racketboy.com

Lots of points to respond to, so I am sure I will forget to address some.

On the topic of statutory, no one was ever going to be put to death for that. The ruling disallows the death penalty for any kind of rape, even the most extreme cases. So any support for the ruling based on the idea that statutory rapists were going to be put to death is ill-placed.

Punishments for crimes are just that, punishments. Although most people today just want to "rehabilitate" criminals (which is fine, so they do not recommit a crime), we also need to make sure that people are punished for what they have done wrong. Is the death penalty a deterrent? That is definitely debatable. Has anyone ever relapsed and committed another crime after receiving the death penalty? Now I am not saying that every crime should warrant the death penalty, that is just crazy. But in my opinion, I believe that crimes can be deemed so heinous, that they do indeed warrant a punishment (remember, this is a consequence for committing the crime) of the death penalty.

This brings me to my next point. It was also brought up that murder is the ultimate crime, and that nothing can be worse. I disagree with this line of thinking (and I also believe someone else eluded to the fact that homicide was not the worst thing that could happen). Yes, when you are murdered, your life is over. However, aren't some people exposed to so much pain that they would rather the pain would end, even if it meant the end of their life (without going into specific details, think of torture which occurred during the Inquisition and similar eras....google for specifics if you are not sure) ? I for one can think of situations where I would rather be put out of my misery. What I am trying to convey in this point is that the "ultimate" crime is a matter of opinion, which changes from person to person.

I know a lot of people say anyone who wants "Code of Hammurabi" type of punishments is "barbaric", but you do have to look at the effectiveness as a deterrent under this code. Do I support a punishment code that adheres strictly to this code? Probably not, but I do believe harsher punishments might be more of a deterrent. And even if it does not deter anyone, it is still a punishment they will have to face if they commit a crime. A lot of the responsibility is taken off of the criminals nowadays. We, as a society, seem more concerned about the criminal's "rights" than the victim's. The more barbaric the crime, it just makes more sense to have a more barbaric punishment. I guess that makes me "barbaric minded", but I see it as fair and just.

The point of comparing the subject to sexual preference is, in my opinion, a valid one. Now, I will be the first to admit, I do not have a degree in human psychology, nor much schooling in the subject at all. However, it does seem that a comparison can be made to a point. There are a few things I would like to point out here though. First, sexual preference does not give one the right to rape anyone (and I am in no way implying anyone has stated this). Also, in our society, we have deemed sexual intercourse between a child and an adult as illegal. Even if the child "consented". One reason is that, as a society, we have determined that a child is not "mature" enough to make a clear distinction of what they truly want (as children are very impressionable). What age constitutes a "child"? Again, I am not a psychologist, so I will not try to speculate, I will trust in the decision of our law makers in this case, but the exact age is truly a debatable subject.

Another argument was brought up that says that putting these rapists to death would make rape crimes more severe. I am not saying that this is untrue, but so far, no one has cited any evidence to support this. Just because someone is willing to rape a child, this does not mean they are willing to murder someone (the opposite is also true, meaning that a rapist could possibly still be willing to commit murder). Would a rapist tell a child that if that child told someone else what has happened that they (the rapist) might be put to death? Of course they could say that. Could they say that even if it wasn't true (meaning no death penalty law)? Of course. Could they tell any number of lies to convince the child not to tell? They can, and they usually do.

To summarize, I believe that regardless of the person (mental defect or not), they should be punished for their crimes (if punishments are a deterrent, great, if not, it is still a punishment that should fit the crime). There are crimes just as bad as murder, and the only way to prevent a repeat occurrence 100% of the time, as well as the ultimate punishment , is indeed the death penalty. And to end, these are just my own beliefs, and my reasons why I believe such things. I am in no way saying that everyone (or anyone for that matter) has to agree with me. I do hope you read these and ponder my view points, even if you do disagree with them.

Mozgus wrote: I'm saying, someone who is sexually attracted to developed (or even mostly developed) teens is a VERY different person from someone who wants to have sex with children who haven't even hit puberty. Those are two completely different conditions. Treat them as such.

And speaking of conditions, they can be treated. No, shut up. They can. This isn't some magical exception. Far too many wingnuts claim that pedophiles cant be cured, but they have absolutely no evidence back that up, besides their raging disgust for these people. Rage all you want, but you need facts.

That being said, can you provide evidence that pedophilia is curable?

Mozgus wrote:I'm saying, people aren't just born like this. Usually they come from poor and dysfunctional families, but they've also been seen to come from very upstanding yet strict upbringings. On the one hand, you have people who were raised (or not at all) by terrible parents, and surrounded by perverse mentalities, and on the other hand, you have people who were so strongly shielded to anything sexual outside of marriage, that they developed the wrong urges and saw forbidden fruit in the wrong places.

This set of statements seems to contradict itself. You say that they are not just born like that, but it seems that they come from bad families and good families. That would seem to take the "nurture" part out of the 'Nature vs. Nurture' argument. This is much the same argument as has been going on for years about whether or not homosexuals choose to be that way or if there is some sort of 'gay gene' or chemical imbalance.

JY

Jimmy Yakapucci wrote:

Mozgus wrote: I'm saying, someone who is sexually attracted to developed (or even mostly developed) teens is a VERY different person from someone who wants to have sex with children who haven't even hit puberty. Those are two completely different conditions. Treat them as such.

And speaking of conditions, they can be treated. No, shut up. They can. This isn't some magical exception. Far too many wingnuts claim that pedophiles cant be cured, but they have absolutely no evidence back that up, besides their raging disgust for these people. Rage all you want, but you need facts.

That being said, can you provide evidence that pedophilia is curable?

first, how about some proof it isn't.

Moz utilizes the assumption of benefit of the doubt. Why is it any other condition is considered treatable but not this one.



If you google about treating pedophiles you'll get several articles on it about psychologists who believe it is treatable and are doing studies and tests on it. A lot of the articles bring up that it is a difficult study to perform and doesn't have a lot of people bothering with even doing so due to the stigma behind it.

Yet he says the mental health community's interest in this area has been limited because of the intense stigma attached to pedophilia. "Unfortunately, there are many within mental health who feel that the 'real' mental illnesses are the ones that ought to be treated and that somehow pedophilia, the paraphilias, and the other sexual disorders aren't as deserving" explains Dr. Berlin, who is also the director of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma.

We've never proven it isn't treatable, nor have we proven it is. And Moz's assumption that it possibly could be treatable is very logical.


Oh and curable it probably a bad word to choose when discribing mental disorders. Nearly all aren't curable, but manageable. And manageable is far better then murdering these people (the original topic of this entire thread).

Mozgus wrote:I'm saying, people aren't just born like this. Usually they come from poor and dysfunctional families, but they've also been seen to come from very upstanding yet strict upbringings. On the one hand, you have people who were raised (or not at all) by terrible parents, and surrounded by perverse mentalities, and on the other hand, you have people who were so strongly shielded to anything sexual outside of marriage, that they developed the wrong urges and saw forbidden fruit in the wrong places.

This set of statements seems to contradict itself. You say that they are not just born like that, but it seems that they come from bad families and good families. That would seem to take the "nurture" part out of the 'Nature vs. Nurture' argument. This is much the same argument as has been going on for years about whether or not homosexuals choose to be that way or if there is some sort of 'gay gene' or chemical imbalance.

JY

This doesn't contradict itself. Schizophrenia, Bipolar/Manic disorder, phobias (like agoraphobia, which I believe a couple people here have proclaimed they suffer from), anxiety disorder, and several others aren't there at birth and arise sometimes for no apparent outward reason. People aren't traumatized into being schizophrenics, they just show signs in their mid 20's usually (though this one is highly considered hereditary). Same with Bipolar disorder, sometimes signs start showing at ages 8 or 9, but other times not until 30, and in several cases has no familial or traumatic links.



Oh and:
http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_deta ... ub_cat=355

First line states pedophilia is included in the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

right here:
http://allpsych.com/disorders/paraphili ... hilia.html

Which medically makes a clear distinction between the desire to have sex with teenagers and children:

This disorder is characterized by either intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (typically age 13 or younger). To be considered for this diagnosis, the individual must be at least 16 years old and at least 5 years older than the child.

Why not the law making this same clear distinction?


Oh and for some clear facts. The manual and several doctors state that most pedophiliacs and most paraphilliacs were abused as children, but not all. Moz might have over generalized it, but there are cases where these people weren't abused or traumatized.

lordofduct wrote:

Jimmy Yakapucci wrote:

Mozgus wrote: I'm saying, someone who is sexually attracted to developed (or even mostly developed) teens is a VERY different person from someone who wants to have sex with children who haven't even hit puberty. Those are two completely different conditions. Treat them as such.

And speaking of conditions, they can be treated. No, shut up. They can. This isn't some magical exception. Far too many wingnuts claim that pedophiles cant be cured, but they have absolutely no evidence back that up, besides their raging disgust for these people. Rage all you want, but you need facts.

That being said, can you provide evidence that pedophilia is curable?

first, how about some proof it isn't.

I didn't make any claim either way, so I have nothing to prove. He was the one who gave the impression that it can be cured. So I was just wondering what evidence there was to that effect.

JY

Jimmy Yakapucci wrote:

lordofduct wrote:

Jimmy Yakapucci wrote:

Mozgus wrote: I'm saying, someone who is sexually attracted to developed (or even mostly developed) teens is a VERY different person from someone who wants to have sex with children who haven't even hit puberty. Those are two completely different conditions. Treat them as such.

And speaking of conditions, they can be treated. No, shut up. They can. This isn't some magical exception. Far too many wingnuts claim that pedophiles cant be cured, but they have absolutely no evidence back that up, besides their raging disgust for these people. Rage all you want, but you need facts.

That being said, can you provide evidence that pedophilia is curable?

first, how about some proof it isn't.

I didn't make any claim either way, so I have nothing to prove. He was the one who gave the impression that it can be cured. So I was just wondering what evidence there was to that effect.

JY

he said: "And speaking of conditions, they can be treated. No, shut up. They can."

not cured, treated... he said others say they can't be cured. His proclamation was they can be treated just like any other mental disorder can be treated. What makes this one special?

lordofduct wrote:
he said: "And speaking of conditions, they can be treated. No, shut up. They can."

not cured, treated... he said others say they can't be cured. His proclamation was they can be treated just like any other mental disorder can be treated. What makes this one special?

He also said: "Far too many wingnuts claim that pedophiles cant be cured, but they have absolutely no evidence back that up." which I was taking, mistakenly apparently, to mean that he was saying that it could be cured. My mistake.

I just remember hearing that from a criminal standpoint, sex crimes in general and pedophilia, or sex crimes against children specifically has one of the highest recidivism rates. Therefore, I was wondering that since criminal punishment apparently does not help the situation, if some sort of treatment was a better option.

I am not out here taking a side or trying to stir up trouble, just trying to learn. Also, I am familiar a little with mental illnesses and the lack of a true "cure".

JY

Jimmy Yakapucci wrote:

lordofduct wrote:
he said: "And speaking of conditions, they can be treated. No, shut up. They can."

not cured, treated... he said others say they can't be cured. His proclamation was they can be treated just like any other mental disorder can be treated. What makes this one special?

He also said: "Far too many wingnuts claim that pedophiles cant be cured, but they have absolutely no evidence back that up." which I was taking, mistakenly apparently, to mean that he was saying that it could be cured. My mistake.

I just remember hearing that from a criminal standpoint, sex crimes in general and pedophilia, or sex crimes against children specifically has one of the highest recidivism rates. Therefore, I was wondering that since criminal punishment apparently does not help the situation, if some sort of treatment was a better option.

I am not out here taking a side or trying to stir up trouble, just trying to learn. Also, I am familiar a little with mental illnesses and the lack of a true "cure".

JY

That was point...

I didn't say you were picking sides, nor did I say your opinion was wrong. I was clarifying what he said... and he said in a round up:

it is most likely treatable, and there are wingnuts who say it is incurable with out proof.

As you even said, cure and treatable are two different things. And his proof in corrolation to an open debate is the benefit of a doubt... there isn't enough study to declare it untreatable or even incurable. By asking for proof of something that he himself didn't declare (he didn't declare it curable) and saying you don't have to supply proof because you didn't declare it incurable is contradictory/hypocritical.



Then again, this is only a shallow assumption... most people don't read my entire posts. They are rather wordy.

Wow, duct to my rescue.

I'm just saying use the general rules of deductive reasoning. An premise that is much harder to actually follow then it sounds. Meaning that I myself can declare I fail at it as well.

For instance:

I say use the general rules of deductive reasoning.
Because I say this, there is no direct route by deductive reasoning that declares I myself always use it.
So to dismiss the rules of deduction because I myself fail to is like saying deductive reasoning is a farse because Aristotle was human and couldn't possibly utilize deductive reasoning every step of his life.

Its "a" premise, not "an" premise.