Defending CONVICTED Pedophiles!? Please tell me I'm not crazy?
Alright, now please tell me this is not what the next generation actually thinks like. I've noticed a *lot* of people on Reddit recently saying that we should feel BAD for pedophiles?
The argument mostly seems to go like this:
"It's sad. They are defective human beings with no cure our outlets, They have no choice but to do what they do because there are no facilities to help them without them being persecuted or even incarcerated. It's the fault of the system so they hide in the shadows until they find a victim. These are people who need mental help, not prison and you should feel bad for them, especially when they are hurt, tortured, or killed in prison. No sane person would rape a child, so all pedophiles should be mentally treated, not imprisoned"
This isn't just one or two instances, but *multiple* times across multiple articles I'm seeing the same type of response.
What sort of reality do people have to live in that it's OKAY to defend convicted pedophiles? The one that threw me over the edge is this article on reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5evuoq/notorious_paedophile_killed_himself_after_inmates/ where a pedophile kills himself in prison after prisoners threated to torture him for raping a THREE MONTH OLD BABY. Shit, I'm not one to celebrate the death of someone, but I'm certainly not saddened by what happened to him either.
I'm really disgusted about this right now. Blech....
The argument mostly seems to go like this:
"It's sad. They are defective human beings with no cure our outlets, They have no choice but to do what they do because there are no facilities to help them without them being persecuted or even incarcerated. It's the fault of the system so they hide in the shadows until they find a victim. These are people who need mental help, not prison and you should feel bad for them, especially when they are hurt, tortured, or killed in prison. No sane person would rape a child, so all pedophiles should be mentally treated, not imprisoned"
This isn't just one or two instances, but *multiple* times across multiple articles I'm seeing the same type of response.
What sort of reality do people have to live in that it's OKAY to defend convicted pedophiles? The one that threw me over the edge is this article on reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5evuoq/notorious_paedophile_killed_himself_after_inmates/ where a pedophile kills himself in prison after prisoners threated to torture him for raping a THREE MONTH OLD BABY. Shit, I'm not one to celebrate the death of someone, but I'm certainly not saddened by what happened to him either.
I'm really disgusted about this right now. Blech....
Comments
Originally posted by: buttheadrulesagain
Well, what you are discussing is a difficult and complex topic. Pedophiles are sick people that find it difficult to seek help even if they haven't commited any crime. There was a good article I read somewhere but I can't find it now (not the Salon one).
Agreed. The argument JosephLeo stated as the general one seems pretty black and white and either/or. I have always been of the opinion that it IS sad that people struggle with any mental disorder (in this case pedophilia) and they should be given mental health treatments, but they should NOT be exempt from the consequences of their actions. Should they be tortured and murdered in prison?...I don't think so, nor should anybody else in prison for that matter.
This discussion got me thinking of how I once got into a small debate with an ex-supervisor who believed that schizophrenics or people on drugs should NOT be held responsible for actions while in a manic or intoxicated state of mind because they were not in control of their bodies. I called BS and we agreed to disagree.
I feel bad for the ones that have this problem and haven't committed any crimes, but the ones that act upon it, well they deserve what they get.
This discussion got me thinking of how I once got into a small debate with an ex-supervisor who believed that schizophrenics or people on drugs should NOT be held responsible for actions while in a manic or intoxicated state of mind because they were not in control of their bodies. I called BS and we agreed to disagree.
A schizophrenic that refuses to take medication knowing that this can cause harm to others should be held responsible in my opinion. Same with drugs, but reverse: if you know that a drug can make you prone to kill someone or wreck a car, and you take it anyways, you are responsible of your actions.
Originally posted by: buttheadrulesagain
Originally posted by: theirontoupee
This discussion got me thinking of how I once got into a small debate with an ex-supervisor who believed that schizophrenics or people on drugs should NOT be held responsible for actions while in a manic or intoxicated state of mind because they were not in control of their bodies. I called BS and we agreed to disagree.
A schizophrenic that refuses to take medication knowing that this can cause harm to others should be held responsible in my opinion. Same with drugs, but reverse: if you know that a drug can make you prone to kill someone or wreck a car, and you take it anyways, you are responsible of your actions.
Agreed. My ex-supervisor's position was that if you were slipped some substance and you unknowingly committed a crime you shouldn't be held responsible. I disagreed with him even though it would be a terrible thing to have happen to you.
Look, I'm not saying that all pedophiles are innocent role-players, but there are certainly some who might be.
Originally posted by: theirontoupee
Originally posted by: buttheadrulesagain
Originally posted by: theirontoupee
This discussion got me thinking of how I once got into a small debate with an ex-supervisor who believed that schizophrenics or people on drugs should NOT be held responsible for actions while in a manic or intoxicated state of mind because they were not in control of their bodies. I called BS and we agreed to disagree.
A schizophrenic that refuses to take medication knowing that this can cause harm to others should be held responsible in my opinion. Same with drugs, but reverse: if you know that a drug can make you prone to kill someone or wreck a car, and you take it anyways, you are responsible of your actions.
Agreed. My ex-supervisor's position was that if you were slipped some substance and you unknowingly committed a crime you shouldn't be held responsible. I disagreed with him even though it would be a terrible thing to have happen to you.
I agree with your ex-supervisor. If someone was slipped something unknowingly and it caused any issues, the person who slipped the substance should be liable. I know it's difficult to prove, but it's not exactly fair that a person does something due to a drug that they didn't know they consumed.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-defenses.html
I'm not sure why you'd think the person who was drugged involuntarily is responsible for their actions - do you think those who are raped because they're too drunk is their fault too?
Last week a guy came into Sears and told me his entire life story. Including the fact that he was a convicted sex offender.
He was married to a woman for a few years and things were going well, but she was struggling to find work. She finally found work at a prison, and then immediately changed as a human being and became pretty awful. He decided to ask for a divorce.
She flipped out and told him it was the worst mistake he'd ever make.
She wound up getting married to a coworker at the prison. Then she, along with her new husband, started brainwashing their 3 year old child that she had been molested by her father.
He fought the charges, and spent over $180,000 in court fees over the course of ten years. He even had an FBI special agent fly down from Quantico a series of times to give him four polygraph tests, all of which he passed with flying colors. Except apparently polygraph tests aren't admissible in court in the state of Florida.
Every time they had a court date the ex-wife would wear her prison security guard uniform and apparently was treated like royalty because of it. So now the guy has an ankle bracelet on and is on probation for 18 years, and had to register as a sex offender. He can't get a job, he can't leave the state. His life is ruined, because of a crazy ex-wife. He hasn't seen or spoken to his daughter in over 10 years. She is in high school now.
So, in regards to defending someone who actually did it, that's ridiculous. But there might be instances where there wasn't an actual crime.
Also, who the fuck tells a retail employee their life story the second they meet, including that they're a sex offender? Weird shit.
Well, what you are discussing is a difficult and complex topic. Pedophiles are sick people that find it difficult to seek help even if they haven't commited any crime. There was a good article I read somewhere but I can't find it now (not the Salon one).
Watch Confessions of a Nymphmanic Part 2. They illustrate this beautifully. It was both sad and opening to see.
QUOTES:
Joe: Nobody knew his secret. Most probably not even himself. He sat there with his shame. I suppose I sucked him off, is a kind of apology.
Seligman: That's unbelievable!
Joe: Listen to me. This is a man who had succeeded in repressing his own desire, who had never before given into it right up until I forced it out. He had lived a life full of denial and had never hurt a soul. I think that's laudable.
Seligman: No matter how much I try, I can't find anything laudable in pedophilia.
Joe: That's because you think about the, perhaps 5% who actually hurt children. The remaining 95% never live out their fantasies. Think about their suffering. Sexuality is the strongest force in human beings. To be born with a forbidden sexuality must be agonizing. The pedophile who manages to get through life with the shame of his desire, while never acting on it, deserves a bloody medal.
Originally posted by: theirontoupee
Originally posted by: buttheadrulesagain
Originally posted by: theirontoupee
This discussion got me thinking of how I once got into a small debate with an ex-supervisor who believed that schizophrenics or people on drugs should NOT be held responsible for actions while in a manic or intoxicated state of mind because they were not in control of their bodies. I called BS and we agreed to disagree.
A schizophrenic that refuses to take medication knowing that this can cause harm to others should be held responsible in my opinion. Same with drugs, but reverse: if you know that a drug can make you prone to kill someone or wreck a car, and you take it anyways, you are responsible of your actions.
Agreed. My ex-supervisor's position was that if you were slipped some substance and you unknowingly committed a crime you shouldn't be held responsible. I disagreed with him even though it would be a terrible thing to have happen to you.
I agree with your ex-supervisor. If someone was slipped something unknowingly and it caused any issues, the person who slipped the substance should be liable. I know it's difficult to prove, but it's not exactly fair that a person does something due to a drug that they didn't know they consumed.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-lib...
I'm not sure why you'd think the person who was drugged involuntarily is responsible for their actions - do you think those who are raped because they're too drunk is their fault too?
No, I wasn't thinking of date rape drugs, but rather something like LSD, speed, meth, bath salts, etc.
Well, what you are discussing is a difficult and complex topic. Pedophiles are sick people that find it difficult to seek help even if they haven't commited any crime. There was a good article I read somewhere but I can't find it now (not the Salon one).
Watch Confessions of a Nymphmanic Part 2. They illustrate this beautifully. It was both sad and opening to see.
QUOTES:
Joe: Nobody knew his secret. Most probably not even himself. He sat there with his shame. I suppose I sucked him off, is a kind of apology.
Seligman: That's unbelievable!
Joe: Listen to me. This is a man who had succeeded in repressing his own desire, who had never before given into it right up until I forced it out. He had lived a life full of denial and had never hurt a soul. I think that's laudable.
Seligman: No matter how much I try, I can't find anything laudable in pedophilia.
Joe: That's because you think about the, perhaps 5% who actually hurt children. The remaining 95% never live out their fantasies. Think about their suffering. Sexuality is the strongest force in human beings. To be born with a forbidden sexuality must be agonizing. The pedophile who manages to get through life with the shame of his desire, while never acting on it, deserves a bloody medal.
I don't see anything eye opening at all. Honestly any kind of defense for these people completely baffles the shit out of me.
There are people who hold down feelings of murdering other people on a daily basis, do they deserve a medal to? I don't think so.
Also if this guy thinks only 5% of pedophiles "hurt" children, he might not understand the actual definition of "hurt". A child desn't have to be physically harmed to have their life destroyed or be emotionally scarred from being molested or raped by a pedophile.
This discussion got me thinking of how I once got into a small debate with an ex-supervisor who believed that schizophrenics or people on drugs should NOT be held responsible for actions while in a manic or intoxicated state of mind because they were not in control of their bodies. I called BS and we agreed to disagree.
A schizophrenic that refuses to take medication knowing that this can cause harm to others should be held responsible in my opinion. Same with drugs, but reverse: if you know that a drug can make you prone to kill someone or wreck a car, and you take it anyways, you are responsible of your actions.
Agreed. My ex-supervisor's position was that if you were slipped some substance and you unknowingly committed a crime you shouldn't be held responsible. I disagreed with him even though it would be a terrible thing to have happen to you.
I agree with your ex-supervisor. If someone was slipped something unknowingly and it caused any issues, the person who slipped the substance should be liable. I know it's difficult to prove, but it's not exactly fair that a person does something due to a drug that they didn't know they consumed.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-defen...
I'm not sure why you'd think the person who was drugged involuntarily is responsible for their actions - do you think those who are raped because they're too drunk is their fault too?
No, I wasn't thinking of date rape drugs, but rather something like LSD, speed, meth, bath salts, etc.
Well, to be fair, it's kind of hard for someone to not know they're taking meth or bath salts, just because of the way you have to take them for them to even do anything for you, same with a lot of drugs.
However, the drugs that can be slipped into someones drink, or taken accidentally due to someone elses negligence can cause someone to do something destructive inadvertantly. If that person had prior knowledge of taking something that would alter their ability to function as normal, they may not have made those decisions (such as driving).
Here's an example:
A dad puts his pain meds into a Bayer bottle because he didn't want his kid to find them whenever he came to visit. His wife took what she thought was a Bayer, but instead took a pain pill. She leaves, and ends up getting into an accident because she was high on pain meds. Who's at fault? The dad, or the wife?
Back in 2008, I had surgery and had a prescription for vic's. I dropped one in my moms car, and a few days later she was pulled over for a taillight that was out. The officer spotted the pill (plain as day on the floor, I guess), and I had to go to the police station with my prescription to prove it wasn't hers. Not everything can be blamed on an individual for the actions of someone else.
This discussion got me thinking of how I once got into a small debate with an ex-supervisor who believed that schizophrenics or people on drugs should NOT be held responsible for actions while in a manic or intoxicated state of mind because they were not in control of their bodies. I called BS and we agreed to disagree.
A schizophrenic that refuses to take medication knowing that this can cause harm to others should be held responsible in my opinion. Same with drugs, but reverse: if you know that a drug can make you prone to kill someone or wreck a car, and you take it anyways, you are responsible of your actions.
Agreed. My ex-supervisor's position was that if you were slipped some substance and you unknowingly committed a crime you shouldn't be held responsible. I disagreed with him even though it would be a terrible thing to have happen to you.
I agree with your ex-supervisor. If someone was slipped something unknowingly and it caused any issues, the person who slipped the substance should be liable. I know it's difficult to prove, but it's not exactly fair that a person does something due to a drug that they didn't know they consumed.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-defen...
I'm not sure why you'd think the person who was drugged involuntarily is responsible for their actions - do you think those who are raped because they're too drunk is their fault too?
No, I wasn't thinking of date rape drugs, but rather something like LSD, speed, meth, bath salts, etc.
Well, to be fair, it's kind of hard for someone to not know they're taking meth or bath salts, just because of the way you have to take them for them to even do anything for you, same with a lot of drugs.
However, the drugs that can be slipped into someones drink, or taken accidentally due to someone elses negligence can cause someone to do something destructive inadvertantly. If that person had prior knowledge of taking something that would alter their ability to function as normal, they may not have made those decisions (such as driving).
Here's an example:
A dad puts his pain meds into a Bayer bottle because he didn't want his kid to find them whenever he came to visit. His wife took what she thought was a Bayer, but instead took a pain pill. She leaves, and ends up getting into an accident because she was high on pain meds. Who's at fault? The dad, or the wife?
Back in 2008, I had surgery and had a prescription for vic's. I dropped one in my moms car, and a few days later she was pulled over for a taillight that was out. The officer spotted the pill (plain as day on the floor, I guess), and I had to go to the police station with my prescription to prove it wasn't hers. Not everything can be blamed on an individual for the actions of someone else.
I agree it's a case by case basis, but like with your examples I agree that the people who originally had the drugs need to claim responsibility, but the wife in the first example also shares responsibility since she was driving.
There are people who hold down feelings of murdering other people on a daily basis, do they deserve a medal to? I don't think so.
There is a difference between sexual urges (which most of us have and vent in legal and healthy ways), and a wish to murder (which people don't usually have, at least I don't).
Sexual repression can lead many people into bad and unhealthy behaviour, and mental problems (besides pedophilia itself). Now, I wouldn't exculpate a convicted pedophile, because if that person knows his actions hurt, then he should have done something to prevent it.
On the other hand, I have read that pedophiles have irrational thoughts on kids and theirwillingness to participate in their own abuse. So, if that person is mentally sick to the point that he can not see the evil in his actions, what should society do? Putting him out of circulation is a must, but is jail the option, or a mental care institution? I believe this decision must be taken case by case.
This discussion got me thinking of how I once got into a small debate with an ex-supervisor who believed that schizophrenics or people on drugs should NOT be held responsible for actions while in a manic or intoxicated state of mind because they were not in control of their bodies. I called BS and we agreed to disagree.
A schizophrenic that refuses to take medication knowing that this can cause harm to others should be held responsible in my opinion. Same with drugs, but reverse: if you know that a drug can make you prone to kill someone or wreck a car, and you take it anyways, you are responsible of your actions.
Agreed. My ex-supervisor's position was that if you were slipped some substance and you unknowingly committed a crime you shouldn't be held responsible. I disagreed with him even though it would be a terrible thing to have happen to you.
I agree with your ex-supervisor. If someone was slipped something unknowingly and it caused any issues, the person who slipped the substance should be liable. I know it's difficult to prove, but it's not exactly fair that a person does something due to a drug that they didn't know they consumed.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-defen...
I'm not sure why you'd think the person who was drugged involuntarily is responsible for their actions - do you think those who are raped because they're too drunk is their fault too?
No, I wasn't thinking of date rape drugs, but rather something like LSD, speed, meth, bath salts, etc.
Well, to be fair, it's kind of hard for someone to not know they're taking meth or bath salts, just because of the way you have to take them for them to even do anything for you, same with a lot of drugs.
However, the drugs that can be slipped into someones drink, or taken accidentally due to someone elses negligence can cause someone to do something destructive inadvertantly. If that person had prior knowledge of taking something that would alter their ability to function as normal, they may not have made those decisions (such as driving).
Here's an example:
A dad puts his pain meds into a Bayer bottle because he didn't want his kid to find them whenever he came to visit. His wife took what she thought was a Bayer, but instead took a pain pill. She leaves, and ends up getting into an accident because she was high on pain meds. Who's at fault? The dad, or the wife?
Back in 2008, I had surgery and had a prescription for vic's. I dropped one in my moms car, and a few days later she was pulled over for a taillight that was out. The officer spotted the pill (plain as day on the floor, I guess), and I had to go to the police station with my prescription to prove it wasn't hers. Not everything can be blamed on an individual for the actions of someone else.
I agree it's a case by case basis, but like with your examples I agree that the people who originally had the drugs need to claim responsibility, but the wife in the first example also shares responsibility since she was driving.
But the wife wouldn't have driven had she known she took the wrong drug that her husband hid in a non-prescriptive bottle, so she had her option of making a choice removed from her - how is that her fault?
Well, what you are discussing is a difficult and complex topic. Pedophiles are sick people that find it difficult to seek help even if they haven't commited any crime. There was a good article I read somewhere but I can't find it now (not the Salon one).
Watch Confessions of a Nymphmanic Part 2. They illustrate this beautifully. It was both sad and opening to see.
QUOTES:
Joe: Nobody knew his secret. Most probably not even himself. He sat there with his shame. I suppose I sucked him off, is a kind of apology.
Seligman: That's unbelievable!
Joe: Listen to me. This is a man who had succeeded in repressing his own desire, who had never before given into it right up until I forced it out. He had lived a life full of denial and had never hurt a soul. I think that's laudable.
Seligman: No matter how much I try, I can't find anything laudable in pedophilia.
Joe: That's because you think about the, perhaps 5% who actually hurt children. The remaining 95% never live out their fantasies. Think about their suffering. Sexuality is the strongest force in human beings. To be born with a forbidden sexuality must be agonizing. The pedophile who manages to get through life with the shame of his desire, while never acting on it, deserves a bloody medal.
I don't see anything eye opening at all. Honestly any kind of defense for these people completely baffles the shit out of me.
There are people who hold down feelings of murdering other people on a daily basis, do they deserve a medal to? I don't think so.
Also if this guy thinks only 5% of pedophiles "hurt" children, he might not understand the actual definition of "hurt". A child desn't have to be physically harmed to have their life destroyed or be emotionally scarred from being molested or raped by a pedophile.
Joe is a girl that is talking in the movie. But I don;t think you understand the context. Craving to murder people is NOT something we strive to do as humans where-as sexuality it openly embraced in most forms. Some people can't control the desire as stated but they can repress it and be good people. We only think of the 5% give or take who are the freaks who should get murdered by self rightous murderers in prison.
There are people who hold down feelings of murdering other people on a daily basis, do they deserve a medal to? I don't think so.
There is a difference between sexual urges (which most of us have and vent in legal and healthy ways), and a wish to murder (which people don't usually have, at least I don't).
Sexual repression can lead many people into bad and unhealthy behaviour, and mental problems (besides pedophilia itself). Now, I wouldn't exculpate a convicted pedophile (because if that person knows his actions hurt, then he should have done something to prevent it).
I have read that pedophiles have irrational thoughts on kids and theirwillingness to participate in their own abuse. So, if that person is mentally sick to the point that he can not see the evil in his actions, what should society do? Putting him out of circulation is a must, but is jail the option, or a mental care institution? I believe this decision must be taken case by case.
Just because you don't have the urge to murder, doesn't mean many others out there don't and don't battle daily with the urges to cause harm to others. It is no different. Both are repressing a deep yearning within them.
Bottom line is i don't care what you are repressing. If it is something harmful to others and considered not okay you should seek help for it, and you are not exempt from consequences if you act upon them.
If you don't seek help and you let it get to a point where you are molesting kids, raping kids/women, or murdering people. Then you failed to get the help you needed to overcome those urges. You can say they didn't know any better, and make whatever excuses for these people you want, but at the end of the day they need to pay for their actions.
I don't care if it's jail or a mental institution, all that matters to me is that they are off the streets and not able to hurt others.
Joe is a girl that is talking in the movie. But I don;t think you understand the context. Craving to murder people is NOT something we strive to do as humans where-as sexuality it openly embraced in most forms. Some people can't control the desire as stated but they can repress it and be good people. We only think of the 5% give or take who are the freaks who should get murdered by self rightous murderers in prison.
I don't think you do. Again, Just because YOU don't have urges to murder people doesn't mean thousands of others don't and are not struggling every day with the urges. They feel dead inside and the only time they feel happy and alive is when they kill someone, or hunt. Kind of like an animal. Repression is repression IMO.
Also we MADE murder illegal. That is the only difference between sex and murder in this context. Who is to say murder isn't a totally healthy way of outletting yourself and it is just something we outlawed? Not saying I personally feel that way. But you are trying to make it sound like repressing sexual desire is different than repressing any other thing and giving it an excuse.
There are people who hold down feelings of murdering other people on a daily basis, do they deserve a medal to? I don't think so.
There is a difference between sexual urges (which most of us have and vent in legal and healthy ways), and a wish to murder (which people don't usually have, at least I don't).
Sexual repression can lead many people into bad and unhealthy behaviour, and mental problems (besides pedophilia itself). Now, I wouldn't exculpate a convicted pedophile (because if that person knows his actions hurt, then he should have done something to prevent it).
I have read that pedophiles have irrational thoughts on kids and theirwillingness to participate in their own abuse. So, if that person is mentally sick to the point that he can not see the evil in his actions, what should society do? Putting him out of circulation is a must, but is jail the option, or a mental care institution? I believe this decision must be taken case by case.
Just because you don't have the urge to murder, doesn't mean many others out there don't and don't battle daily with the urges to cause harm to others. It is no different. Both are repressing a deep yearning within them.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Sexual urges, if repressed, can lead to a bad outcome. That is what psychologists think, for example, that causes priests to have more probability of presenting abherrant pedophile behaviour, compared to general population: their normal mental and sexual development is not achieved (in Boston, 6% of priests in early 2000's had sexual activity with minors).
Murdering urges are not something normal: a person with an urge to kill comparable with a sexual urge is sick in his own right. Other people kill to get something else (money, power, revenge). It is not the same as a sexual urge.
Bottom line is i don't care what you are repressing. If it is something harmful to others and considered not okay you should seek help for it, and you are not exempt from consequences if you act upon them.
I agree with this, but there is a problem when the same disorder causes you to have irrational thoughts and not see evil in your actions. This is complex, so I wouldn't sway 100% to either side, and it must be assesed in a case by case basis.
This discussion got me thinking of how I once got into a small debate with an ex-supervisor who believed that schizophrenics or people on drugs should NOT be held responsible for actions while in a manic or intoxicated state of mind because they were not in control of their bodies. I called BS and we agreed to disagree.
A schizophrenic that refuses to take medication knowing that this can cause harm to others should be held responsible in my opinion. Same with drugs, but reverse: if you know that a drug can make you prone to kill someone or wreck a car, and you take it anyways, you are responsible of your actions.
Agreed. My ex-supervisor's position was that if you were slipped some substance and you unknowingly committed a crime you shouldn't be held responsible. I disagreed with him even though it would be a terrible thing to have happen to you.
I agree with your ex-supervisor. If someone was slipped something unknowingly and it caused any issues, the person who slipped the substance should be liable. I know it's difficult to prove, but it's not exactly fair that a person does something due to a drug that they didn't know they consumed.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-defen...
I'm not sure why you'd think the person who was drugged involuntarily is responsible for their actions - do you think those who are raped because they're too drunk is their fault too?
No, I wasn't thinking of date rape drugs, but rather something like LSD, speed, meth, bath salts, etc.
Well, to be fair, it's kind of hard for someone to not know they're taking meth or bath salts, just because of the way you have to take them for them to even do anything for you, same with a lot of drugs.
However, the drugs that can be slipped into someones drink, or taken accidentally due to someone elses negligence can cause someone to do something destructive inadvertantly. If that person had prior knowledge of taking something that would alter their ability to function as normal, they may not have made those decisions (such as driving).
Here's an example:
A dad puts his pain meds into a Bayer bottle because he didn't want his kid to find them whenever he came to visit. His wife took what she thought was a Bayer, but instead took a pain pill. She leaves, and ends up getting into an accident because she was high on pain meds. Who's at fault? The dad, or the wife?
Back in 2008, I had surgery and had a prescription for vic's. I dropped one in my moms car, and a few days later she was pulled over for a taillight that was out. The officer spotted the pill (plain as day on the floor, I guess), and I had to go to the police station with my prescription to prove it wasn't hers. Not everything can be blamed on an individual for the actions of someone else.
I agree it's a case by case basis, but like with your examples I agree that the people who originally had the drugs need to claim responsibility, but the wife in the first example also shares responsibility since she was driving.
But the wife wouldn't have driven had she known she took the wrong drug that her husband hid in a non-prescriptive bottle, so she had her option of making a choice removed from her - how is that her fault?
Like I said, it would be a case by case basis, but I feel like a person would know something is off based on Bayer Vs. Rx meds and would therefore not drive. However, you start getting to the nitty gritty with did the husband switch pills knowing this scenario could happen, did the wife not know the difference in the look of the different pills before she took them, should the doctor be blamed for anything, etc.
Well, there are instances that a convicted pedophile should be defended.
Last week a guy came into Sears and told me his entire life story. Including the fact that he was a convicted sex offender.
He was married to a woman for a few years and things were going well, but she was struggling to find work. She finally found work at a prison, and then immediately changed as a human being and became pretty awful. He decided to ask for a divorce.
She flipped out and told him it was the worst mistake he'd ever make.
She wound up getting married to a coworker at the prison. Then she, along with her new husband, started brainwashing their 3 year old child that she had been molested by her father.
He fought the charges, and spent over $180,000 in court fees over the course of ten years. He even had an FBI special agent fly down from Quantico a series of times to give him four polygraph tests, all of which he passed with flying colors. Except apparently polygraph tests aren't admissible in court in the state of Florida.
Every time they had a court date the ex-wife would wear her prison security guard uniform and apparently was treated like royalty because of it. So now the guy has an ankle bracelet on and is on probation for 18 years, and had to register as a sex offender. He can't get a job, he can't leave the state. His life is ruined, because of a crazy ex-wife. He hasn't seen or spoken to his daughter in over 10 years. She is in high school now.
So, in regards to defending someone who actually did it, that's ridiculous. But there might be instances where there wasn't an actual crime.
Also, who the fuck tells a retail employee their life story the second they meet, including that they're a sex offender? Weird shit.
That is extraordinarily fucked up.
I don't think you do. Again, Just because YOU don't have urges to murder people doesn't mean thousands of others don't and are not struggling every day with the urges. They feel dead inside and the only time they feel happy and alive is when they kill someone, or hunt. Kind of like an animal. Repression is repression IMO.
Also we MADE murder illegal. That is the only difference between sex and murder in this context. Who is to say murder isn't a totally healthy way of outletting yourself and it is just something we outlawed? Not saying I personally feel that way. But you are trying to make it sound like repressing sexual desire is different than repressing any other thing and giving it an excuse.
Multiple millenia of civilization, along with pretty much any moral code of any origin.
There is a huge difference between sex and murder, outside of the context of "legality". (since plenty of consensual-between-adults sex acts are illegal in plenty of places, despite generally lax enforcement of those standards)
Key difference:
Between adults, the vast majority of sex acts can be fully consensual without any kind of permanent injury.
Murder, is essentially never consensual, pretty much by definition, and even if it was has permanent consequence of the most severe type and impacts lots of people outside of the victim.
Your entire line of argument is bizarre.
EDIT for clarity, since apparently my point was lost -- this is just in response to the murder quote being a bizarre counterargument and refers to sex acts "in general".
Pedophilia is disgusting, and completely indefensible.
I thought murder was determined to be legal in the state of California on 10/03/95.
Oh shit
Bottom line is i don't care what you are repressing. If it is something harmful to others and considered not okay you should seek help for it, and you are not exempt from consequences if you act upon them.
If you don't seek help and you let it get to a point where you are molesting kids, raping kids/women, or murdering people. Then you failed to get the help you needed to overcome those urges. You can say they didn't know any better, and make whatever excuses for these people you want, but at the end of the day they need to pay for their actions.
The problem is that there isn't a whole lot of help for non-offending pedophiles. Either not enough funding goes into the science, or the laws are written that asking for help gets you unwanted attention or in trouble. And society doesn't care enough to do anything.
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1658-5-ways-were-making-pedophilia-worse.html