What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wow!! - Brett Finch incident

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mojo

Mojo

Bench
Messages
4,121
THE CHAMP said:
Is it a sexual preference or an illness?
Preferences can be changed with the appropriate treatment.
You have misunderstood my original question. I think your attempt at a response indicates this
Click to expand...
Not misunderstood. In fact I sincerely appreciate your point.

How many people who commit, or contemplate committing, sex offences involving children decide to commit suicide? How many people who commit suicide would ultimately, if they continued living, commit sex offences involving children? There is little research regarding the correlation and, of course, the latter question is impossible to answer.

On the other hand, I think there's quite a lot of research that shows that people who commit child sex offences rationalise their behaviour. They are rational enough to choose not to throw themselves under a bus (unfortunately for the rest of society - except for bus drivers). In fact, many such people actually believe their offensive behaviour is reasonable and the rest of society is wrong in its perception of their offences.

The really scary thing is that psychopaths, sociopaths and even criminally insane perverts (which may or may not include child sex offenders) are, psychologically, rational. It's an unfortunate fact that most child sex offenders are, in most other respects, 'normal' and do also, generally, behave rationally, some so much so that they are even masters of manipulation and pretence.

As a general note (ie; not in response to any particular post on this forum) I would like to add that I (we) don't know any substantive details of the Finch case but I believe the charge relates to electronic transmission of material involving a minor. Not all child sex offenders are paedophiles and not all child sex offences involve contact. This is a summary, very worthwhile reading, from the Australian Institute of Criminology: https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi429
 
Last edited:
THE CHAMP

THE CHAMP

First Grade
Messages
8,359
Mojo said:
Not misunderstood. In fact I sincerely appreciate your point.

How many people who commit, or contemplate committing, sex offences involving children decide to commit suicide? How many people who commit suicide would ultimately, if they continued living, commit sex offences involving children? There is little research regarding the correlation and, of course, the latter question is impossible to answer.

On the other hand, I think there's quite a lot of research that shows that people who commit child sex offences rationalise their behaviour. They are rational enough to choose not to throw themselves under a bus (unfortunately for the rest of society - except for bus drivers). In fact, many such people actually believe their offensive behaviour is reasonable and the rest of society is wrong in its perception of their offences.

The really scary thing is that psychopaths, sociopaths and even criminally insane perverts (which may or may not include child sex offenders) are, psychologically, rational. It's an unfortunate fact that most child sex offenders are, in most other respects, 'normal' and do also, generally, behave rationally, some so much so that they are even masters of manipulation and pretence.

As a general note (ie; not in response to any particular post on this forum) I would like to add that I (we) don't know any substantive details of the Finch case but I believe the charge relates to electronic transmission of material involving a minor. Not all child sex offenders are paedophiles and not all child sex offences involve contact. This is a summary, very worthwhile reading, from the Australian Institute of Criminology: https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi429
Click to expand...
Agree and I will also add that I am in no way referring to finch in my post

I can’t get my head around the reluctance to hurt themselves due to the related pain
However there is no issue with causing pain to another human being. In the case of paedos small children
 
C

Chimp

Bench
Messages
2,871
There’s some real interesting debate to be had on this type of subject, but it’s so disgusting, nobody can really offer any sort of explanation or mitigation, as there’d rightly be uproar, and clearly, nobody sane and of decent mind thinks their thoughts or actions are acceptable…

But in time, I think there will end up being a wider conversation around it being a mental illness. Having sexual thoughts about children is not ‘normal’ and means something is wrong upstairs, and if they act on it, it’s time to lock em away and throw away the key. But that doesn’t sit in line with how we treat most other mental illnesses.
And if it’s not a mental illness, then is it a sexual orientation. And if it’s a sexual orientation, we potentially end up in very murky waters, waters that will offend plenty of people, and see plenty of people labelled as homophobic if there is any sort of arguement that could in anyway be interpreted negatively towards gay people. But we don’t have to go too far back to times when being gay was far from being accepted as ‘normal’, and was actually criminal (and still is in many Islamic countries). The argument back then was essentially based on the fundamental principles of what all living creatures are biologically built to do - survive as long as possible and pro-create. Any sexual orientation that goes against that wasn’t classed as ‘normal’ and was criminalised. But if we now accept that sexual orientation isn’t a ‘choice’, then surely things like peadophilia and beastiality are the same…. Or they’re a mental illness…. But if they’re a mental illness, does that make being gay a form of mental illness?
It’s potentially a very intriguing debate, but ultimately one that’s far too emotive to ever get off the ground - the questions posed would be far too uncomfortable for many, and the varying opinions would be met with hysteria and accusations of bigotry.
Just for the record though, I’m only playing devils advocate, and assuming a smart ass defence lawyer will one day at least start, maybe even win an argument on these pretences.
My personal view, if someone has these thoughts and acts on them (whether physically or just using online materials), they can never be in public again, if I’m really honest, I’d suggest these crimes are up there in terms of death penalty - but if not that, chemical castration and spend the rest of their days in a ‘facility’ of some sort. If they just have these thoughts ans don’t act on them, but seek help, then they get the full support of our mental health professionals.
I’d also add, there’s another level of murkiness around the age of the victims - I think there’s a massive difference between young kids, and those who could easily pass as being of legal age but are actually below it….
 
Ghostface Killah

Ghostface Killah

Juniors
Messages
947
Chimp said:
Just for the record though, I’m only playing devils advocate, and assuming a smart ass defence lawyer will one day at least start, maybe even win an argument on these pretences.
Click to expand...

No mate, that will never happen. You have been watching too much television.

The State of NSW treats this type of offending as criminal and will never divert it to the health system.

Further, if you are convicted of these types of offences you go onto the Child Protection Register to be monitored for the rest of your life - as it should be. You do not want to drive these offenders (further) underground.

The government are a pretty f**king hopeless mob at the best of times. However, investigating, charging, prosecuting, convicting, sentencing, and monitoring child sex offenders are one of the few things they more often than not get right.
 
Mojo

Mojo

Bench
Messages
4,121
Just a point of interest: the majority of countries that currently criminalise homosexuality (or, more correctly, different sexualities and transgender etc) are ex British colonies. It tends to be a hangover of British colonialism. Islam hasn‘t, historically, been particularly hung-up about it. It’s modern Islamist extremist regimes that have become particularly punitive about it (ie: its criminalisation is more culturally and politically motivated, than religious).
 
A

Angry_eel

First Grade
Messages
8,650
Mojo said:
Just a point of interest: the majority of countries that currently criminalise homosexuality (or, more correctly, different sexualities and transgender etc) are ex British colonies. It tends to be a hangover of British colonialism. Islam hasn‘t, historically, been particularly hung-up about it. It’s modern Islamist extremist regimes that have become particularly punitive about it (ie: its criminalisation is more culturally and politically motivated, than religious).
Click to expand...
Most older societies had no problem with Men having sex outside of marriage(with Men or Women) as long as they provided children. British just criminalized it by law.
 
1

10$ Ferret

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
1,219
Angry_eel said:
Most older societies had no problem with Men having sex outside of marriage(with Men or Women) as long as they provided children. British just criminalized it by law.
Click to expand...

I think its more that it always happened but was ignored. Very much a case of not practising what they preached. But it def changed with Europeans coming into environments, not just the British as the Spanish were pretty nasty lot too.

I am not a fan of the comparison of how homosexuality was illegal and frowned upon but is now accepted. The day that paedophilia is accepted in society is the day society is dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top