http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...a-May-told.html

Yeah that is right you read the headlines! This woman has problems.


What about the children's rights you stupid woman?

Castrate them first.

When you mess with a child you lose your right to raise and care for a child.

Anyways, is she a pedophile by any chance? (But by the way, in most cases the person who sexually abuses the child were pedophiles before and didn't just wake up one day and choose to be.)

It's has been clinically proven that pedophiles can have years of treatment and therapy and most will still become pedophiles again. (This isn't always the case though.) But, this is especially true if they are tempted to sexually abuse a child every single day the're with their adopted child. People are people and can't change that. I think some pedophiles may need to realize they have a problem and refrain from becoming parents, even when they've been treated. For these reasons we CAN NOT risk giving these type of people children, it just wouldn't be fair to the child or even the parent because they know they'll be "tempted". Some people can truly change but we can't take a risk on those who haven't/won't. It's horrible to say but, pedophiles need to learn they just aren't fit for parenting and need to find something else to occupy themselves with. With the Penn State incident the coach obviously shouldn't have been surrounding himself with children. (If he's guilty that is.)

I don't see why a peadophile would want to be a parent in the first place. Except for the chance to fuck their own child, that is.

Exactly.

I'm not sure that last part is exactly true. The desire to become a parent is rooted in something other than the impulses that lead to abuse.


I had always heard the thing you had, Blake, about pedophiles not being able to be reformed. But then I read this and it caused me to rethink it: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-on-trial/8520/ It's not a foregone conclusion either way, but still - so interesting! It gives me hope about the future of reform of some of our most damaged citizens - the ones who cause so much damage to others. I would hope this research could lead to healing of both victim and perpetrator. Of course, even with that, I wouldn't want to see a pedophile given a second chance to hurt another child.

Aren't all convicted felons barred from adopting? I imagine that adoption agencies don't want to put children into the hands of felons, partly because, depending on the crime, the child may be in danger and partly because felons are not good role-models. The way our system works is, if you infringe on the rights of another, you lose some of your rights. I think that, to an extent, this is reasonable. Barring felons from adopting is an instance in which I think it is reasonable.

And her quote about "reoffending rates" and "child sex murders" is carefully worded to give one impression while avoiding outright lying to do it. The recidivism rate among sex offenders in general is lower than recidivism for non-sex crimes, but the recidivism rate for child molesters as compared to other sex offenders was found to be higher. [Source] And "child sex murders" is a very specific term. Many pedophiles are not murderers. Many pedophiles have feelings of love for the children they hurt and do not want to kill those children. So children left in the hands of a pedophile have a low likelihood of being murdered, but that doesn't negate the fact that they will probably be psychologically damaged by rape/molestation.

EDIT: Okay, I read the article a little more carefully. Yes, there are cases where a person is convicted of a sex crime when they sleep with a significant other is under 18, but still old enough that it's reasonable for that person to give consent, even if the law says they can't (though 29 is awfully old to be sleeping with a 15-year-old). I think the study I linked above chooses a good distinction by talking about the percentage of victims 13 and under. I can see maybe doing individual assessment for those who are convicted of a crime for sleeping with someone older than that. That's not even technically pedophilia, but ephebophilia, which is attraction to post-pubescent (physically adult) individuals who are not quite considered adults yet. It's not the same as pedophilia and it's probably best to make a legal distinction about that.

Last edited by Oaktree : 26th Nov 2011 at 05:46 PM.

The woman in this article has problems...

What a noodle...

I agree

wow yeah something is for sure wrong with that lady

After reading the article more thoroughly this is what I got.

What she says at first sort of makes sense, then it goes downhill from there. She starts with let's give them a second chance through screening and testing. This seems like a good idea but, how often this will actually work I'm skeptical of. She continued with...

"There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them."

She also stated that pedophiles have already served there dues in court and shouldn't have extra punishment. Does she NOT realize that pedophiles RUIN childrens' lives and may even mentally scar them for life. My mom is 45 and she is still tramautized from when someone touched her 40 years ago! I must repeat, we just CAN'T take chances!



P.S. This was not meant to be rude. (Could some of us please stop just posting "something's wrong with that chick" and please give a more thoughtful explanation. Thanks! )

I agree with you Blake, on many counts. I would not want to give pedophiles a second chance because the stakes are way too high. Did you look at the article I posted? It offers hope of rehabilitation. But even with that, I wouldn't want to run the risk with anyone who has proven, even by a single incident, of putting anyone else at risk of harm that way. It's not a matter of serving "dues". It's a matter of public safety and security.

I only read the headline, but still this should very much be a no-no. Although I did read a story of a couple ending up having sex in a public park, at 11PM in complete darkness and silence, on a whim. Both of those got put on the sex offender's register, even though no one was actually harmed. Then there's cases of people being added to the register after going out to the pub, or whatever, and picking up a girl who claims to be 18, but is later found out to be younger. It's not really the man's fault. So yeah, anyone who has done anything involving children under 12 (I'm sure this is the age, and below, in the law where children cannot consent to anything because they don't understand sex), or involving anything unwillingly and un-consented from 12-[consenting age] should, in my opinion, be jailed for life with no chance of parole.. never mind adopting children! I really cannot see this being any kind of a good idea..

I believe it said in the article it was 13 and under. I agree with what both of you said. ^ ^ Doing something like that to a child is just too unforgivable.

I have to slightly disagree with the pub thing though, you really shouldn't be picking up random considerably young girls in the first place. But, yeah, it wasn't their intention to have sex with a minor. Why did that couple get put on the sex offender list? Was one of them/both under 18? It seems they should have been charged with PDA.

I'm just really wondering why this woman is so against no adoption for pedophiles. It makes you wonder what type of person SHE is.

And, I'm looking at the article you posted now. It's quite long though.

Well to explain myself further then just that the woman is messed up. Why is she messed up.. well anyone who thinks its okay for kids to be with someone who is attracted to children obviously need to wake up. Pedophiles don't just stop being attracted to children. Therefore having them raise a child would put the child at extreme risk. To me children should be able to be put in a home that will be good for them. That's why we have an adoption system that does back ground checks. I'm sure a lot of people who die or can't raise their own children don't want them put in a home that endangers the child.

Yeah, I guess it is Read it at your leisure

Uh... She's bonkers. She's absolutely nuts. She's insane in the membrane.

Well if a person has sexual feelings towards children I doubt some jail time is going to change they're urges. They're probably just more likely to suppress it but known pedophiles should not be allowed anywhere near children.
I can see how some sex offenders are marked so unjustly though. So a boy has turned 18, he has sex with his 15 year old girlfreind but he's now on the sex offenders list....... It happens quite frequently.
Adoption for sex offenders should be taken on a case by case basis because there is never a black and white line.
The guy who dry humped a 7 year old should be castrated and never allowed near kids ever again but the boy with the couple year diffrence between him and his girlfriend? I see nothing wrong with that boy adopting/fostering, heck social services need all the help they can get.

Instead of having no-go zones for pedophiles, just lock them up permanently...then you KNOW they won't be looking for kids to molest. As it is, I get e-mails from my county sheriff's department notifying me if a sex offender has moved to a residence within a mile of my home. No one's going to mess with MY child if I have anything to say about it!

I agree missy harries. It's a problem - anything legal is because of all how everything needs to be so cut and dry and spelled out in the law. But really, a couple who is within a couple of years of each other? Couldn't that part be rewritten? And the whole thing about PDA or even public nudity should not be construed at lewdness nor pornography. It is inappropriate, perhaps. I think the justice system could do a better job at hashing out the differences of type and degrees of wrong here.

I've heard of guys whipping it out and relieving themselves in public getting labeled as sex offenders. That's plain stupid.

That's a really broad brush you're painting with there.

Not all convicted felons are hopeless causes. Some of us make a mistake when we are young that gets us a felony conviction that we have to carry around for life but have since become exemplary citizens and even good people (and GASP! parents too). So no, I don't think we should just automatically assume that all convicted felons are not going to be fit parents.

As far as convicted sexual offenders though? Absolutely not. Though, I agree there is a distinction to be made from someone who is on the sexual offender registration because at 18 they had sex with their 17 year old girlfriend, or someone who peed in public (yes, seriously, that will get you on the list) and those who commit rape or child molestation. The whole sexual offender registration thing needs to be overhauled to not even include the first two or other minor offenses while keeping those with the more serious crimes on it. As it is, that list ruins the lives of people who are not sexual predators.

"Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are ‘unfair’"

I think it's unfair that these assholes take away children’s innocence which will often leave them with severe problems for a very long time.

If I were them, I'd just kill myself and rid the world of filth. Paedophiles and sex offenders won't change. It's like the saying goes, once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic, all you can do is stay away from your addiction.

I wonder how this mad woman would feel if her own child was the victim of sexual abuse? Maybe she should put herself in someone else’s shoes before she opens her mouth and spew’s this unnecessary garbage into the world.