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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesManc)
    Nah that's like saying every gay person should be killed or every bisexual, or dare I say it every heterosexual so you may as well kill everyone. You cannot help or choose your sexuality any more than you can choose the colour of your eyes, I say this as a straight man.
    I think its very dangerous to brand paedophilia as a sexuality. It's a mental illness.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zayn008)
    Trying to rehabilitate them is just like saying lets send a lesbian to gay conversion camp, you've admitted yourself they cant control their attractions. Also no one said anything about just having harmless attractions to underage kids, its about those who are convicted for it. If someone distributes or produces Child pornography they too should be given the death penalty although I guess for possession it should just remain jail time. You realise the cost of long term prison sentences and psychological help is significantly more costly and isn't guaranteed to have any effect. For the sake of argument just assume this person is convicted and 100% proven (also this isn't about the system and flaws of the death penalty, its about using the death penalty against someone who's convicted as a pedophile.)
    The main difference between gay conversion "therapy" and therapy for paedophilia is that gay sex hurts nobody, whereas child molestation hurts someone, to say the least.

    "Controlling their attractions" is an ambiguous phrase. When I said that paedophiles may not be able to control their attractions, I meant that they may not be able to control whether they have the attractions. You seem to have taken my meaning as, they can't control whether they act on those attractions, which is a very different matter. If therapy can prevent paedophiles from acting on their attractions, then that's enough, and I think that's possible in most cases.

    "Nobody said anything about harmless attractions to underage kids" - well, yes they did. Someone with a harmless attraction to an underage kid is a paedophile, and the poll asks whether paedophiles should be killed.

    Finally, strange though it may seem, the death penalty is much more expensive than imprisoning someone for life, if it is to be administered with any semblance of justice and humanity. In the United States, they spend millions if not billions granting convicts numerous appeals to avoid executing innocent people, and appeals cost a lot of money.

    I don't think it's useful to argue on the pretence that a person has been convicted and proven guilty without a doubt. In real life, we can never simply assume as much, and there's no use in passing laws that only apply to those who are 100% proven guilty, because where do you draw the line? Every situation is different, and there will always be disagreement over the certainty of any given person's guilt.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    Should they be shot dead?
    Absolutely not.

    I find the thought disgusting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Paedophilia - that is, being attracted to underage people - is already legal. How could a system of law think to police peoples' minds?
    Ours already does! What is 'hate speech' if not 'thought crime'?

    As to the OP, I answered yes. I think it might be fair to provide psychological 'reconditioning' (once the methods are established, if not already) courses to those who have not offended but wish to be rid of their affliction. At least this provides an incentive to potential offenders to actually get rid of their mental illness, as opposed to the death penalty which only works to deter them from acting on the urges.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    round them all up into concentration camps and use gas chambers. + mass graves
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I don't agree with the death penalty in general, due to 3 main reasons:
    1.) There have been many cases of people wrongfully convicted, and obviously it's an irreversible punishment.
    2.) I believe killing criminals it doest make us any better than them - but yes justice needs to be served and they need to do their time.
    3.) Some crimes, although awful, is a result of issues that the crimes can't really avoid, such as mental illness. So instead of killing them, give them psychiatric help etc.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oragon)
    Personally, I don't agree with the death penalty in general, due to 3 main reasons:
    1.) There have been many cases of people wrongfully convicted, and obviously it's an irreversible punishment.
    2.) I believe killing criminals it doest make us any better than them - but yes justice needs to be served and they need to do their time.
    3.) Some crimes, although awful, is a result of issues that the crimes can't really avoid, such as mental illness. So instead of killing them, give them psychiatric help etc.
    I would prefer prison time as opposed to the death penalty but our prisons are simply and ironically unjust.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherub012)
    I would prefer prison time as opposed to the death penalty but our prisons are simply and ironically unjust.
    Yes, I agree with that. something needs to be done about those prisons.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    If some dirty scum of the Earth piece of **** dares touch my kid I would want them dead.
    Which is precisely why family members are not allowed on juries.

    (Original post by z33)
    So yes, if they are convicted with 100% undeniable proof, they don't deserve to breathe the same air. Why waste resources on them? Give them a nice little room with three meals a day? Although I have heard how child molesters get treated in prison when the fellow inmates find out, so they can spend a night
    What you are talking about here is vengeance, not justice. We send people to prison with both the intent of separating them from society and rehabilitating them. Pedophiles and molesters, as disturbing as they may be, should not to be murdered in retribution and out of spite by people who apparently cannot control their feelings either.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No as a few are as a result of brain tumors or other mental health problems.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    What you are talking about here is vengeance, not justice. We send people to prison with both the intent of separating them from society and rehabilitating them. Pedophiles and molesters, as disturbing as they may be, should not to be murdered in retribution and out of spite by people who apparently cannot control their feelings either.
    We should work towards removing the stigma around pedophilia, not in the sense of making it seem like it's okay to have such thoughts but to encourage people who suffer from the psychiatric disorder to seek help and therapy. If people can remain celibate for life then pedophiles can keep their hands to themselves. If someone violates an innocent young child in such a disturbing way then they do not deserve the privilege of rehabilitation and are not worth the resources spent on them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StormCommando)
    Ours already does! What is 'hate speech' if not 'thought crime'?
    Anyone's free to think violent and hateful thoughts. There's no law against that, because it'd be injust and also unenforceable. That's the difference between hate speech and the frightening spectre of "thought crime".
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Anyone's free to think violent and hateful thoughts. There's no law against that, because it'd be injust and also unenforceable. That's the difference between hate speech and the frightening spectre of "thought crime".
    Hate speech and 'hate thought' are not particularly far apart, however. 'Hate' can also be a somewhat subjective and easily abused category. I've always seen action (which is ultimately what causes the harm) as being the only step really deserving of state intervention.

    Short of things like libel, contempt of court and the like, speech should go unhindered by the law.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Hate speech and 'hate thought' are not particularly far apart, however. 'Hate' can also be a somewhat subjective and easily abused category. I've always seen action (which is ultimately what causes the harm) as being the only step really deserving of state intervention.

    Short of things like libel, contempt of court and the like, speech should go unhindered by the law.
    In the privacy of their own home, or wherever it doesn't affect the world at large, of course people may say anything they like. But if a person gives a speech to a million people, exhorting them to violence, and ten of them leave the room and actually commit crimes, wouldn't it have been better to censor the speech?

    I'd agree that hate speech is very difficult to define in practice. I'm not exactly sure what the current laws are about it or whether I support them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Like the Nazis did to the gays?
    and the jews
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by airportsh8me)
    So...raping/sexually assaulting a child is ok (because that's exactly why convicted paedophiles get...well...convicted) but you draw the line at murder?

    Mkay
    where did i write that's raping is ok?
    it is less bad then murdering- yes. and death penalty should be, in my opinion, reserved only for those who take someone else's life.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dmy15)
    I think its very dangerous to brand paedophilia as a sexuality. It's a mental illness.
    Could it be said to be a mental illness that changes sexuality? In effect that's what it is I guess...?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    Could it be said to be a mental illness that changes sexuality? In effect that's what it is I guess...?
    No, it's a mental illness.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dmy15)
    No, it's a mental illness.
    If a mental illness changes your sexual preferences, you can't say "You don't have those preferences it's an illness."

    Seems kinda like telling an extremely depressed person that they don't actually feel bad, it's an illness, even though the illness blatantly changes their mental state.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    If a mental illness changes your sexual preferences, you can't say "You don't have those preferences it's an illness."

    Seems kinda like telling an extremely depressed person that they don't actually feel bad, it's an illness, even though the illness blatantly changes their mental state.
    I'm baffled. How can you compare depression with paedophilia? With depression, most of the time the only people who directly get hurt from the condition are the individuals themselves. With paedophilia, this often creates child molesters who take out their urges on defenceless children. Yes, it is a sexual preference but it would be a HUGE mistake to call it a 'sexuality'. There are people out there who want to abolish the age of consent and ideas like this do not help. The minute you start to brand it as a sexuality, peadophiles/child molesters will use this as an excuse for their behaviours/offences, and they could even use it to their defence in the legal system which I think is completely wrong. We live in a culture (esp in the UK) where we feel like we have to accept everything that doesn't fit in with society's norms, just so that a minority of people don't feel upset. We can't please everyone, so we can only do whats best/safe for the general population.
 
 
 
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.