One of the most prestigious peer reviewed research journals of the American Psychological Association published a meta-research (an overview of lots of other research papers) with disturbing findings. Result: the US Senate and US congress condemned the Research. After all, the preconceived notions behind our criminalization of Teenage Sexuality must not be disturbed.
Disclaimer: The issue here is repression of research and denial of the truth. One still may defend the laws as they are, but should not repress free research that could challenge one’s personal political opinions.
Another clash between highly charged political rhetoric and scholarly discourse concerned Associate Professor of Psychology Scott Lilienfeld. It began with a 1998 paper in Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA). Temple University’s Bruce Rind and two colleagues had conducted a review of quantitative literature, finding a weak link between childhood sexual abuse and later psychopathology. Radio talk show host Laura Schlessinger blasted the article as an effort to normalize pedophilia. Both houses of Congress passed resolutions condemning it, and finally, the chief executive of the APA wrote that the findings “should have caused us to evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process. This is something we failed to do, but will do in the future.” Wait, there is more! This article continues! More about Repression of Scientific Findings » Bruce Rind Study: Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed … » continues here »
Jack McClellan is a totally harmless child lover who refrains from acting out his impules. Most pedophiles are totally or fairly harmless.( But public opinion, on purpose, confuses the harmless guy attracted to children or adolescents with dangerous criminal child mutilators and murderers).. Pedophile hunters bash these people with baseball bats, murder them, threaten their lives, harrass them. Talkshow hosts and youtube commentators threaten them with deadly violence. Non-violent "pedophiles" get put in jail for 70 or 240 years, without proof or with manipulated proof, where they are likely to get violently raped, Lightly fondling an adolescent carries much higer prison terms then torture, mutilation, and murder. Normal adolescent sexuality carries strict penalties, too. And, unlike murderers, arsonists and robbers, the lifel long US sex offender registration prevents these nonviolent people from living normal lives, working, and puts them in risk of vigilanteism. That I also consider (institutional) violence.
"Law abiding pedophile" gets persecuted
Jack McClellan publicly outed himself as a "law abiding pedophile". He admits feeling sexual attraction for children, but never touched one sexually.
He took photos of cute children and put it on a web site for other pedophiles to delight in, but he always stressed that everyone should refrain from doing anything illegal.
While it is perfectly understandable that parents worry about their kids, it is very clear that Jack McClellan is being singled out for thought crimes, for crimes he has not even committed and does not plan to commit.
In California, he got slapped with a restraining order to stay 20 (?) yards away from children, which makes it impossible for him to even go to a grocery store or walk on a busy street.
Why, on the other hand, do violent repeat offenders, like robbers, bullies, street fighters not get the same attention. There is no national robber registry.
Why do we only have a sex offender registry? Why not one with ALL criminals online? Let us create an arson offender registry?
Why do a repeat arsonists, multiple robbers, murderers not get registered?
Why don’t we get warned if an arsonist or a child murderer moves into our neighborhood?
This is a very legitimate question. Why should we not warned if really dangerous criminals live near us?
The dangerousness of the pedophile hunters (see these youtube threats & comments)
Note that these people want to kill Jack McClellan, the "law abiding pedophile"
A harmless guy who enjoys young girls, but never harmed one and never touched a minor sexually.
His main problem is that he is naive enough to be out of the closet. He is honest, he admits his sexual attraction to young girls 4-11. If he kept quiet, he would not have a problem.
Geitje007 @mumuluku123 I would have done the same!!! Torture him foreverrrrr fucking bastard!!!! 1 week ago
MaIcoImZieI @mumuluku123 You are so full of shit. You act like this guy actually mudererd and raped people. Shut the fuck up man. I’m sick of people like you talking shit about how you are going to torture paedophiles. Shut the fuck up. 1 week ago
sarahsmith995 i hope he dies a horrid death! 1 week ago
Kingler91 do a suicide, and tell all ur subscribers at that fucking website of yours to do the same, and maybe people will let their children out. Hope you die with alot of suffering. Would laugh my ass off if i saw you dead in the street. Fuck you. Goodbye 2 weeks ago
TheN1PlaylistChannel @mumuluku123 i wish i would see this animal in the street so i could punch him so hard that he would end up like a vegetable in his death bed i hope he ends up in prison OF COURSE FOR ANOTHER CRIME AND NOT HURTING AN INNOCENT CHILD and ones this animal is in prison for all the inmates to rape him and stab him to death.THE WAY I SEE IT ANYBODY HURTS AN INNOCENT CHILD DESERVES A BULLET TO THE HEAD PERIOD NO MERCY 3 weeks ago
Much more about vigilante "pedophile" hunters: Click on "More"
A minor issue: clearly consensual sex with fully conscious, intelligent, non-drugged adolescents gets heavily punished, totally blown out of proportion
while real dangerous violent totally non-consensual crimes like high school bullying, gang intimidation and violence only get minor attention.
additional issues were entrapment, vigilanteism, sensationalism, sloppy evidence gatering. The “perpetrators” get enticed by the “victims”, the fake young kids, who never resisted any advances, and came on fairly strongly: “bring condoms”, “yes, I let you f… me in the a… if you love me”
which comes back to the question if young kids of 17, 15, 13 years are really such helpless little creatures with absolutely no responsibility for their actions (in the same USA 12 year old criminals are often tried as adults, but they are unable to consent to sex)
I agree that probably there needs to be some restriction on sexual interaction of older with the young, or sex between young people. But non-consensual violent behavior of high school bullies, neighborhood gangs, criminal organizations is 1000 times more problematic and inescapable.
What about dedicating our scarce law enforcement resources to such uncontested undeniable problems? “To catch a highschool bully”, “to catch high school mobbing” or “to catch a gang assault”, or “to catch a rapist”.
To Catch a Predator was a reality television show that featured a series of hidden camera investigations by the television news-magazine Dateline NBC devoted to the subject of identifying and detaining those who contact people they believe to be below the age of consent over the Internet for sexual liaisons. Men are lured to meet with a decoy under the pretense of sexual contact. The investigations, many of which have been reported by Dateline correspondent Chris Hansen and producer Lynn Keller, are conducted as an undercover sting operation with the help of online watchdog group Perverted-Justice. Since the third installment, law enforcement and other officials have also been involved in the operation, leading to the arrests of most individuals caught in the sting. In an interview with NPR’s Neal Conan on Talk of the Nation, Chris Hansen emphasizes that the subjects of his program should be labeled as sexual predators: “We don’t label these guys as pedophiles. Pedophiles have a very specific definition, people who are interested in prepubescent sex. What we’re talking about here are potential predators.”[1]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Catch_a_Predator (worth reading in entirety)
First a parody on “Catch a Predator” by NBC with the group “Perverted Justice”.
I think the parody tells better what this whole TV series is about. A guy that thinks straight, like a normal person 25 years ago, before the onset of the witch hunt for underage Teen Sex.
Wanting Sex with a willing consenting 17 year old, a heinous crime?
Now if you got brainwashed by the regular press, you might agree with “to catch a predator”. That TV series catches guys who want to have sex with a 12-13 year old girl who shows great willingness to engange in a sexual encounter, who does not resist to the guy’s advances at all. These “victims” who seem to have quite a mature behavior, are just one step short of actually hitting on the guy to have sex (which would still make her a “victim” according to today’s laws, punishable by 5-10 years in jail and mandatory life long registration as a sex offender). Interestingly, it is a thought crime, apparent “intent to have sex with a minor” is enough to ruin a life forever, even if the decoy on the internet chat is an 18 year old girl, or a 47 year old guy.
Why is there no registration for violent dangerous non-sexual offenders? Robbers, psychopaths, bullies, drunk troublemakers?
The press, and government have been brainwashing the public by trying to equate having sex with a willing, horny, and consenting 17 year old (or 15 year old in Europe where the age of consent usually is 16, up from 12 a few decades ago) with violent rape and killings of 7 year olds (which obviously always was a crime)
‘To Catch a Predator’: The New American Witch Hunt for Dangerous Pedophiles
Rolling Stone/July 30, 2007
[…] Twenty-eight men are caught in the bust, and the local prosecutor’s office brings charges against all of them. If they’re convicted, their sentences for attempted sexual assault will range from five to ten years in prison.
In direct response to the high-profile success of To Catch a Predator, laws against online predators have become increasingly hostile: Internet solicitation of a minor is now a crime in a majority of states, regardless of whether an actual minor is involved. By 2009, at least 600,000 of the country’s convicted sex offenders — including those who, like Donnelly, never met an actual minor — will be required by a new federal law, the Adam Walsh Act, to be listed on a national registry of sex offenders. There, on easy-to-navigate maps for the entire country, their photos and home addresses will appear next to categories such as aliases, sentence and “computer used.” Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch even thanked Perverted Justice for “directly impacting” the law’s passage.
Twenty-four states now forbid sex offenders from living near a host of public places — including schools, parks, day-care centers and bus stops — effectively shutting them out of many cities. Florida and Oklahoma require some sex offenders to submit to GPS monitoring for the rest of their lives. Ohio lawmakers even tried to pass a bill in 2005 to force sex offenders to sport pink license plates on their cars, but pressure from Mary Kay cosmetics, whose logo is pink, stymied the plan. This year, legislators are trying again with fluorescent-green plates.
This is much to the glee of Perverted Justice, which views child sex abuse as a vastly underrated evil, one deserving of harsher punishment. “I’m just a guy working within the Constitution to make the world a better place, using my freedom of speech to chat with individuals on the other end of the screen name,” says Frag. “How much more gratifying does it get than finding guys who are about to molest children and putting them in jail? Not many Americans have that.” http://www.rickross.com/reference/perverted_justice/perverted_justice36.html
Former district attorney committed suicide when Swat raids his house
Is it possible that Bill Conradt, an adult pretending to be a teenager, might have suspected, correctly, that “Luke” was also an adult pretending? Yes: Everybody knows that the Internet is a swamp of false identities. And is there any evidence that Conradt had ever acted on the longings that his chats illuminated? On the contrary, he chose not to when presented with the opportunity. Was it morally wrong for Bill Conradt to engage in online sex chats with an apparent child? Of course. But did his actions merit the response to them? Before answering this question, a man should take stock of the history of the desires he’s never acted on, and whether he should ever have to defend that history in court, or see it detailed on television.
Read more:http://www.esquire.com/features/predator0907-12 a long article with 12 parts 1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12
To Catch A Predator investigated by 20/20 pt. 1
While NBC might actually be moved by greed, Devil’s Advocate admits that most people involved did the setup with good intent to rid the world of “sexual predators”. But the zeal seems to have gone overboard, they helped create the predators they were trying to extinguish:
To Catch A Predator investigated by 20/20 pt. 2
Arrested for desiring to have sex with a 21 year old decoy pretending to be 13
After seeing the parody, be prepared for the real show. Here is a 21 year old “victim” actor, pretending to be a 13 year old boy. Still, just meeting him with an alleged intent to have sex with him is a heinous crime, punishable with 5-10 years in prison.
I recommend you read the original article, as it is full of very valid and strong arguments, including such points as:
how can many people be criminally convicted for owning or watching multiple copies of one single 50 year old picture?
how can 12 year old children be legally tried as adults, if they committed a crime, but they can only consent to sex when they are 18?
how can 16 year olds be victims, if they enjoyed the act, if they actively sought it, repeated it?
how can 16 year olds marry, have children, but legally not be able to consent to sex?
how can a large part of the population be declared criminal, just for thought crimes like enjoying pictues of 17 year olds?
why would people go to jail if there is no victim, if their crime (looking at a copy of a picture) did not harm anyone?
how can people go to jail for something that 20 years ago was not even a crime?
why is depiction, possession or looking at underage photos a crime, while depiction and consumption of murder photos is not a crime?
how come that legal concepts like “innocent until proven guilty”, “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”, “penalty should be proportional to the crime”, “laws should not be arbitrary, discriminatory” are totally trampled and violated?
The challenge of legally punishing people for engaging in sex with minors has long been filled with problems. Alleged victims have always been reluctant to testify against someone who more often than not turned out to be a parent or close family member. Some were also reluctant to accept the premise they were victims at all in sexual encounters they not only enjoyed but frequently played some role in instigating. Laws defining 18 as the age at which one is mature enough to decide who they want to have sex with evokes cynicism from sexually active teens and preteens who view such restrictions as outmoded and totally out of touch with the reality they know. It is not that uncommon for many of these so-called children to be married with their own children at 16 which also draws into question the viability of the government’s one size fits all attitude towards sex. And when government prosecutors fight to have 12 year olds stand trial as adults doesn’t this call into question the rationality behind laws that say when it comes to sex you must be 18 before you are old enough to decide?
Charter Cities, modelled after Hong Kong or Shanghai, can foster development in third world countries, suggests eminent scientist Paul Romer. Basically, Neo-colonialism: a piece of land in a third world country is given to a first world country to create a charter city to establish the rule of law. That city then has the best of both worlds:
a secure legal system for investors, and
access to third world cheap labor.
There will be no democracy, voting is with feet: if you like the system you can go there. If you don’t like it, don’t go there.
Very creative idea countering conventional human stupidity.
countering the anti-colonialism dogma: poor nations have proven already that they cannot get efficient administration. So an efficient administration bound by British, Canadian, German law is being provided
countering the “democracy dogma”: inhabitans of the charter cites do not vote, they can vote with their feet only to come or to leave. Democracy in poor third world nations has shown to be rife with populism and voting for corrupt politicians.
Billions in developing aid that is funnelled into corrupt nations could be applied more safely in
There still are stupidities in Romer’s suggestion. Devil’s Advocate thinks Romer is optimistic in several points or does not dare to face certain facts.
colonial powers in the past were world powers without qualms to use their might.
Most third world nations would not tolerate a successful rich foreign city on their soil for 99 years. Either a populist president would invade it, or use threats to get concessions. Or
it could not be defended against marauding gangs Somali Style, or
invasion by the poorest of the poor with no skills, slum style.
Romer’s suggestion to use toothless nations like Canada or Germany might backfire. Cuba is more likely to respect Guantanamo in US hands then governed by Canada. Of course, even a world power might not be willing to militarily defend a charter city that does not bring power,status or exploitation profits like original colonies
Modern democracies’ laws might not be a viable example. Modern democracies are rife with welfare freeloaders, criminals exploiting human rights, unskilled immigration overload etc. Devil’s Advocate enjoyed the suggestion of a Spiegel reader to allow China to set up a Charter City in Germany.
I barely dare to mention racial differences because now I lose 95% of my readers who subscribe to the unproven but firmly defended credo that “all races are equal”, or worse, “races don’t exist”. All successful examples like Hong Kong were in Asia, with highly intelligent and socially well behaved Asians. Respectable research (discredited by political correctness) on racial differences shows that Asians are most intelligent, closely follwed by whites, and, unfortunately blacks trailing. So a model like this might have serious difficulties in Africa, especially if these intrinsic problems of genetic propensity to lower intelligence, less respect for order and more violence are not taken into consideration. This was pointed out by Nobel Prize winner James Watson who got shunned for telling scientific truth. I believe that the Paul Romer’s model can be successfully applied to Africa, but chances for success are greater when the model is based on scientific truth and not on well meant fiction.
Human Stupidity wishes success to Paul Romer’s Charter Cities. A refreshing idea against conventional stupidity.
One of the world’s most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night [2007] after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that “equal powers of reason” were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unraveling of DNA who now runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London. [ …]
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson’s remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: “It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint.”
Right: the law decides whether the truth can be said by an eminent scientist. Human Stupidity, Dogmatism and political correctness in its pure form. Like the pope who would prohibit Galileo to show proof that the earth is round and moves.
But Galileo was counterintuitive: we all see that the earth does not move. But there is a wealth of intuitive anecdotal evidence in favor of difference between the races
medieval sailors reported primitive tribes in Africa, but highly developed civilizations in Asia. That was right before white colonialism, which could not be blamed for the differences
African Nations, even experimental nations like Liberia, for some reason never function and prosper. So Dr. Watson’s sincere concern is justified.
In the US, states, cities and districts with high percentage of blacks tend to have more crime and poverty.
Second and third generation kids of war fugitives from Korea or Vietnam in the US do not need any affirmative action. On the contrary, Asians are taking over the nation’s top Universities. So why do 10th generation Blacks need affirmative action, and even that seems not to work?
Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”. He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of “scientific racism”. […]
Especially by leading sociologists who invent such gems like “race does not exist” or “race is only skin deep”. Any child can disprove the first statement, and any forensic expert can tell you the race of a person by a single bone. An expert on race and intelligence J.P. Rushton’s comments on Watson on NPR
It is important to state that Dr. Watson is not a racist. There is no glee: “hey, we have proven white supremacy”. No, he is sorry for the results, but true scientists are interested in reporting the truth, not what people want to hear. And he is truly concerned about finding the right policy for Africa. Obviously the last century of Africa policy has not yielded good results.
Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: “It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson’s personal prejudices.
Actually, the scientific proof for the “Bell Curve” is overwhelming. And with the overwheliming anecdotal evidence cited above there should better be some good scientific proof for Keith Vaz unfounded statements.
“Child Pornography” is a relatively new crime, invented in the last few decades. Simple possession of “child pornography” in a computer cache (an automatic storage of browsers) can yield extreme jail sentences, higher then for crimes like non-sexual child mutilation, violent beatings, attempted murder. I will, however, list a host of absurd illogical facts and laws, mainly from Europe.
Language gets distorted on purpose, for propagandistic effects, worse then under Nazi Minister Goebbels
in most countries’ laws, children are under 14 years old
pornography normally are sexually explicit actions, not nude solo acts
now, suddenly, by definition, under 18 year olds are “children”, and nude photos are pornography. Well, erotic youth photos does not sound as jail-worthy as “child pornography”
in Europe, specifically in Germany, pictures of someone “appearing under 18” (scheinjugendlich, scheinminderjährig) now is being redefined as “child pornography”. In other words, a young looking 25 year old, that looks like a 17 year old youth, is being called a child.
I write “child pornography” in quotes, because a picture that neigher contains a child, nor is pornographic can be called “child pornography”
Until the 1980ies today’s “child porn” was main stream entertainment.
main stream Hollywood movies like the Blue Lagoon showed underage sensual nudity and and pretended sexual intercourse of underage actors pretending to be underage people. A clear case of child porn by today’s laws
British newspaper “page 3” nude girls were routinely 16 years or older
German youth magazines had nude teenage photos, routinely, partially for sex education
nudes of all ages, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 years old, were shown in publicly sold magazines about FKK, the german nudity culture
in Germany nude bathing is wide spread, on beaches and rivers even inside cities like Munich, nudes of all ages can be seen live. So photos of what everyone can see at any time didn’t really look like a crime.
Antique greek statues show little nude boys with their sexual organs
In Holland and Denmark, hard core porn with 16 year olds was legal. If someone legally bought or downloaded this, now he is a hard core criminal facing decades of jail. I wonder what the reason is for these laws. Who will be protected by these penalties? Interestingly, most of these movies were quite tastefully erotic, different from many abusive porn movies sold nowadays with over 18 year old actresses (for a negative example, do NOT look at germangoogirls.com).
Why can a photo of a perfectly legal act be a heinous crime?
In Europe, Sex with 16 year olds is perfectly legal. So why a photo or movie of such a perfectly legal act is a very serious crime? Production, possession, passing on
maybe it is a crime if a 16 year old looks into the mirror while having sex? If he films himself and looks at the movie, obviously that is a heinous crime.
what if our 16 year-olds get caught by a surveillance camera. Who then is the criminal? What if security personell looks at the surveillance movie. Should they delete it or turn in to police?
What is the purpose of these laws? Do they protect children or adolescents?
Prohibiting movies that were legally produced in highly civilized countries like Netherlands does not protect anyone. It seems that nobody got damaged when shooting the movie under such perfectly legal circumstances. If anyone got damaged, it is too late to fix it. The movie has been shot already, nothing can be changed. It only prevents the girls or the studio from receiving more income.
Prohibiting drawings, photoshop art, etc: no child was harmed producing this.
“watching photos or videos of nude adolescents makes people pedophile so that they will abuse and rape children”. A desperate attempt to justify the absurd. Problems:
no proof exists for that watching porn makes people rapists, nor watching child porn makes people child rapists.
It seems to be the opposite. , watching porn can be cathartic so people will NOT become violent
Why don’t laws prohibit violent movies, chainsaw massacres, shootings, beatings? I think it is very damaging to see movie heroes that never call the police but rather, as role models, beat up the bad guys with their own hands
So much stupidity. So little time to write about it.
Unfortunately, most of the literature I found is in German. Please post quotes of English texts.
The government’s approval of a table specifying what amounts of drugs are permissible is a vital part of the country’s new penal code that was last year approved by both houses of parliament and in January of this year was signed into law by President Vaclav Klaus. Without the just-approved table of amounts that will be used by Czech police, the January decriminalization of the drug would be difficult to judge by courts and investigators.
The plant still remains illegal, however, though from the new year possession of five or less plants is merely a misdemeanour, and fines for possession will be on par with penalties for parking violations.
The Czech decision is in sync with the country’s liberal, Dutch-like social attitudes and laissez-faire approach to civil liberties.
There is also an interesting lifestyle footnote: Czechs are Europe’s biggest drinkers of hops-infused beer and are also the continent’s leaders in smoking pot.
Great that people don’t go to jail for the victimless crime of possessing drugs for their own use. This is a great start. Using certain drugs may be stupid (e.g. too much alcohol), but that should not be a criminal case.
“Unfortunately [the law]’s not bringing anything new on the prevention side, and this is most worrying.” http://www.radio.cz/en/article/123873 Intense government campaigns should make using drugs less “hip” and reduce usage and abuse. Unfortunately alcohol usage is a huge problem world wide, and of course other drugs may become a bigger health problem too.
Where should these drugs come from? the delivery guy still is criminalized and thus drug crime still a problem. Except if every user now starts growing his own supply. Everyone engaging in agriculture might be very good but creates other problems (what to do with surplus harvest, or when stocks run out, or before the pot is harvested). What if I don’t like growing plants at home, or mom does not allow it? And where should I get my ecstasy and heroin supply from, legally?
Compare Dutch Drug Laws
By allowing possession and retail sales of cannabis, but not cultivation or wholesale, the government creates numerous problems of crime and public safety, he alleges, and therefore he would like to switch to either legalising and regulating production, or to the full repression
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,668449,00.html