Turn on thread page Beta

Should convicted pedophiles receive the death penalty? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should pedophiles be killed?
    Yes
    68
    37.16%
    No
    115
    62.84%

    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

    8
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Give me an example of a political debate/position that is based solely on morality.
    whether or not we remain in the EU.

    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?
    because some people deserve it? you're so fixed on the view that justice is merely deterrence-based. I really can't see how it is.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    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.
    If you look back at the second link in my last post (the ECHR) you'll find, under article 6, that everybody is due a fair trial. Part of having a fair trial is having competent legal representation. I don't practice criminal law but if I did then yes, I'd represent someone who has raped a child. If capital punishment was brought back then I think I'd have to retrain and start practicing criminal law, there's no way I could rest easily knowing people are being killed and it's within my power to stop it.

    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    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.
    Regardless of what you think human rights are in everyone's best interest and, at least for now, they're here to stay. So long as the HRA 1998 remains enforced the death penalty isn't a possibility. However if you'd like to live in a country with a more flexible approach to human rights there are several that you could move to; I'd recommend starting in the Middle East, particularly Iran and Saudi Arabia. There are also a host of countries in Africa that view human rights as suggestions rather rules so that might be worth consideration (although perhaps not if you're white). It amazes me how people are so keen for the government to start tearing down human rights, has history taught people nothing?

    By any objective measure using humans as 'target practice' and essentially encouraging soldiers to prolong their death by telling them to imagine it was their child who was abused is torture. You're also not seeing the paradox; the army, the very people who are supposed to protect the people of this country, would be killing the people of this country. It's about as ridiculous as someone training as a doctor and then killing people...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates2017)
    whether or not we remain in the EU.
    1. That's not a debate, we're leaving the EU
    2. You think that was entirely about morality? It had nothing to do with economic factors?

    (Original post by Socrates2017)
    because some people deserve it? you're so fixed on the view that justice is merely deterrence-based. I really can't see how it is.
    You still haven't explained about society is better off. Of course dangerous people should be held in seclusion until we can be sure they pose no further threat to society but there's not benefit to incarcerating a person even a single day beyond that. What makes a lot more sense is to rehabilitate people and release them back into society so that they can make a positive contribution. To go back to your earlier point where you were talking about balancing a scale, that is the very definition of it. Someone damages society by committing a wrong and then balances that out by doing something positive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Out of curiosity, how many of those opposed to the execution of child rapists support abortion?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.