Heh. Damn right.

I'm liking the Silence of The Lambs vibe from that pic.

Horny young man turns into horny old man.

Horny old man moves in circles where lots of young ladies are present.

Trouble.

“He is also charged with sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl in 2004.” At which time he’d have been, what, 58?

Not much room for ‘bants’ there, if you ask me.

Silence of the bants.

But keep Frank Reynolds.

I'm inclined to believe there is no treatment, even with willing.

I don't mean to DO THE THING, whereby I bring up the difference between those who fancy young teenage girls and kids, because it's impossible to do so without defending the former to some degree, when regardless of biology they're the same psychological crimes. But just on the convo of treatment, I do believe some of that group can be educated on the nature of their abuse and eliminate their attraction.

Whereas those who are into young kids or even babies... Nah, I don't think you're ever treating those. They just play the game to get released. I've joked about Alcatraz Hotel before, but I'm half-serious about looking after our mentally ill and dangerous individuals well, in order to keep them away from the rest of us.

Fascinating as ever Drew.

Yeah, I don't like the thought of locking anyone up indefinitely, even the worst, but we haven't developed a safe alternative yet. Tagging just says ‘We don't trust you’, so I don't think that's a great solution.

As far as making paedos live pleasantly on their own estates, that obviously makes them an easy collective target for mobs. And if you take my exile approach, akin to WW2 orphans, it's arguably much easier for them to offend in quiet rural areas.

I do believe the vast majority of paedos will never progress beyond downloading porn and the odd gawp at the park, but treatment-wise I'd float this question: if they had access to physically abuse without risk, how many wouldn't? Because most are individuals without influence, and the Savile ring really opened my eyes to this.

At first I found it crazy that so many paedos were outed in proximity, but soon realised they sought that access because they could, so it was actually an influx of celebs, MPs and the very wealthy to one place.

I suppose this would-they/wouldn't-they doesn't matter in practical terms, since only a tiny minority belong to such high-power rings, but it's still the question I pose to myself when considering the likelihood of successful lifelong treatment. Hence my doubts.

DrewMerson wrote:

I’m always intrigued when questions are asked about committing crime with impunity. It suggests that the prospect of punishment as the only deterrent. In reality, most people don’t want to commit crime against others because of their own moral compass. Life is filled with opportunities to do wrong, and most of us don’t take those opportunities most of the time. Power and influence perhaps gives you more access to more children with less likelihood of repercussions, but most people don’t need any power or influence to still have unsupervised access to children and opportunities to commit contact offences.

With a palpably high chance of being caught. We'll never know how many people Savile had dirt on, but he was untouchable and knew it, and that deep sense of impunity ran through his associates in the '70s and '80s.

As far as the vast majority not wanting to commit crimes, I agree, and it's always been the principal argument against our police force, which along with stock markets are things we're encouraged to overlook as relatively modern. But offered the opportunity to steal from a bank with an almost zero chance of being caught, absolutely I would. I could switch off that impulse immediately if I won the lottery, but see no paedo equivalent, where temptation's the act and not aftereffects.

Which is back into the realm of thought crimes, but again questions whether we believe there are cures hidden behind the dissuasion methods we default to. If there's a way of increasing the efficacy of the latter to near-certainty I guess it becomes moot. At least on a practical front re: social inclusion.

There's no rhyme or reason for being attracted to those we're attracted to, and I don't think my preferences have changed in decades, but maybe it is possible to rewire and we just don't bother because there's no moral impetus. Besides our min-age cutoff increasing as we age, where most of us stop fancying people we once would have. Except leathery old lechers...

DrewMerson wrote:

I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about in regard to rewards.

Like how a lot of violent inmates in US prisons can be placated if they enjoy given privileges more than the acts that remove them, but on release they're square-oners. Criticising the US justice system's another thread...

My problem with paedophilia is that I find it hard to accept anything less than a cure. Have you ever known someone who changed their sexuality in adulthood (as opposed to resolving confusions)? I haven't, so that obviously informs my thinking at present.

I do believe the vast majority of paedos don't want to be, but then doesn't that affirm how hard it is to overcome their unwanted feelings? How embedded they are. I think the best we can do is treat them humanely, continue to offer counselling, and ensure children are as safe as possible.

For all the sweetyman warnings we grew up with, me and my mates played out on the moors all the time and were never bothered. Turns out it was mostly vulnerable kids in care that suffered in the '80s.