Can pedophiles be "cured?"

[Guest happyguy]

I do not think that pedophiles can be cured. Everything I have read on this topic points to a zero level cure rate. What I find disturbing in this debate is that homosexuality is being equated with pedophilia. Healthy homosexuals do not molest children. period. Why is someone not stating this.

 

Is it true that a great deal of priests (the majority or more?) are homosexual? Does that mean that they are pedophiles? What do you think of priests who are gay and who "give in" from time to time? I feel sorry for them. They are trapped. Are they any different from the Presidents and V.P.'s of so many corporations who are bi, and don't want their wives to know?

 

As a community, I think we should be talking about this. Most priests I have known (never sexually) are really nice guys ... and even though I suspected, I respected them - as they did me. But, why this witch hunt now?

 

Maybe we should start another thread,

HB

[Guest chaz49wm]

I am not an authority on this Issue but everything I have read never said that the true Pedophile can be cured. THe Bigger problem I think is that we mix up Pedophille with Sex with minors or teens and they are not the same thing whether with a clergy or not. One is a real Illness I think the other can be worked on and maybe some help given. Many want to blast the Catholic Church for the Clegics that have done it. I really wish we could hear of all that do. NOt that It would make it Right but seems to be clouded. THe Church has not always done the right thing that is no surprise. BUt I really feel most of the Church does not want the Press. Its not an orientation It is a illness /Sickness. HUGS Chuck

[Guest JON1265]

>Jon, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

Thank you, Doctor BoN...

 

 

Pedohilia is not an

>orientation and to suggest that it is is simply vile beyond

>words.

 

Why am I vile for suggesting such a thing? It is just my opinion...relax....I prefaced it by saying I have no scientific data to back me up...unlike you of course, right?

 

Pedophilia is a mental illness. Men having sex with

>prepubescent boys or girls is wrong no matter how you try to

>excuse it

 

Where and when did I try to excuse it?? I agree that it is a mental illness - and also an orientation (IMHO). I will gladly recant my opinion if and when I see some data on the subject....and I noticed you only mentioned prepubescent children....why not everyone under 18?? Why did you leave out adolescents (sp?)??

 

And why are we locking these men (and women) up in prison and not in an instituiton?

[Karl-G]

Any professional sociologists or psychologists in this group? The assumption for clergy seems to be that they can be "cured" of pedophilia. Is there any scientific evidence to support this assumption? Or must they be placed in situations where there are no children to be safe?

[Guest jizzdepapi]

>... The assumption for clergy seems to be that they can

>be "cured" of pedophilia. Is there any scientific evidence

>to support this assumption?

 

i've only heard anecdotally that the recidivism rate for sex offenders is around 100%. it might surprise some posters to hear that i am for mandatory life sentences for pedophiles.

 

also, i think the assumption that clerical pedophiles can or even have been cured is made by clerical higher-ups that don't want to deal with unsavory situations.

 

best,

jizz

[Guest JON1265]

Well, I offer no scientific data - but it would seem to me that the answer is "no."

 

It seems to me that it is a "sexual orientation" of sorts. I am gay and could never be anything else...I am sure many str8 people could not be anything else.

 

I don't see how an "orientation" can be changed...and it seems to me that society only wants to lock pedophiles up and throw away the key -is anyone even trying to help them, or is society only interested in punishment?

[trilingual]

I don't think pedophiles can be "cured." With effective counseling I think many can learn to control their urges to avoid destroying themselves and harming others.

 

Of course, there's the inevitable lack of information about some of these cases involving clergy, and the propensity of the American press in the past few years to describe sex with teenagers as child molestation. It should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, because at least some of the "children" allegedly molested were probably six-foot bruisers with five-o'clock shadows at age seventeen who were already sexually experienced. Lumping that kind of experience in with sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children is grossly hypocritical and misleading, in my opinion. But it's all part of the American Puritanism that tries to deny that younger people have sexuality and sex drives. (And, by the way, I'm not ordinarily attracted to teenagers, but once in a while I've met some who are physically and emotionally mature and I wouldn't have known their actual ages without specifically asking for it. If it were legal, I would have gone to bed with them.)

[BewareofNick]

Jon, you couldn't be more wrong. Pedohilia is not an orientation and to suggest that it is is simply vile beyond words. Pedophilia is a mental illness. Men having sex with prepubescent boys or girls is wrong no matter how you try to excuse it

[OneFinger]

There are several different programs being used to treat pedophiles. I'm not sure even the professionals would use the term "cure" but there are those that feel it can be managed.

 

One such treatment for male pedophiles involves monitoring breathing rate, heart rate, etc. while showing the pedophiles pictures or movies of their usual "targets" (i.e., nude girls, young boys, etc.) These pictures would often be considered child pornography but are used in a clinical setting to get the pedophile excited. Once the monitors reach a certain level, an electrical shock is delivered to the penis. The pictures or film then switch to heterosexual pictures and the pedophile is allowed to reach a full erection without being shocked.

 

In some limited cases, I think pedophiles can learn to manage their desires. However, I wouldn't want one to move into my neighborhood or preach at my church.

[HooBoy]

>I do not think that pedophiles can be cured. Everything I

>have read on this topic points to a zero level cure rate.

>What I find disturbing in this debate is that homosexuality

>is being equated with pedophilia. Healthy homosexuals do

>not molest children. period. Why is someone not stating

>this.

>

>Is it true that a great deal of priests (the majority or

>more?) are homosexual? Does that mean that they are

>pedophiles? What do you think of priests who are gay and

>who "give in" from time to time? I feel sorry for them.

>They are trapped. Are they any different from the

>Presidents and V.P.'s of so many corporations who are bi,

>and don't want their wives to know?

>

>As a community, I think we should be talking about this.

>Most priests I have known (never sexually) are really nice

>guys ... and even though I suspected, I respected them - as

>they did me. But, why this witch hunt now?

>

>Maybe we should start another thread,

>HB

 

Ditto!

 

Great post. Thanks!!!

[Will]

RE: Can pedophiles be

 

It's my sense that pedophilia is like alcoholism or compulsive gambling. That is, it's probably not helpful to talk about "cure," but it is helpful to talk about management. There is a wonderful twelve-step program called Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous that helps a lot of people manage their unruly and compulsive sexual desires. For a while, I went to SLAA meetings; but after a few months I realized that I don't really qualify and stopped going. However, in that short amount of time I developed enormous respect for the program itself and for the integrity and sincerity of the people I met there.

 

As for priests, this is a witch-hunt, yes. However, it is a witch-hunt that the hierarchy has brought on itself through the instransigent arrogance of an institutional culture built on the assumption that "Father knows best." I am a serious, church-going Catholic; but that doesn't mean that I agree with, let alone excuse, violent (that's what it is) behavior or its cover-up.

 

I am not convinced that sexual predation in the clergy has anything to do with homosexuality. After all, the huge majority of convicted child-molesters are straight men who prey on little girls. The frequency of priests preying on boys rather than girls may reflect something else altogether. For generations, the priesthood has been the only profession in which marriage is not compulsory for advancement. What's more, it's the only helping profession all of whose members are celibate, which means that their sexual orientation is not at issue. When devout and sensitive young men look around for a profession in which they can be of genuine service to others, the priesthood is one of many options. But it is the ONLY option open to a gay man who is afraid to come out, even to confront his own homosexuality. I belong to the generation of most of the priests who are now being brought to justice; and I know what it feels like to tell myself over and over -- especially in the enthusiasm and naivete of youth -- that a well-lived life will make up for the loss of intimacy.

 

I hope some closeted bishop is reading this, because I think the church should remove the rule of compulsory celibacy. (In any case, it was introduced only in the eleventh century and as a disciplinary rule: there's nothing "sacred" about it.) I still think people who are single should be honored and I think that celibacy should be respected as a perfectly viable choice for some people. But I also think that it would be better for all concerned if priests could lead normal sexual lives.

 

By "normal" sexual lives, I do not mean pedophilia. Pedophiles are as unsuited for the priesthood as they are for pediatric medicine.

[Guest albinorat]

From what I know about it (among other things my brother is a Bishop and not a pedophile)pedophila has become a broad term and a good weapon in anti-gay rhetoric.

 

Pedophiles are men (and rare women) who are attracted to children, defined as people with no secondary sexual characteristics. Infants aren't invulnerable. But targets tend to be from 4 to 11 years of age. Girls are victimized far more often than boys, and are treated brutally far more often. In all case studies I am aware of the sex of the target doesn't matter as much as the age and the circumstances under which the act could be perpetrated.

 

Pedophiles are often married and heterosexually affiliated, even those who primarily target boys. Frequently they have started within their own families, from being victimized by an older relative, to victimizing younger relatives as young teens to targeting their own children, once married.

 

Because this "paraphilia" appears to be inborn and behavior often starts very early, it is impossible to cure, it is usually part of the person's overall personality and is more than a sexual 'taste'.

 

Violent and sadistic pedophiles cannot be helped and need to be controlled and supervised. Pedophiles who are more seductive may be able to come to an understanding of the damage they are doing the child and with the help of some anti-depressents which in high doses distroy libido (Prozac is popular) may be able to stop. Though there are no rules, younger pedophiles are easier to help than older ones. Some aging pedophiles stop either because they lose easy access to children, or because their sexual drive diminishes.

 

As in all "paraphilias" there are degrees; some pedophiles are opportunists who touch a child only occasionally if one falls into their lap so to speak. Not all are compulsive or entirely without self control. Some do feel guilt and may stop with will power (though removing opportunities is always important). Not all pedophiles have a criminal mentality, and some struggle with their drives. Those who are criminals (who love doing semething they know is wrong and getting away with it, enjoy terrorizing and hurting the child) cannot be stopped as far as anyone knows.

 

A number of studies in Scandanavia (where else?) and the Netherlands showed a marked decrease in acting out by pedophiles when they had access to child pornography. (By the way, to stem the inevitable skepticism, the country in the developed world with the lowest teenage pregnancy rate, lowest rates of sexually transmitted diseases including aids, lowest teenage abortion rate is The Netherlands where sex is talked about explicitly from kindergarten on, and where young teenagers have access to a range of sexual materials from what we'd call porn to 'how to' manuals written and illustrated in an accessible style).

 

The more common and visible type of forbidden acting out is called "ephebephilia". That is where the object is a teenaged boy, age range from 13-17. This has a long history in all cultures from the Ancient Greek to the recent Pashtun (as soon as the Taliban was chased out of Afghanistan the old customs of married men finding willing boys in their teens to be their consorts started again). Many European countries have reduced to age of consent to between 13 and 15. The reasoning is that a boy that age most likely knows what he wants and can consent meaningfully, is in a position to derive genital pleasure from what happens, may in some cases initiate the activity, and often is well devloped enough physically to fight off an attacker, and certainly knows to report an attacker.

 

A pedophile is essentially a rapist and many derive more sexual pleasure from the terror of his victims, even if some pedophiles may suggest the children wanted and enjoyed it (as rapists of adult females often do).

 

An ephebephile more often is looking for a mutually satisfying exchange with a consenting male teenager. Whether that is wise, healthy (for either) or to be endorsed at all are, it seems to me, open questions. But rape (either in fact or mentality) is usually not the case for teenaged boys, and where it is, of course should be vigorously prosecuted.

 

However, this behavior is just as stigmatized in USA as pedophilia and is actually more likely to be prosecuted (children often don't know they can report an attack, are often too frightened to do so, proving an attack occurred on a young child may be hard).

 

As to priests, a point I never see made is that most of these priests are over 45, many much older. I grew up in that milieu. Into the mid 70's boys as young as 12 were recruited to the priesthood. Usually the neighborhood was Catholic with a large number of imigrants. A great deal of status was attached to being religious; also because the Catholic Church paid for higher education the priesthood was a way out of the lowest common denominator working class. Once a boy was felt to be sincere in his "calling" he would be spending weekends at seminaries, summer vacation at seminaries and much of his free time with older priests (one would be assigned to mentor) or monks who were assigned to supervise the development of the youngster into a priest.

 

Boys in these circumstances were easy targets sexually. But often the older priests who were mentoring them were the most important people in their lives, and they fell in love with them (there is no other word). As they matured hormonally their sexual emotions were invested in man/boy love, and their had relationships where they were the beloved.

 

That this was wrong was not addressed. As in all Christian sects there were abundant rationalizations about how this was not sinful. In any case, it could be confessed and forgiven and was protected by the seal of the confessional.

 

As these boys matured some became the older lovers of boys. Not all did -- some became heterosexual in fantasy if not in practice (and in practice too, often enough), other became typical homosexuals with an interest in adult males. But man/boy love had been imprinted on many of these youngsters. And even those who did not act it out as adults 'understood' and sympathized with it. For this older generation of priests, and hierarchy, this did not seem so bad, because it was familiar. And they had grown into the priesthood knowing priests who acted out with boys, who otherwise were "good" priests.

 

Many of these priests are ephebephiles. However as with scout masters, highschool sports coaches, drama and debate teachers, they have excessive access to their sexual objects and are in an position to influence and exploit youngsters who may be looking not for sex but for approval, a better grade, a starting position on the team, or good refences to a college. High school teachers who involve themselves in activities can also hang around boys at an age where they are easily aroused and can be 'turned on', thus at least momentarily consenting to sex they may later regret.

 

This has become a typical Albinorat ramble.

 

"True" pedophilia is always wrong, and a crime. No five year old (or ten year old or 12 year old) is an appropriate object for an adult's sexual interest. Not all children are seriously damaged devlopmentally by molestors but the potential for damage is considerable.

 

Ephebephilia in USA needs to be taken on a case by case basis. This is a sex adverse, Puritan culture with a history of criminalizing normal, consensual activities between consenting adults (including fellatio between marred couples for example). Obviously men who have unusual access to boys between 13-17 and are apt to take advantage of boys that age, when caught, should be fired and seriously prevented from being in unsupervised contacts with boys ever again.

 

But I am not willing to condemn EVERY male who might under some circumstances have a mutally consenting sexual interaction with a fully developed 17 year old just because 18 is the age of consent in that state (but 16 is consenting age in the near-by state, and 17 is consenting age in the state near that).

 

For this site of course, there needs to be a strong emphasis on the age of escorts. Even "twinks" should be 18+.

 

Whether the laws are fair in themselves or are always fairly enforced, a man trolling for underaged boys (even if they are over 14)is breaking the law, needs to know it and should be barred from this site. There is the additional issue of paying a boy who might not consent to the sex except for the money. Those who argue that some teenagers can consent meaningfully to sex with an adult under some conditions, are apt to condemn prostituion and feel it's right to prosecute men to "buy" boys.

 

Al

[Guest 7Zach]

Your post offered a lot of insights on stuff I don't really know a lot about. And Will, I don't think anything is going on regarding the Church that is out of line. The sheer numbers involved are shocking, if what one reads is true. And I think it is cultural, is institutionalized, and the recent publicity is nothing more than having people come forward. But I don't know any of this for a fact.

 

Maybe some of the large numbers in Boston alleging abuse are not telling the truth, I haven't read anything about that, and every time there is a bus accident, there are way more people injured on the bus than could fit inside it.

 

But I have always found troubling the way young boys were brought into the church and then promoted along the way to the priesthood. It's unfair for me to say that, and I point this out. I think abstinence in the search for truth and God is a legitimate price to pay in service of the Church and God. I don't however believe that a lot of the people drawn to that service and concomitant duty are capable of faithfully performing that service. Sex is just a basic need in everybody; everybody has heat waves...and it seems a lot of the opportunities for sex are limited to the people that they are around the most, e.g., the young boys.

[Will]

RE: Can pedophiles be

 

Zach, I don't know what I said that made you think I was saying that this is "out of line." I said it's a "witch-hunt," and by that I mean that revealing pederastic priests has become the scandal du jour. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that these accusations -- and not only against priests -- are sometimes groundless. The late Cardinal Bernardin was a victim of that kind of libel, as are countless school teachers and college professors. (I know what I'm talking about here, though not, thank God, from personal experience.)

 

I was certainly not trying to imply that this is a trivial matter. On the contrary, I tried to be clear in accusing the church's institutional culture of (a) enforcing a notion of sexuality, i.e., celibacy, that is very rare; (b) looking aside or away when deviations (of all kinds, not just pederasty) occur; © reassigining priests who the diocese has good reason to think are sexual felons; (d) not allowing any discussion of the priest's past; (e) attempting to stonewall when victims do come forward; and (f) when that proves impossible, to insist on silence as a term of monetary settlement. By any standard, that is egregious institutional behavior. Even if a corporation did it, there would be hell to pay, though not in the literal sense that one can imagine for administrators in ecclesiastical organizations.

 

Today I read a long piece in the NYTimes about a man in New Jersey who decided to break the silence legally imposed on him when the diocese in question settled with him and his family. He said, and I fully agree with him, that silence -- secrecy, anonymity, looking the other way -- is the most vicious weapon of all, because it perpetuates not only the wrong-doing, but the inability of victims to purge themselves of the experience by speaking out.

 

Frankly, as a Catholic, I think this is the best thing that's happened to the American Church in a long, long time. Just last week the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston came out and said that it may be time for the church to re-examine the rule of compulsory celibacy for the priesthood. I say, Hooray! If people insist on sleeping through anything, the only way to wake them up is to throw ice water in their faces and toss them out of bed. If they don't like being wet on the floor, maybe they can learn to be more responsive to the world around them and less responsive to their dreams.

[Guest happyguy]

RE: Can pedophiles be

 

But Will,

when you say this is a "witch hunt" for pedophiles, I don't think many people will disagree: this is a crime and no one should be allowed to hurt others in this way. I get a little worried at times like this when my co-workers want to take advantage of this situation to root out homosexual priests and get back at the hierarchy by using these men and their orientation to embarass their bosses because of the things they did.

I think that when this is done, the poor innocent guy who is outed is hurt far more than the higher-ups who are the ones that set policy, etc.

 

I am probably not expressing myself very well, but I think that when the witch-hunt is taken to these extremes, we are hurting people unnecessarily. And I wonder: a) once some of them have been ruined, will the exposers feel any better' b) will the hierarchy feel any worse - ironically the ones we wanted to hurt will just keep on ticking, like a duracell battery!

 

Happyguy

[Guest JON1265]

RE: Can pedophiles be

 

>

>Frankly, as a Catholic, I think this is the best thing

>that's happened to the American Church in a long, long time.

> Just last week the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of

>Boston came out and said that it may be time for the church

>to re-examine the rule of compulsory celibacy for the

>priesthood. I say, Hooray!

 

 

Is the "vow of celibacy" something an Archdiocese can change? Doesn't that sort of change have to come out of the Vatican and do you seriously see the Pope okaying sex for priests and nuns??

 

By the way - is this a problem in other countries where priests reside?

[BewareofNick]

Jon, to be clear, I never suggested that you were vile personally, but that the idea of pedophilia being 'just another orientation' is vile. It seemed to me that you were trying to excuse the behavior by lumping it in with sexual orientation. That's one of the things that sets gay rights back every time it is brought up. Kick NAMBLA to the curb.

[Guest regulation]

RE: Can pedophiles be

 

>Frankly, as a Catholic, I think this is the best thing

>that's happened to the American Church in a long, long time.

> Just last week the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of

>Boston came out and said that it may be time for the church

>to re-examine the rule of compulsory celibacy for the

>priesthood. I say, Hooray!

 

I recently heard a panel discussion on this issue. One of the participants, a psychiatrist who studies sexual crimes committed by clergymen, stated that celibacy has nothing to do with the issue. According to his studies, there is no difference in the percentage of Catholic clergymen who commit sexual abuse of minors and the percentage among clergymen from other denominations, i.e., Judaism and Lutheranism, that do not require celibacy. According to him, a far better predictor of such behavior is a history of sexual abuse during the offender's own childhood; more than 60% of clergy who commit such offenses are found to have been sexual abuse victims as children.

[Guest chaz49wm]

RE: Can pedophiles be

 

I think there are many frustated Catholics here who like the church but hate the POlitics. DOnt like what has happened. A few may be Priest's or Formers, Those who have spent some time in the Seminary or the Church and know it up front and personal. I think none of us like what is happening but are even more upset by the singualling out of the CHurch over other groups. It is not right to do this but the Church is not the only one involved and I some times feel the Church is being preyed upon in it's on way be it right or wrong for other issues. Holy MOther Church has lots of Tarnish Don't think anyone here would dupte that but don't make it sound like they are the only ones. HUGS Chuck

[Guest chaz49wm]

ALbinorat

 

Think you covered this one just right and you happen to have a Family authority. I appreciate the throuhgness that which you gave this issue even though you called it Rambling I dont think it was Thanks HUGS Chuck:)

[bluenix]

RE: Can pedophiles be

 

Great post, Al/rat. The older I get, the more I revel in a world that is neither black nor white. Thanks.

 

Did you catch Donald Cozzins (Author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood: A Reflection on the Priest's Crisis of Soul) on NPR's Fresh Air?

 

Thoughtfully, quietly provocative.

 

http://freshair.npr.org/dayFA.cfm?display=day&todayDate=03%2F12%2F2002

[Guest Ant415]

RE: Can pedophiles be

 

Great points Wil and Alb. I certainly don't have the depth of knowledge either of you have, but is great you took time to post and share some ideas. I think it is important for gay men to know some of these issues, and have some ammunition when faced with the gay=child molesters accusations from the truly ignorant. Same to be said for faithful clergy.

 

Al,

Just a question on the report. In Europe the report claimed a lower incidence of actual sexual contacts by pedophiles when they have access to child porn. Did the report go into the issue of how such porn is to be produced and distributed. I doubt they advocated the production of child porn, but how can it's possession, or worse, production be legitimized? Legislators seem to have enough of a problem with clean needles for addicts. It was interesting and informative to read your "ramble". I know you are not pro or con on the points made, but was seeing if mention made about the porn issue.

[Guest kathryn]

RE: Can pedophiles be

 

with your endulgence, here is a paper that I did for my Criminal Justice class in regards to Pedophiles...This was a while back, so bare with the poor structural errors....

In the Eyes of a Child

 

 

 

This dastardly deed should have taken place after midnight. Things of this nature should always take place in the shadows of darkness, but it was in the late afternoon and the sun was still shining. The perpetrator of this crime should not have been a stranger for he was a friend of my mothers and sent to me by her. He knocked on the door and called my name in a questioning tone. He announced that he was a friend of my mothers. He said, “your mother wanted me to accompany you to my place”. He promised me a picture hat and a hoop skirt just like Shirley Temple. (Excerpt from my mother’s personal memoirs)

During the 1950’ and the 1960’s the primary focus was on “stranger danger”- the “dirty old man in the wrinkled raincoat approaching an innocent child at the playground”. It is obvious with “stranger danger” who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, and what they look and act like. All children were taught how to protect themselves from the strangers by yelling “NO!” and running to a trusted adult for help and comfort.

It is a fact that child molesters can look like everybody else and can be an acquaintance, a family member, close friend of the family or a trusted member of society. Society has a problem with dealing with any type of sexual-victimization and especially with child molestation. Part of the misconception is that the typical child victim is a completely innocent young girl. It is important to know that boys as well as girls are often victimized. And, not all-young girls are innocent. Whether it is child pornography or molestation, when an adult and a child have sex, the child is always the victim.

Past attitudes in the United States has been a form of denial about sexual victimization of children. Society still has obstacles to overcome, but things have steadily improved. Not as many people are pretending that it just does not happen.

The difference between a pedophile and a molester is that the pedophile, which is a psychological disorder, has a distinct sexual desire for young children. Usually children that have not gone through puberty. The definition of pedophile is according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III_R) “recurrent, intense, sexual urges and sexual arousing fantasies of at least six months duration involving sexual activity with at pre-pubescent child”. Usually the child would be under the age of 10. The pedophile might never act on these urges, but instead will only fantasize about it. Child molesters can have many different motives, and unlike the pedophile, act on their impulses. Pedophiles often collect things and keep their fantasies and collectibles a secret. Pedophiles often do not commit any physical crimes against children. The exception would be the pedophile that shows their collection of pictures and things to the young children, in hopes of enticing the child into a sexual response.

A child molester is an older person, male or female, which has had any type of sexual contact with a child. The majority of child molesters are men, though occasionally women will also molest children. Child molesters victimize children for many reasons and sometimes these reasons have little to do with their sexual desires. This is known as a “situational” child molester. They do not possess a sexual preference for a child. The motivation is criminal in nature and can have many causal factors. Sometimes, the molesters have themselves been victims of abuse as children. Usually the molester has low self-esteem and poor moral standards. In other cases, the molesters see the children as a substitute for the lack of adult partners. The victims just happen to be children, but they were there and available, and most of all vulnerable. These types of molesters are usually misfits or social outcasts.

The second type of molester is defined as a preferential child molester. These offenders usually have a sexual and direct preference for children, and maintain these desires throughout their lives. There are patterns of behavior that remain consistent. They buy children gifts, and try to gain their trust before raping the child. These types of molesters are the most dangerous. They can be brutal and sadistic and even carry the rape to the level of mutilation and murder.

In too many cases, the molesters go free and never get incarcerated for their crimes. Many children never tell the “secret” and the molester simply moves on to victimize others. In other cases, the perpetrator goes to trial, but because the victim is a child- they go free. Children are after all, just children, and the evidence often is not enough to prosecute the accused child molester.

For the molesters that do get caught, the sentence is often not severe enough. How long is long enough for a person who has victimized a child? The child does have to live with the memories and anger throughout their lives.

In Texas, in 1996 a prisoner opted for medical castration. This lessened his prison sentence, as he was no longer thought to be a threat to children or society. Two years later, he stopped the medicine and was again in prison for molesting a five year old little girl.

Most child molesters do re offend. Perhaps it is a better solution to treat the mental illness and behavioral problems than to put them into prisons. It is after all a psychological problem. No matter how many years of therapy a molester receives, the counselor can not change the molester’s sexual preference for children. Convicted child molesters are being released into society everyday. Often the monitoring system for these molesters does not work. The average times that a child sex offender will molest is 117 children and most of these molestations will go unreported.

Most of the children grow up with issues about trust and have difficulties with relationships, and also can grow up to continue the pattern by becoming molesters themselves. The children often have anxieties and guilt about the molestation, because they feel as if it was their fault, and that they participated in the sexual assault. They must be “bad”, because this happened to them.

The penalty needs to fit the crime. Sentencing must become stricter in order to protect our children. As hard as it is to look into the eyes of a person and tell if they are a child molester, it is just as difficult to see into the eyes of a former child and know if they were a victim of a child molester.

[Guest kathryn]

In too many cases, the molesters go free and never get incarcerated for their crimes. Many children never tell the “secret” and the molester simply moves on to victimize others. In other cases, the perpetrator goes to trial, but because the victim is a child- they go free. Children are after all, just children, and the evidence often is not enough to prosecute the accused child molester.

For the molesters that do get caught, the sentence is often not severe enough. How long is long enough for a person who has victimized a child? The child does have to live with the memories and anger throughout their lives.

In Texas, in 1996 a prisoner opted for medical castration. This lessened his prison sentence, as he was no longer thought to be a threat to children or society. Two years later, he stopped the medicine and was again in prison for molesting a five year old little girl.

Most child molesters do re offend. Perhaps it is a better solution to treat the mental illness and behavioral problems than to put them into prisons. It is after all a psychological problem. No matter how many years of therapy a molester receives, the counselor can not change the molester’s sexual preference for children. Convicted child molesters are being released into society everyday. Often the monitoring system for these molesters does not work. The average times that a child sex offender will molest is 117 children and most of these molestations will go unreported.

Most of the children grow up with issues about trust and have difficulties with relationships, and also can grow up to continue the pattern by becoming molesters themselves. The children often have anxieties and guilt about the molestation, because they feel as if it was their fault, and that they participated in the sexual assault. They must be “bad”, because this happened to them.

The penalty needs to fit the crime. Sentencing must become stricter in order to protect our children.

[Guest kathryn]

ooooops to posting parts of the paper twice!!Forgive please.