7% of Australian Catholic priests

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have met men in Zambia that claim that they are incapable of resisting the urge to have sex. I have also me thousands of overweight people who simultaneously claimed they did not desire to be overweight. Is the desire to have sex or the desire to eat not 'causation' in your mind?
I personally consider them to be part causes. Causation does not have a s ...[text shortened]... I only absolve people of guilt if it is clear that they had zero conscious input into the event.

Its quite interesting. No its not a causation. It might be a predisposition though.

If we are to allow that these individuals 'cannot help' their thoughts and which translate into action then how are we to hold them accountable for their actions? If we allow it then they can claim with some legitimacy that they had no control over what they were doing and we are at a loss to hold them accountable. I think you can see in the case of criminality just how dangerous it is to adopt this position. What you seem to be saying is that there is a degree of causation and we end up having to try to determine to what extent they had control.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Oh, right, so nothing important then. I thought you were talking about something relevant.

I was responding to robbie who claims to believe the Bible, not you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its quite interesting. No its not a causation. It might be a predisposition though.

Well 'predisposition' is, by definition, part causation.

If we are to allow that these individuals 'cannot help' their thoughts and which translate into action then how are we to hold them accountable for their actions?
Accountability is a tricky thing.

If we allow it then they can claim with some legitimacy that they had no control over what they were doing and we are at a loss to hold them accountable.
Well the question then becomes 'who is 'they' ' and who is having the thoughts.

I think you can see in the case of criminality just how dangerous it is to adopt this position.
I don't adopt or not adopt positions base on how dangerous the implications, I adopt them based on the facts.

What you seem to be saying is that there is a degree of causation and we end up having to try to determine to what extent they had control.
Yes. 'Predisposition' is most definitely a degree of causation, and yes, we need to judge the extent of control. If a drunk man pees on the floor, we do not hold him to the same standard as a sober man. We recognise that when drunk, he is predisposed to such behaviour.
I do tend to hold people responsible for getting drunk, but then we go a step further to ask whether they are alcoholic and where the predisposition to drink came from etc. Causation is a tricky business, but denying that it exists because you are afraid you won't be able to continue blaming people for bad behaviour is not the best option.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well 'predisposition' is, by definition, part causation.

[b]If we are to allow that these individuals 'cannot help' their thoughts and which translate into action then how are we to hold them accountable for their actions?
Accountability is a tricky thing.

If we allow it then they can claim with some legitimacy that they had no control over ...[text shortened]... re afraid you won't be able to continue blaming people for bad behaviour is not the best option.

No one is afraid. Its much more complicated than that and since we are on the subject I put a scenario before you.

A paedophile with a history of convictions but who is now receiving counselling and has successfully completed a period of probation drives past a park on his normal route when he observes juveniles playing football. He stops his vehicle for about fifteen minutes and fantasises about abusing them. He comes to his senses realises the danger he has put himself and others in and drives off. He confides in his counsellor and is reported to the police. To what extent do you consider his alleged predisposition responsible for his thoughts and actions and would you prosecute him for what he did?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have met men in Zambia that claim that they are incapable of resisting the urge to have sex. I have also me thousands of overweight people who simultaneously claimed they did not desire to be overweight. Is the desire to have sex or the desire to eat not 'causation' in your mind?
I personally consider them to be part causes. Causation does not have a s ...[text shortened]... I only absolve people of guilt if it is clear that they had zero conscious input into the event.

Difference is the victims.

I have drank too much in the past and told myself that I couldn't help it, but if my actions were to impact directly on others, I would stop immediately

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No one is afraid. Its much more complicated than that and since we are on the subject I put a scenario before you.

A paedophile with a history of convictions but who is now receiving counselling and has successfully completed a period of probation drives past a park on his normal route when he observes juveniles playing football. He stops his ve ...[text shortened]... isposition responsible for his thoughts and actions and would you prosecute him for what he did?

History of convictions....

Death penalty in the first conviction prevents other children from the horror.

Originally posted by Eladar
History of convictions....

Death penalty in the first conviction prevents other children from the horror.

Yes but the question is not whether we should employ the death penalty for paedophiles but
to what extent was his alleged predisposition responsible for his thoughts and actions and
should we prosecute him for what he did in this instance?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes but the question is not whether we should employ the death penalty for paedophiles but
to what extent was his alleged predisposition responsible for his thoughts and actions and
should we prosecute him for what he did in this instance?

Hey Robbie, did you get my email?

Originally posted by galveston75
Hey Robbie, did you get my email?

Hey Gman I haven't checked, will do so now 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes but the question is not whether we should employ the death penalty for paedophiles but
to what extent was his alleged predisposition responsible for his thoughts and actions and
should we prosecute him for what he did in this instance?

Surely he is on a secual preditor list with permanent restrictions concerning his distance from children. Stopping the vehicle could have broken the rules.

Originally posted by Eladar
Just one pedophile shatters so many lives. It should be an automatic death sentence.

The only circumstance in which I would give my consent to the government to kill a pedophile would be if the pedophile in question was using firearms or other life-endangering threats - to law enforcement people or members of the public - while resisting arrest, and would also hope that such lethal force would be a last resort, seeing as prosecution, sentencing and incarceration, in my view, is the best way for society to deal with those who commit serious crimes.

Originally posted by Eladar
Surely he is on a secual preditor list with permanent restrictions concerning his distance from children. Stopping the vehicle could have broken the rules.

Actually no, although after this event and his subsequent conviction he was banned from all public parks and schools. He contested the ban against the prohibition from all public parks citing 1st and 14 amendment violations. These were rejected by the court on the basis that his actions amounted to predation even though he did not actually harm anyone in this instance.

Paedophiles I think are unique in that they can be convicted even if the focus of their attention is not real or pure fantasy. E.g. law enforcement have been able to peruse them by employing computer generated images.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/sweetie-sting-lures-thousands-alleged-pedophiles/story?id=20792348

Other people who engaged in pure fantasy even if extreme or obscene have escaped prosecution on the basis that their interest is pure fantasy and not real. There was a famous case of an ex policeman dubbed the 'cannibal cop' who fantasised in an online chartroom about kidnapping, torture, rape and cannibalisation. Initially prosecuted he had his conviction quashed. He escaped prosecution because the court found no evidence that he had intent to carry out his lewd fantasises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberto_Valle

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually no, although after this event and his subsequent conviction he was banned from all public parks and schools. He contested the ban against the prohibition from all public parks citing 1st and 14 amendment violations. These were rejected by the court on the basis that his actions amounted to predation even though he did not actually harm anyo ...[text shortened]... he had intent to carry out his lewd fantasises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberto_Valle

As I said, they should be dead.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A paedophile with a history of convictions but who is now receiving counselling and has successfully completed a period of probation drives past a park on his normal route when he observes juveniles playing football. He stops his vehicle for about fifteen minutes and fantasises about abusing them. He comes to his senses realises the danger he has p ...[text shortened]... isposition responsible for his thoughts and actions and would you prosecute him for what he did?

Obviously, whatever predispositions towards paedophelia he has had, remain to some extent and are almost entirely responsible for his attraction towards children.
When you say he 'realises the danger', what danger would that be? Is he afraid of the police? Did he 'come to his senses' for that reason or because he actually recognises that abusing children harms them and is morally wrong?
And why would anyone prosecute him? He didn't do anything illegal did he? Or did he have a restraining order?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Paedophiles I think are unique in that they can be convicted even if the focus of their attention is not real or pure fantasy. E.g. law enforcement have been able to peruse them by employing computer generated images.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/sweetie-sting-lures-thousands-alleged-pedophiles/story?id=20792348

You clearly do not understand the nature of the crime in that case.