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

Should convicted pedophiles receive the death penalty? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should pedophiles be killed?
    Yes
    66
    36.67%
    No
    114
    63.33%

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    So it's not actually about being defenceless in your eyes, it's about whether or not you're guilty of a crime. The problem there is it's pretty hard to draw a line at what crime you can be executed and what you can't.



    What is the purpose of punishing them? What are you hoping to achieve?



    But how does killing someone fit the crime of raping a child? What measurement are you applying?



    I'm not outsourcing blame at all I'm saying that punishment serves no purpose. It's far more beneficial for society that you rehabilitate criminals and get them back into society so they can make a positive contribution.



    But then you can't keep plugging this idea that it's a deterrent if you don't understand the arguments in favour of that.



    That's quite a simplistic take on it really because you're not accounting for the fact that multiple incidents of murder by one perpetrator was recorded as one homicide until 1997 nor are you accounting for changes in society over time.

    I could just as easily use a similar argument; states in the US with the death penalty have a higher collective murder rate than those who don't. But like I said, that's an overly simplistic view

    I suggest you read this which essentially dispels the academic arguments you posted: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/disc...rrence-studies


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The purpose of any punishment is deterrence. Raping a child is especially obscene and heinous because the victim is a minor who is most probably weak and very unable to defend themselves, it is a sickening form of exploitation. This goes for all rape victims in general, but the fact that in this case the victim is a child, makes it especially horrific. Again, I'm not saying rehabilitation doesn't serve a purpose but you seem to assume that rehabilitation and punishment can't co-exist which it absolutely can. It is perfectly possible to put somebody in an austere environment where they lose their right to liberty and luxury whilst educating them and giving them the necessary skills to re-integrate into society. This makes them fear going back to prison (which decreases the likelihood of re-offending) and gives them options once they are back into the open, even further decreasing the likelihood of re-offending. If I'm not accounting for the fact that multiple incidents of murder by one person was recorded as one homicide until 1997 then my argument is strengthened because the homicide rate immediately after the abolition of capital punishment if measured by today's standards would have been even higher and was therefore artificially repressed by statistical methods, meaning we don't know the full extent to which the deterrent effect of capital punishment was watered down after its removal and we only have a very small picture. What "changes to society" are you referring to? Society certainly witnessed a rise in violent crime and homicide rates disproportionate to population growth and the criminal justice system in the 1960s moved away from punishment and introduced elements of restorative justice, so either you're blaming your own philosophy of soft justice for the rise in violent crime and homicide rates, blaming more immigrants settling into the UK (which seems to be the only overt and noticeable "change to society" since capital punishment was gotten rid of, but I find this highly implausible and I doubt you would blame that either), or you're suggesting that Brits just one day woke up decided to become more violent and willing to use lethal force on average. The United States has the death penalty only in name, it is rarely ever applied anymore in sentencing and when it is, convicts wait for decades on death row, meaning the deterrent effect is diluted. Last year the US had nearly 16,000 murders but only 20 executions. In fact the number of executions per year over the last 17 years have fallen. If the US applied the death penalty more consistently and without the delay of death row, then my guess is the deterrent effect would kick in and homicide rates would fall. And okay, the link you've sent me isn't really anymore credible than the previous studies I sent you, the recurring criticism seems to be that studies which support the notion of a deterrence effect use flawed statistical models and methods of analysis without explicitly explaining why. In fact Professor Richard Berk makes a claim which partially supports my hypothesis on the application of capital punishment in the US, which is that it is rarely applied, so yes I guess in that sense it's hard to measure the deterrence effect of a sanction which isn't actually used very often.

    Any society which has rule of law, presumption of innocence before guilt, trial by jury, shouldn't have qualms about executing heinous criminals.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    The purpose of any punishment is deterrence. Raping a child is especially obscene and heinous because the victim is a minor who is most probably weak and very unable to defend themselves, it is a sickening form of exploitation. This goes for all rape victims in general, but the fact that in this case the victim is a child, makes it especially horrific. Again, I'm not saying rehabilitation doesn't serve a purpose but you seem to assume that rehabilitation and punishment can't co-exist which it absolutely can. It is perfectly possible to put somebody in an austere environment where they lose their right to liberty and luxury whilst educating them and giving them the necessary skills to re-integrate into society. This makes them fear going back to prison (which decreases the likelihood of re-offending) and gives them options once they are back into the open, even further decreasing the likelihood of re-offending.
    You mean the system we have in place at the moment? That works well doesn't it. Almost as well as the Norwegian system that allows prisoners to sunbathe, fish and play tennis.

    The funniest part is that people are calling for longer sentences when most academics are still very undecided on whether or not longer sentences even work better as a deterrent.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    If I'm not accounting for the fact that multiple incidents of murder by one person was recorded as one homicide until 1997 then my argument is strengthened because the homicide rate immediately after the abolition of capital punishment if measured by today's standards would have been even higher and was therefore artificially repressed by statistical methods, meaning we don't know the full extent to which the deterrent effect of capital punishment was watered down after its removal and we only have a very small picture.
    The pre 1964 numbers will also be skewed as multiple offences will be recorded once so it doesn't strengthen your argument.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    What "changes to society" are you referring to? Society certainly witnessed a rise in violent crime and homicide rates disproportionate to population growth and the criminal justice system in the 1960s moved away from punishment and introduced elements of restorative justice, so either you're blaming your own philosophy of soft justice for the rise in violent crime and homicide rates, blaming more immigrants settling into the UK (which seems to be the only overt and noticeable "change to society" since capital punishment was gotten rid of, but I find this highly implausible and I doubt you would blame that either), or you're suggesting that Brits just one day woke up decided to become more violent and willing to use lethal force on average.
    One example of a societal change would be the exponential increase in under privileged people (which we know plays a part in crime). Also improvements in forensic methods mean we are now better at deciphering when a suicide is actually a staged murder.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    The United States has the death penalty only in name, it is rarely ever applied anymore in sentencing and when it is, convicts wait for decades on death row, meaning the deterrent effect is diluted. Last year the US had nearly 16,000 murders but only 20 executions. In fact the number of executions per year over the last 17 years have fallen.
    The three states with the most murders are California, Texas and Florida; all states with the death penalty. Louisiana has the highest murder rate also has the death penalty. On average states with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those that don't. Whether or not it's underused there is still nothing to suggest that executing people does anything to deter crime.

    I really don't understate why people seem to think the process is so long in the USA because they like to make things complicated and cost themselves billions of extra dollars a year. We have a superior human rights record to the USA and would likely have an even more lengthy process.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    If the US applied the death penalty more consistently and without the delay of death row, then my guess is the deterrent effect would kick in and homicide rates would fall. And okay, the link you've sent me isn't really anymore credible than the previous studies I sent you, the recurring criticism seems to be that studies which support the notion of a deterrence effect use flawed statistical models and methods of analysis without explicitly explaining why. In fact Professor Richard Berk makes a claim which partially supports my hypothesis on the application of capital punishment in the US, which is that it is rarely applied, so yes I guess in that sense it's hard to measure the deterrence effect of a sanction which isn't actually used very often.
    There's credibility in the sense that NRC, who's are very highly respected, have rejected these studies and said that these reports should have no place in political debate on the death penalty; when a respected NGO which informs policy makers says that there is credibility.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Any society which has rule of law, presumption of innocence before guilt, trial by jury, shouldn't have qualms about executing heinous criminals.
    But what purpose does it serve? Deterrence is debatable at best, what other reason is justifiable?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Total nonsense.

    Unless of course you can explain why condemned criminals in the US spend years fighting against their execution?

    Can you?

    Besides the point, thanks to liberals the human garbage featured in the link i provided was sentenced to 17 years so with good behaviour will be out in 8 years.

    So, thanks to liberals like you championing the cause of such human vermin, 8 years is now viewed as suitable punishment for repeatedly raping a 7 year old girl in the UK.

    Well done.
    Just because a person disagrees with you that doesn't make them a left wing liberal. Your view of the world is laughably black and white. I disagree with the death penalty but I don't agree with a convicted child rapist being let out of prison after 8 years. They should be in prison for life. I don't know why you're saying 'well done' - the passing of prison sentence laws has **** all to do with me or left wing liberals!! Now calm your melodramatic ass down!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    1) nope. either you believe in abolishing the death penalty, or you don't. making these arbitrary exceptions is just emotivism. also I see this thread as just a big virtue signal. these same people who'd say we should have the death penalty on here will also turn around and tell you, in response to a GENERAL death penalty policy, that "oh you'll always end up killing innocent people". so why the exception? again: emotions and virtue signals. I can see through this **** from a mile away.
    2) why paedophiles and not, say, serial killers, bank robbers, torturers or war criminals?! why this idea that paedophiles are worse than those things?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    The purpose of any punishment is deterrence.
    ...so you're telling me that retribution is nothing to do with criminal justice? as if righting a wrong is a fantasy? I think a lot of juriprudents will disagree with your view here. if we only punished people as a means of deterrence, that would literally mean that "punishment" is the totally wrong word for what we do to criminals...but we do "punsish" them. and in the retributive sense. because ther eis a concept of what is deserved or earned in justice. if you DESERVE to be wronged for the wrong you've committed, then that's justice. the balancing of the scales.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates2017)
    ...so you're telling me that retribution is nothing to do with criminal justice? as if righting a wrong is a fantasy? I think a lot of juriprudents will disagree with your view here. if we only punished people as a means of deterrence, that would literally mean that "punishment" is the totally wrong word for what we do to criminals...but we do "punsish" them. and in the retributive sense. because ther eis a concept of what is deserved or earned in justice. if you DESERVE to be wronged for the wrong you've committed, then that's justice. the balancing of the scales.
    What is 'juriprudents' supposed to mean?

    How does punishing someone balance this fictional scale? Punishing someone doesn't undo the harm


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    What is 'juriprudents' supposed to mean?
    jurisprudents* (sorry typo) - i.e. people who deal in jurisprudence.

    How does punishing someone balance this fictional scale? Punishing someone doesn't undo the harm
    it's not about undoing the harm. it's about giving them what they morally deserve.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on one factor: whether they've acted on their urges or not.

    Contrary to everyone's beliefs, just because they're attracted to children doesn't make them any more unsafe than a heterosexual person. Their urges - if acted upon - are of course dangerous. But, if they can control them like any other human being, then it's not worth killing them over. They should receive psychiatric treatment instead.

    If, however, a pedophile acted on their thoughts, which is basically like a rapist too (except the victim is a child which makes it worse), then execute them.

    We all have urges, thoughts, and attractions. Some people fantasize over animals. But, they require treatment. We shouldn't go around killing everyone for what they're attracted to, irrespective of how vile it is. Otherwise, we may as well kill each other. We're all attracted to something i.e. homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals etc. We all have the ability to act out on these too, forcefully, like a rapist. But we chose not to, like some pedophiles too.

    Overall, they should be treated. But if they've carried anything out, then kill them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    Just because a person disagrees with you that doesn't make them a left wing liberal. Your view of the world is laughably black and white. I disagree with the death penalty but I don't agree with a convicted child rapist being let out of prison after 8 years. They should be in prison for life. I don't know why you're saying 'well done' - the passing of prison sentence laws has **** all to do with me or left wing liberals!! Now calm your melodramatic ass down!!
    You're distraught at the thought of a child rapist being put to death.

    Yet you claim not to be a left wing liberal.........lol, right.

    The pathetically soft sentences enjoyed by criminals in the UK are not down to left wing liberals.

    You've lost the plot, who else are they down to?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates2017)
    jurisprudents* (sorry typo) - i.e. people who deal in jurisprudence.



    it's not about undoing the harm. it's about giving them what they morally deserve.
    Jurisprudents isn't a word. People who 'work with jurisprudence' is anyone who works in law or politics.

    1. Morals are very subjective.
    2. As I've asked dozens of times in the thread and still not had an answer: how is society better off because a pedophile has been executed or sentenced to a crazily long prison term?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    You're distraught at the thought of a child rapist being put to death.

    Yet you claim not to be a left wing liberal.........lol, right.

    The pathetically soft sentences enjoyed by criminals in the UK are not down to left wing liberals.

    You've lost the plot, who else are they down to?
    1. I'm not distraught in the slightest, I just disagree with the death penalty. You're the one who is flying off the handle, not me.

    2. No, I'm not a left wing liberal at all. I'm not politically minded whatsoever. I'm entitled to have opinions without bringing politics into everything. Perhaps you could learn from this.

    3. Yes, the short sentences in the UK are nothing to do with the left wing. The UK has a right wing government at the moment. Get your facts straight!

    4. I've lost the plot, have I? Well, it takes one to know one. 😉
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Jurisprudents isn't a word. People who 'work with jurisprudence' is anyone who works in law or politics.

    1. Morals are very subjective.
    2. As I've asked dozens of times in the thread and still not had an answer: how is society better off because a pedophile has been executed or sentenced to a crazily long prison term?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    weirdly the word has appeared in some books I've been readings but it's strange that I can't find the word online or google etc. okay then...

    1- so what? politics is based on subjectivity, does that mean we can't have politics too?
    2- I never said executed. I don't even think paedophiles should be executed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes - the money saved could do wonders

    Plus if you fiddle with kids or even look at them sexually, you deserve to die. Im sorry, but anyone who defends them is an enabler and just as bad.

    of course there will be the SJW types who will put the interests and needs of the paedo scum above the needs and interests of innocent children whos lives have potentially been ruined. Yet in their view, Im the bad guy - you couldnt make it up!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates2017)
    weirdly the word has appeared in some books I've been readings but it's strange that I can't find the word online or google etc. okay then...
    Not sure who you've been reading...

    (Original post by Socrates2017)
    1- so what? politics is based on subjectivity, does that mean we can't have politics too?
    Politics is based on reasoned argument, morals usually aren't. Politics is essential, morality within politics isn't.

    (Original post by Socrates2017)
    2- I never said executed. I don't even think paedophiles should be executed.
    Well I did say executed or crazily long prison sentences. What do you achieve by giving a pedophile a fifty year prison sentence?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    Yes - the money saved could do wonders

    Plus if you fiddle with kids or even look at them sexually, you deserve to die. Im sorry, but anyone who defends them is an enabler and just as bad.
    You're hilarious, you want to kill people because of their thoughts haha

    What makes you think executing pedophiles would save money? It costs even more in virtually every 'civilised' country that executes. I used the term civilised very loosely, you're not particularly civilised if you kill your own citizens for no actual purpose.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You're hilarious, you want to kill people because of their thoughts haha

    What makes you think executing pedophiles would save money? It costs even more in virtually every 'civilised' country that executes. I used the term civilised very loosely, you're not particularly civilised if you kill your own citizens for no actual purpose.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If their thoughts involve raping children then yes - cant believe you actually defend them you sicko

    save £50k + per head per year. No cushy lfe in prison for them.

    The way to save money on this, would be to let the army use them as target practice. That money would already be spent so Ive made a 100% saving on executions. Just tell the squadies, to imagine it was their daughter or son this sicko has groomed and raped.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    If their thoughts involve raping children then yes - cant believe you actually defend them you sicko
    How disgusting of me, I'm defending someone's right to live when people want to kill them for thoughts in their head that, whilst they remain thoughts, will never harm another person. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that it's remarkably difficult to know what someone's thinking if they don't tell you; logistically I can see this being difficult to enforce to say the least.

    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    save £50k + per head per year. No cushy lfe in prison for them.
    It's actually closer to £40k but hey, same difference.

    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    The way to save money on this, would be to let the army use them as target practice. That money would already be spent so Ive made a 100% saving on executions. Just tell the squadies, to imagine it was their daughter or son this sicko has groomed and raped.
    Firstly take a look at s.1 from this document: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
    Secondly take a look at articles two and three of this document: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Not sure who you've been reading...

    Politics is based on reasoned argument, morals usually aren't. Politics is essential, morality within politics isn't.
    all politics can be reduced to normative arguments, or moral positions.

    Well I did say executed or crazily long prison sentences. What do you achieve by giving a pedophile a fifty year prison sentence?
    I never said 50 years either then, did I.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates2017)
    all politics can be reduced to normative arguments, or moral positions.
    Give me an example of a political debate/position that is based solely on morality.

    (Original post by Socrates2017)
    I never said 50 years either then, did I.
    Rather than being pedantic and dodging the point why don't you just answer my question? How is society better off by giving long prison sentences out?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    How of me, I'm defending someone's right to live when people want to kill them for thoughts in their head that, whilst they remain thoughts, will never harm another person. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that it's remarkably difficult to know what someone's thinking if they don't tell you; logistically I can see this being difficult to enforce to say the least.
    Yes in this situation you are.

    Anyway the thread is about convicted paedophilic scum. Are going to defend someone who's actually raped a kid? Or enables it by looking at child porn? - it's a simple yes or no answer.

    (Original post by Underscore__)

    take a look at s.1 from this document: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
    Secondly take a look at articles two and three of this document: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

    I don't believe they have the right to life so Article 2 is wrong on my opinion.

    Article 3 is redeudant as putting a bullet on the back of their head isn't torture.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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