• queenparanoia said on Apr 07, 2007....

  a sex offender is a sex offender. whatever their prefference are... they should pay for their crime equally. period.

• Bronx said on Apr 07, 2007....

  Queen: I guess that's it then - thanks for sharing.

• beyondtheveil said on Apr 07, 2007....

  bronx- There can be and is certain unfairness arise out of lumping them together. Certain states I know of lump them together. Which means an altercation of a sexual nature with a wife labels that person equally with a child molester.
   
  Both will be listed on the internet, with police departments, and have to report where they live for life as far as I know. Also, if taken to jail for any offense, the label goes with them and they are treated in jail equally meaning the one with the wife altercation is beaten in jail by other inmates becasuse there is no differentiation from a child molester.
   
  I know of a case like this and it is grossly unfair in my opinion. What do you think?

• Bronx said on Apr 07, 2007....

  beyond: my point exactly - shouldn't there be a difference between, say, first offenders and repeat offenders?
  
  I have watched an episode of the legal series 'The Practice' on cable, in which man's testimony was nearly disregarded because he had been labeled a 'RAPIST' as a teenager  in a Police report.
  
  Well, as it turns out, the girl who had been 'raped' had retracted her statement later and the two had been married happily ever since then!
  
  Of course, the details in the  last paragraph were  not  known to the  prosecutor's team!
  
  So, yes, fairness  is the  major issue here.
  

• Eilan said on Apr 07, 2007....

  I think there should be categories.  Not every sex offender is a pedophile, and not all sex offenders are a danger to their community.  The young man (age 18-20 or so--some states specify the degree of age difference that's allowable under the law) who has consensual sex with his underage girlfriend shouldn't be subjected to the same penalties as someone who molests a child.
  
  I think it's best to consider each situation on on its own rather than try to legislate a one-size-fits-all solution.
  

• The_Ranting_Logician said on Apr 07, 2007....

  I really don't know too much I think all sexual molestors must pay dearly for their crimes. I will say however that those who are child molestors should have a heavier sentence. There is no excuse to ever do it, but to a child? You may think it...you may want it...but you JUST DON'T DO IT!

• silverwhisper said on Apr 08, 2007....

  i'm with eilan.
  
  ed

• Bronx said on Apr 08, 2007....

  Eilan: perfectly put, IMHO!
  
  
  
  
  

• Bronx said on Apr 08, 2007....

  TRL: Yes, those who deserve punishment should get it squarely, definitely.
  
  
  
  
  SW: Yes, me too, ed.
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Apr 09, 2007....

  Just playing devil's advocate here, but are you saying that because they force another adult into non-consentual sex that they are somehow better than someone who forces a child into non-consentual sex?
   
  There is no doubt that tricking or forcing a child into a sex act is hideous.  I guess I'm having trouble with the concept that an adult is less likely to be damaged by being forced into an unwelcome and usually physically brutal sex act.
   
  A damaged human is a damaged human.  Neither sex offender deserves any special consideration from me.

• The_Ranting_Logician said on Apr 09, 2007....

  I agree with that completely and honestly they should all be punished equally I just find the thought of doing that to a child particularly appaling. I guess if one thing is more offensive to ones self they would assume they should get a worse punishment but as you said, a damaged human is a damaged human, and none of these horrible people should be given special consideration.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 10, 2007....

  an adult is capable of giving informed consent, which a child is not. it makes a horrible thing even worse--that's the way i view it, u-i.
  
  ed

• uniquely-ironic said on Apr 10, 2007....

  SW - the point is, the adult being assaulted is NOT giving consent or the opportunity TO consent so they are in fact being treated the same as the child who cannot consent.  Just because you're capable of giving consent is not the issue.
   
  Sexual offenders take the choice out of the equation, for both children and adults.  I personally think both assaults are hideous, but when an adult is assaulted there is much less support services provided.
   
   

• silverwhisper said on Apr 10, 2007....

  u-i: i know i view them differently and the capacity to give informed consent is the dividing line that i see. something i didn't mention in my last comment but probably ought to have is that children run a higher risk of physical injury, depending upon the nature of the abuse.
  
  ed

• Bronx said on Apr 10, 2007....

  U-I: it's merely a question of degree of responsibility - adulthood confers significantly more responsibility than childhood.
  
  So, a child is assumed to be ignorant of or unaware of whatever he or she is doing - anyone taking advantage of that 'innocence' deserves no pity, IMHO.
  
  On the other hand, an adult forced into a degrading situation against his or her own will is pitiable quite alright, but is quite an entirely different thing from child rape, IMHO.
  
  Yes, a damaged human is a damaged human, no matter the age:  but let's face it, most people would 'draw blood' for child rape and rather 'blame the victim' a bit for adult rape.
  

• Bronx said on Apr 10, 2007....

  TRL: Yes, they should all be punished, but not equally - surely, there is something despicable in a child molester!
  
  Granted that adult rape cases have been difficult to report or even prosecute in the past, especially since most were date rapes and many occurred in the guy's own place rather than in the girl's own; however, the law will punish the sex offender when proven guilty.
  
  Now, are those the same settings for a child lured away with, say, candy  and defiled by a grown man?
  
  

• Bronx said on Apr 10, 2007....

  SW: yes, quite so!
  
  
  
  U-I: a point missing here may be this: a child is at a disadvantage both physically and verbally, both mentally and developmentally, and by way of inexperience, too.
  
  
  

• Bronx said on Apr 10, 2007....

  SW: we are perfectly in agreement! 

• uniquely-ironic said on Apr 11, 2007....

  I see both of your points and agree up to a point.  I know on an emotional level people are more inclined to protect the young and innocent.
   
  Let me add another factor into the mix.  I'm assuming (maybe wrongly so) that when we talk about adult rape victims that we are thinking female victims.  What if the victim is male?  Does that change your thoughts?  Do you find it incredulous that a male could be a victim?
   
  Sexual assault in children is most often a control issue for the perpetrator.  In adult rape it is a violence/rage issue.  Perhaps we should treat adult rape as physical assault rather than sexual assault.

• silverwhisper said on Apr 11, 2007....

  on the contrary, i also know male rape survivors, so that was indeed an influencing factor on my response. hence, my responses remains the same.
  
  ed

• Bronx said on Apr 11, 2007....

  U-I: of course, male child rape is also considered but under sodomy, which is an altogether different sexual offence!
  
  
  BTW, I agree on the labeling scheme you've chosen - see this, about a 14-year old girl on Myspace who was sexually assaulted.

• Bronx said on Apr 22, 2007....

  Guys, just saw this about some shocking cases of pedophiles in France and their court sentences!

• roseperil said on May 10, 2007....

  Gender of either victim or preditor should not influence anything.  Age, on the other hand, is a major deciding point for me!
   
  To my mind almost anyone convicted of molesting anyone under the age of 16 should receive the maximum penalty allowed.  "Almost" because there are cases where the molester is also a child.  Those cases must be decided on individual basis.
   
  To my mind, most of those convicted of any type of rape of either an adult woman or man should receive the maximum penalty allowed.  Those convicted of particularly violent molestation (man or woman) should be hung up by their gonads!
   
  Gray area of date rape:  In most cases of date rape in younger people (say 16 to what... 21? 22?) , "rape" is the correct charge.  But, on occassion there is the young man who misread the signals...or a girl who didn't realize just how a guy might read the signals she is sending (particularly if she's a virgin).  On occassion there is the gal that is angry with her guy for whatever reason and is gonna "get him!"  On occassion there is the couple that makes up later and lives 'happily ever after', as mentioned above.  What is the answer here?  These offenders are not preditors and should not be grouped with them...but how do you tell which is which at this particular moment in time?
   
  As a matter of true fact, someone only caught urinating in a "public"  place (behind the bushes or trees at the beach; behind a building; in a dark parking lot at 3 am), can be convicted of indecent exposure and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives.  Is this fair?  No, I don't think so.
   
   
   
   

• Bronx said on May 12, 2007....

  rose: WELCOME TO MY BLOG!
  
  
  It's no mean feat at all - you've run the whole gamut of legal case histories on this subject in one comment! Wow!!
  
  You're quite right, how do we tell who is guilty or innocent?
  
  
  Perhaps, the sharp toothed anti-rape device from South Africa and/or a camera phone with 'scream-activation' sending live shots would help us positively to decide one day soon?
  

• roseperil said on May 12, 2007....

  Thanks for the welcome, but I actually did not cover all the bases. There is one more that I can think of: The child falsely accusing the adult. Doesn't happen often, but it does happen. I know of one case personally. The teen-age step-daughter enraged at her step-father. Accused him of crimes that would come under the catagory of "Leud and Lacivious Behavior". Something that really cannot be proved or disproved. Comes strictly under the "he said...she said" heading. She waited 4 months to recant her testimony, and enjoyed every minute! Thought it was the funniest thing ever. Of course, he was not convicted and does not have to register. But the arrest will stay on his record. He had no record for anything more than a traffic ticket before that. How many times is the charge made as a revenge thing? Especially in situations like this where there would be no physical evidence?

  To what "anti-rape device from South Africa" device are you referring?  I've never heard of it.  But the camera phone sounds like a good idea.

• Bronx said on May 13, 2007....

  rose: hi.
  
  Yes....I treated the father-daughter scenario in another post....
  
  Makes you wonder how bad his record would have been had she recanted after he had been registered as a sex offender!
  
  
  I was referring to 'Rapex', an ingenious female condom with teeth by Sonette Ehler.
  
  
  Thanks for the vote. :  >
  
  
  
  

• roseperil said on May 14, 2007....

  RAPEX! A fantastic device! I think it should be sold in every store and put in vending machines in public restrooms! Seriously would put an end to rapes that began as a misunderstanding of signals. Wow! You're welcome for the vote! (Ah-h-h...what vote? I'm new to soulcast.)

• Bronx said on May 15, 2007....

  rose: nothing special...just a vote of confidence really.
  
  
  I agree with you - RAPEX should be marketed vigorously!
  

• silverwhisper said on May 15, 2007....

  i have three problems w/ rapex:
  
  1. if it only angers the rapist, the victim will wind up dead and quite probably very painfully.
  
  2. rapists are usually serial rapists, i understand. if so, they will simply begin by using something else (such as a branch) to get the device, remove it ungently, then continue.
  
  3. what if the woman forgets?
  
  ed

• Bronx said on May 16, 2007....

  SW: those are very valid observations.
  
  No remedy is perfect for rape prevention - but half bread is better than none!
  
  
  In the developing world, where RAPEX is primarily targeted, these rapists are not 'professionals' in the serial rapist sense - the measure is adequate because they'd still hurt the victim with or without her consent!
  
  
  Elsewhere, just imagine the potency of a lady 'armed' with RAPEX, a can of mace, and an electric shock 'gun'!
  

• silverwhisper said on May 16, 2007....

  bronx, are you serious? in some parts of africa there's a prevalent belief that AIDS an be cured by having sex with a virgin. and when it isn't cured, what are these people going to do, just huddle up in a ball somewhere?
  
  ed

• Bronx said on May 17, 2007....

  SW: wow....that's really news to me!
  
  
  I guess now I can see how and why AIDS is running rampant in many African countries...; >

• roseperil said on May 17, 2007....

  Your everyday rapist is going to hurt the victim badly anyway. The everyday rapist is unlikely to actually kill even if injured. The vicious serial rapist that would turn to killing is rare and usually is on the road to killing sooner or later. If you, like me, are a fan of mystery books, it may seem like turning a simple rapist into a killer is common. It is not. They often (as strange as it may seem) have their own code of ethics. A line they have never crossed, and don't intend to cross. (I know a drug addict that has lost everything: kids; husband; home, and is actually on the streets, homeless. Yet she is very proud of the fact that she is not as bad as some addicts...after all, she has never used the needle.) Doesn't make sense to us, but it's usually there.

• silverwhisper said on May 17, 2007....

  roseperil, are there any statistics available for us to evaluate how often the everyday rapist strikes vs. the vicious serial rapist?
  
  ed

• roseperil said on May 17, 2007....

  I don't know where you would find such statistics, I wish I did.  Just know a professional that says it is considered "common knowledge" in law enforcement.  Sorry

• silverwhisper said on May 17, 2007....

  i'm sorry too--it would be helpful to know.
  
  ed

• Bronx said on May 19, 2007....

  SW: she does have a point about serial rapists vs everyday rapists being alike.

• silverwhisper said on May 20, 2007....

  bronx, that isn't at all what roseperil is saying.
  
  ed

• roseperil said on May 20, 2007....

  No, I'm saying they are Not alike. The serial rapist often has the capability of turning into a killer. We should not forget that rape is mostly a dominence thing. Although the rapist may get sexual gratification from the act, but it is the dominence; force; causing pain; the violence of forceful penetration that gives that gratification. A genuine serial rapist cannot get any sexual gratification from a normal sexual encounter. I watched the slideshow of the serial rapist that you offerred, Bronx, but neglected to read the article...meant to, forgot before coming back here...I don't saw no mention of any of his victims being dead. But I will go back and read the article.

• Bronx said on May 21, 2007....

  SW,  rose: yes, I see it now.... must have been a nut missing when I omitted the 'NOT' in my link!
  
  
  
  This link may also prove interesting: one victim dies.
  

Comment on "Should there be a difference between same-sex and opposite-sex molesters?"

Currently tagged	children society laws sexual offenders child molesters (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously