"...all those men should definitely have been punished. No matter who the perpetrator, if they are guilty of any form of paedophilia, no matter how long ago, then they should have the book thrown at them."

That's awfully harsh suzeonline!

A with all sorts of things, there is an enormous spectrum with pedophilia, from innocent but inadvertently illegal activites, to mild intentionally illegal stuff and on to very serious stuff.

You can't seriously be lumping the likes of Henson with the likes of Ferguson, can you?

The latter has (as far as I can determine from what has been expressed in the media) deserved all the punishment he has received (except for the ongoing vigilante activity), while the former has undertaken activities over which there is great doubt about any illegality or damage being perpetrated. He deserves NO punishment. His activities needed to be carefully assessed and if they were deemed to be illegal then he needed to be ordered to not undertake anything of the sort again, end of story. No penalty is appropirate unless it was clear in the first place that he was breaking the law.

"I am of the opinion that paedophiles can never change their desires for children, and should be permanently incarcerated."

So if an 18 year old man takes up a relationship with a 15 year old girl, which in some countries falls within the definition of pedophilia, he should be deemed an incurable child-molester should he?

Come on suze. The world isn't that black and white. Some people who commit even the gravest of crimes can be entirely remorseful and if given the chance to live a normal life, will absolutely never offend again. You can't blanket all pedophiles with a lock-em-up-forever policy. You've got to treat every case individually.

Exam:”Having said that I do have issues with some arbitrary age line drawn in the concept of paedophillia.
I have met 15 yo girls who are more mature than many adults I met.
In essence it's all relative and should be judged on individual merits.”

I have to agree with Exam. An 18 year old (any gender) with a 15 year old (any gender) is a whole different situation to a 7 year old with a 30 year old.

Is this what you meant Exam as far as “individual merits”?

12 year old with a 26 year old – yeah not cool but not the image we have of pedophilia, would still carry about a 20 year sentence in Oz though.

Like the rape thread and how it is mixed up with power and control. But having said that maturity matters in decisions about how one understands the consent given and a more mature person would not be persuaded or groomed in the way a young person is.

The people who chose to have sex with a child did have a choice to make, the law and consequences are not a secret. As in all things adult they were in control of their own destiny while the child’s control was taken from them. Having knowledge of a crime being committed and doing nothing does carry its own penalties.

Examinator and Ludwig may believe it is ok for some slightly older adults to have sex with minors, but the law doesn't and neither do I.

I agree it wouldn't be right to treat young adult sex offenders the same as older offenders, although I would worry they were breaking the law, no matter what age they were!

It is well known that you cannot legally have sex with someone under 16 isn't it?

Would you like to have the law changed?
What would you change it to, and would you be happy for a young female relative of yours to be legal prey for older boys?

Come on guys! These laws were made for a purpose.
Would you be happy with even more girls under 16 being mothers, because that is one of the consequences of having a blase attitude to underage sex?

I tend to agree with Bronwyn and Suze on this one. No confusion at all. There is nothing new about celebrities or the institutions that benefit from celebrity-dom coming out in defence of their own. It happened with Woody Allen marrying a girl who was raised ostensibly as his daughter although I am not equating this with pedophilia as I believe she was of age when the relationship began.

We see it with the Church all the time in relation to offending priests although with public outrage and media attention there will no doubt be less protection of these mongrels in the future.

Ultimately it is the general public that does not accept pedophilia in any form no matter the grey areas.

Polanski had the wit, money and contacts to escape and evade capture for decades. He has been most fortunate to have lived a good life for his best years when he could have been in gaol.

I have no sympathy for him.

Of course he will be unlikely to serve any time and all will be forgiven, somehow and some way. Cripes, there is enough spin already to make him appear the victim!

The real victim of his crime is distressed to be in the limelight again, but that is the fault of the perpetrator Polanski, not the police and public servants who are only doing their duty.

If Polanski really cared about the victim he would have ensured she had closure many years ago.

It is a fair bet that if the perpetrator of the crime had been some ordinary man there would be no sympathy from the celebrities and notables who seem to think that they and theirs should be above the law. Polanski was an opportunist creep without a conscience who took advantage of a kid. His other misfortunes in life are irrelevant except when sentencing is being considered.

If he got ten years I would not be unhappy because he deserves that at least and more for evading justice and costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions?) trying to bring him to justice.

Graham Y

<< Bronwyn, Polanski admitted to his crime. There is no doubt about his guilt. >>

I thought so, but wasn't 100% sure at the time I posted, and besides I was hearing the word 'alleged' being emphasised in news reports.

<< I am not aware of any evidence that Hollingworth "turned a blind eye" nor that he "condoned" pedophilia. Both of these allegations are possibly defamatory, but perhaps you have evidence of which I am not aware. ... So Bronwyn, I think you need to argue your case a bit more, or I will probably have to delete the post. >>

I have a low opinion of the man, but I'm not wasting time arguing any case against him. It was probably just careless choice of wording. Delete the post if you must, or preferably just the section that bothers you.

<< Bad Bronwyn! >>

Okay, Forrest, I'm off to the naughty corner. I'll take your post with me and read it 100 times as penance. :)