Abstinence works for Catholic priests doesn't it?
I think we should be compassionate towards people who have mental problems. If pedophiles seek treatment before they hurt someone, they have my compassion. If they do nothing about their condition and molest a child, then they deserve what they get from our criminal justice system.
Your defense of pedophiles in this thread lends defense to this teacher for his actions. You and canuckleheads continued excuses lends defense to what this teacher has done. Your and his denial of this fact changes nothing.
As for Catholic Priests, yes, the weak have definitely had a problem. The strong willed not so much. Your point in bringing up the Catholic Church would be what? Your position in this thread is tenuous and you need to deflect?
Could posing the idea of it being a mental illness, be a case for not being guilty by reason of mental disorder?
Is that a defence under the law?
Agreed, it's mostly just pedo apologist.I suppose it could be, if you chose to make it a defense. But I haven't seen anyone say that. I have seen people discussing whether or not it is a mental illness, which is not the same as saying it is a valid defense for committing certain acts.
I bet it does for most RCC priests, even if they don't have a wife.Abstinence works for Catholic priests doesn't it?
That's reasonable.I think we should be compassionate towards people who have mental problems. If pedophiles seek treatment before they hurt someone, they have my compassion. If they do nothing about their condition and molest a child, then they deserve what they get from our criminal justice system.
My preference is that pedophiles get treatment before they molest a child. Sounds like other people support attacking these people while doing nothing to help them and then cutting their balls off after they molest a child.
No-one I've read so far. There's sure a lot of vilification going on, though.Who on here is defending pedophiles?
Perhaps there should also be one for guilty but having a mental disorder as an extenuating circumstance. Maybe there is one already, but I haven't looked for one.Could posing the idea of it being a mental illness, be a case for not being guilty by reason of mental disorder?
Is that a defence under the law?
I think it'd depend upon whether the pedo knows the difference between what is acceptable and what isn't. If they don't know the diff, then I'd saying it's a mental disorder. If they do know the diff, it's a sociological unacceptable orientation.Agreed, it's mostly just pedo apologist.
But the position has been put forth that this form of sexuality is a mental illness as apposed to a sexual orientation. Indirectly offering the defence of innocent by reason of mental disorder. If pedophilia is a mental disorder, then we'd have to revisit homosexuality and BDSM as possible mental illnesses as well.
Perhaps there should also be one for guilty but having a mental disorder as an extenuating circumstance. Maybe there is one already, but I haven't looked for one.
I think it'd depend upon whether the pedo knows the difference between what is acceptable and what isn't. If they don't know the diff, then I'd saying it's a mental disorder. If they do know the diff, it's a sociological unacceptable orientation.
Yeah, I added a bit at the end after you posted your reply. To wit: "I think it'd depend upon whether the pedo knows the difference between what is acceptable and what isn't. If they don't know the diff, then I'd saying it's a mental disorder. If they do know the diff, it's a sociological unacceptable orientation."CCoC...
16. (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
Most pedophiles, see nothing wrong with it, NAMBLA as an example.
Same answer applies.Yeah, I added a bit at the end after you posted your reply. To wit: "I think it'd depend upon whether the pedo knows the difference between what is acceptable and what isn't. If they don't know the diff, then I'd saying it's a mental disorder. If they do know the diff, it's a sociological unacceptable orientation."
Seems to.Same answer applies.
Actually I'd never heard of it till recently. Their view seems to have been a lot more prevalent in the past. That indicates that fewer societies are willing to put up with the crap. I think this is a good tendency.I'm sure I don't have to explain what NAMBLA is. They believe the laws are simply puritanical. They do not believe that pedophilia, with consent, is wrong.
Well NAMBLA are entitled to their opinion and they have a charter right to freedom of expression. I think anyone who advocates sexual contact between adults and children and claims it isn't harmful to the child is full of BS. If any of them try to put their thoughts into action and molest a child, then I support applying the full force of the law.NAMBLA says there is no mental issue with man/boy love. As they lobby the US gov't to make it legal.
Your defense of pedophiles in this thread lends defense to this teacher for his actions. You and canuckleheads continued excuses lends defense to what this teacher has done. Your and his denial of this fact changes nothing.
As for Catholic Priests, yes, the weak have definitely had a problem. The strong willed not so much. Your point in bringing up the Catholic Church would be what? Your position in this thread is tenuous and you need to deflect?
I see you completely missed the point I was making.Well NAMBLA are entitled to their opinion and they have a charter right to freedom of expression. I think anyone who advocates sexual contact between adults and children and claims it isn't harmful to the child is full of BS. If any of them try to put their thoughts into action and molest a child, then I support applying the full force of the law.
My defense of pedophiles? Yes I expected that kind of an unfounded accusation from you GH. I noticed that most forum regulars here were able to see right through your BS.
For the record, I don't defend child molesters or the perv who molested these children. I support giving sick people access to medical treatment. If a pedophile doesn't seek treatment and molests a child, then I support holding them accountable for their actions/crimes. Laws which protect children from being sexually abused have priority over a pedophile's right to pursue happiness and molest children. Only adults can legally consent to sex. Sexual contact between adults and children is abuse and allowing this would completely screw up our society for generations.
You can't focus on prevention after the fact. I haven't said kill the guy... I haven't said withhold psychiatric attention. All I've done is label his crime. He's a pedophile through action. If you want to get on your high horse about mental health care, trust me, I'm right there with you. But it doesn't erase the facts about his actions, just like being mentally ill doesn't erase the fact that Vince Li cut someone's damn head off.
Do you blame the mentally ill for being mentally ill?
No, I blame them for the actions that they do. I don't care if a person is mentally ill or "legally" sane. If they do something that is morally reprehensible than they do need to face the consequences. Mental illness shouldn't be able to be used as a "get out of jail free" card. There needs to be some culpability or there won't be any justice for the victims(in the case of the OT, the children who were fed semen!).
I personally believe the not guilty by reason of insanity plea should be removed from our system. Not sent to prison by reason of insanity should replace it. You kill somebody and are insane, you spend 25 years to life in a mental institution rather than a prison.