Lemme know how you would feel if god forbid one of your children were involved. Then get back to me.
Andy
Who Are The Pedophiles?
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
Lemme know how you would feel if god forbid one of your children were involved. Then get back to me.
Andy
I remember that and I think we established that A1Player was full of shit on that count
There is great debate in the medical community as to whether castration has any long term effect on recidivism.
http://www.therecord.com/news-story...n-t-protect-kids-from-pedophiles-doctor-says/
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3985832&page=1&singlePage=true
http://www.therecord.com/news-story...n-t-protect-kids-from-pedophiles-doctor-says/
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3985832&page=1&singlePage=true
Perhaps, but there have been many similar cases including a murder in England not long ago.
I'll admit I don't know the law on this, but I just can't believe a law exists that prohibits a father taking pictures of his fully dressed children on in a public space
If it does, it seems rather draconian
Let me offer another analogy to show how ridiculous your position is
Let's say, for whatever reason I wanted to be present and bear witness to someone raping a woman. I'm willing to pay top dollar for this. Now I'm not going to actively participate, but I'm certainly not going to do anything to prevent it, or to alert the authorities. Furthermore the rape will be videotaped so I can watch again at a later date in the privacy of my own home.
Essentially what you are saying is that if I were to do so, I should not be punished and that this behaviour is as normal as me viewing pornography depicting two consenting adults.
You might want to check that out as most studies will show that they are no more likely to reoffends than other sexual criminals . Their victims make it a terrible terrible crime.
A cop friend told me this. I actually did not research the topic. Perhaps you are right. Nevertheless, this should be one of those crimes that.....one strike and your out. Why take chances with these sick fucks and peoples children. Let it be known. Touch a child. Get the chair. Period. But no, this country has too many bleeding hearts. I couldnt begin to tell you what i would do to someone if they were to touch a single hair on one of my children. I dont give 2 hoots about the laws. Time glady and willingly served.
Andy
who might choose the priesthood? Perhaps someone who lacks normal sexual inclinations towards adult women. Perhaps someone who has unnatural or unaccepted desires sexually ( according to the culture he is raised in), so he figures abstinence is the way out, but later can't adhere to it and acts on his closeted impulses from a position of trust and authority.
Then your cop friend need a refresher course.
Your hard stance is a bit off the charts, especially when you look into stories like this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martensville_satanic_sex_scandal
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_reddeer.htm
Allegations of ritual abuse during the 1990s:
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan is near the center of the heavily populated southern area of the Province of Saskatchewan. It is located some 186 miles (300 km) north of the states of Montana and North Dakota in the U.S.
During the 1990s, as the North American Satanic Ritual Abuse scare was winding down, two allegations of SRA materialized in the province. The other one was in Martensville, a small town just north of Saskatoon, and involved the Stirling family.
In 1987, three foster children under the age of 10 -- one boy and his younger twin sisters -- were placed in a single Saskatoon foster home. Michael Ross was found to have been sexually abusive to his younger sister, Michelle. He was removed from the family in 1989-SEP, and placed in a new foster home, headed by Lyle and Marilyn Thompson. Shortly after being relocated, he started to tell his new foster parents of bizarre child-adult orgies, baby sacrifice, ritual abuse, and bestiality against a group of 13 adults. He accused his former foster parents Dale and Anita Klassen, as well as Richard Klassen, Dale's brother, his birth parents, and others. 6 His tales were confirmed at the time by his sisters, who were moved into the Thompson home in 1990-MAY. Corporal Brian Dueck of the Saskatoon Police Service investigated the allegations and brought his findings to senior Crown prosecutor Terry Hinz. Hinz refused to have the adults charged because he felt that the police investigation was incomplete. The file was later picked up by Crown prosecutors Sonja Hansen and Matthew Miazga who proceeded with the case.
On 1991-JUL-10, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers arrested Kari and Richard Klassen in Red Deer, Alberta. Their three children -- aged six months, two years and eight years -- were seized and placed in temporary care. The Klassens were charged with sexually abusing the three foster children. The children had stated that the Klassens and many other adults had forced them to consume blood, drink urine, and eat human eyeballs and feces. They were compelled to eat a neighbor's newborn baby who had been skinned, barbecued in the backyard, and buried. No body was ever found. They were forced to engage in sexual acts with both dogs and flying bats. Eventually, 16 adults were arrested and charged with over 70 counts of sexual assault, incest and gross indecency. Terry Hinz studied the file and found that there was no new information added since he had reviewed the case. One of the accused, Pamela Shetterly, said: "I thought these stories could well and easily....be sorted out. I thought there are ways to prove such things, and to me it would only be a matter of recourse once we were in the justice system.'' 3
In a curious twist, on the eve of their trial in 1993-FEB, Klassen's father, Peter, agreed to plead guilty. He already had a previous conviction from years earlier for abusing children. In exchange for his guilty plea in this case, charges against all but three of the other adults were dropped. Peter Klassen said "I was under pressure. I felt I had no alternative. I figured I'd take the fall and relieve (the other adults) of this." He spent four years in jail.
The charges against 12 of the 16 adults were stayed. The children's birth parents, Don Ross and Helen Ross, and their mother's 68 year old boyfriend, Don White, were tried and found guilty. Dr George Fraser testified as an expert witness on Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) and Ritual Abuse (RA). He was allegedly a specialist in Recovered Memory Therapy (RMT) and Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) at that time, and headed the Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) unit at the Royal Ottawa Hospital, in Ottawa, ON. At the time of the trial, Dr Fraser and many other members of the International Society for the Study of Multiple Personality and Dissociation (ISSD) believed that MPD was often caused by Satanic, sadistic or ritual abuse to young children. The three defendants were found guilty. The boyfriend took polygraph test at the time which allegedly raised serious doubts about the circumstances surrounding the conviction. His conviction was later overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1996. Retrials of the birth parents are ordered. The Crown did not proceed with the retrials, claiming that the children would be excessively traumatized by the experience.
The Klassens were harassed frequently. Rocks were thrown through their windows more than once. Someone broke into their home and painted graffiti on their cupboards and walls.
Richard Klassen started a decade-long battle to clear his name and those of the other adults who had been implicated. He put up posters in downtown Saskatoon. He staged a protest in front of the local courthouse. Police charged Klassen with defamatory libel in 1994. He defended himself in court and was found not guilty.
A decade after the alleged crimes, the children who accused the Klassens and other adults have become young adults in their 20's. They have all stated publicly that they lied to investigators, and that they had admitted this early in the investigation. They have also claimed that the prosecutors have known the truth: that there was no Satanic cult; there was no ritual abuse. The only abuse was by the 11-year old boy who had victimized his twin sisters.
According to recently filed court documents, one Crown prosecutor had "lost faith" in the children's stories, while another flatly stated charges should not be laid. Another document states that evidence was withheld from the defense. Still another shows that the lead police investigator felt he was being rushed in his investigation. It is reasonable to assume that government officials will do anything they can to avoid a public inquiry.
On 2000-NOV-29, following an investigative article in the Star Phoenix newspaper, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) program Fifth Estate broadcast Klassen's story to a national audience.
Klassen's case, often called the "Foster Child Case," and the "Scandal of the Century," is almost identical to the "Martensville Nightmare." In both instances, dozens of charges were laid; Satanic Ritual Abuse was believed to be involved. There was no physical evidence of abuse. The alleged abuse also happened in the early 1990s when hysteria over abusive Satanists was at its peak. A key difference is that in the Klassen case, the three children who made the allegations of abuse subsequently admitted that they were lying.
You may not remember the case, but I sure do.
It isn't law which is the issue rather "witch hunts" be they by police (that isn't art it is pornography or those aren't cute photographs of your infant children that is pornography), or public mobs - as was the case in England.
Unless you want to be "known to police", do not take pics of children. I still think what a1player said happened to him is plausible.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/police-seek-men-who-took-photos-of-children-at-pools-1.1307796
http://petapixel.com/2013/10/05/pedophile-street-tog-toronto-police-lookout-man-photographing-kids/
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/p...he-s-not-allowed-to-photograph-children-11475
http://www.missouri.statenews.net/index.php/sid/217811528/scat/3de26857846ae51b
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/police-seek-men-who-took-photos-of-children-at-pools-1.1307796
http://petapixel.com/2013/10/05/pedophile-street-tog-toronto-police-lookout-man-photographing-kids/
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/p...he-s-not-allowed-to-photograph-children-11475
http://www.missouri.statenews.net/index.php/sid/217811528/scat/3de26857846ae51b
There are always going to be these examples where there is doubt. Not sure what your point is. In the story, you could see there was plenty of warning signals. There is no perfect system. Our current system allows many many abusers to re-abuse, why do we seem to be ok with that???
This is the situation in Canada (S.163 of the criminal code, quoted from CANLII).
Note that cartoons, drawings etc, that do not use real children, are classed the same as photos of actual children. Note, in S.163(4) and (4.1), that "possession" and "accessing" attract minimum jail terms.
Definition of “child pornography”
• 163.1 (1) In this section, “child pornography” means
o (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
o (b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act;
o (c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or
o (d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.
• Making child pornography
(2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of
o (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
o (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
• Distribution, etc. of child pornography
(3) Every person who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells, advertises, imports, exports or possesses for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale, advertising or exportation any child pornography is guilty of
o (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
o (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
• Possession of child pornography
(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of
o (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months; or
o (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.
• Accessing child pornography
(4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of
o (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months; or
o (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.
• Interpretation
(4.2) For the purposes of subsection (4.1), a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.
• Aggravating factor
(4.3) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court that imposes the sentence shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the person committed the offence with intent to make a profit.
• Defence
(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years.
• Defence
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence
o (a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and
o (b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.
• Question of law
(7) For greater certainty, for the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether any written material, visual representation or audio recording advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.
• 1993, c. 46, s. 2;
• 2002, c. 13, s. 5;
• 2005, c. 32, s. 7;
• 2012, c. 1, s. 17.
I'm against frying/torturing them for the same reason I'm against frying/torturing murderers. Sometimes the system screws up, but it really is a rotten shame to execute an innocent man. I certainly wouldn't want it my conscience.
The two examples are not unique, but two that I'm familiar with the most and that got the headlines. There are two or three more I could regale, but it would be hard to prove because they didn't get the headlines.
Epidemic? How many known sexual offenders do you think are in TO? It's been mention in past threads, but you're new, so I want to see if you actually know the number or can even come close.
