Should convicted pedophiles receive the death penalty?

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

I assume you mean to ask whether convicted child molesters should be executed - merely having an attraction to the underage shouldn't be illegal, since they probably don't have much control over that. Otherwise you'd presumably be executing people for watching child pornography. Making the distinction between paedophile and molester is important for preventing molestation - a paedophile is surely more likely to abuse a child if he or she knows that society will loathe them whether or not they do.

I should say that I am by no means making apologies for child molesters - the only person that can be blamed and the only person who is guilty of child molestation, is the molester. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to safeguard children and create a society in which paedophiles are less likely to commit crimes.

As for whether child molesters should be executed, I don't think so. I think long prison terms and intensive psychological help and counselling are a better option - the justice system's role should be to rehabilitate convicts, not take revenge on them. In any case, using the death penalty for any crime is incredibly expensive and results in the execution of innocent people.

Looking at the rest of the thread so far, I bet this comment's going to be popular.

The studies made those suggestions after statistical analysis which I would assume should act as proof/evidence, even if you disagree with the final suggestions made by the studies.

My point is that this notion that death penalty having a deterrent effect is fiction unsupported academically is false. The benefit to society of the state being able to kill certain offenders who have committed an exceptionally serious offense is deterrence.

Criminal justice isn't solely about rehabilitating, it is also about setting a strong enough of an example to prevent other potential offenders from engaging in a criminal transaction. Rehabilitation means equipping prisoners with the necessary employment and social skills to re-integrate into society and I find it worrying that you find ideas such as allowing prisoners to have the latest games consoles appealing. Rehabilitation isn't an excuse to dish out taxpayer funded luxuries.

Anyway I re-iterate, some individuals are logically beyond empathy. Take for instance Mark Bridger who sexually assaulted and murdered five year old April Jones. I think most rational people would find capital punishment being applied on him quite plausible.

forget death sentences because that brings the issue of wrongful conviction. there needs to be fairer sentences, how can a molester (basically child rapist) get sentences less than 10 years when man are catching longer sentences with possesion of drugs

No it doesn't act as proof to me because I can't understand it. I'm not saying it's wrong but I can't accept it is correct because I don't understand.



Well why don't you try taking some of the equations used in those articles and breaking it down into a real layman's terms for me? Or, as I suspect, do you not understand it either?



Well criminal justice is about preventing crime, that can be done with rehabilitation or it can, in theory, be done with deterrence. The problem with not using rehabilitation is that you're essentially wasting a person. Not only are they wasting their life but once you sentence someone to a long prison sentence they can no longer cause any benefit in society.

Rehabilitation is about far more than social and employment skills. A big factor in crime is the alienation felt by the offender. Allowing to live almost normal lives but confined to one building ensures they don't feel more alienated, add in a job in prison and people start to feel a sense of social responsibility. Part of rehabilitating people is to make them feel like they can be part of a community.



I didn't say I empathise with any criminal. What you're saying is a contradiction; if you support executing someone you're not making a rational judgement because people only support capital punishment from an emotional place. There is no actual logical or rational reason to execute someone.

Thankfully what most people want is irrelevant. The ordinary person has no place trying to influence the justice system because they have no expertise at all in what the system is trying to achieve.


Posted from TSR Mobile

54 out of 128 people actively want another human being to be slaughtered. That is truly appalling.

No.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/sickening-south-yorkshire-child-rapist-jailed-for-17-years-1-8358383

Paul Cartwright, of Rawmarsh, Rotherham, was sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court today after earlier being found guilty of five counts of raping a seven-year-old girl.

You showing such deep compassion for animals like Cartwright, thats truly appalling.

If believing that the state should not have the right to kill anyone is compassion then guilty as charged.

If believing that the state should not have the right to kill anyone is compassion then guilty as charged.

Rehabilitation has its place, no doubt. I'm not suggesting for a second that we shouldn't attempt to reform low and mid-level convicts. To simply lock them away for extended periods of time in a hardened American style environment would be a waste of money and bear little fruit. But, sanctions against crime are stratified depending on how serious they are. Nobody would consider sexually predatory behaviour towards young children to be lacking seriousness, behind murder it is one the most repulsive crimes that can be committed. It is a serious violation of another person's fundamental right to dignity made worse by the fact that victims are defenseless children.

Of this particular crime, the death penalty is both moral and effective.

Not everybody can be reformed and rehabilitated. Some offenders are beyond that and a modern justice system should recognise that.

Crime and justice isn't one size fits all, i.e. either it has to be totally punitive on all levels or it has to be totally soft and cushy on all levels. I refer back to the old saying, the punishment has to fit the crime.

As with your view on criminals feeling "alienated" and being allowed to live as normal as a life as possible, I have to respectfully disagree. Prison should educate and allow a convict to make as productive use as possible of his/her time, but it should by no means be "normal". Breaking the law isn't normal and neither should the consequence be normal. I don't know how you define or measure "alienation", but we have to re-emphasise individual responsibility in crime and punishment and stop trying to blame everything on society. Feeling a particular way is no excuse to commit a crime.

Finally, an emotional desire to see an especially evil person be executed can entirely co-exist with a rational desire to warn off other offenders from following a similar path.

What is on display here is faux compassion.

Progressives champion the rights of the very worst in society simply to boost their virtue signalling.

I mean, how uber compassionate would an individual have to be to show compassion for the sub-human that raped a seven year old girl?

I've seen far more extreme right morons who are debating criminal justice from a simply emotional point of view without realising how nonsensical that is. People who want to bring back a barbaric punishment with no conclusive evidence of efficacy and something the civilised world is gradually moving away from.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I see people reduced to personal insult because they can't cope with the truth.

This defenceless position doesn't make any sense; you're against 'defenceless' children being sexually abused but you support 'defenceless' prisoners being killed.



Under no circumstance is it moral to intentionally kill a defenceless person.

Can you not explain some of the equations used in the articles you linked? Maybe if you could I'd be more willing to consider your deterrent idea.



Work done in prisons with sexual offenders has shown they can be reformed.



By what measure does killing someone fit the crime of rape?



There's the difference between us. I don't agree with 'punishment' - it serves no purpose. The idea of prison should be to protect the public and rehabilitate. If depriving people of luxuries would be conducive to this then I'd agree with it but I don't think it would help.



Again, until you explain the equations I can't accept the deterrent argument. At the moment it comes across as though you're essentially saying neither of us understand the mathematical argument but it must be right.


Posted from TSR Mobile