1. I hate children. I think they're dumber the bricks and twice as abrasive. Hence, whatever special treatment that society gives children these days (and yes, it is a fairly recent development that we don't smack the shit out of our little brats when they question our supreme authority) seems stupid to me. When did the adult population become second-class citizens to a bunch of snot-nosed little cretins?
2. If we're talking about people that chop kids up and stuff them in garbage bags while playing the Moby's "We are all made of stars" on their iPods then I have no sympathy for them (because that song is awful) and I don't much care if they get beaten up in prison. However, I don't hate them one ounce more than I hate someone who did the same thing to a 25-year-old or a 35-year-old or an anything-year-old. In fact, I'd be more upset depending on the victim. For instance, if someone killed a 35-year-old artist or scientist I'd be a lot more upset than if the same person had killed 100 children. Children all have the potential to accomplish big things and that's part of why society prizes them--but I prize the people who have already accomplished something more.
3. Most of the people in prison for sex crimes against kids are in there for non-violent coercion of older kids (10-15) for sex. I don't believe that such people should be in prison. I don't subscribe to the ludicrous notion that someone under 18 can NEVER give their consent. And I don't view such people as worse than murders or even as bad people AT ALL. Society has placed a stigma on them as it has placed on Jews, on blacks, on gays, on masons, on countless social, racial and idealogical groups past and present.
If you go back a little over 100 years ago, girls were being married off before their breasts had started budding. I'm not saying things should return to that pattern--I'm just using that as an example of who recent the stigma on pedophilia is. Do you think human nature has changed drastically since that time? Do you think that the genetic disposition towards nubile young bodies has dissipated simply because we passed a law or two against it? Take a look around our culture and you'll see that we're as youth obsessed as we could ever be. And frankly, I don't think it's healthy for us to simulataneously deny our nature on a physical level and languish in it on a cerebral level, via Hillary Duff, Britney Spears, The Olsen Twins, Aaron Carter and all the other boys and girls who became international sex-symbols before their 18th birthdays.
I understand that you and countless other sheeple believe that the youth of this country are special and therefore entitled to special rights and priveleges and anyone who lusts after their plump little apple-shaped bottoms with drool pooring from their lips is a depraved and irredeemible monster bent on the hideous exploitation of innocence to feed the bonfire of his carnal desires. The problem with you is that you don't distinguish between pedophiles and child-rapists, which is about as fair as me using Jeffrey Dahmer to exemplify gays or OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson to exemplify straights.
Finally, I'd like to point out that most of the children--boys and girls--raped in this country every year are raped by straight, white men who are typically most attracted to fully developed women. They are usually family members or friends of the family of their victims and use their leverage to get some easy pussy. It's like when you get really desperate as a teenager and get your dog to lick your balls (don't deny it, you fucking freak--Kinsey did studies). People settle. And people with sociopathic tendencies settle for children because they see that they can get away with it and lack the conscience not to.
But sociopathy and pedophilia are two entirely different things. Most pedophiles are not sociopaths and most sociopaths are not pedophiles. Yet pedophiles are judged by the small cross-section between the two, even though most pedophiles have never engaged in sex acts with children and most of those who have did it under circumstances socially acceptible (under the right conditions) just a little over a century ago.
I hope I've made myself clear.