sandusky

No. Why spend money on studying this any more than we already have? Sandusky is broken and he cannot be fixed. Was he born that way or was he made or some kind of mix of the two? I do not care. People are going to keep being born with mental twists and some of the twisted will corrupt some that were 'just fine.'

Sandusky is unique in that the vast majority of us do nothing remotely like what he did. Sure, there are monsters undiscovered but the level of predatory brutality that he exhibited is rather rare in the population as a whole.

Long ago, I was an idealist and might have agreed with you. And punishing Sandusky to deter others--yeah, no real impact on predators, I do agree.
Studying him so we are 'helped in discovering others like him'? No. There are few others like him. We know how to spot the warning signs--look how long people 'talked' about Sandusky but did nothing.
How 'bout this? Let's study why people are such selfish chickenshits and change that. Let's protect the children that are currently being abused by listening to them, believing their claims and ffs, not turning a blind eye to any kind of suspicious sexual activity between an adult and a non-adult.

 

You understand the definition of "unique", right? Especially since Baraka_Guru used it right.

Sandusky is not unique. You cannot argue that he is using the correct definition of the word.

Yet if you study what Sandusky did, you learn how to prevent the next predator who slips through the safeguards. Thinking the system is already perfect is an obvious fallacy. Especially since we've seen that it failed here.

I see a lot of bluster above, but I don't see any substance.

 

Yeah, there's plenty of bluster: My reptilian brain would like to see the guy handed over to his victims and their families. The brain that studied this shit won't let me actually retain that opinion as a valid or ethical desire.
And, sometimes I get annoyed with all the attention paid to the perp, all the concern. Thinking back to the beginning of this when so many fans just would not believe Sandusky did such a thing...it annoyed me then and still does.


My points in sum, relating to @Baraka_Guru's opinion are: To 'study' behaviour of someone, a member of a group called pedophiles, takes money. This group has been studied enough in my opinion to conclude that most of them are beyond repair. Opinions vary on what 'causes' one to be a sexual predator. We seem to understand that we _can_ keep them away from those they would abuse by keeping them confined.
I am much more concerned with protecting potential victims than throwing 'good money after bad' by trying to figure out what went wrong with Jerry and his ilk.
The system is not perfect and I implied no such thing, unless you mean perfectly broken.

 

Oh I get it, Fangirl. You're both against the system and spending any money on making it any better. In that case, you and I stand at complete polar opposites. And I don't see how you can ever justify that position since it's one that completely doomed to failure.

 

In the past, I would've agreed with your general statements: Study these men. Find out what makes them tick and figure out how to help them stop themselves, possibly before they even begin destroying lives beyond their own.
The reality is that there are a finite number of funds. I'm trying to be realistic, pragmatic here. Who is going to fund this--and what are we going to divert funds from? Studying IDK, women who commit infanticide, to men who rape boys or are white-knuckling not raping them? Why would we do that? How do you prioritize what is most important to study?
A lot of things. What information have we gathered thus far? What treatment seems to work with repeat sexual predators? Who desires to delve even more deeply than we have into the psyche of mentally ill, sexually deviant individuals, when behavioral science is a crap-shoot? We really cannot definitively prove anything when we cannot open up the brain of the ill and 'see' what is wrong. We have to interpret deviant behaviour it using on behavioral-scientific observation, which of course, is coloured by the observer.

Human behaviour is often reasonably rendered and generally understood--then you get 'can of worms' cases like Jerry Sandusky.

I don't think we should ever quit studying human behavior, but in some specific situations like studying up on what makes a male sexual deviant, I see funding diverted from another source to do so to be a crucial consideration.

Most sexual predators are male. We spend a great deal of money doing health/behavioral health studies on men. When we've evened things up more, when I don't have to look at the pool of subjects of yet another study and see that they are 'college-aged, white men', then maybe it'll be time to cough up more fundage to study guys like Jerry.

 

I'm not sure what "studying" would entail here. A lot would depend on Sandusky.

Some paedophiles may well want help and consider their sexual predilection something they want to rid themselves of. Great. Maybe it is possible to work with them. Many, however, don't see it that way at all.

If we are discussing "talking therapies" such as CBT, the only way these will work and the only way we will really learn anything is if the subject of therapy engages and wants help. Without that, all we would be doing is providing some intellectual entertainment for the "patient" and (possibly) also for the therapist (though he/she may also feel that they are wasting their time and training).

If we are engaging these people in groups, there is quite a lot of experience out there of paedophiles engaging enthusiastically because they can get off on each other's stories. What do we learn? We learn that they consider their sexuality appropriate, even if society doesn't. There are even advocacy groups out there arguing the case for the removal of any age of consent.

If we are discussing the use of drugs or surgery, surely that can only be carried out morally with the full consent of the subject?

I have no idea what camp Sandusky falls into, but I wouldn't assume that we can effectively "study" him.

Even if we do learn something, what does that do for us? We can't lock people up because they might be a paedophile. We can only act on a crime being committed. So, where does that leave us?

Yes, we could learn that abuse leads to abuse and then act to reduce child abuse - but I think we already know that.

It all sounds well and good, but how would it work in practice? Unless that can be explained, I think I'm with Fangirl.

 

Yes, he was selfish and manipulative but evidence has yet to be uncovered one way or another that may shed light on what, if anything, may have happened to him to turn him into a selfish and manipulative pedophile. You may not care what that might be but lack of regard does not negate the fact that diagnosing possible causes for a condition is a necessary aspect to discovering treatments. If you don't believe me, ask your doctor.

To state, rather emphatically as you have, that Jerry Sandusky did what he did with no motivation or cause other than his own selfishness and sexual need indicates to me that, because you dismiss the notion of any underlying causes or cyclical behavior, you must also dismiss the hope of treatment or rehabilitation for the victims, now or in the future; that you believe there is no cycle of abuse and the only management will forever be the removal of the pedophile from society after the crime has been committed and the behavior discovered.

A society which looks towards prevention, intervention and treatment through identification of causes and recognition of symptoms before the behavior manifests itself is a far better plan, in my opinion. Unfortunately, we don't get there until we are willing to prioritize the need to.

Precious resources only appear precious when the need for them is not a priority. Is the rampant (yes rampant) occurrence of child molestation not a priority? Tell that to victims, present and future. No cure? Polio had no cure at one time. We know so little still about what causes us to be the way we are, for better or worse. I can imagine a time in the future when we'll know more; and correcting aberrant behavior will be possible. Unless of course, dismissive, head in the sand attitudes such as yours prevail.

There is no such thing as Evil. There is only the human condition, exposed to as many variables as there are grains of sand on all the beaches. Evil is a concept for the fearful, the vengeful, the intellectually lazy, and the fundamentally close-minded.

 

I was in regular contact with high security prisoners, and have heard what my lifers thought of the therapy sessions they had in a special prison for prisoners to get 'treatment'. From the prisoners perspective, they play the game, they get time off, they get out quicker. I was told by one, big hard chap, very upset - that sitting in a group with a bunch of nonces, one talking about how good it felt to fuck a three year old whilst the others got off on the description really made him want to get up and start beating the crap out of them, but he couldnt, because it would cost him time. I do believe he was quite traumatized by it. In this country also, visiting facilities for such prisoners and their families are in more comfortable surroundings than the other inmates visits. Seems its good for them psychologically, years of social workers and therapists pushing got them these necessities.
We know this man raped a lot of children. How many souls did he destroy/kill?

 

He's on a suicide watch. That seems pointless to me.

Let the creep off himself and then society will be done with that piece of shit.

 

I don't put much any stock in psychotherapy or group therapy as an effective method for understanding or rehabilitating the sex offender, despite my belief that anyone legitimately seeking help (with no ulterior motive) should have access to some sort of counseling regardless of how meaningless it may appear to those for whom nothing less than a productive benefit to society determines access.

At this point I don't know that there's any effective or reliable treatment for the serial pedophile and without knowing how many different factors are likely to cause it, it's questionable whether there will ever be a "one size fits all" method of treatment, in the event any treatment at all is found effective.

If it is, it is surely many years or decades away. So for the time being, rather than focusing solely on how to rehabilitate those we cannot yet rehabilitate with any confidence, I would prefer we pursue the path towards greater knowledge by taking full advantage of the availability of live subjects. To do otherwise, seems a waste to me. If I want to know how a car runs do I leave in the garage and talk to it or do I get under the hood, dismantle the engine, examine all its parts, and figure out how everything interacts? I'd rather they be offered compensation in some form (not release) for voluntarily consenting to be participants in an ongoing study which provides an atmosphere where the subjects can divulge to their hearts desire without fear of reprisal or judgement and includes whatever minor invasive procedures might be necessary (DNA samples, brain scans, etc)

Again, it would boil down to financial resources and what sort of priority we might consider placing on this with the full knowledge that results are not likely to be seen in the short term. In decades to come would we rather look back and realize that our investigative efforts have had some impact on the fact that there are fewer and fewer victims of sexual crimes or live with the fact that we were shortsighted, did nothing and continue to bemoan the fact nothing has changed or gotten worse?
--- merged: Jun 24, 2012 at 4:51 PM ---

Yeah, that'll solve everything. Sandusky offs himself and children everywhere are now safe from sexual predators.

Spoken like a true enabler of the status quo (refer to Penn State officials) which refuses to do anything about the problem until after the kids have already been abused and the perp is outed. Feels better to vent than prevent, doesn't it?

Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation Indigo Kid or are you just blowing off a mindless chemical reaction?

 

So enlighten me, rogue. What research or area of study has led you to the conclusion that Sandusky's behavior is the result of pure and willful maliciousness, completely unaffected by any other factors which may have predisposed him to behave this way? You asserted this so I assume you have some proof of it.

A definition or description of what?

Can you define evil?

Where does it come from and how does it develop?

We can label deeds and behaviors as evil (adj) understanding that the term falls short of accounting for the real causes and motivations of the deeds and behaviors, but I have to seriously question those who use it as a noun, considering Evil to be the sole cause and motivation.

I can only assume that those who believe this:

Have a fear of what they haven't experienced or can't comprehend. They are reassured by this static ideal which never fails to explain the horrendous and incomprehensible.
or
They get a greater internal reward (hard on) out of warehousing anger and righteous indignation than they do applying reason, finding explanations, and possibly solutions, as all of these would render their cozy relationship with their anger and indignation unjustifiable.
or
They can't or won't be bothered (usually due to the above two assumptions) exploring the possibility that a number of significant events, probably in early childhood, would have likely occurred to create someone who would behave in such a way.
or
They have explored these possibilities but rejected them for fear they might serve to somehow legitimize such behavior.
or
They are simply incapable of understanding the complex nature of human beings.

I have no idea if my assumptions are correct but there you have it. Not insult. (unless you choose to take it personally) Just some reasoned analysis and theory formation.

I would enjoy hearing your defense of Evil as the sole cause and culprit.

 

Brain scans and such? Suddenly I am back in time to a place where homosexuality was seen as an illness. As I vaguely remember, lots of 'therapies' were tried, but none worked now did they. Some just learnt to hide what they were - for fear of societies reprisals; many lived a lie. The obvious difference between the two is that one is an act between consenting adults (which used to be illegal), and the other is an act of rape on a small child. There is no cure, it seems, for sexual preferences. Some like blondes, some brunettes, some buggering little boys. At least he will not have access to any more -

 

Re: There is no value in seeing what makes a man like Sandusky tick.

Claiming to know that studying Sandusky's(and others like him) brain and behaviour cannot yield anything of value might be good rhetoric, but it's an absolutely vacuous position. To begin with, it's claiming to know something you cannot possibly know, largely because it relates to future events which are in themselves unpredictable; events that are particularly unpredictable given the booming nature of the brain sciences and the incredible depth and breadth of the information in those fields. It's also a statement in ignorance of the history of science. Much of what we have learned comes not from studying normal, but from studying the broken, unusual and extreme cases. 'The exception proves the rule' as they say, and they are often right.

The simple truth is that there is probably more value in studying men like Sandusky than there is in studying you or I or any other 'normal' person.