[Refreshed]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I said you appeared indifferent - an opinion. You may disagree with it, but it's hardly a lie because I don't know you. Possibly it's just incorrect.

OK, cool, let's just go with incorrect.

Gunnair Gunnair:

However, you're chastising posters for emotionalism and you believe mental assessments and counseling are a waste of money.

People here have directly said they should go to a mental institution and be classified as sexual offenders, which have immense implications. This is what I disagree with. Link to where they have been proven to be actual pedophile sexual predators and then I will at least know what you're referring to. (Definition of pedo being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.) Keep in mind, burden of proof.

[Refreshed]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I guess regular juvie is cheaper than mental juvie so that makes it a more fitting treatment eh?

Wow did the point ever fly over your head.

People need to be determined "mental" before being sent to a "mental" institution, get it?

If it can be done, then it should, but it hasn't. So giving treatment to people unproven to need it is in fact a waste of money, and immoral.

So far I only see reason to discipline these dirty girls, but not have them committed as insane, I'm sorry if people disagree with me and the Alberta court.

[Guy_Fawkes]

I just wanted to point out the fact that you think they should receive counciling for what they did as well as go to juvenile prison. However put them in a hospital that would help them with any issues they would have for abusing other children, that shouldn't be done.

[Refreshed]

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I just wanted to point out the fact that you think they should receive counciling for what they did as well as go to juvenile prison. However put them in a hospital that would help them with any issues they would have for abusing other children, that shouldn't be done.

Prove hospitalization is necessary... from a psychological perspective.

Please I'm asking you... My ears are open.

[Guy_Fawkes]

Forced study more or less. Maybe a way to find a way to help combat this disorder at its genesis. To my knowledge no amount of psycho therapy can reform a pedophile, that might change if you can study someone who is starting down the road of being a pedophile.

[Gunnair]

Refreshed Refreshed:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Psychiatric evaluations proves their pedos.

You argued against such.

No they didn't, and no I didn't, thank you.

They proved the girls were up to no good and made a terrible misjudgment, and everyone (including me) wishes they could take back. At least one of them was found guilty but never did expert testimony deem them pedophiles. They did it for entertainment and to get a reaction/attention, not perverted sexual gratification, look it up. Another thing, these girls aren't even the age of consent themselves, think about that before trying to prosecute them as we would adult sicko predators.

I'm only willing to agree to a stint in juvie on top of what they already got, that's all. If I can be determined they're pedos at risk of re-offending I'll reassess my opinion. That's the way it works.

As for counselling, I'm always for that. I hope they are.

Well, it seems pointless to continue going around the buoy with you on this. You don't think two teenage girls making toddlers conduct sex acts, then taking pictures and distributing those pictures in emails has any taint of pedophilia - just teenage hijinks - attention seeking fun.

Fair enough. We obviously disagree on what constitutes possible pedophilia and what constitutes teenage shenanigans.

[Refreshed]

There's just no proof these girls did it because they were sexually attracted to the boys.

[Gunnair]

Refreshed Refreshed:

There's just no proof these girls did it because they were sexually attracted to the boys.

And there really isn't any proof that they didn't, and the argument against them being possible pedophiles because they're are underage is ridiculous.

[Refreshed]

Gunnair Gunnair:

And there really isn't any proof that they didn't, and the argument against them being possible pedophiles because they're are underage is ridiculous.

Well that's not the way Canadian law works... Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.

Regardless, a person cannot officially be considered a pedophile until they're at least 16. Pedophilia deals primarily with adults having sexual interest in children, but can also include offenders in their late teens. In addition, pedophiles are also almost always male.

[Gunnair]

"Refreshed" wrote:

Gunnair Gunnair:

And there really isn't any proof that they didn't, and the argument against them being possible pedophiles because they're are underage is ridiculous.

$1:

Well that's not the way Canadian law works... Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's irrelevant. We're not talking about the law, we're discussing psychiatric evaluation.

$1:

Regardless, a person cannot officially be considered a pedophile until they're at least 16. Pedophilia deals primarily with adults having sexual interest in children, but can also include offenders in their late teens.

Irrespective of what age a person can be legally labeled a pedophile, a person can show signs of pedophilia.

$1:

In addition, pedophiles are also almost always male.

Again, irrelevant, since females can be pedophiles.

[Refreshed]

Gunnair Gunnair:

That's irrelevant. We're not talking about the law, we're discussing psychiatric evaluation.

The decision of the court is what you're all complaining about so don't tell me it's irrelevant. Psychiatric evaluations cannot deem a 13-year-old a pedophile for reasons I've already explained.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Irrespective of what age a person can be legally labeled a pedophile, a person can show signs of pedophilia.

There's no evidence they were sexually attracted to the boys. Having no evidence they weren't doesn't fly. I'm just repeating myself now.

I tell you Gunnair, if you ever want to get out of jury duty, just show them a link to this thread.

[Gunnair]

Refreshed Refreshed:

Gunnair Gunnair:

That's irrelevant. We're not talking about the law, we're discussing psychiatric evaluation.

The decision of the court is what you're all complaining about so don't tell me it's irrelevant. Psychiatric evaluations cannot deem a 13-year-old a pedophile for reasons I've already explained.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Irrespective of what age a person can be legally labeled a pedophile, a person can show signs of pedophilia.

There's no evidence they were sexually attracted to the boys. Having no evidence they weren't doesn't fly. I'm just repeating myself now.

I tell you Gunnair, if you ever want to get out of jury duty, just show them a link to this thread.

If you ever want to be kicked out of Psych 101, do the same.

[Yogi]

Refreshed Refreshed:

Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:

I just wanted to point out the fact that you think they should receive counciling for what they did as well as go to juvenile prison. However put them in a hospital that would help them with any issues they would have for abusing other children, that shouldn't be done.

Prove hospitalization is necessary... from a psychological perspective.
Please I'm asking you... My ears are open.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/ ... pedophilia


. Men and women who molest kids "for sport," as Hord puts it, are the most dangerous. They are also the ones who try to justify their sexual preference, arguing that pedophilia should be "normalized," just like homosexuality has been.

[andyt]

I don't think these girls were doing this 'cause it got them off sexually. It's teenage stupidity. "Look what I can make them do." But it's also serious. Those two boys are damaged now, I hope they get good counselling. As should the girls.

Two years probation seems like a pretty good sentence, as long as it's with stringent conditions. They should be made to talk to some victims of abuse (ones willing to talk) about what the impact of something like this is. They've been banned from computers, which is pretty stiff punishment for a teen, but I would include cell phones, since that is what they used to transmit the pics. That's going to burn a teen for 2 years. And up the community service to say 500 hours. But I agree that jail is probably not a good answer. Not while we make jails, even juvie ones, such horror shows that kids come out way worse than they went in.

I'm usually the first to cry foul when I think a sentence is sexist. I have to admit I'd probably be advocating for jail more if it was boys that did this. Guess I'm just a sexist at heart.

[Refreshed]

Yogi Yogi:

Men and women who molest kids "for sport," as Hord puts it, are the most dangerous. They are also the ones who try to justify their sexual preference, arguing that pedophilia should be "normalized," just like homosexuality has been.

These aren't women who molested kids for sport. Read the story.