Should a pedophile be granted parental visits?

jillio said:
Nope. Needs some coping skills training is not a diagnosis.:cool2: Just an observation of the obvious.
Click to expand...


Stange comment to make in a thread where your observation skills proved to be lacking.... :lol: observation is less effective when mixed with assumptions FYI.
 
TXgolfer said:
Stange comment to make in a thread where your observation skills proved to be lacking.... :lol: observation is less effective when mixed with assumptions FYI.
Click to expand...

No assumptions being made here. Except by those that believe that pedophillia is not receptive to tx.
 
jillio said:
you haven't bothered to access the research that has already been posted. Why bother to post more?
Click to expand...

liar! I have accessed the sites that have been posted. Just because i have not comment on them does not mean i have not accessed them.
 
rolling7 said:
liar! I have accessed the sites that have been posted. Just because i have not comment on them does not mean i have not accessed them.
Click to expand...
So you accessed something. Did you take anything from that access?
 
jillio said:
You still don't know how it works. And if you don't know how it works, you don't know if it is broken, now, do you?
Click to expand...

I do know how it is SUPPOSE to work. It is broken because the court allows the so-called experts to get on opposite sides and begin to confuse everyone. It is broken because lawyers act under the guidance of "Lets put OUR expert out there and see if the jury buys it." Unless ALL the "doctors" agree, NONE should be allowed to open their mouth.
 
Glenn said:
So you accessed something. Did you take anything from that access?
Click to expand...

Yes I did. Just because I MIGHT not agree with some of it, does not mean I would dismiss it. I'll read it and make up my own mind just how relevant it is. Some of it is self-serving, like the paper on priest/child rape put out by the catholic church. Now that takes the cake! Pure self-serving.
 
Of course. Evaluate everything you see...how does it fit with what you know? You are ot required to agree with anything.
 
Glenn said:
Of course. Evaluate everything you see...how does it fit with what you know? You are ot required to agree with anything.
Click to expand...

I have no idea just who requires me to agree. Like I said some of it is self-serving. Do you agree with me that some is?
 
rolling7 said:
liar! I have accessed the sites that have been posted. Just because i have not comment on them does not mean i have not accessed them.
Click to expand...

So, let's discuss them. They are very pertinent to my point.
 
rolling7 said:
I do know how it is SUPPOSE to work. It is broken because the court allows the so-called experts to get on opposite sides and begin to confuse everyone. It is broken because lawyers act under the guidance of "Lets put OUR expert out there and see if the jury buys it." Unless ALL the "doctors" agree, NONE should be allowed to open their mouth.
Click to expand...

Juries are not involved in deciding whether a child has visitation with a parent.
 
rolling7 said:
I have no idea just who requires me to agree. Like I said some of it is self-serving. Do you agree with me that some is?
Click to expand...
Yes, some of it is self-serving. They have their own agenda they are trying to promoate.
 
Glenn said:
Yes, some of it is self-serving. They have their own agenda they are trying to promoate.
Click to expand...

I would say the links to the Bureau of Justice and the stats from Finland are relatively free of self serving motivation. They are simply reporting findings.
 
jillio said:
I would say the links to the Bureau of Justice and the stats from Finland are relatively free of self serving motivation. They are simply reporting findings.
Click to expand...
Sure, there are good sources of information out there.

It's tough to determine what is credible and what isn't credible for some folks. I don't know of a sure-fire way to determine what is good and what isn't other than to do extensive reading and research.
 
Glenn said:
Sure, there are good sources of information out there.

It's tough to determine what is credible and what isn't credible for some folks. I don't know of a sure-fire way to determine what is good and what isn't other than to do extensive reading and research.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Do the reading and the research, and then form an opinion. But, I will also caution, read and research from all perspectives, and not just the one that you believe will support your current belief. There was a time that I believed that pedophilia had a high recidivism rate. Imagine how surprised I was to find the data was showing me completely the opposite.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. Do the reading and the research, and then form an opinion. But, I will also caution, read and research from all perspectives, and not just the one that you believe will support your current belief. There was a time that I believed that pedophilia had a high recidivism rate. Imagine how surprised I was to find the data was showing me completely the opposite.
Click to expand...
Yep, that is a good point. Be prepared to change your mind about something if the data says your theories are wrong. That seems self-evident, but it is a deceptively hard lesson for some to learn.
 
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/203905.pdf

This is a link to a study done by the Criminal Justice dept. They found only a 13.1 recidivism rate for a new crime committed, not necessarily a sex crime. When the data was restricted to a new sexual offense, the recidivism rates are even less. Also, this study includes only those offenders who were on probation, so that needs to be considered, as those who have been incarcerated and are not on paper were not included in the study. That would, no doubt, account for an even lower recidivism rate.

A rather lengthy study, but if one is interested in actually learning about the topic, it is worth the read.
 
Back
Top