Intentions Of Desires: The Mind Of A Pedophile

Everything about life is complex, so words such as free will and determinism barely scratch the surface, matter of fact both play a major role in our life. There isn’t free will without determinism. When we function throughout the day, we have ideas of what we are about to do; hence the idea of determinism, but we also evaluate whether or not we choose to go through with these ideas, in other terms, free will.

Now, there is a sense of responsibilities by having free will. Such as laws and morality, but when someone that is stripped from their free will, are they responsible for something they did? If they have no free will, they must not be able to be punished, correct? First, you have to understand the context of the dilemma. By reading the article, which was made by The JAMA Network, you would of read a story of a 40-year-old male pedophile which acted upon his desires and impulses and “found guilty of child molestation”. Note, the tumor he had, which was stated in the article, was found to cause him to be more impulsive. It did not state that it turned him into a pedophile. Now to the main question, should he be held responsible? Yes, a person should be held accountable for the action they take since without rules, the world we would live in would be uncivilized and unjust to the victims involved. No one can’t go out molesting and raping anyone without some sort of consequence, it would be unjust for the victim and the sake of humanity.

For most, who live in a world with laws, breaking them could cost you, and be shamed upon. Why should we give a pass with those who have illnesses and do crimes? Why justify what is already wrong? Such an example would be that of the 40-year-old man that molested his stepdaughter. What sense is there to allow someone who has problems controlling their impulse to get a free pass? As Harry Frankfurt stated, in Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person, “’first-order desires’ … are simply desires to do or not to do one thing or another” which means that these sorts of desires are used when determining what to do. The theory of “second-order desires” that Harry Frankfurt also describes are desires that one would “engage in deliberation” and “make decisions based upon prior thought. ” Therefore, humans tend to make decisions based on both type of desires, one might have multiple “first-order desires”; nevertheless, they won’t be acted upon unless one evaluates the desire and determines if it is qualified enough to act, which is what the “second-order desires” is. One may argue by the understanding of the “second-order desire”, that the man was not exercising this type of desire because of the tumor he had. As the article states “. He was unconcerned that he had urinated on himself… Appendicular tone was increased bilaterally. There was no neglect. Abnormal glabellar, snout, and palmomental responses were present. ”(JAMA) With the tumor in his head, one could say he was acting impulsive. In the article it also was stated that “he solicited female team members for sexual favors. ” He couldn’t control himself from asking for sexual favors or control the outcome of the situation with his stepdaughter. Which is a valid argument nevertheless; But, one has to put themselves in the shoes of the victim, is being impulsive justifiable for his actions? The answer is no, since according to Harry Frankfurt, that “first-order desires” comes from prior thoughts.

With the knowledge of both desires, you could assume that the 40-year-old man had some preceding desires of sexual acts, could be innocent ones, such one those that obey the law. similarly, his desires could’ve been malicious ones, such as molestation. Which seemed to be that it turned out to be molestation, not of a random individual but the daughter of the women he was with. He is guilty of the fact that molestation is what it is, and no fact, unless it’s happens to not be true, will change that; Regardless if he could process what he did was right or wrong. A normal member of society would know it was wrong. What would society be if we didn’t respect each other’s virtue? As the article state, what he did was against the law. It proves that, in this society, we have morals that we have to obey; whether or not the actions one takes is due to manifestation or lack of will. If one manifested it, and acts upon their desires to do wrong and molest, they broke the law. They also would break the law if they can’t control their own desires to molest. It is truly that simple.

As said before, determinism and free will play a major role in the outcome of someone’s action. “He had a preexisting strong interest in pornography dating back to adolescence”(JAMA) meaning that it is possible that these desires corrupted his way of processing what sexual needs he wanted; and knowing that “first-order desires” come from preceding judgment, you make an inference that he was determined to molest because he manifested the ideas of sexual acts at a young age then it makes sense. It doesn’t state how long it took him until the impulses controlled his action but it states that “The patient went to great lengths to conceal his activities because he felt that they were unacceptable. ”(JAMA) If he knew it was wrong, why didn’t he seek any help before he committed a crime? Is it possible he had stronger desires to molest than to receive help? Since he did attempt to acquire some kind of assistant to his deviance once he notice he would go to jail. It was jail that worried him more than his mischievous action, since that it only became a concern after getting caught.

It is obvious that he is guilty of his deeds. You can make arguments that he would not molest his stepdaughter if he did not have a tumor, but because he did, you can’t argue about an alternative reality. When the reality is, that he molested someone and that someone is now a victim; even if the 40-year-old man didn’t have the tumor, his preexisting desires are still there. If someone has a pedophile mindset and does not act on their desire, it does not change who they are, still a pedophile. Also, the fact that the 40-year-old man knew it was wrong to have a mentality of deviancy, he chose to get help after knowing his punishment; After getting caught doing something wrong, according to the article, he is a criminal. He was given a second chance, by attending a “12-step program for sexual addiction… Despite his strong desire to avoid prison, he could not restrain himself from soliciting sexual favors from staff and other clients at the rehabilitation center and was expelled. ” With that said, he blew his second chance. Why should we make an exception for someone who has malicious intentions?