German police hunt paedophile after boy killed [Chilling surveillance photo]

The Daily Telegraph ^ | February 27, 2007 | By Hannah Cleaver in Berlin

[aculeus]

Too bad the suicide attempt wasn't successful.

[LtdGovt]

Nice try at twisting my words, but the technical distinction between pedophiles and situational child molesters doesn't mean that they need to be treated differently. In my opinion, all of them need to be shot, or locked up for life.

The following book is cited as a source for the distinction: Hasselt, Handbook of Psychological Approaches with Violent Offenders CH 14 by Prentsky. That book cites the following article as a source: Swanson, Who violates children sexually? Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 5, 184-197.

I don't care whether you will believe me or not, since you have demonstrated the fact that you are unreasonable. I provided the references for all normal people who might want to know on what exactly I'm basing these distinctions.

Have a nice day, Robert.

[LtdGovt]

A man sought in the murder and suspected sexual abuse of a 9-year-old boy in eastern Germany was caught early Thursday after he threw himself in front of a streetcar, police said.

I wish he had been given Servius Tullius-treatment...

[robertpaulsen]

"but the technical distinction between pedophiles and situational child molesters doesn't mean that they need to be treated differently."

Then can you please tell me why in the hell it was so important for you to make that distinction? 122 posts later and you're finally admitting they should be treated the same.

Not that I agree.

[LtdGovt]

Then can you please tell me why in the hell it was so important for you to make that distinction? 122 posts later and you're finally admitting they should be treated the same.

I didn't 'admit' anything. I never stated it because I thought it to be self-evident. Why did I mention it? Because you and some people were operating on the notion that molestation of a child is necessarily casued by attraction to the child or to children in general. That is not true.

Not that I agree.

This is crazy. In the last post, you were blasting me as if I had said that they should be treated differtly, and in this post, you say that YOU don't think that they need to be dealt with in the same manner? Why not?

[robertpaulsen]

"on the notion that molestation of a child is necessarily casued by attraction to the child"

The master of the straw man argument.

Look, they use the child for their sexual gratification. That makes them a pedophile. By definition.

I don't care it they're "attracted" to the child, like the child, love the child, are related to the child, whatever. I don't care if it's "situational" or a life-long desire. I don't care if it's same-sex or opposite sex.

Maybe these distinctions are important to you for some obscure reason. They're not important to me. Those people are pedophiles. They need to be punished.

"In the last post, you were blasting me as if I had said that they should be treated differtly"

You said those who viewed child porn were pedophiles and should be locked up for 200 years because they were pedophiles. You then proceeded to make excuses for those who actually molested children by saying those people weren't necessarily pedophiles. You implied, therefore, that they should be be treated less severely because they weren't necessarily pedophiles.

122 posts later you then stated they should be treated equally.

"and in this post, you say that YOU don't think that they need to be dealt with in the same manner? Why not?"

Because I think those who actually molest children, those who rape children, should be treated much more severely than those who simply view child porn. I go by actions and actual harm to the child rather than labels.

[LtdGovt]

Look, they use the child for their sexual gratification. That makes them a pedophile. By definition.

It depends on how you define pedophile. I define 'pedophile' as someone who is attracted to children. Apparantly, you define pedophile by sexual contact. But the various dictionaries seem to agree with me.

You then proceeded to make excuses for those who actually molested children by saying those people weren't necessarily pedophiles. You implied, therefore, that they should be be treated less severely because they weren't necessarily pedophiles.

Of course they aren't necessarily pedophiles, but that doesn't make their offense less bad. Situational offenders are just as bad as pedophiles, and they both deserve either life or death. There is no reason to assume otherwise.

Because I think those who actually molest children, those who rape children, should be treated much more severely than those who simply view child porn. I go by actions and actual harm to the child rather than labels

I do agree with you. I thought you were saying that situational offenders should be treated differently from pedophilic offenders. But actual rape should always result in life or death.

[robertpaulsen]

"Apparantly, you define pedophile by sexual contact."

Let's put that in context, please. In the context of punishment, which is what we were discussing, I believe my actual words were, "one who uses a child for sexual gratification". I see no reason to punish a man for his attractions if he does not act on them.

You, on the other hand, would.

You are in favor of locking up pedophiles, are you not? Well, since mere attraction defines the individual as a pedophile, they should be locked up according to that logic.

"I thought you were saying that situational offenders should be treated differently from pedophilic offenders."

I can't possibly make such a generalized statement using your labels. I'm not punishing labels. I'm punishing behavior.

I'm saying that a person who physically molests a child should be punished much more severely that one who views child porn on his computer. Do you agree?