Criminal paraphilia is an area that garners much controversy due to variations in cultural and social norms. One uncontested attribute is that it involves not giving consent or not being able to give consent. Some paraphilia are “wobblers” meaning they can cross over into criminal behavior because they involve victimization rather than gaining legal consent. While being sexually aroused by hair is not a crime, stealing a person’s hairbrush to gain access to their hair is a crime. Similarly, not all sex offenders are sexual predators.
For this Discussion, be prepared to discuss differences between sex offenders and sexual predators. How does criminal paraphilia fit into the construct of a sexual predator? Can a person be a sex offender and engage in criminal paraphilia? Do you think we can effectively treat sex offenders and/or sexual predators? How does the Internet and social media, in particular, facilitate criminal paraphilia? Consider the types of sex crimes that occur in your community. Is there one or more ways those types of sex crimes could be reduced?
Review the Learning Resources pertaining to the content of sexual fantasies for sexual offenders.
Choose one of the case studies from the Learning Resources.
Response to the following:
Identify the case study you selected.
Answer the following questions:
Is the situation or behaviors in your case study non-criminal paraphilia or criminal paraphilia? Support your rationale.
Would committing this crime classify the offender as a sexual predator or a sexual offender? Explain your response.
How has the Internet and social media influenced paraphilic behavior?
René Descartes, the dad of present day rationality, embraced the strategy for uncertainty to achieve reality. Descartes' philosophical frame of mind began in his childhood when he understood that he had been tolerating numerous false assessments for genuine. He needed to dispose of the considerable number of conclusions that he had gathered throughout the years. Descartes needed to construct an establishment on which all further educated enquiries could be manufactured. He felt reason ought to pursue and land at certain philosophical realities. There ought to be no further questions left after this, which implied that the establishment must be sound. This methodology was known as the Method of Doubt yet his basis and approach has been a subject of discussion for quite a long time. He trusted never to acknowledge anything as reality, which he couldn't acknowledge as clearly evident. Everything ought to be so plainly displayed to the mind that there are no questions left by any means. Anything that can be questioned must be rejected. Motivations to think something ought to be sufficient. The second step is to isolate the subject into however many divisions as could reasonably be expected or whatever would assist him with understanding it better. The third step included coordinating his considerations, approaching slowly and carefully, to achieve the hidden complex information. Toward the finish of this, his audits were so far reaching, his lists so entire, that nothing was left to question. The three stages embraced by Descartes is what is received in arithmetic. He needed to utilize this strategy to achieve reality in reasoning. S V Keeling contends that his strategy as above lays on three mental tasks – instinct, finding, and identification (refered to by Burnham, 2006). These activities depend on human reason, on the capacity to scatter data, investigate, and audit. Since it depends on the ability of human personality, there is a danger of blunder because of flawed memory. In the Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes demonstrates the presence of God and the interminability of the spirit. He likewise draws out the genuine refinement between the brain and the body. He begins this by affirming the need "to annihilate everything totally and begin again appropriate from the establishments" (AT 7:17). Despite the fact that the initial step was named as distrustful his incredulity was not for questioning. He needed to touch base at reality through efficient examination and disposing of the misrepresentation. Descartes characterizes information as far as uncertainty: I recognize the two as pursues: there is conviction when there stays some reason, which may lead us to question, yet information is conviction dependent on a reason so solid that it can never be shaken by any more grounded reason (refered to by Norman, 2005). Descartes suspicious methodology depends on the rule that there is a qualification among conviction and truth (Bellotti, n.d.). It was this conviction that offered ascend to the Method of Doubt. Subsequent to making some tea one may abandon it to mix on the kitchen table under the conviction that it is prepared to be poured and devoured. Reality might be unique in relation to the conviction, in the sense, somebody could have poured the tea and taken it meanwhile. The pot might be vacant at this point. The Method of Doubt evacuates every single unverifiable conviction and just convictions that are genuine convictions remain. Descartes connected this hypothesis to a gathering of convictions with the goal that convictions require not be managed separately. A typical trademark could be resolved however this idea again persuades that questions would be on the whole gathering or class of convictions. Here Descartes utilizes the pernicious evil presence psychological test. Gassendi censured this hypothesis saying that Descartes could simply have viewed the past information as unverifiable (refered to by Norman) rather than wrecking everything. It isn't important to consider everything as false. He felt that such a methodology persuades the human personality that there is a villain who deceives us. It is more straightforward to concede the shortcoming of human instinct. Gassendi called attention to the general and hyperbolic nature of the Method of Doubt. Descartes contends that it is beyond the realm of imagination to expect to free ourselves of the considerable number of blunders that the human personality has been absorbed. He immovably trusts that general and hyperbolic nature is vital for the Method of Doubt to succeed. Descartes in his contention to devastate everything and begin anew applies the general character and gives the similarity of a crate brimming with apples. To choose and hold the great ones and dispose of the terrible ones, it is savvier to purge the crate, at that point select the great ones and keep them in the bin. He feels this is a superior and less difficult path than choosing the spoiled ones from the bin loaded with apples. He has confidence in first dismissing all convictions as though they were false and after that after watchful examination, embrace just the ones, which are valid. One rotten one can decay the entire container so if we somehow happened to choose the terrible ones, there is each probability of neglecting one rotten one. Then again, on the off chance that the entire bushel is first purged and, the great ones put back, we can make sure of just embracing reality. Descartes' strategy for uncertainty, as establishment of learning seems more viable than what has been proposed by Gassendi. At the point when the crate is thoroughly vacant, it tends to be cleaned and after that new, great apples picked and set in the bin. It is an a lot quicker process than invalidating the terrible. Besides, when the bushel is unfilled, the stains abandoned by the spoiled apples can be seen and cleaned, which is preposterous when the rotten ones are selected from the part. His contention to dispose of everything as false depends on his contention that the psyche accepts on whatever it sees through the physical eye. He didn't trust that anything ought to be left to creative energy. This has a sound premise, as the psyche can't envision what it has not seen. So as to help that every single earlier conviction aren't right, he talked about three phases – the sense, dreams and the malevolent evil presence speculation. Descartes declares that these don't have the ability to distort what we 'appear' to see. What we see through the sense delude us. We can't start with uncertainty. Descartes even goes to the degree of certifying that even the outer world that we see is a figment, a fantasy and subsequently false. The enquiry needs to begin in the wake of taking out every single such observation. The following contention that emerges is whether the break from hyperbolic gives an attractive establishment to learning? This can be clarified by a relationship of a building, which requires the utilization of a bulldozer to pulverize it. A light bulldozer would influence the ground to seem enduring. Consequently, a greater bulldozer is increasingly compelling, which implies the more hyperbolic the uncertainty, the better it is. As per Descartes, the Evil Genius Doubt is the most amazing uncertainty. This detestable virtuoso influences us to trust the false as obvious. For example, the straightforward realities like 2+3=5 or that a square has just four sides, are comprehensible. For individuals to know, comprehend, and acknowledge these facts, they must be immovably grounded even with the most amazing questions. The detestable virtuoso attempts to shake even such hyperbolic questions. Individuals likewise immovably preclude the presence from claiming God. Descartes trusts that the Evil Genius Doubt is only one of the components that can persuade the hyperbolic uncertainty. The fundamental uncertainty is that the human personality is defective, and the psyche knows that it has been contorted in spite of God having given a nature to swing to him. The human personality continues recollecting all the past episodes and dreams, and gives them the privilege to involve the brain. It is difficult to acknowledge that the world we see regular is a deception. It is just through profound contemplation and a solid will that an individual can acknowledge reality that God exists and all else is false. He must be settled in this conviction and touch base at the learning of truth. He needs to stir himself from the profound sleep of deception. The more hyperbolic the uncertainty, the brain is enacted better. Thus, the best methodology is to dispose of everything as false and begin once more. Descartes' philosophical methodology through the Method of Doubt is a sound technique. It is in actuality the best way to deal with examination. It is an examination of the self by oneself to achieve oneself or reality. To achieve reality, through the Method of Doubt, an individual needs to refute the outside world around him. In the event that he feels this world to be valid or feels a piece of this illusionary world, he can comprehend or understand the presence of God. The program of pulverization isn't just hyperbolic yet in addition all inclusive in nature. To confront the Evil Genius there must be a similarly ground-breaking question. Getaway from hyperbolic can't give an agreeable establishment to learning.>GET ANSWER