Okay, this is where my boundary for "free speech" begins

[theHandpuppet]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/30/family.rape.ap/index.html

Mother gets 40 years for child abuse

Sunday, July 30, 2006; Posted: 7:10 p.m. EDT (23:10 GMT)

CINCINNATI, Ohio (AP) -- A woman who molested at least one of her five children and prompted four of them to have sex with each other has been sentenced to 40 years in prison...

... "Prosecutors said Kraft and her husband, Paul Kraft, 32, sexually abused their four sons and one daughter, ages 1 to 6, in 2004...

... "Prosecutors say Paul Kraft encountered an undercover Secret Service agent last March in an Internet chat room called "baby and pre-teen sex."

"In an online exchange, Kraft offered to rape his 3-year-old daughter live on the Internet if another person would do the same so Kraft could watch, prosecutors say. The agent contacted Hamilton County sheriff's deputies, who arrested Kraft at home...."

An internet chat room called "baby and pre-teen sex"????? I just can't bring myself to defend a site like that on the grounds that the internet should be a totally free speech zone, as I know some folks prefer. This is monstrous. There have GOT to be limits.

[madeline_con]

1. This is why the DP should not be abolished. n/t

[theHandpuppet]

6. The DP?

Okay, I haven't had my morning coffee yet, so if I appear to be stupid it's because... well.. maybe... um, what's DP?

[Nicole]

15. DP = Death Penalty n/t

[mike_c]

7. that comment is wrong on so many levels....

eom

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. And a strawman

[LostinVA]

32. I personally can't agree with that

The State has no right to take someone's life. Emotions have NO place in the justice and law enforcement systems.

Life in prison without parole is a just sentence for violent crime offenders.

I am curious if this woman is mentally ill.

[Fridays Child]

2. Is there an adequate punishment for these people?

I can't think of one.

[sleipnir]

3. Who will decide these limits?

The problem is, who is the "Decider"

And let me tell you, the people with the power in DC right now would love to have DU listed as "off limits"

I understand your intentions, but the practicality becomes a very hazy line that can easily be manipulated into a political purpose.

[theHandpuppet]

4. I don't think the limits would be that hazy

When it comes to matters of abusing and raping children for entertainment.

[sleipnir]

10. The haze is in the regulation through new government action.

The problem is that we have to establish a new body of officials to deem things illegal. Who decides this body, who is appointed, to what ends and to what goals?

Given the current zeal for banning anything remotely offensive, I believe that establishing such a body may not be a step in the right direction. What we must do is force these despicable forums off the internet through current legal channels, they do exist, and I'm certain these forums are crawling with law enforcement officials.

I believe that we can shut down such evil, and the current case that you site gives ample evidence that the current system is working. I bet that that forum is no longer available.

[theHandpuppet]

14. Yes, I see what you're saying.

(sigh) And there certainly are dangers in instituting governmental regulations. But there are also folks who will defend these sites for reasons which boggle my mind and which have nothing to do with a fear of creeping government control over free speech on the internet. My concern is that the internet has actually made it easier for predators by providing a virtual smorgasbord for child abusers. No easy answers, I guess.

[readmoreoften]

5. Hell, let them talk about it, that's how we FIND THEM. /nt

[theHandpuppet]

8. That's honestly the only positive aspect of this

i have to say the folks who have to deal with these monsters have stronger constitutions than moi.

[mike_c]

9. look, step back for a minute and THINK before the knee-jerk....

The fact that such forums exist indicate that even such aberrant forms of sex are gratifying for some people, and there are VERY FEW forces as compelling for humans as sexual gratification. It ranks up there with food for the starving. That's not an overstatement.

Reacting to this emotionally, especially punishing people in an attempt to stop what is ultimately a fundamental human behavior, is not the answer. It hasn't worked yet, despite tens of thousands of years of such punishment, etc. It won't work no matter what we try in the future.

Preventing sex offenses is very much like the war on drugs. It will never be successful as long as it fails to address the basic reasons people do it. I don't pretend to have the answers, but we've invested a great deal in punishment that obviously has no real deterent effect-- the existance of the web site you cited is proof enough of that-- while investing virtually nothing in trying to understand and correct why this happens in the first place.

edit-- spelling.

[theHandpuppet]

11. I prefer that child rapists get treatment once they're off the street

Raping three year olds is not among what I consider a "fundamental human behavior". It is about power and abuse of the most vulnerable in our society, not sex between consenting adults. To me there IS a big damned difference.

[mike_c]

17. you missed the point entirely....

Raping three year olds is not fundamental human behavior for you or me, but it obviously is for some. The point I was trying to make is that simply punishing behavior we find abhorrent-- or aberrant-- is not an effective response when that behavior is based on deeply wired human responses to things like sexuality. It just isn't, no matter how righteous it makes us feel. It doesn't take away the hurt from the victims and it obviously doesn't deter anyone from doing it all over again-- seriously, how many people do you think refrain from raping three year olds because they're afraid of the consequences? That's NOT a snarky question-- most of us don't do that sort of thing because we find the very notion horrifying. But someone who is compelled to do it, and isn't horrified, more likely than not cannot be deterred by threats of punishment. We can take revenge on them afterward of course, but that doesn't do anything to protect others in the end, except possibly prevent those specific individuals from committing new harm while they're incarcerated. But it doesn't really solve the problem.

BTW, I think this way about most crime-- punishment is not and never has been an effective deterrent. The history of human crime "prevention" is a study in futility and misplaced effort, IMO.

[theHandpuppet]

21. Okay, your position is more clear to me now

And on many points I would agree with you -- ie, punishment is ineffectual as a deterrent to most crime. Yet my OP wasn't intended as a discussion of punishment for offenders, it was about the internet being used as a gathering place for sexual predators and whether chat rooms such as "Babies and pre-teen sex" should be allowed to exist under the umbrella of free speech. It's another topic entirely.

[magellan]

13. I have the answer: castrate them!

Just kidding. Well, not really. But it isn't very practical since we have to find them first. And they aren't all men, just mostly.

I agree with what you wrote. Shut them down and they'll find somewhere else to congregate, and it won't stop them from carrying out these despicable acts against children. Perhaps one day science will offer some insight into what makes these sick child predators tick and how to turn them off.

[mike_c]

19. that is probably a far more effective solution than anything else...

...we do, and certainly more humane in the long run. Castration is at least an attempt to address the root causes rather than punishment as revenge.

[madeline_con]

23. ".... an attempt to address the root causes..."

The root causes are a twisted sexual response, usually as a result of being victimized by some twisted fuck at an early age.

Castration does not eliminate the behavior. Object rape being the most obvious proof of that. These scum don't lose their urge, they just find new and exciting ways to carry out their screwed up fantasies.

[mike_c]

25. is that true...?

That surprises me, but I must confess that I'm operating largely on speculation-- a biologist's speculation, so I know a little about the background physiology and behavioral links involved-- rather than any data on the topic of post-castration human sexuality (something I would have thought to be an oxymoron). I would have thought that castration would be effective-- if it's not, that suggests several things, including that the initial behavior is neither a sexual response nor a form of aggression, at least in whole, since both are influenced first and foremost by behavioral responses to testosterone. There is another explanation worth exploring-- that developmental responses to testosterone are more important in determining adult behavior than the adult responses themselves. Several classic studies in animal behavior using rat models corraborate this. (on edit-- but if that's the case, it even more completely undermines the notion that ANY punishment can be an effective deterrent.)

Thanks for the reply. It gives me something new to think about.

[madeline_con]

26. The whole thing is so interwoven into

the psyche, that physical and/or chemical castration won't necessarily make a person stop the behavior.

As far as I know, it's one of the few mental illnesses that cannot be cured. Part of that may be due to the profound impact on the person's sense of self if they're molested at an early age.

The danger these people pose to society necessitates that they be restrained in some way. That may be why chemical castration is so popular, there's no place to keep them all. It doesn't help in a lot of cases, though. :(

[readmoreoften]

27. I've also read that castration does not help in most cases.

The drive to molest is not solely from the sex drive and, yes, they do penetrate with other objects. But many rapists of small children do not engage in penile penetration. They use objects and fingers. My guess is that it may have something to do with seriously arrested development in some cases. Pre-pubescent children can also engage in sex play with other children, especially if they have been abused. Now imagine that child 40 years later and, voila, molester. Another group of molesters, the sociopaths, may simply enjoy inflicting pain.

It seems to me that there are two (or maybe three) types of molesters, the arrested development pathetic sad sacks who are emotionally stunted. And then the sociopaths (who may or may not have been molested) who enjoy the suffering and control over children. I suppose there may be that third type, the bold pedophile who thinks that his choice is legitimate and that he is persecuted, but I find that (from the minor amount of research I've done) those types usually are hebephiles who pray on preteens (11-13). I imagine there might be different responses to castration for different types.

[mike_c]

28. this has been a fascinating discussion for me....

Obviously my preconceptions about the motives of pedophiles was a bit over simplistic-- I assumed it was all about sexual gratification or perhaps power/aggression-- in short, testosterone mediated. I think this discussion itself underscores the extent to which we need to focus on understanding why people do these sorts of things rather than simply upon punishment after the fact. Perhaps one day we will be able to identify folks with a predilection toward this sort of behavior early, and both provide them with alternatives and prevent them from entering situations where they might be compelled to cause harm to others.

[felman87]

12. Me and the NY Times might have something in common.

I think that website might be a secret service tool used to catch people who would otherwise go uncaught. Maybe I've said too much. Hopefully, those people don't realize it.

[LostinVA]

33. I think so, too n/t

[cynatnite]

16. Any chat room with that name is bound to attract attention...

from law enforcement.

It sounds like the chat room was used as a lure to get people like this in and talking. They may have tracked him down and investigated to see if it was all talk or more than that. I'm all for that.

[Frank Cannon]

35. I agree. This serves as a magnet not only for diseased freaks...

but for diseased freaks who are so far gone that they don't know (or don't care) that law enforcement is surely monitoring a chat room of that name.

If these wackos didn't have a place to get together and talk about what they're doing and what they plan to do, they'd be doing it all in private. Let them arrange meetings with young boys and girls who are really cops, and they can be discovered and put behind bars where they belong.

[MarkDevin]

18. "Baby and pre-teen sex"?!

Give me five minutes alone with one of those goddamn pedophiles. Put us together in an empty room and hand me a crowbar. I'll make damn certain that short-eyed hunk of filth is punished! :mad:

[Selatius]

20. This is too much an encroachment on 1st Amendment rights

You are sacrificing a set of freedoms for the sake of attaining the illusory safety of not being offended by the content in question. To be sure, it is offensive, but then again, the right to freedom of speech means nothing without the right to tell or show people things they may not want to hear.

Rather than try to eliminate the symptoms, why not address the sickness underneath?

[cynatnite]

22. They do need to go after the root cause...

but I don't have a problem with this. It's not like he's was prosecuted for what he said...he's being prosecuted for what he did. Big difference.

They threw out the bait and the guy bit. They tracked him down and found evidence proving he was molesting his children.

[LostinVA]

34. It was the mother, not a "he" n/t

[theHandpuppet]

36. No, it was both parents

You have to read the article. The children were abused by both parents, but it was the father who was caught in the chat room offering to rape his three year old.

[LostinVA]

41. Sorry -- I read this on cnn, too, and still misread it n/t

[Rageneau]

24. Were it not for free speech, these people would still be raping babies.

[bowens43]

29. There does NOT have to be limits on free speech.

Speech had NOTHING to do with the crimes committed.

[theHandpuppet]

30. I need to remind folks the point of the thread was not about punishment...

... or even therapy for pedophiles, but how this all fits in with the issue of free speech on the internet. At this point I feel the original point of this thread has gone astray -- not that the discussion which has followed is not a legitimate one at all, because it would make an interesting and worthy topic of its own.

But my concern was about the internet providing a smorgasbord of sorts for child abusers and predators. There have been some good points made by several posters about the dangers of regulating the internet AT ALL, while others feel it provides law enforcement a way to lure predators out into the open where they can be caught and imprisoned. I do, however, have reservations about the potential cost of both perspectives to the victims of these crimes. I truly have to wonder if these "safe gathering places" for pedophiles may actually contribute to realized acts of abuse. Would an isolated pedophile, given a venue where he could view child pornography, freely discuss committing sex acts upon children, etc feel more emboldened and more likely to actually commit (rather than fantasize, let's say) such crimes than one who does not have that arena? Have any comparative studies been done in this regard?

I'm just wondering who is really paying the price of free speech on the internet when it comes to child abusers -- the abuser or the children. I know this is a slippery slope for free speech, but can there be no reasonable solution?

[mike_c]

31. ok, on that note I will advocate what is likely an unpopular position...

...but I have to say that even vile expressions are constitutionally protected and SHOULD be, especially the most vile. We don't need constitutional protections for the things we agree about-- we need them for the fringes, where the "tyranny of the majority" would persecute the minority. Does this guarantee extend to pedophiles? Yes, it must. Even if the act is illegal and reprehensible, discussing it should not be, even among those whose discussion is a form of advocacy, and must be tolerated in a free society. I'd go further and say that tolerating that discussion brings us closer to understanding and dealing with the crimes themselves. If punishment is not the answer, is not a realistic deterrent, then we need open discussions and acceptance of the occurrence of pedophilia in order to address it constructively, IMO. We have NOT YET addressed sex crimes in general in effective ways-- knee jerk responses, no matter how gratifying, are not the answer.

[wellstone dem]

37. And I weep for the children

my daughter was a victim of sexual abuse before the age of 4. She continues to suffer the effects of loss of trust in adults, never feeling safe, and depression and anxiety. The effect of this abuse on the children is something I never understood until I adopted my daughter, and lived with these effects on a day to day basis. The mother will be punished for 40 years. These kids are likely to live with the effects the rest of their lives.

[theHandpuppet]

39. At least "Daddy" won't see the sunshine anytime soon

From the same article...

"In March, Paul Kraft received five life sentences on five rape charges and 96 additional years on 12 charges of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor. He is ineligible for parole."

(snipping)

"The children were placed in foster care. They had limited language skills at the time, but developed enough to tell authorities what happened to them, prosecutors said."

[MGD]

38. Amendment IX of the US constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

A person's right to free speech ends when it disparages another of his/her constitutional rights. Clearly, the rights of children are being violated as a direct consequence of the existence of this web-site. It should not be allowed to exist under any name. My guess, however, is that it's nothing more than an FBI front. That's just a guess though.