No... rape is about power, not sex.
But, I am not in favor of any kind of life-sentence for a sexual offense, either.

Yeah, I think it must be like sending an 18 year old to 30 days in jail for some minor offense. He gets to hang out with people who were chemists and dealers and repeat shop lifters and there's nothing to do but talk. The kid comes out knowing exactly how to set up his own meth lab, the best way to boost things from Wal-mart, and where to get the best drug deals. Not exactly what the courts had in mind when they sentenced him for driving without a licence.

The chemical castration thing is probably as good a solution as any for repeat sexual offenders. I was aquainted with a man who got sentenced to a year of therapy for a first offense of exposing himself to a 4 year old girl. It was a plea bargain, of course. God knows what he REALLY did. He told me that he picked up pretty quickly on what the therapists wanted him to say and parroted the right words back at them so he could get off probation. I fear for any child he's around, but since he only has the one conviction and got such a glowing report from the therapy outfit, he's not even on the list of Colorado sexual offenders. It makes me mad.

I don't think chemical or physical castration reduces the _desire_ to offend, although it may hamper the _ability_ - Not from what I've read (and I'll have to dig for the supporting information on it)

IMHO, anyone who steals a child's innocence shouldn't see the light of day again. I wouldn't say they should be put to death, but instead left to be 'dealt with' by the general prison population - who has very little tolerance for those who hurt children.

How much research is ongoing into this disorder? Is it being mostly ignored? For example, were the benefits of castration really studied? How much addresses brain activity unique to such individuals? Or is it mostly based on what was done a decade previously - subjective experience?

I'm sure there are studies ... I haven't read them. I live in the world of practical experience. I do suspect, though, that more research is directed toward victims rather than perpetrators. A quick search at PUBMED database yields 6,116 articles for "child sexual abuse" and 161 for "child molester." "Child Sexual Abuse Perpetrator" kicks it up to 204. I could redo that with better search terms, but that's still a pretty huge disparity.

Some of the literature gets a little goofy, such as the infamous study from an APA Journal that stated that Child Molestation is not harmful ... or not as harmful as 'previously believed.'

Chemical castration is only as effective as medication compliance. Sexual behavior tends to exist beyond the production of the sexual hormones, so even in the case of removal of the testes, the desire remains. The strongest sexual organ, after all, is the brain. The physical act is the completion of a chain of complex behavior originating as a thought. There are means other than penile penetration to accomplish a child molester's goal.

Even the half-a-Chinese guy from the IOTD the other day could molest a child, for example.

The most controversial paper on the Consequences of Child Sexual Abuse caused quite a firestorm in and about the American Psychological Association, and made NAMBLA very happy, as one of the conclusions of the meta-analysis by Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman was that Adult/Adolescent sex between males was not harmful. It also recommend that the term Child Sexual Abuse should not be used in "willing encounters" but should be referred to as "adult-child sex."

An analysis of their analysis

And, of course, there's a Wiki

I did read the Rind article when it was published because this was during my brief tenure as an APA member because I needed the cheap malpractice insurance coverage for my practicum.

Given the fact that paedophilia occurs in all human societies I think we really should be paying more attention to the 'why' instead of just concentrating on the effect. Maybe if we had a greater understanding of what actually causes this aberrant behaviour/drive then we would be able to do more about preventing it.

People don't want to know why. They just want to punish someone for something.

Then again, it's also very important to try and find ways of helping the vicitms of such crimes back to some normality in their lives.

This is very much a social issue to me rather than a justice issue, although it's very obviously a justice issue too. Maybe that's the problem.

Too much hand wringing and not enough doing.

Exactly! Ladies and Gentlemen, START YOUR BACKHOES!

Seriously, it isn't about revenge, that is useless. It is about being sure the person doesn't do it again.

As R.L. Burnside said "I didn't mean to kill the son of a bitch, I just meant to shoot him in the head. Him dyin' was between him and the good lord."

There's a lot I'll tolerate, but folks messing with underage booty isn't one of those things.

Fabulous response to all questions. Much of what was posted is either completely new to me or contradicts popularly held conclusions. I did not realize this controversy even existed. Considering credibility of the authors (Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman), I am now completely confused as to what is and it not considered legitimate therapy. IOW it sounds like this subject previously has been handled more as an obvious conclusion rather than with scientific integrity. It confirms what DanaC posted: In short and with too little information to do anything more than speculate, it appears that child molestation has been mostly ignored by researchers. Therefore even some of the therapies may be the equivalent to blood letting.

Another part that has lately caused me curiousity: how widespread is CSA if something like 8% of priests may be guilty? Just wondering if the APA has been ignoring this or if this topic is somehow considered too hazardous for researchers. Just the now well proven history from the Catholic Church - literally subpeonaed by DA Lynn Abraham of Philadelphia - demonstrates the problem is maybe both more common that known and yet ignored until recently.

Let me state, upfront, so Brianna doesn't think I'm a perv, that pedophilia is abhorrent, this guy is dispicable, and I don't want him or his kind around my, or anyone else's, kids. I also don't want people like this subjected to continued punishment and/or violence from the community at large.

So what happens with them? They can't be "cured". Ok, I'll accept that at face value. That means they cannot be allowed access to children. Ever. Capital punishment? My feeling on capital punishment is that it is appropriate for repeat offenders - anybody can make a mistake. Giving someone the opportunity to repeat this type of offense, though, is unacceptable. Life in confinement? Seems extreme, given that these people are not harmful to adults.

I'm for the "penal colony" solution. Allow them to have their own community, which they can never leave. They can have an economy all their own - maybe they'd make the perfect telemarketers.

Reformed and cured are not the same thing.
It's like a mob-scene in here, why don't you guys get torches and pitchforks.
And I was molested as well as my wife...

perhaps.

But probably not.

I have children.

One thing children teach you is that punishment and the fear of it are often not terribly effective in reducing unacceptable behaviour. Prevention is generally your best bet. Obviously, death is a good way of preventing people from reoffending, but if it were an effective deterrent, death row would be empty. We need to find a way to use convicted criminals in a prevention program.

Graphic, gory, public torture and execution? :D

Apparently NYS is not going to address the problem. Sheldon Silver is going to get creamed in the press when the next freed child abuser repeats.