Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Should convicted pedophiles receive the death penalty? watch

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

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    And then if they are found to be innocent 2 years after? Just stick them in a small cell, big enough for a bed and a hole, and feed them the bare minimum, let them out for half an hour a day and don't give them any entertainment. Cost nothing if we make every cell much smaller and get rid of Xboxes in prison, and make them work for their time in jail. Cut off contact with family and if they are found to be innocent, make the people who falsely claimed they were paedos to pay for the therapy and to pay them for the time they were in jail, then stick them in for life in place of the paedos.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourc...nd%20Death.pdf

    http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstrea.../zimmerman.pdf

    https://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/...ltyStudies.pdf

    Yes, I think it is absolutely moral to kill a human being who sexually assaults a child regardless of them being defenseless or having a pump action shotgun in hand. It says that I have a belief in justice.
    These studies use data sets that are twenty years out of date, the ones which don't reference the other articles that do. What's also funny in the two full articles you posted links to both authors state that even if you support their findings it doesn't mean capital punishment is a reasonable part of the American criminal justice system.

    So in a simple sentence; you support the government killing defenceless people.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    The ECHR?

    Your faith in that institution.............


    My faith in which institution?


    Seriously?
    Yes my faith in human rights is why I'll defend anyone against being executed regardless of what they've done. Executing someone infringes their human rights, not executing someone doesn't infringe anyone's human rights


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That'sGreat)
    And then if they are found to be innocent 2 years after? Just stick them in a small cell, big enough for a bed and a hole, and feed them the bare minimum, let them out for half an hour a day and don't give them any entertainment. Cost nothing if we make every cell much smaller and get rid of Xboxes in prison, and make them work for their time in jail. Cut off contact with family and if they are found to be innocent, make the people who falsely claimed they were paedos to pay for the therapy and to pay them for the time they were in jail, then stick them in for life in place of the paedos.
    What a beautiful view for the future of British justice. I'm so glad that the Daily Mail's readership doesn't decide our law


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Yes my faith in human rights is why I'll defend anyone against being executed regardless of what they've done. Executing someone infringes their human rights, not executing someone doesn't infringe anyone's human rights


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Does imprisoning someone infringe their human rights?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Does imprisoning someone infringe their human rights?
    To some extent. It's obviously a reasonable infringement to protect a larger number of people's human rights. To protect the public from criminals some rights need to be infringed so we make the most minor infringement to achieve that goal


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Does imprisoning someone infringe their human rights?
    Not if its lawful
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    What a beautiful view for the future of British justice. I'm so glad that the Daily Mail's readership doesn't decide our law


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Would you rather they drunk out of a golden chalice and cost the government and hence, the taxpayer, 40k a year per prisoner? I'm sure you'd hope we give them the latest game son the latest consoles, maybe put a McDonald's in the canteen and have Krispy Kreme Friday? Heck, why not let them go home on Saturdays and Sunday's? Or what if we only made them stay from 9 till 5, and let them go home to their families after it? And as for people who make false claims about paedophiles, why not give them a few hundred quid every claim? Keep the justice system on their toes!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    To some extent. It's obviously a reasonable infringement to protect a larger number of people's human rights. To protect the public from criminals some rights need to be infringed so we make the most minor infringement to achieve that goal


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, that you believe it acceptable to imprison paedophiles is a least a start.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    These studies use data sets that are twenty years out of date, the ones which don't reference the other articles that do. What's also funny in the two full articles you posted links to both authors state that even if you support their findings it doesn't mean capital punishment is a reasonable part of the American criminal justice system.

    So in a simple sentence; you support the government killing defenceless people.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Either way, studies have proven that the death penalty has a deterrent effect.

    Sure, you can phrase it like that if you want to. I support the government killing atrocious despicable child molesting scum. If you want to keep them alive despite knowing the damage they've inflicted on another human being then you're the one who needs to question his moral conscience, not me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone who voted yes is a massive hypocrite: you assumedly think murder is abhorrent but it's ok when the state does it to someone who hasn't even taken anyone's life.

    The victims of paedophilia are often scarred psychologically and it's a horrible crime but at least they continue to live their lives...
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by That'sGreat)
    Would you rather they drunk out of a golden chalice and cost the government and hence, the taxpayer, 40k a year per prisoner? I'm sure you'd hope we give them the latest game son the latest consoles, maybe put a McDonald's in the canteen and have Krispy Kreme Friday? Heck, why not let them go home on Saturdays and Sunday's? Or what if we only made them stay from 9 till 5, and let them go home to their families after it? And as for people who make false claims about paedophiles, why not give them a few hundred quid every claim? Keep the justice system on their toes!
    Congratulation on making one of the dumbest posts ever.

    On that basis you might as well just kill anyone who gets a custodial sentence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Not if its lawful
    So, in states where the death penalty is lawful, it is not an infringement of human rights, because its lawful.

    Yes?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Anyone who voted yes is a massive hypocrite: you assumedly think murder is abhorrent but it's ok when the state does it to someone who hasn't even taken anyone's life.

    The victims of paedophilia are often scarred psychologically and it's a horrible crime but at least they continue to live their lives...
    Yes, murder of somebody who is completely innocent is abhorrent. There is no moral equivalence between killing somebody innocent and killing a child molester.

    "at least they continue to live their lives..." seriously? You're going to trivialise child sexual assault like that? Disgusting. Grow a moral backbone.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Anyone who voted yes is a massive hypocrite: you assumedly think murder is abhorrent but it's ok when the state does it to someone who hasn't even taken anyone's life.

    The victims of paedophilia are often scarred psychologically and it's a horrible crime but at least they continue to live their lives...
    Using that "logic"...

    you assumedly think imprisonment is abhorrent but it's ok when the state does it to someone who hasn't even taken anyone's life.

    You oppose the state imprisoning criminals?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think they should , I know it's wrong very wrong , but killing them is not the solution , for example if the a whole island changes to be all pedophiles , then should the whole population be killed on the island . After all God gives life and God takes life , we have no right to take away life .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Yes, murder of somebody who is completely innocent is abhorrent. There is no moral equivalence between killing somebody innocent and killing a child molester.

    "at least they continue to live their lives..." seriously? You're going to trivialise child sexual assault like that? Disgusting. Grow a moral backbone.
    The fact that you had to result to an ad homienem and a reduction ad absurdum just shows that you know the logic behind this is flawed.

    Focus on the facts of the matter, not emotional sway.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Congratulation on making one of the dumbest posts ever.

    On that basis you might as well just kill anyone who gets a custodial sentence.
    How so?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Using that "logic"...

    you assumedly think imprisonment is abhorrent but it's ok when the state does it to someone who hasn't even taken anyone's life.

    You oppose the state imprisoning criminals?
    Prison is protecting the public so yeah, execution is a needless, pointless and expensive show of State strength in the name of some vague concept of "deterrence" if you were arguing 'an eye for an eye' I could at least see the logic behind the argument (although I still disagree with executions.)

    This, on the other hand, is just killing for killing's sake, it's absurd.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    The fact that you had to result to an ad homienem and a reduction ad absurdum just shows that you know the logic behind this is flawed.

    Focus on the facts of the matter, not emotional sway.
    It isn't a damn ad hominem to say that there's no moral equivalence between the state taking the life of a child molester and somebody murdering an innocent person.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.