Sex offenders treatable?

[V15U4L_3RR0R]

I know that what I am about to say will get me flamed and most if not all of you will disagree and tell me to go screw myself and that's fine but I'm going to say it anyway.

In my opinion, pedophillia is a sexual preference just like being gay or straight or whatever. They can't help it just you you or I can't help who we are attracted to. There are plenty of people out there who know that they are attracted to children and live in fear every day in case someone finds out and bricks their windows or whatever. There are a few paedophiles out there who go out and seek help willingly.

And just like any other human being (and yes I still see them as human beings despite many people telling me other wise) they have to make a choice and like every other human being they make mistakes that they will have to pay for, for the rest of their lives. So I believe that they should be helped along with the people they attacked.

I also believe that most cases of rape out there are not pre meditated.

 

[ratmist]

I think that if a pedophile seeks help to prevent him or herself from abusing minors, he/she should get it, period. Not every pedophile actually goes on to commit offences, and these people should be supported through their disease so we can prevent abuse before it happens.

It's the ones that don't know they can be helped or don't want to accept that they need to change who pose a bigger threat.

 

[V15U4L_3RR0R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist I think that if a pedophile seeks help to prevent him or herself from abusing minors, he/she should get it, period. Not every pedophile actually goes on to commit offences, and these people should be supported through their disease so we can prevent abuse before it happens. It's the ones that don't know they can be helped or don't want to accept that they need to change who pose a bigger threat.

I agree with that.

 

[Beauty Mark]

In a sense, I suppose it is a sexual preference, like bestiality, necrophilia, and so on.

Is there any reason why someone who is physically abusive can be "reformed" and someone who is sexually abusive cannot? Or am I grossly wrong that an abuser can be helped?

 

[Girl about town]

i agree that a paedophile is attracted to children just like a heterosexual is attracted to the opposite sex and homosexuals the same, but the difference is if they cross the line and hurt another human being then they ahould be locked away and the key thrown away, everyone has a choice whether to cross the line or not!!. There are plenty of paedophiles out there who don't ever offend im sure!!

 

[Dizzy]

Homosexuality= relations between two consenting adults.

Pedophilia= relations between an adult, who is able to consent, and a child, who is not able to consent.

Both may possibly be "ways of life" for lack of a better term, but that's about where the similarities end. But I question why people are so quick to suggest therapy- didn't we encourage therapy for homosexuality in the early 20th century? Following that line of thought- shouldn't homosexuality have been "cured" by therapy years ago?*

The difference here is that people who are gay aren't intrinsically dangerous because of their sexuality. Pedophiles are a potential danger to victims who are sometimes too young to understand that they are a victim and that it is wrong. Just as therapy didn't "cure" homosexuality, I don't see how it could "cure" pedophilia.

You cannot control who you are attracted to; you can control with whom you choose to have sex (with the exception of rape victims).

*I don't believe this, I'm not supporting this; I'm paraphrasing what I understand to be the motivating thoughts behind why this was done for argument's sake.

 

[athena123]

Sex offenders are similar to drug addicts in the sense that they HAVE. TO. WANT. TO. STOP before any kind of therapy of rehabilitation can be possible. To get to THAT point, they have to see what what they are doing is wrong. If they don't see what they do is wrong, no amount of therapy will help and the only thing we can do as a society is keep them from doing harm to others, which means long prison sentences.

I think pedophiles are just another extreme form of what constitutes sexual taste, attraction and/or fetishes. Are we wired that way from the day we're born, or does our environment shape us or is this a combination of both? I don't know but I think it's a little of both.

Just as some men prefer brunettes, others prefer blonds, some like big tits, others don't. As a woman, I'm attracted to dark hair and light eyes. These factors constitute sexual attractions. Homosexuality, hetero or bisexuality are sexual preferences. People who like uniforms in the bedroom or are attracted to feet could be said to have sexual fetishes. All this is pretty harmless between two CONSENTING ADULTS.

The line is crossed when one party is neither consenting or an adult. At that point, the element of free choice is taken away from one and that's where sexual taste or fetish turns into a sickness that can cause harm to another person. Can these people be cured? Can I ever be cured of my attraction to dark haired, blue eyed men? Not unless they want to, IMHO.

 

[V15U4L_3RR0R]

Like I said, the therapy that pedophiles get is not meant as a cure. No one is saying that. It's about management of a behavior. If this kind of therapy helps someone to choose not to engage in pedophilia then I don't see how it's a bad thing.

Re homosexuality. In the UK the legal age of consent for gay people is 16. do you count those 16 year olds as adults then?

Define a consenting adult?

 

[athena123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by V15U4L_3RR0R Like I said, the therapy that pedophiles get is not meant as a cure. No one is saying that. It's about management of a behavior. If this kind of therapy helps someone to choose not to engage in pedophilia then I don't see how it's a bad thing. Re homosexuality. In the UK the legal age of consent for gay people is 16. do you count those 16 year olds as adults then? Define a consenting adult?

Visual, are you addressing me? I'm not objecting to therapy as a means to stop sex offenders. What I am saying is that unless they WANT to stop [ergo my comparison to drug addicts], therapy won't prevent sex offenders from preying on others. I used cure as a term and agree the word "cure" in these cases is inaccurate, since I don't think there IS a cure and that it's more about self-control.

On the UK's legal consent for gay people at 16, I don't think an age requirement is valid, any more than I think homosexuality is immoral. One of my nieces is gay. Her homosexuality is part of who she is, regardless of her age. She was gay before the age of 16 and 6 years later, she still is. What does age have to do with whether it's OK to be homosexual?

It's harder to define a consenting adult, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. It can be somewhat arbitrary, however. Some 16 year olds may be ready for a sexual relationship; I know I wasn't really ready then but that's just me. Others may not be ready until they turn 18 or 21. Yet others with mental deficiencies can be 30 years old and still not be considered a consenting adult if only because their incapacity prevents them from saying yes or no with any reasoning behind it.

I'd probably draw the arbitrary line at age 18; the definition of a legal adult in the USA.

 

[ratmist]

You can read excerpts from the book, "Relapse Prevention with Sex Offenders", using Google Books.

I recommend this chapter: "Can relapses be prevented? Initial Outcome Data from the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors".

Relapse Prevention with Sex Offenders - Google Book Search
​

You won't be able to read the entire chapter because Google only allows you to have a 'preview'. Neverthless it's interesting reading about what has worked and not worked in this topic, and details as to why.

Another paper:

W. L. Marshall, Robin Jones, Tony Ward, Peter Johnston and H. E. Barbaree, 1991. "Treatment outcome with sex offenders". Clinical Psychology Review Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 465-485.
​

(ScienceDirect - Clinical Psychology Review : Treatment outcome with sex offenders)
​

The abstract alone is worth reading.

"Previous reviews have taken either a severe methodological stance and concluded that treatments have not been demonstrated to be effective with sex offenders, or they have ignored methodological considerations and expounded about the value of particular treatment approaches.

We have attempted to adopt a position somewhere between these two and have concluded that some treatment programs have been effective with child molesters and exhibitionists but not, apparently, with rapists.

In examining the value of the different approaches, we concluded that comprehensive cognitive/behavioral programs (at least for child molesters, incest offenders, and exhibitionists) are most likely to be effective, although there is a clear value for the adjunctive use of antiandrogens with those offenders who engage in excessively high rates of sexual activities."

​

It's interesting that instead of calls for castration, there is the use of antiandrogens, which prevents or inhibits the biologic effects of male sex hormones (androgens), on normally responsive tissues in the body. I think we should be very careful about wanting to mutilate peoples' bodies when other options may be just as or even more effective.

Both studies admit 'cures' are out of the question. The chapter from the book above lists five advantages to relapse prevention strategies/therapies, which include:

1. A more realistic therapeutic goal of control versus cure
2. progressive transition versus abrupt discontinuation of treatment
3. reliance on multiple versus single sources of information about client maintenance
4. integration versus disaffiliation of mental health and probation or parole professionals
5. definition of behavioural maintenance as a continuum rather than an abstinence-relapse dichotomy

Those that would lock away and throw away the key, even to those that may be reintegrated safely into society, ask yourself... do you want to foot the bill? I certainly don't.

 

[ratmist]

One thing that frightens me about discussions on this topic is how quickly people want to physically hurt a sex offender with the justification that it will stop that offender's behaviour. The evidence from studies show this isn't actually effective at stopping offenders from their behaviour.

The Marshall et al. (1991) paper I cited above includes a section on physical interventions. This includes:

• stereotaxic ablation of central nervous system centers

In layman's terms, this is brain surgery to try to remove the area believed to be in charge of sexual behaviour (the ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus). The results are sickening.

A summary of some of the doctors involved in 1973 show that they performed this surgery on 22 patients, including 1 homosexual and 1 alcoholic. The fact that they did this for a homosexual and an alcoholic speaks volumes. 16 patients had molested boys or girls, 3 were exhibitionists, and 1 was characterised as a hypersexual nondeviant.

The majority of the molesters didn't change as a result of the brain surgery. The hypersexual nondeviant died as a result of the operation. The homosexual reported no relief from his homosexual tendencies (I guess he wanted to change), and the alcoholic received no benefit. One of the exhibitionists lost all sexual interest, which is just sad.

• physical castration

In Europe, there have been at least 2055 men castrated according to published reports from 1959 - 1973. Recidivism data based on official records reveals remarkably low rates of sexual reoffending (0 - 7.4%).

The figures are misleading though, because in the early days of castration, homosexuals were castrated as well. The data includes homosexual "offences". Furthermore, the published data doesn't state what type of offender was being castrated, so there's no solid data on how many of each type of sex offender was castrated.

A report in 1981 of 39 castrated offenders, which included rapists, child molesters, and homosexuals, showed that 46% still masturabated or had intercourse. All manner of disabling side-effects also showed up as a result of the castration. A 1968 report gave a zero recidivism rate in terms of sexual offending among the Danish castrates, but 33% were subsequently convicted for a nonsex crime, while only 20% of a matched group of noncastrated rapists subsequently reoffended in a nonsexual way.

In other words, just because they were castrated doesn't mean they didn't go on to commit more crimes. In fact, they seemed to commit more crimes than before, albeit of a non-sexual nature. I don't see that as a win, do you?

• the administration of pharmacologic agents thought to function as sexual antagonists

In layman's terms, antiandrogens are drugs that are supposed to prevent or inhibit the biologic effects of androgens - male sex hormones - on normally responsive tissues in the body. One of the goals is to try to somehow reprogramme the brain to respond to acceptable erotic stimuli while simultaneously decreasing the response to unacceptable stimuli.

Those used in studies are:

estrogen treatment (That's right - they turn 'em feminine!)
neuroleptics
medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)
cyproterone acetate (CPA)
​

The first two treatments aren't used anymore because they didn't produce the desired results.

MPA in conjunction with cognitive/behaviour therapy seems to produce the desired results in certain offenders. However, there are studies citing sociopathic pedophiles, whose testosterone levels fell to very low levels, displayed no corresponding reduction in sexual arousal.

CPA with cognitive/behaviour therapy actually shows the most promise. It caused some pedophiles to become erotically aroused at stimuli showing consenting heterosexual interactions, while at the same time producing greater inhibition to pedophilic stimuli.

On the other hand, some studies show that while CPA may actually reduce a person’s awareness of arousal to deviant cues and consequently reduces sexually deviant behavior, the actual degree of arousal remains unchanged.

-----------

Right. Given this evidence, what do we think now, Specktra-ites?

 

[Ms. Z]

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Star Violet* I don't think it's treatable...it's a choice and they have enough time to think about whether what they want to do is right or wrong...it's not a disease as a few sexual predators have claimed. And regarding whether young offenders change...I guess not...I was molested by my brother when I was 9 and he was 14...he knew what he was doing was not right and he even siad it...I gave him hell for it and he did apologize many times but instead of showing remorse, he started hating me! And he still does and he's married now. I thought he changed until a few weeks ago when I found out he tried to molest my niece and she was only 3 at that time! Sexual Offenders should be jailed for life and/or should be publicly humiliated!

I feel so sad reading about yours and your nieces experience with your piece of shit brother, my heart goes out to you. I hope that appropriate actions have been taken to protect your niece and other children.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist One thing that frightens me about discussions on this topic is how quickly people want to physically hurt a sex offender with the justification that it will stop that offender's behaviour. The evidence from studies show this isn't actually effective at stopping offenders from their behaviour. The Marshall et al. (1991) paper I cited above includes a section on physical interventions. This includes: stereotaxic ablation of central nervous system centers In layman's terms, this is brain surgery to try to remove the area believed to be in charge of sexual behaviour (the ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus). The results are sickening. A summary of some of the doctors involved in 1973 show that they performed this surgery on 22 patients, including 1 homosexual and 1 alcoholic. The fact that they did this for a homosexual and an alcoholic speaks volumes. 16 patients had molested boys or girls, 3 were exhibitionists, and 1 was characterised as a hypersexual nondeviant. The majority of the molesters didn't change as a result of the brain surgery. The hypersexual nondeviant died as a result of the operation. The homosexual reported no relief from his homosexual tendencies (I guess he wanted to change), and the alcoholic received no benefit. One of the exhibitionists lost all sexual interest, which is just sad. physical castration In Europe, there have been at least 2055 men castrated according to published reports from 1959 - 1973. Recidivism data based on official records reveals remarkably low rates of sexual reoffending (0 - 7.4%). The figures are misleading though, because in the early days of castration, homosexuals were castrated as well. The data includes homosexual "offences". Furthermore, the published data doesn't state what type of offender was being castrated, so there's no solid data on how many of each type of sex offender was castrated. A report in 1981 of 39 castrated offenders, which included rapists, child molesters, and homosexuals, showed that 46% still masturabated or had intercourse. All manner of disabling side-effects also showed up as a result of the castration. A 1968 report gave a zero recidivism rate in terms of sexual offending among the Danish castrates, but 33% were subsequently convicted for a nonsex crime, while only 20% of a matched group of noncastrated rapists subsequently reoffended in a nonsexual way. In other words, just because they were castrated doesn't mean they didn't go on to commit more crimes. In fact, they seemed to commit more crimes than before, albeit of a non-sexual nature. I don't see that as a win, do you? the administration of pharmacologic agents thought to function as sexual antagonists In layman's terms, antiandrogens are drugs that are supposed to prevent or inhibit the biologic effects of androgens - male sex hormones - on normally responsive tissues in the body. One of the goals is to try to somehow reprogramme the brain to respond to acceptable erotic stimuli while simultaneously decreasing the response to unacceptable stimuli. Those used in studies are: estrogen treatment (That's right - they turn 'em feminine!) neuroleptics medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) cyproterone acetate (CPA) ​ The first two treatments aren't used anymore because they didn't produce the desired results. MPA in conjunction with cognitive/behaviour therapy seems to produce the desired results in certain offenders. However, there are studies citing sociopathic pedophiles, whose testosterone levels fell to very low levels, displayed no corresponding reduction in sexual arousal. CPA with cognitive/behaviour therapy actually shows the most promise. It caused some pedophiles to become erotically aroused at stimuli showing consenting heterosexual interactions, while at the same time producing greater inhibition to pedophilic stimuli. On the other hand, some studies show that while CPA may actually reduce a person’s awareness of arousal to deviant cues and consequently reduces sexually deviant behavior, the actual degree of arousal remains unchanged. ----------- Right. Given this evidence, what do we think now, Specktra-ites?

Given all that evidence, I still think that if anyone molests my child, I will fucking cut that person, bury them alive in a place they will *never* be found, and never for one single, solitary, fleeting, infinitesimal moment feel an ounce of remorse.
I don't care if it's an uncontrollable urge or not, I don't care. I don't. I honestly couldn't give two fuzzy airborne mammals' rectums whether 'it was controllable' or not.
Touch my child, I. will. end. you. Make no mistake, that's a promise.


When I was in the army, I lived in a bay with 60+ other women. Of those 60 women, the demographics were pretty spread out as far as where everyone was from, in which part of the country, rural vs urban, only child vs many siblings, etc.

Not a single female in that bay had managed to escape being molested or assaulted in some form or another as a child. We all had our stories, and some of us had the stories to share from incidents in adulthood.


Sex offender? Treat them? No. To hell with them.

 

[Ms. Z]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist stereotaxic ablation of central nervous system centers physical castration the administration of pharmacologic agents thought to function as sexual antagonists Right. Given this evidence, what do we think now, Specktra-ites?

In other words the best cure is the one I believe in, Life sentence in Jail!

This is a subject that I am very passionate about, and it’s the crime that makes me most sick to my stomach. I will never believe this is treatable.

I too am very upset that they get shorter jail sentences than those that get caught selling drugs or committing crimes dealing with money.

I don’t believe that child offenders don’t commit the crime again after rehabilitation; it’s that they haven’t been caught yet.

For those who think a life sentence is harsh, that is the same amount of time the victim has been handed.

 

[athena123]

Yep, those who victimize children should get long prison sentences because it's not something that can be treated without using other techniques [like mind altering] that really, truly gives me the willies.

You can't change someone's taste and there are no guarantees a pedophile won't act on his behavior once they've been released. I'm with Shimmer on this one. If anyone ever touches my nephews and if I'm able, I'd go vigilante on them because I have no confidence that our justice system wouldn't release them for "good behavior". Like Ms. Z, it amazes me that violent sex offenders [those who rape and prey on kids using coercion] serve shorter prison sentences than drug dealers and armed robbers. Yet who is causing the greatest harm?

I lost my virginity when I was 16. The boy I was dating was 18. Like all too many women, my first sexual experience was ugly and mean, hardly exalting. It took me a long time to realize how very wrong it was; to recover from "I must be a slut mentality" and accept the fact that I was raped. And I was raped because I had been drinking.

Sex crimes really make me cringe. There is no worse a feeling of violation than the mindfuck that comes with forced sex.

 

[Dizzy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist Those that would lock away and throw away the key, even to those that may be reintegrated safely into society, ask yourself... do you want to foot the bill? I certainly don't.

Absolutely. If by taking one more sex offender off the street keeps one more person safe from having to go through that, absolutely and without reservation, I don't mind footing the bill for that.

Even after reading both posts (which were interesting, btw) I'm still not opposed to sending these people into a lifetime behind bars until they're too old and feeble to do anything more than blink.

The problem with the journals are they never address the ethical issues: a big part of this is "do no harm" and the idea that whatever you DO do, it should help advance humanity in some way. These studies all deal with controlled situations and the results from them; not with what happens when the sex offender is no longer under the eye of the state. Some of the ones mentioned in this thread cited recidivism rates- meaning how many times these people were allowed to do this again. How is that preventing harm? And how is "rehabilitating" sex offenders (since we've apparently agreed there is no cure) helping humanity when they are capable and possibly wiling to do it again?

I'd much rather have them locked up than give them the opportunity to screw up someone else's life. To me, he cost doesn't equal the benefit.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dizzy Absolutely. If by taking one more sex offender off the street keeps one more person safe from having to go through that, absolutely and without reservation, I don't mind footing the bill for that. I'd much rather have them locked up than give them the opportunity to screw up someone else's life. To me, he cost doesn't equal the benefit.

If they're going to be incarcerated, put them to work. Chain gangs, whatever. Put them on a line hoeing rows of food for homeless shelters and churches. Put them on the side of the highway picking up trash. Put them to work. Give them three square and a bed and put them to work.

OMG What about their mental state from being worked/locked up like that?


What about their victim's mental state from having had their dignity ripped from them without a shred of remorse?

There are tons of ways convicts (of all kinds) can and should be used to society's advantage. I say go for it.

 

[athena123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist A more realistic therapeutic goal of control versus cure progressive transition versus abrupt discontinuation of treatment reliance on multiple versus single sources of information about client maintenance integration versus disaffiliation of mental health and probation or parole professionals definition of behavioural maintenance as a continuum rather than an abstinence-relapse dichotomy Those that would lock away and throw away the key, even to those that may be reintegrated safely into society, ask yourself... do you want to foot the bill? I certainly don't.

ratmist, whether we foot the bill for long-term prison or for therapy without any certainty they'll never cause harm again, we're gonna foot the bill either way. For those who rape and/or prey on those unable to give consent, be they children OR adults, I just don't have a whole lot of compassion. I really would rather lock them up and throw away the key.

While they're getting their 3 squares a day, I'm not opposed to therapy too. It would certainly be beneficial to learn the underlying cause of why people get so twisted, if only so we can learn to detect and prevent such atrocities before they occur.

 

[purrtykitty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist Those that would lock away and throw away the key, even to those that may be reintegrated safely into society, ask yourself... do you want to foot the bill? I certainly don't.

OK, but aren't we still going to foot the bill for therapy and chemical castration methods? Either way taxpayers are stuck with the bill and at least behind bars there's a 100% they won't touch another child.

 

[Dizzy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer If they're going to be incarcerated, put them to work. Chain gangs, whatever. Put them on a line hoeing rows of food for homeless shelters and churches. Put them on the side of the highway picking up trash. Put them to work. Give them three square and a bed and put them to work. OMG What about their mental state from being worked/locked up like that? What about their victim's mental state from having had their dignity ripped from them without a shred of remorse?

Not arguing that in the least. I wouldn't mind more jails like Joe Arpaio's; I'm just saying I wouldn't mind paying for the CO's who need to babysit monitor them or the facilities to keep them in.