Should convicted pedophiles receive the death penalty?

Original post by Underscore__

Well as Fyodor Dostoyevsky said you can tell a lot about a society based on how they treat prisoners, rather in this case it's about how a large portion of society would like to treat prisoners.

Valuing human rights is forward thinking. Forgetting the idiotic notion that severe penalties deter crime is forward thinking. Preaching about bringing back a punishment which hasn't been used in over fifty years is quite the opposite of forward thinking

Posted from TSR Mobile

Forward thinking isn't always right thinking.

I value the human rights of the victims of crime more than the rights of criminals.

While the death penalty may or may not deter crime, it is highly effective at preventing reoffending.

Your compassion does you credit, there will be prisoners on isolation wings in prisons throughout the country happy to know you're looking out for them.

Reply 82

Original post by joe cooley

Forward thinking isn't always right thinking.

I value the human rights of the victims of crime more than the rights of criminals.

By not executing criminals which human right of the victim are you infringing?

Original post by joe cooley

While the death penalty may or may not deter crime, it is highly effective at preventing reoffending.

Well why not use it for all crimes then? Why even stop at crime, let's execute people who illegally park or trespass.

Original post by joe cooley

Your compassion does you credit, there will be prisoners on isolation wings in prisons throughout the country happy to know you're looking out for them.

Always good to know you're appreciated.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 83

TaintedLight

20

I don't care about pedophiles per say. Anyone who is convicted of rape with irrefutable evidence deserves to be punished.

Since this sort of practice (child trafficking) is meticulously concealed, I will happily support the death penalty to get rid of them from society.

I rather rehabilitate people who tends to kill people citing mental illness. Example is that guy who beheaded and cannibalized a fellow passenger in the public bus. Granted I would be uncomfortable to stand anywhere near him but his mental illness was apparently legit. I will go against my gut feelings and respect the verdict.

This is lecherous and deplorable!

Reply 84

Original post by Underscore__

By not executing criminals which human right of the victim are you infringing?

Well why not use it for all crimes then? Why even stop at crime, let's execute people who illegally park or trespass.

Always good to know you're appreciated.

Posted from TSR Mobile

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/paedophile-jailed-for-sexual-assaults-on-nine-year-old-girl/story-30136182-detail/story.html

I have no doubt that the sub-human named in the link above does appreciate your efforts on his behalf.

I doubt the nine year old girl he sexually assaulted appreciates them to the same extent.

Reply 85

Original post by joe cooley

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/paedophile-jailed-for-sexual-assaults-on-nine-year-old-girl/story-30136182-detail/story.html

I have no doubt that the sub-human named in the link above does appreciate your efforts on his behalf.

I doubt the nine year old girl he sexually assaulted appreciates them to the same extent.

So rather than answer my question you choose to try some emotional response which doesn't demonstrate anything, why is that all most people seem to be able to do on sexual offences?

So I'll ask again, what human right of a victim is being infringed by not executing a convicted offender?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 86

Usually? It's very rare that convicted child sex offenders are murdered

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 87

Paedophiles who harm young vulnerable children should absolutely without a shadow of a doubt not be spared. Their actions will lead to lifelong psychological and perhaps physical harm on victims and we as a society have an irrefutable obligation to protect children and deter to the fullest extent this from recurring. The death penalty is the most effective way to do it and by the gravity of the crime that child molestation is, the most moral. I am disheartened and quite frankly sickened to see this poll showing a majority not in favour of the idea and would ask all those who voted against to consider how they would feel if it were their child, sibling, nephew or niece.

Reply 88

Original post by Underscore__

Well as Fyodor Dostoyevsky said you can tell a lot about a society based on how they treat prisoners, rather in this case it's about how a large portion of society would like to treat prisoners.

Valuing human rights is forward thinking. Forgetting the idiotic notion that severe penalties deter crime is forward thinking. Preaching about bringing back a punishment which hasn't been used in over fifty years is quite the opposite of forward thinking

Posted from TSR Mobile

You have an incredibly distorted and to be frank, pernicious, idea of forward thinking if you cannot see why executing somebody who sexually assaults a young vulnerable child isn't the most moral and effective sanction to exercise. You can tell more about a society based on their attitude towards child protection. Paedophiles must be deterred. Only a consistent and credible threat of death can do this.

Reply 89

Original post by Sycatonne23

Paedophiles who harm young vulnerable children should absolutely without a shadow of a doubt not be spared. Their actions will lead to lifelong psychological and perhaps physical harm on victims and we as a society have an irrefutable obligation to protect children and deter to the fullest extent this from recurring. The death penalty is the most effective way to do it and by the gravity of the crime that child molestation is, the most moral. I am disheartened and quite frankly sickened to see this poll showing a majority not in favour of the idea and would ask all those who voted against to consider how they would feel if it were their child, sibling, nephew or niece.

You invalidated everything you said when you described killing a defenceless human being as moral. As I've pointed out to numerous people on stupid debates like these the justice system isn't subjective, a judge doesn't decide a sentence by empathising with the victim

Original post by Sycatonne23

You have an incredibly distorted and to be frank, pernicious, idea of forward thinking if you cannot see why executing somebody who sexually assaults a young vulnerable child isn't the most moral and effective sanction to exercise. You can tell more about a society based on their attitude towards child protection. Paedophiles must be deterred. Only a consistent and credible threat of death can do this.

Please find me one credible study conducted anywhere in the civilised world that concluded the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 90

Original post by Underscore__

You invalidated everything you said when you described killing a defenceless human being as moral. As I've pointed out to numerous people on stupid debates like these the justice system isn't subjective, a judge doesn't decide a sentence by empathising with the victim

Please find me one credible study conducted anywhere in the civilised world that concluded the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That characterisation is completely misleading. Punishment for crimes in society are stratified in accordance to their severity. One factor which determines how severe such a crime is, is the impact upon the victim and indeed the type of victim. This is the sexual molestation of young vulnerable children we are talking about, so yes, sexual molestation of children is a crime which society should regard as especially egregious. It is totally moral to enforce the death of somebody who molests a child. The sanction hasn't appeared out of thin air, it is a response to a disgusting violation of a defenseless person's fundamental rights and hence the aggressor should lose his/her fundamental right to live.

As with the deterrent effect of the death penalty have a look at the work of:

Isaac Ehrlich (1975)
Paul R Zimmerman Federal Trade Commission Economist (2003)
Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd (2003)

All studies found that the death penalty does deter. Potential offenders consider the costs and benefits to a criminal transaction.

Reply 91

Original post by Underscore__

So rather than answer my question you choose to try some emotional response which doesn't demonstrate anything, why is that all most people seem to be able to do on sexual offences?

So I'll ask again, what human right of a victim is being infringed by not executing a convicted offender?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Their right to justice.

Not that i expect you to worry about such things, you get more virtue signalling milage out of exhibiting your deep compassion for a child molester.

Yes?

Reply 92

Original post by Sycatonne23

That characterisation is completely misleading. Punishment for crimes in society are stratified in accordance to their severity. One factor which determines how severe such a crime is, is the impact upon the victim and indeed the type of victim. This is the sexual molestation of young vulnerable children we are talking about, so yes, sexual molestation of children is a crime which society should regard as especially egregious. It is totally moral to enforce the death of somebody who molests a child. The sanction hasn't appeared out of thin air, it is a response to a disgusting violation of a defenseless person's fundamental rights and hence the aggressor should lose his/her fundamental right to live.

So you think it's moral to kill a defenceless human being, that says a lot about a person.

Original post by Sycatonne23

As with the deterrent effect of the death penalty have a look at the work of:

Isaac Ehrlich (1975)
Paul R Zimmerman Federal Trade Commission Economist (2003)
Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd (2003)

All studies found that the death penalty does deter. Potential offenders consider the costs and benefits to a criminal transaction.

So post me a link to one of these, just saying names and a year isn't citing a study, it's not even a full citation.

Original post by joe cooley

Their right to justice.

Not that i expect you to worry about such things, you get more virtue signalling milage out of exhibiting your deep compassion for a child molester.

Yes?

Sorry which article of the ECHR is this? I'm not familiar with it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 93

Original post by Underscore__

So you think it's moral to kill a defenceless human being, that says a lot about a person.

So post me a link to one of these, just saying names and a year isn't citing a study, it's not even a full citation.

Sorry which article of the ECHR is this? I'm not familiar with it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

No, i think it is moral to kill the kind of subhuman who would rape a child.

The ECHR?

Your faith in that institution explains why you're currently on line defending the rights of child rapists.

Reply 94

Original post by Underscore__

So you think it's moral to kill a defenceless human being, that says a lot about a person.

So post me a link to one of these, just saying names and a year isn't citing a study, it's not even a full citation.

Sorry which article of the ECHR is this? I'm not familiar with it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourcefiles/Issac%20Ehrlich%20The%20Deterrent%20Effect%20of%20Capital%20Punishment%20A%20Question%20of%20Life%20and%20Death.pdf

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/43889/2/zimmerman.pdf

https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/POLI195_Sp13/StamSummaryofDeathPenaltyStudies.pdf

Yes, I think it is absolutely moral to kill a human being who sexually assaults a child regardless of them being defenseless or having a pump action shotgun in hand. It says that I have a belief in justice.

Reply 95

Original post by joe cooley

No, i think it is moral to kill the kind of subhuman who would rape a child.

So the answer to my question is yes, you think it's perfectly acceptable to kill a defenceless human being.

Original post by joe cooley

The ECHR?

The European Convention on Human Rights, if you don't know what it is you don't really have any place talking about human rights.

Original post by joe cooley

Your faith in that institution explains why you're currently on line defending the rights of child rapists.

My faith in which institution?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 96

SVanade_

2

convicted? castration/chemical castration

they'll live and their urges will be reduced to almost nothing

nobody deserves to die, however there are punishments worse than death

especially what prisoners do to child molesters.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 97

Original post by Underscore__

So the answer to my question is yes, you think it's perfectly acceptable to kill a defenceless human being.

The European Convention on Human Rights, if you don't know what it is you don't really have any place talking about human rights.

My faith in which institution?

Posted from TSR Mobile

The ECHR?

Your faith in that institution.............

My faith in which institution?

Seriously?

Reply 98

That'sGreat

And then if they are found to be innocent 2 years after? Just stick them in a small cell, big enough for a bed and a hole, and feed them the bare minimum, let them out for half an hour a day and don't give them any entertainment. Cost nothing if we make every cell much smaller and get rid of Xboxes in prison, and make them work for their time in jail. Cut off contact with family and if they are found to be innocent, make the people who falsely claimed they were paedos to pay for the therapy and to pay them for the time they were in jail, then stick them in for life in place of the paedos.

Reply 99