Serial paedophile can stay here if he wants

A PREDATORY paedophile who was last week sentenced to five months in prison could be back on Guernsey's streets within weeks - unless he agrees to go.

A PREDATORY paedophile who was last week sentenced to five months in prison could be back on Guernsey's streets within weeks - unless he agrees to go.

Anthony Luckwill, pictured, who tried while visiting the island to lure a 14-year-old boy to his hotel room, cannot be deported once released because the Irish national also holds a UK passport - by law only non-UK nationals can be sent home.

It is understood, however, that he has agreed voluntarily to leave the island upon release - although he could change his mind.

A senior deputy is now calling for the law to be changed also to allow Guernsey to deport UK nationals.

Deputy Dave Jones has long campaigned on child abuse issues and described the current situation as 'ludicrous'.

Comments for: "Serial paedophile can stay here if he wants"

to the vale

he shouldnt of been let into the island in the first place im sure the locals could make his mind up leaving would be best for him

i hope the law changes quickly to protect the children here

Local

It really does beggar belief that a known paedophile can travel here without some form of notification to the local authorities. Add to that the fact that we cant force him out of OUR country! I think local politicians should be asking themselves serious questions about what they are doing in the chamber each month if this is allowed to continue.

Guern abroad

I agree it would appear a ludicrous situation that a UK passport holding individual can not be deported.

Les Pets

Just goes to show how toothless and spineless our gov is. If he stays here will we pay for him? Put out his address to the public to protect our kids. Bugger his human rights.SCUM.

Dani

Hats off to Dave Jones.

Scarlett

Ahh, Mr Luckwill, we are a small island and pretty close knit community, infamously, some might say, intolerant.

Probably best you stick with your plan to remove your disgusting, vile self from here as soon as possible, you revolting excuse for a human being.

Theo

I can't imagine that he's going to want to hang around here after his picture has been in the local media! The community would shut him down straight away, and he wouldn't be safe or be able to live any kind of life here.

That's the beauty of a small island like Guernsey ..... no hiding place.

I suggest we save our concerns for his next port of call, where ever that might be.

Slash

Oh yes they can hide. All it takes is the complicity of the rest of the family, as in my wife's case when she was repeatedly raped by her father from the age of seven. Mother, sister and brother all knew; what did they do? Nothing. Then when the parents died, she was cut her out of their will.

It's been my privilege to be married to this survivor for twenty-five years, watch her overcome this terrible childhood, and bring up two happy children.

bcb

That is a very accurate post you make there Slash. You are right and many of these perverts are protected by family members and even friends. I know one young girl who many years ago reported an abuser and got a good beating from a relative of the abuser for doing so. He eventually got done for having sex with this young girl who was actually his own niece and was 12yrs old at the time. He was part of a local peadophile ring who along with others abused many young girls over many many years.

To my knowledge none of the others were ever caught but i do know the police are aware of who they are.

Dee Sharisse

I remember, not too many decades ago, British people being 'put on the boat', with an order not to return within a specified number of years. I guess this changed with EU free movement laws? The EU has a lot to answer for.

William

UK national or not this man is a convicted pedophile he needs to be in a place where he can be monitored so he is not able to do this again and again the best place for that is prison, why is guernsey so strict on drugs and tax yet when it comes to people like this its far to often in the news how they get out of prison so soon. Years not months should be the conviction for this

Ray

William

You're forgetting his Human Rights !

bcb

Maybe we need to change the definition of "human" perhaps we can add monster after it so any rights we afford to Humans dont apply to these people?.

Will

What about the human right to safety, is your child safe with him on the street

bcb

Lets just hope this vile animal doesn`t bump into the wrong people while out looking for his next victim (which he surely will) or he might just end up leaving in a wooden box.

We can live in hope.

This is one case where i wouldn`t mind seeing him dealt with at the hands of a baying mob. If the law can`t deal with him and protect our children then surely it is our right to do so?.

Backchat

Why wouldn't he stay?, seems like he was welcomed with open arms must have thought he had found his twisted paradise, question is why did he come here in the first place, invited by someone maybe?

bcb

You make a good point.

With the record he has got he was most likely very surprised when he received his sentence and may well think it`s worth staying here to commit his sickening deeds on children in the knowledge that if he gets caught he will be back on the streets in no time.

DNKY

Backchat, I believe he was lured here with the knowledge that we hand out ridiculously small custodial sentences for this sort of crime.

Hopefully Dave Jones will be able to get this changed. I am sure if there was a public vote on it then everybody would agree that stronger sentences should be handed out for this vile crime. Maybe then the the likes of this monster will think twice about a visit to our lovely island.

Come on the states of Guernsey how out of touch with electorate are you?

BECKS

If I see this SCUM on the streets anywhere I shall make sure that anyone around will know he`s a pedophile and anyone who wants him out of here should do the same. If enough people make sure he`s known he`ll not stay. He doesn't deserve to claim Human Rights Immunity and deserves all the scorn and hatred that others can pile on him.

Neil Forman

Unbelievable!

Good on Dave Jones for trying.

I don't think it would be safe for him to stay, every parent will have his image ingrained in their memory.

W H Bonney

No surprise- Guernsey is a peadophiles paradise & has been for years... Pathetic sentences handed out by a poor justice system does not deter them...

Is it any wonder that the press is REGULARLY printing stories of abuse or people getting arrested for images on a computer?

I am glad I moved away form a place that does not protect its children!

Guernsey won't change until the judges grow a set & actually make examples of people to deter them.

Neil Forman

W H Bonney

You are so right!

Another one in the paper today, what is wrong with these people.

If they come near my children / grandchildren I'll show them the error of their ways. If the law can't deal with them then I will and sod the consequences.

otd

So in short, peadophiles can stay indefinitely, but most teachers are welcome only for 5 years? Interesting...

GM

Otd

A teacher can also stay indefinitely - just can't occupy local market property indefinitely. You seem to be confusing immigration law with housing law.

Local lass

So why was this peudo allowed to step foot in Guernsey it's time the customs sorted these vile people out if he is a convicted offender then we should have him on a black list to stop him stepping ashore name and shame . My ex neighbour got convicted about a year and a half ago came as a shock to us all but why should he be kept by our Guernsey prison when he is not local deport all these peudos it's a disgrace!

TED

See what happens when you sign up to the Human rights law or should we say the criminal rights law.

Dani

I am personally all for human rights.

What I don't understand is why the human rights of the peadophile are put before those of the victim. Justice should be considered from the view of the person wronged. It is them whom the focus should be on above all else. It is them we should not fail. The perpetrators needs should come second to theirs. They gave up their rights when they committed a crime against them. And this sort of the crime is the most repugnant and serious.

I don't think on the whole its a psychological condition despite it being labelled by some as such. Homosexuality was once and still is considered in some places to be a mental condition. We seem to label things as disorders when we can't comprehend them because the level of depravity cannot be conceived by us or they are a taboo in our society.

Those that rape adult women are not considered to have a mental disorder but for some reason those that rape, molest and view disturbing images of children are seen to have a condition. Too much empathy and rationalization is given to the sex offenders. I've seen it on the threads here yet strangely there was no sympathy for rapists of adult women or the gang rapists. It is a truly strange phenomenon that those that are most appalling receive the most defense.

The truth is that most of them like it. They know what they are doing and do it anyway which makes their crime truly heinous. What do you think they are doing with the pictures? With the children in person? They are not self flagellating and thinking what awful human beings they are like some make out. Most people are sorry and full of excuses once they have been found out for their premeditated crimes.

I will accept a small portion of them may be stuck carrying out behaviour which even disgust themselves but the important thing is they still do it. They could ask for help but they don't. They don't fight it and cross a line that once broken cannot be put back as it was before. It does not make their crimes any less horrific to the victim who is the person that really matters.

Even these people that look at images on computers contribute to the suffering of abused children. They create a demand for the images and videos to be made. You want to check out what makes it into some of the cateogories - it's sickening. Sadism and bestiality. How do you think the lives of these young people will be afterwards? What about their lives?

I take a strong view on this subject. I think the reality is you have to consider can they truly get effective help? Do they have a mental condition (small %) or a perversion you can never change? Can you truly trust them after they have committed a crime to not re-offend and is the cost of another innocent child's life being damaged worth their second chance? We can put them in prison but we have to pay for them to have a life behind bars... You can castrate them but they still have their eyes and hands. Their minds.

If they asked for help before any transgressions are made all help should be available to them. If they don't well I'd quite happily give serious offenders (those that are actively involved with the children as opposed to those who watch) the injection. I'd much prefer that to them being paid for in prison or to have the risk of them re-offending. It seems extreme but I think its the best solution for their type of crime. For the victim and for society.

Spartacus

Dani

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the recognised authority for classification of mental disorders. Pedophilia is included subject to diagnostic criteria.

Some people do not believe any mental disorders are illness and your view is a case in point. If pedophilia is not an illness then do you also believe that neither is depression or schizophrenia illness for example? Are these just quirks of human nature?

Homosexuality is understood to be acceptable now and should not cause any distress or disability to participants whereas pedophilia is a problem which should and does cause considerable distress for the individuals affected and also causes harm to others.

Mental disorders often cause uncontrollable impulses and I think you are alluding that for pedophiles the urges they experience are controllable. The evidence suggests that is not the case.

Rape has in common with some instances of pedophilia that it is a type of assault. Acts of assault are not excusable but can be explained due to mental illness in certain instances which can help to determine whether the perpetrator should be treated or simply punished and to what extent.

I believe empathy and rationalisation should be given towards every behaviour of every living thing. If we stop doing that we cease to be civilised. That is not to say the behaviour is acceptable or should not be dealt with, just that we must try to understand in order to find better, more appropriate solutions.

I share your strong views on this subject and wholeheartedly agree that the priority is for protection of the victims. I don't think you can ever trust someone who has been diagnosed, even following treatment. Any one who has ever been found guilty of an offense wherever it is on the spectrum, should be under some form of secure monitoring forever under the supervision of their own local authorities not become a problem wherever they choose to go.

I interpreted your solution as being the death penalty? That is extreme and I personally would never agree with that under any circumstances. Killing a mentally ill person would be barbaric. Also, any criminal is always someone's son or daughter and often someone's parent, brother, friend.

bcb

Just how many of those caught are diagnosed with said disorder or are just evil animals? how many of those were playing games in order to play the "i`m ill please dont blame me card"? and just how many thousands upon thousands NEVER even get caught which makes a mockery of statistics?.

Most of us if not all have sexual desires towards the opposite or same sex but we do not go around abusing in order to satisfy those desires. These animals simply don`t care about the harm they cause and the lives they ruin and thats what it really comes down to.

We often hear that phrase "what is normal" so who wrote the rules of what is normal? if evolution is supposed to be blind then why is it not possible that what these animals feel is "normal" for them but just not acceptable to the rest of us. Why do we have to attach an illness to it? There are of course many with illness especially when it is detrimental to their own well being such as the ones you mention in your post.

Do we have a medical name for those very few people who go way above what the rest of us are prepared do in order to do good things to help others? often devoting their lives and even putting themselves in harms way? i dont think we do? we praise them and admire them but we dont ever stop and think they may have an illness or maybe they have a good illness?.

Dani

Spartacus

The DSM is an American Association whose classifications receive criticism and are controversial. Its findings are not backed by hard scientific evidence in a lot of diagnoses and some are nothing more than simply the view of a few psychologists. There wasn't a democratic vote on it or even a consensus.

Everyone knows the Americans over diagnose. The DSM had previously listed homosexuality as a disorder as currently having a low sex drive as a disorder (asexuality). They just want to put it in a box. Its good of you to remind us that ever thinking homosexuality was a disorder is nonsense; I say the same about peadophilia in most cases. Certain fetishes to the DSM are disorders to them as well... anything not deemed to fit a cultural perceptive of normal sexual behavour is which backs up my point.

You know how I feel about this but yes schizophrenia and depression are mental illnesses. These are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain and the individual can take medication to help balance them. If they had a peado pill perhaps you could have an argument. I don't think any brain chemical increases lust specifically towards children - that would be rather discriminating.

Paedophilia has even shown to be a learned behavour, those that have been abused are more likely to be abuse. Yet not every abused person turns out to be a child molesteror. So you can see choice is involved in the decision.

I do not recognize it as an illness. No-one is forcing them to sexually abuse and assault children. The idea is ridiculous. People have control and they need to take responsibility for their actions.

I think I was quite clear on the death penalty for serious offenders. You may find it "barbaric" but consider this:

Think what a serious offender could have done. Where did they get the child? It is relative or part of the child sex trade? How is the child kept if traded? What do you think is done to it? Maybe the owner wants to make their money back. Charge people for using the child or film whats in demand. Maybe several people involved with the child at once. Maybe some animals. Maybe some chains. Some scat if it appeals. Humiliation. Maybe a machine. I don't know about what happens to the insides of their bodies but surely this can damage them? Some physical abuse on the outside. Smack them around to they do what they say. What do you think happens to a child once they are no longer required?

In cases like this I can hand on heart say a lethal injection is a nice way for them to go - hardly brutal. I don't see any argument for keeping them alive at the tax payers expense. The victim deserves justice too.

The use of family members is emotive and over empathizes with the criminal. It's a non-point. I have had relatives commit offences and they received a punishment as society has dictated. It's what happens. I didn't show up in court, push my way in front of the victim and go but what about me? Reduce their sentence or I'll be very very upset. It's not fair.

And to be fair relatives of serious offenders are hardly going to be that insensitive if they still even chose to be associated with them. The person causing the upset towards their family or friends is the offender. Not the victim, nor the court. What the punishment entails for justice is what it entails.

Anyways how about the families who have their children stolen or have them abused by those that they are supposed to trust? You forget them.

Spartacus

Dani

How about the International Classification of Diseases? Does that hold any merit for you? It is connected to the World Health Organisation.

"Everyone knows the Americans over diagnose". What utter nonsense.

Society's views of homosexuality have changed considerably in recent decades and I don't even know why you are trying to compare this with pedophilia it is wholly inappropriate to do so. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Disease can be defined as "any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person". This is true of pedophilia but not homosexuality and various harmless paraphilias which are not classified as diseases contrary to your misunderstanding.

Not all depression can be cured by medical intervention and the same is apparently true of pedophilia, all types of therapies are tried with all mental illnesses with limited success all round so again you are not really making sense.

I cannot imagine how choice is involved in pedophilia. That's not logical at all. As for the victims becoming the abuser, all the more reason to try to understand and have empathy. Your theory implies that if not all children who are molested become depressed those that do become depressed must have chosen that course. Not so - all humans are fallible to disease. Clearly you have very little knowledge of compulsions and mental illness.

The point I was making about capital punishment Dani was that if it was your dad and you were convinced he was innocent (suppose he actually was innocent) it would be your loss and your punishment if he was murdered and even if he was guilty nothing would be learned and nothing gained.

Please don't snipe at me about the families of victims they are very much in my mind thank you very much.

Neil Forman

Dani

I agree with you totally.

Spartacus

If this was a mental illness there would be a cure.

These people are just sick twisted individuals who should not be allowed to live in society.

Any abuse of children should be dealt with as harshly as possible, whether by chemical castration or as Dani says lethal injection. Even the people who download these disgusting images, while doing this they are creating a demand for others to be abused to supply their twisted needs.

Forget their human rights, they don't deserve any. I prefer the children's right to live without abuse and to have a happy childhood, not live in fear.

RichardB

It is a very tricky subject Dani, Spartacus & bcb. Personally I find it very hard to get into my head, that a perverse sexual fetish can ever be classed as a mental disorder - would that mean that any other "fetish" could also be classed as one?

It isn't only in the US that this is classified assuch - in the UK, the amendment to the Mental health Act 2007 now allows paedophilia to be classed as a disorder as well http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/12/notes/division/6/1/1/4 (section 24).

Also, earlier this year, Greece classified paedophilia as a "disability", http://www.news24.com/World/News/Greece-classes-paedophilia-as-disability-20120109 , meaning that they are legally entitled to disability benefits.

Seriously, you couldn't make this up, the world has gone mad. I find it horrific and very scary, that a sexual fetish for children can be classed as either a mental disorder or a disability. How long before the UK and us also include this as a disability, and taxpayers are paying them benefits? I wish there were an easy way to get this challenged, this is so wrong on every level.

bcb

RichardB

One of the issues i have with these findings is that the criteria used to class this as an illness would also be found in many more people who do not go on to commit these sickening crimes there are also many who do not meet this criteria who abuse children so where does that leave us? and just how honest would any of these animals be in answering questions put to them in any study?.

Even if we were to accept these monsters have an illness (which i dont) and cannot help the way they feel what label can we credit them with in regard to not caring and the total disregard to the suffering and destroying of lives? can they still not have compassion for their victims and remove the threat they pose by seeking help? no there desire to act will come before the interest of the children they abuse simply because they dont care about the harm they do to OTHERS.

Its as Dani said just a box to put this into.

Spartacus

RichardB

Thanks for the link, yes it's there in black & white, right above no 26 which is dependence on drugs or alcohol.

If you intend to challenge professional medical opinion good luck with the years of forthcoming medical studies.

Spartacus

Neil Forman

There is no permanent cure for mental illness.

I agree with your conclusion that these individuals are sick.

I agree the behaviour is driven by needs not choice.

Why would you kill people who were abused as children and later develop this disease as a direct result of their maltreatment - are they not victims?

Dani

I just want to point out the world health organisation has mistakenly previously thought homosexuality was a disease too.

Classification is subjective and has more to do with cultural perception then hard evidence.

Being transgender is thought to be a disorder by the DSM. Another thing I think is wrong and offensive. The World health organisation thinks it is a mental illness.

Do you see what Im getting at? You shouldn't take their classifications as god.

Spartacus

Dani

Classification is not subjective. Disease can be defined as “any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person” There is nothing offensive at all about this classification whether it applies to physical or mental illness.

Prior to the cultural acceptance of homosexuality it was CORRECTLY classified by this criteria as a disease. The classification changed when culture changed not because it was wrong to begin with. Transgender still fits the definition, why would any sufferer be offended by a diagnosis of mental illness? Are you prejudiced about mental illness?

You need to think through how the medical profession have come to this conclusion rather than blatantly denying their authority. Suggesting someone is evil and therefore deserves to die is a primitive view.

Ray

I have recently found that I have to switch off Channel News whenever there is an item about Jersey cows

Are they getting prettier by the day or is it just me and where can I claim?

Dani

By this definition being a tw*t is a disease.

You also are causing me distress. Thus you are diseased.

Toby

Unfortunately when it comes to some mental health conditions and developmental conditions such as autism etc classification is very subjective. For example the DSM has just revised its criteria for the diagnosis of autism for the fifth time. For some of these condition there is no definitive diagnostic test so not only are the diagnostic criteria subjective so is the application of those criteria.

What is the definition of peadophillia in legal terms. Would a 25 year old who has a sexual relationship with a 14 year old necessarily meet the DSM diagnostic criteria for peadophillia. Probably not but they would be technically guilty of the same crime.

It is not possible to claim all child sex abuse is linked to a diagnosable psychiatric disorder nor is it right to dismiss the idea that some people do have issues with sex and sexuality as a result of mental health problems. Each case should be judged on the evidence. I do however wholeheartedly agree with your arguments against the death penalty even where there is no mitigating mental health condition.

Jake

English is an adaptive language, you therefore should not be quoting the dictionary 'definition' all the time to being the way of law. Disease has a negative connotation and in this case the dictionary definition would not apply. If you call homosexually a disease you giving it a negative attachment which does not belong. Therefore homosexually is not a disease in common place language only in the dictionary definition of it. So what your saying is therefore a critism in the use of the English language? You seem to be more focused on the actual need to be correct rather the information and 'feel' of what you are putting across.

Spartacus

Jake and Toby

Feedback noted and all points of view are interesting. The law and medical authority is definitive not subjective and I have used/quoted them to try to gain clarity of thought and logic debate on complex emotive issues.

Dani @ 12.18pm you have descended to childish abusiveness due to lack of coherent argument.

Dani

Spartacus

Im just pointing out the ridiculousness of the definition. That's not childish.

Dani

Toby and Jake

I would just like to point out the definition is not definitive. It is actually being thought on how to revise it at the moment. What is constitutes as a disorder has already been revised five times.

Toby

"It is not possible to claim all child sex abuse is linked to a diagnosable psychiatric disorder nor is it right to dismiss the idea that some people do have issues with sex and sexuality as a result of mental health problems." Completely agree with you.

Smiley126

I too am shocked that such a person can get in to our Island but he's not the first and won't be the last. When he comes out of prison.....if he isn't already, he will have to find a place to live and now that his photo and name have been in the press it's up to local landlords not to offer him anywhere to live, then hopefully he will get the hint that he is NOT welcome here.

I think the big issue here is how he got in in the first place. Instead of ranting etc on this site we need to tackle the deputies to insist on changes being made to try and prevent this happening again.

A.J.

Castration ( Chemical castration,which is painless) has been accepted as one of the side effects of one of the more effective treatments for Prostate Cancer, Allthough painless, nevertheless thousands of men are to tolerating this. Not only does this shrink the Testicles to nothing, but,also removes any sexual desire. Completely!

Kilroy

Maybe any victim could get a court order that would prevent a convicted sexual predator from being within a certain distance of the victim, say 20 miles!

Also his UK passport could be marked as some one who needs to register with the authorities at any "port of call".

Jenny

I remember a time, many years ago, when the police would round up undesirables from elsewhere and stick them on the mail boat the next day. Maybe it would not be a bad thing to revert to those times!!!

Sugared Brazil Nut

Undesirables from elsewhere eh? Good idea - they could start off with a few civil servants.

Dani

Spartacus

The reason I'm mentioning homosexuality is because it has been previously labelled a disorder by the organisation you cited. Homosexuality is not a disorder. We know this. All I'm saying is you have to reasonable judgement as theirs has been wrong before, is currently wrong about asexuality too. A lot of other professionals don't agree. There is no hard evidence paedophilia is a disorder.

I am very supportive of gay rights and I apologise if my prior post was not clear on this. I think you misinterpreted it to be honest and I'm not keen on that.

Americans do over diagnose. Take adhd as a case in point. Kids that have any sort of concentration problem they drug them up. Don't look at diet or exercise as factors. They are well known nation for prescribing drugs.

Again I think you missed the case in point. Drugs are not the only way to treat the illnesses mentioned but they can. It's a generalisation because talking about other therapies does not come into how I define the illness for this point. I could go on forever about exercise, talking threrapy but it would not add anything.You cannot say paedophilia is caused by a chemical imbalance like the others are. It's just sexual preference they chose to act on.

Take anger. I know people who are predisposed to a quick temper but if they lash out you cannot say no-one would chose to hit someone else. You cannot say it is not logical so must be a disorder.

I think you miss the point again about saying it's not logical for anyone to chose it. They sadly do. Someone who thought anal is abhorrent could say I don't understand why anyone would chose that. It's because it gets them off. (im not saying anal is abhorent just using another preference for demonstration purposes) In most cases it's that simple. In most cases its not a compulsion but a sexual preference. I think it's nice you can't comprehend that, it means the world is a nice place to a degree but when it comes down to it I won't pretend otherwise or we undermine the victim.

In your last paragraph you say what if they are innocent? I'm talking about serious offenders that are guilty. You wont even consider that. What if their Caught  on their own camcorder. Thats the hard question and one I answer because I know people will always want to there to be another way, keep them locked up indefinitely to we find a way. No one likes the solution I suggest, not even me. Hard truth is I think the injection is the answer. Especially when they have carried some of the crimes I have mentioned above.

Spartacus

Dani

As I have explained in another post the previous classification of homosexuality as a disorder was not a mistake. It met the criteria to be defined as a disease at the time but no longer meets the criteria now. Pedophilia meets the criteria. this may be an inconvenient truth nonetheless it is a fact.

Regarding homosexuality versus pedophilia, the former used to be a crime which clearly was a mistake, whereas the latter still is a crime and rightly so, perhaps that was what you were getting at.

You are going off topic a bit regarding American practices for psychological therapies and the pharmaceutical industry. Your broad generalisations of treatment choices do not detract from the global classifications of diseases. People are looking for a quick fix with drugs and I agree with your conclusion that the better solutions require more thought and effort. This problem is not restricted to the Americans.

Globally all mental illnesses can be treated but are notoriously impossible to cure. You are saying that all mental illnesses other than pedophilia are caused by a chemical imbalance but that is not true - it has not been established medically. I have read that the hypothesis is that hormones such as cortisol which are produced due to stress and depression create the chemical imbalances which then perpetuate the illness. Drug therapies merely help to redress the balance to reduce the symptoms. The underlying causes of mental illness are numerous.

Guilty or not all suspects should be kept securely until innocence can be proven. I wish we could eradicate this disease from the world but doubt that is possible. Killing known offenders removes the possibility of undertaking research towards prevention or a cure and the reason it might be a popular idea is because it is a cheap solution and it satisfies our own anger and desire for revenge. Not justifiable reasons.

Dani

Oh my fracking god.

Your actually saying homosexuality was actually a disease because it met someones definition of it once upon a time. I don't even know what to say to that.

I see now I was mistaken. I thought you misinterpreted me, but your right I didn't pick that up!! I kind of thought better of you than that. Are you really sure thats what you mean? You would tell someone with homosexuality they are diseased and have a mental illness?

Being transgender or homosexual does not mean you have a disease! They are how people are born and there is nothing wrong with them. It is not an illness and they would tell you that themselves.

You still state if they have been accused of being guilty they should be kept indefinitely to proven innocent. Some of them are guily spartacus.. like I said if you have them on film? Tell it to the person who has been repeadely and systematically defiled.

Paying to keep them locked up until a "cure" is found is a poor solution. Above I described some of the things they could do to a child, purely through sexual preference and choice.

I will again give an example to challenge your thinking but I imagine it will go over your head. I am heterosexual. This suggest a sexual preference for men. However I don't say this preference makes me go rape and abuse them. If I did that - that would be my choice and I should be punished accordingly.

As I have said - these paedophiles get so much support despite doing something so awful. When sentencing other criminals you wouldn't say it was because of satisying our needs of revenge or to sate anger. You may interpret it that way but my thought process is based on facts - not how I feel about the people. If that was taken into account my response would be different.

I'm going to call it a day. After what you have been saying Im not sure your worth the time and it quite clearly would be pointless.

Spartacus

Dani

The world is in agreement (now) that homosexuality is not an illness. The world is not in agreement about whether pedophilia is an illness. Don't have a pop at me just because I happen to side with the medical profession rather than your wholly prejudiced and subjective emotional view of this.

I didn't say they should be kept indefinitely to prove they are innocent - you need to read my post again when you have calmed down. Only those who are proved to be innocent should be released. Any who are guilty and under suspicion should be detained. Those who are guilty should never be released. hope that's clearer.

If you chose to rape and abuse anyone it is assault and I covered that at 12.16pm on Nov 11th post above. It can be due to mental illness but only a psychiatrist is qualified to judge.

Anger and revenge achieves nothing, criminal justice must serve a purpose. Your thought process is purely emotional and therefore not rational.

It does not matter what you think of me or my opinions Dani, if you want your wishes to prevail you will need to take it up with the medical and legal profession and government as it is their educated conclusions and policies you are disagreeing with. I merely welcome the opportunity you have given for debate.

Dani

Spartacus

Even the medical community do not agree on the definition. I have pointed out many reasons why not. Repeatedly. Your doing the typical Spartacus fingers in ears. That is not a debate. They even plan on changing the definition themselves! Why don't you have a look.

You cannot even distinguish the fact that homosexuality was never a disease. You think it was when it was defined that way. Where is your logic? You cannot think for yourself.

My view is not based on sentimentality. You just think it is. Although I am geting rather frustrated with you for assuming so and telling me my views are not rational. My views are not prejudiced either. That is your opinion.

You even say I think its evil which is putting words in my mouth. Perhaps you should read my comments again.

Spartacus

Dani

The DVM agrees the WHO agrees and the British mental health act is definitive. I'm sure many scientists discuss the diagnostic criteria and consider changes periodically but if you want to convince anyone that this is fundamentally not a disorder you will have to find some basis of scientific evidence which is lacking in all that you have said so far.

My logic regarding homosexuality was that the conclusion was drawn due to the mindset and culture at the time. Maybe it was a mistake but that does not then follow that classifying pedophilia as an illness is a mistake, however unpalatable the notion of empathy may be.

In my opinion your view is well meaning but unhelpful, sorry no offense just being honest. There is no point arguing over semantics, your words and mine are open to interpretation and discussion, maybe you just find my viewpoint difficult to understand and therefore refuse to try.

Why would you want to kill someone who is not evil?

Bry

Human rights? Why do so many people keep quoting that? You should all know by now that

Human rights these days means subhuman rights.

I Love Trees

Sparactus, I completely agree with you. I've said it on this site before. It is definitley a sickness, to go to the monster route is reminiscent of burning witches at the stake.

There is a state in America that treats it as a mental illness (no one would choose to be that way inclined) they offer the inmates a choice of castration which as A.J rightly said removes sexual desires (or at least stops the perpetrator from acting upon it).

I think nearly every fetish is a mental illness of some kind. Take bondage for example, is it not quite degrading for submissive person in the relationship and why would you want to be degraded?

There are a whole wealth of sexual fetishes out there, some are acceptable, some are most definitely not. Some do not harm any of the people taking part but are still viewed as taboo, whilst it's perfectly natural for a man to fantasise about his partner dressed as a school girl.

I think there is some form of an emotional trigger for most fetishes, I don't think they're entirely irrational. Not enough research is done in this field because people are so sickened by the behaviour of the paedophile it's easier to label them as a monster, after all a mental illness is like depression or something right?

Dani

I love trees

Participating in bondage does not mean your have a mental illness. You might find having sight or movement restricted heightens sexual pleasure. A bit of pain can do the same thing.

Some people like being told what to do as it gives them a relief from their day to day life. Some like to take control as that is the way their personalities are. It does not mean they are ill.

They just like to get their rocks off in a different way, not that there is something wrong with their brain.

People communicate in many different ways sexually. I don't see the problem as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Look it up, I think with a greater understanding and insight you will realise these people are not ill.

Neil

Pretty typical of hand-wringing lefties worried about this idiots a) human rights b) whether he has an 'illness' c) May be some deep imaginery early life trauma made him the way he is.

The silent witnesses here are the victims. The three year old being raped by fat European in Thailand, or the 6 year old Indian child taken form her village and sold for pictures for these hideous individuals sexual gratifications. Or what about the ones when they are tying up toddlers of 18 months old and abusing them?

This character came to Guernsey for the sole intention of enticing children to his hotel room. Only by luck did this not turn in to a far more serious crime - jsut luck, the motehr phoned the lad while he was in the hotel.

>>I believe empathy and rationalisation should be given towards every behaviour of every living thing<<

Still feeling sorry for them Spartacus?

Toby

It has been pointed out in previous posts that some perpetrators of child abuse were once victims of abuse themselves. So yes it is possible that the crime they have committed is a result of psychological damage. Yes it is possible to feel sympathy and compassion for someone who has committed a loathsome crime. Is that some kind of betrayal of the new victim? Can we not hate a crime without hating the perpetrator. Can we not combine justice with compassion?

Neil

Toby

Think of the youngest child in your family and the most degrading and abusive act that could be perpertrated on them.

You still want to combine justice and compassion?

Spartacus

Neil

You are talking about acting on raw emotional impulse, which is the very thing you despise about these criminals. You cannot solve anything that way.

Neil

You don't know much about the subject Sparty I'm afraid. Jimmy Sav, Gary Glitter and this monkey?

Raw emotional impulse? Hardly. They conspired, contrived and planned every single one of their moves.

Grooming children needs a certain twisted intelligence. Searching 'kiddie sex' on Google isn't going to find you that special site - you have to have worked your way in with like minded individuals.

None of their actions are impulsive. No more impulsive than a planned murder.

Many of them quite smart. Not really the picture of a patient that you and your apologist ilk like to portray eh?

Spartacus

Neil

I do know much about the subject thank you very much.

And here you are conspiring contriving and planning what you would like to do....

I always thought that about Jimmy Saville. I always thought Michael jackson was innocent but there's another argument waiting to happen.

"Many of them quite smart. Not really the picture of a patient"

Are you suggesting that the mentally ill are not smart? That's Prejudice with a capital P. What a ridiculous thing to say.

Spartacus

Neil

I was referring to the 3 year old in Thailand and the 6 year old Indian and 18 month old, who are statistically at risk of repeating the pattern of abuse when they are grown up. Yes I feel sorry for any victims but that does not make any behaviour later in life acceptable. Yes they need to be understood yes they need help but to access that requires empathy and rationalisation not prejudice. Why would you not feel sorry for any victims?

Surely it is more constructive to try to understand this illness so that more of these individuals will come forward for help rather than vilifying them which only encourages them to conserve the rampant secrecy which hides and protects them and which they are driven to maintain by any means.

Regarding this particular case, I have said guilty pedophiles should be detained indefinitely in their place of origin.

I Love Trees

I'm so glad you didn't get elected Mr Forman.

So Dani you don't think there are any underlying causes for wanting to be tied up? I would go into more detail with what I was trying to say but I don't think this forum is appropriate.

Research it yourself. I have! Look at other sexual fetishes that are around and find out what science has to say about this, learn the backgrounds of the people that participate in these fetishes. I'm by no means saying that they're wrong, everyone has a right do as they wish as long as they're not harming anyone.

Neil, there is more to this than meets the eye. Read the rational posts from Spartacus and Toby. Perhaps do some research into the subject.

How do you know what this Man's sole intention was? Do you know him? Maybe he was trying to get a fresh start but slipped back into his old ways. You'll never know this, don't make assumptions!

This is the nature of the world these days, everyone lines up to try and pass the same view for fear of persecution. Everyone instantly labels these people "monsters" because that is what the tabloids tell you to say. Try and think about why someone would destroy the life of a young child so willingly. Think about why they would destroy their own life so willingly. You should question everything in life, form your own opinions or become yet another media sheep.

Watch this film(The Woodsman starring Kevin Bacon. You can find it on Netflix if you have an account)it's very good and I think it explains a lot!

Dani

I love trees

Everything we do and the way we do it has underlying reasons. We are the sum of our parts.

There could be underlying reasons of course but these do not mean there is a mental illness generating them.

bcb

Well said Dani.

RichardB

Understand this "illness", yuk!! No thank you.

Having read all the posts so far (it is nice to get so much debate without an all out slanging match like some papers allow), I still cannot (and will not) accept paedophilia as any sort of "illness", "mental disorder" or "disability".

A sexual preference is a sexual preference, simples. Whether for bondage (as was alluded to in a previous post), or a more normal one (like for example a foot fetish), a fetish is a fetish. Would this mean that anyone who had any sort of fetish, had some sort of illness or mental disorder - I highly doubt it, as I would imagine the whole population would be classified assuch.

The difference between these, is that these are generally entered into by consenting adults, and there lies the whole crux of the issue. Consent and legality.

I posted the links above, as in my (probably small) mind, I would imagine that the majority of convicted paedophiles know exactly that they can claim they have a "mental dsorder", the majority would I imagine play on this, and the majority would know their rights in this way more than a victim knows their rights. How long before paedophilia is accepted as a sort of "normality", with mental health support available for them, and them to have more rights than they currently have (which is far too much as it is, in my eyes)?

What a revolting thought, but the more that this is classified as a disorder, the more that they can play the "victim" of this "disorder" (trust me, some do already) and the more that this is normalised.

I Love Trees

How strange a fetish is, is surely subjective. If you're into bondage a foot fetish may seem rather strange. I was only using bondage as an example, look deeper into the more taboo (legal) fetishes that's when you'll think why would people participate in that. I have read about a couple of them and found that the case studies threw up some - not very suprising - correlations between childhood and adult sex life. If this can be applied to the more harmless fetishes perhaps it can be applied to those of a more sadistic nature such as rape and paedophilia. This in turn could bring people closer to finding a way to stopping these vile crimes from ever taking place.

Not everything needs to be solved with blind violence. Sometimes with a bit of logic it can be solved without anyone coming to any harm.

As I said give that film a watch it really does put a different spin on the paedophile image.

Neil what's the need to insult the political preference of others? Shall I call you a typical fascist bully?

bcb

Good post.

I did read through some of the reports on this and one of the issues is that they admit that their is no way of telling if those they surveyed are being entirely honest and claiming these disorders some are happy to accept so readily.

You can be an evil scum bag without having some illness attached to it but it seems some can`t get their head round it.

They are what they are and they have no feelings for their victims or it matters so little to them they still carry out their acts in preference to the damage they cause.

Ray spot on.

Neil

You're doing it again Spartacus. Rolling out the subtle-invectives; very much the style of the left.

Prejudice

"an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

I don't need to have experienced or have knowledge of sex crimes on children and babies to have an on whether these grotesque individual need to be 'understood'. I've thought it through and reasoned it.

Spartacus

Neil

You don't want pedophilia to be a disease because you do not want understanding, sympathy or punishment to be mitigated you simply want each one of them dead because then the problem would not exist.

As simple and great as your solution sounds it is totally unrealistic. Back to the drawing board for some more thought and reason.

Neil

Sounds like a win-win to me ;-)

Ray

Neil and Dani

You should both know by now that Spartacus only ever sees things in vivid black or white.There is absolutely no room for grey areas in the world of Spartacus

If you continue to argue with her it will go on and on and on and you will end up throwing things at your screen

I'd look it up but I don't know what that disease is called

Neil

I'm sure they will invent one soon, only a matter of time really. Shortly followed by rape.

Those poor little rapist mites. Teachy-weachy was a meanie-weany to them once in school and it made them the way they are.

It's practically Orwellian the way the perpatrators are now becoming the victims. I wonder how tractor production is this doing this week week in Sparty's world?. Up again no doubt.

I Love Trees

Neil you are an absolute bully.

Do you have any idea how you carry yourself across? You wanted to be a states member, we dodged a bullet there!

How dare people have different views to you! I think commenting on this forum becomes rather pointless if the people you're debating with are completely unwilling to open their minds.

When things get difficult resort to insults, eh Ray?

You've managed to turn what was a decent debate with valid points, on both sides into a playground slinging match.

Typical right wing thugs.

Neil Forman

I Love Trees

You are getting mixed up here!

See post 33

Spartacus

Ray

No need to be so condescending.

What's wrong with seeing things in black and white?

I am lucky that I have incredible clarity of my views which is often lacking in a neurotypical foggy grey viewpoint. I have a valid contribution to this forum so please don't put me down.

I don't complain about all your right wing nonsense daily mail references and bad taste (but funny) jokes about budgies! OOps I just did.

Ray

Spartacus

Remembering that white is the truth and therefore good,and black is a lie and therefore bad can you answer this truthfully ..

Are you Ed's mum?

Spartacus

Ray

I'm not Ed's mum and I'm not his dad either :-)

Dave Haslam

The problem as I see it here is 'UK'

As Guernsey is technically part of the UK, you cannot deport UK passport holder from a part of the UK.

Its rubbish, but in effect all we'd be doing is passing the 'problem' to another part of the country.

The issue needs solving at UK level, i.e. if you are a convicted Paedophile, who has been released you lose all travel rights outside of your own house, you can only answer the door to get your food delivery. Menaces to society should be treated accordingly, if they are caught outsode of their house, the police have the right to treat them as a highly dangerous armed criminal.

Perhaps its best he doesnt leave the island, he will be an unknown in some part of the UK left to do whatever the hell he wants. At least on Guernsey he'll be 'dealt with' within hours of his release.........

Gsyman

David

Guernsey is not part of the UK, either 'technically' or otherwise.

It is a dependant territory of the English Crown.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandCrowndependencies/ChannelIslands.aspx

Les Pets

Stop all this arguing and come to terms with the fact that paedos love kids,some love animals , pavements etc etc . There is no proven reabiatation for sex offenders. This is a FACT. All the pinko lefties should man up and insist on a sentence to match the crime. Absolutely no parole Life time inside.....End of...

I Love Trees

So insist on a sentence to match the crime? There isn't one. Most will reoffend almost as soon as they come out. Do some research!

Toolbag

Perhaps an early morning appointment with someone following the profession of Albert Pierrepoint? Very little reoffending.

Jeffers

There are people protesting on this forum, that were encouraging , indeed striving to see this sort of 21st century behaviour made acceptable by law.

21st century in Japan, China, Germany, Italy, Iceland and many other places, means that sodomising a child thirteen or fourteen years old is not only acceptable but quite legal.

I agree completely with those that feel that this behaviour is vile, however for some commenting, it is extremely hypocritical to decide that just because this man set the age two years younger than you did, but still in line with much of Europe in the 21st century, you want him treated harshly.

As I warned you during the debate, this type of thing will continue to increase the more it is seen as alternative sexual activity.

Tampering with children is wrong, cruel, and damaging to all concerned. Whether a child is groomed into being consenting or taken over by innocence or willingly participates to gain adult approval, it was wrong when you made it legal and it is still as wrong today, even if it is quite acceptable to perpetrators, courtrooms and politicians.

RichardB

Well put Jeffers, one can argue til the cows come home regarding "mental disorders" etc, without a definite answer. In the end, the long and short of it, is that it is as you say, wrong, cruel and damanging to all, plus of course paedophiles know the illegality of it - they are the guilty ones who choose to act on their "impulses" and abuse children in whatever form they do. They are the ones who do this knowing that what they do is illegal, they know that they will break lives by doing it - but they choose to do it. With the ever increasing stories of this offense, plus the inclusion of this in mental health acts etc, there is in my eyes, a scary inevitability that one day this will be normalised as an alternative sexual activity. It really is a horrible world that really needs to sort its priorities out, people really need to open their eyes to this.

alan

a non local convicted paedophile can commit a crme here,and after serving sentence, has the chance to stay and live here. a local resident, decides to go and join up, to serve his/her country for a number f years. but when they have done their service and want to rturn to their birth place, they cannot because they have been away too long!! do i need to say anything more?

Phil

Spartacus

"incredible clarity" and "valid contribution", QED is a phrase that comes to mind

Neil Forman

Spartacus

I think you are getting your Neils mixed up, the one with the black avatar did not mention killing. For the record, it is not me, since I stood in the election I have only posted under my name. I don't post during working hours as I am working. I do agree with a lot he says though.

I have seen mental illness cured first hand, as Dani says some are caused by a chemical imbalance, these can be cured with medication.

Let's leave the homosexual and fetish arguments to one side, what consenting adults get up to is their business and I have no problem with this and it has no bearing on this thread.

I do not agree that pedophilia is a mental illness, I do agree pedophiles use this as an excuse to get softer penalties which enable them to reoffend.

I don't agree with the ' I was abused so I abuse ' argument.

Do the raped rape? Do the bullied bully? I don't think so, they know the hurt and anguish these crimes cause.

These sick individuals groom children who are vulnerable to satisfy their twisted desires,

The penalties do not fit the crimes, life should mean life. These people should never be released, there is no proven cure. I could accept chemical castration but injection for serious offenders would make me happier. The safety of our children is paramount.

The problem with the Human Rights Law is that the perpetrators seem to have more rights than the victims, this is wrong.

I Love Trees

As to your post at 2.24pm

You are entitled to your opinion, I'm sure Spartacus will agree that I am honest ( maybe brutally at times ) but I say what I think and will not pander to win votes. I have my opinions and values and many agree.

I have seen the film you mentioned, now watch Megan is missing. This is based on true accounts, be prepared that it is harrowing and very graphic the last 20 - 25 mins is disturbing and I defy any parent to be so forgiving after watching this.

Spartacus

Neil Forman

No I'm not getting mixed up. I know who's who.

You may have seen mental illness successfully treated but unfortunately it is notorious for relapse. I hope that will not happen to your loved one. The chemical imbalance hypothesis is open to debate. I am sure that medication is successful in treating some people but others respond well to talking therapies or excercise and diet etc. I have never seen any claims by pharmaceutical companies that medication can cure. I'd love to see that - it would be a miracle!

If there were no soft penalties then mental illness could not be deemed as an excuse for leniency. I do not understand why pedophiles are let loose. They should be sectioned. This individual should not be at large - does anyone even doubt that he will reoffend?

I agree the safety of our children is paramount.

I don't understand your point about Human rights - what rights do perpetrators have that victims don't?

agree

totally agree with you Neil Forman - consenting adults - do what the hell rocks your boat but do not tamper with children.

Its sick, vile, twisted and criminal - and I am personally getting sick of reading about it every day now in not only the UK press but also the local press. What a sad world we live in today - it breaks my heart to know what children are being subjected to. I dont care how much it costs either , if we cannot eradicate them from this Earth then lock them up for good.

Gorgy Porgy

What is with the awful American spelling of paedophile everywhere. Write in English.

Spartacus,

Your posts have been spot on. Proving the lefty to be a much calmer person. Is it nesessary to insult people for having different views Neil and Ray?

I Love Trees,

Enjoying certain sexual fetishes doesn't mean that there is an underlying mental condition. Different people like different things. Simple as that.

bcb

"Enjoying certain sexual fetishes doesn’t mean that there is an underlying mental condition. Different people like different things. Simple as that".

Are you then saying that paedophiles may not have any illness and do what they do because they like different things? in their case abusing children?.

As you say people have different fetishes but as long as there not harming anyone then thats there business. Some people will have certain thoughts or desires but thats where they remain "just thoughts" because any action taken in a physical sense can cause harm this could be any number of things.

I am sure there are those that have undesirable thoughts towards children but never act on them or reveal them to anyone because they know just how devastating this would be to a childs life and whilst the thoughts are very wrong at least we could say they have enough morals? to put the childs welfare first?.

These animals that carry out their desires do so because they have absolutely no regard for the children they harm infact many of them even blame them children drag them through the courts just so they can be free to carry on abusing more children.

These are very well planned attacks that don`t just happen on the spur of the moment which gives them ample time to either seek help or hand themselves in before they do any real harm but they dont so why is that? could it be they enjoy what they are doing and are without remorse? i would say so and as long as we keep setting them free we will just be handing out devastating life changing sentences to the children they WILL abuse and its about time the law started taking responsibility for there actions in setting them free to strike again.

Ray

Gorgy

Lefties are much calmer because they tend to be takers rather than makers

Spartacus

Ray

No it's because lefties are not as thick as right wingers. Says so in the paper you swear by :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Ray

That Daily Mail jibe was very HURTFUL and only slightly eased by the smiley face!

I thought you'd got me there until I saw that the controversial story was based on a report by flipping academics

I was wading through the 'facts' and figures looking for the obligatory get out clause and there it was right on the bottom line ...'Clearly however,all socially conservative people are not prejudiced,and all prejudiced persons are not conservative'

There was probably a year's 'work 'put into that!

Flipping academics eh.Where would the world be without them?

What say you Ed?

PLP

Forget left wing and right wing and have a go at the political compass.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Dani

-3.25 & -3.33

I'm between the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela.

I like to look at an issue on what I think is right as opposed to whether it makes me left or right.

Dani

It says Obama is a right authoritarian? Just a little less so than Romney. That can't be right.

Dani

I wouldn't worry about it. The post assumes that if you on the left you must think peadophilia is an illness. I'm sure there are people who would say they were on the left that would disagree.

It is also very selective in stating only those who do think it is an illness have remained calm. (This is itself is inflammatory) There are plenty posts above which show people of opposite views giving well reasoned answers which he does a disservice to.

Although I could be wrong. I hold a differing view so am prejudiced and my opinion is not helpful (although a debate is always welcomed which is a kindness for me really). Also I don't agree with the really educated conclusions of the medical and legal profession so I shouldn't let the fact they disagree get in the way of acknowledging superior reasoning skills. I forget sometimes that a certain someone really knows what they are talking about as they told Toby and Jake above. (Interesting you get called condescending.) Good to see someone just mentioned the diagnosis of Autism 5 times gets told they were noted but the definition is definitive (which means final).

I get most confused by mere facts such as they are revising the definition of a mental illness or disease currently as they know it's unfit. Or that it has been revised many times before. That things are classified, unclassified repeatedly. That things have been wrongly diagnosed currently and historically. I also got confused when I thought you could hold someone responsible for their opinion. But I know this is wrong on the basis that someone told me so.

You were right above when you said there was no point in trying. Just leave it.

Spartacus

Dani

By "lefty" I think he was referring to me, not the thousands of scientists whose superior knowledge I have drawn on in forming my own opinion.

So the debate isn't going the way you want so you decide to post a full on personal attack at me. Why do you say " a certain person"? Why not just say Spartacus? Are you trying to be comical or just plain childish?

What's inflamatory about merely implying I was the calmer person? I take it you just don't like that home truth, which is understandable.

What's your relevance of autism? Are you prejudiced? People on the autistic spectrum are no less than anyone else in case you were not aware. I have not been diagnosed as autistic so sorry to disappoint you if you were hoping that would be a valid line of attack. You could always argue that the medical profession is wrong I suppose if you are determined to try and put me down that way. Anyway, autism is not an insult in my humble opinion so there.

The law and the medical opinion are definitive because that is the opinion which will prevail whether or not you happen to agree with it. You want the death penalty but the law says no and that's final. The solution is going to take a bit more thought because letting these people out is not acceptable. I'm not sure why you are taking your frustration out on me.

Just because medical science is constantly changing and evolving does not automatically mean that everything we have now is wrong and will change. It means our understanding of things is improving. You may have noticed that the tendency is that as time goes by more and more things are being defined as illness. You can get annoyed and reject the idea or you can try and get your head around it.

The current consensus is that the diagnosis of mental illness for paedophilia is right. That's what the world's leading authorities say. That's all I'm saying. Don't attack me for delivering a fact. You need to work out why this makes you angry and consider whether anger is a useful response to the information.

If I have offended you personally I apologise sincerely. This can happen during robust debate.If I have offended you by disagreeing with you it makes me wonder why you would engage in debate at all.

Dani

"Thousands of scientists" - Really? Or is the DSM the view of a few psycologists whose views are contested? You can look this up if you like.

"superior knowledge" - that is condescending. Especially to all the other psycologists that disagree. Which there are plenty.

"debate" - not what we have been having. For that to happen you would have to accept facts you happily ignore. You won't even acknowledge reality.

It was an immflatory comment. It was meant to stir it up by doing the whole righty/lefty who is better thing. It's that simple.

I am not prejudiced against autism. Sorry to dissapoint you. (Can you stop accusing me of being prejudiced please its getting boring) Please read the point. Although you refuse to accept that how it has classified, despite someone who is much more involved clearly than either than us has said it has been reclassified several times - you told them they were noted. But it was still definitive. (You know that means final right?)

"Just because medical science is constantly changing and evolving does not automatically mean that everything we have now is wrong and will change". Almost a contradiction there. The thing is the definition is actually going to be changed. I think I may have mentioned this before. Has changed before and will change.

Ray

Spartacus and Dani

I have booked you a table at the Auberge for 8pm this coming Friday

I shall be parked next to the Police Van selling tickets for when it all kicks off

Spartacus

Dani

I looked it up and it's 36,000 scientists not a few psychologists. Here's the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association

The World health organisation also endorses this view remember.

It's not condescending to say that thousands of scientists have superior knowledge to me!

The whole point of science is to question and challenge so I'm absolutely certain no psychologist who holds an alternative view is going to be offended by li'l ol' me. That really is nonsense.

What's wrong with stirring things up? You do it all the time! And if you are not having a debate with me then er what are you doing?

What facts have I ignored?

You say Paedophilia is not a disease and that is your opinion I accept that. However it is a fact that both ICD and DSM currently classify paedophilia as a disease.

I have seen nothing to suggest the disease classification is going to change any time soon although I'm sure the diagnostic criteria of what constitutes paedophilia will. For example, a person who fantasises about children but does not act on it but still feels guilty does not meet the diagnostic criteria. This could change I suppose.

If consensus has changed and paedophilia is going to be declassified from the ICD and DSM I'm not sure what they are waiting for but in the meantime I'm right to point out that it's definitively classified as a disease. If you have some evidence to back up your claim that it is going to be declassified then I'd happily take a look at it. Otherwise I reckon it's just wishful thinking on your part.

It says here that definitive means authoritative. So I stand by my comment to Jake and Toby.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/definitive

Dani

Spartacus

The link you provided is on the APA. It does say the APA has 36,000 members. The APA publishes a list of disorders called the DSM.

It is a professional organisation people subscribe to to say they are a recognized qualified psychologist. They get materials from them. It does not mean 36,000 agree with or designed the list. There is a task force this time around with more input from others taken for a new revision coming out.

If you look at the DSM page on wikipedia you find this for the current version:

" The DSM has attracted praise for standardizing psychiatric diagnostic categories and criteria. It has also attracted controversy and criticism. Some critics argue that the DSM represents an unscientific system that enshrines the opinions of a few powerful psychiatrists."

From the DSM web page itself:

"We are pleased to announce that we are now entering the final stages of DSM-5 revision activities, in which reviews of proposed diagnostic criteria and text development are near completion." It's out May 2013.

If you keep looking at the DSM page on wikipedia please note all the criticisms - such as subjectivity. There are quite a few and I have mentioned some.

Spartacus

Thanks Dani

"Some critics" - is that people like you?

"proposed diagnostic criteria and text development are near completion.” - nothing to indicate they are planning to declassify paedophilia?

Spartacus

Dani

The WHO, in their international classification of diseases, list paedophilia F65.4 as a disorder of sexual preference.

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf

I believe the following document is the paper regarding the proposed amendments to the diagnosis of paedophilia for DSM5. As you can see the diagnostic criteria will change but it is still classified as a disorder.

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Sex%20and%20GID%20Lit%20Reviews/Paraphilias/DSMV.PEDO.pdf

Ray

PLP

A very interesting test

My mother used to call me a son of a bitch but my mark turned out to be a fraction left of dead centre.. ( must have misunderstood some of the questions I suppose!)

Spartacus

I can see why we don't always get on, according to this test I'm the Dalai Lama and you are Robert Mugabe.

Neil Forman

PLP

Interesting

Ray

I ended up slightly left too, we know who will disagree with that;-)

RichardB

The be all & end all of it, people, is that it is illegal.

Paedophiles know it is illegal, and they CHOOSE to do what they do.

Pure and Simple.

They abuse children because they want to and because they can.

The rest is immaterial - illness, disability, etc - everyone has choices and their own free mind.

The more stories there are, the more it is blamed on a "disability" or "mental disorder", the more normalised this crime will be in the future.

Maybe it won't be a crime then, as maybe they will be the "victims" of their "illness"/"mental disorder" and plead the sympathy that they "can't help themselves as they are afflicted with this illness".

It is time to wake up & challenge this.....

Spartacus

RichardB

I don't see it like that at all, defining it is an illness is all the more reason for them to be detained rather than released. Denying it's an illness implies they have free choice and therefore once they have been punished they will be deterred from doing it again. That's the justification for letting them out! The whole point of defining it as an illness is that this therefore clarifies that this behaviour is NOT normal.

bcb

While there is a lot if disagreement on aspects of this debate at least we all seem to agree they should remain locked up.

But Spartacus you say this is an illness and agree with the medical profession but what about the thousands and more likely hundreds of thousands that never get caught, are we to assume they are all mentally ill too?.

You also say that free choice implies that the prison sentence is a deterrent and justifies letting them out as they (hopefully)won`t reofend for fear of getting caught?.

Why can it not be that they are just wicked evil people that just try harder to not get caught or maybe they just think they wont get caught again?. Many people get caught for all kinds of things and go on to reoffend who have no mental illness.

Drugdealers/traffickers,

shoplifters,people fighting, even speeding in cars.

Just because someone does bad things or thinks bad thoughts it doesn`t automatically mean they have an illness does it? or is it because they behave in a way that we would call "not normal" so we have to deduce they must be ill? Do you think they have any regards for the feelings of their victims? is that a separate illness from the one of their desire to abuse them?.

Spartacus

bcb

So many good questions!

I don't think it's healthy for anyone to abuse children for sexual gratification. Would you describe that behaviour as healthy? I therefore conclude it must be due to illness.

Criminals who reoffend do so for many reasons sometimes driven by mental illness, however there are not many crimes which are motivated by sexual gratification, isn't that the big difference?

The DSM criteria for diagnosing paedophilia as an illness is very specific and I think it distinguishes between pathological behaviour and other behaviour and thoughts.

I believe some have consideration for the feelings of their victims and suffer deep remorse, others don't. The same can be said of murderers so maybe it is a separate layer of psychopathy.

The illness hypothesis is highly contoversial, but it seems to me to be more logical than the notion that anyone is simply born evil and therefore a different type of animal than the rest of us human beings. Creating "them" and "us" scenarios never seems to solve human conflicts and problems. I think this is due to a natural tendency to want to separate ourselves from humans who commit despicable acts.

bcb

Spatacus

I don’t think it’s healthy for anyone to abuse children for sexual gratification. Would you describe that behaviour as healthy? I therefore conclude it must be due to illness.

This is where we differ because to them and in a world where they would never be caught they most likely would see it as healthy to themselves. They enjoy it and have no remorse so why do you think it is not healthy to them. Is it just because you like the rest of us find this so sickening that you could never imagine anyone doing this and enjoying it without being ill?.

Do you think rapists are ill? what about all the stories of soldiers and tribes raping women including young girls in times of conflict (just one of many examples), where they all suffering from mental illness? or could it be they didn`t see these people as equals amongst us and had a total disregard for them? thats how i think these paedophiles view children.

Spartacus

Oh I see what you are getting at bcb, the thoughts and actions don't do the paedophiles any harm therefore you say they are not ill.

I would refer back to the definition of disease, which clarifies in technical terms that it fulfills the definition of disease if the condition causes harm to others.

Generally speaking, normal healthy people in modern society would not ordinarily feel a constant desire to do something which harms others. Particularly in relation to children as this seems to be counter intuitive to most healthy people.

I think rapists who feel compelled to rape are probably ill. Your point about warfare is well made too, I think soldiers who behave that way are temporarily insane.

Paedophilia, Rape and war are all complex issues and have in common deep rooted survival instincts and protection of ones own genes. They are not driven by reason or civilised intellect.

My feelings about that are that although most people are have adapted to law and order, nevertheless we are all mere animals and fallible to forces of nature, psychological triggers and so on. Anyone's behaviour can change under certain conditions and anyone is fallible to mental illness in my view.

You say "could it be they didn`t see these people as equals amongst us and had a total disregard for them? thats how I think these paedophiles view children." This is a very pertinent point bcb which I agree with.

I think any situation where humans seek to justify treating other humans as "not people and not equals" is dangerous territory. It opens the door for all sorts of excuses for irrational behaviour. This is exactly why I have concerns about categorising paedophiles as monsters rather than humans. It seeks to justify dispensing with reason and intellect. That's what makes human rights so important, even though the concept can be controversial and emotive.

bcb

Spartacus

I think where we will have to agree to disagree is where you think if people do bad things it means they must be ill? whereas i think people can just be bad and do bad things regardless of any underlying illness.

Another example. Do you think those who carry out racial attacks and beat the hell out of someone for being the wrong colour are all mentally ill? or are they just a nasty version of a normal healthy being? why do many people such as this become more tolerant when they get older? (some dont)were they ill before and with no treatment they just happen to be cured later in life?.

Anyway i think we`ve hammered out our different views enough on this so i will leave it there.

Spartacus

bcb

Not always no. I believe behaviour is driven by other factors as well as illness. I deduce you believe behaviour is never affected by physical or mental illness.

Racial attack is another good example of dehumanisation, in this case due to xenophobia which is an irrational fear of strangers. Although some might regard it as a mental illness, I don't think it is listed in the DSM or ICD. Maybe some people become more tolerant as they adapt and become desensitised to their irrational fear.

bcb

No spartacus i do believe behaviour is very much affected due to mental illness.

Racial attacks are by and large carried out by thugs pure and simple and has nothing to do any phobia or fear.

Spartacus

bcb

If framing these behaviours through a "mental illness" lens improves understanding which moves us towards solutions then that would be fine by me.

I found the attached article helpful in explaining why people are reluctant to even want to understand the truth about human nature.

http://justworldnews.org/archives/001455.html

RichardB

Do they not have free choice Spartacus? They either choose to act on their impulses and sexually abuse children or choose not to. That easy. Simples. No-one has a gun to their head, no-one forces them to act on their impulses, no-one forces them to rape & abuse children.

Defining it as an illness plays right into their hands, they can then play this card to justify why they have abused a child / children - play this card to make them out to be the victims. At least one well known paedophile that is well aware of this already plays the "mentally ill" card, trust me.

Sickening & a very dangerous game to start playing.

Spartacus

RichardB

Free choice or not? - that's the million dollar question. I am assuming there have been scientific studies leading to the conclusion that it is compulsive behaviour. Is OCD free choice? Is aspergers?

I don't agree that the "illness card" justifies the behaviour or that diagnosis should mitigate the consequences for themselves. I believe the consequences could become more appropriate and more severe with diagnosis. The current prison sentences are a joke.

Dani

After having looked into it I think the important thing to remember is that both the DSM and the WHO if you take them as those in the know define paedophilia as a sexual preference or orientation.

The WHO does not label it as an illness but as a behaviour disorder. Along with paraphalia (sexual fetishes) and things like voyeurism.

They are described as to have fantasies and desires to touch children. No where does it say they are driven to act on them or that there is anything that means they are not responsible for their own actions.

In some literature it suggest a paedophile is someone who fancies children while a child molester is someone who acts on these urges.

In fact having read some accounts of people with it some say that they are very much aware of the effect of what they want to do to the child - and as they love the child or children so much the idea is unspeakable. Some however think that the child should have choice and part take if they want to. Some have no remorse at all. I think it depends on the person looking at this.

As a sexual preference or orientation it then makes sense to look at others and compare. A straight male will fantasise about and have impulses towards women. If they were carried out non consensually it is rape. As children can not agree to such things when a paedophile carries out an act it is child rape.

There is nothing to suggest they should get special dispensation by the law. Or that there is anything wrong with them beyond fancying children. It is also said that those commit the acts are more likely to re-offend. It is confirmed there is no cure.

My opinion is that it is both a sexual orientation and preference. I think some are born this way and some develop the desire for children as a fetish. Having it as an orientation makes sense in that it cannot be changed. Just in the way you can't "pray away the gay" or be "reprogrammed". Some say they were born that way and the desire develops early suggesting it as the primary sexually orientation - although they can be attracted to adults as well. Some however say that they just developed it and as anyone can develop a fetish for anything I think it is reasonable it can be developed too. The high occurrence of abused children becoming abusers themselves also supports this.

Spartacus

Dani

Both DSM and WHO classify paedophilia as a disorder. A medical disorder is a disease, illness is interchangeable with disease. If it was not an illness it would not be listed.

I agree they are responsible for their actions but then you could say that if a schizophrenic hears a voice telling him to kill someone he is responsible for seeking help too.

Dani

Spartacus

I did not mention the DSM did I? They list it as an illness but only becuase they are attacted to children. Not that they act on it. Also the "disease" issue you keep mentioning is defined by the WHO.

I'm was specifically talking about the WHO above. They have a list of mental illnesses AND behavioural disorders. Peadophilia is listed as a behavioural disorder.

Now if you look at the International List of Diseases you mentioned it is actually the International list of Diseases AND other health related problems. This is to help worldwide professionals. It is not explicit to disease. Peadeophilia is listed as a behavioural disored on this list too. Other health related conditions mentioned are pregnancy and child birth issues for example.

If you check the WHO definition it says: Paedophilia

Definition

A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

There are a list of impluse disorders like but peadophilia is not one of them. They may not be able control having naughty thoughts as a sexual preference (like straight men would about women) but they do not have to act on them. There is no compulsion.

I would really like to point out that all mental disorders are different and you should be careful what you say about them. For example it enforces a harmful stereotype about schizophrenics to say that sufferers hear voices that tell them to kill people.

Spartacus

Dani,

Yes you did mention DSM. At least we now agree that DSM classify it as an illness.

I'm not sure whether you saw my post yesterday with links to the WHO ICD and the DSMV paper.

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/news/2012/11/10/serial-paedophile-can-stay-here-if-he-wants/#comment-199996

The WHO ICD F65.4 re paedophilia says

A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.

B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.

C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B.

I'm not sure where you got your definition from but the definition above is taken from the ICD if you follow the link you will see.

You are entirely correct that not all schizophrenics are dangerous. That's two things we now agree on. We are making progress.

I'm not sure about the prior convictions of this particular person but as the conviction we know about relates to a child of 14 he would not therefore meet the diagnostic criteria for illness due to this incident alone.

Dani

I got mine off the list on the website. There is an attached copy of the list on there.

I'm not sure how the same more expanded definition you have there changes anything I've said. It's not a compulsion to act on their feelings.

It is not a disease as I have proven.

I've been talking about serious offenders and in general. Please follow my posts.

Talking about negative stereotypes of schizophrenia is not cool. No-one said they were neccessaily dangerous. Nor do I need you to tell me that randomly. I know that - What has that got to do with anything nor why do you feel the need to tell me this?

Spartacus

Dani

It is your prerogative if you wish to believe paedophilia is not a disease.

You refute that any medical authorities deem paedophilia to be a disease/illness/disorder. All you have proved is that you are in denial of the ICD and DSM listings.

If you had bothered to check the document I attached you would see that the general criteria which must be met for paedophilia under

F65- DISORDERS OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE are

G1. Recurrent intense sexual urges and fantasies involving unusual objects or activities.

G2. Acts on the urges or is markedly distressed by them.

G3. The preference has been present for at least six months.

So talking about schizophrenia is not cool but talking about paedophilia is fine according to your rules. And you cannot see the relevance of drawing parallels between one type of mental illness and another type, both of which can be harmless or harmful to the person or to other people.

This subject is harrowing enough, I've done my best to help you understand the medical conclusions and definitions and I've now had enough of your pedantic nitpicking over semantics. I have nothing more to offer you on this subject and readers will make up their own minds.

Dani

Spartacus

Im not in denial of them. The WHO list it as a behavioural disorder like I've said. Not a disease. Using your logic childbirth advice and other such things are diseases as they have listed them. How to deal with traffic incidents and poisoning. Its a document to help advance worldwide health care on mental illness AND other healthcare conditions.

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F60-F69 (The current version from their webiste).

The DSM list alot of things of illnesses. Low sex drive, high sex drive, erectile disfunction, having fetishes, being a voyeur. Anything which isn't being deemed normal. Previously homosexualtity was included. Its a classification system. Beyond that they still say it is the fancying of children. The DSM does not say they have to act on the urges. They are just saying they are sick because children turn them on and this is not what they deem normal. End of.

Straight men have repeated intense sexual urges about women they may find distressing but they don't force themselves on them. Your really missing the point there. I'm not nit picking - I'm telling you to stop misinterpreting what your reading. Read your own definition again. It dosn't give them permission to act on their urges or says they have to.

Correct. Saying schizophrenics hear voices that tell them to kill people is very simplistic and reinforces a negative stereotype. You should admit fault there and learn a bit more about the condition.

I find the idea amusing of you telling a schizophrenic their illness is similar to that of a peadophile. It's hardly a mental illness of sexual preference.

All mental illnesses are different.

And I don't see why discussing peadophilia is wrong.

Spartacus

Dani,

if ICD is a mere classification system of behaviours as you suggest, then why is homosexuality not included?

In your post here http://www.thisisguernsey.com/news/2012/11/10/serial-paedophile-can-stay-here-if-he-wants/#comment-198292

you described in harrowing graphic detail what some paedophiles do to children and yet because I described something which a schizophrenic might do you have the audacity to accuse me of stereotyping mental illness and perpetuating stigma.

I conclude schizophrenia is a disorder you "like" and sympathise with whereas paedophilia is a disorder you dislike. The reality is both conditions can be benign and both can be harmful and dangerous.

To suggest I was likening schizophrenia to paedophilia or a sexual preference disorder is entirely false. I said nothing of the sort.

All the definitions I have provided have been copied and pasted from authoritative documents they are not "my" definitions. I give up on you as you are deeply in denial.

Spartacus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illness

Dani

Spartacus

I thought you were not contributing anymore? I almost thought I'd done the impossible. It would have been quite the boast you are now depriving me of.

The ICD list is a list of diseases AND other health problems that are not diseases. :D Just take a look at the references you keep giving me!!! Thats why being poisoned or having child bearing issues, or transportation accidents are on there. Peadophilia is listed as a behavioural disorder - not a disease on the WHO list.

The DSM is the classification system I was referring to - not the WHO. Please re-read comment. It even describes itself as such - I'm sure you know this though as you reference it all the time.

The reason why homosexuality was historically removed FROM BOTH LISTS is because the list is politically sensitive. It was removed because people find it offensive (and rightly so) to say that gays are mentally ill or have a behaviour disorder. Some wonderful people think it should still be on there. I'm sure you know this too really with all the research that you do.

This part is purely my opinion: I imagine as more transgender people, asexual people etc globally become more empowered and it accepted nothing is wrong with them they will have these items removed from the lists as well. I doubt alot are even aware of it. Paraphilias will go I reckon too because having a fetish isn't really a disorder. There are even a group of peadophiles wanting peadophilia removed from the list so they can be seen as more normal. Anyways that's just my thoughts.

I was not being audacious. Schizophrenia is a much more varied condition than hearing voices. Its not straight forward like fancying children. In fact if you took my advice you would know that it is very very rare for schizophrenics to hear voices to tell them to kill people. But it is this type of narrow stereotype that can prevent them from living life through prejudice and it is truly unkind to keep thinking or defending this was a reasonable assumption to make and perpetuate. You did try and make parallels as you called it between the conditions in your own words when it came to free choice.

The difference is I was talking about SERIOUS offenders (I've gone out my way to say this several times) and that is the kind of crime they can commit. Not a one size fits all policy like you applied to schizophrenics which was extremely unrepresentative. Not prejudice.

If you thought what I said was "harrowing" think about the person who would actually do it and do actually do it! What happens to some children really is awful and continuing to say in the face of my evidence that the peadophile could not control themselves undermines the victim. Who as I said above is the person that should be treated as a priority.

Spartacus

Dani

you said you would "call it a day" on 12 Nov that was 4 days ago but you still haven't shut up!

So what exactly are you saying?

a) it is behaviour disorder

b) it is an "other health problem"

c) it is a medical condition

d) it is a disease

e) it is none of the above.

The DSM and ICD say paedophilia is a, b and c definitely and I think arguably d but I'm still not sure whether you simply disagree with DSM and ICD altogether and think the answer is e which is the answer for homosexuality.

You say "There are even a group of peadophiles wanting peadophilia removed from the list so they can be seen as more normal." Well there you go that says it all and you are arguing in support of THEM that it should be removed from the list!

Sorry but I disagree that the things you described in your earlier post are as straightforward as fancying children, I believe it is also to do with control and power and sabotage of other peoples genes by harming their offspring.

Any mental illness is as varied and presents differently from one human being to the next. Yes it is very rare for schizophrenics to hear voices to tell them to kill people and it is also very very rare for paedophiles to kill children but that is one of the things you alluded to in your earlier post.

I have made clear that protection of the children is the priority which is why I think it is a mistake to automatically equate illness as requiring sympathy and lenience. That is not how I see it at all. We would not hesitate to section a seriously ill schizophrenic who was deemed dangerous to himself or others and yet we lock up paedophiles in jail for a few years and then release them and why do we do this? Apparently it is because we don't want the expense of keeping our children safe.

Dani

Spartacus

It sounds like your losing your calm!

If you need to ask me what I have been saying you are clearly not reading my posts. I have also shown it is not logical to think d) on the basis of WHO and DSM criteria.

In my opinion which I have kept separate is that it should be removed from the list. I think it is a sexual preference and not an illness or disorder.

The definition from both the WHO and the DSM say it is a sexual preference for children. Anything you add to this is your opinion. The WHO and DSM do not represent it.

I would say that the type of activity the peadophile chooses to engage in is based on their sexual preferences and tastes which vary on an individual basis. On of these could be control.

This I feel needs more elaboration: "THE SABOTAGE OF OTHER PEOPLES GENES BY HARMING THEIR OFFSPRING." I do not think child molestation mutates the DNA of the parents of an abuse victim. Did you mean something else?

Above I did not insinuate all paedophiles to be involved in sex trafficking. I was talking about serious offenders yet again. Which I take pains to emphasise. I'm afraid they do kill the children in the sex trade - they become a liability when they are no longer of any use. Looking for figures I can across this story: http://blog.timesunion.com/joy/american-children-sold-into-sex-trafficking-meet-my-friend-melissa/965/

It says only 1% of children trafficked for sex survive and their average life span is 7 years. It tells the story of a girl trafficked and used repeatedly as is common. And tortured. Then a customer wanted to set a child on fire. As she was getting old the pimps chose her and they set her on fire and left her in the garbage as she was no longer profitable.

My comments have been fair. Do not avoid saying you misspoke by trying to say I am guilty as the same insensitivity you are. It shows poor character.

I'm glad you think child safety is important. How we would deal with the issue would differ and mine is not based on an emotional stance and as I have shown it is not a disease or a compulsion. If you know they are without a doubt guilty you have to consider limited resources, their quality of life permanently behind bars (they will be attacked) and the high incidence of re-offence. I also think you have to think about what is justice for the victim and the crime they committed. The victim has to pay taxes to keep them locked away.

Spartacus

Dani

So you think the international classification of diseases and the Diagnostic Statistical manual of mental disorders are both merely some sort of glossary of sexual preferences and other behaviours?

You refuse to accept that inclusion in these manuals constitutes professional opinion that paedohilia is any kind of illness but you want it removed from the list anyway?

You initially argued that it was planned to be removed from the lists but now you can see there is no intention of that whatsoever.

As I have said all along, you are entitled to your own opinion. You think it is a sexual preference only and not an illness or disorder.

However the ICD and the DSM are both clear that a sexual preference for children constitutes a disorder of sexual behaviour. I have shown you all the evidence in black and white but you are still denying it.

Paedophiles can be killers but so can schizophrenics that is all I was saying, there is nothing less sensitive about that fact than the example you have given. That's ridiculous. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211617/Schizophrenic-soldier-butchered-dismembered-mother-dreadful-grotesque-killing.html

The vast majority of paedophiles and schizophrenics do not kill and it is important to stress that.

You think I am insensitive and of poor character, whereas you are the one who is making personal attacks against me in a public debate about a sensitive controversial issue and you advocate legalised murder. I have remained the calmer person and have not attacked you personally.

Neil Forman

Spartacus

I'm with Dani on this, it is not a disease or illness. It is purely a behavioural issue / sexual preference.

These people prey on children, often spending a lot of time grooming them..

You are right and I agree that serious offenders should not be released so children are safe. Sentences should be harsher. Much harsher.

Watch the the film Megan is missing, based on true accounts. I watched it by accident and wish I hadn't. it is harrowing.

bcb

I too am with Dani on this one.

Dani

"So you think the international classification of diseases and the Diagnostic Statistical manual of mental disorders are both merely some sort of glossary of sexual preferences and other behaviours?"

Well Spartacus. I mean I don't want to spell it out for the nth time but it is the international classification of diseases AND OTHER HEALTH CONDITIONS where the WHO have listed it as a behavior disorder. The DSM says it is an illness in the sense that people have sexual preferences for children and that this is normal. I'm not sure how your missing this.

"You refuse to accept that inclusion in these manuals constitutes professional opinion that paedohilia is any kind of illness but you want it removed from the list anyway?"

Feel free to read my posts Spartacus its the polite thing to do.

Now what I did when you took issue with my opinion, which you said was unhelpful and didn't matter because these documents were definitive (totally remaining calm and not irritating comments at all) I used them to show you - that you are mistaken. Whats wonderful is you keep quoting things you have not investigated fully that prove you to be wrong. If you truly believe them to be the be all and end all you would be agreeing with me.

You were unable to comprehend/respect/value analysis and evaluation of any other view point so I kept my opinion separate as it was such a dead end. Computer said no. Then you asked me my opinion and I gave it to you. It should not be confusing.

You also do not seem to understand the concept of context - the way I talked about serious offenders was different to you making general application to a whole group.

"also very very rare for paedophiles to kill children" As I was talking about serious offenders and trafficking which I framed in context earlier I provided a link that showed only 1% of children survive to show that what you were saying is incorrect. You love your links. It was not be insensitive but show evidence. Not sure what your link on one schizophrenic proves... I have not even read it. Like you said it is a very small minority that are aggressive. By putting up that link again you are perpetuating a bad stereotype.

The funny thing is Spartacus I know I have not remained completely calm. But I have not insinuated it - like you have. And you keep going on about personal attacks - if that's what you call a gentle ribbing...

You have a different stance on the lethal injection. But it does not make me less of a person like you seem to think. Its your opinion.

And please please please can you explain this one:

THE SABOTAGE OF OTHER PEOPLES GENES BY HARMING THEIR OFFSPRING

Spartacus

Dani

"gentle ribbing" lol!

I respect that you have a different opinion to me and I respect that you have a different interpretation of the DSM & ICD. I get the impression you respect no one who dares to disagree with you.

Dani

Spartacus

There is interpretation and there is blindly ignoring the WHO don't list it as a disease.

Your welcome to your opinion on whether I respect those who disagree we me. Notice how I'm not telling you your opinion is unhelpful... or suggesting my opinion is too difficult for you to understand so maybe your not trying. Or suggesting its well meaning anyway. (Those were really upsetting personal attacks by the way :P ).

So your not going to explain this either:

THE SABOTAGE OF OTHER PEOPLES GENES BY HARMING THEIR OFFSPRING

I can only assume you believe that then.

Spartacus

Dani

The WHO list paedophilia in their International classification of DISEASES. The clue is in the name of the publication. You have explained that you do not accept the medical definition of the word "disease". You have explained that you do not believe a disorder is a disease.

I believe YOU have formed an incorrect interpretation and blindly ignore authoritative opinions/definitions. I doubt that even the following link will clarify your confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease

On 14th Nov at 10.05am I said "If I have offended you personally I apologise sincerely" and you have yet to reciprocate that courtesy.

Dani

Spartacus

Yes it's all in the name of the document. diseases and OTHER HEALTH CONDITIONS where it is listed as a behavioural disorder. Not as a disease!!! Just like pregnancy issues and being poisoned or being in a traffic accident are included and are not diseases. Feel free to read the whole document name and look how things have been classified. Why do you thing traffic accidents are included. Are these diseases???

They can define disease how they want. Forget about what I think your confusing yourself again clearly as your comment shows but even the WHO do not list it as a disease.

Spartacus

Dani

Where did you get that name from? I've never seen ICD with the appendage "and other health conditions"

A health condition is illness.

Dani

That name was from a wikipedia page. As this document is real. I didn't make up the page for funsies.

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en

This is the online version of the document. It calls itself the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision.

If you look down the left hand side you will see different categories. Diseases are listed in different headings. Disease of the digestive system; disease of the circulatory system. You also have Mental and behavioural disorders, injury and poisoning and pregnancy and child birth.

Health conditions are illnesses. But illnesses are not necessarily diseases. I have a sore throat and sniffy nose so am ill - but do not have a disease. Under the WHO system (as they differ from DSM) they would say I had an other health related problem.

I do think you will like the link of the bottom comment. It shows some of the latest research and how other countries approach the issue. Take a look if you have time and inclination.

A.J.

We may have all been 'born equal',but,it would seem none of us are born 'Perfect'. Darwin spotted that, many years ago. It's just that some of us 'think' we are more 'perfect' than others

Disciple

The problem is called sin. The commonly taught theory of evolution has been instrumental in encouraging abuse of all different kinds, however it is not the cause of the problem, more a symptom.

When a nation decides to do away with its moral compass, there are no absolutes anymore and the community loses track of right and wrong.

We are seeing this increasingly in the UK and in Guernsey.

As the subject is paedophilia, it is clearly stated in Gods Word that it is wrong. It does not matter whether governments deem it acceptable, whether it is in fashion, whether it is illness or a lifestyle choice, it is wrong.

Those who are perpetrators, must never get the chance to reoffend, whether that is done through living in secure accommodation or surgically removing the components that cause the offending.

Dani

Disciple

I'm not religious but I can agree with you on the fact shared morals and principles should be valued more. I think out society would be better for it.

Ray

Disciple

Agreed,but history has shown us that certainly in Ireland and to some extent in English Bishoprics the favoured option is to sweep it all under the carpet

Phil

This post had me on the floor laughing, religious figures of authority, whatever their denomination, are amongst the biggest offenders when it comes to paedophilia. And yet the denial and cover up continues, anything to keep the church tills chinging and the followers under the influence of what can only be described as one of life's true evis.

Disciple

Phil, I am concerned that you find the issue amusing. Over the years, thousands of young people have fallen victim to paedophiles working in church circles. It is repulsive and the perpetrators should be sought out and brought to justice.

How exactly did your post relate to my point, could you enlarge please?

Bewildered

So he can't be made to leave because of his passport ?

Why ?

We are not part of the EU and therefore we don't have to recognise their ridiculous rules and regulations............when he is released from prison put him on a plane and send him off the island ............so simple even an idiot like me thought of it !

kat

It has been confirmed he is now out of prison and has left the island

thanks to the police facebook account for giving us this information best news i have had today

Marcus

Dani, those were some excellent posts above, the same goes for spartacus, it's nice to see a decent discussion on this site.

Disciple, I'm not a religious person at all, however I think it's possible to still have morals. Treat people as you'd wish to be treated yourself.

Religion has been one of the most damaging things to humans. I don't just mean the recent exposure of a massive paedophile ring within the catholic church. All through history invasions were made that involved forcing people to believe in a different relgion. Look at Islam extremists at the moment, blowing people up because they have different views.

I believe that those who commit such apalling crimes against the young are controlled by urges of some kind, whether choose to act on them or not, I have no idea.

Whether this is a sexual behavioural problem or a true illness is hard to say. I certainly couldn't bring myself to display any form of sympathy whether it is an illness or not.

More research is definitely needed. Better facilities where they can be locked up until death or they're too fragile to harm anybody might also be worth a look. The only problem is who would foot the bill?

North of Alderney

The offender can offend you, but you in turn cannot offend them.

Because that's there human rights !

No wonder society is in such a mess, the balance is wrong, always weighted toward the offender.

I believe in the premise that innocent till proven guilty, but once proven guilty you should lose a proportion, or if not all your human rights.

Therefore these should not be afforded back to you, until you have made your recompense with society

Disciple

@Marcus - I agree that non Christian people can have good morals, I think that we would have seen this in Guernsey 50 years ago. Guernsey was not populated by Christians but generally speaking, they used the ten commandments and the one that you quote to live their lives by.

It was very clear cut, murder, stealing, swearing, telling lies, breaking verbal agreements, rape etc were all wrong.

Today, we have the ten suggestions as opposed to the ten commandments and so very few people feel that "no" actually means no.

With reference to the comments about cost of looking after such individuals, this is another subject in a sense, but one that does seriously need looking at.

If we have disturbed people, that need to be kept away from society, to protect that society and to an extent, to protect the individual from reoffending, then there will obviously be a cost involved, however the situation we find ourselves in now is unacceptable. The standard of living in a prison is sufficiently high as to exceed the living standards of many pensioners or lower paid workers. For many people on this island earning £7 per hour, eating hot meals regularly, having heating on during the day and having regular medical/dental assistance is not an option. This can't be right, but as I mentioned, it's really another topic.

Spartacus

Disciple

The inadequate provisions of some pensioners and low earners is no justification for avoiding the cost of indefinite detention of dangerous criminals. Nor is the cost of detaining them justification for murdering them.

Everyone has the human right of health equity including prisoners, elderly and low earners but the failings in this is a separate issue.

Guernsey Mom

I have a feeling he is going to be out very soon, I think Guernsey parents should get together and petition the States so that we know where these people are and that AL is made to leave the island before another child gets propositioned. I for one am keeping my child very close and we should not be made to feel like this, it is not the island I grew up on any longer.

Dani

Guernsey Mom

A poster called Kat said it was announced on the police facebook page that he is out of prison and has already left the island.

There is currently a Voice for Victims campaign group you may like to contact as I believe they may have the same concerns as yourself.

:)

Spartacus

Guernsey Mom

It is exactly the same island I grew up in - nothing much has changed. Abuse is as prevalent now as it was then.

In fact, I'm absolutely certain that awareness and publicity has improved.

Local Lass

Lets face it we live in a no justice island. Two kids have just been jailed for throwing some drugs over the prison wall one of them got over 5 years, well my ex neighbour a peudo from the uk got jailed for less so where the heck is the justice. He should have been deported or made a complete example of so in prob less than two years he will be out again offending. Let's hope he is getting hell inside then he will come out and clear off but better still tattoo peudo on his fore head first!

Disciple

@Spartacus, It is a separate issue in one sense, but the power of suggestion is not to be underestimated. I have highlighted how teaching evolution as a historical fact has made huge differences to peoples views on abuse, racism, treatment of the elderly and ill etc and I see the current system as very similar. You are not openly telling people to reoffend, but by rewarding a convicted criminal with superior living conditions to many of his or her contemporaries, you are giving out a misleading message.

I didn't suggest about murdering anybody, it might have been somebody else.

Spartacus

Disciple

No one is telling people to reoffend or anything of the sort. In my posts I have made clear my view that any diagnosed/convicted offenders should be detained indefinitely until such a time there is greater research and understanding of the illness which may lead to a cure. I do not agree with your view that this suggestion is any kind of reward. The current policy of releasing them after they have done their time does not deter them from reoffending. These individuals are entitled to basic human rights as are all contemporaries, but paedophiles are not fit for integration with society and should be sectioned.

Inadequate policies to support basic living standards and other human rights of ordinary citizens is a separate issue.

Sorry, I was not implying that you supported murdering anyone, it was Dani, Neil Forman and others.

Disciple

Startacus - Sorry, when I used the word "you" as in "You are not openly telling people to reoffend, but by rewarding a convicted criminal with superior living conditions to many of his or her contemporaries, you are giving out a misleading message." I was referring to those that are responsible for making the decision and not you personally.

My mistake.

Rufus

Spartacus, you are an extremely good troll.

Paedophilia an illness? Brilliant.

Spartacus

Rufus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance

Andrew

I am aware of Luckwill because of his presence over many years on the Internet. Particularly in a Land Rover newsgroup that I used to read. His posts to that newsgroup betrayed some quite bizarre and worrying behaviour, such as asking for pictures of young boys next to Land Rovers. He also seemed to have a disagreement with at least one Land Rover club in Britain, and set up several clubs of his own, many of which probably only existed in Cyberspace. His activities elsewhere on the internet were more troubling, which is why I was not surprised to come across this report on your website.

Apart from being an "odd character" - which in itself is not a crime - he has a long history of criminality, not helped by a behavioural condition which leads him to take actions without fully appreciating the consequences . Not so fully unaware, it should be added, to convince a judge or jury that he should be dealt with separately from the normal judicial process.

I expect that the authorities in Guernsey will seek to return him to the British Isles when he completes his sentence. A perfectly understandable approach, and the least likely to meet with public opposition in Guernsey, but I only hope the next place to accept him - probably the UK, as he seems to be on the run from the RoI - will give him the necessary help and counselling to overcome his behaviours before he commits another, possibly worse, crime.

This is a guy who definitely needs help.

Spartacus

Neil Forman

Given the two options of

1) Paedophiles being released after prison and free to reoffend

or

2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8004064.stm ( Louis Theroux on California's mental hospital for Paedophiles)

which option would you choose if you were elected to the Sates? On the basis that only these two options are on the table.

Neil Forman

Spartacus

Bit of a no brainier really, I would go with option 2.

If it keeps these sickos of the streets and children safe I would support it.

I was interested in the person that said the only treatment that worked was castration.

Out of the hundreds that have attended this facility only 13 have been released, we're these the castrated ones?

Spartacus

Neil Forman

Thank you.

At last something sensible from you.

Spartacus

Dani

Same question to you, which would you choose 1 or 2? If you were a deputy would you stand up and argue in the assembly that paedophilia is not an illness thereby supporting release of offenders?

Spartacus

Neil Forman

Megan's missing is not about paedophilia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

Hebephilia is a sexual preference and not classified as an illness, and not included in the DSM only paedophilia is classified as an illness. Important distinction of age relating to puberty.

Some experts would like to include Hebephilia but others say it can't be mental illness on the basis that it pathologizes "reproductively valid behavior".

In non legal or medical terms it is commonplace to refer to all under age sex offenses as paedophilia.

Dani

Ah wonderful. It's not classified as an illness because having sex with children of the ages 11 - 14 is valid reproductive behavior. NOTHING to do with control over actions - it is about what society deems normal so social and legal standards can be upheld. Its is subject to what people find acceptable which is very subjective. I think someone mentioned something like that.

Spartacus

Dani

It is about the underage person who is not deemed capable of consent. Therefore although the act by the adult is not mental illness or unnatural it is in fact statutory rape.

Another important distinction is that Hebephilia IS to do with control over actions. Therefore a person sentenced to jail should learn from punishment and effectively be deterred from repeating the offense.

Statutory rape is not at all subjective, the law never is. It's definitive.

Dani

Spartacus

Who said it wasn't rape? (Your reading things that are not there in my posts) Are you reading what I'm saying? What your link is saying? Or the own quote you use?

Here is a direct quote from wikipedia. The link you actually put up:

In 2008, Ray Blanchard was the lead author of an influential paper proposing the introduction of hebephilia in the DSM-5.[8] The paper, coauthored mostly with colleagues from CAMH and the University of Toronto, triggered a number of reactions, many of them critical on the basis that it pathologizes reproductively valid behavior in order to uphold current social and legal standards.

Yes well done they do have control. As do paedophiles. The classification is not to do with having control but as to what is normal with regards to the DSM system.

No-one is questioning the law here - but I was assessing the DSM classification system using knowledge and reasoning.

Why did you think I was talking about the law? Was that even mentioned?

Oh and read the name of this document:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Statistical_Classification_of_Diseases_and_Related_Health_Problems

Spartacus

Dani

No one said it wasn't statutory rape, I was merely stating a fact.

I'm not sure whether you understand what is being said in the wiki quote.

Paedophilia is listed in the DSM and ICD. It is listed as an illness.

Hebephilia is not listed in the DSM and ICD. Ray Blanchard wants it listed but its not an illness per se so for that reason it won't get listed.

You did mention the law you said "so that legal standards can be upheld". The point is that legal standards are covered by the law not by DSM.

Dani

Look at the reason WHY it is not listed. WHY it is not considered an illness. It's all there. I'm giving it to you on a plate.

No the law is not covered by the DSM. But it is one of the reasons it is not included as the quote states. As with social standards. Because in some countries it is not illegal to marry young and have sex with younger people. Also they are saying because their bodies are potentially ready for sex the individual is not ill.

Homosexuality is not included even though it meets the definition because (rightly so) it is offensive to suggest it is an illness (I think it is a sexual preference).

None of these reasons are to do with control, and it shows you it is subjective.

Spartacus

Dani

The reason hebephilia is NOT listed is the same reason why paedophilia IS listed. And still you seem confused.

Correct - in some countries the age of consent is much lower. That is why there is a clinical and legal distinction between hebephilia and paedophilia. Yes they are saying because their bodies are potentially ready for sex the individual with hebephilia is not ill and for the same reason the person with paedophilia is ill.

Homosexuality, like hebephilia does not meet any clinical diagnostic criteria for causing harm that is why it cannot be classified as an illness.

There is nothing subjective at all about the clinical and legal definitions.

Dani

Spartacus

Do you work? You don't have to answer but I am curious. I'm curious if your male or female too. I thought you were female? Maybe your male as you really don't listen. :P

"frankly I would not expect you to understand" "To try to put it simply for your benefit" Have you been working on your people skills lately? You can tell.

I've read your theory. I could just pretend it has no value and is unhelpful because the DSM and WHO don't recognise it.... but I wouldn't want to use your reasoning skills.

It still does lack. What exactly is it that damages the genes? You did not explain. Unless the peadophile impregnantes a female to pass on DNA that is considered weaker... but the whole point of peadophilia is being sexually attracted to prepubescent schildren who cannot reproduce. From that point it makes no logical sense. How else can the DNA be damged? Unless they are poorly tuned hebephiles trying to strike it lucky with someone who has just become sexually mature?

Also if you accepted the brain cabling evidence you would be disagreeing with the DSM and WHO as this would mean it was a sexual orientation like I think and not a behavioural disorder by the WHO / illness for the DSM. (who removed homosexuality as it was an orientation).

No where in either classification system does it say that they have to act on the urges - which you keep alluding to.

Page 3 of your link talks about how subjective the defintions are...

Your saying a lot of stuff I don't disagree with which means to me your really not reading what I'm saying if you feel you need to repeat it. On this basis it's hard to know how to proceed....

Step 1:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en

Use this link. Then state what is the name of the uploaded document and state under what cateogory paedophila is listed by the WHO on the left hand side.

Spartacus

Dani

Evolutionary psychology is not MY theory, it is one I have read about.

This week long debate has been about me explaining to you that the DSM and ICD, both list paedophilia.

You have argued against the credibility of DSM, against paedophilia as a medical diagnosis, against ICD as an objective scientific authority, against the definition of disease.

You have argued that paedophilia is as straightforward as people who fancy children. I politely explained

"Sorry but I disagree that the things you described in your earlier post are as straightforward as fancying children, I believe it is also to do with control and power and sabotage of other peoples genes by harming their offspring"

Control and power and evolutionary genetic psychology are all aspects of behaviour studied bypsychiatry.

So what is it that damages the genes? If you remember when we were discussing whether depression is caused by chemical imbalance in the brain and I explained that excess cortisol and other chemicals cause changes in the brain which then cause more depression setting up a cycle? Well psychological damage in children sets up this pattern leading to lifelong depression, problems and even suicide in some cases. This can restrict the reproduction prospects of the individual ie it reduces the possibility of passing on its genes.

This is my understanding - nothing to do with impregnating the victim because as you correctly deduce paedophilia by its very nature is not possible to impregnate the victim and the same applies to homosexual paedophilia and hebephilia.

I disagree with your interpretation of the brain cabling evidence. In my view this evidence supports the medical disorder conclusion not the sexual orientation conclusion.

The diagnostic criteria for the medical disorder can be met without acting on the urges but if the paedophile does act on the urges it is due to the medical disorder.

I compared the effects of any disorder with the schizophrenic who might (in very rare cases) feel an urge to kill someone. Whether or not he does actually kill someone, the urge and perhaps the act will have been due to the medical condition.

Page 3 of the link talks about how subjective hebephilia and other paraphilias are but not paedophilia, it is clear to me at least that most are in agreement that paedophilia is a mental disorder.

On 15 Nov I tried to point out that we were using different sources of reference. I am uncertain of the authenticity of either document but decided the fuller diagnostic criteria was more plausible,

Your link summarises

65.4 A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

Whereas I have used this link for my research

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf

it says:

F65- DISORDERS OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE are

G1. Recurrent intense sexual urges and fantasies involving unusual objects or activities.

G2. Acts on the urges or is markedly distressed by them.

G3. The preference has been present for at least six months.

65.4 paedophilia

A. The general criteria for F65 Disorders of sexual preference must be met.

B. A persistent or a predominant preference for sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.

C. The person is at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child or children in B.

I think the things I have said which you now agree with indicate the ground we have covered. I have personally learned a lot through this debate and my views and understanding have shifted, so as testing as it has been I thank you for the opportunity.

Dani

Spartacus

I'm not confused. Those are the reasons why. It says so.

Now look at the definition - it does meet it but because of the reasons stated by those involved it has not been classified as such:

Disease can be defined as “any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person”.

It specifically says that is why it has not been included.

Peadophilia meets this definition because the urges cause distress to those who have it - and the same with Hebephilia. Peadophiles can be attracted to 11 years if they are pre-pubescent. As can Hebephilia. Some countries may be ok with it but I know lots of people that would be upset with being attracted to 11 year olds. It meets the definition in all the ways peadophilia does.

"Yes they are saying because their bodies are potentially ready for sex the individual with hebephilia is not ill and for the same reason the person with paedophilia is ill." Yeah. This is subjective is it not and SPECIFIED reason as to why it is not included. There is no argument that it does not meet the defintion. How does any of the other criteria change in meeting the definition?

Spartacus

Dani

What are you saying now? That hebephilia should also be included in the DSM and ICD? I can understand that reasoning.

Dani

Spartacus

I'm asking you to look at the definition for the WHO. Everthing that meets that definition should be listed as a disease if it is to be applied in a non-subjective way and in a logical sense. Hebephilia meets the definition but is not included.

Why? I have told you why above. Thus the list is subjective.

Spartacus

Dani

In a country where the age of consent is 12 (columbia mexico panama - shocking but true) it would not match the disease definition as it is deemed healthy for both parties therefore it is consensual sex.

I am hoping to conclude our debate and so I will say that I agree this vile chappy is not mentally ill in accordance with internationally recognised criteria. He is not compelled to act this way it is just a sexual preference for younger males. This is not "true" paedophilia in the medical sense.

Rape, and abuse generally, is not an illness and can apply equally to those who are under age or of any age. Therefore I don't think hebephilia will be added to the ICD list. It's a crime but not a disease because the perpetrator is not compelled to behave in an abnormal way, the behaviour is immoral rather than unnatural.

"True" paedophilia however, as defined by ICD diagnostic criteria is a mental condition. This is not just a case of putting a label on a box because we don't fully understand it. It is a thoroughly researched and understood concept.

In Guernsey the criminal penalties for statutory rape and sexual abuse of anyone below the age of consent should be extremely severe to provide a deterrent to those who wish to take advantage of our vulnerable teenage children. This includes images and every level on the spectrum of offences. They should remain on a public offenders register.

For medically diagnosed paedophiles the consequence should be indefinite detention under mental health legislation.

Dani

"In a country where the age of consent is 12 (columbia mexico panama – shocking but true) it would not match the disease definition as it is deemed healthy for both parties therefore it is consensual sex."

Um sex is only ever consensual if both parties wants it irrespective of age - and whether it is consensual or not is not part of the WHO ICD definition.

Hebephilia does meet the defintion. The links I have shown... shown this. The reason it is not included is because of social/legal factors which makes inclusion subjective. I don't think it will make the list either.

The disease definition does not mention anything about legal or social factors. Or cultural ones. You keep referring to it but don't read it properly yourself. It is endless amusing. That is why it is subjective. Same reason why homosexulaity is not included (rightly so). We have been through that too.

It is also listed by the WHO as a behavioural disorder not a disease or mental condition. I have proven this repeatedly to be true.

The reason why this is important is it shows choice has nothing to do with the definition.

These criminals are not compelled to commit their crimes. They have self control.

This makes what they do even more abhorent and how they should be dealth with by the legal system should represent this.

If you look at other sources besides the DSM (notably contraversial and subjective) and WHO (who list it is a behavioural disorder) it is generally been seen more and more as a sexual orientation so this should be taken into account.

I will also like to point out Spartacus never got around to explaining what they meant by:

"I believe it is also to do with control and power and sabotage of other peoples genes by harming their offspring." when talking about peadophila. I do not personally understand how it damages the genes of a molested childs parent.

Spartacus

Dani

Yes so if a 12 year old wants it it is consensual sex in Panama. If the 12 year old (or a 30 year old) doesn't want it and it still happens it is rape. Both scenarios are nothing to do with illness in the rapist. Not all rapists are ill. Rape and abuse is not an illness per se.

Hebephilia only causes harm if it is rape/abuse etc and as rape/abuse is not an illness it follows that hebephilia cannot meet this objective test as required by the ICD.

Look at the definition for disease again. It includes the word "condition" The condition hebephilia does not cause the person to rape and abuse, it causes them to have sex with a very young teenager, which is totally acceptable if consent is given. The harm of sexual contact with a young teenager is itself is a cultural and subjective perception. Exclusion from ICD is therefore not subjective at all but objective and rational.

ICD is used to set legal precedents throughout the world, defend criminal liability, support insurance claims and benefit entitlements and you think it's just a few psychologists throwing ideas around and coming up with a subjective glossary of terms! ICD is used by all physicians in Guernsey to diagnose illness. It is their bible and would be referred to in the event of any dispute against any medical diagnosis by a doctor in Guernsey. It is definitive.

Paedophilia is accepted as a mental disorder. Hebephilia is not any kind of illness.

Have you seen this article?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation

With regard to your final paragraph I have avoided your demands for an explanation because frankly I would not expect you to understand as it relates to evolution and evolutionary psychology. These concepts are largely theories and not proven so I have no wish to debate them.

To try to put it simply for your benefit, when we reproduce our genes get passed on to our children, it's a chain of immortality if you like. When harm is caused to our children the damage does not come back to our bodies of course but it damages our genes which we have passed on and are now within our children.

At a basic animal level, a weak adult competitor who might not be able to take us on as individuals can target our offspring, weakening them and future offspring and therefore the competitor's own offspring will be stronger in comparison. The weakness of the competitor is relevant because studies have shown that paedophiles are more likely to have lower intelligence, lower height etc.

This is an instinctive subconscious behaviour which is programmed in so it makes no difference if the perpetrator has no children of their own. This scenario is described by the faulty wiring as illustrated in the article you linked in earlier.

Neil Forman

Spartacus

I have already stated that I don't believe that these are crimes are an illness.

Have you actually watched the film or just read about it?

A sexual predator gains the trust of a fourteen year old girl online and arranges a meet. ( grooming )

She meets him and then gets kidnapped, the kidnapper then tortures and rapes her and post pictures and videos of her torture and rape online.

She is then buried alive.

You and the so called experts who want to put these Crimes in a box can dress it up however you like. It is an adult abusing a child and I class this as paedophilia.

This post is about a predatory paedophile who tried to lure a fourteen year old boy back to his hotel room. Age has no bearing.

Neil Forman

Spartacus

Try watching a film called trust.

Spartacus

Neil Forman

Age has a bearing in medical terms.

Dani

Fascinating article:

http://gawker.com/5941037/born-this-way-sympathy-and-science-for-those-who--want-to-have-sex-with-children

It looks at the science behind it and how other countries look at it:

"There doesn't seem to be a pedophilia center in the brain," says Cantor. "Instead, there's either not enough of this cabling, not the correct kind of cabling, or it's wiring the wrong areas together, so instead of the brain evoking protective or parental instincts when these people see children, it's instead evoking sexual instincts. There's almost literally a crossed wiring."

Kind of reminds me of Synesthesia.

Neil Forman

Dani

Very good read!

I'm with you on this.

Dani

Neil

Thanks for having a look.

I like the way Germany approaches the issue. Helping them help themselves and putting up front it is their responsibility to be in charge of their actions.

Dani

Spartacus

It may not be your theory but it's one you said you agree with.

I asked you to name the document and what peadophilia was listed as and you couldn't do that for me? That's poor and I'm disappointed. I have asked repeated times and you have not been able to. If you think your right what is the problem? What is it your trying to avoid? Your not even willing to look at things differently or even bother.

It is listed as a behaviour disorder not a disease and it clearly is credible. It even has a wikipedia page. I'll look for the link of the WHO/ICD page itself later. Look at the definitions again as well - nowhere does it say they have to act on them, just that they can (which is a given) and that can have urges to. The part of your definition in capitals also calls it a disorder. Note it does not call it a disease.

Do consider Legionnaire's disease for a moment. It is quite clearly a disease. If people said it was not a disease as it was just something you get from being in a certain trade and to be expected would it still be a disease? What is the vital criteria in classifying a disease?

Imagine a girl called Sally. She live is the UK where having sex with minors is a crime and socially unacceptable. She is prepubescent and 12. Both a peadophile and hebephile have sexual urges towards her and act on them. However when sentenced the judge says peadophile has an illness and the hebephile does not....

The same thing happens to Sally in random country Y where it is legal and socially acceptable. Would the peadophile still have an illness there? Would the hebephile?

Have a think.

Spartacus

Dani

As I said before, it is an interesting theory, nothing has been proved and I don't wish to debate it. You asked me to explain as you had no clue and I have kindly done that for you.

I misunderstood the question! The document is called "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision" I have no issue with that!

My earlier query was where did you get the name that included the words "AND OTHER HEALTH CONDITIONS"?

Yes paedophilia is a behaviour disorder. Did I ever say it wasn't?

What is your point? It is a related health Problem and if you are now admitting that yes it is a mental disorder and medical condition I'm content with that and I will be willing to accept that it is not a disease in the technical sense.

I keep saying the paedophile does not have to act on the urges to meet the diagnostic criteria. What you don't seem to understand is that if the paedophile does act on the urge it is directly due to the medical condition. Some paedophiles will find the sexual urge compulsive and must act on it others will be able to control it.

Regarding Sally, the UK judge would not be able to categorically conclude from medical evidence that the sex offender is a paedophile because the OBJECTIVE and DEFINITIVE diagnostic criteria says the attraction must be towards children under 11. A psychiatrist who has examined Sally might have a different personal opinion but the diagnostic criteria must be met for legal reasons otherwise it would be subjective. In any case the judge is primarily looking at the crime. Paedophilia is not the crime. The crime is abuse whether the offender is a paedophile or hebephile and whether the victim is 10, 12 or 20.

In Mexico or Panama the medical conclusion is the same, the offender has no illness. There is no crime unless Sally refused consent for the acts.

Paedohiles are always categorised as ill, hebephiles are never categorised as ill. The sexual acts of a paedophile against under 11s are always criminal but the hebephile's acts will be criminal in some countries but not others.

Ray

FFS

Give it a rest ladies!Think of the environment and electricity generation

Dani

FAIL

*Shakes head*

I agree Ray.

confused

Here here Ray. The best post so far. Mind you we have learnt a lot of things from these two. But is this the correct forum I ask? As they say "get a room"!

Spartacus

Sorry!

I assumed everyone else had switched off and stopped reading on day 2!