BTW, you said

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2002 2:00 pm I totally acknowledge that a priest fondling a boy is disgusting, but I don't understand why it would ruin the boy's life.

Well, O.K. Would you buy that it might make someone a little less tolerant, then? Especially if the offender was supposedly a "gentleman" ? Hell, more like it a "genitalman!"

So, if the victim gets violent then...well, tough shit. At least for the next poor bastard that crosses him, huh? The victim becomes the offender. Viscious circle, huh?

For those who are interested, go rent the video "Sleepers" and then report back here with a post.

A-1

Read the book SLEEPERS, it's much more intense.

Point well taken.

A-1,

I understand the point about 10-fold retribution, but am not sure that it is justice.

I live in a city, and was pretty tied into gang activity as a youth. Our motto was to always retaliate 3-times for anything against us. For example, if someone killed one of us we would then kill the guys dog, then rape his mom/sister/girlfriend, then kill him. This is a lot more effective than just killing him, because "an eye for an eye" just leads into a prolonged back-and-forth battle.

While very effective, over-reacting is GANG-style ruthlessness. Note that our philosophy was based on Satanic philosophy ... It is a great way to gain control over others. Dictators like Pol Pot knew the great power they could achieve by scaring people silly. The power of ruthlessness is the point of the line "the horror, the horror" in Apocalypse Now. But is it really worth having piles of skulls in every village just to keep people obeying the law?

My problem is that I don't think our government should use gang-style or dictator tactics to control the population. Maybe I'm idealistic but I think we can be better than that.

SplitDick,

You ask why such a 'molestation' causes such damage to the child. This is a very difficult thing to answer because the term is applied to almost any case involving an 'adult' and a 'minor', often indiscriminately.

Much depends upon the attitudes of the society in which the 'molested' child exists. In the West this often borders on hysteria which takes no account of any facts surrounding such 'molestation'. There are several well documented cases of children who have had long term relationships with an adult without exhibiting any signs of distress or mental problems. However, once the relationship was discovered the child then exhibited all of the symptoms expected and in not a few cases they have attempted suicide. In my opinion, it was not the relationship which caused the problem but the attitudes of those investigating it.

Please do not get me wrong. Non-consensual sex is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG regardless of age. But, when consensual sex occurs between a 'minor' and an 'adult' commonsense seems to fly out of the window and blanket condemnation occurs.

I would find it very hard to justify sex between, say a 10 y.o. and a mature adult, but there may be occasions when it may happen without damage. If it occurs between a 15 y.o. and a 17 y.o. then in my opinion it needs to be handled much more sensitively. Unfortunately, what you get is the type of unthinking attitude exemplified by A-1 - shoot first, and apologise at the funeral if you got it wrong! Just because someone has crossed that magic line between minor and adult does not mean that they are necessarily more mature. Two 14 y.olds indulging in a spot of mutual masturbation will probably not cause a massive upset. But, make one of them a day over the age of consent, then all hell will break loose. The poor kid would be crucified and hung out to dry.

In the case under discussion, what is wrong is that the man managed to achieve a tally of over 100 known cases. For what its worth, my view is that when a case comes to light it should be treated sensitively in the first instance with counselling for both parties. If there is a second case then more counselling and possibly a custodial sentence. Once it happens a third time, then the person should be regarded as a serial offender and at that point serious sanctions should apply.

LOL

Colin

Splitdick,

Certainly I do not think that gang tactics are needed to deal with child molesters. But 100 children? Obviously the system has broken down somewhere. So I am a little frustrated in such a situation because I still believe in justice, as I am sure you do.

Clearly, there are those who abuse our system of justice and use it to get away with murder or the equivalent thereof. This is a case in point.

Colin,

I don't know how we went from a castrated child-rapist who molested around 100 children under the age of 12, a considerable number of them AFTER he was castrated to consentual sex between a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old.

In most states the age of consent is 18, unless they decide to try the young person as an adult. In my view, that is a bunch of crap. Children are children. They may grow up to be monsters, but you cannot condemn them as being monsters until they are no longer children.

I also want it made perfectly clear to everyone that the so-called child molestation lists that list the names of 18-21 year olds that impregnated their 16-17 year old lovers is an abuse of the law!

I feel the same about Heterosexual, Bisexual or Gay sexual activities and youngsters who have masturbation activities and such things sexual. I feel that if they are having sex they are not hurting anybody. Moreover, safe sex and reproductive counseling need to be available to them if they are to have the opportunity to engage in such activities.

Don't fool yourselves. Children WILL partake in these activities, regardless of the level of supervision. If they decide to they will. They cannot be stopped. This is where adults come in. As adults we need to HELP children to learn to control themselves sexually, not show them how NOT to control themselves sexually.

Surely, people who read this who are thinking of Eunuchdom as an alternative to the misery caused in some circumstances by sex can appreciate this point.

The people who would have such laws that protect children and families by creating and maintaining sexual preditor lists repealed are attempting to make a point. It is a point that I DO NOT agree with.

The laws that create "child molestation offender lists" are good laws. I cannot imagine that a lot of people check them very often, but still, the resource is there if you need it.

As far as Pot-Pol, et. al., I am not sure that you can compare executing incorrigible child-molesting rapists with genocide. Again, we are talking multiple RAPES and penetrative sex here, not just fondling.

I guess that until you have held your own child in your arms you cannot appreciate the rage that can come when you think of somebody sexually abusing or killing that child. I can assure you that it is DECIDEDLY NOT "hysteria". IT IS BLIND FUCKING RIP THEIR INTESTINES OUT WITH YOUR TEETH RAGE!

You know, I know of a case where a 20-something year-old man raped his 18-month old daughter anally and never did that first day behind bars. Oh, yes, he was "criminally insane". Again, I would have taken this creep's spinal cord out at T-3 with whatever instrument that would best do the job cleanly.

Hell, I would have ran over him with a piece of heavy equipment and smashed the bastard like the insect micro-phallus that he is and then went out for a big Lobster meal to celebrate that at least there was one baby-raper who would never offend again.

Again, I realize that most children experiment with sex. There is nothing wrong with that. They do not need adults to critique them or to "exchange favors" with them, however. Invariably, when adults are involved with children sexually the children are being taken advantage of regardless of consent or anything else. If as an adult we have to have sex with children then there is something terribly wrong.

Children need adults in their lives to provide stability, not to provide sexual outlets. As adults we have a responsibility to nurture and to protect children. We also have a responsibility...how might I put it?...NOT TO FUCK WITH THEM.

The attitude that "maybe once is O.K." invariably leads to continued, repetitive, sexual contact with a minor. Once the barrier is crossed, it is so appealing and attractive to have sex with a young, healthy body. When it happens it is just plain taking advantage of the minor by the adult.

By adult, I mean somebody who is over 21. By "child" I would suppose that under 16 - 18 would do depending on the circumstances. Again, you are absolutely correct, there are gray areas, but only when the age differences are not vast.

Again, keep in mind that as I have said soooo many times here and elsewhere. Insanity or crime is not the thought...it is the ACTION. If people are held accountable most people will exhibit control. Those who do not need to accept their consequences and quit whining.

Of course, there are circumstances that need lieniency,...but raping 100

A-1 (imported) wrote: Tue Jul 16, 2002 4:27 pm little girls under the age of 12?

You better damned well believe that I would shoot the son-of-a-bitch if I could get by with it. Furthermore, the apology would come only when HELL freezes over...

:realpisse A-1 :realpisse

A-1,

What I like most about you is the way you compromise.

The original report which was posted did not indicate the age of the children and I had assumed that they were at the point of puberty when some sexual experimentation may take place. My criticism of the authorities is that this man was obviously released time and time again to re-offend.

There can always be a question of doubt the first time a case of molestation is brought against an adult. Not long ago there was a scandal involving a paediatrician who diagnosed abuse in a number of children based on an 'infallible' test. This test was carried out not on suspected abuse victims but on children who were due to undergo routine procedures such as tonsillectomy. In spite of the fact that there was no other evidence several families were destroyed before it was discovered that the test was false. So I re-iterate that on the first occasion, there should be some caution about condemning the offender outright. A second offence is reasonable confirmation that abuse may have occurred, but it is only really clinched by the third time after which I feel that there should be no further opportunity for that person to re-offend.

With regard to the age of consent; in this country it has been 16 for females and heterosexual males for many years. When homosexuality was made legal, the age of consent was set at 21 for men (Women were forgotten). Later it was lowered to 18 and just recently brought down to 16.

My feeling is that 16 is probably too low, but that at that age they are going to indulge in sex, regardless of the law. Even so, the more extreme elements of our press do try to make a scandal out of a relationship of a 17 yo and 15 yo. I could understand it more if it was 37 and 15 but even here there could be reasons why it should not be condemned.

The problem is that people look at the 'labels' and not at the people behind them. They see 'adult' and 'minor' and immediately, the poor little darling is being raped by some monster.

Emotional response to a situation can lead to repressive over-reaction. When a psychotic went into a primary school armed to the teeth and proceded to shoot teachers and children it resulted in a ban on almost all fire-arms, virtually bringing a halt to small arms target shooting. The fact that several of this man's weapons were illegal was not considered. Emotion makes bad law!

Certainly, in this case the offender should never be allowed the opportunity to be free to offend again, but the type of thing which you advocate, once enacted, would be applied to situations in which there is an element of doubt. There have been enough appalling miscarriages of justice over the years that I say that we should always exercise caution.

LOL

you said...

colin (imported) wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2002 10:31 am My criticism of the authorities is that this man was obviously released time and time again to re-offend.

Actually, if memory serves this scum-bag was arrested and convicted and served time. As a condition for early parole hs sought and got castration.

(It is ironic that you cannot get one without being a convicted sex criminal.)

After he was paroled he started his habit up again after getting some HRT. He was caught the second time but not after molesting a significant number of little girls.

If emotion makes bad laws them we must have lots and lots of bad laws. I am all for proof beyond a reasonable doubt but as you say, 100? After three accuisations them we look at it seriously?

Did you know that in some Arab countries it takes 3 women's testimony in court to equal the testimony of one man? Certainly, I am sure that you agree, we do not want to use any part of that system. Call me compromising if you think that am but one thing is absolutely for sure...

I still say shoot him. Emotion or no, the bastard has it coming...

A-1

A-1,

Just make sure that you get the Parole Board and a few lawyers whilst you are about it.

LOL

...any ideas on how I might get these ducks in a row?

It would be terrible to have to waste more than one round.

A-1

Yeah,

All you do is stick a few dollar bills to the floor in a straight line, then use and anti-tank weapon.

LOL