The Impossible has Happened!

[snoopy369]

First of all Snoopy, the OP writer is a Psychiatrist, so if you are going to ignore and ridicule his experience at least acknowledge what experience he has.

The centre point of this discussion is fairly straightforward, how to treat Paedophiles, and the point is that there is new research trying to discover if it is an "orientation" that can't be changed. Ablow points out that a person sexual orientation develops during childhood, which is true to an extent, so whichever way you slice it the idea that all paedophiles are 100% "incurable" at birth is a moot point: paedophilic tendencies can and will develop in some members of society for whatever reason.



This pretty much explains the situation of a small proportion of paedophiles, those that refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. There are those members of society that do refuse to take responsibility for the actions resulting from their desires, and it is this group that is such a huge danger. Jefferson notes that we should try to help Paedophiles to cope with their desires: fine, but the risk to defenceless members of society is so extreme that this situation would require a lot of thought to get right. Ultimately a lot of people will come down on the side that children get defended first so it's acceptable to force treatment, but if there isn't any treatment, might as well lock them up anyway. And that is why we don't provide preventative treatment or helpline, if we find a paedophile we lock them up for protection of society and then we try to treat them when society is protected.

I fully understood the Fox article. I understood that the writer either didn't read (or intentionally misunderstood, perhaps) the article he was criticizing. At no point did the original article suggest that people did not bear responsibility for their actions. It suggested rather that we should understand the _why_ of their actions in order to treat the _what_. I didn't read anywhere in the article that we shouldn't remove pedophiles from society, for example; the point was not to remove them in a _normal prison_, where rather than treatment, they get further ****ed up by the other prisoners.

I don't see how the OP's credentials in psychiatry are relevant - among other things, that's more likely to make me think he's a moron. Psychologist I'd give more credit to... but I never said he was a moron, or anything to that extent; simply that he didn't read the article

[Krill]

Do you even know the difference between a Psychiatrist and a psychologist snoopy?

[snoopy369]

Yes.

[Krill]

Then you'll understand that a Psychologist would have no knowledge of the paedophiles history of abuse and that is why he would completely ignore it, whereas the psychiatrist has face to face time with the patient so actually knows their histories.

[DaShi]

These kinds of threads seem to attract certain people like, well I can't come with a good analogy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So lifetime imprisonment? I'd be OK with that.

You gone liberal on me now? If a pedophile acts on his urges, how about a stout oak tree and a rope and we dispense with this life imprisonment nonsense?

[DinoDoc]

You gone liberal on me now? If a pedophile acts on his urges, how about a stout oak tree and a rope and we dispense with this life imprisonment nonsense?

That got rejected as a State punishment in 08. Good luck getting a jury to convict if a parent find out before the police do though.

[b etor]

People exposed to sexual activities at an early age are much more likely to be into 'weird' things. Young children especially.

[N35t0r]

'Weird' things. I miss them.

Totally worth it though.