Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should the Death Penalty be reintroduced for convicted paedophiles? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deyesy)
    What I was trying to suggest was that yes, my pills have absolutely nothing to do with my sexuality but something in the make up of them dramatically lowered my sex drive whereas the one I'm on now; I have a perfectly normal sex drive. It is possible for someone's sex drive to be reduced.
    During WW2, soldiers were given Bromide in their tea to drink. It took most if not all their sexual desires away. I think the idea behind it was they couldn't have tens of thousands of men ,who needed to focus on fighting the enemy, if they kept getting sexual urges all day long.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrs.Grey)
    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.
    He needs help? Oh the poor,poor man, let's help him. What about his VICTIMS? I think they are the ones who need help, and may do for the rest of their lives,not the vermin who inflicted such cruelty on children.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I have read about half the posts on here but TSR is causing my mozzilla a slow-down again so i've had to skip ahead. So apologies if any of this has been discussed already.

    This case very much reminds me of Anders Behring Brevik, someone i'm sure you're all aware of. It reminds me of that case because both of these people have destroyed a lot of young peoples futures, and although i can't speak from experience as a victim of child abuse as thank God i've never been one. I have heard people say that living with the memories of the past can be a fate worse than death.

    It also reminds me of that case because both times the offender's sanity has been bought into question. To be fairly honest i feel that Brevik was probably more unhinged than this guy; who was specifically travelling to third-world countries, using his wealth and influence to coerce young people and then uploading it to the dark web.

    i bring up sanity because it's very important to distinguish between the two, as people have said, pedophillia is a mental disorder, which probably has THE MOST stigma of any mental disorders (some would say deservedly so). However in a similar way to psycopaths, you can get 'successful psycopaths' the same way you can get 'successful paedophiles'; In other words people with the condition but they do not act on it, and have instead built up a good life for themselves. In fact in Germany i believe there is an open-ended system in-which those experiencing padeohpillic thoughts can go to a doctor free of any stigma or fear of legal reprisal as long as they do not/have not acted on their actions. A system like this should be in place in the UK, as although i don't like speculation, but possibly something like this may have been prevented, not for this man clearly who is a hardened criminal, but maybe for others who are experiencing paedophilla but have not yet acted on it.

    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.

    I hope you folks enjoyed reading this, sorry if it's a little bit long. Best regards to all of you!
    Francis
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    In response to you kicking off at me.
    Lol you're a cute one aren't you, I was on about my morals and you criticised them so shhhh child

    You know what I cannot be bothered to comment on this thread anymore.It's just full of ****
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    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...
    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.

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    We are not discussing what is the current law in your country. Its as relevant to our discussion as the composition of Mars surface.
    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.

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UnoriginalBen)
    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.
    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.



    (Original post by UnoriginalBen)
    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.
    Hey people.. stop campaigning for gay marriage and equal rights... the law is the law!


    (Original post by UnoriginalBen)
    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.
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    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.
    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.


    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Hey people.. stop campaigning for gay marriage and equal rights... the law is the law!
    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.


    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    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.
    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".

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UnoriginalBen)
    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.
    But locking people away for life is not?




    (Original post by UnoriginalBen)
    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.
    Jeeezzus


    (Original post by UnoriginalBen)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by UnoriginalBen)
    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.
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    But locking people away for life is not?
    I believe it is a lot more moral to keep someone locked away for their crimes until they have done their sentence and have been treated. I think it is more moral to keep someone alive than to kill them just for closure.

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    Jeeezzus
    What? Is it not barbaric?

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    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.
    My bad, I was not talking about OCD but instead serious mental illnesses such as pedophilia which can lead to harm of others. Like people have said before, some have been able to cope however not everyone is able to do that. The people who are suffering and are not getting the help they need are likely to commit crimes than the opposite.

    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    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
    No one has said that it is a "great moral thing" but, when given the options, the best choice and most moral choice (in my opinion) is to send them to jail. The pros of sending them to jail is far greater than the cons of it. Too many innocent people have died because of the death penalty, it doesn't deter violence effectively and what kind of message is killing people who have (or in this case, haven't) killed people to show that killing is wrong? But like you've said, everyone has heard these a million time before.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markova21)
    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?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that rehabilitation doesn't work all the time. If you already know he's a sexual predator and obviously has no intention of changing his ways and believes if his thinking pattern is okay then I don't see the problem of the death penalty. I don't bring up the death penalty for crimes but if your government or state depending on you locations allows it, I wouldn't think it would be wrong. Some criminals spend the rest of the lives in prison and die in prison. If a criminals was going to die in the prison would it that bad to speed up the process with the death penalty?

    I don't think some child molesters should ever be released. Its the like the serial killer who knows he or she is going to murder as the first thing they'll do when they get out. And he's the child molester who knows as a fact the first thing he'll do is molest children once he's out. Pedophiles are capable of not molesting children. This one will create victims if he's released on the streets for "good behavior".
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    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?
    First of all, that is not a pedophile. A pedophile is sexually attracted to prepubescent children which is ages 11 or young.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No I'm personally very against the death penalty. Can you imagine how the family would feel, if you got the wrong person and surly it would be better to try and reform a person than simply kill them.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    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.
    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.

    Also there is absolutely no reason to suggest that it would be cheaper to execute people, if anything it would be capital punishment that would be 'wasting resources'

    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    No because under the EU court of human rights the death penalty is banned.
    It's actually banned under the charter of fundamental rights (art. 2 I believe) not the CJEU

    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    First of all, that is not a pedophile. A pedophile is sexually attracted to prepubescent children which is ages 11 or young.
    There's no such crime as 'being pedophile'. The media labels most people involved underage sex offences as pedophiles.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Francis Urquhart)
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Francis Urquhart)
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Francis Urquhart)
    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
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.