Should the NHS help paedophiles?

[The Feral Underclass]

There is a hormone treatment called CBT that can be given to paedophiles to help them overcome their sexual urges towards children. Apparently it is clinically proven to be successful (along with therapy), yet the Home Office do not generally use it for various reasons.

My questions is, should paedophiles be allowed to come out and admit they are paedophiles without retribution and be given free psychological and medical treatment to help them, by the NHS?

My opinion is yes. Paedophilia ruins peoples lives, not just the people who are directly effected by the consequences of it, but by those people who have to live with such an unfortunate condition (especially those who may never have acted up on it).

I think society needs to be more compassionate towards this situation and there should be support networks run by the NHS to give this treatment when requested.

[RedAnarchist]

I agree that they should get this treatment. We help people with more "socially acceptable" mental conditions such as schizophrenia, so why not people with paedophilia?

[Dr Mindbender]

theyd have to do it in such a way to protect the patients animosity. The lynch mob mentality is still that i doubt any genuine paedophiles would be willing to come forward to recieve the treatment.

[Red October]

undoubtedly they should be given this treatment. What kind of society would not want to help people overcome pedophilia? If we have a humane way to help pedophiles get over their problems and reduce overall pedophilia in the population, we would be foolish to not do it. it's way better than locking them up indefinitely or forcing them to live under virtual house arrest.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13, 2007 02:29 pm
undoubtedly they should be given this treatment. What kind of society would not want to help people overcome pedophilia? If we have a humane way to help pedophiles get over their problems and reduce overall pedophilia in the population, we would be foolish to not do it. it's way better than locking them up indefinitely or forcing them to live under virtual house arrest.
unfortunately there are large sections of people living in ignorance who dont really care if peadophiles are 'cured' or not. Rather the reverse, many of them would probably try and actively find out who is receiving the treatment and bash them out of pure malice. Plus, administering the treatment would be largely dependent of the trustworthiness of the pharmacists. What if one attempts to sell personal details to the tabloids in the hope of financial gain? Far more sinister things have happened.

[spartan]

I think this kind of treatment would only properly work in a Socialist society with a superior welfare system where money will not be as big an issue over a patients welfare and well being.

[Red October]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 13, 2007 09:33 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 13, 2007 09:33 am)
Red [email protected] 13, 2007 02:29 pm
undoubtedly they should be given this treatment. What kind of society would not want to help people overcome pedophilia? If we have a humane way to help pedophiles get over their problems and reduce overall pedophilia in the population, we would be foolish to not do it. it's way better than locking them up indefinitely or forcing them to live under virtual house arrest.
unfortunately there are large sections of people living in ignorance who dont really care if peadophiles are 'cured' or not. Rather the reverse, many of them would probably try and actively find out who is receiving the treatment and bash them out of pure malice. Plus, administering the treatment would be largely dependent of the trustworthiness of the pharmacists. What if one attempts to sell personal details to the tabloids in the hope of financial gain? Far more sinister things have happened. [/b]
That's a very good point. There would have to be a way to keep the patient's identities secret, or else it would defeat the purpose of the treatment, which is to reintroduce them into society. And since this treatment also benefits the community as a whole, it should not cost money to get it.

[Cult of Reason]

One potential problem: let us say that there is a paedophile who does not WANT to be treated? What then? Do we lock him up? Leave him be to be a possible threat to children? Administer the treatment regardless of his will?

Also, is the treatment a one off thing or would it have to be prescribed for the rest of their lives?

[Forward Union]

I didn't know it was illegal to be a pedophile, it's not something you can help. It's just illegal to act on it.

I work for a mental health hospital, and I believe they would treat people who wanted help with their urges, if they were pedophile. Doctors and psychologists have to do risk assessments and so if there was danger of them abusing a child, they are detained. Becoming an "in patient"

The question is, should they use the drug. And I don't know enough about it.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:18 pm
let us say that there is a paedophile who does not WANT to be treated? What then? Do we lock him up?
Yes.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Red October+October 13, 2007 04:01 pm--> (Red October @ October 13, 2007 04:01 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 09:33 am

Red [email protected] 13, 2007 02:29 pm
undoubtedly they should be given this treatment. What kind of society would not want to help people overcome pedophilia? If we have a humane way to help pedophiles get over their problems and reduce overall pedophilia in the population, we would be foolish to not do it. it's way better than locking them up indefinitely or forcing them to live under virtual house arrest.
unfortunately there are large sections of people living in ignorance who dont really care if peadophiles are 'cured' or not. Rather the reverse, many of them would probably try and actively find out who is receiving the treatment and bash them out of pure malice. Plus, administering the treatment would be largely dependent of the trustworthiness of the pharmacists. What if one attempts to sell personal details to the tabloids in the hope of financial gain? Far more sinister things have happened.
That's a very good point. There would have to be a way to keep the patient's identities secret, or else it would defeat the purpose of the treatment, which is to reintroduce them into society. And since this treatment also benefits the community as a whole, it should not cost money to get it. [/b]
The same argument could be applied to my asthma - i get short of breath, i cant work so my employer loses profit. Unfortunately I have to pay the best part of £7 a go for my inhalers.
:(

[вор в законе]

They should get the treatment. There are also other methods which can be used to cure them. But if they have committed acts of rape they should be sentenced to prison. Rape, especially on children, is unacceptable. A friend of mine has been through this and for many years her life has been a hell... Most children are too scared to mention it and the bastard gets away with it since it can never been proven.

It should be also noted that pedophilia doesn't always meet the DMS criteria.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13, 2007 06:06 pm
They should get the treatment. There are also other methods which can be used to cure them. But if they have committed acts of rape they should be sentenced to prison. Rape, especially on children, is unacceptable. A friend of mine has been through this and for many years her life has been a hell... Most children are too scared to mention it and the bastard gets away with it since it can never been proven.

It should be also noted that pedophilia doesn't always meet the DMS criteria.
the logic of this thread it seems, that paedophilia is a treatable mental illness so if someone murders as a result of another sort of mental illness should that person also go to prison? I think you're falling into the trap of adopting the mass mentality mindset as one comrade pointed out.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:18 pm
One potential problem: let us say that there is a paedophile who does not WANT to be treated? What then? Do we lock him up?


this sounds scary at first, but yes.

If a paedophile does not stop wanting to be a paedophile there's only one logical reason for it: he/she wants to act on his/her peadophilia, which is obviously something which should be fought.

I doubt many peadophiles would have themselves get locked up tho rather than taking a few drugs.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 13, 2007 06:10 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 13, 2007 06:10 pm)
Red [email protected] 13, 2007 06:06 pm
They should get the treatment. There are also other methods which can be used to cure them. But if they have committed acts of rape they should be sentenced to prison. Rape, especially on children, is unacceptable. A friend of mine has been through this and for many years her life has been a hell... Most children are too scared to mention it and the bastard gets away with it since it can never been proven.

It should be also noted that pedophilia doesn't always meet the DMS criteria.
the logic of this thread it seems, that paedophilia is a treatable mental illness so if someone murders as a result of another sort of mental illness should that person also go to prison? I think you're falling into the trap of adopting the mass mentality mindset as one comrade pointed out.[/b]
No I am not. Pedophilia is treatable only when it falls to the DMS criteria. This means that some pedophiles are indeed ''ill'' and they can be treated. But as I said earlier not all pedophiles fall in that criteria. For example a murderer might be schizophrenic. But not all murderers are schizophrenic.

[spartan]

Haraldur:
One potential problem: let us say that there is a paedophile who does not WANT to be treated? What then? Do we lock him up? Leave him be to be a possible threat to children? Administer the treatment regardless of his will?
To lock someone up and administer treatment against the "patient's" will would require a police force or at least a body of people who specialise in force and are willing to dish it out.

Now the problem with a body of people who have special powers to "deal" with people, whether they be criminals or just your ordinary working man, is a risk as this body of people can use their power to assert the control of themselves or a person/s they look up too which means a seperate power base which means a new hierarchy which more than likely will lead to a new ruling class!

I know people say that in a future Anarchist/Communist society any "police" force would be firmly under the control of the people or the commune that the police force serves but still people can get funny "ideas" into their heads about power and control and it would not take much for the police force in a commune to set up a seperate base or hierarchy using the old excuses of "because of "lawlessness"" or some stupid reason like "National security" (Even though there are no nations in our future society so "commune security" would be a better term to use than "National security").

So what do we do in our future Anarchist/Communist society when a situation or situations like this occur?

[Zurdito]

if it can actually "cure" paedophilia, then I'd be in favour of it being tried. Typically, Middle England will cry about paedophilia, but not fork out to treat it (and in fact right-wing publications will constantly decry prevention tools for this kind of thing, like social workers, for interfering in people's right to do what they want with "their" kids). Sick.

[Enragé]

So what do we do in our future Anarchist/Communist society when a situation like this occurs?

We give them the choice, either they take the drugs, or they are shut out of the community.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:37 pm

So what do we do in our future Anarchist/Communist society when a situation like this occurs?

We give them the choice, either they take the drugs, or they are shut out of the community.
Are you talking about paedophile who have committed paedophilia? In any case you cannot force someone to take a drug if they choose not to, nor is necessarily the progressive thing to do by " shut[ing] them out of the community"

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:18 pm
One potential problem: let us say that there is a paedophile who does not WANT to be treated? What then? Do we lock him up? Leave him be to be a possible threat to children? Administer the treatment regardless of his will?
What reasons could someone possibly have for not wanting this treatment?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Goatse+October 13, 2007 11:31 pm--> (Goatse @ October 13, 2007 11:31 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 04:18 pm
One potential problem: let us say that there is a paedophile who does not WANT to be treated? What then? Do we lock him up? Leave him be to be a possible threat to children? Administer the treatment regardless of his will?
What reasons could someone possibly have for not wanting this treatment? [/b]
i suppose the argument is that paedophile might not instinctively see anything wrong with their orientation.

[Cult of Reason]

Indeed. After all, the Autism Rights Movement is against all ideas of a 'cure' for autism, that has been demanded by many parents of autistic children. True, autism is not really comparable, but the same argument they use can be applied to paedophiles: their phychological 'disease' is part of their personality, so to 'cure' it would be to drastically change them as people, they would not be themselves any more.

After all, what are you but your mind, your thoughts? Tamper with that and you tamper with YOU. You are no longer yourself. That is how the argument goes.

[Red October]

From what I've read on the subject, most pedophiles do not want to be that way and do feel bad about it, somewhat like how some LGBT's are ashamed of their orientation due to the way society brings them up. Of course I don't mean to compare pedophiles to homosexuals, which as been done before and is horrible, but I think that's something of a close approximation to how pedophiles feel in many cases. But I'm certainly not an expert on this. The point is that I doubt many pedophiles would want to stay that way if they had a choice.

[Cult of Reason]

Yes, but there might be exceptions, so I ask what me might do about them.

[Zurdito]

Let me get this straight, anarchists are asking "how do we deal with a paedophile who wants to carry on being a paedophile? what right do we have to impose treatment on him or exile/imprison him if he refuses?"

so what would you do with a landowner who didn't want to stop being a landowner? :D

[Cult of Reason]

Actually, I am in favour of either lock up or enforced treatment, as paedophiles, unlike most others with a mental 'defect', are acutally damagine to the community.

Currently, I am in vavour of the treatment being enforced, assuming that it has permanent effects rather than being necessary forever, as lock up requires to people to watch over them at all times.

[Entrails Konfetti]

If the paedophile refuses treatment, then the next best thing would be to teach children acute measures of self defence such as pulling out eyeballs of attackers.
Not very many people know how to instantly pop-out an eyeball.

Problem with such programes is they breed mass-hysteria, especially in this culture. "So and so are conducting a childrens self-defence course because paedophiles everywhere! Paedophiles everywhere! AHHHH!"

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:42 am
so what would you do with a landowner who didn't want to stop being a landowner? :D
He will be a landowner that owns no land at all...

Luís Henrique

[Enragé]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 13, 2007 09:05 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 13, 2007 09:05 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 07:37 pm

So what do we do in our future Anarchist/Communist society when a situation like this occurs?

We give them the choice, either they take the drugs, or they are shut out of the community.
Are you talking about paedophile who have committed paedophilia? In any case you cannot force someone to take a drug if they choose not to, nor is necessarily the progressive thing to do by " shut[ing] them out of the community" [/b]
If someone refuses to take the drug there can be only one logical reason for it: he/she still wants to get off on children. So either he/she will try to get child pornography (which is something to be banned, as it is now) or will try to have sex with children (which is something to be banned, as it is now).

If someone has another, valid reason, we will listen to him and if the explanation he gives is satisfactory, he can go on living as he did, being a part of the community.
If not, he can fuck off.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Is this drug prescribed to paedophiles in any other countries?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This treatment thing certainly sounds better than the current setup. I think it is definately worth giving it a try.

If this treatment turns out to be successful, and is implemented, those who refuse the treatment, and after extensive psychological analysis they are judged not to be a threat, their full details, including fingerprints, DNA sequence etc, will be submitted to a "watch list" of potentially dangerous individuals. It might sound Orwellian, but if there is a small risk of a known paedophile abusing children, then we should be able to track their exact movement at any given moment. Perhaps some kind of GPS tag, RFID or other tracker implanted into the body of the paedophile would aid in this.

Of course, you would only get this option the first time round. Break the conditions of this "parole" and the treatment becomes compulsory.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:42 am
so what would you do with a landowner who didn't want to stop being a landowner? :D
Kill them.


what right do we have to impose treatment on him or exile/imprison him if he refuses?"

Every right. We are for society being run through a system of democratic workers councils. Not lawlessness, disorder, and chaos. As an Anarchist I am also in favour of the death penalty and life imprisonment.

Society has a right to protect it's children from threats, but the decision to do so, and how to do so must be decided from below.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Red Brigade+October 13, 2007 06:26 pm--> (Red Brigade @ October 13, 2007 06:26 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 06:10 pm

Red [email protected] 13, 2007 06:06 pm
They should get the treatment. There are also other methods which can be used to cure them. But if they have committed acts of rape they should be sentenced to prison. Rape, especially on children, is unacceptable. A friend of mine has been through this and for many years her life has been a hell... Most children are too scared to mention it and the bastard gets away with it since it can never been proven.

It should be also noted that pedophilia doesn't always meet the DMS criteria.
the logic of this thread it seems, that paedophilia is a treatable mental illness so if someone murders as a result of another sort of mental illness should that person also go to prison? I think you're falling into the trap of adopting the mass mentality mindset as one comrade pointed out.
No I am not. Pedophilia is treatable only when it falls to the DMS criteria. This means that some pedophiles are indeed ''ill'' and they can be treated. But as I said earlier not all pedophiles fall in that criteria. For example a murderer might be schizophrenic. But not all murderers are schizophrenic. [/b]
Pedophiles and child molesters are not the same thing. A lot of pedophiles are child molesters, but not all of them are. And not all child molesters are pedophiles.

[Patchd]

I have a question. When is the cut off age for a sexual act between person 1 (younger) and person 2 (older)? This is important as it will decide who is a paedophile and who isn't.
In bourgeois society, they class paedophiles according to the age of consent, and that varies from country to country.

[spartan]

I would say that by the time you reach 15 most teenagers have developed into puberty (Including latecomers).

So anything lower than 15 is a bit wrong for me personally especially if the older partner is 20 or above.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 15, 2007 02:18 pm
As an Anarchist I am also in favour of the death penalty and life imprisonment.
Yeah, but you're not.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

the reason I have a problem with condemning paedophiles is because the age which the bourgeois state says consent is acknowledged is often predicated on right-wing morals. it has nothing to do with when someone is capable of consenting to it. it has nothing to do with whether or not if someone has reached puberty. even if someone is 16 or 17 in the United States the bourgeois state declares it 'illegal' for them to consent to it when the other person is for example, 18+ years old. at that age someone should be able to consent to the such it is their body and their right at that point they have an understanding for that. of course when someone is under 12 years old there has to be law to protect them but when someone has passed the stage of puberty they should have the right to consent to it without the interference of law- there is no reason that they shouldnt. the excuse that they cant decide for themself is irrelevant. they are capable of making that decision. it becomes a bigger issue than it needs to be with these laws- so many people get in problems with the law because of this kind of thing. i don't agree that we should lock people up indefinitely and demand that they get a certain treatment like they're sick people. i knew someone very well that this happened to. he is no longer alive because he knew what would happen to him. it sickens me to think about what shit people have to go through just because of it. and he didn't have sex with a child, he had sex with a 16 year old and it still got him in legal trouble- and he knew that he would never be able to get a job again, to live in a neighborhood, etc because of it. it was the only time it ever happened. but the idea of having to live that way just because of his relationship with the girl led to his death. i cant say that i dont think about that when others argue how it affects the person underage- no one thinks about how the SANE, socalled sex offender had to live after the law condemns them for it.