Replies

I think we're over-reacting. Nothing in the article even suggests that the APA is actually going to remove pedophilia from DSM-IV, and I bet that a poll of all APA members would show that the overwhelming majority (like 99%) are against the change. There is nothing wrong with debate, which often stimulates and focuses the mind and redefines the issues, and that's exactly what the APA was doing at this point in time.

That being said, removing pedophilia from DMS-IV might prove insignificant for several reasons. First, lots of behaviors are not specifically defined in the the DMS-IV, but that doesn't make the behavior any less deviant. Examples include homocide, rape, burglary, arson, assault, fraud, tax evasion, etc. Second, if pedophilia is not a mental illness under DSM-IV, then it is no longer subject to the insanity defense or similar defenses that try to excuse behavior on account of mental illness, and the perps will no longer get sentenced to mental health therapy because if pedophilia is not a mental disease, there is no sense wasting tax dollars on a mental cure. Just lock the sicko's up.

Nothing in the article even suggests that the APA is actually going to remove pedophilia from DSM-IV, and I bet that a poll of all APA members would show that the overwhelming majority (like 99%) are against the change.

If these people are not VERY careful they will see a repeat performance of the weasely skullduggery that took homophilia out of their book. I.e. a late night vote with almost nobody there except the activists.

Second, if pedophilia is not a mental illness under DSM-IV, then it is no longer subject to the insanity defense or similar defenses that try to excuse behavior on account of mental illness, and the perps will no longer get sentenced to mental health therapy because if pedophilia is not a mental disease, there is no sense wasting tax dollars on a mental cure. Just lock the sicko's up.

Wrong. See post #29.

"...Second, if pedophilia is not a mental illness under DSM-IV, then it is no longer subject to the insanity defense or similar defenses that try to excuse behavior on account of mental illness...

Ah,but step follows step: When it is declared that XYZ is not a mental illness, that it stands to follow that it (like homosexuality) is either:

a) An inhert condition
or
b) An "orintation"

neither of which is a crime. Indeed, this could very easily be spun in this fashion:

"Yes, my client knows that XYZ is not a usual practice and is even condemned by many others in society. And, yes, he still does it. And we know now it's not a mental illness. We know he isn't 'crazy'. So the question is not 'Did he do it?' but 'Why did he do it?' Because it is his sexual orintation. Something he was born with. Something over which he has no control..."