We're on touchy ground here, but... here's my $0.02.

First off, we all have equal rights as human beings. Having said that, our misdemeanors towards our fellow men, women and children should be treated properly in a court of law. This means that pedophiles should be treated as human beings who've severely violated the basic human rights of their victims. Their actions, while utterly condemnable, do not relinquish them from their basic rights. If we'd allow anger take the best of us in such cases, we'd end up in a situation where, by far and large, some people are more equal than others. Hands down, it is our common responsibility to strive to be better than that.

Pedophiles are not animals. They are individuals with perverted tendencies, which may cause irreversible harm to children. This is why such people should be detained and treated properly. They have an equal right to receive psychological treatment, which has been said to work better than mere chemical castration, as researchers still argue whether pedophilia should be considered a completely physical or a mental state. A convicted pedophile, if castrated, may resort to other means to fulfill his desire towards children upon release, as his tendencies are possible to remain.

The fact that the society takes an unforgiving tone towards pedophiles is even more saddening when we realize these people come to the attention of law enforcement when the damage is already done. There is no specific hotline for people to call in and say, 'I'm worried, because I think I'm a pedophile.' Instead, out of all offenders, those who'd realize their situation beforehand are likely to succumb into self-denial and shame, but their tendencies may rear their ugly head one day. The fact that these people are considered lower than human contributes in discouraging them to keep themselves from getting help beforehand.

While the horrific nature of the crime should always be taken into consideration as the victim may oftentimes suffer life-scarring damage, we should note that pedophilia, on a purely emotional level, raises our hair perhaps more than a singular case of rape, or murder. I might argue that even killing a child receives a slightly lesser emphatic response in many of us than violating one. Is that because homicide has a certain fatalistic tone to it, and we mean think that, well, at least it's over for the victim?

It probably boils down to the simplest of answers: The greatest common denominator. We can all relate to what it's like for a child to feel absolutely helpless and in state of significant distress. We've all had that. Infants have it the minute their guardian leaves them, which is whyt they cry out, knowing only that they can't deal with the situation alone. This horrible anguish of a child is a survival mechanism embedded deep into our system. Most of us are fortunate to have had their guardiian return, pick us up and convince us everything'll be alright. Therefore, I suggest we are able to have an unconscious connection with pedophilia survivors: We've been there, too. Somewhere deep down, we know where they're coming from.

But we cannot remain as children forever. We need to grow up and decide what's more beneficial: keep doing damage control while new cases unveil, or actually taking the initiative to help avoid such things from happening altogether. Even one case is always one too many, which is why it would be better for all those concerned to create a climate in which pedophilia would be recognized as a treatable disorder, and not something to shy away from.

If we continue to be merely reactionary, the problem is sure not to go away.

From the one you'd actually expect to have a say in the matter:

Polanski victim urges end to case
Tuesday, 13 January 2009

The victim at the centre of the statutory rape case involving film-maker Roman Polanski in 1977 has asked a US court to drop charges against him. Samantha Geimer said the continued publication of details "causes harm to me, my husband and children". She has also called the court's insistence that Polanski appear in person for the dismissal hearing on 21 January "a cruel joke". Polanski has never returned to the US to face charges since fleeing in 1978. While in exile in France, he won the best director Oscar in 2002 for holocaust drama The Pianist.

Feelings

Ms Geimer, 45, said in her written declaration to the court: "If Polanski cannot stand before the court to make this request, I, as the victim, can and I, as the victim, do." "I have urged that this matter come to a formal legal end. I have urged that the district attorney and the court dismiss these charges," she added.

Last week, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney David Walgren filed a motion describing the incident in graphic detail in court papers for the first time. Ms Geimer has said she believes this is a ploy to deflect accusations of wrongdoing in the case made more than 30 years ago. She added that her feelings should have been taken into account before the legal papers were submitted.

Polanski's bid to have the Los Angeles Superior Court disqualified from any hearings was rejected. His lawyer lodged the bid in response to a television documentary about the case, which made allegations about the actions of the District Attorney's office at the time. They have made no comment about the matter, saying the legal case in question is ongoing.

Polanski admitted unlawful sex with Samantha Geimer, who was 13 at the time, at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in 1977, but fled the US before he was sentenced. The charges against him were never dropped, and the spectre of arrest if he returned to the US has hung over him ever since.

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7825799.stm

Having remained blissfully unaware of Lily Allen aside the fittingly titled Fuck You, I can't shake the feeling that most of her criticism is pointed towards EMI. Remember their recent decision to focus distribution exclusively to major chains, excluding any and all independent record stores? The music industry is, by far and large, insanely corrupted, as it was built like a house of cards to accommodate the needs of the few at the expense of the many.

Artists have slowly gained more control over their work and profits here and there, but the real kicker has been filesharing, which has contributed to a welcome smash in the teeth for the record companies, Their initial reaction was obviously the reactionary one, but a decade after Napster, they're still exposed with their pants down, completely clueless as to what comes next.

Any healthy evolution isn't a mere revolution, since you need to present with something that works better for the artist and the consumer than the obsolete retail structure. As many enough in neither parties aren't happy with the old ways, labels like EMI are basically cushioning up their own caskets by stubbornly holding on to a dying form of commerce. Lily will do better without EMI, although I doubt she'll quit music altogether. Heard it before from all sorts of people, it's basically a 'excuse me for being a bit naughty, I'll go repent' throwaway commonly used in the entertainment industry.

The thing about Zombie was, to me, that even though his films have relatively little to do with the Carpenter lore (which could be said about more than one sequel - while we'll respectfully leave pt3 out of this), and while they did leave a lot to be desired in terms of effective storytelling, they did at least have more character than something like Resurrection, H20 and Curse. They were short-runs of Zombie's childish love for the 70's exploitation cinema, lacked what made the 1978 film great on numerous levels, but you kept watching the B-movie celebrity train wreck just for the hell of it. It was a healthily budgeted piece of trash in both cases, which is certainly more fascinating than a run-of-the-mill cheapo sequel.

When looking at the whole of the situation, the first Zombie film was meant to break Halloween to a new audience and carve out a niche for the Weinstein company as a heavy-hitter in the Saw-ridden field of American Horror. He was rehired only because in between the two films, the company turned desperate in their need for a steady flow of releases on a quarterly basis and Zombie proved to be the only one willing to churn out something they could market on the same pretense. Obviously a hasty move, mostly dictated by their shaky financial situation, but it got us another piece of entertaining trash. It had nothing to do with their vision as opposed to Zombie's; just keep the release schedule full.

Anyone else noticed 'shooting this fall'? The Weinsteins are clutching straws to keep the machine going, with every possible production packed up and on the shelf before Goldman-Sachs catches their hands in the cookie jar, slamming an IOU on the table so hard that it'll be heard across Tinseltown.