Glorifying Child Molesters

I think it is good and right that we should take reasonalbe steps to
protect ourselves and our children from child molestors and that
includes a healthy prison term when convicted. However, the saddest
part about these kinds of crimes is when the victims allows themselves
to be "controlled" by the offender even though the criminal is
incarcerated. When you allow hatred and anger brought about by these
kinds of crimes to take over your heart then very truely I tell you
the offender has won. I think forgivness is so important, not because
the offender deserves it, but because all of us must let go of the
anger and not let it dictate who we are. You obviously have a lot of
anger in you heart and I think you should really consider what I've
said.

Unless of course your really content to let others control you....

I read the article. I disagree with your interpretation. I thought
that the writer was quite tongue in cheek and very obviously
disapproved of Boyer. Read the article again.

Well... I do agree with the OP that there is no real rehabilitation
for molesters.


Not because I'm being a bitch but because... that's exactly what I
heard a convicted molester say when he was discussing his condition.

Back in the mid 90s I remember listening to the G. Gordon Liddy show
and the topic of the day was how horrible molesters are. ... And a
caller phoned up, confessed to being a convicted molester and spoke
politely about his condition...

basically the man said, he will never be "cured" and he listed what
legal restrictions he will have to live with.

but yes... the man himself said "he will *never* be cured"


Which makes me wonder if this boyer guy can really be re-hab'ed
either.



It's about as lovely as how hollywood glorified that director who made
"Powder"... the one who was convicted of molesting underaged boys.


*barf*


To the OP - stand by your beliefs!

Now sure... I belief in forgiveness, that there's nothing you can can
do that will mark you as "unforgivable forever" but... I'm talking
about being forgiven by his victims and by Christ.

There's nothing in there that says the rest of the world is obligated
to trust him or want to associate with him again.

That's something he should have thought of *before* he screwed up.

why can't a child molestor be rehabilitated? This is absolute
nonsense.
What are you talking about chemical castration and the death penalty?
and 'child molestors are THE WORST'
I'd rather have a cup of coffee with an ex-child molestor than you
right now.
You people are like the typical 'mob'. I work in the rehabilitation
sector and I have dealt with several child molestors (and victims of
child abuse). Most child molestors know what they did was wrong. Some
live with it in great pain and I truly bet my bucks would never harm a
child again. They were often victims of abuse themselves. To say for
those people there is no hope is just dumb as anything and is rather
horrible at the same time for anyone who actually believes such
nonsense

Castration DOES NOT cure pedophiles. Their sexual preference has
nothing to do with sex drive, it is mental. If a pedophile cannot get
an erection or be sexually roused because of castration he / she will
find other methods of molesting a child. And obviously, we cannot cut
off their fingers and toes. Pedophiles CAN NOT be rehabilitated.
Repeat sex offenders should face life imprisonment or the death
penalty.

Sex crimes are the most horrific crime. While murder is generally
perceived as the worst, the victim is deceased and will not have to
suffer a lifetime of healing, flashbacks, trying to live a "normal"
life, etc...In majority of sex crimes cases the offender might spend a
short time in jail / prison, but will be released back into society
and will rarely think about his / her crime and the pain they caused.
Most offenders DO NOT have remorse for their crime, as they will
continue to offend. The only remorse they express is when they are
caught, and that is only to get a lighter sentence.

I'm not either party so please don't misunderstand this for "an
agenda" it is not! but if you vote Democrat you are supporting child
molesters.

I learned a few years back that the ACLU and the Democratic Party
support and do so "pro-bono" NAMBLA,the North American Man Boy Love
Association.You may access this information for yourself on-line.

They say that no one has the right to tell them they cannot have sex
with little boys which they call "the ultimate erotic and pleasurable
experience" We that say it is wrong are puritanical and are stripping
them of their rights.

Do the parents of these victims and the victims themselves have no
rights?

I'm not that old but truly never thought I'd see the day when this
sort of thing could even be up for debate among rational adults.

Look around at what we as a society allow these days,it's
frightening.

I'm confused. I'm sure that my confusion will be misconstrued as me
being insensitive or playing games, so I ask that you take me at my
word that I'm confused.

As I read things, we have an adult that was in a terribly ill-advised,
but several year relationship with a single (meaning "one") girl
(started at age 12).

That's clearly wrong and it's clearly very harmful to the girl.

However, where I'm confused as to why he's any more "damaged" than
someone that murders, steals, or does any other crime.

What I mean by this is not "why is molesting a child a worse crime?"
but more why several have determined (without having actually ever met
this man) that he's so sick that he cannot be rehabilitated. We have
someone even suggesting that such a person's only means of rehab is
chemical castration.

What I read, without knowing this man, is that he made a horrible
terrible mistake. One that very seriously affects someone else. But
I cannot figure out why the fact that he entered into a single
relationship with a child automatically makes him so messed up that
only chemical castration can possibly save him.

I don't defend what he did. But, if I believe the article, without
drawing in any assumptions about how he MUST be doing this to others,
it sounds like this isn't necessarily a case of someone so sick in the
head that there is no hope.

Sorry if this sounds insensitive, but my read of the article is
apparently different from everyone else.

That said, if someone did this to my kid, I'd be the first in line to
ensure that this person's life was a living hell. But I'd feel the
same way if someone murdered my kid or burned down my house or any
number of other things.

At least he's not working in a family oriented restaurant like
McDonalds.

Speaking from the experience of being a specialized foster parent for
five years, I can tell you that child molesters ARE the worst of the
worst. I had to have in-depth training to be able to deal with the
fall out the kids have to deal with as they grow up.

The only time I've ever heard of a molester being 'cured' is through
chemical castration, and even then he managed to do some damage that
I'll not go into here.

These people know they're doing wrong, you will NEVER convince me they
don't. That is why an 'innocent' step-father of one of my foster kids
killed himself within two weeks of being imprisoned for this sort of
crime. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The perpetrators can do as many good deeds as they like but they will
always be unclean. There is no way to ever make it up to a child who
has been betrayed in this way. (for the record, I also fostered kids
who had been molested by their own mothers *shaking head*)

I fully support the content of your letter and I sincerely hope the
publishers take notice and have a chat with their editors.

Whether or not criminals can change or be redeemed (which the title
itself states is impossible), wouldn't you rather them be doing good
deeds than continuing to be criminals...?

I mean, I'd rather someone doing good deeds than bad, but that's just
my twisted morality.

I'm a little lost as to what this has to do with cycling, so I guess I
don't really get why the article is in a cycling magazine?
Anyhow, I think that if you feel so strongly, you certainly are doing
the right thing by voting with your feet and cancelling your
subscription.

If the writer of the story feels the needs to help this person then
this is his/her own decision. And I agree that sometimes people can be
rehabilitated. But not when it comes to molesters and rapists.

I have to agree with the OP on this one...I just have no empathy or
sympathy for these type of people.

I was fired by one who said I looked up his section on Megan's Law,
and showed other employees. I had not. EEOC can deal with this now.
Their attempt to keep things quiet are now gonna be VERY public.

Regardless of what people do, we are all human and we have the same
basic needs as everyone else. We all need forgiveness when we do
something wrong, someone to love us or how us kindness, someone to
show us that not everything in life is bad, that there is hope.

I'm thinking that is what the reporter was trying to do.

I am not condoning that actions of the criminal, nor am I siding with
them. I believe that you have the right to cancel your subscription
and should if you are offended. As much right as the magazine does to
publish any article they see fit for their magazine.

Based upon the description of his offense from the link provided, I
agree with the OP 100%.

I suggest that people read the article
(http://www.bicycling.com/article/0,6610,s1-3-9-18493-1,00.html) and
then make up your own mind. Note that it takes several pages to find
out what his crime actually was.

No amount of "good" can undo what molesters have done to their
victims. I mean, come on, how many "priests" have been caught as
pedophiles?

I'm sorry, forgiveness is not an option for me when it comes to these
people. It never will be.

So, who qualifies for your forgiveness? Murderers? Thieves?
Batterers? Don't get me wrong, I hate child molesters but if this
person is really trying to redeem himself isn't he worthy of
forgiveness?

I haven't heard of this article, but based on the title I am guessing
it somewhat reflects the predicament the child molester finds themself
in. I am noting the phrase "impossible redemption".

Your interpretation is that the author is sympathetic to this
situation, but did the article implore the reader to be? We could
completely lock these human beings (who admittedly some may call
monsters) out of our consciousness, but is there nothing to be gained
from an examination of one's fight for redemption? Is there nothing
that the reader can have revealed to himself in examining this milieu
intellectually?

What is the definition of a "lowlife criminal"? Do lowlife criminals
deserve sympathy? Redemption?