The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Vigilantes versus pedophiles - our community shame > Comments

Vigilantes versus pedophiles - our community shame : Comments

By Barbara Biggs, published 15/2/2005

Barbara Biggs argues that we need education to prevent child sex abuse, not vigilantes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
fergusson refused to take part in any treatment fo pedophilia whilst in gaol, that should have kept him in confinement until he agreed to undergo treatment. As regards stupid judges, change the law and take sentencing out of their jurisdiction, have a minimum penalty. Yes try to change them if they are agreeable, but I consider it much more vital to treat, counsel, and help the victims. A part of a child molesters sentence should be that he/she pays for their victims treatment how ever long it takes and pay large damages, even if it takes all their money and, if they have one, their homes and cars.
By the way vigilanties are totally evil and completely wrong and should be stamped on very hard.
Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:12:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A strawman (actual of contrived) can always avoid monetary penalties.

Helping victims is vital. Helping them before they become victims is more vital. Addressing the social and personal drivers of offenders will go a long way to stopping it before it happens.

There is a serious problem today. It is the overt sexualisation of humanity from a very young age. Sex sells and there seems to be no restraint in how and to whom the message is targeted. When parents dress their kids (or allow them to dress) like a street walker dressed 20 years ago, that is evidence of a deep malaise pervading society. That is offered merely as an example of a possible cause that might be addressed .

Failing the validity of that direction we can just castrate them, jail them, then tag them for life on release. Or better still, do a Clockwork Orange type experiment to assess the susceptibility of all males and 'adjust' them accordingly. That should make for a pleasant world in which to live.
Posted by trade215, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 3:46:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is really hard to make an honest call about the actions of those who have chased Dennis Ferguson out of their streets.

Like it or not our legal system has released Ferguson from custody, he has to live somewhere. In that respect any interfence with lawful activity on his part is wrong.

I have a child and based on what I have seen of Ferguson's behaviour I would be very distressed if I discoved he was living in my neighbourhood.

The dilema can be expressed in the following two questions.
Who wants a world where people take the law into their own hands?
Who is willing to have their children play in a street where Ferguson is likely to be?

On a different aspect of the overall topic.
Can someone provide clarification on the statistics of Child Sexual abuse?

It is my understanding that child sexual abuse accounts for about 7% of Substantiated Abuse and Neglect in Queensland (http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/content/child_abuse_2.asp#) with the overall rate of substantiated abuse and neglect being between 13.6 and 25.1 per 1000 children.

Some commentators suggest that one in 6 children are sexually abused. Barbara Biggs refers to comments by Bill Glaser suggesting one in four girls and one in seven boys are sexually abused as children.

Are the measures of what constitutes child sexual abuse different for different commentators or am I misunderstanding the stats?

Also does anybody know the breakdown of perpetrator gender (and the type of abuse involved)? I have seen claims that about 30% of child sexual abuse is committed by females but debate in Australia rarely touches on that topic (other than different sentencing approach for male and female abusers). An example of the type of twist in the statistics which makes the whole issue difficult is - how do we compare the harm done by a group of people sharing photo's of children taken without the childs knowledge to a teacher having a sexual relationship with a student. One has more perpetrators, the other is likley to have a much greater impact on the victim. Both are wrong.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 5:10:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trade215 a bit harsh I think. I am not sure if I agree that there is a correlation between dress standards and sexual abuse. If that was the case the incidents of child sexual abuse would be higher in primitive societies (Highland Papua & New Guinea, the Amazon Jungle) where concealment of the flesh is minimal, and lower in societies where clothing is prevalent (Russia, North America). I note your reference to the close correlation between the animal world and the human one (2 Feb 05) but I am not aware of any epidemic of sexual abuse in the animal world notwithstanding their inherent 24/7 nakedness. Or am I missing the point here?
Posted by Bob B, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 7:28:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
I would agree that the term “abuse” can be so broadly used, as to include almost anything. However within substantiated cases of child abuse, sexual abuse is normally the least common in terms of incidence, as compared to physical abuse, neglect, and emotional abuse.

From various statistics I have seen, then the list of what constitutes the most dangerous environment for a child would be as follows:-

To be within the womb of a single female.
To be living in a single female parent family.
To be living in a family with a natural mother and stepfather.
To be living with a natural father and stepmother.
To be living in a family with both a natural father and natural mother.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 7:32:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where does one start ???? There are some very important aspects to this problem which should be addressed. The most important one is the cause, not the symptom.

~~~

Around this country and in the UK sentences are routinely being suspended because judges say children are “willing” if they don’t resist their abusers. Such sentences show a chronic lack of understanding about the emotional manipulation of abusers and the subsequent long-term damage of that on victims’ lives. When the judicial system fails the community, are we surprised that the effect is to further inflame some people to take matters into their own hands?

~~~

One problem is that the 'long term damage' is arguable. By that, I mean NAMBLA is continually trying to lobby and show just such a position. The post testimonies on their web sites from people who HAVE had such experiences and who view them as positive helpful things. So, perhaps its time to appeal to principle rather than particular manifestations and outcomes. One wonders why the age of consent in Mexico is 13 as it is in Japan.It USED to be 12 in Australia during the early years.

and from Trade215...

"Helping victims is vital. Helping them before they become victims is more vital. Addressing the social and personal drivers of offenders will go a long way to stopping it before it happens."

Amen to that ! but now, look at the obstacles.

1/ Victorian and West Australian crimes act allows for the possibility of an older man being married to a girl down to the age of 10 ! (section 47)
2/ Groups like NAMBLA are gaining momentum and telling us all that concentual sexual conduct between older men and little boys can be a positive influence. !
3/ Gay groups are trying to lower the age of consent. (for homosexual behavior, where it differs from that for heterosexual, but I believe in time there will be pressure for all ages of consent to be lowered.)

The fundamental problem is cultural/spiritual. The moral relativity is manifesting itself in all manner of ways, from the point raised by Trade (The sexualization of our youth from a young age..sex sells) to those who try to persuade us that old/young sexual contact is not harmful. It seems to me, that the time is well past to have some reference to Biblical principle for our society. Without such a social/spritual anchor, we will just drift.. and drift.. subject to the forces with the most momentum.

Ask yourself this, what is the difference between sexual intercourse with a girl aged 15 yrs and 11 months and 25days, and one who is about one week older ? The age of consent in South Australia is 17.
Vic 16, is this based on any concept of 'damage' ? hardly. The point is, that the law itself is arbitrary and is the result of community pressure in either direction. So, today it is 16, tomorrow it could be 18 or 12. Hence, my urging to base such laws on Biblical principle rather than relativistic secular law. The idea that such secular laws are based on 'sound scientific research' is laughable. If they were, then the age of consent would all be the same.

There are those who would argue that 'abuse' is harmful, while consentual sexual involvement is not. (NAMBLA) This group is appealing more and more to findings of the APA (American psychological association) and to cultural/historical icons such as Walt Wittman to promote their man boy love agenda.

When our own laws seem to imply that consentual acts between adults and children (crimes act) are 'OK' as long as they have 'reasonable grounds for believing they are married'... and therefore not damaging to children, we face an uphill battle to change entrenched statutory and scientific barriers.

Throwing money at 'perpetrators' or at victims via a help line might seem like a good thing, but it reminds me more of knee jerk "we have to do SOMEthing.. 'gun control' being the answer to the heart condition which actually caused the violence in the first place. "If not a gun, then a baseball bat".

Without question, a culture which has a firm spiritual foundation will outlast one which does not. No civilization has outlived its own decadence, or spiritual waywardness, and that, we have plenty of today. I don't think I need to 'sugar coat' this probably bitter pill. The evidence is staring us in the face all around.
If John the Baptist were here now, his message would be the same 'Repent'. I'm sure Jesus would not modify his message just because it was not compatable to MTV
"If anyone leads one of these little ones who believe in me to go astray, it would be better for him to have a millstone around his neck and be caste into hades".

I find it hard to understand why Priests who KNOW this, would do what they did.

So, perhaps we need a visit from John, to wander through our parliament and our media outlets.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 7:46:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob,

Dress is an example of sexualisation. It is not the only manner in which this occurs. Entertainment media also a contributor. l suspect additional factors play to it in Russia. It wouldn't hurt to contemplate all the contributing factors of sexualisation. Is it possible, for example, that it is not a problem in primitive cultures due to absence of, or mininal, sexualisation?

The absence of awarness of sexual abuse in the animal kingdom may have something to do with our perception. Cats and dogs don't consider socio-sexual standards. They do it when biology says so. Human biology says so at a point that is deemed socially inappropriate. Maybe the existence of this sexual predation reflects humanity's place in the world of animals.
Posted by trade215, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 7:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Trade215 you are quite wrong on the animal front many animals seem to suffer simular sexual dysfunction and perversion as humans. Often sociable cohesion is built on extremely casual sex even in high animals BOBOs for instance.
Peds should be treated as a mental condition which it plainly is.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 9:08:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert - your comment about sharing pictures - these pictures were taken by someone abusing the child in the picture, and the humiliation of knowing there is a record of the abuse, that freaks are still taking pleasure from these images long after the abuse has stopped exacerbates teh damage originally done. Keeping in mind, it is the emotion damage that is important, not really the physical impact.

I would say that the issue of age of consent is not really what is most important here. Pre-pubescent or post-pubescent is dependant on the individual but the law needs a finite line drawn in the sand and this is where it always falls down. Pedophilia relates to the abuse of children, therefore pre-pubescent, any thing else is incest or rape or whatever, but it has a different clarification and has a different motivation / mental illness. There is a portion of pedophiles who are not attracted specifically to children, but are oportunist and who would basically have a go at anything. There is another portion who are generally more attracted to children. I'm sure there are other varieties and twists.

Once they HAVE committed an offense, then there shoulld be no suspended sentance, they should go to gaol where they are kept safely out of reach of those most vulnerable. The law is a weak and useless tool, not only on this issue but on many others, and if it is to be used as a threat or deterant then it is useless if criminals know that a 10 year sentance means 2 years in reality.

At least ATTEMPTING prevention is a brilliant idea. This problem seems to have escalated with more comunication and ways for these pervs to comunicate with each other and re-inforce themselves with each others support. Offering a helpline to perpetrators when they are tempted might turn them around. It might not, but it hasn't been tried yet and anything is worth a try.
Posted by jcl, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 9:48:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jcl,
The issue of what constitutes child abuse becomes important, because resources that can be spent on reducing child abuse are not infinite. In terms of child abuse, most child abuse (including sexual abuse) occurs in the home or within a family, and sexual abuse is the least common form of child abuse.

My concern is that society becomes almost hysterical about paedophilia, such that any male / child contact is regarded as paedophilia, or potential paedophilia. I understand that this is now an issue in recruiting young male teachers, and it is a reason why so many male teachers have left teaching. They feel that they could be accused of carrying out paedophilia simply by comforting a child that has fallen over in the playground and is crying.

So the danger is to apply too much attention to child sexual abuse, and the other 90% of child abuse is overlooked, and another danger is that males will be driven away from any contact with children, due to public hysteria over paedophilia which seems to occur in only a very small % of adults.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 15 February 2005 10:09:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, I didn't articulate my point very well in the last post. Damn work getting in the way....

The article by Barbara Biggs talked about a possible prevention via a caller helpline support system.

My problem with that is, while I think it is a very good idea, that there is different motivation for different types of abusers. Some types of abusers may respond, but the data on whether or not it works will be unclear as it all seems to get lumped in together under one label of "pedophile".

While sexual abuse may be the least common form of abuse (and I say "may" because it is difficult to get accurate statistics on child abuse as its very nature is secretive) it is one of the more difficult to deal with because it is actually a perversion and a mental illness.

Public hysteria notwithstanding (though you have a good point about it being used as a tool in divorce - which is completely dispicable -not only because of the damage it does to the family involved, it also creates a "cry wolf" situation where someone with a genuine complaint is less likely to be believed at a later date) other forms of child neglect are easier to detect (although still very difficult) and so often are easier to prevent.
Posted by jcl, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 1:13:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly, a few comments on what BOAZ_David said:

This up-to-date table of world-wide ages of consent lists Japan as 16/18. (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm)

Section 47a of the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 does not allow for men to be married to girls down to the age of 10 - what it states is that a sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 is a punishable offence.

Also, I'm not sure which part of the legislation allows consensual acts between adults and children provided that there are 'reasonable grounds for believing they are married'.

A major problem with dealing with this touchy issue is that there is often a great deal of misinformation that is publicised.

A large proportion of child sex offenders were themselves abused as children, so evidence would suggest that the problem will only get worse in time. Attempts to reduce its impact are vital, and any attempts to 'rehabilitate' (for want of a better word) possible perpetrators before they ruin people's lives should be applauded.
Posted by onebackpack, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 2:59:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Vigilantes versus pedophiles - our community shame]

Clergy sexual abuse in the "other" religions.

Clergy pedophiles "per-capita" among the Jehovah's Witnesses exceed the Catholic church .

This is due to the church elders enforced 'code of silence' aka the notorious,"two witness take-down".

The Jehovah's Witnesses Church leaders absurd requirement of having TWO WITNESSES to the crime of child molestation.

The Worldwide Problem of Child Abuse and Jehovah's Witnesses

Is it Really a Pedophile Paradise ? What is the truth, what is the myth?

Myth 1: Jehovah's Witnesses protect children within their organization against confessed or convicted child molesters.

What is the TRUTH and what is the MYTH?

Get the answers to these questions. http://www.silentlambs.org/answers/index.cfm
Posted by DannyHaszard, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 4:29:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPECIAL for ONEBACKPACK

Mate... if ur going to contradict another contributor here, at least read the act properly ! No offence but I will quote it shortly, and 2ndly I even went as far as asking the Attourney Generals office and the sexual crimes squad of Vic police about this.
You got the right area,but didn't read the fine print.
Section 45 (not section 47a but it does have a relevant section)

(3) Sub-section (1) does not apply to an act of sexual
penetration if—
(a) the child is aged between 10 and 16; and
(b) the persons taking part in the act are married
to each other.

The point I find ludicrous in all this, is that section 47a is titled
"Indecent Act" with child under the age of 16.

It then goes on below to state

(2) Consent is not a defence to a charge under sub-
section (1) unless at the time of the alleged
offence—

(c) the accused believed on reasonable grounds
that he or she was married to the child.

So, what this is saying, is that 'indecent' acts are ok if ur married or believe your married, which raises the question 'Why are they indecent' ? Which further raises the question, if it IS indecent, why does the law suggest that indecent acts are "ok" if you believe you are married to the child ? This sounds like legally sanctioned abuse to me !!

So, backpack..I hope that clears up the matter. I contacted all the major news agencies, asking them to take this matter more public to get the law repealed, but nothing happened.
This allows technically for a 'cult' in combination with a 'non english speaking person' to engage in a ceremony of "marraige" (legal or otherwise) where the man could claim 'I believed I was married to her" Perhaps this is one reason why the JEHOVAH WITNESSES are said to be more guilty of child sexual abuse than the Catholic church ?
go figure...

My suggestion, is that you personally contact the Attourney Generals office (as I did) and demand that this law be cleaned up !!!!
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 6:08:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JCL ....

my point exactly ....you said...

"My problem with that is, while I think it is a very good idea, that there is different motivation for different types of abusers. Some types of abusers may respond, but the data on whether or not it works will be unclear as it all seems to get lumped in together under one label of "pedophile".

response... yes.. this is the reason that gun control won't stop murder. If u want to kill someone, and can't get a gun, then poison or a baseball bat would work just as well. Would u call a help line to stop urself doing this ? highly doubtful. Its too knee jerk.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 6:16:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jcl,
You mention “While sexual abuse may be the least common form of abuse (and I say "may" because it is difficult to get accurate statistics on child abuse as its very nature is secretive) it is one of the more difficult to deal with because it is actually a perversion and a mental illness.”

There is a lot of mention of pedophilia and child sexual abuse in the media, but in terms of overall child abuse, child sexual abuse is the least common.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publishes a yearly report into child abuse that provides some detailed statistics (EG Child Protection Australia 2002 – 2003). I say “some” statistics because more should really be provided to get a better idea of when / where / why child abuse is likely to occur.

Statistics will vary from year to year and from state to state, but child sexual abuse is normally at 10% of all cases of child abuse substantiated by the child protection agencies. Neglect, physical abuse, and emotional abuse normally run at about 30% each. It could be said that neglect, physical abuse, and emotional abuse etc do not affect children as much as sexual abuse. This is debatable, as neglect, physical abuse, and emotional abuse can lead to hospitalization, and possible removal of the child from the parent. It could be said that sexual abuse is much higher than being reported, but the same could be said of the other three forms of child abuse.

What is rarely discussed or made known to the public is that normally over 40 % of child abuse occurs in single female parent families, making such families the highest risk type family for child abuse.

So again, due to general levels of misinformation or misunderstanding, it can result in public hysteria regards child sexual abuse, and eventually this can lead to males being unnecessarily excluded from children’s lives. For example: - there could be fewer male kindergarten teachers (although there are almost none now), fewer male teachers, fewer male sport coaches, and fewer fathers etc.

Domestic Violence agencies are notorious at releasing highly biased and inaccurate statistics, and then trying to brainwash the public into believing those statistics. This eventually leads to fewer people believing any domestic violence statistic, and legitimate cases of domestic violence may eventually go unnoticed.

It would not be at all appropriate if Child Abuse or Child Protection agencies started to do the same.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 10:51:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When in prison, sex offender prisoners are quarantined and "protected" from the attitudes of "non-sex offending prisoners".

These prisoners have high recidivism rates and an abnormal intellectual processes which rationalises the "trauma" they inflict on their victims into a belief that the victim consented and even "loved" them.

As a parent I have no hesitation and see No Shame in taking whatever measures needed to ensure general society is safe from these dangerous predators in the same way we would control rabid dogs.

Pretending every problem is solvable is niave. Pretending Sex offenders will reform is dangerously niave.
They stand up as a good reason for reintroduction of the death penalty.
No shame in society protecting itself - especially when it is our children who need the greatest protection from this sort of scum.

So Barbara Biggs is either pitifully naive or plain stupid if she thinks she can blame ordinary individuals for running a dangerous predator out of town.

Since this was in Queensland, maybe the locals should have left this piece of slime tied up near a crocodile infested river and let him experience, first hand, the receiving end of "predatory" behaviour.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 12:45:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,
Passion is no substitute for clear thinking.
Can you tell me why an 'indecent act' is ok if ur married to a child ?
Is it less damaging ? is it damaging at all ?
Moral relativism.... sigh...
If the law doesn't have much of a clue.. maybe we need to look elsehwere and u already know where that is for me
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 1:12:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with govt assistance is that they are accomplices in protecting peadophilia because it is used as a special reward for corruption. Peadophilia is perfect for this use because it shows the providers to be above the law and the fear of being exposed is extremely high.

Therefore the govt will go to all lengths to protect the organised peadophilia groups.

See http://www.csapp.net/
Posted by MaxC, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 1:57:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jcl - thanks for your comments. I agree with them.

When I referred to the sharing of photo's I was thinking in terms of the kind of creeps taking pictures of children in public places where the child has no knowledge of the abuse, not photo's of physical abuse. The point I was trying to make was that the impact of some forms of abuse is potentially less to the child than that of others. The abuse is still wrong but I suspect that a kid photographed without their knowledge and who never becomes aware that their picture is being used by perverts suffers a lot less harm than someone repeatedly forced to perform sexual acts with an adult. All child abuse is wrong but we damage the discussion if we do not try and differentiate based on the likely harm done to the child.

I do get concerned that a consequence of the tone of discussion regarding child sexual abuse could be to increase the harm to the children. How do we as adults convey the message that child abusers are the lowest of the low without at the same time adding to the harm done to victims? I don't have easy answers to that. Somehow we need to find ways to have a public discussion about child abuse which does not leave the victims feeling more harmed and dirtied than they already are which does not go soft on the offenders.

>> R0bert - your comment about sharing pictures - these pictures were
>> taken by someone abusing the child in the picture, and the
>> humiliation of knowing there is a record of the abuse, that freaks
>> are still taking pleasure from these images long after the abuse
>> has stopped exacerbates teh damage originally done. Keeping in
>> mind, it is the emotion damage that is important, not really the
>> physical impact.
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 3:23:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert,
I think that your comment that child sexual abusers are the “lowest of the low” can become quite dangerous if it is not properly qualified. The essential question becomes “what constitutes serious child sexual abuse”?

I am not saying that children should be sexual abused, but if there is too much hysteria about it then it can lead to a “lynching” type mentality, and many innocent people can get hurt.

Child sexual abuse only constitutes 10% of child abuse. But is child sexual abuse worse than starving a baby to near death, or torturing a child by repeatedly holding it underwater. I personally know two cases where mothers carried out these acts, and the children were eventually taken from the mothers and placed into foster care. Such cases rarely made the headlines, but it is cases such as these, that make up the 90% of child abuse cases that eventually involve the child protection agencies.

There is a great danger in the public overestimating or underestimating the different forms of child abuse, or concentrating almost totally on one form of child abuse to the exclusion of others.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 4:35:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins,

I agree with your posts 100%.

It seems that child abuse has become 'indivisible'. By that I mean all child abuse is seen as equally abhorent no matter what happened.

The case with Scott Volkers is a good example. Scott Volkers was the national swim coach and had his life destroyed by a women who claimed he had rubbed her too high on the thigh during a massage. Eventually the charges were dropped. But even if he weren't, I really couldn't accept that an incident like that could destroy someones (the womens) life. Surely, if that case were true, someone could just say, look the guys a sleaze, don't worry about him. I don't understand why we've become so frail that anything to do with an allegation (remember it only has to be an allegation) destroys the persons life for ever. It seems we're giving victims a new type of stigma where they're supposed to be ruined forever because of an unwanted touch or rub.

Even in cases of serious sexual assualt, is it really in the victims best interest to say they will never get over it? Surely there's some hope.
Posted by Josh, Wednesday, 16 February 2005 8:44:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There should be a no tolerance policy towards pedophila.Pedophiles pervert childrens lives and in turn beget more pedophiles.Children are entitled to their brief time of innocence.Currently the internet is spawning "Rock Spiders" by the dozen.The internet is responsible for a community of pedophiles that is seeking to to ligitimise their perversion of children's sexuality before they are emotionally able to cope.

Pedophiles know it's wrong because many of them suffered as children at the hands of an adult.They know of the trauma and have suffered the pain.There are no excuses.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 17 February 2005 12:20:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,
While not condoning paedophilia in any way, child sexual abuse is not much different to the more common forms of child abuse, which can also lead to adults carrying out these same types of abuse on their own children as occurred to them. These other forms of child abuse constitute 90 % of child abuse, and can be just as destructive as child sexual abuse.

There appears to be a problem in that these other forms of child abuse rarely make the press or are heard about. I think this is because of laws that stop children from being identified. Because the immediate relatives of the child normally carry out forms of child abuse such as physical abuse, neglect etc, those relatives are not identified also. I know of two women who carried out quite extreme forms of child abuse. They almost killed their children, but they were never sentenced. They simply had the child taken from them, end of story.

Therefore the most common forms of child abuse are rarely heard about, and almost all press and discussion on child abuse tends to centre on child sexual abuse. Probably the caption of this article should be “Barbara Biggs argues that we need education to prevent general child abuse, not vigilantes.”
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 17 February 2005 1:06:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert, thanks for clarifying.

I do agree with what you said re tone could increase harm to children. The disgust that is portrayed in the media reinforces the idea in the victim that it is disgusting and perverted and no matter how many times "its not your fault" is said it can be hard to get that accross.

David Boaz - definately need to re-evaluate what counts as a pedophile under the law, but it is my impression that the general concencus of the public / media is that it is an adult targeting pre-pubescant children. The law ought to be changed and clarified. I will right to the Atorney General's office! Good suggestion.

The help line may be "knee-jerk" and may not work, but it has not been tried before (at least not in QLD - my mate is a cop who works in child protection with peds and I checked with him) and it is worth giving it a go.

Timkins - I still disagree with the statistics - just because they are published doesn't make them acurate - but I do agree that ALL abuse (emotional, physical, sexual) is completely out of order and should all be given due weight.

I don't know if there are help lines for people who beat up their kids, but there should be support for them too as a prevention.

The only way I would say sexual abuse differs from other forms of abuse is that it is often not the primary care givers who are the abusers. Most often it is someone who is known to the family (ie uncle, neighbour, parents boy/girl friend) and that is the main reason sexual abuse may need to be treated differently.

One thing I can never understand is why the general impression is that sexual abusers were abused themselves. This is true of physical abuse, but not of sexual abuse (I have very carefully backed up my reason for believing this by asking my mate - if anyone wants to check it out and correct me feel free). The majority of pedophiles (and by that I do mean people with a sexual preference for children) may have had a difficult relationship with their family growing up (an alcoholic mother or whatever) but very few have been sexually abused themselves.
Posted by jcl, Thursday, 17 February 2005 4:26:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The last part of that was (but I got distracted - had to do work) I think people should be responsible for their own actions. Childhood trauma does scar, but it seems to be too much of an excuse. No matter what happened in your life, and how you can twist logic ("s/he was in love with me" even though they are often talking about a four year old) having an excuse ("its not my fault I was abused too") seems to mean that you don't have to try to be a better person because its not your fault. Bollocks! We all should be trying to be better than what we are, however major or minor the faults we have are.

This is part of the reason I think a help line aimed at prevention is worth a go, it is actually admirable if people are TEMPTED to do something like this but manage to exert enough self control that they don't.
Posted by jcl, Thursday, 17 February 2005 5:30:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins,point taken:however we need a circuit breaker to stop child abuse.Perhaps it's time that our movie producers developed some social responsibilty and presented us with movies that promoted values,discipline and family harmony.This isn't just about being poor.I've seen people in very poor countries who have wonderful and responsible family lives.The"Nanny State" has also a lot to answer for.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 19 February 2005 7:59:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ARJAY .. yes !!!! that would be very high on my social agend also.
I recall an interview with the Cohen Brothers of Hollywood. They were the producers of a lot of racey B movies, all about youthful lust and sex and drunkennes and more sex etc... cheap to make.. no plot..
Why did they do it ? simple.. "to make money" ....yet, if you challenge them on social responsibility and threaten censorship, they will scream bloody murder about 'artistic freedom and free speech' etc.. its so hypocritical. Its for that reason that I have ZERO mercy on what I consider socially irresponsible entertainment, and they can call me a bigot, prude, wierdo till the cows come home I WILL impose my views on 'them' :) if the political system allows me to, and I'm working on that in regard to X-rated videos from ACT.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 19 February 2005 8:22:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

The following comes from a report titled "Child Abuse and Neglect: Part 1— Redefining the Issues". It gives some insight as to what causes child abuse such as physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect etc

“In a similar manner as risk factors, protective factors also operate on four levels. At an individual level, they can include a positive relationship between the child and parent (or caregiver), good interpersonal skills (parent and child), a positive temperament and personality (parent or child), and good health (parent or child). On a family level, protective factors can include marital harmony/supportive partner, adequate income, supportive extended family, social support networks outside the family, and access to child care/respite care. At the community level, access to information, advice, and support from a wide range of health, education and community services, child care/ respite care, accessible public transport, and social/communityctivity/involvement are all protective factors. At a societal level, income support/supplements and a culture which values and respects children is important”

The highest rate of child abuse occurs in single parent families, and about 20% of families are now single parent families (normally single female parent families). Of this, over 50% of those single parents do not work, and another 27% work in part time work only. This creates poverty, but extra money alone won’t necessarily overcome problems such as isolation, lack of extended family, social support etc. Therefore extra money alone will not necessarily stop child abuse in such families.

In the case of child sexual abuse, the perpetrators appear to have a mental condition and are often in some type of regressed mental state. Because of this I personally think that just putting them in prison will not do much unless they receive adequate treatment in prison. Unfortunately it appears that many mentally ill people do not receive much treatment at all while in prison.

However I do agree that general standards of current media would not help. If programs such as Big Brother came out when TV first started in the 1960’s, then people would have been tearing down the walls of the Big Brother compound. But now that program is advertised as almost a children’s program, (when all it does is teach children such things as voyeurism etc).
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 19 February 2005 9:42:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,the bigger problem is the internet.No one seems to have control over it.I never thought much about pedophilia in the past, thinking that it is a minority of fringe dwellers.There are 16,000 pedophiles in NSW on the police books.How many don't we know about?
Perhaps we need to do some deeper research into male sexuality deal with these problems at a school level.It seems to be a power thing.How anyone in their wildest dreams could sexually abuse a baby and put it on the internet is unfathomable.They are sick and twisted beings.The big worry is that many are living in groups and this is giving them credibility in their own eyes.They can also plan and orchestrate their perversions.They know they are social outcasts and have nothing to lose ,given that even the the psychologists say a cure short of castration is very unlikely.Perhaps we need to bring back corporal punishment as they do in Singapore for these types of crimes.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 19 February 2005 11:35:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins,I read your article and yes there is very little treatment given to the mentally ill in gaol.There has to be a clear message of zero tolerance.There are probably many who have entertained these thoughts but never actually crossed the line. My arguement is that we have to have a message of zero tolerance so less do cross that line.A few strokes of the rattan cane might make it harder to cross.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 19 February 2005 11:49:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,
I understand what you are saying, but I think that all child abuse has to be kept in mind. (EG do you think a parent should be beaten if they beat their children, or if they allow their children to smoke cigarettes at a young age etc)

However the issue of zero tolerance is important. A philosophy of zero tolerance was used in certain US cities with seemingly good effect at reducing crime, and was then used in some UK cities with no effect at all. The reason, the US cities had gang crime, and zero tolerance broke up the gangs, while the UK cities had few gangs. There are also thoughts that zero tolerance can be much misused. It can produce a type of police state, and can be used to persecute certain people. Males in the US have complained of being regularly questioned by police on the street, for just going to get a sandwich for their lunch break, and black males in particular were being constantly stopped and basically harassed by police in cities with a zero tolerance policy.

Overall I think that a loss of family creates untold harm within society. Attempts to fix up this harm latter often fail, or are seldom satisfactory.

Trying to get families working again (IE families that incorporate the natural mother and father) will stop many social problems. The safest place for a woman is to be with her husband, and the safest place for children is to be with their natural mother and father. That is the way it has always been in the past, and likely to be in the future.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 20 February 2005 9:54:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodness gracious, I just made a highly generalised statement in my last post “The safest place for a woman is to be with her husband, and the safest place for children is to be with their natural mother and father.” I could be accused of carrying out what I have been accusing feminist of carrying out for decades. Perhaps I have read too much feminist literature in my research of feminism.

To clarify the matter, if one were to get a whole range of statistics relating to family and children, then the mean, mode and median of those statistics would most likely concur with the following:- “The safest place for a woman is to be with her husband, and the safest place for children is to be with their natural mother and father. “
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 20 February 2005 1:12:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1:12:03 PM

Col,
Passion is no substitute for clear thinking.
Can you tell me why an 'indecent act' is ok if ur married to a child ?
Is it less damaging ? is it damaging at all ?
Moral relativism.... sigh...
If the law doesn't have much of a clue.. maybe we need to look elsehwere and u already know where that is for me

David - I was not being passionate - I was being cold, hardnosed, pragmatic (call it whatever you like).

I am not sure where your comments about "indecent acts" or being "married to a child" are coming from or going to -

I see this very simply - those who abuse children forfeit their right to participate freely in society - now the only decision left is how do we curb them from "freely" mixing with human beings -
life imprisonment,
death penalty,
supervised parole,
electronic tracking devices -
why not make some suggestions -
Because, for sure, these predators do not change - they will re-offrend if given the slightest chance - they will rape babies and sodomise young children of either gender if left alone or unsupervised - so who are you going to defend - the predator or the child?
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 20 February 2005 11:20:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col
my comments came straight from Victorian law. If u read closely my posts u would note that it is a 'quote'.
My point was, that the law is not helpful by suggesting u cannot perform an indecent act with a child UNLESS u are married to her!
So, this raises the question about the Law allowing indecent acts with children ur married to. Have a close read of the act.

You are defining child abuse based on 'community sentiment' and your own, which is commendable. But I've been digging and niggling at the issue to hopefully cause people to think more deeply about it and not base their feelings on 'current feelings of others', but rather have a clearer idea about what it is, based on Biblical principle.
If we just base our feelings on the current 'social mood', that can change under the pressure from vocal lobby groups. (as I've noticed from around the 60s till now)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 21 February 2005 7:31:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would be debateable as to whether or not things such as capital punishment actually reduce crime, but it is known that capital punishment can be misused. I think it was in Texas that the vast majority of people on death row were of Negro origin, while there are very few Negroes actually living in Texas.

The worse case is that child abuse becomes like domestic violence, where there are now so many contradictory statistics about domestic violence, that no one has any idea if it is a serious problem or not, or whether the rates of domestic violence are reducing or increaseing. Have you noticed how the money being spent on domestic violence prevention has dramatically increased, while the “reported” rates of domestic violence seem to be increasing also.

Within current domestic violence, there now not be any physical evidence or witnesses provided, just allegations that someone has made the other person feel “fearful”, and this is enough to have that other person charged. I see child sexual abuse going the same way if the situation reaches hysterical proportions. If the situation gets totally out of hand, then every male could be regarded as a potential paedophile, and treated that way accordingly.

In the past there have been attempts at stereotyping men with such things as “All men are rapists”, or “All men oppress women” etc. In these cases the word "some" has been replaced by the word "all", and I am concerned that there will be attempts to stereotype men as “All men a paedophiles”.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 21 February 2005 10:30:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins ,capital punishment is fallible however it presents real consequences for people who want to cross the line of debauched inhumanity.There will be the occasional errors,however on average we will rid our society of vermin,saved these vermin the mental anguish of recitivism,the state $80,000 per annum,stopped them perverting our children's sexuality,remove these defective genes that predispose people towards paedophilia,reduce the number of paedophiles that they generate,and give many children the joy and innocence of their chilhhood which they deserve.You see the positives out weigh the negatives.
Who has the courage to stand up for our children?
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 21 February 2005 11:22:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David "You are defining child abuse based on 'community sentiment'......"

Then you suggest basing a law on biblical principals.

Point of observation - the bible has been translated and different versions produced from time to time.

Which version of "biblical principals", do you suggest we base those laws on - the "King James" or a more "Modern" versions?

The point is - The Bible is something which can not claim to be inpervious to prevailing "community sentiment".
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 8:43:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is my belief that the only real paedophile is one who physically tortures and/or kills his/her victims.There appears to be a horrifying growth in this area due to the development of the radical feminist movement during the 1970's and its support by dismissed Prime Minister Whitlam and his friend Lionel Murphy the creator of the sexist Family Court.These sociological changes have encouraged and accelerated the break-up of marriages.When females with children inevitably find new partners, their children of the first liaison are immediately at risk.It works the same way with lions and gorillas - the new male kills the offspring already in existence (survival of the fittest).In human society threat of punishment usually prevents our return to what is normal animal behaviour.Compared to the uncertainty and primitive fear experienced by children in these circumstances, the odd sexual encounter pales into insignificance.We as a society elect governments that support the mass killing of people (including children) in other countries,making the bulk of the nation vicarious paedophiles of the worst kind. How then dare we act like the Salem Witch trial judges when it comes to a sex offender who has never shot, bashed, tortured or killed a child? Non violent sex offenders need sympathy care and study.In the end we may find that we are making a fuss over what is as natural a human behavior as wanting to kill a previous partner's offspring. What a tragic mixed up race are humans.
Posted by DEADCAT, Monday, 28 November 2005 9:21:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy