upnorthkyosa said:
Child molesters begin to perpetrate in their childhood. Sometimes treatment and therapy helps, other times it does not. The fact that therapy has any affect indicates that it is an illness. Therefore, is it fair to put to death a person who has not been cured of an illness? While it is true that the symptoms of this sickness are particulary foul, yet an illness is an illness...
Some do respond to therapy, some don't. I knew a 13 year-old who perpetrated on his 12 year-old sister; he was placed in juvenile detention, and his sister in foster care; seems he learned it when his grandmother perpetrated on him... it was, quite literally, a family tradition. In his case, it was a learned act that he could unlearn (and did, I heard some years later). For a portion of the population, this is the case, although there are many other explanations. Had this boy been caught later in life, after years of reinforcing his learned behavior with younger female family members (or others), should he have been put to death, or treated? Where is the line in such cases?
The issue of child molestation is much deeper than can be explained glibly away by "s/he suffers from an illness". In some cultures, it was normal for men in their 30s (proven providers) to marry girls in their mid-teens (most likely to be fertile; least likely to already be pregnant by another man); therefore, it was considered normal for men of all ages to be attracted to girls from 14-18. Some of this lingers on, as there is a genetic component to attraction; physical attraction is based on the perpetuation of the species, and as I said before, there are sound reasons for older men being attracted to younger women.
As far as your question about punishing a person who suffers from a mental illness, there are many possible scenarios here to consider:
- some people receive treatment and it works, but may require daily medication for life - so like diabetics, they are in treatment - not cured
- some receive treatment and it doesn't work - many people are diagnosed with a specific ailment after the fact, based on the medication that worked and the ailment it is a treatment for
- some are mentally impaired in some fashion that prevents them from understanding that what they are doing is wrong - this could be cognitive, come from familial and/or religious training, etc, but does not include sociopathy; that's a different issue (below)
- some are not truly child molestors; for example, if one member of a couple is over 18, and one under, and the younger is at least 4 years younger than the older (even if one is 17 and one is 21), that is statutory rape and can be considered child molestation in some circumstances... but this is, in my opinion, much different than most other cases
- some never find a medication, or combination of medications, that work
- some find medication(s) that work, but the side-effects are so bad that they prefer the psychosis
- some are sociopaths, who, by definition, understand society's rules and believe that those rules do not apply to them, so they do whatever they want (I support the death penalty for these, by the way - they are not salvageable as human beings)
- some are some combination of the above, or other, less common problems lead to their behavior
So would you put all of these people to death? The scenario I find the most problematic is the one in which someone is diagnosed and is trying actively to find a treatment, and nothing works - the molester is doing everything required by law and doctor, everything known to medical science, voodoo, any treatment available - and nothing works. Should this person be put to death, or locked up forever? I am undecided on this one; it would, I think, depend in the individual circumstances.
upnorthkyosa said:
Also, would it be fair to put someone to death who has been repeatedly locked up from exhibiting symptoms and has never received any therapy?
People are not locked up for exhibiting symptoms; they are locked up for committing acts. Certainly, some of those acts are symptomatic of an illness, previous experience, or lack of conscience - but nonetheless, until someone displays anti-social behavior (as defined by law, generally involving harm to self or others) they are not locked up for showing symptoms. The tricky part here, of course, is defining "harm".
I guess my answer to you, and to this entire debate, is, as in much of life, there is no one "right" answer that I believe fits the entire range of possibilities. There will always be someone who commits the crime but does not meet the standard for the death penalty. Like the range of crimes themselves, the penalty must suit the crime. For those who have been repeatedly convicted and continue to offend, certainly they should be locked away where they can do no further harm and never released. The death penalty would depend on the exact nature of the molestation and the surrounding circumstances and injuries that accompanied it.
