Pedophiles: Incarceration vs Treatment/Study

[Aaron MkII]

Hey Thanas, what did I get wrong in the title?

[Eternal_Freedom]

You used "incarnation" instead of "incarceration" for one.

[Akhlut]

Hey Thanas, what did I get wrong in the title?

As I recall, you said incarnation, rather than incarceration. One is imprisoning, the other is turning something into meat.

Anyway, the following article showed up on my Facebook feed (one of my friends commented on someone else posting it): source

Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse
Published: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 - 12:35 in Psychology & Sociology

Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues. Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer's journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country's transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.

The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records – rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular – for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.

Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.

Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes – murder, assault, and robbery – rose significantly.

Paper mentioned in the original article: source


Another article linked from the above. source

Viewing child porn not a risk factor for future sex offenses
Published: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 04:57 in Psychology & Sociology

For people without a prior conviction for a hands-on sex offense, the consumption of child pornography alone does not, in itself, seem to represent a risk factor for committing such an offense. Researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Psychiatry studied 231 men convicted of consuming child pornography in 2002 and found that only 1% had gone on to commit a hands-on sex offense in the following six years. Frank Urbaniok from the Canton of Zurich Department of Justice, Switzerland, worked with a team of researchers to investigate these consumers. He said: "When investigating the prevalence of internet child pornography consumption, an important practical question is whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offenses. Our results support the assumption that these consumers, in fact, form a distinct group of sex offenders. Probably, the motivation for consuming child pornography differs from the motivation to physically assault minors. Furthermore, the recidivism rates of 1% for hands-on and 4% for hands-off sex offenses were quite low."

As has been found in other studies, Urbaniok and colleagues were able to corroborate that the offenders were well educated and that most consumed other types of illegal pornography as well, such as pornography depicting sexual acts with animals, excrement, or involving brutality.

Commenting on the findings, Urbaniok said: "Due to the widespread use of the internet, child pornography consumers today may differ from our sample in some socio-economic aspects, such as in the level of education or level of income. Nevertheless, there are two relevant and practical findings that seem to be robust: For consumers of child pornography without a criminal history, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses and for recidivism with child pornography is favourable."

Paper mentioned in the article: source

So, if the above is true, does this lead us to assume that the possession of drawn pornography depicting minors (loli) is, at the very least, not harmful and may, in fact, prevent harm to children? Obviously, child pornography using actual children should still be illegal due to the harm it does to real children in order to produce it (although, that does lead to questions of what an appropriate punishment should be for the consumption of child pornography as opposed to producing it), but if loli porn doesn't lead to child sexual abuse and may reduce it, shouldn't it be legal for consumption?

[Aaron MkII]

God damn, I thought I had it wrong. Obviously I should not rely on the android xt9.

[Knife]

Here is the problem, the greatest benefit for the individual balanced with the greatest benefit of society. An outpatient program would probably be better for the individual but would it be better for society? Locking him/her away in a dark cell would probably be best for society, but is it best for the individual? You have to find balance. I agree, with whom ever said it, that a combo inpatient program in the prison would probably be the best, but then you go outside this argument and into how to finance it, which is another can of worms all together.

[Akhlut]

Here is the problem, the greatest benefit for the individual balanced with the greatest benefit of society. An outpatient program would probably be better for the individual but would it be better for society? Locking him/her away in a dark cell would probably be best for society, but is it best for the individual? You have to find balance. I agree, with whom ever said it, that a combo inpatient program in the prison would probably be the best, but then you go outside this argument and into how to finance it, which is another can of worms all together.

If you're just going to throw child molesters in prison and throw away the key, why not just execute them? Among prisoner hierarchies, child molesters are below snitches, incarcerated cops, and pretty much everyone else and are essentially guaranteed to either be brutally murdered by other inmates or put into solitary confinement indefinitely for their own protection. At that point, why not save them the suffering and us our tax dollars simply by executing them, if one wants to argue that point for society? Especially since there isn't going to be anyone who would reasonably hire them after they were released from prison (unless the state agrees to seal their court records from potential employers).

So, at some point, society needs to work on rehabilitating child molesters and try to make them into productive, benign citizens, which benefits everyone. Part of that is not locking them up and throwing away the key, and trying to find ways to reintegrate them into society (employment, primarily).

[Korto]

Far as I can see, the biggest reason is purely political. People want child abusers to be punished. Spending money beyond what's necessary to send them to prison for as long as possible is "going soft on pedophiles", and will lose you the election. The same thing happens with more "acceptable" criminal behavior, despite the fact that rehabilitation and special programs are cheaper in the long run, it's going "soft on crime", radio jocks disembowel you, the opposition has a field day, and you lose votes.
No politician can survive being associated with helping pedophiles. It wont matter what the real story is.

[Knife]

I'm unaware of a reliable Tx plan for pedophiles though. Sure, plenty of tx out there, but how many have an acceptable success rate? What is an acceptable success?

[Chirios]

Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse

lol, except of course for the children being abused in the videos right?

Far as I can see, the biggest reason is purely political. People want child abusers to be punished. Spending money beyond what's necessary to send them to prison for as long as possible is "going soft on pedophiles", and will lose you the election. The same thing happens with more "acceptable" criminal behavior, despite the fact that rehabilitation and special programs are cheaper in the long run, it's going "soft on crime", radio jocks disembowel you, the opposition has a field day, and you lose votes.

Maybe to some extent. The other problem is that most of the other crimes are things that can be fixed, either by moving up the economic ladder or by psychiatric help. Problem with paedophilia is that it seems to be something people are born with, or are convinced is fine at an early age.

[Terralthra]

Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse

lol, except of course for the children being abused in the videos right?

Without meaning to troll...unless the "child pornography" in question is animated/drawn/etc.

[Akhlut]

Legalizing child pornography is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse

lol, except of course for the children being abused in the videos right?

While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

Maybe you could, I dunno, actually read something other than the title to the article next time?

Far as I can see, the biggest reason is purely political. People want child abusers to be punished. Spending money beyond what's necessary to send them to prison for as long as possible is "going soft on pedophiles", and will lose you the election. The same thing happens with more "acceptable" criminal behavior, despite the fact that rehabilitation and special programs are cheaper in the long run, it's going "soft on crime", radio jocks disembowel you, the opposition has a field day, and you lose votes.

Maybe to some extent. The other problem is that most of the other crimes are things that can be fixed, either by moving up the economic ladder or by psychiatric help. Problem with paedophilia is that it seems to be something people are born with, or are convinced is fine at an early age.

That's what this entire thread is about: how to figure out a manner that is ethical to rehabilitate child molesters and turn them into benign, productive citizens.

[Darth Wong]

If you're just going to throw child molesters in prison and throw away the key, why not just execute them? Among prisoner hierarchies, child molesters are below snitches, incarcerated cops, and pretty much everyone else and are essentially guaranteed to either be brutally murdered by other inmates or put into solitary confinement indefinitely for their own protection. At that point, why not save them the suffering and us our tax dollars simply by executing them, if one wants to argue that point for society? Especially since there isn't going to be anyone who would reasonably hire them after they were released from prison (unless the state agrees to seal their court records from potential employers).

It's actually hard to come up with a good moral reason not to execute child molesters other than relying on blanket statements about the death penalty.

So, at some point, society needs to work on rehabilitating child molesters and try to make them into productive, benign citizens, which benefits everyone. Part of that is not locking them up and throwing away the key, and trying to find ways to reintegrate them into society (employment, primarily).

It is not possible to integrate them back into society without concealing what they've done, because people would not accept their presence if they were aware of their past. However, the act of concealing what they've done poses a risk to the general population.

If people want to do something constructive about pedophiles, it's probably best to increase the likelihood that they seek treatment before they actually molest a child.

[Ralin]

If people want to do something constructive about pedophiles, it's probably best to increase the likelihood that they seek treatment before they actually molest a child.

I've thought for awhile now that the way we demonize pedophiles probably prevents ones who would otherwise seek treatment from doing so. Which can only increase the chance of them offending.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's actually hard to come up with a good moral reason not to execute child molesters other than relying on blanket statements about the death penalty.

This looks like a challenge... Keep in mind, this part of my general opposition to the death penalty, and the entire US "justice" system, and I am in no way condoning the actions of pedophiles.

<Activating: Devil's Advocate Mode>
I would perhaps say that is unjust to execute someone who's offense was caused by a mental disorder, when a lifetime in a relatively comfortable mental institution (yes, I know the US system is broken) would accomplish the same goal of keeping the public safe from them while also not punishing them over-harshly.

I mean, it would not be invalid to say that a pedophile is placed in an impossible situation by whatever causal web makes them what they are. They have urges they cannot deny, only suppress... for a time. A great many of them try therapy, it does not work. They delude themselves into thinking God will cure them, become clergy, snap and molest an altar boy, deal with the cognitive dissonance by deluding themselves into thinking they are engaged in healthy relationships.

The whole situation is just... sad. So, while molesting children is absolutely heinous, I dont think death is a solution. They need to be put somewhere, but putting them into a rather angrily punitive prison system in this case does no one any good. It is not like thievery where a few months behind bars might make them re-evaluate their risk/benefit calculation...

So perhaps civil commitment with a mandate to do some research on those who consent to it is the best option.

[Purple]

Not quite understanding the problem my self I have to ask the obvious question. Are all pedophiles really the kind of ticking time bombs you describe, only holding their urges in until the moment that they inevitably explode and rape a child? I always figured that was an illusion created by the fact that those are the only ones we hear about. So like, can anyone point me toward any evidence to it?

[Haminal10]

It's actually hard to come up with a good moral reason not to execute child molesters other than relying on blanket statements about the death penalty.

I think a good reason for not making child molestation into a capital crime is that it would give an incentive to the molesters to kill their victims in order to silence them. After all, they wouldn't have anything to lose from a legal perspective, since they would already be facing the death penalty. I think that is the same rational that keeps kidnapping from being a capital offense.

[Legault]

It's incredible how every topic on this forum devolves into scientific jargon five or ten posts in. Not that I'm opposed, mind you.

Anyway, this is a great question, but it has a lot less to do with sociology and a lot more to do with social values. The word "justice" has always been a bloated mess of competing definitions and aims, the three biggest of which are retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. Modern society has yet to come to a consensus about what justice ought to mean, and, consequently, it's impossible to reduce the role of our criminal system to any one of these three goals.

So here's the answer to the original question, even if it seems unsatisfying: the reason that pedophilia isn't currently dealt with via an emphasis on rehabilitation is that our collective legal conscience treats pedophiles as undeserving of such treatment. In other words, Westerners don't particularly like pedophiles, and the drives towards retribution outweigh those towards rehabilitation in this case. Yes, there are other factors at play, such as the expenses of keeping pedophiles comfortable or the lack of information regarding the treatment of pedophilia, but those are fundamentally secondary.

It's actually hard to come up with a good moral reason not to execute child molesters other than relying on blanket statements about the death penalty.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the most obvious answer: that the appeals process makes the death penalty a good deal more expensive for the taxpayer than settling for life.

[Darth Wong]

It's actually hard to come up with a good moral reason not to execute child molesters other than relying on blanket statements about the death penalty.

I think a good reason for not making child molestation into a capital crime is that it would give an incentive to the molesters to kill their victims in order to silence them. After all, they wouldn't have anything to lose from a legal perspective, since they would already be facing the death penalty. I think that is the same rational that keeps kidnapping from being a capital offense.

Ah yes, you're right. That's a good reason, and I completely forgot about it. Thank you.

[Akhlut]

It is not possible to integrate them back into society without concealing what they've done, because people would not accept their presence if they were aware of their past. However, the act of concealing what they've done poses a risk to the general population.

It's a rather problematic issue. On the one hand, it would be helpful for everyone to find a solution that eliminates their attraction to children. On the other hand, if I knew some dude had a rap sheet for child molestation, I'd still be very leery to have him around my son in any manner, even if he had been through a therapy course that has proven 99% effective.

If people want to do something constructive about pedophiles, it's probably best to increase the likelihood that they seek treatment before they actually molest a child.

Even though, in the US at least, all such therapy would be private due to patient-doctor confidentiality, there's the matter that I don't think there's much impetus to fund any research on how to reduce/eliminate pedophilia, on the basis that it would be political/social suicide for someone to make that suggestion.

[cadbrowser]

If you answered yes to any of those questions, you are officially using your asshole as a mouth. That's disgusting, and you should stop.

OMG! ROFLMAO...I nearly choked on my own spit when I read that.

Thank you for the histerical laugh.

[Sriad]

Not quite understanding the problem my self I have to ask the obvious question. Are all pedophiles really the kind of ticking time bombs you describe, only holding their urges in until the moment that they inevitably explode and rape a child? I always figured that was an illusion created by the fact that those are the only ones we hear about. So like, can anyone point me toward any evidence to it?

In a roundabout way. Real (as opposed to media-based) child sex crimes in the USA have declined around 45% from 1993 to 2005 as far as the CPS (Child Protective Services) data I could dig up from the US Department of Health and Human Services shows C, from ~150k substantiated incidents in 1993 to 81k in 2005. Numbers I extrapolated from the 2010 report show in that year 3.0 million unique children prompted CPS responses, of which 20% were substantiated; of those 9.2% concerned sexual abuse for 55.2K total, for a 19-year decline of 64%. Those numbers are impressive enough to suspect methodological flaws, but outside analysis shows CPS is doing its job about as well as ever. The numbers are even more surprising when you remember that the USA isn't exactly less populous than it was in the early 90s.

Availability of child pornography, on the other hand, has exploded. Easy availability of live subject hardcore stuff peaked in the early 2000s with early file-sharing programs, and though it's trickled off as perpetrators are caught/sites are shut down it's still far more available than it was in 1993 ([whatever]-chan posts are now "tell me where to get CP" instead of "give me CP") and child models and lolicon are still abundant. The overall volume has run well ahead of personal internet speed.

That isn't definitive proof, but the contrary trends very strongly suggest that there are a whole lot of pedophiles who don't act on their urges offline.

[Akhlut]

In a roundabout way. Real (as opposed to media-based) child sex crimes in the USA have declined around 45% from 1993 to 2005 as far as the CPS (Child Protective Services) data I could dig up from the US Department of Health and Human Services shows C, from ~150k substantiated incidents in 1993 to 81k in 2005. Numbers I extrapolated from the 2010 report show in that year 3.0 million unique children prompted CPS responses, of which 20% were substantiated; of those 9.2% concerned sexual abuse for 55.2K total, for a 19-year decline of 64%. Those numbers are impressive enough to suspect methodological flaws, but outside analysis shows CPS is doing its job about as well as ever. The numbers are even more surprising when you remember that the USA isn't exactly less populous than it was in the early 90s.

Availability of child pornography, on the other hand, has exploded. Easy availability of live subject hardcore stuff peaked in the early 2000s with early file-sharing programs, and though it's trickled off as perpetrators are caught/sites are shut down it's still far more available than it was in 1993 ([whatever]-chan posts are now "tell me where to get CP" instead of "give me CP") and child models and lolicon are still abundant. The overall volume has run well ahead of personal internet speed.

That isn't definitive proof, but the contrary trends very strongly suggest that there are a whole lot of pedophiles who don't act on their urges offline.

That paper I linked to earlier on this page suggested that greater access to child pornography seems to have an effect of decreasing child molestation. So, that increased access might be lowering child molestation rates.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3639996

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.