 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: How Germany treats paedophiles before they offend |  |
|
Essentially what I've been arguing for for years. I wonder how long it will be before we have a program like this here?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/16/how-germany-treats-paedophiles-before-they-offend
| Quote: | The institute has been running the prevention project Dunkelfeld (which means dark field) for a decade. Since 2011, it has gradually developed into a nationwide network called “don’t offend”. What started in Berlin has spread to 10 other cities, with more centres planned so that eventually the programme will be easily accessible for anyone in Germany.
There is a radical difference between the treatment offered to paedophiles inGermany and that in other countries. Strict patient-doctor confidentiality rules mean the men can be assured they will not be reported to the police. They would only be excluded from the programme if there was an active prosecution against them.
...
Perhaps surprisingly, the project has the strong backing of Germany’s conservatives. The ruling Christian Democratic party (CDU) of Angela Merkel is highly supportive and pushing for health insurers to fund the therapy, which costs €5m-€8m a year. So far financing has come from government and charitable grants.
In a recent policy paper on the subject, the CDU argued that the best protection for children “would be for people with a paedophilic disposition (of whom it is estimated there are around 250,000 in Germany) not to become offenders in the first place”.
“But in order to lessen the number of attacks by paedophiles, our healthcare system must provide sufficient and low-threshold treatment possibilities for them … on a financially sustainable and anonymous basis,” it advised. |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 250,000? How many of them actually offend? What's the success rate (if any) of such programs in reducing the incidence of such crimes? Are the people who present for the program people who would have gone on to offend if "untreated"? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4Shaw wrote: | | What's the success rate (if any) of such programs in reducing the incidence of such crimes? Are the people who present for the program people who would have gone on to offend if "untreated"? |
On the first question, clearly more than negligible. The link between therapy and prevention of crimes of all kinds is fairly well established, I would have thought. It's a similar principle to court mandated diversion programs and voluntary rehabilitation programs such as AA.
But even if the people visiting these clinics already have a very low risk of offending, this service is still providing therapy to people who quite clearly need ongoing therapy, for their own sake if for nobody else's. And it surely goes without saying that people with more stable, functional lives and access to support networks are going to present a lower risk to the community.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| So, you don't know? |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Pies4Shaw wrote: | | What's the success rate (if any) of such programs in reducing the incidence of such crimes? Are the people who present for the program people who would have gone on to offend if "untreated"? |
On the first question, clearly more than negligible. The link between therapy and prevention of crimes of all kinds is fairly well established, I would have thought. It's a similar principle to court mandated diversion programs and voluntary rehabilitation programs such as AA.
But even if the people visiting these clinics already have a very low risk of offending, this service is still providing therapy to people who quite clearly need ongoing therapy, for their own sake if for nobody else's. And it surely goes without saying that people with more stable, functional lives and access to support networks are going to present a lower risk to the community. |
How is it "clearly, more than negligible?" Did I miss the statistics somewhere? What is their rate of crimes per capita and how does it compare elsewhere?
Is it voluntary? Or were they caught doing something wrong first? 250,000? That they know about.
Still a lot of sick bastards. The death penalty is pretty good at stopping repeat offenders too
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Shooting them would be a lot simpler.
_________________
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What a thoughtful, compassionate comment! They certainly breed a different kind of conservative over in Germany, that's for sure.
TP, it is voluntary. Consider it a similar program to Alcoholics Anonymous or anger management programs here. I expect 250,000 is just a rough estimate; statistics in this area are notoriously difficult to come by.
As P4S said before, it would be difficult to demonstrate statistically that this is an effective preventative approach. You'd need longitudinal studies for that, and this program is only a few years old. But I think we're allowed to exercise a little common sense and recognise that self-reporting is generally a good sign in its own right, as is ongoing contact with healthcare professionals. I don't think there's anything particularly theoretically radical about this approach.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Unless, of course, the self-reporting is done by people who wouldn't have offended, anyway. Logic tells me that's quite likely. The reason I raised the issue is because 250,000 sounds like an awful lot of people - I don't know what the relevant crime rate is in Germany but I presume that the number of actual perpetrators of relevant criminal offences is some tiny fraction of that 250,000? If my presumption is wrong, then carry on - the phenomenon that I was concerned about is if, say, 1 in 100 of those 250,000 people actually commit offences (all other things being equal), how can we be sure that we aren't just treating some of the other 99? Subject to some persuasive evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to expect that the "offenders" are more likely to be the ones who don't think their interest is a problem and don't want to be "treated". |
|
|
|
|
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | What a thoughtful, compassionate comment! |
Yeah, because they need our compassion. Lets have a national Hug a Pedo Day!!!
They should be hung shot & burnt. In that order.
_________________
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Unless, of course, the self-reporting is done by people who wouldn't have offended, anyway. Logic tells me that's quite likely. The reason I raised the issue is because 250,000 sounds like an awful lot of people - I don't know what the relevant crime rate is in Germany but I presume that the number of actual perpetrators of relevant criminal offences is some tiny fraction of that 250,000? If my presumption is wrong, then carry on - the phenomenon that I was concerned about is if, say, 1 in 100 of those 250,000 people actually commit offences (all other things being equal), how can we be sure that we aren't just treating some of the other 99? Subject to some persuasive evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to expect that the "offenders" are more likely to be the ones who don't think their interest is a problem and don't want to be "treated". |
You may well be right, but mightn't it still be a good thing to give those non-offenders an avenue for therapy anyway? I can't see how it can hurt, and if it stops even one child from being abused then surely that's a success.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Speculative at best.
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Doc63 wrote: | | David wrote: | | What a thoughtful, compassionate comment! |
Yeah, because they need our compassion. Lets have a national Hug a Pedo Day!!!
They should be hung shot & burnt. In that order. |
Every one of these individuals has parents. If you had a child, and they came to you one day and told you that they had this condition and they needed help, would you be preparing the noose for them?
I presume you realise that we're not talking about child molesters here; we're talking about people with a mental illness who realise their desires are wrong and wish to seek support services to manage it. If you're still inclined to call for those people to be tortured and killed, that's pretty piss-weak.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | Unless, of course, the self-reporting is done by people who wouldn't have offended, anyway. Logic tells me that's quite likely. The reason I raised the issue is because 250,000 sounds like an awful lot of people - I don't know what the relevant crime rate is in Germany but I presume that the number of actual perpetrators of relevant criminal offences is some tiny fraction of that 250,000? If my presumption is wrong, then carry on - the phenomenon that I was concerned about is if, say, 1 in 100 of those 250,000 people actually commit offences (all other things being equal), how can we be sure that we aren't just treating some of the other 99? Subject to some persuasive evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to expect that the "offenders" are more likely to be the ones who don't think their interest is a problem and don't want to be "treated". |
You may well be right, but mightn't it still be a good thing to give those non-offenders an avenue for therapy anyway? I can't see how it can hurt, and if it stops even one child from being abused then surely that's a success. |
Don't they already have that? If someone feels they are inclined that way but want help in not acting it, can't they already go to a GP and get a referral to a Psych?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
In theory, yes, but there are many reasons why that is ineffective.
Human behaviour, at least on the level of complex decisionmaking, is generally founded on a deterrent/reward principle. Basically, you're unlikely to choose to do something unless you think the rewards outweigh the risks. That being so, I'd say walking into a GP's office (or anywhere, really) and announcing "I'm sexually attracted to children" is pretty high-risk, low-reward behaviour.
What do you have to gain? I presume your hope would be that a) the GP will actually give you a referral to some kind of mental health practitioner b) this mental health practitioner will have experience in this field (most psychologists don't) and c) you'll be assured of a confidential setting and won't be subject to some form of mandatory reporting that could see police or social services turning up on your doorstep.
I'm reasonably well-read on this topic, and even I'm not sure what I would recommend if a friend told me that he or she had this problem tomorrow. I have no idea what services are available or whether there are psychologists in Australia who specialise in sexual disorders. I have no idea how much this process – and we're obviously talking about more than half a dozen sessions – would cost. Would you be able to guarantee them that they're not going to end up on a register or lose their jobs?
Compare this with, say, a society in which an ad like this can appear on TV telling you exactly what you can do and who you can speak to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck3uOCyWB50
It's pretty clear which approach is more effective. 440 people may not be a lot, but that's 440 people in regular contact with a therapist and not fending for themselves and/or turning to other paedophiles (many of whom may be pro child abuse) for support on the internet. And I'd take a wild guess that it's a considerably higher number than we have here self-reporting to a GP.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
