Child Molester at Work

[Locke]

Clearly someone in the office now has to commit a more egregious felony to get their Alpha-coworker status back.

Now that I've made my joke, I'll toss my 2 cents into this topic:

Not directed at you TA, just on the topic in general.

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Pedo's aren't the kind of criminals that can be welcomed back to society on an even keel just because they "did their time". As stated, the stats on re-offenders pretty much speak for themselves.

No they dont. Re-Offender stats are pretty much useless. Everyone gets a second chance, just because 75% of the people who got their second chance wasted it doesnt mean that nobody else is entitled to theirs.

Whatever entirely unrelated individuals do with their opportunities has no bearing on anyone but themselves.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Locke

Clearly someone in the office now has to commit a more egregious felony to get their Alpha-coworker status back.

Now that I've made my joke, I'll toss my 2 cents into this topic:

Not directed at you TA, just on the topic in general.


No they dont. Re-Offender stats are pretty much useless. Everyone gets a second chance, just because 75% of the people who got their second chance wasted it doesnt mean that nobody else is entitled to theirs.

Whatever entirely unrelated individuals do with their opportunities has no bearing on anyone but themselves.

This thread has been pretty odd and there's been some pretty strange posts. One of those threads you regret reading just because you don't know how to address so many odd, well-thought-out, and diverse opinions.

That said, this was a brilliant comment I thought and worth remembering.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Locke

Not directed at you TA, just on the topic in general.


No they dont. Re-Offender stats are pretty much useless. Everyone gets a second chance, just because 75% of the people who got their second chance wasted it doesnt mean that nobody else is entitled to theirs.

I can agree with that. This thread has been in my head for a bit today, and after re-reading it I came to this:

Perhaps pedophilia is something that medical science and psychologists really have no idea about yet. Hundred years from now who knows? We'll probably have great grand kids saying things like "OMG! You had to TOUCH your computer?????!!!!! And you burned down rainforests and drove things that burned gas!!!???? Are you stupid?"

Not really fair to say one has never heard of a reformed pedophile, because I think thats the idea. Once reformed, who would want to say anything about it. Ever?

The inherent issue is like CalgaryBorn said:

Originally Posted by CalgaryBorn

Sexually abusing a child is an assault against society itself. We protect our children and watch out for our neighbor's children. They are seen as worthy of special consideration and care.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I guess there wont be anymore bring your kids to work days at your office DA?

Wow. People around here have sharp memories. I said in the original post that a search of CP would reveal which government agency. Some people even remember the thread.

That was brought up and the counselors said that likely the man will be told to take that day off.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Concessions and special treatment??? I think you are undervaluing the impact a pedophile has on his/her victims. As I've said we had a similar instance within the church I attend. Those who had been abused suffered while the guy was still there. I was easily able to look at the situation and use reason. I didn't feel the violation or the terror that these ladies felt. He couldn't harm them but, his presence churned up those feelings within them.

I'm not clear, was the the guy the actual abuser of the abused? Or the people had been abused by someone else and just felt because this guy was also a pedophile that somehow that threatened them?

If it was their actual abuser, yes I could see how that would be more difficult to cope with, someone should find a different church in that case.

If it was just some other random guy, then sorry but while I do understand that his presence would "churn up those feelings", I don't think that's reason enough to, what, boot the guy from church? What church isn't going to have people who have been abused? You're saying this guy shouldn't be allowed to go to church at all? What if he's in church to try and get help, isn't church where he should be going?

What if it's not a pedophile, but a rapist who served his time and is out now? If someone in your church had been raped, does that mean the rapist has to be evicted from the church just so someone doesn't feel bad?

Or a guy who beat his wife? Yelled at his kids?

If a person is a clear danger to society, lock them up. If they aren't then they're free and have the same rights as the rest of us.

If someone who's been abused gets emotions they can't deal with when they enter the same building as a pedophile, I think that person needs help with their mind. Being abused is a terrible thing, but it doesn't have to be so debilitating (yes for some people it is, but I think with help it's possible for those people to become stronger).

I pick my standard of justice, naturally. But I could live with something close to mine. You would think if the goal was a penalty equal to the seriousness of the crime we could probably come close to one another's opinion. At the very least in the end we could both say: he recieved a degree of punishment. The problem is by almost every Canadian's standards this fellow still has a debt to pay. Those who feel this way should express it and act accordingly.

Definitely, laws don't change without input from the people.

I'm not a big proponent of punishment, it doesn't really accomplish anything, I could see where it is a deterrent and that works for things like running a red light or drinking and driving, but for the really extreme stuff it doesn't really mean anything.. how many pedophiles are there that sit in their basement and say "man, if only it wasn't illegal, oh well, I guess I'll play some golf." or how many sociopaths think "gee, that guy got a lot of prison time, maybe I shouldn't kill and eat this person"? In those cases punishment doesn't mean anything, and until we can actually know how to fix those people no solution is satisfying.

[photon]

And I find it disturbing to see "CP" in this thread and realize it stands for both CalgaryPuck and child porn

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by photon

And I find it disturbing to see "CP" in this thread and realize it stands for both CalgaryPuck and child porn

That sucks. Gotta love abbreviations on teh intrawebz...

Semi-related and not worthy of its own post.

How exactly is chemical castration done? I don't really want to google that at work with Big Brother watching.

How often is it done? Is it only repeat offenders?

Re: OP & comments about him pleading guilty:

Has he been forced to take a bunch of counseling or is that not available information?

[photon]

The article I read said that Depo-Provera (sp?) is used for chemical castration, the same thing that women use for birth control. I think it's an injection and lasts 3 months.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm not clear, was the the guy the actual abuser of the abused? Or the people had been abused by someone else and just felt because this guy was also a pedophile that somehow that threatened them?

He abused his stepdaughter while a member of the church. His stepdaughter told her mother about it when she was about twenty and living out of the house. The fellow was promptly kicked out of their home. Both him and his wife continued to attend church albeit separately. The matter was brought before the church in a meeting with him seeking forgiveness from the church. He was forgiven by mostly everybody there but, made to understand that trust had been broken and would take time to mend. His wife said she could never forgive him. She was asked if she could cope with him attending the same services. She said she could. Before this was public knowledge he had been instructed to attend only evening services so she wouldn't have to see him in the morning services. He also said he was in counseling with the Pastor and would continue. This situation continued for about 8 months. That's where I got a first hand view of the difficulty of such a situation for those who had suffered abuse. No one left over it but, you could see that they didn't feel comfortable in a place that had always been comfortable for them. I'm sure some stayed only because of their desire to support his ex wife in this difficult situation. After about 8 months the Pastor brought him before the church again. During counseling it was revealed that he recognized he had sinned by committing adultery. But he doesn't see himself as a pedophile. He believes the affair was mutually consented to even though the girl was only 13. He also maintains that she was 15 when the affair started. We then voted to "cast him out" of the church. It means he isn't permitted to attend any services and the church membership shouldn't maintain any contact with him unless it is counseling leading towards repentance.

Originally Posted by photon

You're saying this guy shouldn't be allowed to go to church at all? What if he's in church to try and get help, isn't church where he should be going?

The censorship is to try to help him. He needs to understand the seriousness of his sin. Churches are not mandated to punish sinners. Punishment is the responsibility of the state and of course God.

The reason I brought up the church incident was because through it I seen first hand the pain this fellow's presence brought to those who were at one time abused. In retrospect I can see validity in having just asked him to go. This would have caused him the pain rather than these women.

Originally Posted by photon

What if it's not a pedophile, but a rapist who served his time and is out now?

See you use a scenario where a fellow has hypothetically paid his debt and then you go on to say you don't believe in punishment:

Originally Posted by photon

I'm not a big proponent of punishment, it doesn't really accomplish anything, I could see where it is a deterrent and that works for things like running a red light or drinking and driving, but for the really extreme stuff it doesn't really mean anything.. how many pedophiles are there that sit in their basement and say "man, if only it wasn't illegal, oh well, I guess I'll play some golf." or how many sociopaths think "gee, that guy got a lot of prison time, maybe I shouldn't kill and eat this person"? In those cases punishment doesn't mean anything, and until we can actually know how to fix those people no solution is satisfying.

The whole idea of the biblical concept of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life was that one had to pay for their crimes. This command predates Moses and the law and you won't find a lot of eyes being plucked out or teeth being knocked in because of it. The principle God introduced was that a crime should be punished and that punishment should equal the seriousness of the crime. That was the basis of most law until modern times and unfortunately our government has moved away from it. Now there has to be a proven deterrence or a therapeutic value to punish. This does not facilitate justice.

The idea of someone paying their debt to society; doing their time; taking their lumps; meeting justice; making it right, is still a value most Canadians hold. It is a good value.

When someone escapes justice in our failing legal system he has in fact not paid his debt. In that scenario I won't take justice into my own hands but, I also won't pretend he is debt free and welcome him back into my community.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by fatso

This thread has been pretty odd and there's been some pretty strange posts. One of those threads you regret reading just because you don't know how to address so many odd, well-thought-out, and diverse opinions.

That said, this was a brilliant comment I thought and worth remembering.

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I just thought that people were getting written off without due process.

The guy made a mistake. A horrible mistake and he admitted that he did it, and that he needed help.

The lengths required to get to this point are extremely unfortunate.

[Buzzard]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

Switch "Pedo's" to "Jews", change "NUKE" to "GAS", take us out of Calgary 2008 and into Nuremberg 1937, and you'd make a great SS officer!

How can you compare being racist to hating pedos? Not even close.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

He abused his stepdaughter while a member of the church. His stepdaughter told her mother about it when she was about twenty and living out of the house. The fellow was promptly kicked out of their home. Both him and his wife continued to attend church albeit separately. The matter was brought before the church in a meeting with him seeking forgiveness from the church. He was forgiven by mostly everybody there but, made to understand that trust had been broken and would take time to mend. His wife said she could never forgive him. She was asked if she could cope with him attending the same services. She said she could. Before this was public knowledge he had been instructed to attend only evening services so she wouldn't have to see him in the morning services. He also said he was in counseling with the Pastor and would continue. This situation continued for about 8 months. That's where I got a first hand view of the difficulty of such a situation for those who had suffered abuse. No one left over it but, you could see that they didn't feel comfortable in a place that had always been comfortable for them. I'm sure some stayed only because of their desire to support his ex wife in this difficult situation. After about 8 months the Pastor brought him before the church again. During counseling it was revealed that he recognized he had sinned by committing adultery. But he doesn't see himself as a pedophile. He believes the affair was mutually consented to even though the girl was only 13. He also maintains that she was 15 when the affair started. We then voted to "cast him out" of the church. It means he isn't permitted to attend any services and the church membership shouldn't maintain any contact with him unless it is counseling leading towards repentance.

Yikes, that's messed up. I've seen a similar situation, though it was a true pedophile (13 isn't really pedophile, there's a different word for it I think, pedophile means attracted to prepubescent).. It's a total no win situation.

The censorship is to try to help him. He needs to understand the seriousness of his sin. Churches are not mandated to punish sinners. Punishment is the responsibility of the state and of course God.

True, though in the context of Christianity I would think that some church where he has a pastor above him would be desirable.

The reason I brought up the church incident was because through it I seen first hand the pain this fellow's presence brought to those who were at one time abused. In retrospect I can see validity in having just asked him to go. This would have caused him the pain rather than these women.

I can agree with that, I'm can be pretty pragmatic and him finding another church would be the easiest thing. But he should be able to go somewhere.

See you use a scenario where a fellow has hypothetically paid his debt and then you go on to say you don't believe in punishment:

I did that because that's the way our legal system currently works.

The idea of someone paying their debt to society; doing their time; taking their lumps; meeting justice; making it right, is still a value most Canadians hold. It is a good value.

I don't totally disagree, but I think it doesn't apply evenly or appropriately to all situations.

In the extreme cases the punishment would be so extreme that whatever would be an appropriate level of eye for an eye punishment would end up being barbaric. I'm not saying I have a good alternative, the good alternative would be to HELP these people stop doing what they do, we just don't have the understanding to do that yet. We're at the bloodletting and leeches stage of mental health.

When someone escapes justice in our failing legal system he has in fact not paid his debt. In that scenario I won't take justice into my own hands but, I also won't pretend he is debt free and welcome him back into my community.

To me that's still taking justice into your own hands; you don't feel the level of punishment handed out was appropriate so you're going to hand out your own punishment. Passive aggressive vigilantism?

I can understand the sentiment, having been around a similar situation.

I wish there were better answers to stuff like this.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

How can you compare being racist to hating pedos? Not even close.

One doesn't choose do be of Jewish descent. Do you think pedophiles choose to be what they are?

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by photon

One doesn't choose do be of Jewish descent. Do you think pedophiles choose to be what they are?

If you are saying they don't choose then that means that they can't change, so why release them?

[photon]

Good question. Maybe we shouldn't, I think I raised the question of some kind of commune or something earlier. Or the chemical castration?

I don't think it's black and white, it's probably like anything else in life, there's a predisposition to it varying by degrees between individuals and then choices and circumstances later on impact things too.

And I know it's possible for some of them to keep things under control long term.

I just asked the question because the comparison of nazi's racism to hatred of pedophiles was questioned, and I thought the question of if a pedo chooses their condition was meaningful in that context.

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

How can you compare being racist to hating pedos? Not even close.

The corelation of "Pedo's" today and "Jews" under the Third Reich becomes more clear when you remember that both were/are thought to be something less than a human being.

That is the danger that we need to remind ourselves of in regards to this particular topic.

[BuzzardsWife]

This thread creeps me out.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by photon

Good question. Maybe we shouldn't, I think I raised the question of some kind of commune or something earlier. Or the chemical castration?

I don't think it's black and white, it's probably like anything else in life, there's a predisposition to it varying by degrees between individuals and then choices and circumstances later on impact things too.

And I know it's possible for some of them to keep things under control long term.

I just asked the question because the comparison of nazi's racism to hatred of pedophiles was questioned, and I thought the question of if a pedo chooses their condition was meaningful in that context.

I agree that this is not a cut and dried issue but nothing scares me more than saying that a Pedo has no choice but to be a pedo. Once we go there we can get into people being pre-disposed to violent sex so they can't help it that they rape someone. Deviant behavior is a choice imo, but I am no shrink.

Originally Posted by BuzzardsWife

This thread creeps me out.

It's so scary it has made you afriad of useful contribution

[photon]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I agree that this is not a cut and dried issue but nothing scares me more than saying that a Pedo has no choice but to be a pedo. Once we go there we can get into people being pre-disposed to violent sex so they can't help it that they rape someone. Deviant behavior is a choice imo, but I am no shrink.

Yes it's important to distinguish between thoughts and actions.

While I don't think that people have much choice about being a pedo, they do have the choice to act on it or not.

Sex is a very basic urge in us, what percentage of the population could actually go celibate? The rest have an attraction they can't act out on, that will either cause all kinds of psychological problems, or will build up until they DO act out and cause harm to others. So it's not as simple as "don't do it", that's like telling you "don't sleep with any girls again ever", far easier said than done.

[BuzzardsWife]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I agree that this is not a cut and dried issue but nothing scares me more than saying that a Pedo has no choice but to be a pedo. Once we go there we can get into people being pre-disposed to violent sex so they can't help it that they rape someone. Deviant behavior is a choice imo, but I am no shrink.



It's so scary it has made you afriad of useful contribution

NO just very disturbed by the whole thing..not afraid at all. It's just a subject that is very personal and has personal opinions that I don't think anyone can argue with. I think people that have never been molested or had their child molested and think the pedo has rights just kinda makes me nuts, so I think I'm done with this thread. Everyone is entitled to their opinions obviously, but its just such a touchy subject.