Should the Death Penalty be reintroduced for convicted paedophiles?

Ahh sorry if these look like Emails, its just i have a typically formal way of talking/discussing with people in real life. If we'd met physically i'd have shaken your hand by now and we'd probably be sitting down discussing this with a good drink in our hands .

Like I previously said i'm not going to go into the full discussion of the Nuremberg trials on this thread other than to say that i do support them and shall continue to do so. To me it was not retrospective but necessary and much-needed for the remaining survivors. Justice like all things is imperfect, and it is naive of us to believe that the Nuremberg trial was carried out purely out of a sense of justice. It was not, some of it was straight-up revenge, and some of it was needed. This isn't be supporting the death penalty from a vengeful standard, but sometimes the public interest will be so strong that even the courts and justice systems cannot remain impartial. I can not even to begin to understand the pressure those judges were under, and i do wonder just how much the public opinion came into it when sentencing and prosecution.

One final point is that it is important to remember that the publics of nearly all major countries did not fully know/understand what the Holocaust was until the end of the war, and when the true extent of the horror was revealed the public were shocked to the core.

Finally i agree with you on the definition of beyond reasonable doubt too, so my idea would basicallly probably call for a double-prosecution process or something like that, where essentially you have the first stage and the second stage, similar to house of lords and commons when it comes to legislation, a dual-process that goes on at two-seperate times. Lengthening the process greatly but providing greater detail to everything.

Or perhaps have the prosecution, but a fixed time before the sentencing is carried out there is an intensive review into the case, although i like this idea less as it only gives them a limited timeframe to work with, though perhaps it could be extended upon request.

Best Regards
Francis

PS: Going out for a walk as i've been ill this week so i'll probably reply to you later underscore! Take care and see you later

Regardless of whether you support them there is no doubt whatsoever it was retrospective justice. Something all of the allies clearly thought was wrong, hence why it didn't apply in their countries.



The law isn't based on the emotional opinions of the public



You're proposing things which just aren't realistically feasible. There isn't really anyway at present we could have a second authority review a case because all capital punishment cases would inevitably get to the Supreme Court. Also there would be no benefit to adding a second trial, it would likely just be a rerun of the first but this time the defence would know everything the prosecution was going to use.


Posted from TSR Mobile

The fact that there are people out there who support the death penalty at all is quite disturbing but the fact that there are people who advocate it's use for crimes other than murder just shows how barbaric and primitive some people are.

What's barbaric about it? So you do support the death penalty for murder, right?


There's no such crime as 'being pedophile'. The media labels most people involved underage sex offences as pedophiles.

I agree. What the media defines as a pedophile and what pedophile actually is gets blurred.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm afraid although the law isnt based on the emotional opinions on the public it can still have an impact, even so-called objective justice can bend under the weight of the masses, some would argue that the Nuremberg trials which you state the allies so detested were because of public outrage. Anyways, this will be my last post for a little while but it's been a pleasure putting our brains together to see where this would end up.

Best regards to ya!
Francis

I don't support the death penalty for any crime, there are literally no positives to it


Posted from TSR Mobile

Can save money. I just gave you a positive.

I do. I never said there was any solid evidence, it's a genetic defect in my opinion.


There's certainly a gay gene, probably a straight gene too or a lack of, there has to be a gene for paedophilia because it is a sexually orientation in itself.

It's logical.

Well seeing that most cases of paedophilia are perpetrated by men, so it seems to be an issue with the 'Y' chromosome. Or it could be down to a segment of the brain itself, the sector that controls emotions.

There's no evidence to suggest it'd save money, it's likely it'd cost us more Posted from TSR Mobile

It actually is a mental disorder. It's listed in the DSM-V which is like a bible for Psychiatrists.

I believe there is more to paedophilia than just a "mental disorder" ,remember this is the same DSM that used to say things such as
Homosexuality being a mental disorder
One of its authors wanted to include premenstrual syndrome (was dropped )

New research is showing results that seem to conflict with DSM,such as that bipolar disorder and schizophrenia seem to share a similar genetic component.As we progress in the future,I suspect DSM will become outdated as molecular biology advances in that area.

I have my own greivances against the DSM-V trust me; I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It says if you grieve over a lost one over a certain about of time, greiving can be counted as a symptom of depression. Something like paedophilia isn't black and white in terms of finding out what causes it.

I stand by my original comment that we should be exploring the reasons behind it and not killing every single last person who commits such an horrendous offence.

The cost of keeping a prisoner is around £40,000 per year in the UK.The cost of some rope is a one-off payment of about £5.A lot of money can be saved.

The cost of capital murder trials and the subsequent appeals are enormous. I find it amazing how people are so happy to revert back to archaic forms of justice and abandon the human rights that are there to protect us. There are people dying fighting for human rights but here people just want to lynch some pedos.


Posted from TSR Mobile

The cost of a trial is relatively low, if done efficiently.

Who mentioned lynching?

I also never mentioned pedos.

You're just making baseless claims, trials for murder are already expensive. If the stakes were raised the cost would go up. Sorry, I'll rephrase: '...some people here just want to hang some criminals'



Posted from TSR Mobile

So you admit that the trials are happening regardless.

An appeal over a death sentence does not need to be more expensive than that of a regular appeal.

The death sentence can save a huge amount of money, for that reason, it is worth doing alone, never mind the other reasons.