the sir jimmy savile obe thread

[existentialist]

No..I got your point. I just was being sarcastic.

Can you point me in the direction of the research on paedophilia that states it's a curable illness? I'd be interested in reading that.

I haven't said anywhere that it was a curable illness.

 

[toggle]

It's also worth pointing out that the opposite is also true, and that "paedophilia" is no more than the sexual attraction towards children. For obvious reasons, we are not ever going to know about those who find themselves afflicted with that particular paraphilia, and who have found ways to avoid acting on it, but we do know that such people exist.

I do recall reading that some mandatory reporting laws prevented this group from seeking support in controlling their behavior.

 

[ViolentPanda]

My view would be that protecting a child from a paedophile abusing them is paramount. Sexual attraction to children is a part and parcel of a paedophiles make up.
How do you switch that off?
Maybe rehab can do that but the priests who were jailed were sent to rehab and received counseling and were then moved to another parish where they started abusing again. This was repeated over and over...until eventually someone went down the legal route and other victims started to follow suit.

They received "counselling" from the Church, from other priests, not from professionals, or from anyone who wasn't part of the same organisation.
How do you switch off the attraction? You don't (you can't), you educate the offender in how they can exercise self-control. Amazingly, it works the majority of the time, once you remove all of the offenders' methods of validating their aberrant behaviour, and make them properly face the consequences of their actions.

 

[Pickman's model]

I haven't said anywhere that it was a curable illness.

and if it's an ailment which can't be cured it strikes me as perverse and cruel to keep them in prison

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Getting into dangerous philosophical/moral waters here, but there is an argument that sexual attraction to children is an illness. Or, to be more precise, a paraphilia.

Do you think sexual attraction to children is an illness?

 

[existentialist]

Do you think sexual attraction to children is an illness?

It is much more complex than that.

I think that paraphilias have some of the features of illnesses, as does depression, OCD, anxiety, and so on. However, I also think that there are aspects to all of these problems which are (or can be), to a greater or lesser extent, under the control of the person experiencing them.

So there are (at least) two factors at play: the severity of the psychological state, and the ability of the person experiencing it to manage it.

The problem with labelling things - especially psychological things - as "illnesses" is that the label connotes the idea that they are in some way beyond the control of the sufferer to manage. On the other hand, I think it is unreasonable to characterise them as lifestyle choices or elective behaviours, because frequently the people exhibiting them, even if they might potentially be able to manage them, lack the skills to do so, and need to acquire those before they can be said to have any degree of control over them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The court system decides who goes to jail.

Nope, the jury decides on guilt, the judge decides on sentence. The rest of the CJ system has no involvement.

If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. It is illegal to abuse a child....dont forget that .

If they are found to be criminally responsible.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Nope, the jury decides on guilt, the judge decides on sentence. The rest of the CJ system has no involvement.



If they are found to be criminally responsible.

You're not usually criminally responsible unless you've been found so...
And the court "system" is generally accepted as a term that includes judges and juries.

 

[ViolentPanda]

...unless the suggestion is seriously being made that the only protection available is to indefinitely incarcerate anyone remotely at risk of abusing someone.

Such an approach would, of course, logically require the incarceration of all victims of child abuse, as previous victimhood has such a strong correlation with offending.

 

[existentialist]

You're not usually criminally responsible unless you've been found so...
And the court "system" is generally accepted as a term that includes judges and juries.

If you had followed ViolentPanda's posts carefully, you would have learned two things.

1. He is extremely precise about his wording on certain subject areas
2. (this is because) he is extremely knowledgeable about certain subject areas.

If he has phrased his statements the way he has, it is for a reason. There are many differences between being something and being found to be something: it's an important distinction.

Similarly, he has offered an important clarification regarding the decision making process in the courts, which makes it rather silly just to blur it again in the interests of being right.

 

[Pickman's model]

You're not usually criminally responsible unless you've been found so...
And the court "system" is generally accepted as a term that includes judges and juries.

you have it arse over tit - you are criminally responsible unless you're found not to be. but your naive faith in bourgeois 'justice' is touching.

 

[existentialist]

Such an approach would, of course, logically require the incarceration of all victims of child abuse, as previous victimhood has such a strong correlation with offending.

And, interestingly, that fits quite nicely with a lot of the narratives (particularly historically) around child sex abuse. I think we had, only recently, a judge trying to suggest that a man who had abused a 13 year old girl had found himself her victim, on the basis that she was exhibiting sexualised behaviours which (if I recall correctly) were probably due to her earlier abuse.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

It is much more complex than that.

I think that paraphilias have some of the features of illnesses, as does depression, OCD, anxiety, and so on. However, I also think that there are aspects to all of these problems which are (or can be), to a greater or lesser extent, under the control of the person experiencing them.

So there are (at least) two factors at play: the severity of the psychological state, and the ability of the person experiencing it to manage it.

The problem with labelling things - especially psychological things - as "illnesses" is that the label connotes the idea that they are in some way beyond the control of the sufferer to manage. On the other hand, I think it is unreasonable to characterise them as lifestyle choices or elective behaviours, because frequently the people exhibiting them, even if they might potentially be able to manage them, lack the skills to do so, and need to acquire those before they can be said to have any degree of control over them.

Is there a stage in working with repeat child sex abusers where you know they are not at risk of abusing another child?

 

[Pickman's model]

Is there a stage in working with repeat child sex abusers where you know they are not at risk of abusing another child?

your loaded language suggests not.

 

[existentialist]

Is there a stage in working with repeat child sex abusers where you know they are not at risk of abusing another child?

You claim to be a practitioner in the field. Is there any aspect of human behaviour where you can give a categorical assurance that something will or will not happen at any given point along a process?

No, of course not.

Nothing can be known for certain, and that is most certainly true in regard to behaviour. It doesn't mean that we simply tear up all our research and knowledge and proceed on a most-risk-averse basis at every turn.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

If you had followed ViolentPanda's posts carefully, you would have learned two things.

1. He is extremely precise about his wording on certain subject areas
2. (this is because) he is extremely knowledgeable about certain subject areas.

If he has phrased his statements the way he has, it is for a reason. There are many differences between being something .

Go back and read the posts you missed ...

Mine was this ...
"The court system decides who goes to jail.
If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. "

VP corrected it but in essence it meant the same.

 

[existentialist]

Go back and read the posts you missed ...

Mine was this ...
"The court system decides who goes to jail.
If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. "

VP corrected it but in essence it meant the same.

"In essence" - In the way that a LEGO model of the Eiffel Tower is the real thing.

I am sure that ViolentPanda won't need me to explain the difference.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Go back and read the posts you missed ...

Mine was this ...
"The court system decides who goes to jail.
If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. "

VP corrected it but in essence it meant the same.

Not really. The decision-makers (the judge and jury) are part of the system, not the entirety. Other arms (police, penal, prosecutorial) have little or no input to the decisionmaking process, therefore saying "the court system decides" is inaccurate and misleading.
Your point about criminal responsibility also missed the point that to be "criminally-responsible", one has to be judged to be criminally-responsible, otherwise although you may have committed a child sex crime, you have no criminal responsibility in the eyes of the law - innocent until proven guilty, you see.

 

[Rural]

your loaded language suggests not.

U can't predict the future. Ppl r released every day cos professionals no longer think they r a risk. Not just abusers obv, murderers, ppl who have harmed Themselves etc. Sometimes they r right, not always. But locking someone up & throwing away the key is surely it's better to try to get ppl better & able to cope & back into society

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

The court system decides who goes to jail.
If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail..

The decision-makers (the judge and jury) are part of the system,

.......to be "criminally-responsible", one has to be judged to be criminally-responsible,

Apart from the pedantic shit and an effort to reinterpret the meaning of my post...your point was?

 

[existentialist]

Apart from the pedantic shit and an effort to reinterpret the meaning of my post...your point was?

The point is that is is NOT "pedantic shit". Why does everything that doesn't agree 100% with your ultra-reductive viewpoint have to be wrong?

You are wrecking this thread, which has gone on for a long time and been a welcome place for intelligent, thoughtful discussion about some really contentious and important issues.

Pretty much anyone who hasn't simply tugged the forelock in respect of your opinions has come in for a slagging off from you, while the thread continues to be treated to your mouthbreathing nonsense. Several good efforts have been made just today to try and get the discussion going in a reasonably intelligent direction, but you can't even have the courtesy to leave them be without blundering in with more self-justification and stands-to-reason arsewipe.

Please, if only out of common courtesy, back off and stop inflicting your ignorance on a thread which doesn't need it. You might even find you stop getting quite such an ear bending from quite such a long list of people you feel are oppressing you...

 

[chandlerp]

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

The point is that is is NOT "pedantic shit". Why does everything that doesn't agree 100% with your ultra-reductive viewpoint have to be wrong?

You are wrecking this thread, which has gone on for a long time and been a welcome place for intelligent, thoughtful discussion about some really contentious and important issues.

Pretty much anyone who hasn't simply tugged the forelock in respect of your opinions has come in for a slagging off from you, while the thread continues to be treated to your mouthbreathing nonsense. Several good efforts have been made just today to try and get the discussion going in a reasonably intelligent direction, but you can't even have the courtesy to leave them be without blundering in with more self-justification and stands-to-reason arsewipe.

Please, if only out of common courtesy, back off and stop inflicting your ignorance on a thread which doesn't need it. You might even find you stop getting quite such an ear bending from quite such a long list of people you feel are oppressing you...

My post is not in conflict with VP's unnecessary "explanation" of the court system or the meaning of the term "criminal responsibility "...

But why don't you go ahead and explain VPs post again
......

 

[existentialist]

My post is not in conflict with VP's unnecessary "explanation" of the court system or the meaning of the term "criminal conviction "...

But why don't you go ahead and explain VPs post again
......

I don't need to. I understand it. It is you who needs to put a bit more effort into understanding stuff, not we who have to fall over ourselves making it understandable to you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Apart from the pedantic shit and an effort to reinterpret the meaning of my post...your point was?

My point is that concision matters, and that sloppy thinking is usually the product of an equally-sloppy mind.

 

[Citizen66]

Are we finished with this bullshit yet or do we need another twenty pages of it?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Using the term "criminally responsible" does mean that the person you are speaking about has been found criminally responsible in court. Which was why i used the term.
And as VP explains (unnecessarily in my view) the court system includes judge and jury.
My post was clear and concise. .. No sloppy thinking.
But carry on....explain where my post was sloppy? Or did I just not use enough words. ..

 

[existentialist]

Are we finished with this bullshit yet or do we need another twenty pages of it?

Fuck knows

 

[Favelado]

You can stick this thread up your arse.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

The court system decides who goes to jail.
If they are criminally responsible for abusing children to satisfy their sexual orientation then they should see jail. It is illegal to abuse a child....dont forget that .

"

Nope, the jury decides on guilt, the judge decides on sentence. The rest of the CJ system has no involvement.
If they are found to be criminally responsible.

You're not usually criminally responsible unless you've been found so...
And the court "system" is generally accepted as a term that includes judges and juries.

Not really. The decision-makers (the judge and jury) are part of the system, not the entirety. Other arms (police, penal, prosecutorial) have little or no input to the decisionmaking process, therefore saying "the court system decides" is inaccurate and misleading.
Your point about criminal responsibility also missed the point that to be "criminally-responsible", one has to be judged to be criminally-responsible, otherwise although you may have committed a child sex crime, you have no criminal responsibility in the eyes of the law - innocent until proven guilty, you see.

My post is not in conflict with VP's unnecessary "explanation" of the court system or the meaning of the term "criminal responsibility "...
But why don't you go ahead and explain VPs post again
......

My point is that concision matters, and that sloppy thinking is usually the product of an equally-sloppy mind.

???