Informal Poll: What to do about pedophiles

Submitted by thugarchist on 27 July, 2007 - 23:13.

A. Humane euthanasia
B. Kill 'em any way you can
C. Help them with therapeutic treatment
D. Imprison them
E. Send them to Revol's house

27 July, 2007 - 23:15

I say E then A

27 July, 2007 - 23:20

the rational me wants to go for C, tho I wouldn't see the goal as helping them so much as gaining an understanding of what's fucked them up, the background to people becoming paedos, etc.

my instinct prefers B.

27 July, 2007 - 23:29

dunno. send them all to an island where only other paedophiles and rapists live and never let them have children.

27 July, 2007 - 23:29

What are peoples' thoughts on chemical castration?

27 July, 2007 - 23:31

its not about sex so i dont see how it would help. theyd just find other ways to hurt children.

27 July, 2007 - 23:34

isn't it supposed to supress drive though? i'm not terribly familiar with it. of course, there are a lot of ways to violate someone, so i don't think it would solve anything, but maybe be a part of option "c" above?

27 July, 2007 - 23:36
arf wrote:
dunno. send them all to an island where only other paedophiles and rapists live and never let them have children.

That's the same as D I'd say.

27 July, 2007 - 23:39

suppress sex drive maybe but i dont believe paedophilia is about feeling horny any more than i think rape is. besides which lots of paedophile activity doesnt revolve around intercourse. i really dont think chemical castration would make any difference whatsoever. i wish there was a solution that simple.

27 July, 2007 - 23:40
thugarchist wrote:
arf wrote:
dunno. send them all to an island where only other paedophiles and rapists live and never let them have children.

That's the same as D I'd say.

i suppose so.

27 July, 2007 - 23:40
arf wrote:
suppress sex drive maybe but i dont believe paedophilia is about feeling horny any more than i think rape is. besides which lots of paedophile activity doesnt revolve around intercourse. i really dont think chemical castration would make any difference whatsoever. i wish there was a solution that simple.

There is. Solution A.

27 July, 2007 - 23:42

yeh. maybe. im reluctant to support the death penalty but at the same time id happily shoot the abusive fucks myself. what a contradiction eh.

27 July, 2007 - 23:43
arf wrote:
suppress sex drive maybe but i dont believe paedophilia is about feeling horny any more than i think rape is. besides which lots of paedophile activity doesnt revolve around intercourse. i really dont think chemical castration would make any difference whatsoever. i wish there was a solution that simple.

Makes sense.

Re: death penalty, I don't so much have a problem with killing people as much as the current processes by which people are killed, and by whom, and why.

27 July, 2007 - 23:52

Death penalty is far less harsh than forcing them to spend time with Revol I'd think.

27 July, 2007 - 23:56

i dont think its very funny tbh, joking about sending kiddie rapists round his house. but then im known for my lack of humour.

27 July, 2007 - 23:56

And who knows? Maybe spending some time with revol would cure them. It would at least show them how unattractive immaturity is.

28 July, 2007 - 00:00

come on now if you wanna have a go at revol its easy enough without joking about this stuff surely

28 July, 2007 - 00:08
arf wrote:
come on now if you wanna have a go at revol its easy enough without joking about this stuff surely

I'm pretty serious about euthanasia for pedophiles.

28 July, 2007 - 00:14
arf wrote:
come on now if you wanna have a go at revol its easy enough without joking about this stuff surely

Initially I had reservations about paedophile jokes, but then I remembered I had a shitty day and don't care.

28 July, 2007 - 00:15

C and D

ideally isolate them and try to hep them. if they can't be helped they stay isolated.

28 July, 2007 - 01:16

C and D.

Seriously who are you playing to here? C and fucking D.

"Kill 'em any way you can" - yee hah!

28 July, 2007 - 02:20

I haven't seen anyone suggest mercy. For five years I have worked with supervising such a person. The state in its wisdom chose to release this person. The reality is there are dozens of people within 20 miles of you who are convicted of these sick crimes. Where I live you can pull up lists based on Zip Code and see all of the registered sex offenders listed by name and address. In our case this person submits to a type of community supervision. It keeps them from being isolated to where they feel sorry for themselves and thus making it likely they'll reoffend. The idea is no more victims. Oddly enough this guy was once a victim himself. Option D was it for seven years but the reality is he's out, so now what do we do with him? I'm not sure C works frankly, but keeping this guy accountable and visible is good for everyone. The state didn't go for A and B.

28 July, 2007 - 02:51

Definately not D!!! angry

my sex life is shit enough as it is I really need competition like a hole in the head! wink

28 July, 2007 - 03:58

They were often vicims themselves. I wouldn't say it's not about sex because it's in part about sex. The whole issue of power and control is the real problem. Psychology is social. That's why for example very few black girls are anorexic. Pedophilia is a disease of a diseased society. The inhumane dysfunctions of class society filtering down to personal behavior.

28 July, 2007 - 07:12

[i]chemica[/5]castration is for liberals.

28 July, 2007 - 10:00

I think executing somebody just because they have a thing about feet is a bit off wink

Seriously though, I'd say C and then D if that doesn't work, personally. Doing anything irreversible to them (whether that's death, chemical castration or whatever) is pretty fucking stupid, what happens when you accidentally get the wrong person?

28 July, 2007 - 11:47
jef costello wrote:
C and D

ideally isolate them and try to hep them. if they can't be helped they stay isolated.

Yep.

madashell - chemical castration is reversible - it's just strong anti-libidinal drugs. I don't know how effective they are. I think maybe Holland uses it and it has some success, but not sure.

28 July, 2007 - 12:06

This is a bizarre thread!

Surely, A and B are about personifying the activity. i.e. this person does this activity and therefore we kill the person. The activity is the problem, and that activity comes as a reflection of experiences and interpretations the person has had to make such things desirable. What are these experiences? Normalization of abuse, excepting domination and control as a form of social existence, all confused with sexuality and the use of sexual desires as a form of domination. I think you'll probably run out of bullets before the last pedophile is killed.

C and D are about containment. i.e. How do we prevent this person committing this activity? Once a person is a pedophile, there needs to be a way to hinder or stop there activity without personifying it. This is an idealogical decision and moves away from the bourgeois concept of justice and to a more rooted mentality. Do chemical castrations work? Some pedophiles request them and acknowledge their sexual/domination problem. Perhaps thats a solution. Prison on the overhand means that we utilise the capitalist concept of justice as highlighted above and will mean that a state structure will be needed to maintain it.

Anyhow, I think the whole pedophile category is a nonsense as those same sexual/domination activity exists in relationships that aren't pedophillic. The start point surely is then to look at the wider context these unhealthy, sexual, oppressive relationships form, there relations to the concept of power-over and authority and the normalisation of sexual repression as a whole within society.

Pedophiles are a convenient tool used by the media to attack sexually "deviant" behaviour as THEY see it, and so often has been linked to homosexuality. It is also a cover for those people who do engage in sexual repression to hide their own abusive relationships.

28 July, 2007 - 12:21

Ron Obvious says "oddly enough.. victim himself" . Not really, a large % of child abusers sexually & physically were abused themselves. In fact all cases I've come across this is the case, don't know stats.

Other thoughts on the matter (naturally, no definitive answers):

*There's an old bloke in his late seventies on our estate, lived there all his life, did time in the 1950's and 60's for interfering with little boys, who is a 'known child abuser/dirty old man' -terminology before paedophile was popularised. Everybody knows him, no body troubles him, everybody keeps an eye on him and the children away from him. The kids are told never go to ****'s flat. Kids often come home with sweets from him and they are given a grilling - if every thing appears safe, then thats cool.

*I have kids myself. I worry about such things. However if a recently convicted paed' was moved onto the estate by the authorities and my neighbours found out, i know for a fact that a large % of them would attempt to drive him out, break his windows, beat him, and even on the spur of the moment kill him. Despite not liking what he is or does, i feel i would protect him from the lynch-mob. I think if responsible communities gave themselve the space and time to reflect an old **** like scenario could prevail. Elected tenants committees could moniter situations with the consent of the individual concerned.

* I also feel that psychotherapy, therapeutic communities are a way forward.

* For us all who believe in a free/libertarian/communistic society, think how we view all crime and how we would deal with its perpetrators? Is one 'crime' greater than another? Are libertarian communists looking at at sliding scale of punishments to match what they perceive as the greater crime? Surely we have to distance ourselves from the bougeoise 'crime & punishment' ethic?

28 July, 2007 - 12:25

Saii's blog on Child Love is well worth reading

28 July, 2007 - 12:42

just read that myself.