Should the Death Penalty be reintroduced for convicted paedophiles?

I don't think a death penalty is right for anything because it's our life to take in the first place tbh but it's arguable. However, that's completely disgusting and unlawful for what the man did like he needs help.

In response to you kicking off at me.

Its going over your head. You are basically saying because you beleive it to be moral and justice, it is therefore moral and justice. You say i want to punish them with death and yet numerous posters in this very thread have stated they would prefer death than life imprisonment...

We are not discussing what is the current law in your country. Its as relevant to our discussion as the composition of Mars surface.

If you think a person of sane mind who has caused untold suffering and irrevocable damage to others lives is worthy of time, money and treatment millions of good human beings are deprived off and then to give that monster the freedom, a second chance to go back into society to see if your project has been successful at the very possible horrific detriment to other human beings... I can only disagree

No, I understand completely what you are saying. It's you that has a bad sense of moral judgement. Revenge is not the same as justice - especially when it involves the death penalty. As arrogant as it may sound, I know that what I believe is moral and justice, even a child would realise that killing is bad no matter the excuse.

The law plays a very big part in this discussion - we're talking about reintroducing the death penalty! Of course the current law of my country is relevant, the criminal is from my country. Stop being ignorant.

I never said anything of the sort. Sane mind? He has a mental disorder which means he finds it hard to live an ordinary life. You don't know his past, he could've had a very traumatic experience or the mental disorder could be genetic, either way you're saying that it is okay to kill people because their mental illness caused them to commit crimes. I do not deny that this person has done horrible things to other people but killing him wont solve anything. It would cost more to kill a person then to have them in jail, you would waste more money and more time to kill this person than you would if you sent him to jail and treated him. Let me ask you this, do you think it's okay to spend everyone's money to take the life of someone's son, family member or friend? Do you think people should spend money just for the sole reason of revenge? Do you actually believe that killing someone would do more good than trying to cure this person and make him useful to society? Other people with the same illness would start to believe that they are "monsters" and they are doomed to be evil for the rest of their lives. The so-called "monster" would lose his freedom in jail. Also, which "millions of good human beings" are you referring to? The man would be like any other criminal in jail but would be treated for his illness as well.

It seems like the only thing you can do is disagree... Try to understand that I don't support this person's crimes, I want him to go to jail where he will lose his freedom and cannot hurt anyone else. Once he has done his time and has been treated, he should be allowed to live an ordinary life, without people giving him horrible names because of an illness, where he can be useful to everyone.

So basically you are doubling down on the "If i believe it to be moral and justice, it is moral and justice" . Cool argument bro. Hey see that grass over there.. I believe it to be blue therefore it is blue. A child would also tell you taking someones liberty in squalid conditions for the rest of their life is bad no matter the excuse.

Hey people.. stop campaigning for gay marriage and equal rights... the law is the law!

Millions of people have a mental disorder and are off sane mind. Millions of people suffer from mental illness, do not use it to make out that anybody suffering from mental ilness is insane and not responsible for their actions.The rest of your last paragraph is a desperate attempt to mis represent my argument and i am not sure whether it is deliberate or not.

I have no further interest in this discussion with you, the point i wanted to debate was simply contesting the popular idea that the death penalty is heinous and immoral and the alternative is moral and good

I might have sounded a bit stupid when I made that point. I see now that we have a very different idea of what is moral and what is not. Sorry. BUT I still stand with what I believe - that being killing people is bad.

I'm confused. You seem to have taken what I said out of context. The law is important in this discussion because of that very reason, people have signed a petition to ignore the law and kill a man. Your example contradicts what you're saying. People are campaigning FOR gay marriage and equal rights, therefore they're trying to make NEW laws. People are campaigning FOR the death penalty, therefore they're trying to bring back OLD laws. We got rid of the death penalty because of how barbaric it was. I'm sorry but if you want to live in the medieval times with the death penalty, you wont have gay marriage or equal rights.

Do you understand what a mental illness is? It means that person who has it is not normal, they can't help what they do. You say that "millions of people have a mental disorder and are of sane mind" but that's impossible as people who have a mental illness are not healthy, it makes them act outside the social norms. Therefore, it would be better to help these people than to just exterminate them.

How ironic that you think what I said misrepresented argument. I thought the same to your previous message but responded nevertheless. If you could point out what was wrong with my point, it would clear up a lot of things instead of just saying "hey, that's not what I meant".



That's fine, it was an interesting debate. I understood completely what you were trying to argue - you believe that the death penalty is moral and good which is why I responded because I was trying to make my point that the death penalty is immoral and bad.

But locking people away for life is not?

Jeeezzus

I mean you could not be more wrong. Its crazy. Millions of people walking round with some form of mental infliction from anxiety and depression to OCD. to psychopathy.

I didnt want to get into a lengthy discussion of the death penalty versus jail because:

1) I dont feel strongly either way
2) The death penalty will never come back in the UK

I simply did not want to invest this time, patience and effort in discussing the pro's and cons of which have been done millions of times

As i have said numerous times... the point i am trying to hammer home and make people think about is that incarcerating somebody for life is not some great moral thing whereas executing them is heinous and deplorable.

I get it, it contentious... what other ways are there? I have said its a tough topic,. I just do not believe anybody can argue from a moral standpoint either way

I've just been reading about a British man convicted of abusing very young children abroad. I'm talking about the rape of babies, among other sick offences.He faces life in prison. Is this proper punishment? Do paedophiles deserve to be put to death? I have just started an online petition calling for the Death Penalty to be reinstated by the UK Govt. No chance of it happening,sadly. Just wondered what people on here thought?

No because under the EU court of human rights the death penalty is banned.

Secondly if there was the death penalty for pedos then do you suggest for example, a 20 year old who had a relationship with a 15 year old days before becoming 16 (who may have lied about her age) gets sentenced to death?

Yes it should but not for every convict. A repeat or multiple offender who seems to lack remorse (or it's evidenced by repeat offences) should be killed. They cannot control themselves, you can never let them back into society as they'll keep raping children, if you keep them in a cell for their natural life who are you helping? You are wasting resources, and do they really want to be locked away in a cage for life? Just put them down, we do it to a dog which bites one person. we don't do it to a human who rapes and abuses dozens, they're hardly worth more than the dog. If you're really uneasy about it, then at least give the prisoner the option of consenting to death. This would also apply to a repeat rapist of adults or murderers.

No because under the EU court of human rights the death penalty is banned.

First of all, that is not a pedophile. A pedophile is sexually attracted to prepubescent children which is ages 11 or young.

NOW on to the matter at hand: THE DEATH PENALTY

As a child i thought the death penalty was a good idea, and as an adult i feel that almost all of the crimes i would have placed under 'worthy of death' have now been removed. The only remaining crime that i believe should warrant the death penalty is Terrorism.

I'm not talking about tweets encouraging people to join ISIS and hanging those idiots, i'm talking about those who commit blatant acts of terror on the streets of the UK, where there is irrefutable evidence that they have taken part in carrying out or attempting a massacre. An example of one such case would be the Lee Rigby case, where the two terrorists should have been hung after being lucky enough to survive gunshots by police.

I am against the death penalty for any other crime, as i for one see terrorism as an act of war albeit by a small entity, but this entity should not be validated, it should be eliminated in the surest regards possible. Other crimes are more difficult to prove, especially things such as rape and murder. And as we've seen in the past, some police forces hold spectacular grudges against certain individuals and will do nearly-anything to pin them to the wall.

Why do people love inventing this new standard of proof when talking about the death penalty. What do you mean by irrefutable? 100% certainty?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Hello underscore.

I do not believe it's people simply inventing a new standard of proof. But it is instead when there is overwhelming evidence pointing to it. Think of the Nuremberg trials which helped prosecute some of the last remaining nazis.

All i'm asking for is a similar level of formality and professionalism when it comes to the death penalty. Terrorism is one of those crimes where there is usually a paper trail or a cyber presence that one can find and use as proof as-to what people were doing. Similar to how the Nuremberg trial operated.

Best regards to you.
Francis.

Firstly Nuremberg really isn't a good authority to cite, it was an application of retrospective justice where crimes were invented simply to prosecute people.

If you want 'overwhelming' evidence you're creating a new standard of proof. Anything other than 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a new standard of proof


Posted from TSR Mobile

Hi again Underscore,

I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, as i essentially believe that the Nuremberg trials were absolutely fundamental to rounding up the war and dealing with the remaining figures in the Holocaust.

Honestly you may be right about it being retrospective justice, however i feel that it was necessary to provide the little closure and comfort that we could to the victims of the worst genocide in history.

You may also be right about creating a new standard of proof, i did not look at it like that, and yes i would say that irrefutable would mean that there would have to be multiple pieces of evidence, witnesses and such that all come to the same conclusion, similarly to beyond any reasonable doubt. Just with some more facets along the way.

Best regards to you and thanks for replying!
Francis

First off why are you writing these posts as though they're emails?

What's most hilarious is the allies applied retroactive justice and then were part of the universal declaration of human rights a couple of years later which banned it. It was also already banned in the US under the constitution. Unfortunately where someone does something terrible but it just so happens to not be a crime they can't be punished. Ex post facto law is all but banned for the protection of the public.

What you've described is essentially 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It would be rare for someone to be convicted simply off of one witness or one piece of DNA evidence


Posted from TSR Mobile