Should convicted pedophiles receive the death penalty?

Original post by joe cooley

Death is 100% guaranteed to prevent paedophiles from reoffending.

I would promote the death penalty for murderers,rapists and paedophiles as a punishment, not as a deterrent.

The subhumans willing to rape a child are beyond deterrent.

Would a full life tariff not also prevent the same thing?

People only shout about reinstating the death penalty because we've gone soft on crime and prison sentences are far too short for most offences, life should mean life, but the state shouldn't have the power to kill anyone, that's a slippery slope.

Reply 122

Original post by joe cooley

So, in states where the death penalty is lawful, it is not an infringement of human rights, because its lawful.

Yes?

You are confused. We arent in the US and they arent signed up to the ECHR.

Reply 123

Original post by joe cooley

Death is 100% guaranteed to prevent paedophiles from reoffending.

I would promote the death penalty for murderers,rapists and paedophiles as a punishment, not as a deterrent.

The subhumans willing to rape a child are beyond deterrent.

Except the criminal justice system isnt fullproof and innocent people will die.

Reply 124

username1177050

20

Kill them all screw their human rights. Dirty wronguns

Reply 125

Original post by joe cooley

Death is 100% guaranteed to prevent paedophiles from reoffending.

I would promote the death penalty for murderers,rapists and paedophiles as a punishment, not as a deterrent.

The subhumans willing to rape a child are beyond deterrent.

Because penal justice has served us brilliantly to this point.

Original post by joe cooley

Well, that you believe it acceptable to imprison paedophiles is a least a start.

Well it's a start and an end.

[QUOTE="Sycatonne23;70117540"]Either way, studies have proven that the death penalty has a deterrent effect.

No, studies have suggested that. There's a difference between suggestion and proof. I can't refute those studies are because 1. I can't be bothered to read 50 pages right now and 2. I don't understand the equations they're using.

Original post by Sycatonne23

Sure, you can phrase it like that if you want to. I support the government killing atrocious despicable child molesting scum. If you want to keep them alive despite knowing the damage they've inflicted on another human being then you're the one who needs to question his moral conscience, not me.

What benefit is served by killing people? How has society benefitted? That is after all what criminal justice about, making society better rather than making the victim feel better.

Original post by That'sGreat

Would you rather they drunk out of a golden chalice and cost the government and hence, the taxpayer, 40k a year per prisoner? I'm sure you'd hope we give them the latest game son the latest consoles, maybe put a McDonald's in the canteen and have Krispy Kreme Friday? Heck, why not let them go home on Saturdays and Sunday's? Or what if we only made them stay from 9 till 5, and let them go home to their families after it? And as for people who make false claims about paedophiles, why not give them a few hundred quid every claim? Keep the justice system on their toes!

Well some of those ideas aren't too bad actually, not such a fan of the going home part or the paying false accusers. Other than that I see no real issue. There are some more changes that need to be made but I think you're heading in the right direction.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 126

joe cooley

1

Original post by 999tigger

You are confused. We arent in the US and they arent signed up to the ECHR.

No, you're confused.

So, in states where the death penalty is lawful, it is not an infringement of human rights, because its lawful.

I was not referring to the US, that's why i said states, plural.

Meaning other countries.

State can be used instead of country,yes?

Reply 127

[QUOTE="Underscore__;70118026"]Because penal justice has served us brilliantly to this point.

Well it's a start and an end.

Original post by Sycatonne23

Either way, studies have proven that the death penalty has a deterrent effect.

No, studies have suggested that. There's a difference between suggestion and proof. I can't refute those studies are because 1. I can't be bothered to read 50 pages right now and 2. I don't understand the equations they're using.

What benefit is served by killing people? How has society benefitted? That is after all what criminal justice about, making society better rather than making the victim feel better.

Well some of those ideas aren't too bad actually, not such a fan of the going home part or the paying false accusers. Other than that I see no real issue. There are some more changes that need to be made but I think you're heading in the right direction.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh, you're a troll, OK.

Reply 128

[QUOTE="That'sGreat;70118090"]

Original post by Underscore__

Because penal justice has served us brilliantly to this point.

Well it's a start and an end.

Oh, you're a troll, OK.

Troll because I've rebutted every point that I've quoted? Clearly we have different understandings of that word

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 129

joe cooley

1

Original post by 999tigger

Except the criminal justice system isnt fullproof and innocent people will die.

If that's why you oppose the death penalty logically you would oppose the state imprisoning criminals as.....

the criminal justice system isnt fullproof and innocent people will be imprisoned

Yes?

Reply 130

[QUOTE="Underscore__;70118110"]

Original post by That'sGreat

Troll because I've rebutted every point that I've quoted? Clearly we have different understandings of that word

Posted from TSR Mobile

I was referring more to you thinking the idea of giving them a pampered time in a cushy cell as a great idea.

Reply 131

Original post by joe cooley

If that's why you oppose the death penalty logically you would oppose the state imprisoning criminals as.....

the criminal justice system isnt fullproof and innocent people will be imprisoned

Yes?

You can release people who subsequently found not guilty. At present we don't have the technology to bring dead people back to life

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 132

[QUOTE="That'sGreat;70118196"]

Original post by Underscore__

I was referring more to you thinking the idea of giving them a pampered time in a cushy cell as a great idea.

Well I suggest you take a look at the Norwegian justice system and then take a look at their recidivism (reoffending) rate. Of course, you haven't already done that because you don't know the first thing about criminal justice

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 133

[QUOTE="Underscore__;70118218"]

Original post by That'sGreat

Well I suggest you take a look at the Norwegian justice system and then take a look at their recidivism (reoffending) rate. Of course, you haven't already done that because you don't know the first thing about criminal justice

Posted from TSR Mobile

Like every Scandinavian country, you'll see there's a big difference between them and Britain. That's something called multiculturalism, Scandinavian countries are famous for having a large population of white and ethnics, which is a lot different to Britian. Britian is full of different people from different countries and hence, different cultures. Its pretty common knowledge. Also, i didn't realise we were going to resort to outlandish claims which a rent even relevant to your point. Understanding the criminal justice system of Britian, the country we are in, is completely different to understanding the ins and outs justice system in Norway, or Nigeria or Saudi Arabia.

Reply 134

[QUOTE="Underscore__;70118218"]

Original post by That'sGreat

Well I suggest you take a look at the Norwegian justice system and then take a look at their recidivism (reoffending) rate. Of course, you haven't already done that because you don't know the first thing about criminal justice

Posted from TSR Mobile

And another point. Would you not say Saudi Arabias justice system is strict? I use strict loosely, it's vile and disgustingly brutal. But, hmm, how come its crime rate is much lower, almost half, that of the US? Or Ireland?

Reply 135

Original post by joe cooley

No, you're confused.

So, in states where the death penalty is lawful, it is not an infringement of human rights, because its lawful.

I was not referring to the US, that's why i said states, plural.

Meaning other countries.

State can be used instead of country,yes?

The principal document on HR is the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It proclaims the right of every individual to protection from deprivation of life. It states that no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. The death penalty violates both of these fundamental rights.

The UN cant force people to comply, but most nations have abolished the use of capital punishment. the way treaties work is they are aspirational until people sign up. If you apply the standards of the treaty then yes they are in breach,

Similarly with the ECHR it has been achieved in stages with all states recognising the right to life Protocol 6 restricts use of capital punishment to which every one how has signed the main convention has agreed to except Russia and protocol 13, which provides an absolute ban. this has been signed and ratified by all except 3, Russia being one of those.

So it is possible to claim protection against extradition because the death penalty would be in breach of human rights.

Reply 136