It's so hard to discuss pedophilia, mostly because it's such a taboo that making any sort of terminological statements or corrections automatically sounds like an undue defense... which it's not.
For instance, in the current climate we tend to assume that any kind of sex with people under 18 years old is pedophilia, which is a bit too much. Many countries lower that age down to 16, and it used to be 14 just a few years ago. Legally, in most places, it's a matter of consent, so as soon as you're legally entitled to consent about your own body (as in, decide whether or not you want to be operated on) you can consent to sex. And all of that isn't even technically pedophilia, just statutory rape.
Literally pedophilia just means being fond of children. In its current interpretation, being sexually attracted to children. I agree with the people below, it doesn't need to be a mental disease (though it probably can) but, since it can't be acted upon and it's socially stigmatized, now we all assume pedophilia will automatically imply a compulsion to abduct and rape children, which is mixing two different things. To differentiate even further, not even all the people who actually go ahead and kidnap and rape a child are mentally ill, just like not everybody who kills is mentally ill, as disturbing as that may be.
So let's be clear, are we talking about people who have a compulsion beyond their control to abduct and rape children, here? I'm all for giving these people treatment for life, even if that treatment involves restricting their movements permanently. The issue, however, is bigger than that, and requires plenty of different, more nuanced solutions.
See? I've been totally aseptic there, no emotion or personal opinion about anything, and I still feel the need to clarify I don't masturbate to catalogues of school uniforms. Damn sensitive issue...
By the way, is there really a show about stalking sexual predators? What's next, public stonings of them for fun? Maybe some kind of score system depending on where the stones hit? Cash prizes?
I mean, how twisted do you need to be to make the sexual predator look like the good guy? Damn.
I never watch the show (I dont watch much T.V. to begin with).
But does anyone think that children are being thought to fear men, and people are being paranoid over men and children association? This article touch on it
but I read other articles were people call the police on a father playing with his daughter at the park, thinking that he was a predator.
Yes violence against children is bad, but is it worth making men to fear playing with their own children?
This happened in Boston not long ago. A guy was taking the bus with his daughter and she asked a very innocuous question along the lines of 'when am I going to see Mommy' and people freaked out, called the cop and the cops issued an amber alert while plastering this guys picture all over the media saying he was a person of interest and they were concerned about the lil girl. He gets home to find out that the news is all but calling him a pedophile and a kidnapper. Even after he went to the police and explained what was going on he had strangers saying things to him about it convinced he was a predator. He had to go on the news and explain what happened before people left him alone.
Also, some C-list celebrity couple got in legal trouble after they sent some photos to the lab (just before digital cams became the only kind of cams available) taken during their baby boy's first bath (I bet all your moms have them in a big album they insist on showing to visits and new girlfirends).
There's security and there's paranoia.
It's going to be hard to get any nuanced discussion on such an emotionally charged issue.
There are cities which have basically completely zoned sexual predators out of living anywhere in them.
And of course, since they're typically on parole/probation, and forbidden from moving, they're basically just fucked.
Also, because schools tend to be close to populated areas, which also tend to be close to county mental health offices and police stations, we've basically zoned sexual predators out of living next to the exact resources which we expect to keep ex-cons from getting back into trouble.
It's really a great plan. Really.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The thing is, a lot of people would be 100% for public execution of pedophiles. The hysteria out there is insane. The same goes for rapists, who seem to be depicted in a far worse light than murderers generally are.
Tracking these dudes down is fine, but filming and televising it is just too much
in the current climate we tend to assume that any kind of sex with people under 18 years old is pedophilia
It is helpful to make a distinction between pedophilia - sexual attraction towards children - and ephebophilia, which is sexual attraction towards teenagers (technically, pubescent adolescents). There is a clear categorical distinction between having sexual thoughts about a child who has not undergone puberty, shows no secondary sexual characteristics, and has not yet reached reproductive age versus having sexual thoughts about a teenager who does show secondary sexual characteristics. Especially in our culture, which is one that glorifies youth, and holds up a standard of female beauty that is very difficult to achieve unless you're still a teenager.
I would argue that the former is a mental illness while the latter is a normal facet of human experience.
At the very least, there are a metric fuckton (yes, "fuckton" is the technical term) of cultures in which the age of consent or marriage is around 13 or 14, but the number of cultures that accept or encourage the sexualization of children is relatively smaller. (Smaller, but not zero.)
Agreed.
Then again, you'd have to also make a clarification between judging a pedophile ill, illegal, immoral or all at the same time and the consequences of each, and also determine the implications of each of those things. Do you treat a guy who hasn't acted on his impulses yet better than one who has or not?
It makes me feel kinda unclean to think of it, even under very scientific tems. It's a very, very complex issue and certainly not entertainment.
Also, I'm really sorry about the families who have lost a child to sexual criminals but, hard as it may be, you need to be a bit cold about this to avoid damaging the whole criminal system with grief-induced excessive punishment. Letting justified revenge take over is bad for legislation.
There are cities which have basically completely zoned sexual predators out of living anywhere in them.
And of course, since they're typically on parole/probation, and forbidden from moving, they're basically just fucked.
Also, because schools tend to be close to populated areas, which also tend to be close to county mental health offices and police stations, we've basically zoned sexual predators out of living next to the exact resources which we expect to keep ex-cons from getting back into trouble.
It's really a great plan. Really.
I didn't even think about this, but both the County Office of Mental Health and the Sheriff's Office in my county were 4 blocks from my high school, and about 2 blocks from a middle school.
The thing is, a lot of people would be 100% for public execution of pedophiles. The hysteria out there is insane. The same goes for rapists, who seem to be depicted in a far worse light than murderers generally are.
Tracking these dudes down is fine, but filming and televising it is just too much
I think it's the idea that there is such a thing as "justifiable homicide;" there's really no such thing as "justifiable rape."
There are cities which have basically completely zoned sexual predators out of living anywhere in them.
And of course, since they're typically on parole/probation, and forbidden from moving, they're basically just fucked.
Also, because schools tend to be close to populated areas, which also tend to be close to county mental health offices and police stations, we've basically zoned sexual predators out of living next to the exact resources which we expect to keep ex-cons from getting back into trouble.
It's really a great plan. Really.
I didn't even think about this, but both the County Office of Mental Health and the Sheriff's Office in my county were 4 blocks from my high school, and about 2 blocks from a middle school.
Considering how many politicians believe the death penalty is the proper punishment, I don't think they expect the offenders to live at all after conviction. At least the Supreme Court has some sense.
Every possible answer to this question is going to lead us into a tangent over the definition of "mental illness."
Basically, a mental illness is any behavioral or cognitive pattern that is difficult or impossible for the affected person to control; is outside the spectrum of normality for that person's culture; and either causes that person distress, makes it likely that the affected person is going to hurt others, or otherwise interferes with that person's ability to interact with other people. (If a particular behavior is highly correlated with other known mental illnesses, that will lend credence to its definition as an illness, however this correlation is neither necessary nor sufficient.)
It doesn't necessarily mean that we need to identify a specific biological underpinning of the condition - however the dominant scientific paradigm right now is that all mental illness - indeed, all behavior - can be at least partially explained in biological terms.
Based on the bolded portion my next question would be whether or not pedophilia, as we choose to define it, is found cross-culturally and if so, does that it also have the same ramifications that it does here in the United States (and I suspect most of the first world).
There are cities which have basically completely zoned sexual predators out of living anywhere in them.
And of course, since they're typically on parole/probation, and forbidden from moving, they're basically just fucked.
Also, because schools tend to be close to populated areas, which also tend to be close to county mental health offices and police stations, we've basically zoned sexual predators out of living next to the exact resources which we expect to keep ex-cons from getting back into trouble.
It's really a great plan. Really.
I didn't even think about this, but both the County Office of Mental Health and the Sheriff's Office in my county were 4 blocks from my high school, and about 2 blocks from a middle school.
Considering how many politicians believe the death penalty is the proper punishment, I don't think they expect the offenders to live at all after conviction. At least the Supreme Court has some sense.
Clearly, making the death penalty the punishment for both sexually assaulting someone under 18, and sexually assaulting & murdering someone under 18 is the best plan ever. Nope, can't see how that would ever go wrong.
Every possible answer to this question is going to lead us into a tangent over the definition of "mental illness."
Basically, a mental illness is any behavioral or cognitive pattern that is difficult or impossible for the affected person to control; is outside the spectrum of normality for that person's culture; and either causes that person distress, makes it likely that the affected person is going to hurt others, or otherwise interferes with that person's ability to interact with other people. (If a particular behavior is highly correlated with other known mental illnesses, that will lend credence to its definition as an illness, however this correlation is neither necessary nor sufficient.)
It doesn't necessarily mean that we need to identify a specific biological underpinning of the condition - however the dominant scientific paradigm right now is that all mental illness - indeed, all behavior - can be at least partially explained in biological terms.
Based on the bolded portion my next question would be whether or not pedophilia, as we choose to define it, is found cross-culturally and if so, does that it also have the same ramifications that it does here in the United States (and I suspect most of the first world).
It's really interesting to look at ancient Greek and Roman views of pedophilia. In some cases it was outright embraced by the culture.
Based on the bolded portion my next question would be whether or not pedophilia, as we choose to define it, is found cross-culturally and if so, does that it also have the same ramifications that it does here in the United States (and I suspect most of the first world).
There are cultures, both past and present, in which sexual contact between adults and children is either accepted or encouraged. There are tribes in Africa where young boys give ritual fellatio to adult men, cultures in the South Pacific where adults demonstrate sexual techniques directly to children and encourage them to practice on each other, and of course the ancient Greeks with their man-boy love. We would not say that pedophilia would be a mental illness in any of these cultures.
This is not the same as discussing whether or not it is morally wrong. It may still be morally wrong. However, despite it being morally wrong, we would not necessarily declare it an illness.
I recognize that this means that the definition of mental illness is largely based on whatever the contemporary local culture declares to be "normal." Yes, that's a difficult conundrum to deal with, and delves into the philosophical territory of how mental illness should be defined.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
To me this show is entertaining, but it is clearly entrapment and they take the arrests way over the top.
Legally, it isn't entrapment. Though I don't know how they're able to show the guys faces. To do that wouldn't the men have to agree and give their consent to the network.
To me this show is entertaining, but it is clearly entrapment and they take the arrests way over the top.
Legally, it isn't entrapment. Though I don't know how they're able to show the guys faces. To do that wouldn't the men have to agree and give their consent to the network.
If they were arrested literally 2 minutes before they arrest them, they wouldn't be allowed to show anything.
It's only constitutional in the most pedantic sense, and I think the Supreme Court would, given the opportunity, probably throw it out on its ear.
I dont care if it is legally or not. A girl is interested in sex and invites the guy over to do the deed. The guy is like "ok" and does it. He wouldn't have went near her house if she didnt explicitly ask him to come over for sex.
Most of the guys that are appear on this program are desperate shmoes, not real pedos. They just want sex, and the girl just happens to be a pretty young 13 year old.
I dont care if it is legally or not. A girl is interested in sex and invites the guy over to do the deed. The guy is like "ok" and does it. He wouldn't have went near her house if she didnt explicitly ask him to come over for sex.
Most of the guys that are appear on this program are desperate shmoes, not real pedos. They just want sex, and the girl just happens to be a pretty young 13 year old.
They never initiate the conversation or ask the guy to come over. The guy always does it.
You have to admit they are being manipulated however. In some of the videos, the actor specifically tells the dude "come on, come over. I'm reeeaaaallly bored (codeword for horny)". Or the dude is uncomfortable at first with the idea of a young girl and the person chatting with him throws constant sexual innuendo at the guy, causing his penis-brain to take over.
Hence why almost every single shmoe says "I was just being stupid".
You have to admit they are being manipulated however. In some of the videos, the actor specifically tells the dude "come on, come over. I'm reeeaaaallly bored (codeword for horny)". Or the dude is uncomfortable at first with the idea of a young girl and the person chatting with him throws constant sexual innuendo at the guy, causing his penis-brain to take over.
Hence why almost every single shmoe says "I was just being stupid".
Being stupid has never been a valid reason for breaking the law.
I recognize that this means that the definition of mental illness is largely based on whatever the contemporary local culture declares to be "normal." Yes, that's a difficult conundrum to deal with, and delves into the philosophical territory of how mental illness should be defined.
This is bascially the point I wanted to come around to. I don't think it's fair to anyone to arbitrarily establish what appears to many people to be scientific definitions based on largely abitrary, cultural terms. If we believe pedophilia to be morally wrong, I don't see what that has to do with any biological or psychological factors inherent in the behavior. For example, being a drug dealer is considered to be immoral but not a mental illness even though it shares many of the same types of factors with pedophilia. That is not to say that drug dealers and pedophilies are products of the same kinds of environments, but they are products of that environment.
To be honest, I think that we need to change the way we view mental illness and how that effects the legal rammifications stemming from that illness. If a person can be found not guilty by reason of insanity due to mental illness, I don't see how pedophilia is any less of a valid reason for the same verdict if it is in fact a recognizable (or even non-treatable) mental illness. Granted, insanity and pedophilia are not the same thing, I only ask that we look at these two factors in the same ballpark at least. If by definition of the illness, a pedophile has an undeniable urge to have sex with children due to whatever behavioral or biological reasons, they should be held to no more accountability that someone who has committed murder due to any recognized psychological reasons associated with being declareed "insane".
Through this line of thought I can't help but conclude that pedophilia should not be considered a mental illness, at least in any legal sense.
You have to admit they are being manipulated however. In some of the videos, the actor specifically tells the dude "come on, come over. I'm reeeaaaallly bored (codeword for horny)". Or the dude is uncomfortable at first with the idea of a young girl and the person chatting with him throws constant sexual innuendo at the guy, causing his penis-brain to take over.
Hence why almost every single shmoe says "I was just being stupid".
Being stupid has never been a valid reason for breaking the law.
I see your point, but the nitpicker in me says that your sentenced as phrased is outright wrong. Look up Diminished Responsibility/Diminished Capacity, specifically People v. Gorshen.
I don't think it's fair to anyone to arbitrarily establish what appears to many people to be scientific definitions based on largely abitrary, cultural terms. If we believe pedophilia to be morally wrong, I don't see what that has to do with any biological or psychological factors inherent in the behavior. For example, being a drug dealer is considered to be immoral but not a mental illness even though it shares many of the same types of factors with pedophilia.
Well, it's not arbitrary. For something to be considered a mental illness, it has to be difficult or impossible for the affected person to control.
We don't call drug dealing a mental illness because in general we don't see cases of drug dealers wanting to stop dealing but being unable to due to some compulsion. If a dealer had a compulsion to keep dealing we would be wholly justified if we were to treat that compulsion as some kind of illness, even if there's no clinical name for it.
A behavior being merely abnormal, or morally wrong, are not sufficient conditions for something to be considered a mental illness.
If a person can be found not guilty by reason of insanity due to mental illness, I don't see how pedophilia is any less of a valid reason for the same verdict if it is in fact a recognizable (or even non-treatable) mental illness
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
I will tell you that "not guilty by reason of insanity" happens very very rarely and does not result in the accused just walking off scot free. They result in the accused being committed to a mental hospital (or the psych wing of a prison) and staying there for as long as - or longer than - they would have been sentenced. Demonstrating mental illness isn't enough for that to occur; you have to demonstrate (and I'm paraphrasing here; Ragga or Medo or Than should be able to give you the exact language) that the accused has no concept of what they did, where they are, or why they're on trial. Basically, it only happens when the accused is completely out of touch with reality.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
You have to admit they are being manipulated however. In some of the videos, the actor specifically tells the dude "come on, come over. I'm reeeaaaallly bored (codeword for horny)". Or the dude is uncomfortable at first with the idea of a young girl and the person chatting with him throws constant sexual innuendo at the guy, causing his penis-brain to take over.
Hence why almost every single shmoe says "I was just being stupid".
Being stupid has never been a valid reason for breaking the law.
I see your point, but the nitpicker in me says that your sentenced as phrased is outright wrong. Look up Diminished Responsibility/Diminished Capacity, specifically People v. Gorshen.
Except diminished capacity typically applies to people with mental retardation not because they were horny and thinking with their dick. I've yet to see a case where extreme boner was the defense.
You have to admit they are being manipulated however. In some of the videos, the actor specifically tells the dude "come on, come over. I'm reeeaaaallly bored (codeword for horny)". Or the dude is uncomfortable at first with the idea of a young girl and the person chatting with him throws constant sexual innuendo at the guy, causing his penis-brain to take over.
Hence why almost every single shmoe says "I was just being stupid".
Being stupid has never been a valid reason for breaking the law.
I see your point, but the nitpicker in me says that your sentenced as phrased is outright wrong. Look up Diminished Responsibility/Diminished Capacity, specifically People v. Gorshen.
Except diminished capacity typically applies to people with mental retardation not because they were horny and thinking with their dick. I've yet to see a case where extreme boner was the defense.
There are several people in this thread arguing for pedophilia to be classified as a mental disorder and treated instead of punished. I'm not qualified to jump on either side of that fence, but I'm pretty sure most law systems treat punishment of crimes differently when they are performed out of a mental defect.
You have to admit they are being manipulated however. In some of the videos, the actor specifically tells the dude "come on, come over. I'm reeeaaaallly bored (codeword for horny)". Or the dude is uncomfortable at first with the idea of a young girl and the person chatting with him throws constant sexual innuendo at the guy, causing his penis-brain to take over.
Hence why almost every single shmoe says "I was just being stupid".
Being stupid has never been a valid reason for breaking the law.
I see your point, but the nitpicker in me says that your sentenced as phrased is outright wrong. Look up Diminished Responsibility/Diminished Capacity, specifically People v. Gorshen.
Except diminished capacity typically applies to people with mental retardation not because they were horny and thinking with their dick. I've yet to see a case where extreme boner was the defense.
There are several people in this thread arguing for pedophilia to be classified as a mental disorder and treated instead of punished. I'm not qualified to jump on either side of that fence, but I'm pretty sure most law systems treat punishment of crimes differently when they are performed out of a mental defect.
Since I've yet to see pedophilia used as a successful defense I don't think that really matters. Not to mention, as it has already been pointed out, defenses of mental defect rarely are successful and are really only seen on TV. I can't say I ever saw homosexuality ever used as a defense even when it was considered a mental defect either.
These shows are generally ok because America believes pedophiles are SHIT, that don't deserve to live. For the most part they are also right.
Shit, does anyone remember the case of Gary Plauche? There was this dude, Jeffery Doucet who raped Gary's son. The police found him, and arrested him.
Then, one day they were taking him through an airport, and Gary was waiting at a telephone booth pretending to be talking. As the police walk by with the pedophile, Gary steps out, produces a handgun and shoots and kills the pedophile right in the head, blowing his brains out, ON LIVE CAMERA (you can find the video on the internet). There was NO doubt at all that Gary Plauche had shot and killed that man.
Gary's punishment? 5 years probation.
Pedophiles are not people.
He's either agreeing with the action, or didn't make the reason for referencing that clear.
These shows are generally ok because America believes pedophiles are SHIT, that don't deserve to live. For the most part they are also right.
Shit, does anyone remember the case of Gary Plauche? There was this dude, Jeffery Doucet who raped Gary's son. The police found him, and arrested him.
Then, one day they were taking him through an airport, and Gary was waiting at a telephone booth pretending to be talking. As the police walk by with the pedophile, Gary steps out, produces a handgun and shoots and kills the pedophile right in the head, blowing his brains out, ON LIVE CAMERA (you can find the video on the internet). There was NO doubt at all that Gary Plauche had shot and killed that man.
Gary's punishment? 5 years probation.
Pedophiles are not people.
Here is the entire post. I have taken the liberty of highlighting the particular line that initially caused me to rule out an ironic context.
The issue arose when one alleged-predator didn't show up to the sting operation. NBC called bunches of cops who stormed over to his house, upon which point the alleged-predator shot himself.
Wait, what?
He didn't follow through, so let's send a bunch of cops to storm his house instead?
I think about half of us are under the impression that he was making a point about how the average American views pedophiles and half believe he was presenting his personal view.
There was NO doubt at all that Gary Plauche had shot and killed that man.
Gary's punishment? 5 years probation.
This should suffice. Everything here especially the bold part
When taken with the rest of the post, I see him saying death to rapists, and 5 years for murderers is fine.
When taken with the rest of the post I see him saying that he thinks pedophiles are shit but 5 years probation for murder with (most likely) several cops witnessing it is fucking ridiculous.
Edit: but reading it again I can definitely see where you're coming from. I mean... it's an incredibly ambiguous post. I'm sorry for kinda jumping down jeep's throat on that one.
The issue arose when one alleged-predator didn't show up to the sting operation. NBC called bunches of cops who stormed over to his house, upon which point the alleged-predator shot himself.
Wait, what?
He didn't follow through, so let's send a bunch of cops to storm his house instead?
There was NO doubt at all that Gary Plauche had shot and killed that man.
Gary's punishment? 5 years probation.
This should suffice. Everything here especially the bold part
When taken with the rest of the post, I see him saying death to rapists, and 5 years for murderers is fine.
When taken with the rest of the post I see him saying that he thinks pedophiles are shit but 5 years probation for murder with (most likely) several cops witnessing it is fucking ridiculous.
Edit: but reading it again I can definitely see where you're coming from. I mean... it's an incredibly ambiguous post. I'm sorry for kinda jumping down jeep's throat on that one.
I see what you are seeing now, but I do not agree that this was the point he was making. I stand by my reaction until the actual forumer clarifies or recants his post.
Posts
hello mr strawman
it is a good thing I made a normative judgment about the show and not just a statement of fact
OH WAIT
It's going to be hard to get any nuanced discussion on such an emotionally charged issue.
Also, because schools tend to be close to populated areas, which also tend to be close to county mental health offices and police stations, we've basically zoned sexual predators out of living next to the exact resources which we expect to keep ex-cons from getting back into trouble.
It's really a great plan. Really.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Tracking these dudes down is fine, but filming and televising it is just too much
Agreed.
Then again, you'd have to also make a clarification between judging a pedophile ill, illegal, immoral or all at the same time and the consequences of each, and also determine the implications of each of those things. Do you treat a guy who hasn't acted on his impulses yet better than one who has or not?
It makes me feel kinda unclean to think of it, even under very scientific tems. It's a very, very complex issue and certainly not entertainment.
Also, I'm really sorry about the families who have lost a child to sexual criminals but, hard as it may be, you need to be a bit cold about this to avoid damaging the whole criminal system with grief-induced excessive punishment. Letting justified revenge take over is bad for legislation.
Considering how many politicians believe the death penalty is the proper punishment, I don't think they expect the offenders to live at all after conviction. At least the Supreme Court has some sense.
Based on the bolded portion my next question would be whether or not pedophilia, as we choose to define it, is found cross-culturally and if so, does that it also have the same ramifications that it does here in the United States (and I suspect most of the first world).
It's really interesting to look at ancient Greek and Roman views of pedophilia. In some cases it was outright embraced by the culture.
There are cultures, both past and present, in which sexual contact between adults and children is either accepted or encouraged. There are tribes in Africa where young boys give ritual fellatio to adult men, cultures in the South Pacific where adults demonstrate sexual techniques directly to children and encourage them to practice on each other, and of course the ancient Greeks with their man-boy love. We would not say that pedophilia would be a mental illness in any of these cultures.
This is not the same as discussing whether or not it is morally wrong. It may still be morally wrong. However, despite it being morally wrong, we would not necessarily declare it an illness.
I recognize that this means that the definition of mental illness is largely based on whatever the contemporary local culture declares to be "normal." Yes, that's a difficult conundrum to deal with, and delves into the philosophical territory of how mental illness should be defined.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Legally, it isn't entrapment. Though I don't know how they're able to show the guys faces. To do that wouldn't the men have to agree and give their consent to the network.
It's only constitutional in the most pedantic sense, and I think the Supreme Court would, given the opportunity, probably throw it out on its ear.
Most of the guys that are appear on this program are desperate shmoes, not real pedos. They just want sex, and the girl just happens to be a pretty young 13 year old.
They never initiate the conversation or ask the guy to come over. The guy always does it.
Hence why almost every single shmoe says "I was just being stupid".
Being stupid has never been a valid reason for breaking the law.
This is bascially the point I wanted to come around to. I don't think it's fair to anyone to arbitrarily establish what appears to many people to be scientific definitions based on largely abitrary, cultural terms. If we believe pedophilia to be morally wrong, I don't see what that has to do with any biological or psychological factors inherent in the behavior. For example, being a drug dealer is considered to be immoral but not a mental illness even though it shares many of the same types of factors with pedophilia. That is not to say that drug dealers and pedophilies are products of the same kinds of environments, but they are products of that environment.
To be honest, I think that we need to change the way we view mental illness and how that effects the legal rammifications stemming from that illness. If a person can be found not guilty by reason of insanity due to mental illness, I don't see how pedophilia is any less of a valid reason for the same verdict if it is in fact a recognizable (or even non-treatable) mental illness. Granted, insanity and pedophilia are not the same thing, I only ask that we look at these two factors in the same ballpark at least. If by definition of the illness, a pedophile has an undeniable urge to have sex with children due to whatever behavioral or biological reasons, they should be held to no more accountability that someone who has committed murder due to any recognized psychological reasons associated with being declareed "insane".
Through this line of thought I can't help but conclude that pedophilia should not be considered a mental illness, at least in any legal sense.
I see your point, but the nitpicker in me says that your sentenced as phrased is outright wrong. Look up Diminished Responsibility/Diminished Capacity, specifically People v. Gorshen.
Well, it's not arbitrary. For something to be considered a mental illness, it has to be difficult or impossible for the affected person to control.
We don't call drug dealing a mental illness because in general we don't see cases of drug dealers wanting to stop dealing but being unable to due to some compulsion. If a dealer had a compulsion to keep dealing we would be wholly justified if we were to treat that compulsion as some kind of illness, even if there's no clinical name for it.
A behavior being merely abnormal, or morally wrong, are not sufficient conditions for something to be considered a mental illness.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
I will tell you that "not guilty by reason of insanity" happens very very rarely and does not result in the accused just walking off scot free. They result in the accused being committed to a mental hospital (or the psych wing of a prison) and staying there for as long as - or longer than - they would have been sentenced. Demonstrating mental illness isn't enough for that to occur; you have to demonstrate (and I'm paraphrasing here; Ragga or Medo or Than should be able to give you the exact language) that the accused has no concept of what they did, where they are, or why they're on trial. Basically, it only happens when the accused is completely out of touch with reality.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Except diminished capacity typically applies to people with mental retardation not because they were horny and thinking with their dick. I've yet to see a case where extreme boner was the defense.
There are several people in this thread arguing for pedophilia to be classified as a mental disorder and treated instead of punished. I'm not qualified to jump on either side of that fence, but I'm pretty sure most law systems treat punishment of crimes differently when they are performed out of a mental defect.
Since I've yet to see pedophilia used as a successful defense I don't think that really matters. Not to mention, as it has already been pointed out, defenses of mental defect rarely are successful and are really only seen on TV. I can't say I ever saw homosexuality ever used as a defense even when it was considered a mental defect either.
Pathetic. You dehumanize these people because it makes you feel better.
I do believe you are misunderstanding him.
Please explain how that statement can be misunderstood, unless it was irony that I missed (which is possible, but it must have been subtle).
Quoting it without context doesn't actually remove the context, you know.
Did you read the rest of the post?
He's either agreeing with the action, or didn't make the reason for referencing that clear.
Here is the entire post. I have taken the liberty of highlighting the particular line that initially caused me to rule out an ironic context.
Please show me how I am mistaken.
-edit-
totally beat'ed by MKR
This should suffice. Everything here especially the bold part
When taken with the rest of the post, I see him saying death to rapists, and 5 years for murderers is fine.
When taken with the rest of the post I see him saying that he thinks pedophiles are shit but 5 years probation for murder with (most likely) several cops witnessing it is fucking ridiculous.
Edit: but reading it again I can definitely see where you're coming from. I mean... it's an incredibly ambiguous post. I'm sorry for kinda jumping down jeep's throat on that one.
I think we covered this about page 3ish.
I see what you are seeing now, but I do not agree that this was the point he was making. I stand by my reaction until the actual forumer clarifies or recants his post.