Just governments ought to provide legal protections for pedophiles

I will first start by stating I agree with medical accomodations. Pedophilia is a mental illness and needs to be treated as such. They should be allowed to get treatment under the patient confidentiality that any other patient would get. The easier it is for a pedophile to get help, the less children that will be harmed. I think everyone can agree that's a neccessity. I'll be focusing on the other points in this debate on the assumption that these are pedophiles currently following the law (not looking at child porn, not sexually abusing children).Pedophilia is a mental illness, not a sexual orientation.In order to make my argument, we need to first establish that pedophilia is first and foremost a mental illness. There are studies that show there is something physically wrong with a pedophile's brain. It is clearly defined as a mental illness in the DSM-5 under paraphilia, as Pedophiliac Disorder. The DSM-5 did state the Pedophiliac Disorder was defined as "sexual orientation towards children", however that was an error that was meant to read "sexual interest". "To be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, DSM-5 requires that people “feel personal distress” about their atypical sexual interest or have a desire or behavior that harms another person or involves “unwilling” persons or “persons unable to give legal consent." [1]By that definition anyone with a sexual interest in children, has a mental illness. Currently the only thing keeping these legal pedophiles from breaking the law is strong impulse control. Employment protectionNow that we've established that pedophilia is a mental illness, we need to understand why a pedophile would feel the need to identify himself in the first place. Typically when one discloses a mental illness it is to get reasonable workplace acconmodations in order to successfully do their job. There are no reasonable accomdations a pedophile would need outside of not being around children, and therefore no reason to disclose it as a mental illness. Another reason would be to get acceptance. Pedophiles need help, not people condoning their desires towards children.Employers also have a responsibility towards their other employees. If a company knew someone was a pedophile and hired them anyway, it would be a company liability if they ever sexually abused a child. If not legally liable, it would be a PR nightmare that no company would want. However, even on the basis of it being a mental illness, an employer does have the ability to fire someone they do not feel is safe. Expressing an illegal desire that hinges upon a person's impulse control that day, is a liability to both the company and the company's families.Social Protection This is absolutely a terrible idea. Humans at their base instincts are herd animals, and it doesn't take much to influence their behavior. People will more often than not defer to the "social default" when forming an opinion. [2] When you put a bunch of pedophiles together in a community where they can live the social default becomes "desiring children". The only reason pedophiles thus far have not is because of strong impulse control. When you put them with a group of people who are like minded, it can result in lowering their impulse control or even justifying their actions. While most people want to believe that individuals are strong enough to make their own decisions, studies have shown the opposite. With psychology studies such as the Zimbardo experiment, human behavior shows time and time again that it will very quickly adapt to whatever label we give them. The guards not only became viscious, but the prisoners themselves believed their plight was hopeless [3]. If we were to put pedophiles together in a community, it would very quickly spiral out of control, and to absolutely no one's surprise we would find an increase of child sexual abuse cases, be it child porn or physical abuse to a child because "everyone else is doing it". [1] http://www.washingtontimes.com...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://www.nytimes.com...;