Convicted abuser who kept school job raped children again

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

The issue of paedophilia isn't 'meet a kid, tries it on, rapes him/her'. Paedophillia is a daily struggle where there is no relief at all. They're two completely different things. I'm not talking about rape as an issue here, it's paedophillia that is the issue..

No the abuse of children is an issue. People with paedophilic tendancies who don't act upon that have no reason to fear from the Sex Offenders Register or from a vigilante backlash, so they really are irrelevant to the discussion of keeping their identities secret.

Paedophiles who do abuse choose to abuse. You made the point that people don't choose to have the urge to abuse. Perhaps they don't, but the urge to do something is not the same as actually doing it. You have every choice in deciding to act upon your urges, whether it is against a child or an adult.

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

no reason to fear from the Sex Offenders Register or from a vigilante backlash, so they really are irrelevant to the discussion of keeping their identities secret.

Doesn't matter if they haven't done anything, if their name gets out that they have paedophillic urges, their life is over. That's the society we live in.

prinz wrote: »

Paedophiles who do abuse choose to abuse. You made the point that people don't choose to have the urge to abuse. Perhaps they don't, but the urge to do something is not the same as actually doing it. You have every choice in deciding to act upon your urges, whether it is against a child or an adult.

It's not that easy saying that becaue you're an adult, you have a choice in your actions. It's all well and good sitting there without these urges saying 'just don't do it'. As I said before, alcoholics 'don't have to drink' but they do.

Reminds me of in WWI I think when people deserted the trenches were shot in the back for being cowards. Only after was post traumatic stress recognised as being a mental illness but sure it was too late by then. My point is even as an adult, in certain situations, it's not as easy to simply choose not to do something. Urges can overcome your good sense but like with alcoholism and gambling addiction, afflictions that can destroy your life and your families lives can't be cured, but they can be controlled with the help of people around you.

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

Doesn't matter if they haven't done anything, if their name gets out that they have paedophillic urges, their life is over. That's the society we live in..

..and how exactly does their name get out in the above scenario?

actuallylike wrote: »

It's not that easy saying that becaue you're an adult, you have a choice in your actions. It's all well and good sitting there without these urges saying 'just don't do it'. As I said before, alcoholics 'don't have to drink' but they do...

Actually it is that easy. Either don't do it or be prepared to accept the consequences. You can't have your cake and eat it. If an alcoholic crashes their car and kills or maims someone do we say, ah well they had these urges.. they weren't really responsible for what happened?

anawfulbogey

I blame the parents

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

..and how exactly does their name get out in the above scenario?

If a person has child porn on his computer and is caught, admittedly he has taken part in an industry that abuses children and will be punished for it. If he is on the sex offender list, released from prison and lives another 20 years of his life without anyone knowing and keeps his urges to himself succesfully and then the list becomes public, his life is over.

prinz wrote: »

Actually it is that easy. Either don't do it or be prepared to accept the consequences. You can't have your cake and eat it. If an alcoholic crashes their car and kills or maims someone do we say, ah well they had these urges.. they weren't really responsible for what happened?

Drink driving is not the issue, not only alcoholics drink drive. If a family member struggled with drink would you say simply 'stop drinking' and it's as easy as that? If they wanted help and confided in you about their problem you would help (I imagine) them but in today's society if someone came up to you and said 'I have sexual urges towards children' they'd probably be branded as a sicko and there would be no option of understanding towards them, hence why people with these urges keep it quiet which with any addiction is the worst thing you can do.

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

If a person has child porn on his computer and is caught, admittedly he has taken part in an industry that abuses children and will be punished for it. If he is on the sex offender list, released from prison and lives another 20 years of his life without anyone knowing and keeps his urges to himself succesfully and then the list becomes public, his life is over..

...because he didn't keep his urges to himself did he? He had child porn on his computer. Is it possible to find out if the person living next door to you is a murderer? If it was reported in the press yes. Do you think any child sex related news should be censored and all completed anonymously? If someone has child porn on their pc nobody else know about it?

actuallylike wrote: »

Drink driving is not the issue, not only alcoholics drink drive.

Did I say only alcoholics drink drive or are you just trying to dodge the question I asked?

actuallylike wrote: »

...hence why people with these urges keep it quiet which with any addiction is the worst thing you can do.

Is paedophilia recognised as an addiction? Wasn't treating it as an addiction one of the major problems with recurring abuse in the past? i.e. priests were sent away for a few months as if to 'dry out' or go through withdrawals and deemed 'cured' etc then returned to contact with kids?

El Siglo

actuallylike wrote: »

The issue of paedophilia isn't 'meet a kid, tries it on, rapes him/her'. Paedophillia is a daily struggle where there is no relief at all. They're two completely different things. I'm not talking about rape as an issue here, it's paedophillia that is the issue.

The man who raped his daughter might have been driven by a power urge rather than a sexual urge. Would that man have molested any child or just his daughter, there's a difference between the two.

Well that's a twisted fucking logic isn't it? I had to read that twice because I actually can't believe you would post something as ridiculous. Paedophiles engage in sexual abuse, whether it's full penetration it's beside the point, it's not consensual and it's with a child. Rape and paedophilia can be seen as one in the same in this regard, as it's sexual activity that is not consensual.

I find your second comment particularly sickening, as you deliberately avoid the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter why a father might rape his daughter, it's the rape itself that's the issue.

Seriously, catch yourself on for fuck sake.

Oh, and everyone has a daily struggle with life, albeit paying the rent or staying off drink. When you start sexually abusing and raping children, you're a fucking criminal, not sick, a fucking criminal and deserve to be subjected to the harshest extent of the law.

prinz

El Siglo wrote: »

When you start sexually abusing and raping children, you're a fucking criminal, not sick, a fucking criminal and deserve to be subjected to the harshest extent of the law.

Ah sure maybe it was only a bit of ol' child porn on the computer.... Jesus wept.

7sr2z3fely84g5

like it or not,in the eyes of the irish law,an 19 year old man having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend would be considered child rape and thus be placed on the offender list,as said earlier there was a debate here on making the list public- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056314937

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

...because he didn't keep his urges to himself did he? He had child porn on his computer. Is it possible to find out if the person living next door to you is a murderer? If it was reported in the press yes. Do you think any child sex related news should be censored and all completed anonymously? If someone has child porn on their pc nobody else know about it?

My point was and still is about making the sex offender's list public or not, it's what I was getting at. Ireland's attitudes towards people with paedophillic tendencies is extremely negative as it should be (just want to set that straight) but making a list public will only worsen the situation in my opinion.

If you found out a murderer who served his sentence lived next door to you, what would you do? Would you move out? Would you set up a petition to get them out? Would you cry out for laws to have signs like this in your neighbourhood (with murderer instead)?
http://i.imgur.com/QvVA5l.jpg

You wouldn't, but with paedophillia you would (or at least a lot of people would). Making the list public will make these happen and there will do no good, just like the Megan's Law scenario mentioned earlier. They only appeal to the masses who are generally gagging for blood.

prinz wrote: »

...Did I say only alcoholics drink drive or are you just trying to dodge the question I asked?

Not trying to dodge it all, I feel I answered it actually.

prinz wrote: »

...Is paedophilia recognised as an addiction? Wasn't treating it as an addiction one of the major problems with recurring abuse in the past? i.e. priests were sent away for a few months as if to 'dry out' or go through withdrawals and deemed 'cured' etc then returned to contact with kids?

I think it's obvious that the church's method of 'curing' isn't the most scientific approach and I don't think they had the credentials to deem anyone cured, but they did and it's sad that they did so.

El Siglo wrote: »

I find your second comment particularly sickening, as you deliberately avoid the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter why a father might rape his daughter, it's the rape itself that's the issue.

I beg to differ, It hink the reason of 'why' is the most important issue. If you can determine why these things happen, then maybe you can start a process of stopping it from happening

El Siglo wrote: »

Seriously, catch yourself on for fuck sake.

Relax, I know it's a sensitive subject but there was a decent discussion going on without the need for these comments.

El Siglo wrote: »

Oh, and everyone has a daily struggle with life, albeit paying the rent or staying off drink. When you start sexually abusing and raping children, you're a fucking criminal, not sick, a fucking criminal and deserve to be subjected to the harshest extent of the law.

I never compared the hardships of paying rent to sexual urges towards children...and I think you know this.

I agree, if someone rapes a child, they should be punished but instead of locking them up and patting yourselves on the back, why not try to analyse them and see if there's a definitive reason why they do it and isolate it therefore preventing it from happening in the future? Locking them up one by one won't fix the problem, it's not smallpox.

ps I'm not going to respond if if you stay abusive, my opinions are my opinions and if you want to argue them fine but less of the effing and blinding please, you are a mod after all

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

You wouldn't, but with paedophillia you would (or at least a lot of people would).

How do you know I or anyone else wouldn't? Do you think many people here would be happy with Larry Murphy living next door? I wouldn't live next door to known gangland figures for example... and that's good because I know who these people are. For some reason if someone breaks another law I shouldn't ever find out..

actuallylike wrote: »

Not trying to dodge it all, I feel I answered it actually.

You didn't. Do you think that an addiction is a valid excuse to diminish responsibility when it comes to criminal behaviour? If paedophilia is an addiction does that mean paedophiles should be sheltered from the media and public knowledge if they are convicted of a paedophilia related crime?

El Siglo

actuallylike wrote: »

I beg to differ, It hink the reason of 'why' is the most important issue. If you can determine why these things happen, then maybe you can start a process of stopping it from happening

That's up to doctors, psychiatrists etc... Meanwhile, the law doesn't and will never examine why a rapist rapes and prosecutes them on the crime committed. A great way of preventing reoffending would be to publish the sex offenders register, so that school administrators are aware of the criminal past of their staff, which is more or less what this case was.

Relax, I know it's a sensitive subject but there was a decent discussion going on without the need for these comments.

What comments, what the hell are you talking about? I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your post. How am I making the discussion indecent?

I never compared the hardships of paying rent to sexual urges towards children...and I think you know this.

Yeh, but you see it as an addiction or a 'hardship', when it's actually some twisted fuck who likes to get off on molesting children. They enjoy it, that's why they do it.

I agree, if someone rapes a child, they should be punished but instead of locking them up and patting yourselves on the back, why not try to analyse them and see if there's a definitive reason why they do it and isolate it therefore preventing it from happening in the future? Locking them up one by one won't fix the problem, it's not smallpox.

No, but it satisfies society's need and requirement for justice and retribution. They get rehabilitation in the prison, that's grand.

ps I'm not going to respond if if you stay abusive, my opinions are my opinions and if you want to argue them fine but less of the effing and blinding please, you are a mod after all

I'm not abusive, have I insulted or attacked you personally? No. I've pointed out that your arguments are fucking retarded. I'm a mod, in my forum but everywhere else I'm a regular boards user.

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

How do you know I or anyone else wouldn't? Do you think many people here would be happy with Larry Murphy living next door? I wouldn't live next door to known gangland figures for example... and that's good because I know who these people are. For some reason if someone breaks another law I shouldn't ever find out..

What about a gangland figure who's trying to leave things in the past? Again, my point is if someone is on the sex offender's register and is trying to live a productive life by controlling the urges that he or she once gave into, by having the register go public leaves them open to abuse from a large section of society. That, in my opinion is not fair and I'm sure you'll agree with that but it doesn't change the fact that it would still happen.

prinz wrote: »

You didn't. Do you think that an addiction is a valid excuse to diminish responsibility when it comes to criminal behaviour? If paedophilia is an addiction does that mean paedophiles should be sheltered from the media and public knowledge if they are convicted of a paedophilia related crime?

I think addiction is a reason, not a really a valid excuse. If someone is not in control of their body because these urges are so strong then yes, I think they should be sheltered from the inevitable public onslaught and they should be made to seek help. I think they should also be severely restricted from contact with children while these urges are not only still present but strong enough to make the person do act on them.

El Siglo wrote: »

That's up to doctors, psychiatrists etc... Meanwhile, the law doesn't and will never examine why a rapist rapes and prosecutes them on the crime committed. A great way of preventing reoffending would be to publish the sex offenders register, so that school administrators are aware of the criminal past of their staff, which is more or less what this case was.

Instead of publishing the list to the public, the police should know about it and should know what employment the person is in with a strict no no applied to any jobs concerning children. I think the police dropped the ball on this one but I still don't think it's time for full public disclosure.

El Siglo wrote: »

What comments, what the hell are you talking about? I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting your post. How am I making the discussion indecent?

Call me old fashioned but I consider "Seriously, catch yourself on for fúck sake." to be indecent.

El Siglo wrote: »

Yeh, but you see it as an addiction or a 'hardship', when it's actually some twisted fuck who likes to get off on molesting children. They enjoy it, that's why they do it.

Not in all the cases at all actually. A lot of pedophiles hate what they are and the reason they do it is to experience a relief and a satisfaction to the insatiable urges the have. Many attempt suicide because they hate what they are and plenty succeed without anyone knowing what they were going through.

El Siglo wrote: »

No, but it satisfies society's need and requirement for justice and retribution. They get rehabilitation in the prison, that's grand.

I don't think satisfying societies needs helps, it's more like sticking your head in the sand and to quote a phrase from earlier, avoiding the elephant in the room (there is something wrong in their heads, they are sick, and putting them in jail for it doesn't help). Society generally wants them wiped off the face of the earth but that doesn't fix the problem. Attempting to find a solution to the problem instead of locking them up one by one may work. If you had an infestation of bees, you'd seek out the nest instead of trying to kill each bee one by one.

El Siglo wrote: »

I'm not abusive, have I insulted or attacked you personally? No. I've pointed out that your arguments are fucking retarded. I'm a mod, in my forum but everywhere else I'm a regular boards user.

You told me to cop the f*** on, that's not attacking the post in my opinion.

Show Time

Why any person would go to the trouble of defending scum like this is beyond me.

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

What about a gangland figure who's trying to leave things in the past?

I still wouldn't want to live beside him. Who knows when his/her ex-gangland enemies/friends are going to attack his house for example? Someone trying to leave things in the past is all well and good for them, but it has nothing to do with me.

actuallylike wrote: »

Again, my point is if someone is on the sex offender's register and is trying to live a productive life by controlling the urges that he or she once gave into, by having the register go public leaves them open to abuse from a large section of society. That, in my opinion is not fair and I'm sure you'll agree with that but it doesn't change the fact that it would still happen.

Just because someone tries to live a productive life doesn't mean what they did in the past should be hidden or wiped from the public record. Besides the register do you think somebody convicted of child porn offences for example should be named in the press? Or do you think they should be entitled to anonymity?

actuallylike wrote: »

I think addiction is a reason, not a really a valid excuse. If someone is not in control of their body because these urges are so strong then yes, I think they should be sheltered from the inevitable public onslaught and they should be made to seek help..

Again, if you are going to keep referring to paedophilia as an addiction the comparisons to other addictions are surely going to follow. If an alcoholic, while drunk, kills somebody by drink driving, do you think they should be sheltered from the inevitable public onslaught against drink drivers, i.e. by covering up the fact that they were drunk at the time of the crash?

If a drug addict while high (not in control of their body) attacks and beats up a stranger over €20 let's say, should nobody be made aware of the fact that they were high on drugs at the time of the attack to shelter them from the "inevitable public onslaught" against junkies?

actuallylike

prinz wrote: »

I still wouldn't want to live beside him. Who knows when his/her ex-gangland enemies/friends are going to attack his house for example? Someone trying to leave things in the past is all well and good for them, but it has nothing to do with me.

Okay and you'd have the right to move but you'd have no right to shun him out and it would be out of order for people to shout abuse at him and threaten him with violence and vandalise his house which would happen if he was on the register.

prinz wrote: »

Just because someone tries to live a productive life doesn't mean what they did in the past should be hidden or wiped from the public record. Besides the register do you think somebody convicted of child porn offences for example should be named in the press? Or do you think they should be entitled to anonymity?

I think it should stay hidden as long as society is not willing to accept it as something they may not have been able to control. A thief who turns over a new leaf and tries to be productive would generally get some support from society but not a paedophile.
Someone convicted of child pornography would in my opinion depend on the case relating to their anonymity. I feel sorry for people when I see a father with a wife, good job and a pillar of society caught viewing child porn. It makes me wonder how strong the urges were to take such a risk to simply view some images but this is how strong these urges can be I suppose.

prinz wrote: »

Again, if you are going to keep referring to paedophilia as an addiction the comparisons to other addictions are surely going to follow. If an alcoholic, while drunk, kills somebody by drink driving, do you think they should be sheltered from the inevitable public onslaught against drink drivers, i.e. by covering up the fact that they were drunk at the time of the crash?

If a drug addict while high (not in control of their body) attacks and beats up a stranger over €20 let's say, should nobody be made aware of the fact that they were high on drugs at the time of the attack to shelter them from the "inevitable public onslaught" against junkies?

I mentioned before that alcoholism and drink driving is a different issue. What I meant was that even an alcoholic doesn't have to drive, their addiction is drink not drink driving and for that reason I think that comparison is flawed. If an alcoholic lost his job, friends and family to drink then yes I'd feel sorry for him/her and I would blame that on his/her addiction.

With drug addicts, I also feel sorry for them to get into that state but not to the extent of paedophiles. At least with drug addicts there are treatment centres all over the city without the extreme stigma attached to them as it is with paedophiles. A drug addict has plenty of chances to 'get clean' that this city and society offers but there is not as many options offered to people with paedophillic tendencies.

El Siglo

actuallylike wrote: »

What about a gangland figure who's trying to leave things in the past? Again, my point is if someone is on the sex offender's register and is trying to live a productive life by controlling the urges that he or she once gave into, by having the register go public leaves them open to abuse from a large section of society. That, in my opinion is not fair and I'm sure you'll agree with that but it doesn't change the fact that it would still happen.

Is this "History of Violence" or something? Maybe public vigilance will add an extra deterrent from acting on their "urges".

I think addiction is a reason, not a really a valid excuse. If someone is not in control of their body because these urges are so strong then yes, I think they should be sheltered from the inevitable public onslaught and they should be made to seek help. I think they should also be severely restricted from contact with children while these urges are not only still present but strong enough to make the person do act on them.

You can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, anyone who has ever dealt with an addiction knows that. Addiction or not, they're not above reproach just because there's a name for their "condition".

Instead of publishing the list to the public, the police should know about it and should know what employment the person is in with a strict no no applied to any jobs concerning children. I think the police dropped the ball on this one but I still don't think it's time for full public disclosure.

Why not? Why should they immune from the public? Ryan Giggs wasn't? Neither was Wayne Rooney or Ben Dunne or Charlie Haughey. Why should they be allowed the cloak of anonymity?

Call me old fashioned but I consider "Seriously, catch yourself on for fúck sake." to be indecent.

Absolutely ridiculous, and I do standby what I've said. You're defending paedophiles by attributing what they do to some diminished mental responsibility by attributing their actions to some 'addiction' etc... I mean I'm liberal enough at the best of times but this is taking the biscuit.

Not in all the cases at all actually. A lot of pedophiles hate what they are and the reason they do it is to experience a relief and a satisfaction to the insatiable urges the have. Many attempt suicide because they hate what they are and plenty succeed without anyone knowing what they were going through.

I'm so sad for them, that's terrible so it is... Do you honestly think people here will ever shed a tear for a paedophile topping themselves? Isn't it a pity they don't all do that then, instead of raping and abusing children. Wow, the mental torment of being a paedophile is pretty bad, but what do you think it's like for a victim? No, you don't care about victims at all, do you? If you did, you wouldn't post such rubbish.

I don't think satisfying societies needs helps, it's more like sticking your head in the sand and to quote a phrase from earlier, avoiding the elephant in the room (there is something wrong in their heads, they are sick, and putting them in jail for it doesn't help). Society generally wants them wiped off the face of the earth but that doesn't fix the problem. Attempting to find a solution to the problem instead of locking them up one by one may work. If you had an infestation of bees, you'd seek out the nest instead of trying to kill each bee one by one.

So, we don't need law and order then, is that what you're saying? I don't, nor does anyone care why someone is fucked up, but if they break the law then they should be held accountable, regardless of how fucked up they might be. You're not seeing that at all, are you? I'd rather spend the money helping victims as opposed to helping criminals, primarily as you've asserted they (paedophiles) have developed and grown in this manner (i.e. they're born this way). A victim of sexual abuse and the trauma endured as a result was brought on by the actions of these individuals, so why should a victim have to suffer unduly as a result of someone else's actions or from their "condition"? Paedophiles, like murderers have to live with what they've done, that's their problem. Spend the money helping victims not paedophiles.

You told me to cop the f*** on, that's not attacking the post in my opinion.

That can be interpreted as me saying "wise up" etc... Just because I said fuck doesn't make it offensive, much the same as you told me to relax in an earlier post.

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

Okay and you'd have the right to move but you'd have no right to shun him out and it would be out of order for people to shout abuse at him and threaten him with violence and vandalise his house which would happen if he was on the register.

...and it would be out of order then to.

actuallylike wrote: »

Someone convicted of child pornography would in my opinion depend on the case relating to their anonymity. I feel sorry for people when I see a father with a wife, good job and a pillar of society caught viewing child porn. It makes me wonder how strong the urges were to take such a risk to simply view some images but this is how strong these urges can be I suppose.

..and if it was a single man with no kids, no wife, on the dole and and all round thug you wouldn't feel sorry for them? Do you realise how ridiculous all this "pillar of the community" stuff is to get one person a lighter sentence than another for the same crime? I'd suggest indulging in child pornography, which is a byproduct of a real live child being abused and raped, is a little more than "simply viewing some images"....

actuallylike wrote: »

If an alcoholic lost his job, friends and family to drink then yes I'd feel sorry for him/her and I would blame that on his/her addiction.

Do you think the fact that they lost all that because of alcoholism should be completely covered up and kept silent?

actuallylike wrote: »

With drug addicts, I also feel sorry for them to get into that state but not to the extent of paedophiles. At least with drug addicts there are treatment centres all over the city without the extreme stigma attached to them as it is with paedophiles. A drug addict has plenty of chances to 'get clean' that this city and society offers but there is not as many options offered to people with paedophillic tendencies.

There are counselling services all over the country... and telephone services.. and professionals to approach in confidentiality.... Now it's tendancies, I though before it was an addiction..

El Siglo

actuallylike wrote: »

I think it should stay hidden as long as society is not willing to accept it as something they may not have been able to control. A thief who turns over a new leaf and tries to be productive would generally get some support from society but not a paedophile.
Someone convicted of child pornography would in my opinion depend on the case relating to their anonymity. I feel sorry for people when I see a father with a wife, good job and a pillar of society caught viewing child porn. It makes me wonder how strong the urges were to take such a risk to simply view some images but this is how strong these urges can be I suppose.

The bit I've highlighted in bold actually makes me sick. I'm actually disgusted reading that one line. You obviously haven't a fucking clue about what you're talking about, have you? I'm actually fucking fuming now. An absolutely despicable thing to say. I really don't know whether you're trolling or being serious, but in either case that's an incredibly twisted post.

I'm done with this shit, you're not worth the fucking ban from AH.

randylonghorn

El Siglo wrote: »

Anyone still think it's a good idea to not make the sex offenders register public?

El Siglo wrote: »

Yeh, because the current situation is so much better...

All such posts working with or even in the vicinity of children are now subject to Garda vetting. It's not necessary to make the sex offenders' list public in order to close this particular hole, it's already been closed. Systems may not be perfect now, but they have improved a lot.




Going back to the original story though, how in the name of jebus though was he retained in the school after conviction?

Terrible, shocking, unforgivable fail on the part of the Board of Management and even the principal / any staff who were aware of this.

Lord TSC

Rather than quoting something from the preceeding pages, just going to say I still don't think this is proof the list should be made public. It's proof a school messed up big time, but making the list public would be cutting off the leg cause you broke your toe.

Making the list public would hurt too many people; not just the pedos who arguements can be made for not caring about, but innocent family and friends who could be ostricised for the actions of an individual, the people who are put on the list for idiotic reasons, people who share names with people on the list, and the people who would be attacked when incorrect and misunderstood rumors were started up and passed about.

This story shows that police and schools should take greater care about who they hire and should use the lists they have to ensure kids aren't put into situations. But the overeactions in this topic are typical of what happens when pedophilia is discussed; rather than taking a step back and talking about stuff logically, people make wild, sweeping generalisations and go primal in their desires for vigilant justice. And remember everyone; swearing is not big and intelligent and does not improve your points in any way...

actuallylike

El Siglo wrote: »

Is this "History of Violence" or something? Maybe public vigilance will add an extra deterrent from acting on their "urges".

No it won't. Megan's Law in America hasn't helped

El Siglo wrote: »

You can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, anyone who has ever dealt with an addiction knows that. Addiction or not, they're not above reproach just because there's a name for their "condition".

You're right, they're not beyond reproach. But if society was more sympathetic to someone who has these urges (through no fault of their own mind you) then they will probably be more willing to come forward to seek help without fear of being outcast.

El Siglo wrote: »

Why not? Why should they immune from the public? Ryan Giggs wasn't? Neither was Wayne Rooney or Ben Dunne or Charlie Haughey. Why should they be allowed the cloak of anonymity?

Ryan Giggs was actually but that's another issue. The reason for anonymity is beacause of the onslaught of potential violence towards them thus forcing them underground out of reach of any contact, police included. The police know where they are and they are meant to monitor them. In this case they dropped the ball and they shouldn't have.

El Siglo wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous, and I do standby what I've said. You're defending paedophiles by attributing what they do to some diminished mental responsibility by attributing their actions to some 'addiction' etc... I mean I'm liberal enough at the best of times but this is taking the biscuit.

It's been put forward many times that it may be an addiction, if this addiction could be controlled before they feel the need to act on them then that's the way to go. Much better than getting people after they commit. Again, if society understood that it is an addiction and offered more help and understanding in controlling it, the issue mightn't be as prolific as it is.

El Siglo wrote: »

I'm so sad for them, that's terrible so it is... Do you honestly think people here will ever shed a tear for a paedophile topping themselves? Isn't it a pity they don't all do that then, instead of raping and abusing children. Wow, the mental torment of being a paedophile is pretty bad, but what do you think it's like for a victim? No, you don't care about victims at all, do you? If you did, you wouldn't post such rubbish.

I don't care? I understand people manipulating and attributing words to suit their own agenda but here you've just completely fabricated something, attributed it to me and had a go at me for it?!?

Unlike you, I feel extremely sorry for someone who has such an urge through no fault of their own feeling they have to end their life to end it.

El Siglo wrote: »

I don't, nor does anyone care why someone is fucked up, but if they break the law then they should be held accountable, regardless of how fucked up they might be.

That's right, nobody else cares, keep assuming you speak for everyone.

El Siglo wrote: »

You're not seeing that at all, are you? I'd rather spend the money helping victims as opposed to helping criminals, primarily as you've asserted they (paedophiles) have developed and grown in this manner (i.e. they're born this way). A victim of sexual abuse and the trauma endured as a result was brought on by the actions of these individuals, so why should a victim have to suffer unduly as a result of someone else's actions or from their "condition"? Paedophiles, like murderers have to live with what they've done, that's their problem. Spend the money helping victims not paedophiles.

Never said they're born that way but you seem pretty content to make things up and attribute them to me. Your method of fixing things is not just a quick fix but a flawed quick fix. The abused children you speak of, some may even grow up to be paedophiles themselves. Locking them up in a normal jail one by one is not fixing anything in the long term. Incarcerate them in psychological facilities and analyse them, seeking for the reason they commit these crimes or have these urges then maybe you might be able to solve the problem at it's core?

prinz wrote: »

..and if it was a single man with no kids, no wife, on the dole and and all round thug you wouldn't feel sorry for them? Do you realise how ridiculous all this "pillar of the community" stuff is to get one person a lighter sentence than another for the same crime? I'd suggest indulging in child pornography, which is a byproduct of a real live child being abused and raped, is a little more than "simply viewing some images"....

I said it would depend on the crime, I'm not a judge dishing out individual sentences here. The person obviously knows that when he views these images, he is in fact endorsing child abuse but that's how string these urges must be. Willing to risk their entire life (wife, kids, etc.) to view them tells me that these urges must be extremely strong and I still believe that with the right help, they may be controlled but not with societies attitudes towards demonising them.

prinz wrote: »

Do you think the fact that they lost all that because of alcoholism should be completely covered up and kept silent?

No, but an alcoholic isn't going to be hounded out of his home for being an alcoholic.

prinz wrote: »

There are counselling services all over the country... and telephone services.. and professionals to approach in confidentiality.... Now it's tendancies, I though before it was an addiction..

Tendencies lead to addiction.

actuallylike

El Siglo wrote: »

The bit I've highlighted in bold actually makes me sick. I'm actually disgusted reading that one line. You obviously haven't a fucking clue about what you're talking about, have you? I'm actually fucking fuming now. An absolutely despicable thing to say. I really don't know whether you're trolling or being serious, but in either case that's an incredibly twisted post.

I'm done with this shit, you're not worth the fucking ban from AH.

don't worry about, through with you as well. I've tried to be reasonable, explore new avenues and ideas and you've just cursed and blinded through each one attributing me to not caring about abused kids when really I'm exploring better ways to stop it from ever happening in the first place. Make a cup of tea and defume.

sollar

actuallylike your views are crazy. I can't believe you would feel sorry for the good old pillar of the community if caught doing wrong.

Its not an addiction, its a completely unhealthy attraction to children. One that is entirely their problem to deal with or else they will experience the full force of the law. No analysis, no excuses, no nothing... acting on their urges is always wrong and will never be tolerated by society.

Alice1

Sentencing on July 18th - considering who is on the bench I don't hold out hope for any lengthy sentence.

I believe that lengthy sentences are called for in such circumstances - not necessarily because I believe it helps to prevent recidivism or even act as a deterrent - but because I believe that society has a right and a need to be protected from such people.

I found some of the posts by actuallylike somewhat chilling. As a parent, I consider crimes against children despicable - the sexual abuse of children I find particularly abhorrent. I was always taught that the one thing that puts humans above animals is that we can control our urges.

MungBean

Anyone who had anything to do with that man keeping his job, from the judges stupid suspended sentence to the staff at the school should be forced to resign and put on the sex offenders register themselves. They might as well have held the kids down while he raped them. Kids had no way to avoid it when the entire system allowed a known paedo access to them in a place where they should have been protected. I hope they all die a screaming.

goat2

I think it should stay hidden as long as society is not willing to accept it as something they may not have been able to control. A thief who turns over a new leaf and tries to be productive would generally get some support from society but not a paedophile,



i would find a way of forgining a thief who steal something from me, but i shure as hell would and could never forgive a peadophile who would rape my son or daughter, in fact i think they should be on a public register with details of their name address and a picture id for all to see, so that people can proper protect their children,

7sr2z3fely84g5

goat2 wrote: »

in fact i think they should be on a public register with details of their name address and a picture id for all to see, so that people can proper protect their children,

Offenders in most cases get named and photos in the papers,but sometimes mob justice for an offender isn't enough for some people,look at larry m's innocent brother and his family getting abuse.

actuallylike

sollar wrote: »

actuallylike your views are crazy. I can't believe you would feel sorry for the good old pillar of the community if caught doing wrong.

Its not an addiction, its a completely unhealthy attraction to children. One that is entirely their problem to deal with or else they will experience the full force of the law. No analysis, no excuses, no nothing... acting on their urges is always wrong and will never be tolerated by society.

Admittedly, the 'pillar of community' bit I should have left out. What I meant was that I feel sorry for anyone who on the outside seems perfectly normal (family man, etc.) but is really battling such a severe obsession/addiction on the inside. It must be hell, obviously the hell of the victims is much worse and all I'm trying to do here is get people out of the 'kill em all and it'll be okay' mentality and think about it with an open mind. Why do they do these things and how can it be stopped before it happens? That's the key in my opinion.

You say, the attraction is unhealthy. Does that mean you think there may be a way to make them 'healthy'? You say it's nobody elses problem? Why not? Why can't people be involved to help stop this problem? Why do they have to face it alone? Also these urges have been accepted by societies in the past, although I'm glad they're not now.

Alice1 wrote: »

I found some of the posts by actuallylike somewhat chilling. As a parent, I consider crimes against children despicable - the sexual abuse of children I find particularly abhorrent. I was always taught that the one thing that puts humans above animals is that we can control our urges.

What exactly chilled you? I never condoned paedophilia, I'm offering ideas to eradicate it. You say that as a parent you find crimes against children abhorent. I'm not a parent and guess what...

ME TOO!!!

At no point did I condone it or say it was okay, once again fabricating stuff. You say humans can control their urges? Well you know what, not all can, they're called addictions and in my opinion they should be helped to overcome them so they can be functioning parts of society. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that there are child molesters out there who revel in what they do, I am not speaking for them. I am speaking for the people out there right now with these urges brewing inside them with nowhere to go because of fear of hatred and disgust from the public (even though they haven't actually done anything apart from having thoughts).

This started with the discussion about whether the sex offender list should become public and my opinion was that the general public could not be trusted to refrain from doing anything violent towards offenders or even their families and I think the attitude in the post below shows how crazy and extreme some people's beliefs are. May as well have held them down? All die screaming? Medieval to say the least. We live in a civilised society and that means we treat people civilised regardless of what they do, this lynch mob mentality belongs in The Simpsons.

Skunkle wrote: »

Anyone who had anything to do with that man keeping his job, from the judges stupid suspended sentence to the staff at the school should be forced to resign and put on the sex offenders register themselves. They might as well have held the kids down while he raped them. Kids had no way to avoid it when the entire system allowed a known paedo access to them in a place where they should have been protected. I hope they all die a screaming.

goat2 wrote: »

i would find a way of forgining a thief who steal something from me, but i shure as hell would and could never forgive a peadophile who would rape my son or daughter, in fact i think they should be on a public register with details of their name address and a picture id for all to see, so that people can proper protect their children,

The concept of protecting your children is fine but you know that it wouldn't just lay at 'stay away from him'. There'd be lynch mobs out to get them. Also, I'm not asking you to forgive someone who committed these atrocities to your own family, I couldn't forgive someone but that's a personal issue and has no place in the law.

goat2

This started with the discussion about whether the sex offender list should become public and my opinion was that the general public could not be trusted to refrain from doing anything violent towards offenders or even their families and I think the attitude in the post below shows how crazy and extreme some people's beliefs are. May as well have held them down? All die screaming? Medieval to say the least. We live in a civilised society and that means we treat people civilised regardless of what they do, this lynch mob mentality belongs in The Simpsons.

Quote: we do live in a civilised society, so do you call these scum who hold down children while they rape them, children screaming from pain. in some cases being filmed to be distributed to other scum, i think the scum should die screaming

actuallylike

goat2 wrote: »

we do live in a civilised society, so do you call these scum who hold down children while they rape them, children screaming from pain. in some cases being filmed to be distributed to other scum, i think the scum should die screaming

Agreed, it's absolutely horrific and despicable and in know way should it be tolerated but I'm after the reason's why they do it and how these reasons can be stopped. Do I have an answer? No. Do I believe there is one out there? Yes, hopefully.

Also, no need for the graphical image, your point is valid enough without it, no need for shock tactics.

sollar

I'd be quite happy with the death penalty for convicted child abusers.

theg81der

Everyone is all up in arms here, as am I, but nothing has changed there is still the same percentage of paedo`s and people are ignoring signs and not desiring to rock the boat.

I had a friend and her niece displayed classic abused behaviour - obviously could have been attributed to other things not saying there was only one option but given the families odd behaviour things added up - I said this to her as she was concerned about the behaviour - she dismissed it immediately and changed the subject like I`d brought a plague on her house.

We all know other people - men, women, kids, do you really think you don`t know someone who is being abused or abusing? How keen would you be to tackle your suspitions? what would it take for you to confront your brother? friend? neighbour? would you want to know? he`s probably their favourite uncle, funniest guy in the pub, popular, successful, would you believe it even if it was accused? alot of the victims are seens as not credible because they are so messed up - oh that girls promiscuous, thats guys a drug addict, she`s a liar she`s a bad rep........ no couldn`t be that guy. Nothing has changed.

actuallylike

theg81der wrote: »

Everyone is all up in arms here, as am I, but nothing has changed there is still the same percentage of paedo`s and people are ignoring signs and not desiring to rock the boat.

I had a friend and her niece displayed classic abused behaviour - obviously could have been attributed to other things not saying there was only one option but given the families odd behaviour things added up - I said this to her as she was concerned about the behaviour - she dismissed it immediately and changed the subject like I`d brought a plague on her house.

We all know other people - men, women, kids, do you really think you don`t know someone who is being abused or abusing? How keen would you be to tackle your suspitions? what would it take for you to confront your brother? friend? neighbour? would you want to know? he`s probably their favourite uncle, funniest guy in the pub, popular, successful, would you believe it even if it was accused? alot of the victims are seens as not credible because they are so messed up - oh that girls promiscuous, thats guys a drug addict, she`s a liar she`s a bad rep........ no couldn`t be that guy. Nothing has changed.

I completely agree, the sad fact is that majority of child abuse is committed by either a relative or family friend (might need a source for that but sure I heard it somewhere). The concept of the pervy old man behind the bushes isn't the only threat out there. The media use specific terms when describing them, they use terms like 'monster' or 'animal'. Reason being so everyone reading can immediately distance themselves from them with the thought of "Oh well, I don't know any monsters or animals, this doesn't effect me at all".

red sean

WindSock wrote: »

At the very least they could have had a sign up saying 'Do not touch Willie'

I certainly do'nt think this is a laughing matter. And I'd say most others do'nt either.

MungBean

actuallylike wrote: »

The concept of protecting your children is fine but you know that it wouldn't just lay at 'stay away from him'. There'd be lynch mobs out to get them. Also, I'm not asking you to forgive someone who committed these atrocities to your own family, I couldn't forgive someone but that's a personal issue and has no place in the law.

I couldnt care less about lynch mobs. Thats for the paedo to worry about. Your valuing his safety over the safety of his future victims. And I dont see the point in having him on a sex offenders register when he is allowed to continue working in an environment where he could and did abuse more kids. The persons responsible for allowing that are just as guilty as him for those crimes.

What your saying is the law should protect him but not his victims.

please ignore.

Alice1

actuallylike wrote: »

What exactly chilled you? I never condoned paedophilia, I'm offering ideas to eradicate it. You say that as a parent you find crimes against children abhorent. I'm not a parent and guess what...

ME TOO!!!

At no point did I condone it or say it was okay, once again fabricating stuff.

actuallylike, I did not suggest that you condoned paedophilla nor did I suggest that you said it was okay and I most assuredly did not "fabricate stuff"

Lord TSC

Skunkle wrote: »

I couldnt care less about lynch mobs. Thats for the paedo to worry about. Your valuing his safety over the safety of his future victims. And I dont see the point in having him on a sex offenders register when he is allowed to continue working in an environment where he could and did abuse more kids. The persons responsible for allowing that are just as guilty as him for those crimes.

What your saying is the law should protect him but not his victims.

While I think actuallylike is going about thinks a bit heavy-handedly, this post is nonsense...

1. It's not just for the pedo to worry about, it's innocent family members who have no choice in the pedo's actions but will be attacked. Its people who are put on the register for stupid reasons. It's people who have the same name. Its people who will be wrongly accused of being on the list due to rumors and personal vandettas held for other reasons.

2. No one is saying pedos should be allowed work in those environments. Everyone on both sides have said that should never and should not have happened. Don't put words into people's mouths and dont try adding to arguements like that.

3. Again, no one is saying not to protect victims and again you're trying to make out people who disagree with you to be putting forward an arguement we're not. There's a way to protect victims without creating a vigilant justice list that will result in the wrong people being targeted...

Johnny D. Mudd

This specific is not typed to address the topic itself but rather a post by actuallylike which is a byproduct of the OP.

actuallylike, first off I can see what point you are trying to make and can appreciate that you can't quite put your point across in a manner that makes others understand your point. I can appreciate that part but there is one part that is diminishing the strength of your argument here. The point you are obviously trying to make is that a paedophile is troubled by his abnormal predilection for children which is partly true. However, you must understand that paedophiles may have urges but the important matter is that they are still in control of those urges. The compulsion does not validate their acting upon it nor does it excuse them from any punishment for engaging in such a vile act.

You must understand that there is a vast difference between a compulsion and diminished responsibility. Having a sexual urge for children is not to be seen as having diminished responsibility. Someone who is not in control of their faculties is not aware of the consequences of engaging in a criminal act. A paedophile, though following an abnormal urge is still aware of the repercussions of engaging in such an act and thus is aware of the criminal consequences that would follow. This then does not mean that they are under any diminished capacity.

But this type of differentiating is pointless because the main sticking point here is that the argument doesn't revolve around any type of broken psychology reasoning as the act between the person engaging in this type of behaviour isn't consensual, it's an enforced sexual act upon an unwilling victim. That fact itself deems the act unforgivable as despite having an abnormal tendency the person engaging in this act is fully aware of the consequences of such a crime. So no amount of "diminished responsibility" justifies such a crime nor does it even offer a reasonable excuse for participating in such an act. So let's not pretend that a man participating in such an act is a poor man for having such urges as he is still in full control of his faculties.


And for those bemoaning the lack of justice for this man's crimes, let's not forget just how unforgivable prison is for this breed of criminal. He's at the bottom of the totem pole and his best hope is that news of his crimes doesn't reach the ears of his fellow inmates, otherwise he may find his time behind bars to be more than a little intolerable.

MungBean

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

While I think actuallylike is going about thinks a bit heavy-handedly, this post is nonsense...

1. It's not just for the pedo to worry about, it's innocent family members who have no choice in the pedo's actions but will be attacked. Its people who are put on the register for stupid reasons. It's people who have the same name. Its people who will be wrongly accused of being on the list due to rumors and personal vandettas held for other reasons.

2. No one is saying pedos should be allowed work in those environments. Everyone on both sides have said that should never and should not have happened. Don't put words into people's mouths and dont try adding to arguements like that.

3. Again, no one is saying not to protect victims and again you're trying to make out people who disagree with you to be putting forward an arguement we're not. There's a way to protect victims without creating a vigilant justice list that will result in the wrong people being targeted...

I misread his post.

MungBean

actuallylike wrote: »

This started with the discussion about whether the sex offender list should become public and my opinion was that the general public could not be trusted to refrain from doing anything violent towards offenders or even their families and I think the attitude in the post below shows how crazy and extreme some people's beliefs are. May as well have held them down? All die screaming? Medieval to say the least. We live in a civilised society and that means we treat people civilised regardless of what they do, this lynch mob mentality belongs in The Simpsons.

How are my views extreme ? Its extreme to think that a convicted paedophile should not work in a school ? The "may as well have held them down" is relevant. Those kids were left with a convicted paedophile who had a history of rape. In your haste to defend the rights of paedophiles I think you've forgotten why people are so angered about this. Children were sexually abused and raped and the state allowed it to happen.

Its not lynch mobs you should be worrying about its the fúckin CHILD ABUSE.

randylonghorn

Skunkle wrote: »

Its not lynch mobs you should be worrying about its the fúckin CHILD ABUSE.

Why not make every effort to avoid both, like?

Neither has any place in a civilised society.

MungBean

randylonghorn wrote: »

Why not make every effort to avoid both, like?

Neither has any place in a civilised society.

I'm in favour of avoiding both I havent said otherwise but it seems every effort is being made to avoid one of them and it isnt child abuse. I'm of the opinion that when the state allows a convicted paedo to work in a school that something must be done. And that something isnt worrying about the paedo's safety.

randylonghorn

Skunkle wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that when the state allows a convicted paedo to work in a school that something must be done.

I absolutely agree, see my earlier post in this thread (#71).

mackg

randylonghorn wrote: »

All such posts working with or even in the vicinity of children are now subject to Garda vetting. It's not necessary to make the sex offenders' list public in order to close this particular hole, it's already been closed. Systems may not be perfect now, but they have improved a lot.




Going back to the original story though, how in the name of jebus though was he retained in the school after conviction?

Terrible, shocking, unforgivable fail on the part of the Board of Management and even the principal / any staff who were aware of this.

I wonder if the garda vetting missed him because he was already in the position and you only have to go through it when you apply. When did the laws on garda vetting come into place, maybe the case preceeded it. You would have to imagine a check of all people that were employed in these positions at the time the laws were introduced would have taken place. All that would have been necessary would be to ask all schools, youth clubs etc to give a list of employees to their local garda station and then cross referencing it with the sex offenders register.

prinz

actuallylike wrote: »

I said it would depend on the crime, I'm not a judge dishing out individual sentences here...

Yeah, that's all I need to know tbh. Different people should not be treated or viewed differently for committing the same crime.

actuallylike

Johnny D. Mudd wrote: »

The compulsion does not validate their acting upon it nor does it excuse them from any punishment for engaging in such a vile act.

You must understand that there is a vast difference between a compulsion and diminished responsibility. Having a sexual urge for children is not to be seen as having diminished responsibility. Someone who is not in control of their faculties is not aware of the consequences of engaging in a criminal act. A paedophile, though following an abnormal urge is still aware of the repercussions of engaging in such an act and thus is aware of the criminal consequences that would follow. This then does not mean that they are under any diminished capacity.

But this type of differentiating is pointless because the main sticking point here is that the argument doesn't revolve around any type of broken psychology reasoning as the act between the person engaging in this type of behaviour isn't consensual, it's an enforced sexual act upon an unwilling victim. That fact itself deems the act unforgivable as despite having an abnormal tendency the person engaging in this act is fully aware of the consequences of such a crime. So no amount of "diminished responsibility" justifies such a crime nor does it even offer a reasonable excuse for participating in such an act. So let's not pretend that a man participating in such an act is a poor man for having such urges as he is still in full control of his faculties.


And for those bemoaning the lack of justice for this man's crimes, let's not forget just how unforgivable prison is for this breed of criminal. He's at the bottom of the totem pole and his best hope is that news of his crimes doesn't reach the ears of his fellow inmates, otherwise he may find his time behind bars to be more than a little intolerable.

You make a good point, you say that they are in control of their actions. I would imagine that some argue that they are not. Again, it's all well and good for us who do not have these feelings/urges/addictions to say they would not act on it but I can only imagine what must be running through their heads constantly and there is no consensual release for it. Alcoholics have drink, gambling addicts have bookies, sex addicts have prostitutes maybe. I can imagine the build up and the lack of communication with anyone about it must be horrific. Now, when I see a child abuse case, believe me I don't say 'Ah, that poor fella, he must have been so troubled'. Believe me, my thoughts are with the victim, and I hate the abuser for following through with his actions but I'm not going to simply label him as 'twisted', lock him up and be content with the 'problem' being fixed. There must be a way to fix this at the root and I think societies attitudes to it must change first so anyone with these feelings can come forward without fear of judgement.

Reading back on your post, I think there just might have to be an agreement to disagree. You say they are in control, I say in some cases, they aren't. that's just how I feel and it's been documented many times that the urges are uncontrollable. I agree about the prison though because like it or lump it, the treatment they receive in jail goes against the concept of a rehabilitating jail in my opinion.

Skunkle wrote: »

How are my views extreme ? Its extreme to think that a convicted paedophile should not work in a school ? The "may as well have held them down" is relevant. Those kids were left with a convicted paedophile who had a history of rape. In your haste to defend the rights of paedophiles I think you've forgotten why people are so angered about this. Children were sexually abused and raped and the state allowed it to happen.

Its not lynch mobs you should be worrying about its the fúckin CHILD ABUSE.

It's extreme to place judges who make a judgement based on the law on the sex offender's list.

It's extreme to compare them to holding down children to be raped.

It's extreme to hope that someone/anyone dies screaming.

MungBean

actuallylike wrote: »

It's extreme to place judges who make a judgement based on the law on the sex offender's list.

It's extreme to compare them to holding down children to be raped.

It's extreme to hope that someone/anyone dies screaming.

So you took what I said as meaning I literally wanted judges on the sex offenders list, I think they DID hold the kids down and that I actually want them to die screaming. You then used that (one angry person on the internet) as proof that there is an inherent violence in Irish people and that publishing the register would lead to the death of paedophiles ?

It was extreme to say those things yes but they are not views of what should be done. They are over the top statements. Thing you have to understand is this is the internet. If I say paedo's should be shot on the internet doesnt mean that if one moved in next door I'm gonna shoot him.

Lord TSC

They are over the top statements. Thing you have to understand is this is the internet. If I say paedo's should be shot on the internet doesnt mean that if one moved in next door I'm gonna shoot him.

On an offtopic bit then, I've never understood the previlance of hyperbole on the internet. Is it the joys of the anonymity provided by a username? I can't help but find that OTT statements only ever serve to weaken arguements in discussions like this but they become commonplace...

MungBean

actuallylike wrote: »

You make a good point, you say that they are in control of their actions. I would imagine that some argue that they are not. Again, it's all well and good for us who do not have these feelings/urges/addictions to say they would not act on it but I can only imagine what must be running through their heads constantly and there is no consensual release for it. Alcoholics have drink, gambling addicts have bookies, sex addicts have prostitutes maybe. I can imagine the build up and the lack of communication with anyone about it must be horrific. Now, when I see a child abuse case, believe me I don't say 'Ah, that poor fella, he must have been so troubled'. Believe me, my thoughts are with the victim, and I hate the abuser for following through with his actions but I'm not going to simply label him as 'twisted', lock him up and be content with the 'problem' being fixed. There must be a way to fix this at the root and I think societies attitudes to it must change first so anyone with these feelings can come forward without fear of judgement.

The reason they are locked up is to remove them from society where they cannot cause any more harm or abuse other kids. It is a problem, they are twisted. They take pleasure from abusing and raping children. You cant fix that with a bit of counselling no more than you can stop someone being attracted to women or men. And seeing as you cant stop them having those urges then they should not be permitted to be in a position to act on them.

They are not called monsters for the hell of it. People see them as monsters, they prey on the vulnerability of children and abuse them to gain sexual gratification. I know it cant be easy for them trying to fight those urges but the fact that they have them means they are dangerous and I dont have much pity for them. No more than I'd have pity for someone with an anger problem beating his wife. Some things are inexcusable.