More than 100 pedophiles caught in sting

[Gatorpika]

I don't think it's possible to screen for pedophilia. It's a psychological condition, not a physiological condition as far as I know. A large percentage were physically abused as children, so they might have otherwise turned out normal with a different upbringing. Even if it was possible to identify individuals at risk, ultimately it's a decision they make to commit the act. Most people have urges they don't act on. I may want to beat the hell out of the Alabama fan that was trashing Tebow, but I wouldn't do it. Only a small percentage of people actually act on their urges and commit a serious illegal act. To try to compel them to self castrate or whatever without considering their will to resist those urges would be wrong.

[texigator]

Originally Posted by oragator1

I don't think it's very controversial to say we are pretty much all in agreement that this series of arrests is a good thing (at least I hope so).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sive-raid.html

My question/concern is why these busts don't happen more. I mean Chris Hansen can find guys all day long, they bust 100 at a time here, but yet it still seem they haven't gone beyond the surface in trying to stamp this out. How many could they actually round up if it had the focus of say, the drug war?

I'd much rather see my tax dollars support law enforcement efforts in this area instead of the phony "war" on drugs. Keep stinging until you get 'em all.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by Gatorpika

I don't think it's possible to screen for pedophilia. It's a psychological condition, not a physiological condition as far as I know.

There are screening methods that have good accuracy, Here is one method recommended by the NCJRS:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publicatio...aspx?ID=147090

the Abel Screen, compares favorably with phallometry in identifying those at risk for involvement with prepubescent and pubescent boys. The Abel Screen works by matching the arousal pattern and cognitions of men who have admitted to a pedophilia diagnosis against the arousal patterns and cognitions of men in the general population who deny such diagnoses. The risk of applicants accessing boys in institutional settings could be significantly reduced by using the Abel Screen in such settings. 1 table and 15 references

There is also profiling: http://www.child-safety-for-parents....pedophile.html
http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm
This method may not be 100% accurate but it is used by the authorities to build a case and to look for suspects.

Originally Posted by Gatorpika

A large percentage were physically abused as children, so they might have otherwise turned out normal with a different upbringing.

There is truth in that statement.

According to Dr. Herbert Wagemaker, a renowned psychiatrist and author, pedophilia appears to run in families. In fact, statistics show that boys who suffered molestation often grow up and commit the same type of crime

http://childprotection.lifetips.com/...ics/index.html

Originally Posted by Gatorpika

Even if it was possible to identify individuals at risk, ultimately it's a decision they make to commit the act. Most people have urges they don't act on.

There are links in the post that shows it is possible you'd identify individuals.
The urge of a pedophile is very different then the urge to cheat on a diet.

[quote="Gatorpika"] I may want to beat the hell out of the Alabama fan that was trashing Tebow, but I wouldn't do it. Only a small percentage of people actually act on their urges and commit a serious illegal act.
The urge to beat the Bama fan or some other illegal acts are way different then the urge to molest a child. The beating urge is short term and out of emotion. The pedophiles urge is long term and is methodically thought out and carried out.

Originally Posted by Gatorpika

To try to compel them to self castrate or whatever without considering their will to resist those urges would be wrong.

First if all the chemical castration can be in some cases an option and in other mandatory. Which way it goes depends on the circumstances.

When it comes to the pedophile's rights there there is a line that they cross where their rights are no longer a concern.

There are organize rings where member a kidnap children or force there own children into the sex trade. They make movies of the molestation, make arrangements for sexual encounters to share their victims, and in some cases make business deals to buy/sell/trade their victims. When some of these children reach puberty they are thrown out like garbage or in some cases killed. In other cases where it is a individual pedophile is operating alone he goes from child to child employing various methods (threat of death to a pet, family member, to the victim) to ensure their silence. In a lot if cases just the shame of the act keeps the victim silent. It is very likely the Bama beating victim can defend themselves and recover from the beating.

A final thought on this post. The victims of pedophiles are defenseless and are most likely going to suffer from the pedophilia acts for the rest of their lives.

By the way six years ago some driving through my neighborhood attempted to kidnap my then six year old daughter from my drive way. Thankfully my 90 lb German Shepherd put a stop to it. Since I am not wealthy or live in a gated community I do not believe the motive of the attempted kidnapping was for ransom.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Please note I did not say what you posted.
You only listed one option (enforced confinement) but not the other option (enforced treatment). You should not split/parse a statement to make mean what you want it to.

It doesn't matter. Any time you force someone to do something, it's punishment. If you force someone to do something and that person hasn't committed a crime, I tend to find that particularly messed up and very anti-American.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

It doesn't matter. Any time you force someone to do something, it's punishment. If you force someone to do something and that person hasn't committed a crime, I tend to find that particularly messed up and very anti-American.

So you are saying that if a doctor or therapist, or a probation officier know that a person is dangerous to themselves or to the public that since they have not done anything wrong they should let them out in to the general public jump into traffic, or jump in front of a train, or jump off a builing, or open a vein in the bathtub, or eat a gun. Wait a minute how about pushing someone into traffic, or push someone in front of a train, or push someone off a builing, or slice n dice someone, or go on a shoot spree, or molest a child, or rape a woman. Does that sound punishment, normal, and American to you?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by northgagator

So you are saying that if a doctor or therapist, or a probation officier know that a person is dangerous to themselves or to the public that since they have not done anything wrong they should let them out in to the general public jump into traffic, or jump in front of a train, or jump off a builing, or open a vein in the bathtub, or eat a gun. Wait a minute how about pushing someone into traffic, or push someone in front of a train, or push someone off a builing, or slice n dice someone, or go on a shoot spree, or molest a child, or rape a woman. Does that sound punishment, normal, and American to you?

That scenario is very, very different than what you described earlier.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

That scenario is very, very different than what you described earlier.

Not really.
Who do think will be doing the screening?
It will be the same people that I listed in my lady post.

How do you think someone will be deemed to be a danger to themselves?
By being part of a screening process.

How does this impact a person who is screened/evaluated and is deemed to be a pedophile who most likely will go out and sexually molest a child (if hasn't done so already and never got caught)?
He is confined and is prevented from sexually molesting a child (or more children)

If he is deemed to be a low risk he should get the proper mandated treatment and be allowed to be free to live like any other private citizen (restrictions and probation may be required).

If he violates the restrictions or probation the there should be logical consequences.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Sure.

Let's evaluate everyone for every potential crime. This sounds totally congruent with liberty.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Considering how crappy we are at judging and punishing people when a crime *has* been committed, it's even more horrifying to think of how bad we'd be at punishing people who haven't committed any crime at all.

The notion is frankly pretty disgusting.

[Tebowism0823]

Originally Posted by texigator

I'd much rather see my tax dollars support law enforcement efforts in this area instead of the phony "war" on drugs. Keep stinging until you get 'em all.

You'll never get them all.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Sure.

Let's evaluate everyone for every potential crime. This sounds totally congruent with liberty.

First of all I never advocated mandatory screening for everyone.

However, if someone:
1, Volunteers for screening then what is the harm?
2, Is pulled in because of strange behavior (happens every day) is under a court order for screening (happens a lot) then we have a chance to help someone before he harms someone or continues to harm more people.

By the way most states have laws on the books where therapist, doctors, councilors, and teachers are required to report to the proper authorities if a person is a danger to them selves or society. A report like this does lead a lot of people being taken in (voluntarily or against their will) for evaluation/screening.

This is like the probable cause item in the US Constutition.
There has to be a probable cause for such a screening because this screening does enter into the area of privacy.

So you really do not have to worry about the Gestapo pulling you out of your bed at night, be force to a pedofile screening, and having your nads fried off. Unlese there is a probable cause for this action.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Considering how crappy we are at judging and punishing people when a crime *has* been committed, it's even more horrifying to think of how bad we'd be at punishing people who haven't committed any crime at all.

The notion is frankly pretty disgusting.

Unfortunately innocent people go to prison/jail in this country.

Also unfortunately everday many people commit crimes and are never arrested.

Adequate screening may help more people than harm.
1, Hopefully fewer children get molested.
2, People who are cursed with this disease will be identified and get the treatment before (hopefully) molest children or more children.
3, The people who never acted out on their disease wil get treatment to where they can live happy and productive lives in society.
4, The people wo did act out on thier disease will get the treatment where when they get released from confinement they too can live happy and productive lives in society.

Two point to remember.
1, Chemical castration is not the only option with treatment. There are other treatments that maybe successful. The chemical castration should be used when and where deemed necessary.
2, Not all pedophiles get treatment when in jail/prision. Some states do not have the programs or have laws about forcing treatment. Unfortunately some of these people get out of prision when their time is done and they hit the streets looking for young children.

The current status quo is not helping anyone.
We will always have pedophiles in our human race.
The lack of effective identification and treatment hurts the pedofile, the children they molest, and the parents/siblings of those children.

Any change that is made must respect the Fourth Amendment and at the same time protect the rights of all citizens. The only way to do this is to eleminate unreasonable searches and allow reseasonable searches. This way the peoples life and well being are protected and their privacy is also protected. It is a difficult balancing act.and it should never stop just because it is difficult. Why the innocent can go to jail, the guilty can go free, and a child and its family can be badly injured. All items have to be in balance.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Again, you can have absolute security or absolute liberty. Proactive punishment is a ridiculous concept.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Again, you can have absolute security or absolute liberty. Proactive punishment is a ridiculous concept.

You ignored every thing in my last post.

We are discussing a situation (pedophilia) where the scales of justice are out balance.

As you stated some innocent people are in jail.
As I stated some guilty people are free.
It is a fact that children were, are, and will be molested by pedophiles.
I believe we are in agreement on all three points.

I support an idea that provides treatment to pedophiles and a hope for a reduction in the number of children being sexually molested (or worst).
I also support that this idea have methods to safe guard the the 4th amendments rights of unreasonable search. Thus to ensure that the innocent do not go to jail.
You disagree because of a fear that there could be a lost of freedom, which is a valid concern. But you do not offer a solution. In this case a lack of a solution keeps the scales of justice out of balance.

Is your solution that we do nothing?

By doing nothing we lose freedom.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Our solution is to punish people who commit crimes. That has always been our solution.

Now if you want to start screening and then punishing for potential criminals, maybe you can found some other country, because there's still at least a semblance of freedom in this one.

In your country you can do psychological / genetic testing to see who might commit crime X or crime Y and punish them on the spot, but I'm sorry, I'm not game. Your country might be free(r) from crime, but it would also be Hell on earth.