Somewhere There's a Place for Pervs....Follow

They're able to rationalize it as necessity, but most recognise that what they're doing is a crime. What Goggy is describing is a psychological state where someone just can't realise that they're doing something socially unacceptable, as if pedophilia was compulsive behaviour.

I wouldn't say that this is really the case. I just think they do it because they've thought about it, it turned them on (for whatever internal reason) and they thought they could get away with it.

To clarify I used to be a police officer, and that was over ten years ago now, so things change, however, I think there's a difference between Billy Bad Boy who goes out every Saturday night and steals a car, gets chased by the police, arrested and bailed. He's usually back out the next weekend stealing another car. He knows what he is doing is wrong, but generally doesn't care and does it for kicks.

What I glean about paedophiles is that they do not believe what they are doing is wrong, at all. Although they must have some understanding of it as they don't telegraph the fact that they like to fiddle with kids and generally cover their tracks well.

Well generally because you got what I was talking about. We're all aware of under-age sex (I think you guys call it statutory rape (horrible term)) is not in the same ball park as someone who fiddles or has sex with a child of 6.

The opinion about their state of mind comes from experts, not me, and as I said, this was some time ago, whether they treat these cases the same, I do not know.

I think there is a legal distinction between statutory raping of teenagers, and those of very young children. I've heard the terms before but cannot tell you what they were.

"Statutory rape" refers specifically to consensual sex between someone of age and someone other age, IIRC.

It's rape, because the statute says so. Basically they couldn't give consent, so it doesn't matter if they consented or not, it was unconsented(?) sex.

But this doesn't matter, cause legally a 6 year old or a 16 year old can't give consent (in some places, lets assume US State where AoC = 18), but I do believe (or really hope?) the law recognizes the difference between the two.

You were fine until you put all that on the Internet. Now Detective Stabler and the SVU are coming after you.

I hear it's not rape if it's two women.

Actually, in many places gay men and/or lesbians have different age of consent laws than heterosexual couples, though they don't often apply to lesbians anyway. Do a quick "find on this page" on this timeline for "age of consent" and you'll find tons of countries who have equalized the laws in the last few decades.

Nexa

That was a really interesting read, Nexa.

I don't see the problem in prosecuting sex offenders that haven't had sex...

It's not like the definition of "Sex Offender" is someone who had sex. There are quite a few things that can label you a Sex Offender that doesn't involve penetration.

It's like being confused about how you go after someone who assaults someone, when the victim isn't dead. It's pointless confusion. You don't have to kill someone to be charged with assault.

The sex offender registry doesn't work. All the research indicates that it is ineffective. Alot of people in the justice system hates this law. It is purely built as a way for paranoid housewives to feel safer.


This is exactly what I've heard from anyone who's done any clinical or law enforcement work with the broad population that falls under this heading. If there were a registry for truly dangerous offenders, of which everyone agrees there are some, it might have some value. The 'chussetts has done a fairly good job of not leaving the realm of any sort of sanity with these laws and *still* the only thing I hear from even the most conservative jaded law enforcement people is that they're a complete waste of money and time.

The reality is that most people who vote for such laws would have zero chance of picking out the registries who live near them in a line up. Should there be an easy to reference registry to prevent this population from working with kids, of course. Should law enforcement be able to check against an easily searchable database when there's a crime committed, of course. Should there be an easy system that allows and encourages ostracizing hundreds of thousands of people? No, there shouldn't. Not only does it not make anyone safer, it very likely makes people much, much, less safe. Anyone who does clinical or research work on this knows that recidivism rates go up when there is more stress on offenders and when they are less connected from society.

To use an AA cliche that happens to be true here, when people are hungry, angry, lonely, or tired they are dramatically more likely to offend again. Intentionally putting them in that situation is not only stupid, it's borderline criminal. It leads directly to more victims.

Unfortunately, there's an exceptionally easy no lose paradigm for these laws. If offense rates decline, they worked, yay. If offense rates go up, they need to be more restrictive, yay.