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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Underscore__;70118218]
    (Original post by That'sGreat)

    Well I suggest you take a look at the Norwegian justice system and then take a look at their recidivism (reoffending) rate. Of course, you haven't already done that because you don't know the first thing about criminal justice


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And another point. Would you not say Saudi Arabias justice system is strict? I use strict loosely, it's vile and disgustingly brutal. But, hmm, how come its crime rate is much lower, almost half, that of the US? Or Ireland?
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    No, you're confused.

    So, in states where the death penalty is lawful, it is not an infringement of human rights, because its lawful.

    I was not referring to the US, that's why i said states, plural.

    Meaning other countries.

    State can be used instead of country,yes?
    The principal document on HR is the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It proclaims the right of every individual to protection from deprivation of life. It states that no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. The death penalty violates both of these fundamental rights.

    The UN cant force people to comply, but most nations have abolished the use of capital punishment. the way treaties work is they are aspirational until people sign up. If you apply the standards of the treaty then yes they are in breach,

    Similarly with the ECHR it has been achieved in stages with all states recognising the right to life Protocol 6 restricts use of capital punishment to which every one how has signed the main convention has agreed to except Russia and protocol 13, which provides an absolute ban. this has been signed and ratified by all except 3, Russia being one of those.

    So it is possible to claim protection against extradition because the death penalty would be in breach of human rights.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    If that's why you oppose the death penalty logically you would oppose the state imprisoning criminals as.....

    the criminal justice system isnt fullproof and innocent people will be imprisoned

    Yes?
    No and you are being ridiculous.

    Death penalty there is no way back and it is final. That is the difference against just imprisonment. Its not the only reason either.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=That'sGreat;70118426]
    (Original post by Underscore__)

    And another point. Would you not say Saudi Arabias justice system is strict? I use strict loosely, it's vile and disgustingly brutal. But, hmm, how come its crime rate is much lower, almost half, that of the US? Or Ireland?
    Norway has a lower murder rate than Saudi Arabia, it also has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Besides, I'd suggest crime reporting in Saudi Arabia could be somewhat sketchy.

    [QUOTE=That'sGreat;70118342]
    (Original post by Underscore__)

    Like every Scandinavian country, you'll see there's a big difference between them and Britain. That's something called multiculturalism, Scandinavian countries are famous for having a large population of white and ethnics, which is a lot different to Britian. Britian is full of different people from different countries and hence, different cultures. Its pretty common knowledge. Also, i didn't realise we were going to resort to outlandish claims which a rent even relevant to your point. Understanding the criminal justice system of Britian, the country we are in, is completely different to understanding the ins and outs justice system in Norway, or Nigeria or Saudi Arabia.
    So you think culture is the cause of reoffending? It seems much more probable that the way in which criminals are rehabilitated is the cause of their low reoffending rate. It's completely relevant to my point; they treat prisoners very well, they don't alienate people and make them feel like outsiders.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Underscore__;70118558][QUOTE=That'sGreat;70118426]

    Norway has a lower murder rate than Saudi Arabia, it also has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Besides, I'd suggest crime reporting in Saudi Arabia could be somewhat sketchy.

    (Original post by That'sGreat)

    So you think culture is the cause of reoffending? It seems much more probable that the way in which criminals are rehabilitated is the cause of their low reoffending rate. It's completely relevant to my point; they treat prisoners very well, they don't alienate people and make them feel like outsiders.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's entirely down to lack of multiculturalism
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=That'sGreat;70118696][QUOTE=Underscore__;70118558]
    (Original post by That'sGreat)

    Norway has a lower murder rate than Saudi Arabia, it also has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. Besides, I'd suggest crime reporting in Saudi Arabia could be somewhat sketchy.



    It's entirely down to lack of multiculturalism
    Why would multiculturalism cause reoffending? Your point makes no sense



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what? um, no way mate.

    look they are bad people and all but you can't just kill anyone you don't like, otherwise you're no better than a murderer like.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Underscore__;70118026]Because penal justice has served us brilliantly to this point.



    Well it's a start and an end.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Either way, studies have proven that the death penalty has a deterrent effect.

    No, studies have suggested that. There's a difference between suggestion and proof. I can't refute those studies are because 1. I can't be bothered to read 50 pages right now and 2. I don't understand the equations they're using.



    What benefit is served by killing people? How has society benefitted? That is after all what criminal justice about, making society better rather than making the victim feel better.



    Well some of those ideas aren't too bad actually, not such a fan of the going home part or the paying false accusers. Other than that I see no real issue. There are some more changes that need to be made but I think you're heading in the right direction.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The studies made those suggestions after statistical analysis which I would assume should act as proof/evidence, even if you disagree with the final suggestions made by the studies. My point is that this notion that death penalty having a deterrent effect is fiction unsupported academically is false. The benefit to society of the state being able to kill certain offenders who have committed an exceptionally serious offense is deterrence. Criminal justice isn't solely about rehabilitating, it is also about setting a strong enough of an example to prevent other potential offenders from engaging in a criminal transaction. Rehabilitation means equipping prisoners with the necessary employment and social skills to re-integrate into society and I find it worrying that you find ideas such as allowing prisoners to have the latest games consoles appealing. Rehabilitation isn't an excuse to dish out taxpayer funded luxuries. Anyway I re-iterate, some individuals are logically beyond empathy. Take for instance Mark Bridger who sexually assaulted and murdered five year old April Jones. I think most rational people would find capital punishment being applied on him quite plausible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    I assume you mean to ask whether convicted child molesters should be executed - merely having an attraction to the underage shouldn't be illegal, since they probably don't have much control over that. Otherwise you'd presumably be executing people for watching child pornography. Making the distinction between paedophile and molester is important for preventing molestation - a paedophile is surely more likely to abuse a child if he or she knows that society will loathe them whether or not they do.

    I should say that I am by no means making apologies for child molesters - the only person that can be blamed and the only person who is guilty of child molestation, is the molester. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to safeguard children and create a society in which paedophiles are less likely to commit crimes.

    As for whether child molesters should be executed, I don't think so. I think long prison terms and intensive psychological help and counselling are a better option - the justice system's role should be to rehabilitate convicts, not take revenge on them. In any case, using the death penalty for any crime is incredibly expensive and results in the execution of innocent people.

    Looking at the rest of the thread so far, I bet this comment's going to be popular.
    Precisely.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    The studies made those suggestions after statistical analysis which I would assume should act as proof/evidence, even if you disagree with the final suggestions made by the studies.
    No it doesn't act as proof to me because I can't understand it. I'm not saying it's wrong but I can't accept it is correct because I don't understand.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    My point is that this notion that death penalty having a deterrent effect is fiction unsupported academically is false. The benefit to society of the state being able to kill certain offenders who have committed an exceptionally serious offense is deterrence.
    Well why don't you try taking some of the equations used in those articles and breaking it down into a real layman's terms for me? Or, as I suspect, do you not understand it either?

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Criminal justice isn't solely about rehabilitating, it is also about setting a strong enough of an example to prevent other potential offenders from engaging in a criminal transaction. Rehabilitation means equipping prisoners with the necessary employment and social skills to re-integrate into society and I find it worrying that you find ideas such as allowing prisoners to have the latest games consoles appealing. Rehabilitation isn't an excuse to dish out taxpayer funded luxuries.
    Well criminal justice is about preventing crime, that can be done with rehabilitation or it can, in theory, be done with deterrence. The problem with not using rehabilitation is that you're essentially wasting a person. Not only are they wasting their life but once you sentence someone to a long prison sentence they can no longer cause any benefit in society.

    Rehabilitation is about far more than social and employment skills. A big factor in crime is the alienation felt by the offender. Allowing to live almost normal lives but confined to one building ensures they don't feel more alienated, add in a job in prison and people start to feel a sense of social responsibility. Part of rehabilitating people is to make them feel like they can be part of a community.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Anyway I re-iterate, some individuals are logically beyond empathy. Take for instance Mark Bridger who sexually assaulted and murdered five year old April Jones. I think most rational people would find capital punishment being applied on him quite plausible.
    I didn't say I empathise with any criminal. What you're saying is a contradiction; if you support executing someone you're not making a rational judgement because people only support capital punishment from an emotional place. There is no actual logical or rational reason to execute someone.

    Thankfully what most people want is irrelevant. The ordinary person has no place trying to influence the justice system because they have no expertise at all in what the system is trying to achieve.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It could be a wrongful conviction or a mistake and then you can't bring them back to life can you? Or what if the law changes and makes the Age of Consent lower, say 15, as it is in other countries? It will be too late for them to be reprieved because they will be Dead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    forget death sentences because that brings the issue of wrongful conviction. there needs to be fairer sentences, how can a molester (basically child rapist) get sentences less than 10 years when man are catching longer sentences with possesion of drugs
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sfinesse)
    forget death sentences because that brings the issue of wrongful conviction. there needs to be fairer sentences, how can a molester (basically child rapist) get sentences less than 10 years when man are catching longer sentences with possesion of drugs
    Well that's wrong, the maximum sentence for Class A possession is 7 years


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok then my mistake
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    No it doesn't act as proof to me because I can't understand it. I'm not saying it's wrong but I can't accept it is correct because I don't understand.



    Well why don't you try taking some of the equations used in those articles and breaking it down into a real layman's terms for me? Or, as I suspect, do you not understand it either?



    Well criminal justice is about preventing crime, that can be done with rehabilitation or it can, in theory, be done with deterrence. The problem with not using rehabilitation is that you're essentially wasting a person. Not only are they wasting their life but once you sentence someone to a long prison sentence they can no longer cause any benefit in society.

    Rehabilitation is about far more than social and employment skills. A big factor in crime is the alienation felt by the offender. Allowing to live almost normal lives but confined to one building ensures they don't feel more alienated, add in a job in prison and people start to feel a sense of social responsibility. Part of rehabilitating people is to make them feel like they can be part of a community.



    I didn't say I empathise with any criminal. What you're saying is a contradiction; if you support executing someone you're not making a rational judgement because people only support capital punishment from an emotional place. There is no actual logical or rational reason to execute someone.

    Thankfully what most people want is irrelevant. The ordinary person has no place trying to influence the justice system because they have no expertise at all in what the system is trying to achieve.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Rehabilitation has its place, no doubt. I'm not suggesting for a second that we shouldn't attempt to reform low and mid-level convicts. To simply lock them away for extended periods of time in a hardened American style environment would be a waste of money and bear little fruit. But, sanctions against crime are stratified depending on how serious they are. Nobody would consider sexually predatory behaviour towards young children to be lacking seriousness, behind murder it is one the most repulsive crimes that can be committed. It is a serious violation of another person's fundamental right to dignity made worse by the fact that victims are defenseless children. Of this particular crime, the death penalty is both moral and effective. Not everybody can be reformed and rehabilitated. Some offenders are beyond that and a modern justice system should recognise that. Crime and justice isn't one size fits all, i.e. either it has to be totally punitive on all levels or it has to be totally soft and cushy on all levels. I refer back to the old saying, the punishment has to fit the crime.

    As with your view on criminals feeling "alienated" and being allowed to live as normal as a life as possible, I have to respectfully disagree. Prison should educate and allow a convict to make as productive use as possible of his/her time, but it should by no means be "normal". Breaking the law isn't normal and neither should the consequence be normal. I don't know how you define or measure "alienation", but we have to re-emphasise individual responsibility in crime and punishment and stop trying to blame everything on society. Feeling a particular way is no excuse to commit a crime.

    Finally, an emotional desire to see an especially evil person be executed can entirely co-exist with a rational desire to warn off other offenders from following a similar path.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    54 out of 128 people actively want another human being to be slaughtered. That is truly appalling.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jjj90)
    54 out of 128 people actively want another human being to be slaughtered. That is truly appalling.
    No.

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/...ears-1-8358383

    Paul Cartwright, of Rawmarsh, Rotherham, was sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court today after earlier being found guilty of five counts of raping a seven-year-old girl.

    You showing such deep compassion for animals like Cartwright, thats truly appalling.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    No.

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/...ears-1-8358383

    Paul Cartwright, of Rawmarsh, Rotherham, was sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court today after earlier being found guilty of five counts of raping a seven-year-old girl.

    You showing such deep compassion for animals like Cartwright, thats truly appalling.
    If believing that the state should not have the right to kill anyone is compassion then guilty as charged.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jjj90)
    If believing that the state should not have the right to kill anyone is compassion then guilty as charged.
    You don't believe the state should have the right to kill anyone....

    So, you believe that the British state should do away with HMF.

    The police should disarm their armed response units.

    Really?

    .
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jjj90)
    If believing that the state should not have the right to kill anyone is compassion then guilty as charged.
    There's compassion and then there's blinding softness and the misguided belief that human nature is inherently pure and human intent is always good.
 
 
 
  • 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.