Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of man?

Pedophilia is an up and coming subject, as pedophiles strive to become mainstream.  In an article about Dr. Earl Bradley, a convicted pedophile, Fay Voshell makes an incredibly important point:

Dr. Bradley’s behavior is illustrative of the sort of things a pedophile does to his victims, including sometimes killing the child he rapes, sodomizes, or performs oral sex on; and it is why the American public holds such people in odium.  Pedophilia is not a matter of innocent hugs and kisses, or thanking heaven for little girls, or just plain loving kids in general, but of perversions so frightful that to put words to them scorches the page and makes angels weep.

As prominent twentieth-century theologian C.S. Lewis said when writing about sexual perversions, “I am sorry to go into all these details, but I must.”

Knowing what it is pedophiles actually do is the reason there are severe restrictions on their movements, on where they live and where they may walk among the rest of society.  Such perversions have so distorted their souls that the likelihood of cure is quite low while the reversion to their vile practices remains quite high.  That is because, as Lewis remarked, “perversions of the sex instinct are numerous, hard to cure, and frightful.

This is a point to remember when you think about other efforts to mainstream behaviors that traditional Judeo-Christian societies frowned upon.  Rather than being less open-minded than we are, those societies might merely have been less innocent.  As the oh-so-sophisticated post-Edwardians said, “Victorians have minds like kitchen sinks.”  It was true, too, because the tightly constrained Victorian era was a response to the unrestrained licentiousness that characterized large segments of late 18th and early 19th century British culture.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Mike Devx

    The problem is actually very simple: They cannot be cured.  And having committed this crime once (at least), they are very, very likely to commit again.  No matter what.

    The most you can offer them is limited freedom of movement – and if they are EVER found, under any circumstances whatsoever, around children, they are to be immediately reincarcerated.  The safest, for the children, is to not even take that change: and simply lock them away.

    As to people in our country thinking that these criminals are “cured”, or allowing them complete freedom of movement: If by “innocent” you mean, naive to the point of  criminal negligence towards children, then I guess you could call us “innocent” if we allowed it.

    On the other hand, a number of things are classified as “sexual predation on minors” that are actually lesser offenses.  That should be cleaned up, and categories of behavior strictly delineated.
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    First I would separate the child porn or child cartoon porn consumers from the actual child rapists. This allows people to come in from the cold, rather than lumping them all together. Thus if a person demonstrates self-restraint, he can be Trusted to integrate with society. A person that shows he lacks self restraint, I would just have killed.

    People may not be able to control themselves from harming children who are weaker than them, but I guarantee you that they will care whether I kill them or not. They value their own lives, or balls, if nothing else. And if the threat of that doesn’t work to make them control their behavior, death is a great control method in itself, as a final resort. 

  • jj

    The idea of sure and certain punishment only works on those who recognize it.  People, in other words, who think, and can process the idea of consequences.  When a pedophile is, shall we say, ‘in the moment,’ he isn’t thinking, or even, for that moment, capable of thought.  He is fully in the grip of his illness/obsession, and the possibility of a consequence isn’t even an ‘over-the-horizon’ blip on his radar.  Which is why passing Megan’s – or anybody else’s – law guaranteeing punishment is a waste of time, and has no observable effect on the number of incidents.
     
    It’s a wiring problem, not controllable by the individual who has it, and therefore not susceptible to correction by the threat of punishment.  Most pedophiles seem to be not particularly happy people, and very few of them seem pleased to be the way they are.  I have never encountered one in the literature who was glad he was the way he was – even creeps aren’t pleased they’re creeps – but it isn’t something they’re able to control.  It’s an obsession, which they realize in calm moments, but the moment of action is never calm.
     
    So what do we do about it?  Piling up ever-more draconian laws is useless – it can’t have any effect.  Only the rational fear consequences, and they’re not rational.  Making them live however many miles from schools is pointless, kids are everywhere.  (And, though no one chooses to address it, after someone’s served his time and paid his debt to society, one might well wonder what the Constitution might have to say about telling him where he has to live, or what sidewalk he can – or can’t – walk down for the rest of his life.  Going to prison expiates the sins of murderers, we don’t tell them where they have to live when they’re released.)
     
    But you have to do something, so we sort of pretend that the Constitution doesn’t, in fact, apply to a certain class of people, and we do tell them where and how to live.  And… it doesn’t particularly work.  Because it doesn’t address the root cause, which is a genetic screw-up we are unable to correct.  Or ‘cure,’ if you like.
     
    Owing to the nature of the problem, there are really only two effective possibilities.  You grow up, recognize that there is likely no cure possible, and lock them away somewhere forever.  ‘Forever’ means forever.  They are societal defectives, so build a place to put them to live out their lives at a safe distance from everybody else.  Prison’s probably no good, unless you mean them to be killed by the other prisoners, as many of them are.  (That sorry little priest jailed in Massachusetts lasted what, a few days?  If Massachusetts wanted him dead, as one of the lawyers observed, putting him in with the prison population certainly accomplished it.  Everybody got to wash their hands and walk away clean feeling, I suppose, good about themselves.)
     
    Or, the other option, you once again recognize that ‘cure’ is probably not possible, and in fact go ahead and execute them.  First offense, only offense.  Gone.  Problem solved.
     
    There’s really no third possibility.