I would always take action, whenever possible, to protect anyone, including children, whose well being is threatened. If I knew a pedophile and I knew he had “acted on his urges” – which I assume to mean that he had some kind of sexual encounter with a child, the action I would take depends on if I felt the children he had acted upon were actually harmed, as distinguished from the axiomatic view that children are always or must be harmed by such an encounter. I consider harmful essentially non-consensual acts. Whether or not children do have the mental ability to make informed decisions about sex, or otherwise so that no harm comes to them (and of course age would be a factor in determining this) we have age of consent laws in the States that deny children the right to consent to sexual activities, where “children” are persons under the age of 18 – although state laws, such as the ones in California, may allow for “age-appropriate” sexual intercourse between, say, two teenagers of similar age (generally not more than three years apart). It’s not clear to me why children having sexual intercourse or engaging in sexual activity with adults must always be harmful to them. Certainly there are many cases where a child is forced baited, tricked, or manipulated to do those things, and I think we can safely assume that the child will be harmed. But, hypothetically, not all cases are like that.
I realize that pedophilia is limited to pre-pubescent children and a greater danger is admittedly posed to them than to pubescent children when it comes to sexual activity. But I think most of the people here would find that point meaningless. They would not report only those sexual encounters between an adult and an actual child, but also those all the way up to the age of majority, though again, it may depend on how large the age-disparity. For example, you wouldn’t call an 18 year-old having sex with a 17-year old harmful, though California calls it a civil penalty since it is “unlawful sexual intercourse.” Yet the penal code does not prohibit a 17-year-old having sex with another 17-year-old. But you may report a 40-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old and deem it as “harmful.” 17-year-old or 7-year-old, it makes no difference to freaked out moms and dads once they find out their child is having sex with a man 20-30 years older than her.
Now, California has a law that requires anyone who knows about an incident of child sexual abuse to report it to authorities. If you don’t report, you get 6 months in jail plus a 1000 dollar fine. I’ll assume there are other states that have similar laws on this sort of thing. So for Californians, you’re actually committing a misdemeanor by not doing anything when you know of a pedophile who has “acted on his urges.” First, if the children were raped, - I’m not referring to the tautology that assumes any adult-child sexual encounter is “rape” – or sexually assaulted I would report it to the authorities. Then I would request psychiatric treatment for the pedophile in addition to his sentence. If the children ended up okay, I wouldn’t turn him in to the police just because I feel that our current legal framework is more aimed targeting morally objectionable material and fueling this pedophile rage rather than actually protecting children. I would ask him to seek help for himself because if he continues to do those things, whether harmless or not, he’ll have to go to prison. However, if I knew for certain that he had harmed a child, and the police are somehow unable to intervene, I would not step in as vigilante to try to bring him down. That is more suited to the mob. I would warn people I know that there's somebody who has molested children before and to be wary of him.
This reminds me a lot of the Jack Mcclellan controversy. He has never been convicted of any child molesting but the whole nation is outraged that our government allows "sickos" freely to leer at children in public. And now they're making a law that forbids him from doing what the public believes him to be doing. Called the Surrogate Stalker Act, it makes it a misdemeanor to “[publish] photos, physical descriptions, and/or locations of children with the intent that another person uses that information to commit a crime against a child” Sure Jack Mcclellan did act on his pedophilic urges, and the police are unable to do anything about it - that is, before Surrogate Stalker Act was passed - but does that mean children were harmed, and more over that other children could be harmed? I don't think so and in this case, I cannot perceive Mr. Mcclellan as a threat to the safety of any child.
Comments
I would rather spend my life in prison than know I could have prevented another child from being abused!
by Audiotron on January 14th, 2008
I agree! Children are too priceless that I would never let someone like that pass by!
by Anonomous on January 14th, 2008
Aww, you're bonding...how sweet!
by Kitt-tastrophy on January 14th, 2008
weird. usually the only time I bond with anyone, a "circle" is involved...
by Audiotron on January 14th, 2008
Hey, I'm good in circles! Just gotta give me a few months until I give birth. Then the competition is on......I can out circle the best. LOL!
by Anonomous on January 14th, 2008
I have been "circling" for 23 years. I feel a contest coming on! Win or lose it would be hella fun! Just have to make sure we have plenty of Mt Dew and doritos around...
by Audiotron on January 14th, 2008
I WIN I WIN!!! The contest haven't even started yet...I'm just that d@mn good!
by Kitt-tastrophy on January 14th, 2008
If your back wasn't hurting today I would make you prove that! ;)
by Audiotron on January 14th, 2008
OH PLEASE! Must I really prove it AGAIN!?!?!?!
by Kitt-tastrophy on January 14th, 2008
You mean Dr Pepper, OK we'll stock up the Mt Dew also.....I win! Just wait and you'll see......But you gotta get out here first.
by Anonomous on January 14th, 2008
It has been quite some time since you did last. you may not be capable of being "that damn good" anymore. You need to recertify in the "damn damn good" category to get those credential updated!
by Audiotron on January 14th, 2008
Does your hubby know of the level of weird that you are trying to unleash upon your family?!?!haha
Hubby, quite some time my butt!
by Kitt-tastrophy on January 14th, 2008