Should molesters be killed?

[Autumnleaf]

Research suggests pedophiles and child molesters don't get rehabilitated. Should they be killed for their indiscretions?

 

[Washington]

Research suggests pedophiles and child molesters don't get rehabilitated. Should they be killed for their indiscretions?

Absolutely, and I suggest we use old age to do it.

 

[HannahBanana]

Research suggests pedophiles and child molesters don't get rehabilitated. Should they be killed for their indiscretions?

If you mean "should we sentence them to the Death Penalty" then my answer is "heck no." The Death Penalty is hypocritical (since it's based upon the idea of killing people to show that killing people is wrong), illogical (since the executioner doesn't get the death penalty even though he/she has killed many people), and just plain barbaric. Why not just sentence pedophiles and child molesters to life in solitary confinement at a maximum-security prison?

 

[Autumnleaf]

If you mean "should we sentence them to the Death Penalty" then my answer is "heck no." The Death Penalty is hypocritical (since it's based upon the idea of killing people to show that killing people is wrong), illogical (since the executioner doesn't get the death penalty even though he/she has killed many people), and just plain barbaric. Why not just sentence pedophiles and child molesters to life in solitary confinement at a maximum-security prison?

The death penalty is based on killing people so they can't kill or hurt other people. Its silly to think killing people teaches them that killing is wrong since they will not live long enough to teach this lesson to others.

 

[HannahBanana]

The death penalty is based on killing people so they can't kill or hurt other people. Its silly to think killing people teaches them that killing is wrong since they will not live long enough to teach this lesson to others.

No, killing them is supposed to teach other people that killing is wrong.

And wouldn't they be unable to kill or hurt other people if they were locked up in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison?

 

[Autumnleaf]

No, killing them is supposed to teach other people that killing is wrong.

And wouldn't they be unable to kill or hurt other people if they were locked up in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison?

No, killing them ends their abnormal effect on society. There is no lesson. Its a matter of weeding out depraved people from the rest of society.

 

[HannahBanana]

No, killing them ends their abnormal effect on society. There is no lesson. Its a matter of weeding out depraved people from the rest of society.

Wow, so you think that you (or rather, the government) should be able to decide who deserves life and who doesn't? That's an amazingly fascist mindset.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Wow, so you think that you (or rather, the government) should be able to decide who deserves life and who doesn't? That's an amazingly fascist mindset.

Its life in the big city. I grant you that.

 

[Nathan45]

You could just as well say that locking people in a maximum security prison encourages people to lock others in dungeons like that crazy guy in austria--Therefore we should have no prisons.

But imprisonment or execution as a punishment for a crime is totally different context and should not be equivocated with kidnapping or murder.

The question of what punishment to give should come down to practical considerations, as there's nothing inherantly immoral about executing someone for murder.

As for pedophilia, IMO if you attach the death penalty to it, that will make it less likely to be reported. I mean, most people who are victims are somewhat conflicted about comming out in the first place.

I also don't see any practical difference between executing someone and putting them away in maximum security prison for life.

Also, I may get flamed for this as I know it's cliche to hate pedophiles like the devil, but I really don't think the punishment quite fits the crime in this case. Obviously it should be illegal, but In the grand scheme of things, some old guy touching a kid somewhere he shouldn't isn't a big enough crime to warrent life in prison or death, i don't think.

 

[HannahBanana]

You could just as well say that locking people in a maximum security prison encourages people to lock others in dungeons like that crazy guy in austria--Therefore we should have no prisons.

But imprisonment or execution as a punishment for a crime is totally different context and should not be equivocated with kidnapping or murder.

The question of what punishment to give should come down to practical considerations, as there's nothing inherantly immoral about executing someone for murder.

As for pedophilia, IMO if you attach the death penalty to it, that will make it less likely to be reported. I mean, most people who are victims are somewhat conflicted about comming out in the first place.

I also don't see any practical difference between executing someone and putting them away in maximum security prison for life.

So you think that intentionally ending a person's life is perfectly fine, then, as long as they deserve it? What makes you any different than Stalin or Mussolini, then?

 

[Autumnleaf]

So you think that intentionally ending a person's life is perfectly fine, then, as long as they deserve it? What makes you any different than Stalin or Mussolini, then?

I don't choose to kill anyone. The courts do. The people you elect do.

 

[Nathan45]

Wow, so you think that you (or rather, the government) should be able to decide who deserves life and who doesn't? That's an amazingly fascist mindset.

There is little to no practical difference between life in prison and the death penalty. If you think that the government should not be allowed to kill people, explain why you think they should be allowed to kidnap people and keep them in dungeons for the rest of their lives.

Furthermore, death penalty trials usually get more appeals than life in prison, so even if it's possible to execute an innocent person, one could argue that it's even more likely to imprison an innocent person for the rest of their lives.

 

[Nathan45]

So you think that intentionally ending a person's life is perfectly fine, then, as long as they deserve it? What makes you any different than Stalin or Mussolini, then?

Oh, i don't know, about every other political opinion.

I bet you're a vegetarian, what makes you any different from hitler?

If you think that the death penalty is the distinguishing factor between western democracy and totalitarian dictatorship, you really are clueless about politics.

I mean i could list them ...
1) Free flow of information.
2) Democracy.
3) Liberty.
4) Rights such as Right to a fair trial.
5) Freedom of thought/speach/political opinion/expression.
6) Government accountable to the people.
7) Not in support of Genocidal maniacs.

That's what separates liberal democracy from totalitarianism. This has nothing to do with the death penalty.

 

[Khameo]

No, killing them ends their abnormal effect on society. There is no lesson. Its a matter of weeding out depraved people from the rest of society.

I consider this mindset to be depraved.
Shall we have you killed?

 

[HannahBanana]

I don't choose to kill anyone. The courts do. The people you elect do.

Note the fact that I said "(or rather the government)" which means that I do realize that it's the government doing the killing.

Great job proving that you don't read posts on here, though. That says a lot about you.

 

[HannahBanana]

Oh, i don't know, about every other political opinion.

I bet you're a vegetarian, what makes you any different from hitler?

If you think that the death penalty is the distinguishing factor between western democracy and totalitarian dictatorship, you really are clueless about politics.

I mean i could list them ...
1) Free flow of information.
2) Democracy.
3) Liberty.
4) Rights such as Right to a fair trial.
5) Freedom of thought/speach/political opinion/expression.
6) Government accountable to the people.
7) Not in support of Genocidal maniacs.

That's what separates liberal democracy from totalitarianism. This has nothing to do with the death penalty.

Since when is letting the government decide who lives and who dies not a sign of a dictatorship? I mean, would you honestly say that's a sign of a democracy? If so, then how is it a sign of a democracy?

 

[Nathan45]

Since when is letting the government decide who lives and who dies not a sign of a dictatorship?

This is just a pointless equivocation, a dictatorship is a country lead generally by a single autocratic leader, the death penalty is imposed by 12 randomly selected jurors from the populace.

You can argue we should abolish it but don't argue that that it's undemocratic, because historically democracies have used the death penalty like everyone else.

 

[Nathan45]

I also don't see why you keep replying asking new questions, when you won't even answer my questions, namely, if the government is allowed by law to kidnap people and lock them in dungeons as punishment for crimes, why can't it execute them too?

 

[HannahBanana]

This is just a pointless equivocation, a dictatorship is a country lead generally by a single charismatic leader, the death penalty is imposed by 12 randomly selected jurors from the populace.

You can argue we should abolish it but don't argue that that it's undemocratic, because historically democracies have used the death penalty like everyone else.

Why are we the only civilized country that still uses the death penalty, then, if it's such a good thing?

 

[HannahBanana]

EDIT: Never mind.