Sex offender working as a CFI

images
 
I love you guys that this is a thing. I love that movie. I tell people about it and of those who've seen it, most say:
"Oh, that was dumb."
or
"It wasn't really funny."

... and I just shake my head.

Funny? No, it isn't!

~Fox
... 8 hours, 39 minutes, 44 seconds. That is when the CFI oral begins ... (Donnie Darko moment...)
 
Our CFI sex offender is unlikely to join the mile-high club in a 152. But a 'position of power' over anyone by a bad dude is a recipe for problems. Ground school, beer after first solo, whatever.

The law, and our scientific understanding of genuine sex offenders isn't yet in a reasonable balance. We need to fix the legal system.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
Grenade in the room:

If it's a sexual orientation, what gives us the right to discriminate against their orientation? After all, sexual orientation is like race and cannot be helped.

(I'm not promoting this, just calling to task the logic used by many)
Click to expand...

My grandmother was a civilian psychologist who worked for the Navy for many years - did a lot of ship board counseling, primarily with those with spousal abuse and sex crime issues. She also worked with a lot of pedophiles, most of whom I believe were in the process of being dismissed from the Navy. Her story matches the research - a lot of guys who would have done anything in the world to not have this sexual disposition - who felt it was something entirely beyond their control.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think it's good that some are willing to at least have an academic discussion about it without resorting to knee-jerk emotional response. It's complicated, that's for sure. And after having taught high school students, my perception on teachers who sleep with teenage students has entirely changed. We make these kids out to be far, far more innocent than they are. And in the case of many female teachers, I truly believe that some of them are the true victims. But there's a gray line everywhere - blame is very subjective in these cases - probably far more so than the binary "sex offender" status warrants. But nobody gets elected to Congress campaigning on coming to the aid of perhaps wrongfully sentenced sex offenders.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Her story matches the research - a lot of guys who would have done anything in the world to not have this sexual disposition - who felt it was something entirely beyond their control.
Click to expand...

So, this disposition makes them incapable of stopping?

There are lots of things I'd like to do, but the repercussions of such acts are negative and thus, I can find self restraint to NOT do foolish things.

I think this is part of the problem - we give people who have "urges" and yet cannot control them a free pass. I have urges, you have urges, every single one of us has urges.

I'd LOVE to eat a Sonic double cheeseburger several times a week yet, I only eat maybe one a month. Why? Because I understand its bad.

A man who "have done anything in the world not to have this disposition" is NOT forced to ACT on his disposition.

I'm a male. I'm attracted to women. I am predisposed to be attracted to women. I've never raped a single one of them. Why is that?
 
Tram said:
So, this disposition makes them incapable of stopping?
Click to expand...

No.

Tram said:
There are lots of things I'd like to do, but the repercussions of such acts are negative and thus, I can find self restraint to NOT do foolish things. I think this is part of the problem - we give people who have "urges" and yet cannot control them a free pass. I have urges, you have urges, every single one of us has urges.
Click to expand...

We don't give them a free pass. Currently we send them to jail for rather a long time. And that very well may be the most societally appropriate response. I agree that that is the exact point of demarcation—the action.

That's the difference between a crime and a 'thought crime', and that's the difference between punishing someone and letting them be. Pedophiles were children once, themselves. Some never really mentally 'grew up'. The attraction to youth is heritable and natural, as are many other base instincts. To me that excuses the thought, though currently in our society it does leave the individuals (those who feel urges unacceptable to society) fighting shame and guilt, which can lead to other major problems... but nothing excuses the action.

I don't think that punishment is the correct motivation for not doing something, but it's certainly the one we've got.


However, once the punishment has been fulfilled, a responsible society must at least pretend to try, within reason, to re-accept those outcast.

~Fox
 
Or we could just burn everyone who's ever done anything they probably shouldn't have at the stake and have done with it. Seems simpler. Course, we might catch up a few of those in the front rank of stone-throwers up in the Anschluss, but no one here has anything to worry about, do they? Wait, do they? Nah, seems impossible.
 
Acrofox said:
Currently we send them to jail for rather a long time. And that very well may be the most societally appropriate response. I agree that that is the exact point of demarcation—the action.
Click to expand...


Rather long time = huge assumption on your part.

This whole thing reminds me of the Texas Rancher v. The Rattlesnake.

We've already seemingly established these people are "predisposed" and thus, apparently incapable of change or controlling their behavior..

Now, the Texas rancher kills rattlesnakes. I'm not sure bonafide, prosecuted pedophilia deserves death, but I think we can learn something from the story.

"Here in west Texas I have rattlesnakes on my place, living among us. I have killed a rattlesnake on the front porch. I have killed a rattlesnake on the back porch. I have killed rattlesnakes in the barn, in the shop and on the driveway. In fact, I kill every rattlesnake I encounter.

I kill rattlesnakes because I know a rattlesnake will bite me and inject me with poison. I don't stop to wonder why a rattlesnake will bite me; I know: It will bite me because it's a rattlesnake and that's what rattlesnakes do. I don't try to reason with a rattlesnake, I just kill it. I don't try to get to know the rattlesnake better so I can find a way to live with the rattlesnakes and convince them not to bite me, I just kill them. I don't quiz a rattlesnake to see it I can find out where the other snakes are, because (a) it won't tell me, and (b) I already know they live on my place. So, I just kill the rattlesnake and move on to the next one.

I don't look for ways I might be able to change the rattlesnake to a non-poisonous rat snake ... I just kill it. Oh, and on occasion, I accidentally kill a rat snake because I thought it was a rattlesnake at the time. Also, I know, for every rattlesnake I kill, two more are lurking out there in the brush. In my lifetime I will never be able to rid my place of rattlesnakes.

Do I fear them? No!
Do I respect what they can do to me? Yes!
And because of that respect I give them the fair justice they deserve ... I kill them"
 
Tram said:
So, this disposition makes them incapable of stopping?

There are lots of things I'd like to do, but the repercussions of such acts are negative and thus, I can find self restraint to NOT do foolish things.

I think this is part of the problem - we give people who have "urges" and yet cannot control them a free pass. I have urges, you have urges, every single one of us has urges.

I'd LOVE to eat a Sonic double cheeseburger several times a week yet, I only eat maybe one a month. Why? Because I understand its bad.

A man who "have done anything in the world not to have this disposition" is NOT forced to ACT on his disposition.

I'm a male. I'm attracted to women. I am predisposed to be attracted to women. I've never raped a single one of them. Why is that?
Click to expand...

No, and I don't disagree with you at all. Certainly can't justify this behavior, just trying to understand it. And you've likely never raped a woman because you've been capable of having lawful, consensual relations with women - different context, even if both crimes are disgusting.

And I know we love our freedom of speech here in the states, but I won't believe for one moment that the proliferation of pornography (legal or illegal) with the Internet hasn't contributed to sex crimes against women. I think it's created a lot of sex predators that probably wouldn't have existed without it. Perhaps those of us who consume legal porn share some of the blame for generating demand for an industry that degrades and defames women at large. Something worth thinking about, anyways.
 
Interesting angle.

However, living in suburban AZ, it's probably statistically safer for me to let the snake do snake stuff and motor on compared to forcing an encounter with it. The snakes defensive mechanisms are instinctual and snake wrasslin' isn't part of my normative behavior so I'm already at a disadvantage.
 
Acrofox said:

...However, once the punishment has been fulfilled, a responsible society must at least pretend to try, within reason, to re-accept those outcast.
Click to expand...

On virtually every other species of crime, I agree. But the evidence is now pretty overwhelming that pedophiles simply cannot be successfully rehabilitated. Doesn't seem to matter how - chemical castration, (presumably surgical as well), a ton of good effective therapy, whatever - it just doesn't work. It must be genetic and beyond alteration, waaay beyond their ability to control. They will re-offend.

So, as a society that must protect its citizens, particularly the most vulnerable, we have this conundrum. Yes, they've paid their debt to society. But releasing them, even with a scarlet P branded on their forehead, yard-signs and a continuous crawl on FoxNews, won't be protection enough for society. That's why an increasing number of states don't release pedophiles, even after they've served their full sentences. I don't understand the civil liberties side of this, but they've found ways. Sort of like what they've been doing to un-convicted terrorists at Guantanamo. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

We have a right to expect our government to protect us.
 
Florida Larry pontificated:
We have a right to expect our government to protect us.
Click to expand...
dbeagle asked:
Where exactly does the Bill of Rights say that?
Click to expand...

Started earlier than that. Declaration of Independence said that citizens should enjoy ...'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Many of those ideas came out of earlier British and French philosophers. Article III of the Constitution establishes a judiciary to enforce laws made by the legislature (established in Article II) to protect citizens. Beagle is right, the Bill of Rights doesn't add much in this line, except protections for specific rights: religion, unreasonable searches and seizures, ability to petition against grievances, freedom of the press, right to keep and bear arms, etc. Much comes out of Thomas Hobbes' theory of a contract between citizens and their government (1651), expounded further by John Locke in 1689: The consent of the governed to their government was a social contract that government would protect the citizens' life, liberty and property.

It has threaded throughout American history ever since, expressed various ways by Lincoln at Gettysburg and FDR in his Four Freedoms (State of the Union address in 1941), the fourth is Freedom from Fear, among other thinkers and leaders..

IMHO, protecting me and mine from sexual predators falls somewhere between protection from unreasonable search & seizure, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Or we could just burn everyone who's ever done anything they probably shouldn't have at the stake and have done with it. Seems simpler. Course, we might catch up a few of those in the front rank of stone-throwers up in the Anschluss, but no one here has anything to worry about, do they? Wait, do they? Nah, seems impossible.
Click to expand...



As they say in Texas...."Some people just need killing".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top