7 September 2003

Convicted Pedophile?

Law & Politics
Sex

An article in today's Detroit News refers to a particular man as a "convicted pedophile". I see this phrase a lot, and the amateur lawyer/editor in me wants to scream every time. It's a sloppy, incorrect phrase.

Pedophilia itself isn't a crime, and this man hasn't been convicted of it. He was convicted of criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or in regular English: he sexually molested a girl. Is he a pedophile? Apparently. A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children (boys and/or girls)... whether he acts on it or not. But we don't lock people up for what goes on in the privacy of their own head (or underwear). It's not even a crime to admit being a pedophile. Because we don't lock people up for what they say, either.

It's only a crime to act on it, by actually having sexual contact with a minor. And not everyone who does that is really a pedophile, in much the same way that not every rapist is sexually attracted to his victim. It can also be motivated by rage, a demonstration of the perpetrator's power, or just not caring who or what he fucks.

The important factor - and the whole reason any of this is a crime - is the victimisation of a person, a child. If a pedophile has the good judgment to keep his hands to himself (whether out of guilt over his feelings, fear of reprisal, or just plain self-restraint) our legal system - appropriately - won't touch him. And if anyone sexually abuses a child (with whatever motivation) our legal system - again appropriately - will punish him.

"So why are you so concerned about this?" you ask, suspiciously. For the record, the youngest person I've ever had sexual contact with was 16... when I was 17. Like I said, it's mostly the sloppy use of language which bothers me, especially involving legal terminology. Newspapers take care to refer to someone who's just been arrested as "the suspect", or when he's on trial "the defendant", rather than just calling him "the perpetrator" (even when it's obvious that he is), because that's the correct legal terminology. "Convicted pedophile" is not. But they use it anyway.

I'm also reminded of terms like "convicted homosexual" which were commonplace in (for example) Nazi Germany, and Victorian England (such as the trial of Oscar Wilde). In those societies, you could be convicted of simply being homosexual, without any identifiable non-consensual victim. Being a homosexual myself, that notion bothers me. So I can empathise with any non-practising pedophiles reading in the paper today about someone who - if the writer's phrasing can be trusted - was convicted of simply being a pedophile.

It promotes a stereotype. I don't know what the percentages are, but I'd guess that a lot (maybe even most) people with an attraction to youngsters (wisely) don't ever act on it. But "convicted pedophile" makes it sound like they all do. It's an offensive stereotype, much like calling someone a "convicted heterosexual" instead of "convicted rapist", or a "convicted accountant" instead of "convicted tax cheat".

I don't know whether pedophilia is something that can be "treated" or "cured", or if it's just God's idea of a cruel joke. But regardless, I don't think it's a good idea to drive pedophiles into hiding by making it sound like they will be (or should all be) thrown in jail "just in case". We should instead be encouraging pedophiles to admit their condition so they can get help (if it's treatable), or to acknowledge who they are so they can get support in dealing with their unfortunate situation (if it's not). Toward that end, getting the terminology right, and writing "convicted child molester" would be a step in the right direction.

P.S. In this article, I referred to both rapists and pedophiles as "he" or "him". Contrary to popular assumption, women can rape people, and I assume there are female pedophiles as well. I just didn't want to bog the point down by introducing that concept into it.

# 2003-09-07 09:48 AM
Comments

Get your dick out of your arse, quit looking at little girls, and don't write any more insipid commentaries pittying the already over accepted pedophile; it insults the real victims, those with intelligence enough to use their God given morals.

Posted by: Shanna at January 13, 2005 12:31 AM

Thanks, Shanna, for demonstrating the kind of pseudo-moral garbage that I was talking about. Especially the bit where you assume that anyone who'd even say anything sympathetic about pedophiles must be "looking at little girls". (For example, you could at the least exhibit a little intelligence and accuse me - an obvious homosexual - of "looking at little boys".)

Posted by: God's ex-Boyfriend at January 15, 2005 04:14 PM

It seems interesting (and revealing) that you would admit that you, as a homosexual, can empathise with "any non-practising pedophiles."

True, merely being a pedophile is not a crime, but it is a very serious (and perverse) abnormality. Birds of a feather and all that.

Mandor

Posted by: DR Mandor at January 20, 2005 10:18 PM

Try reading a little context, Mandor. What I empathise with is being treated like a criminal by self-appointed representatives of God, simply because of what goes on in one's head. It's been done (and to an extent still is done) to people like me, so I understand what it's like when it happens to them. So spare me the guilt-by-association smear tactics. And the fact that you apparently empathise with the ones who do that kind of heartless judging seems "interesting and revealing" indeed. Please take note of the human rights record of the birds you're flocking with (e.g. the Nazis).

Posted by: God's ex-Boyfriend at January 21, 2005 09:33 AM

Context? Why? Obviously you don't let it stand in your way. At least my comment was based on something you did in fact say. You said you can empathise with pedophiles.

I said that being a pedophile is a serious and perverse abnormality. You rightfully perceive that I believe the same thing about homosexuality. So you suggest that I empathise with Nazis? Oh yes, context! You said the birds that I "flock with" are Nazis.

You guys need to find some other political group to associate us so-called "homophobics" with.

Don't you know the only thing those big blond SS troopers loved more than porking each other was nice little fat-butt boys?

Sieg heil warmerbrudder!

Mandor

Posted by: DR Mandor at January 22, 2005 03:41 AM

I only used the "flock with" metaphor because you seemed fond of it. But since you ask, the reason homosexual-haters such as you get associated with Nazis is the fact it was also a major bullet-point on the their agenda. That ought to give one pause. Go to Dachau as I have, and you'll see the documentation of who they were trying to eliminate from the German population: homosexuals were right there on the main list. So if the jackboot fits....

P.S. Do you have any documentation for your claim that SS troopers commonly engaged in homosexual activity or child sexual abuse, or is that just one of your fantasies?

Posted by: God's ex-Boyfriend at January 22, 2005 12:09 PM

Actually, I have been to Dachau. When I was there a part of it was being used as the 7th Army Stockade.

Homosexual haters? Does that defense mechanism really work for you? You deal with people who refuse to help you pretend that your sexual "orientation" is normal and wholesome by calling them homosexual haters? And Nazis.

Documentation that the ranks of Hitler's S.A. and S.S. were abundantly staffed with homosexuals can be found in any public library. And speaking of jackboots, they fit pretty good on a fellow named Ernst Rohm. Rudolph Hess too. I suggest you start by reading about them. There were a hell of a lot more pink swastikas than pink triangles.

Mandor

Posted by: DR Mandor at January 23, 2005 06:35 AM

OK, so you've been to Dachau, but apparently didn't learn much from it. {shrug}

Calling you a "homosexual hater" isn't a defense mechanism. It's an exercise in the descriptive use of the English language. Maybe "hate" isn't quite the right word... would you prefer "contempt", "disgust", "alarm", or "strange obsession"? Some kind of defense mechanism, perhaps? Because something along those lines is what you're conveying, rather clearly. (I know some anti-gay individuals like to call this kind of verbal derision "love", but that's too dysfunctionally self-deceptive to bother arguing with.)

Of course there were homosexuals in the SS. I don't need to spend much time researching them (as you apparently have) to know that. There have also been confirmed homosexuals at high levels of the Republican Party, the College of Cardinals, the Christian Coalition, the FBI, the UN, the Treasury Dept, and the NRA. To bring this back on topic, there have probably been pedophiles in such positions as well. But that doesn't make these organisations just a bunch of butt-fuckers and girl-fanciers, because none of them is at all supportive of such things. I was asking for documentation of your feverishly ridiculous claim that the SS were, to refute the historical evidence that they instead aided in the seizure, imprisonment, torture, and eventual murder of homosexuals. Pointing a few fingers doesn't make that case.

Seriously, you're making a jackass of yourself here, so why not shut up before you make it any worse? I've got better things to do with my time than play games with you. Find a more constructive (or at least benign) hobby. Further comments will be deleted.

Posted by: God's ex-Boyfriend at January 23, 2005 12:01 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?