Pedophiles - Should We Know Where They Live?

Brass eye - Pedophile special

Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7jVnrfoZD8
Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcnQDYnGtS8
Part 3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA07Tw4iEFw

 

This is very well worth watching, Chris Morris' programme satirises perfectly the absolute unthinking and dangerous hysteria on this subject in the media in Britain a few years ago.

Of course there are those that say "how dare you even joke about the subject" ... but when fearmongering reaches the point it frequently does whenever this subject is mentioned you need people to point out just how wrong and counter-productive emotive over-reaction is. The joke about a "Peter File" being beaten up by ignorant vigilantes isn't too far from the truth - famously a paediatrician was actually targeted in the UK by vigilantes.

 

The problem with "recidivism rates" is that child molestation is not only one of the most underreported crimes, it is also one of the most under charged, even when reported. In some states, up until recently, one had to have a eye witness to charge a person with having sex with a child, and the child's word alone was never enough. The problem is, that some of the "reported recidivism rates" is that MOST sexual assaults on children are NEVER reported, and even many which are reported do not have "enough evidence" to charge and even many of those charged are not found guilty (often despite physical evidence on their victims bodies.)

There are a number of groups which try to make child molestation "not a big thing." One of these is SOHopefulInternational, a group loosely disguised as a "support group" but a group very similar to NAMBLA (the National Association of Man Boy Love) one of the largest groups FOR and run BY pedophiles in the world. These groups will often REDEFINE "pedophilia" saying it is only "loving" a child in actual definition, or saying that the word "Pedophilia" only applies to children under 11, and that children over that age should be free to make their own sexual decisions, and by redefining WHO is a child molester, and what the term "pedophile" means, and taking into account that MOST molesters NEVER are convicted, and the fact that the average child molester has more than 200 victims in his lifetime (source, Courage to Heal) and the fact that PAID groups who try unsuccesfully to "treat" pedophiles and want to increase their "success" numbers so that prisons and mental hospitals will hire them for "therapy" and use and pay for their "methods" It can LOOK like child molesters are not only a rare thing, but that they rarely reooffend.

Not true. They reoffend. More often than almost any crime. Not only because it is part of who they are. They KNOW that the chance of their being caught is basically NIL. They know how to manipulate children, so that those children may not tell anyone until the Statute of Limitations runs out, and they know how to make themselves look VERY sympathetic. Hey, their tactics at getting sypathy sometimes works on otherwise very intelligent people.

In my state, you can find out who is a sex offender AND his crime on the web or by going into the Police Station. Not once, have I heard of anyone taking action against any of these offenders. NEVER. There is NO "vigilante justice" perpertrated by housewies or angry daddies due to the Registry. ALSO, untrue popular belief is that "you can get on the Sex Offender Registery by simply getting arrested for urinating in public." UTTER BULLSHIT. In my state, public uriniation gets you the same ticket as having an open beer in public or swearing in public. (My dh once got one of these, for walking around with an open beer in Millenium Park, and listed on the ticket were other options, same ticket form used for minor offenses, one of them was "urinating in public.") You do NOT get on a "sex offenders registry" by being caught urinating in public. IF you get caught, you get a ticket, which is considered LESS of an offense than a Vehicle Moving Violation, you can pay this ticket BY MAIL (I beleive the fine for pissing in public in Chicago is about $25.00.) and you go on with your life, no more likely to go on the "Registry" than if you were caught with an open beer in the park, or a cop heard you yelling "FUCK" on the street.

Child Molesters, who are ON the Registery ARE there for a reason. They, unlike most of their brethren, who are not on the Registry, got caught, and were put on trial, and got convicted. This is a RARITY in the world of those who enjoy destroying the lives and often the bodies and minds of children.

I KNOW there are there at leat three child molesters, convicted, and now free to do what they want, within a mile radius of my home. My children know where these men live, (yeah, in our county ALL the convicted offenders are men, save one) and they know not to walk near there. NO ONE goes and bothers these people. But, it does make a difference to PARENTS as these men gave up some rights when they CHOOSE to stick thier penises, fingers or inatimate objects into the orafices of SMALL CHILDREN. Yeah, that's what these guys do. Stick their organs and other things into little children, then terrify the children into "not telling" and then going on and continue "doing" that same child again, or getting themselves an other child to ruin. And Yeah, I wanna know where they live. So, I can keep my kids away from there. So, we can know what they look like, so if one of them is at Jewel, I can avoid that aisle, so my 6 year old girl won't be looked at in lust.

This is a VIOLENT CRIME. It destroys children like NO other crime. This isn't selling some weed, or jacking a car, or even breaking into a house. This crime is STEALING THE LIFE AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH of a small child and giving them a nightmare memory (or often, memories) which will last them, and effect them, the rest of their lives.

Yes, most CONVICTED molesters have had family members as their victims they were convicted for abusing. BUT, they still would take whatever they can get, not only is there often more opportunity in a not carefully watched home, but maybe part of it is laziness, it's easier to fuck your sister's baby, than to wait in the park and grab some unsusspecting kid, who will probably scream, kick you and run away. You are likely to get away with doing your neice, so why not? If the niece or a nephew or a stepchild isn't available, then you go and tell your neighbor how much you LOVE children and that you will babysit for free while she goes to the store.....lull the child and the mother into a false sense of "what a nice guy he is" and then fuck the kid, when you have everybodies trust. THAT is the way these guys think and work. No, they aren't usually grabbing kids out of the bushes (that does happen, but that takes a lot of guts or absolute insanity, and most molesters are neither brave nor insane,)

Are these guys going to reoffend? Unquestionably YES. ALL three of the ones within a mile of my home live JUST OUTSIDE the boundries of how close they can live in proximity of a school. A primary school. There are PLENTY of apartments they could live in, in our town, but ALL of them, in the entire town, (not just the three in our Mile area) live JUST outside the allowed boundries of Primary Schools. They all CHOSE to live as close to primary schools as the law allows. Can they live in apartments that are NOT close to schools? Yes, they can. They choose NOT to. WHY? YOU figure it out..............

After lives spent sexually abusing children, most likely hundreds and hundreds of children as their victims, and maybe being caught ONCE, they know they can continue, in relative peace. The chance of being caught, charged and convicted again is slim. This is why the ALL live close to schools. At least we have a small tool, to know where to avoid, and what they look like, so someone like this can't try to gain my trust, under the false pretense of wanting to fuck, suck, be sucked by or otherwise harm my children.

UK, I'd say, Yes. Get yourselves a Registry. The chance of someone being on it and not actually being a child molester is low to nonexistant (with how difficult it is to actually GET a child molestation conviction) the chance of someone "going after" the offenders is virtually NIL, (sorry, apologists, the "vigilante justice" one so fears simply doesn't happen, these people, who have stuck their object of choice into the vaginas, mouths, anuses ect of little children usually live the rest of their lives more safely and undisturbed than any of their tiny victims ever will) and it harms no one. Make sure they LIST the crime, so you and everyone else knows what it is they did, and pictures don't hurt either. Who commited what crime is NOT a secret anywhere. If you have been convicted of a felony, it is in the Public Record, The Registry only makes it easier for parents to do their job at protecting their children. It could make a difference for a good parents at what flat they rent, or what neighborhood they decide to buy a house in. That's their RIGHT, too. People who have been harmed by these people, and those who don't want their children to be, also, have "Rights."

 

I agree with a good portion of your comments. However, I believe this particular comment is fallacious. It could be used in any argument over most any issue. We could say that anything is underreported, but where is the evidence for such a statement?

I can only go by the statistics given and the evidence that we actually have. In order to refute them, would require evidence.

 

Maggie, you have said it all, I thank you. If statements like yours mine and others are not convincing enough on their own merit, no one is listening and that just astounds me.

It seems that it is just a game to some to whip out urls on every damn subject that is posted, doesn't anyone think for them selves any more. What is decent and what is not is clear. No inbetween, it's cut and dry for inteligent people who do think for them selves. I don't need a statistic to tell me what is good for my child. I can and do think for myself and make my OWN mind up.

For The Children!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

There obviously is a sex offenders register, only not a public one; this includes anyone convicted or cautioned for any sexual offence (a caution is a police warning and means there was no trial and no conviction). People in local positions of authority (teachers, youth leaders, doctors, etc) are already informed confidentially about the presence of sex offenders. This seems pretty sensible to me.

Well this is completely wrong. I don't know about the US, but in the UK a few years ago after a sustained media campaign there were many well publicised cases of attacks against suspected paedophiles - both innocent, mistaken-identity cases, as well as against ex-convicts. There were angry mobs attacking peoples houses, burning their cars, etc.

In the eyes of the law an ex-convict has served time for what he did and is now considered innocent. By all means campaign for a change in the law about the release of people who may still be a danger. But what you are advocating in terms of a public list WILL encourage vigilante mob justice in the UK - it has happened before, it will again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/865633.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,,350554,00.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000816/ai_n14322435

The famous case in which a vigilante mob attacked the home of a paediatrician:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,361031,00.html

 

Think about how much you hate paedophiles and you might get a good idea of just how much a paedophile hates him/herself. I mean, you can't always choose who you're sexually attracted to... I really can't imagine how horrible it must be!

I think that most people in the world would say that hurting a child is probably one of the worst things anyone could do. I mean, I work with kids and I know that when they get hurt and start crying it's horrible... but that's just little things like they've fallen down or someone has called them a bad name or someone pulled their hair or something like that. It would really take a lot to make someone sociopathic enough to actually enjoy that... we're talking like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer here.

Really, it feels horrible to know that a child is in pain... which makes me think that these people somehow do not realize that they are hurting the child. I think they justify it to themselves somehow.

And I'm pretty sure that all the fear and anger towards them really does more harm than good. If you treat someone subhumanly, then they will act that way. But if you treat them like human beings with problems, they will be less isolated and more likely to listen to you.

 

Well said. It takes real courage and compassion to look at people who have comitted appalling and despicable acts and to want to help those souls rather than simply to demonise them. And doing so does not detract in the slightest from a hatred and disgust of what they have done to others.

 

Of course, in all crimes, they are commited more than people are caught for them, but because the the secrecy of child molestation, and the shame and often the actual parents of the victim not wanting the child to be stimatized, the report rate is low. This is based on the many people who were molested as children, and, of course, never were able to report it, and the fact that most sex crimes are underreported, even when they are commited against adults, who should have no fear in charging. As a rule, sex crimes are under commited, crimes against those who have little or no power, (children being the most in this respect) are the least listened to, and the least likely to be beleived. In most divorce cases where a "child molestation" charge is made against either parent (or their new partner) by the other parent, judges, as a rule, dismiss this as "a way to hurt the other parent." And there is some evidence that this is, soemtimes true.

I am not trying to be hateful or hystrionic, I have an opinion and much of the information is based on fact. The book Courage to Heal has many statistics about child molestation, although some feel the tone is strong. Thing is, this is not an issue many people can be blase about. Of course, it causes strong feelings. I am not so sure that a simple accusation by a single child "ruins a life." Especially in a large city. Seeing as a large body of evidence usually has to be admitted for even the crime to be charged and a larger body of evidence needs to be admitted for a conviction, a simple accusation, although possible can, does not always ruin lives. However, being molested does ruin lives, and causes trust issues, relationship issues, sexual problems, if immediate or very good therapy is not administered.

Child Molesters hate themselves? Well, there is always the point that in our society, we have CHOICE in who we have sex with. I have been attracted to men, after I was married. I knew this was not at all helpful to my marriage or my family, so simply NO action was taken. Is that too much to ask? When one has an unacceptable sexual feeling, one can look at it, and if it would be harmful to oneself, or to others, one makes the human CHOICE not to engage in it. I don't think that is too much to ask of anyone. Like I said, the majority of pedophiles are capable of CONTROL. If one's sexual impulses are SO unacceptable (and, I think nearly everyone would agree that assaulting a child is more "unacceptable" than "adultery") that one "hates oneself" than one needs to get oneself into some sort of treatment (althought treatment is for the most part useless, one can always be commited for life, if the impulses to HARM are "uncontrollable.") If you disagree with me on this, misterian, then WHAT should be done with those who harm children? I, for one, don't believe they have NO control over themseleves, if they are completely out of control, then do they have a place in Free Society? Should we just give up and say "Oh, poor thing, he can't help himself." And let him harm children? What, I would like to know, if you think they have no control facilities, do YOU think should be done with them? They may, as many people who harm others, whether that be politically, or finacially or physically, CONVINCE THEMSELVES that they are not doign any harm....but they still are. We aren't going to say, "Well, Dick Cheney must hate himself for being such a wad, we should feel bad that he can't stop screwing the entire World. He must not feel what he is doing is so wrong? Poor guy." Gag, excuse me, if typing that nearly made my vomit. People are responsible for their actions. IF their actions HARM others and they either have no control, or CLAIM they have no control, or take a more sneaky way out, and try to concinve others they are doing no harm, and it is obvious that they are, then SOMETHING has to be done. WHAT do you suggest? Whether it is someone who wants to stick things into the orafices of little children, or commit terrible Political and Inhuman crimes to the majority of humanity, like someone like Bush and Cheney? What do we do with those who harm others? CERTAINLY not allow THEM to change definitions to suit and abet their own desire to harm others without any action being taken. What then, to do?

I think we can all agree, that those who cannot stop themselves from harming others have no place in a Free Society, purely due to the fact that thier lack of control interfers with the FREEDOMS of others.

What is your solution, misterrian?

 

NO he is not. He is still an OFFENDER, a Ex-CONVICT. His crime is still on record. Someone with a record. He is not now considered "Innocent" simply because he served whatever time he was given. That's ridiculous.

Did you know, that in many trials of Child Molesters, NONE of the previous convictions can be used in court? So, that is someone molested 12 kids, and was convicted of molesting 3 kids, and they have ALL the details, and he has a basic laywer, and he SCREWS YOUR KID, you may well not be able to tell the Jury that he has had a good time fucking little children before, and has even served time for this pleasure?

Is this nice for our kids? What Rights do the children have?

 

I can't disagree with most of this, but I do with some of it just because I believe it is not really based on evidence as much as it is what people "feel". And with such vague child molestation laws, it's easy to convince someone that they have been molested even when they never even considered that they had been. And I don't mean obvious things like intercourse or sodomy, but the fine line of "inappropriate touching" and nudity.

Secondly, I appreciate the reference to the book. I'll take a look at it. Meanwhile, I would like to suggest a book for you called "Harmful To Minors" by Judith Levine. It gives an alternative look at sexuality in minors and the laws surrounding them as well.

 

Thanks, I'll take a peak at it. Courage to Heal is a kind of workbook. It has referenced articles in it, and there is also a workbook for those who are working through the aftermath of molestation. But, even as some would say it might be "biased" (basically, because it gives the victims a bit more empathy than the molesters) it has basis in fact. The people who wrote it have helped many who have been assaulted, and want to work on their recovery, with or without a therapist. (With a therapist if recommended.)

Well, "touching" if it is sexual, is of course, innappropriate. Of course, one cannot give a child a bath without "touching" them. I know my husband reached a point, with our daughters, where he felt that his giving the bath was not appropriate anymore. HE made the choice. A pat on the bottom, by a grandpa, who means no harm and is certainly not a pedophile is NOT innapropriate, the same "amount" of touching by a grandpa, who IS getting some sexual pleasure from that act, is innappropriate. If you mean, that is a hard line to draw, I certainly agree.

There are families where nudity is common for most of the family's living together. As long as everybody is happy, and no one is co-erced and kids are allowed to have privacy when they request it, I see no problem with it. The old adage, "Being nude around your child is fine, as long as neither of you is uncomfortable." Of course, this applies to healthy normal parents, who have no sexual designs on their children. You and I both have kids, and I am sure you know each kid has their own "comfort factor." My second dd, was the "Naked Queen" until she was bout eight, and then developed "modesty." (Damn, we thought we were gonna have to lasso her in the house, when she hit about 13, if things continued the they were when she was younger. With the naked running around ect. LOL!) But, as she got older, she became more aware of her own body boundries, and we respected that. This was true with all our kids.

But, yes. It would be unfortunate if a family who has no problem with nudity in the home were to be looked at closely by CPS or something like that. That is part of the point. When unhealthy actions are known and recognized, healthy actions have LESS of a risk of being MIS-identified as innapropriate.

Drawing the line can be hard in some cases. (I am thinking, in particular of a freind of mine who had a "Little Sister" in the Big Sisters/Big Brothers Program, and this child's step father appears to sit around the house nude. The child is mentally challenged. My friend, who is also a therapist, is still not sure if it is something "innappropriate" or if he (the step dad) just had loose personal boundries. The child doesn't communicate well, so it is a hard call. As it is now, my friend has not taken any action, as the child has not shown signs of fear, detachment, avoidance, innappropirate sexual like "hugging" (which, if you have worked with a lot of kids, both damaged and OK, you can often tell the differnce between a "sexually chargedl hug" and a perfectly innocent one.) so she is just leaving the family be, and helping the child with her other issues. I am hoping that it is just a normal case of kinda loose personal boundries, and this is probably true. But, like you said, things in this realm are often hard to interpert.

However, that does not mean there are not plenty of cut and dried straight out, molestations. Some leave nothing to "intepret" or think about. It is simply a child, being overtaken and harmed by a much stronger, much more mature, manipulative adult. These are the cases I always think of, when I get so upset about children being harmed. I am sure you agree.

 

Clearly. It is nonetheless perfectly obvious what I was saying even if I used some imprecise wording; you're being unutterably pedantic. Given that a debt to society has been paid, an ex-offender is given the chance to live a law-abiding life free from vigilante attacks over a crime for which he has already been punished. One of the pillars of a free society governed by rule of law.

 

Who, anywhere, has suggested such a thing? This is an absurd line of reasoning. This really cannot be considered a mature debate if you insist on attacking straw men of your own devising. Reading through your post it seems like you are attempting to deal with some of the more advanced issues - but a blanket statement that paedophiles all know what they are doing and are all responsible for their own actions is just as childishly simplistic and wrongheaded as a statement that paedophiles never know what they are doing and are entirely unaccountable for their own actions. The truth obviously lies somewhere in between. Calculating, devious paedophiles clearly exist, as do those who are deeply damaged people, most probably with a history of abuse themselves, who are in serious need of help.

To reiterate a point I made a while ago, it's perfectly clear that those who remain an ongoing threat to society should be held securely for everyone's protection - including their own. But those damaged people who may prove responsive to treatment must be given a chance to live their lives. It's a judgement call, and a tough one. Getting people to recognise the complexity and difficulty of this issue is all I'm trying to achieve here; the more yelling of DEAD BABIES that goes on the less informed debate there is and the deeper we slide into dangerous ignorance.

Still none of what you say justifies taking the rule of law out of the hands of those who are accountable, dispassionate and impartial and into the hands of those who aren't.

 

I still don't understand why I should have to look up on the internet who in my area was convicted of this crime. ONCE CONVICTED THEY SHOULD NOT EVER BE LET BACK OUT OF JAIL. I think it is crazy that we should be asked to find out where these sick motherfuckers live and keep our children away from them. They should be kept away from society period. Sorry, no second chances on this one.

 

I am curious to know exactly which sex offenders you wouldn't let out? Statutory rape convicts? Sexually battery convicts? Slapping a girl on the ass, maybe?

Or do you mean murderers, rapists and violent crimes against children. If so, please inform me how that benefits society, other than keeping already convicted offenders in already over-crowded prisons.

Surely there is a better solution than Jail, Jail, Jail. If Jail is such a deterrent how come it's been in use for centuries and crime just keeps getting worse?

Sounds like it's time to GET SMART instead just GETTING TOUGH.

I would prefer a more treatment-based quarantining not just prison. Prison is not a benefit to society in any way--especially when there could be treatment-based quarantine facilities.

 

I'm glad someone got the reference.

Shameless_heifer that was, of course, somewhat satirical. Like I said, if you think someone's dangerous, don't let them out of prison. Prisons are for keeping people who are a threat to society away from society. If they are no longer dangerous, then they should not have to live a life of fear themselves. It's not foolproof, of course it's not. But you can't run a society on paranoia and vigilantism. And yes, there is more to me, it's your comment that implies otherwise....

 

Man! I love you! And not in a pedophilic way. I've been looking for this for years....

 

Buy it on DVD then...!! It's been out for ages, and is one of the greatest comedy series of the last 15 years, go buy it man..!