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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What is on display here is faux compassion.

    Progressives champion the rights of the very worst in society simply to boost their virtue signalling.

    I mean, how uber compassionate would an individual have to be to show compassion for the sub-human that raped a seven year old girl?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    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.
    This defenceless position doesn't make any sense; you're against 'defenceless' children being sexually abused but you support 'defenceless' prisoners being killed.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Of this particular crime, the death penalty is both moral and effective.
    Under no circumstance is it moral to intentionally kill a defenceless person.

    Can you not explain some of the equations used in the articles you linked? Maybe if you could I'd be more willing to consider your deterrent idea.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Not everybody can be reformed and rehabilitated. Some offenders are beyond that and a modern justice system should recognise that.
    Work done in prisons with sexual offenders has shown they can be reformed.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    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.
    By what measure does killing someone fit the crime of rape?

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    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.
    There's the difference between us. I don't agree with 'punishment' - it serves no purpose. The idea of prison should be to protect the public and rehabilitate. If depriving people of luxuries would be conducive to this then I'd agree with it but I don't think it would help.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    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.
    Again, until you explain the equations I can't accept the deterrent argument. At the moment it comes across as though you're essentially saying neither of us understand the mathematical argument but it must be right.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    What is on display here is faux compassion.

    Progressives champion the rights of the very worst in society simply to boost their virtue signalling.

    I mean, how uber compassionate would an individual have to be to show compassion for the sub-human that raped a seven year old girl?
    I've seen far more extreme right morons who are debating criminal justice from a simply emotional point of view without realising how nonsensical that is. People who want to bring back a barbaric punishment with no conclusive evidence of efficacy and something the civilised world is gradually moving away from.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I've seen far more extreme right morons who are debating criminal justice from a simply emotional point of view without realising how nonsensical that is. People who want to bring back a barbaric punishment with no conclusive evidence of efficacy and something the civilised world is gradually moving away from.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I see people reduced to personal insult because they can't cope with the truth.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    I see people reduced to personal insult because they can't cope with the truth.
    Well I'd say claiming someone is faking compassion is also to some extent a personal insult


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    This defenceless position doesn't make any sense; you're against 'defenceless' children being sexually abused but you support 'defenceless' prisoners being killed.



    Under no circumstance is it moral to intentionally kill a defenceless person.

    Can you not explain some of the equations used in the articles you linked? Maybe if you could I'd be more willing to consider your deterrent idea.



    Work done in prisons with sexual offenders has shown they can be reformed.



    By what measure does killing someone fit the crime of rape?



    There's the difference between us. I don't agree with 'punishment' - it serves no purpose. The idea of prison should be to protect the public and rehabilitate. If depriving people of luxuries would be conducive to this then I'd agree with it but I don't think it would help.



    Again, until you explain the equations I can't accept the deterrent argument. At the moment it comes across as though you're essentially saying neither of us understand the mathematical argument but it must be right.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The defenseless position makes perfect sense. Innocent law abiding people who go around their daily business don't deserve to be killed. Serious child sexual abusers do. Even if they are in a state of defenselessness during execution, their execution isn't unwarranted. True, some sexual offenders can be reformed and for those that can, kudos, just as long as they are also punished. I didn't say capital punishment should be applied to cases of rape in general, but a specific type of rape, the rape of children, because raping children is particularly horrific and repulsive. Fair enough, you've taken the moral position that all forms of punishment is completely wrong and that nobody should be forced to endure privations or sanctions for actions deemed harmful to society. I disagree with this approach because it tries to outsource blame for the actions of a criminal to everybody and anything but the criminal. Finally, no, in all honesty, I'm not a mathematician and I couldn't possibly try to explain the analysis in either of those studies, but I referred to them to dispel the myth that there is no academic support for the idea that the death penalty has a deterrent effect.

    Finally, consider this. Since the abolition of capital punishment in 1965, the homicide rate has steadily increased and has never actually fallen back to pre-abolition levels. In 1965 the homicide rate was 6.8 per million, in 2015 it was 10 per million. At one point it was nearly double what it was in around 2001/2002 when it reached about 16.6 million, but the fact is that the homicide rate is still higher than it was when hangings were abolished. Given that the number of homicides in the UK started to spike immediately after capital punishment was abolished, I attribute this to a considerable degree to the removal of the deterrent effect which capital punishment had and which is no longer present. The number of attempted murders, the number of threats to murder, the numbers of assaults, have all risen disproportionate to population growth. The fact is that most criminals are rational beings. They take into account the costs and benefits of their actions and right now those willing to use lethal violence aren't deterred by the costs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Well I'd say claiming someone is faking compassion is also to some extent a personal insult


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, a simple statement of fact.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    No. I dislike child abuse as much as the average person does but I don't think child molesters should receive the death penalty. It depends on the severity of the abuse and amount of crimes. Like, if the criminal had been doing it for years and doesn't see anything wrong with it then maybe.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    The defenseless position makes perfect sense. Innocent law abiding people who go around their daily business don't deserve to be killed. Serious child sexual abusers do. Even if they are in a state of defenselessness during execution, their execution isn't unwarranted.
    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.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    True, some sexual offenders can be reformed and for those that can, kudos, just as long as they are also punished.
    What is the purpose of punishing them? What are you hoping to achieve?

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    I didn't say capital punishment should be applied to cases of rape in general, but a specific type of rape, the rape of children, because raping children is particularly horrific and repulsive.
    But how does killing someone fit the crime of raping a child? What measurement are you applying?

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Fair enough, you've taken the moral position that all forms of punishment is completely wrong and that nobody should be forced to endure privations or sanctions for actions deemed harmful to society. I disagree with this approach because it tries to outsource blame for the actions of a criminal to everybody and anything but the criminal.
    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.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Finally, no, in all honesty, I'm not a mathematician and I couldn't possibly try to explain the analysis in either of those studies, but I referred to them to dispel the myth that there is no academic support for the idea that the death penalty has a deterrent effect.
    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.

    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Finally, consider this. Since the abolition of capital punishment in 1965, the homicide rate has steadily increased and has never actually fallen back to pre-abolition levels. In 1965 the homicide rate was 6.8 per million, in 2015 it was 10 per million. At one point it was nearly double what it was in around 2001/2002 when it reached about 16.6 million, but the fact is that the homicide rate is still higher than it was when hangings were abolished. Given that the number of homicides in the UK started to spike immediately after capital punishment was abolished, I attribute this to a considerable degree to the removal of the deterrent effect which capital punishment had and which is no longer present. The number of attempted murders, the number of threats to murder, the numbers of assaults, have all risen disproportionate to population growth. The fact is that most criminals are rational beings. They take into account the costs and benefits of their actions and right now those willing to use lethal violence aren't deterred by the costs.
    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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    No, a simple statement of fact.
    You can't factually say people are showing 'faux compassion' because you can't be certain that's true. Your claiming that it's a statement of fact just gives more credence to what I said


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You can't factually say people are showing 'faux compassion' because you can't be certain that's true. Your claiming that it's a statement of fact just gives more credence to what I said


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Excellent point.

    So, what exactly are you personally doing to help paedophiles in the real world?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Excellent point.

    So, what exactly are you personally doing to help paedophiles in the real world?
    At what point have I said I support pedophiles? Or even have sympathy for them? Would you like to quote me?

    I disagree with use of capital punishment which means at the moment there is nothing for me to do in this country


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    At what point have I said I support pedophiles? Or even have sympathy for them? Would you like to quote me?

    I disagree with use of capital punishment which means at the moment there is nothing for me to do in this country


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Faux compassion it is then.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Faux compassion it is then.
    Troll it is then


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Troll it is then


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If thats how you choose to deal with uncomfortable truths, so be it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    If thats how you choose to deal with uncomfortable truths, so be it.
    It's what I think of people who continual make claims without any substance


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Thank god 60% voted no. Mob rule will be the downfall of society as we know it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    What is on display here is faux compassion.

    Progressives champion the rights of the very worst in society simply to boost their virtue signalling.

    I mean, how uber compassionate would an individual have to be to show compassion for the sub-human that raped a seven year old girl?
    You're so obsessed with condemning liberals that you fail to see that it is YOU that is championing the rights of the worst of society.

    Kill a child molester who has raped a seven year old child and you are FREEING that child molester. If they are convicted and imprisoned they WANT to die. You are giving them exactly what they want.

    The seven year old child, however, is left to live with what has happened to them. The convicted paedophile who is killed doesn't live with what they've done. They just cease to exist anymore. Big punishment!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    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.
    Nobody is saying that human nature and intentions are inherently pure and good - stop making assumptions.

    What people are saying is that being sentenced to death is NOT a punishment. Being locked up for life is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    You're so obsessed with condemning liberals that you fail to see that it is YOU that is championing the rights of the worst of society.

    Kill a child molester who has raped a seven year old child and you are FREEING that child molester. If they are convicted and imprisoned they WANT to die. You are giving them exactly what they want.

    The seven year old child, however, is left to live with what has happened to them. The convicted paedophile who is killed doesn't live with what they've done. They just cease to exist anymore. Big punishment!!
    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.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

    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.