parents' part in the whole affair, considering that such deaths - be them accidental or not - are stastistically speaking most likely to be caused by a family member.

Edit:
As for the whole paedophile issue, I recommend watching the movie Little Children. Even though you may not be expected to sympathise with the paedophile, the movie does a good job on describing the minds of those are the most hellbent on spewing their hate all over him; those with great sense of guilt or angst themselves.

I have an extremely hard time understanding how you can not feel sorry for a paedophile. Growing up and realising that you have such tendencies must be the worst nightmare ever. Obviously, nobody chooses to develop such a sick mind.

[Tuomas]

I read about this in the newspaper yesterday and had a discussion with my friend. Basically what he thought was that if the police have announced her a suspect, that means they have arrested her and must have proof, so she must be guilty. I never found any proof, at least not in the paper. There was an injection needle without the girls DNA, there was blood which didn't belong to the girl, there was the girls blood in the car I suppose yeah, but imo it doesn't prove anything. I'll be very surprised if it's the mum/dad/both that did it. But I don't think so.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Wow. So basically your friend thinks she's a suspect so she must be guilty?
Might as well do away with trials and everything, then. After all, the legal system clearly hinges on the police's omniscience and incapability of failing.

I heard some things on the gravepine, from fairly reliable sources. So my opinion is, the parents did it, maybe accidently, and then not-so-accidently disposed of the body.

Two of the most interesting things about this case:

1 - If someone else got in, why did he/she take just Maddie? There were 3 kids. It's even safer to take the three. If you can subdue one, you can subdue three, and anyway, why leave witnesses?

2 - By all accounts, throughout the ensuing confusion of cops, people, searching for Maddie, etc, the twins *slept through the whole thing*. How natural is that?

Little-known embarassing fact: that beach the McCann's were in is a sort of non-official hang-out for British tourists who are into "swing" - exchanging wives and husbands. One of those things that the Portuguese tourists don't know or care much about, but that people who actually live and work there know and don't say much about.

Now, I only heard it on the gravepine. But I am fairly confident about my sources.

Will comment on the thread again when the McCann's are shown guilty.

Yufster, re Vatican - agreed.

[Stupot]

What I don't understand is that why, now after all these months of stubbornly staying in Portugal (except to go on awareness-raising shinanegins*), have they suddenly decided to come back to England... oh yeh I forgot... the police are onto them now and they wanna get as far away as possible.

*I know I spelled that wrong, but the spell-check only gave me a choice of 'languishingly', 'languishing', 'Washingtonian', 'Washingtonians'  and 'moonshine'.... I think the guys at Mozilla had a bit too much of the latter when made Firefox.

[Tuomas]

I heard some things on the gravepine

through the grapevine eh ?

1 - If someone else got in, why did he/she take just Maddie? There were 3 kids. It's even safer to take the three. If you can subdue one, you can subdue three, and anyway, why leave witnesses?

Yeah, well, obviously if I were to kidnap a kid (which I didn't) I would only take one since it would be a lot easier to look after only one than trying to keep 3 of them in secret and shut up. (which I still didn't do).

2 - By all accounts, throughout the ensuing confusion of cops, people, searching for Maddie, etc, the twins *slept through the whole thing*. How natural is that?

You'd be surprised how well some children sleep. If my brother and sister (who I didn't kidnap by the way) had spent a long day in warmth or outside, say during the summer, playing around, they don't wake up just like that.

What I don't understand is that why, now after all these months of stubbornly staying in Portugal (except to go on awareness-raising shinanegins*), have they suddenly decided to come back to England... oh yeh I forgot... the police are onto them now and they wanna get as far away as possible.

Are you sure they left because they were suspects or that they were made suspects because they left. as far as I know, a suspect isn't allowed to leave the country while under suspicion.

[Lionmonkey]

What's a paedophile? Are you one of them?

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

through the grapevine eh ?

Argh, you caught me!

Yeah, well, obviously if I were to kidnap a kid (which I didn't) I would only take one since it would be a lot easier to look after only one than trying to keep 3 of them in secret and shut up. (which I still didn't do).

But you aren't opperating on the drive of lust/desire/need that drives a peadophile to do these things. Their logical circuits have already been overriden at that point. Your argument does have logic on its side, but the logic of a non-paedophile won't help us much.

You'd be surprised how well some children sleep. If my brother and sister (who I didn't kidnap by the way) had spent a long day in warmth or outside, say during the summer, playing around, they don't wake up just like that.

With your sister having been kidnapped, your parents in an emotional wreck, everyone coming in to search the room, etc? That's not "not waking up like that", that is sleeping the sleep of the unconscious.

Which makes me wonder why the parents refused to let the doctors test the kids during that initial crisis. Hush-hush.

Stupot - probably shenanigans, but there might be a double 'n' somewhere in there.

[Andail]

Are you sure they left because they were suspects or that they were made suspects because they left. as far as I know, a suspect isn't allowed to leave the country while under suspicion.

Are you very familiar with Portuguese law? They are indeed suspects, but I think the Portuguese police are quite confident the Mccanns won't escape if they get called back to court. It's not exactly the Jackal they're dealing with.

[Tuomas]

quite possible, just applying my knowledge of the local law here to what happened some kilometres away. after all, all I can do is speculate.

[Andail]

quite possible, just applying my knowledge of the local law here to what happened some kilometres away. after all, all I can do is speculate.

Tampere is some kilometres away from Portugal? You must enjoy the hot summers down there!
Sorry, I'll stop being a bastard and splitting hairs now!

[Meowster]

What I don't understand is that why, now after all these months of stubbornly staying in Portugal (except to go on awareness-raising shinanegins*), have they suddenly decided to come back to England... oh yeh I forgot... the police are onto them now and they wanna get as far away as possible.

They decided to come back to England long before they were made suspects, it has only been delayed by this new turn of events.

And to be honest, I could understand even if they HAD have decided now. Did everybody see the video of Mrs McCann walking to her interview, being jeered by the crowd? Absolutely disgusting behaviour, to jeer at the mother of a woman who has lost her child... nobody has any definite proof she did anything. Disgusting behaviour. They have no support out there, and are being treated like villains even though nobody has any proof... now the police line of enquiry has changed and they firmly believe madeleine is dead... I'm not surprised the McCann's want to return to England, where at least they have their family and friends and can try and move on from this.

Andail of course the human mind is an amazing thing, but accidentally killing your child while on holiday does not suddenly snap your mindset into that of a criminal mastermind.

Also consider: how did they hide a rotting, stinking body for 25 days, while being closely watched by the media and with people constantly searching the surrounding area and apartment? How did they hide it that well when it was an accident that they hadn't planned or accounted for? Unlikely.

Why take one child instead of three? Because it's easier to quietly take one child and keep her quiet and slip away with her, than it is to take an armful of children, try and keep your hands over all their mouths while you drag them all through a window...? Come on, "why didn't they take all the kids" is a ridiculous question to ask.


As for the children sleeping... that's unconfirmed speculation. But at the same time, my little sisters would sleep through a lot if they'd been having an exciting holiday all day, including swimming/tennis etc... and then been given Calpol (a perfectly legal drowsy medicine that children all over the world are given). So we can't be too sure about this. I admit it sounds a bit suspect, but at the same time I still stand firm in my belief that they're innocent... simply by the way they have reacted, and by the sheer impossibility of actually being able to pull it off (as I said, hiding a rotting body for 25 days is the thing that does it for me... impossible task).

Also, if they HAD given the child an overdose of some kind of sleeping pill or something, it would have taken a while to kill her. This makes it likely that the first time Kate DID notice her children dead was when she 'claims' to have noticed her missing. I also find it highly unlikely that her first reaction would not have been to scream for help when she realised something was wrong - Madeleine could not have been dead for long or else her fluids would have begun to leak out of her body and stain the sheets (and then it would be so obvious that she'd died in the apartment from an overdose, which could be sampled from the fluids on the mattress and sheets, that even the Portuguese police couldn't have missed it...

Assuming her child wasn't dead for long at this stage and still felt warm (as human bodies do for many hours after death), her first reaction wouldn't be to dispose of her daughter's still-warm body in an ingenious yet amazingly quick-thinking way.

I don't know. Whether or not they're great parents, went out and partied while their children were alone etc... I don't think people should let that cloud their judgement as to whether they're killers or not. From the circumstances alone it seems pretty clear to me that it would have been impossible for them to do.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Did everybody see the video of Mrs McCann walking to her interview, being jeered by the crowd? Absolutely disgusting behaviour, to jeer at the mother of a woman who has lost her child... nobody has any definite proof she did anything. Disgusting behaviour.

It's human nature. Emotionally, they've preyed on the whole world. They got sympathy. They got a blessing, or a whatever, from the pope. Everyone was so concerned with the thing. And the ones who didn't get all mushy and gave money and etc had to listen to the poor parents say how they though the Portuguese police wasn't competent.

And now it turns out they *may* have been a part of the whole thing? Mob mentality. Lynch 'em. It's not pretty, but it's even understandable and natural.

[Meowster]

They MAY have been. Not "they murdered their little girl". People are jumping to conclusions and we can see that the evidence is sketchy... remember, most of what we know is speculation and what we've read from sensationalist newspapers.

To have jeered at Mrs McCann at that moment was an amazingly disgusting thing that has no excuse, because nobody knows for sure what happened on that night. It's very possible that those people jeered at an innocent woman, the victim of a horrific crime.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

People are jumping to conclusions

Of course they are.

It's very possible that those people jeered at an innocent woman, the victim of a horrific crime.

Of course it is. I re-state my point:

Mob mentality. It's not pretty, but it's even understandable and natural.

We, as a people, are a selfish bunch, but we tend to get passionate about causes. VERY passionate. I remember well the days leading to the independence of Timor... we get *very* passionate about sudden causes. And all of a sudden, a pretty little girl gets kidnapped in our country, on her holidays. Cause-fodder. And not everyone went into the "cause", but many, many, many, many, many people did.

Back to the jeering - was it wrong? Maybe - if the McCanns are innocent, yes. If not, no. But that's oretty much beside the point, because to be disgusted about the jeering means either having no real conception of all the things that the mob mentality is capable of, or having no conception at all of how this case affected the most well-meaning folks in Portugal.

Yeah, we like causes. We're also a pretty unforgiving bunch if we feel we've been played with and made idiots of, along with our police force. Go figure.

EDIT - In fact, immediate jeering and dislike is just as unwarranted and silly as the immediate compassion they got back when the kid disappeared. All the people saying "they left their kids alone! They took no precautions! They weren't competent parents!" were hushed. That's also silly and unwarranted, and also rather disgusting.

[Stupot]

I can't truly say if I believe they are responsible, just that their behavior doesn't seem consistent, to me, of parent's who children go missing.

Let's say they didn't murder Maddy and they didn't kill her accidentally... Maybe they still know what happened to her.  Perhaps they sold her to some child-prostitution racket.  That's why they seem to have sketchy witnesses left, right and centre, because it's all been set up to look like a kidnapping.

Or maybe she was kidnapped, but the Mccanns knew about it which is why they went off to a restaurant leaving herunprotected... this theory is half-baked I know, and doesn't explain the blood findings, but hell, everybody else is speculating, and I like bandwagons.

[Meowster]

Also for people who are suspicious about the children sleeping through the commotion:

Check out the latest video of Gerry giving a statement to the press. The boy is slung over his arm, sound asleep despite the racket and commotion going on around him

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Give the boy a drug test.

Anyway, things have gone past the point of alarm, haven't they? Now it's got to the point where the kids are tired of the whole thing. Doesn't allay any suspicions.

[Nikolas]

There was a case about 10 years ago in Greece, with a guy named Manolis Douris.

The guy lost his child, 6 year old Nikos, who was later found dead (and raped btw). Throughout the whole week the dear father was crying, etc, mourning in front of cameras, at the funeral, to relatives, etc.

Of course you do realise that it was his own father who raped and killed his son...

go figure...

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Of course you do realise that it was his own father who raped and killed his son...

I don't understand that, do you mean Manoulis Douris raped the kid or Maoulis Douris' father raped the kid?

[Nikolas]

Manolis Douris raped and murdered his own child.

Sorry...

[LimpingFish]

This whole thing was weird from the start. Those of us who have never lost a child can only speculate on the parents frame of mind, either at the moment it happened or over the following months, so I couldn't comment on what they could or couldn't be capable of.

One thing I would make clear, though: I could never feel anything more than a meager level of pity for the McCanns, regardless of any part they may or may not have played in the disapperance of their daughter. You can't keep constant watch over your children 24-7, but you can do everything in your power to ensure their safety.

Kidnap/murder/accidental death aside, the McCanns were lax in protecting their child.

If it turns out that they have covered up their daughters death, the only thing that would surprise me is how they managed to get away with it for so long.

[Adamski]

I think it's very dangerous for everyone to be playing detective and speculating what actually happened to Madeline, because at the moment all we know are a few scant facts and a lot of heresay. This new magic evidence seems to be far from conclusive, and yet pretty damning at the same time. If it turns out to be baseless then this will be a horrendous cock up in a long line of cock ups. If it turns out that the McCanns accidently killed their daughter, then well... they'll have defrauded a heck of a lot of people. Either outcome will be an unhappy one.

A the moment both the kidnapping and accidental death scenerios seem to have equal numbers of flaws in them, neither make much sense to me any more. I would suggest everyone to keep an open mind until there's more concrete evidence to suggest what actually happened. If the DNA evidence in the car turns out to be Madeline's blood then that'll be pretty difficult to explain away... but if it's anything else that could have been secondarily transferred from the parents it'll be a very weak basis to base any allegations of murder off of.

[Andail]

Yes, it's rather strange how so many people can be so possitive about a case they have very little insight in.

All I can say is that the police are working pretty logically; it does happen that kids die in their homes by domestic violence or just accident (much more often than by the hand of an unknown perpetrator), shit happens, and as much as it would be horrible for the parents to be wrongfully accused, it's a possibility the police must account for.
It's just that in this particular case, the parents are a couple of doctors, white, loved, normal and popular etc, and therefore people have such difficulties accepting the thought of them being the culprits.