Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Actually I could see that being the case. Statistically it would be interesting to get more of an apples to apples comparison though expecially incertain categories. I'd bet crimes that are family oriented would have a higher solution rate-where evidence would be more available.

Also it would be interesting to separate out the "drug related crimes" from non-drug related. If you exclude druggies/gangsters killing druggies/gangsters, I wonder what the solution rate would be.

As a preventative it should be legal to: 1) wear a suit of armor of your choice from the following selection(European, Japanese, or Road Warrior post Apocalypse); and: 2) be able to carry a stick with a nail in it at all times.

Frazzled wrote:
Sure we will. If they are room temperature the recidivism rate is 0. Thus the rates drop.

If the recidivism rate is only between 5-10% how will killing offenders cause the rates to drop? Clearly the vast majority of pedophiles stop after they are caught the first time. And we all know that harsher punishments rarely reduce the actual extent of any given offense, so what is being accomplished here?

1. I don't believe your statistics in the least.

2. Even accepting your numbers you answered your own question. Thats 5% to 10% that won't be doing it again.

3. 1 is too many.

Why not kill everyone on earth? Definitely no paedophiles then. In fact, it'll wipe out all crime in one fell swoop!

Don't be daft. Just wack the pedophiles.
Are you defending pedophiles?

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=34661&zcc=1229108741831

Not for sensitive viewers. Be warned. If it asks you to join zango or summat just click cancel and you can watch it anyway.

EDIT: I should say, it's nothing dodgy it's a British satire of tabloid over-reaction to paedophillia.

What is it Greebynog?

Frazzled wrote:Don't be daft. Just wack the pedophiles.
Are you defending pedophiles?

Hahaha, brilliant, that's a great argument. Watch the programme in my last post.

It's a programme called brasseye by the brilliant Chris Morris, caused a huge hooha in the UK when it was shown. Very sharp, and extremely funny.

You can't overact to pedophilia.

Frazzled wrote:You can't overact to pedophilia.

Of course you can, you're doing it right now. Ignoring cold hard facts about recidivism, ignoring the strong predictive models about who is most like to re-offend, and wanting to kill anyone accused of paedophilia is probably a sign that you're not very interested in solving the problem, but that you're much more interested in looking strong on crime and being the hard man.

On the other hand, studying the extensive data on the topic and building process is probably a sign you're really interested in maintaining civil liberties and protecting children (which are not at all exclusive goals, quite the opposite).

Frazzled wrote:1. I don't believe your statistics in the least.

Well, they aren't my statistics, I'm just generalizing from the reports Sebster linked to. Why don't you believe them?

Frazzled wrote:
2. Even accepting your numbers you answered your own question. Thats 5% to 10% that won't be doing it again.

Can we then begin cutting the hands off thieves, so that they won't do it again?

Frazzled wrote:
3. 1 is too many.

I agree, but the state sanctioned killing of pedophiles will not reduce their overall number. Indeed, I suspect the increased stigma attached will serve to create more. After all, pedophilia is inevitably about powerlessness in the face of the larger world.

Frazzled wrote:You can't overact to pedophilia.

Well, I'm sure you mean overreact. Although I'm sure Al Pacino could hilariously overact to pedophilia.

Look, I'm sure this militant "I'd kill anybody that thinks about touching a kid, because I'm a big tough guy with kids and I love them so much and I'm glad that lynch mobbing is acceptable when in the context of talking about how much I love kids" type attitude isn't forced, so I have to assume you really do feel this way.

That's fine, and it's you're opinion, but it's a really terrifying opinion. Absolutism in almost any social policy leads to bad things. Are you distinguishing between actual sex crimes and people that merely have desires to commit sex crimes? What about people that haven't and are more likely to?

I say this with all due respect, but you're position is based solely on emotion and fear, and not in any based on facts, precedent, justice, law, or anything else. Child abuse is a horrible thing, particularly sex crimes. Nobody here is going to defend what they do as right. I do know that in general, I'm more scared of the alarmist, sweeping actions like you propose than I am of the things they aim to defend against. Zero tolerance, one strike and your out, "better safe then sorry": these policies make people feel better because they can see the suffering of the perps, and that might be psychically satisfying but they don't work as well as you'd think, and they hurt people that aren't guilty of anything.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:1. I don't believe your statistics in the least.

Well, they aren't my statistics, I'm just generalizing from the reports Sebster linked to. Why don't you believe them?

Frazzled wrote:
2. Even accepting your numbers you answered your own question. Thats 5% to 10% that won't be doing it again.

Can we then being cutting the hands off thieves, so that they won't do it again?

Frazzled wrote:
3. 1 is too many.

I agree, but the state sanctioned killing of pedophiles will not reduce their overall number.

Hey, remember. If you don't like what a person is saying, you can always use the patented "Frazzled Defense": simply pick a trait that you have, and ignore arguments from anybody lacking that trait. Apparently that's now a viable tactic.

You act like any of this matters. It doesn't. You're not going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince you, and even if I did its irrelevant. This is a message board.

My response does, however, solve the problem of recidivism. You just don't have the will to accept it. Survey parents. They'll agree with me much more than disagree.

Frazzled wrote:
You act like any of this matters. It doesn't. You're not going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince you, and even if I did its irrelevant. This is a message board.

My response does, however, solve the problem of recidivism. You just don't have the will to accept it. Survey parents. They'll agree with me much more than disagree.

And if you polled Hutus, most would agree that killing Tutsis was a good idea. I'm not impressed.

Of course, saying you have a solution but we don't have the will to accept it is about as close to godwins law as we can get.

Frazzled wrote:
You act like any of this matters. It doesn't. You're not going to convince me and I'm not trying to convince you, and even if I did its irrelevant. This is a message board.

I don't care to convince you, I only care to point out the absurdity of your position.

Frazzled wrote:
My response does, however, solve the problem of recidivism. You just don't have the will to accept it. Survey parents. They'll agree with me much more than disagree.

First of all, I doubt that your solution solves any such problem. Even executing all people found guilty of pedophilia will still allow for those who are not found guilty to continue abusing children. Unless your advocating execution on suspicion alone. In which case I gotta say that you should change your name to Torquemada.

And since when did the assent of parents make something a reasonable policy? Indeed, assuming that the defining characteristic of a parent is his/her emotional attachment to their child one would suspect that they are less inclined to rational choice with respect to children.

Here's a quote I liked about the lobotomy craze from the 30-40s:

...prefrontal lobotomy ...has recently been having a certain vogue, probably not unconnected with the fact that it makes the custodial care of many patients easier. Let me remark in passing that killing them makes their custodial care still easier.

I think it's applicable here.

Frazzled: I think you're really wrong about the rates of recommitting crimes. I'm pretty sure the rates are variable.
And seriously, the way they've done it is stupid. Making fictional characters legally people is slowed.

Also, pedophilia sure means love of feet?

Da Boss wrote:Did you hear about this? A dude in australia got charged with child pornography for images of simpsons characters because the judge ruled they were "people".

If you're talking about the arrests I'm thinking of, that isn't all he had. This may be unrelated though.

So D'n'D parties the country over will be pulled in for breaking and entering, theft and murder?

... However I've done plenty of illegal things in my own home - more than I thought in that case. I can add D&D to the list.

Will wargamers be put on trial for war crimes for using Twin Lash?

Only when used against minors or without consent (I think only tyranid and ork armies contain 'people', who, fluff-wise, would be under the age of 16).

Does beating a dark eldar player count as minority discrimination?

Apparently not in Australia!

Are scriptwriters liable for crimes that happen to characters in their shows?

I've always hated crime shows anyway.

Can I marry a Moomin?

No. I Australia you have the following choices when getting married:
A) A Woman
B) ... Oh yeah.

Frazzled wrote:You can't overact to pedophilia.

Frazz your from the states right? I don't think people charged with public urination should instantly become sex offenders. And if a someone under 18 sees you doing it, your now a sex offender and a pedophile in the eyes of the law. I think that is kind of overreacting to pedophilia. A lot of politicians who try to get extreme laws like this removed are attacked as being the friends of convicted sex offenders and pedophiles.

And I am defending pedophiles here, just a little.

You want a knee jerk reaction?. In Japan, after a series of highly televised cases the goverment has decided to create a special police unit to combat sexual crimes against children and toughen laws involving minors.

A measured response, isn´t it?, not so as the police gets to decide what is a suspicious behavior around children and the little fact that they reserve the right to monitor you as long as they want even if you did not break any law.

Talk about overeaction.

M.

Okay, my last post wasn't too serious... I've now actually found the news story. There were a lot of child-pornography related arrests reported yesterday, but this is seperate.

Just to clarify for original poster/topic, in Australia _viewing_ child pornography is a seperate charge to, say, creating the media, or engaging in sexual activity with something you're not supposed to. If it was Homer and Marge doing the business, it would have been fine. I mean, you'd have to be a bit of a deviant to actually pen in the details, but it is alluded to often on the show.

You can't expect to get away with creating media that clearly portrays minors being taken advantage of sexually, no matter if they're 'cartoons'. But even so, deliberately viewing it is another charge they'll slap on you in court. There's no question as to whether or not the media in question is pornography involving children. His defense was utterly idiotic, although I agree with the judge's decision not to jail the man.

The gaming examples will never be applicable because they do not concern child abuse legislation, and you don't have to shoot a guy in the head, record it, and then play it back for that to occur in a video game sequence. The vast majority of child pornography involves someone doing something illegal with/to a child, THEN distributing it. That's more than one offense. Unfortunately people probably will try to use this as an excuse to try to ban gaming AGAIN. It's a good thing they're misguided idiots.

Okay Arctik, I'm not quite sure I follow you with the last paragraph.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:The gaming examples will never be applicable because they do not concern child abuse legislation,

Does this need to be said?

and you don't have to shoot a guy in the head, record it, and then play it back for that to occur in a video game sequence.

You don't need to molest children to draw someone molesting children.

The vast majority of child pornography involves someone doing something illegal with/to a child, THEN distributing it. That's more than one offense.

This isn't about the vast majority, this is about a case where nothing illegal with a child was done.

Unfortunately people probably will try to use this as an excuse to try to ban gaming AGAIN. It's a good thing they're misguided idiots.

People will use any inane reason they can come up with. I think there was a Law and Order episode where people went on murdering sprees because of Grand Theft Auto. It was hilariously terrible. Anything to get ratings up, no doubt.

My brother told me about this and I was just freaked out that people actually download stuff like this, I mean that is just sick,why are they making a big fuss over this, I mean there are bigger things than this. Just go to Japan any time and you find all this anime/ hentai with young girls on it and no one in Japan is doing anything to stop it.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Sure we will. If they are room temperature the recidivism rate is 0. Thus the rates drop.

If the recidivism rate is only between 5-10% how will killing offenders cause the rates to drop? Clearly the vast majority of pedophiles stop after they are caught the first time. And we all know that harsher punishments rarely reduce the actual extent of any given offense, so what is being accomplished here?

I'm sorry if this comes across as just being nitpicky, but something you mentioned made me think...

You said that the vast majority stop after they are *caught* the first time.....

Just because you aren't caught, doesn't mean you haven't done anything. I've driven without a seat belt after being told off by Police for the same thing. Could this count toward 'clear up rates'. I don't know.

The main thing with Paedophilia is the often used term of 'ring'. Bust one, and you tend to bust them all. When they come out, they have no 'ring' to supply them with what they are after, making offending that much harder. Yet this cannot be claimed to be them cured. It could be likened to taking an Alcoholic out of a pub, and never exposing them to booze again. Sure, some might get on the wagon, but until the temptation is there, you will never know.

I am a big fan of the Brass Eye Paedophile special, because rather than poke fun at the horrendous crimes, it poked fun at the tabloid handling of such stories, which spurs public over reaction in their incessant quest for higher and higher sales at the expense of truth and a balanced report. But I'm with Frazzeled on this one. This is the sort of crime which takes years to prove. I mean, look at the news reports on the BBC. The Kiddyfiddlers don't just do it the once then get nobbled by the law, they operate quite successfully for *years* without being caught. Thankfully, it only takes a single victim to be brave enough to come forward, but that sort of abuse isn't something most people will happily confess to having suffered. Either imprison them permanently, lop their nads off, or kill them outright, but to say they are ever 'cured' is quite a leap in logic.

Sadly the lopping the nads off isn't as effective as you might think, there is documentation that when Pedo's have suffered chemical castration they have become more obsessive and disturbingly more violent towards potential victims.

I think a major point folks are missing here is Paedophillia is dangerous because its a sexual choice or preference. Its like asking a Gay man, or a fetish fan that they have to stop in their activity, I assume most of us here do not believe being Homosexual is a mental problem and can be cured. It is the same with Paedophillia once they have associated that children are sexual objects they are incurable, as stated by several Psychologists looking into the matter. Yes they can hold off, know its wrong, maybe even live a life away from kids, but there is no evidence that they can be cured, just turned from their fascination.

Thus they are always a threat to children as you never know when they are going to 'fall off the wagon' which is a harsh way of putting it, but it sadly the truth.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'm sorry if this comes across as just being nitpicky, but something you mentioned made me think...

You said that the vast majority stop after they are *caught* the first time.....

Just because you aren't caught, doesn't mean you haven't done anything. I've driven without a seat belt after being told off by Police for the same thing. Could this count toward 'clear up rates'. I don't know.

So your advocating conviction based upon suspicion? Should George Lucas go to jail because he hinted at the idea that Vader killed a bunch of children in Episode 3?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The main thing with Paedophilia is the often used term of 'ring'. Bust one, and you tend to bust them all. When they come out, they have no 'ring' to supply them with what they are after, making offending that much harder. Yet this cannot be claimed to be them cured. It could be likened to taking an Alcoholic out of a pub, and never exposing them to booze again. Sure, some might get on the wagon, but until the temptation is there, you will never know.

No, you don't. Indeed I could make the same point about you, and anyone else, with respect to pedophilia, rape, murder, theft, or any other crime. You never 'know' until you've been in a situation where the decision has to be made.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I am a big fan of the Brass Eye Paedophile special, because rather than poke fun at the horrendous crimes, it poked fun at the tabloid handling of such stories, which spurs public over reaction in their incessant quest for higher and higher sales at the expense of truth and a balanced report. But I'm with Frazzeled on this one. This is the sort of crime which takes years to prove. I mean, look at the news reports on the BBC. The Kiddyfiddlers don't just do it the once then get nobbled by the law, they operate quite successfully for *years* without being caught. Thankfully, it only takes a single victim to be brave enough to come forward, but that sort of abuse isn't something most people will happily confess to having suffered. Either imprison them permanently, lop their nads off, or kill them outright, but to say they are ever 'cured' is quite a leap in logic.

So engage in a cathartic response in order to make you feel as though pedophilia is somehow more objectionable? Sorry, but punishment has nothing to do with prevention. It just makes some people feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

So Dogma's argument is less jail time for child molesters?

Frazzled wrote:So Dogma's argument is less jail time for child molesters?

Point out to me where I've actually said that. Please. Try. I'd love to see your feeble attempt at logical association.

My argument is that preventing child molestation can not be effectively done via simple punishment. I've clearly stated that at least 3 times. Either you have chosen to ignore that line of reasoning, or you're just trying to puff up your chest in order to be the good little Texan on the internet. Of course, there are other possibilities as well, but sometimes its only through a mirror of absurdity that people recognize themselves.