Should molesters be killed?

[Nathan45]

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

There are some eastern democracies that still use the death penalty. But the europeans don't. As for why, ask the europeans, I really don't think there's any connection.

 

[Nathan45]

eitherway, I wasn't even planning to argue in favor of the death penalty, i'm sortof split on whether it's a practical or productive method of punishment. As I said earlier, there doesn't seem to be much effective difference between locking someone up forever and executing them.

I just don't think it's inherently wrong to execute criminals, whether it's a good idea is another matter.

 

[Nathan45]

EDIT: Never mind.

and i saw that before you edited it, but i wasn't going to reply I consider the point conceded.

 

[Exhausted]

"Molesters" can easily be fixed up with normal productive relationships and all that, if you just mean molestation.

But this thread is really just asking if we should kill of those who desire children to stop them from acting on their impulses. Which is nutso.

We need to educate pedos on why acting on their desires is bad for the children, and we need to give them a means of venting those thoughts. I recommend loli.

 

[GeratTzedek]

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.

I find it odd that you think the death penalty is ONLY for murder. Any cursory reading of the books of law in the Bible shows that G-d assigned the death penalty for a great many offenses.

While on a personal level we are best of forgiving for the peace of our own soul, as a society we have an obligation to pursue justice. When we say "an eye for an eye" what we mean is that the punishment should be the equivilent to the offense.

And quite frankly, I think death is a much easier experience than the lifelong scarring done by molestation. True justice is probably more likely to simply put molesters in with the general prison population, where they will be raped and beaten by those molested as children.

The current state of affairs, where pedophiles are released back into society, is completely utterly 100% unacceptable. Exile, death penalty, or lifelong imprisonment are each with their own problems, but all superior to the present practice of allowing pedophiles the opportunity to harm others again.

 

[Nathan45]

And quite frankly, I think death is a much easier experience than the lifelong scarring done by molestation.

I hate to play devil's advocate, but it isn't. I know it's cliche to say pedophilia is the worst thing in the world, but it's all psychological.

Pedophilia is totally disgusting but I don't think the death penalty is nearly warrented for a crime that mostly just involves inappropriate touching... that's really just pushing the victim-mentality, "my life is not my fault, i'm a victim of pedophilia!", which can be extremely self-destructive for victims of pedophilia or victims of anything, really.

 

[GeratTzedek]

You seem to think that because damage is psychological, that this means it is not real.

 

[Nathan45]

You seem to think that because damage is psychological, that this means it is not real.

Well, i'm glad you can read minds.

I'm not saying that the damage isn't real i'm just saying that it isn't as serious as people make it out to be, it's not the end of the world if you get molested...

In my experience, teenagers in general have a tendencey to overdramatize things. Anyway, i think it's absurd to go and tell a teenager who was molsted as a younger child that he'd be better off if he'd have been murdered. What kind of psychological damage is that inflicting on the this kid?

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, some old creepy guy touching your ***** is not nearly the worst thing that can happen to you.

 

[TheReasoner]

No. Not kill them.

However... The sex drive in human beings is a chemical reaction as is everything else. What if we found a way to remove any desire for sex? Chemical castration so to speak. But not only removing the person's ability to reproduce, simply removing his or her ability to find the idea of sex appealing.

 

[Nathan45]

No. Not kill them.

However... The sex drive in human beings is a chemical reaction as is everything else. What if we found a way to remove any desire for sex? Chemical castration so to speak. But not only removing the person's ability to reproduce, simply removing his or her ability to find the idea of sex appealing.

lol, sounds like a verse from matthew

Mt 5:29-30

29If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.

but i'm all for it if that ever becomes a possibility.

 

[quatona]

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

My answer is "no" - but I´m not a Christian, so what do I know about the morality of killing others?
Lumping pedophiles and child molesters together is lazy thinking, btw.

 

[cantata]

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

No.

Lumping pedophiles and child molesters together is lazy thinking, btw.

 

[TheReasoner]

lol, sounds like a verse from matthew

Mt 5:29-30


but i'm all for it if that ever becomes a possibility.

If they can't be rid of their pedophilia, then I think this is a good way to approach the issue. Much better than allowing them to abuse children, and better and cheaper than constant surveillance.

 

[cantata]

If they can't be rid of their pedophilia, then I think this is a good way to approach the issue. Much better than allowing them to abuse children, and better and cheaper than constant surveillance.

I would regard it as cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[TheReasoner]

I would regard it as cruel and unusual punishment.

I can see that. However, is it really that cruel given the alternatives?
If a person is sexually attracted only to children. He or she is struggling immensely with the issue and abuses children regularly, we should ask ourselves what we should do about the issue...
As this person cannot and will not ever be attracted to consenting adults, which is the worst? Letting him or her abuse (and through this destroy) children? Or stopping the drive for it? If we do not stop the drive and just lock him or her up for a few years, letting the person go only to incarcerate the person again after several new offenses... Is that any less cruel?

If we can't stop the pedophile from abusing by psychology or another form for rehab. Possibly not even with cognitive reprogramming - we are left with a choice.
On the one hand we can sever the person from society permanently. Lock him or her up permanently. Execution is another option. And lobotomy is a third.
On the other hand we can try to eliminate the source of the criminal behavior. This can be done by several methods I am sure, for some I hope psychological help can be enough while for others the disease is quite hardwired into them. Hence one option is to remove the sex drive. We can also make the person live under constant and very close surveillance.
And then to provide a third option we can let him or her continue abusing children unhindered.

Now, child abuse leaves kids with extremely extremely deep scars. Some never recover. Quite a few commit suicide. A lot have so many troubles it severely affects their social and professional lives in a very deep fashion. Hence I think letting kids be abused is completely out of the question. I also think lobotomy - essentially making him or her a zombie - is completely out of the question. Execution is hopelessly outdated and I consider it barbaric.
So, as I see it we are left with four options.
A; Lock him/her up.
B; Reprogram or help him/her by use of psychology or cognitive reprogramming
C; Place him or her under close and constant supervision
D; Chemical removal of sex drive.

I believe locking a person up for the remainder of his or her life is bad. Economically, socially and ethically.
I also believe constant supervision to be out of the question as it is too expensive. Even more so, possibly, than incarceration for life.

Reprogramming may work for some, and can help them lead worthy and fulfilling lives. Yet there are those who either want to be pedophiles or can't help it and can't be rid of it. We then go back to two options. Permanent imprisonment or neutering. I'd go for neutering.

As this disease causes such a powerful impact on it's victims and hence also on society it must be dealt with. I do not think amputation of a sick limb is cruel and unusual punishment. I think it's a necessary medical procedure to make sure further complications (possibly death) doesn't arise. We don't consider taking medications to overcome suicidal tendencies or deep depression 'cruel and unusual' either.
This - chemical 'neutering' - would be amputation of a sick limb which causes great peril and possibly death for many people. It should be amputated. This disease causes so much trouble it should be dealt with. And I don't consider this punishment at all.

 

[cantata]

I believe locking a person up for the remainder of his or her life is bad. Economically, socially and ethically.
I also believe constant supervision to be out of the question as it is too expensive. Even more so, possibly, than incarceration for life.

So you're advocating what amounts to mutilation as opposed to spending a bit more cash?

The state has no business interfering with the workings of people's bodies, whether we dislike their behaviour or not.

 

[TheReasoner]

So you're advocating what amounts to mutilation as opposed to spending a bit more cash?

Heavens no. But in the end that will be an argument which may win the people on top over.
And... Mutilation? I beg to differ. Stifling of an unnatural and highly damaging urge which costs society dearly. Personally, collectively and economically.
You could say that removing a suicidal youth's desire to self harm or commit suicide is also mutilation. Or what about homicidal people. If you take away their desire to kill others, are you then mutilating or are you not mutilating?
You ARE modifying their personalities to suit what you deem acceptable. Killing others is not acceptable, so you need to change the personality before it does that damage. Same deal goes for rape and child molestation. Child molestation is, in many cases, simply very delayed murder. The result of the molestation can often be suicide. Very often it will be suicidal tendencies and a heck of a bucketload of psychological trouble. The victim can be deprived of things like functional relationships, healthy sex life, self esteem, sanity and more. The toll of child abuse is extreme.
So I ask you, what is the difference between a person who has to be on medication so as to not be homicidal or violent and a person who needs to be on medication to not abuse children?
What is the difference? We're not talking about lobotomy or physical mutilation. We're talking about removing an urge to commit a heinous crime with extreme consequences. Not unlike torture, rape and murder. In many cases this is exactly what child molestation is - it is rape, continuing to many many years of torture and sometimes culminating in murder.

The state has no business interfering with the workings of people's bodies, whether we dislike their behaviour or not.

What are we doing by locking them up in a cell and dictating what they should eat and drink?

I think when it comes to pedophiles we have to choose between evils. Child molestation is extremely, unbelievably bad. Locking people up for a lifetime is not too good either. It's an old method which deprives the convict of a functional life as well as the ability to contribute to society as a whole. With a removal of that one function said person can lead a healthy normal life without the abnormal and - let's face it - sick urge to abuse and destroy children.

 

[cantata]

Heavens no. But in the end that will be an argument which may win the people on top over.

Mm. Unfortunate.

And... Mutilation? I beg to differ. Stifling of an unnatural and highly damaging urge which costs society dearly. Personally, collectively and economically.
You could say that removing a suicidal youth's desire to self harm or commit suicide is also mutilation.

Well, hardly, since doing so protects the youth's health.

Or what about homicidal people. If you take away their desire to kill others, are you then mutilating or are you not mutilating?

The desire to kill people is never healthy. Sexuality is usually healthy.

You ARE modifying their personalities to suit what you deem acceptable. Killing others is not acceptable, so you need to change the personality before it does that damage.

But not, I think, by forcing a permanent change on someone by making them take a drug.

Same deal goes for rape and child molestation. Child molestation is, in many cases, simply very delayed murder. The result of the molestation can often be suicide. Very often it will be suicidal tendencies and a heck of a bucketload of psychological trouble. The victim can be deprived of things like functional relationships, healthy sex life, self esteem, sanity and more. The toll of child abuse is extreme.

Yes, for many victims it is a horrible thing, although I think you overstate the case. Either way, no one wants children to be abused.

So I ask you, what is the difference between a person who has to be on medication so as to not be homicidal or violent and a person who needs to be on medication to not abuse children?

To the best of my knowledge we do not have drugs which will permanently remove the desire to kill people. We have drugs that people who want to change can continue to take in order to remain stable once they are released. I have nothing against this. If you have someone who desires sex with children and who doesn't want to have that desire, by all means offer them chemical castration. It's different from forcing chemical castration on someone.

I am quite sure that simply chemically neutering people who desire sex with children will not necessarily make them into safe people to have around. It is likely that their desire for sex with children is tied up with all kinds of other psychological issues. They may ultimately vent their feelings of frustration in other, equally harmful ways. They may even continue to abduct children and even to molest them out of spite. Cutting off their balls (metaphorically speaking) may in fact cause further psychological problems. They will also be rendered permanently incapable of forming healthy adult sexual relationships.

What is the difference? We're not talking about lobotomy or physical mutilation. We're talking about removing an urge to commit a heinous crime with extreme consequences. Not unlike torture, rape and murder. In many cases this is exactly what child molestation is - it is rape, continuing to many many years of torture and sometimes culminating in murder.

But not merely removing the urge to commit a crime; removing any kind of sexual urge whatsoever. There is a very important difference there. It's like preventing a murderer from murdering again by paralysing his arms.

What are we doing by locking them up in a cell and dictating what they should eat and drink?

Dictating what someone eats and drinks is a far cry from interrupting the sexual functioning of their bodies.

I do not really approve of locking people up for life, but if someone is dangerous I do not see a more humane option. And by the way, they need not be locked up in a prison.

I would argue that there is virtually always a way to help someone using psychiatric techniques. Hypnosis in particular is under-researched.

I think when it comes to pedophiles we have to choose between evils. Child molestation is extremely, unbelievably bad. Locking people up for a lifetime is not too good either. It's an old method which deprives the convict of a functional life as well as the ability to contribute to society as a whole. With a removal of that one function said person can lead a healthy normal life without the abnormal and - let's face it - sick urge to abuse and destroy children.

Precisely how is a life normal or healthy when sexuality has been forcibly removed from it?

 

[TheReasoner]

Mm. Unfortunate.

Very.

Well, hardly, since doing so protects the youth's health.

And this does what? Protect the health and lives of the abuser's potential victims.

The desire to kill people is never healthy. Sexuality is usually healthy.

Not when you're a pedophile.

But not, I think, by forcing a permanent change on someone by making them take a drug.

So you're against forcefully medicating homicidal maniacs?

Yes, for many victims it is a horrible thing, although I think you overstate the case. Either way, no one wants children to be abused.

I can guarantee I am not overstating it.
I wish I was.

To the best of my knowledge we do not have drugs which will permanently remove the desire to kill people. We have drugs that people who want to change can continue to take in order to remain stable once they are released. I have nothing against this. If you have someone who desires sex with children and who doesn't want to have that desire, by all means offer them chemical castration. It's different from forcing chemical castration on someone.

What should we do about those who refuse? Lock them up permanently? Have them under surveillance?

I am quite sure that simply chemically neutering people who desire sex with children will not necessarily make them into safe people to have around. It is likely that their desire for sex with children is tied up with all kinds of other psychological issues. They may ultimately vent their feelings of frustration in other, equally harmful ways. They may even continue to abduct children and even to molest them out of spite. Cutting off their balls (metaphorically speaking) may in fact cause further psychological problems. They will also be rendered permanently incapable of forming healthy adult sexual relationships.

Which - according to the op - they already are. Obviously more than just popping a neutering pill is needed. Psychological followup is quite necessary.

But not merely removing the urge to commit a crime; removing any kind of sexual urge whatsoever. There is a very important difference there. It's like preventing a murderer from murdering again by paralysing his arms.

Possibly. Yet what if said person is incapable, due to their condition, to have a healthy sexual attraction to an adult person isn't he or she already incapable of healthy sexual relations?

Dictating what someone eats and drinks is a far cry from interrupting the sexual functioning of their bodies.

But if that function is tied to something sick, then what? Like for example pedophilia or necrophilia...

I do not really approve of locking people up for life, but if someone is dangerous I do not see a more humane option. And by the way, they need not be locked up in a prison.

True.

I would argue that there is virtually always a way to help someone using psychiatric techniques. Hypnosis in particular is under-researched.

Ah. But even with this you're in effect altering the chemistry of the person's brain.
I actually underwent some training in a program called the lightning process a month or so ago. And I have first hand experienced how powerful it can be. I have used it to alter the chemistry of my body so that former food intolerances vanished. My sisters have used the same method to get through ME. Yes, the human mind is under-researched and under-estimated.

So yes. I will grant you that this is a good point and that this avenue should be explored. Yet if we accept the belief that sexual natures - such as homophilia, necrophilia, pedophilia and more cannot be changed, but that it is a constant - then what? If we want to pursue this avenue it may change how we look at homosexuals forever. It may lead to it being seen as a disease yet again, as it is changeable.

Precisely how is a life normal or healthy when sexuality has been forcibly removed from it?

If that sexuality is as harmful as pedophilia is.... It's healthier.

 

[cantata]

And this does what? Protect the health and lives of the abuser's potential victims.

Yes, but you're advocating changing one person's body to protect another person, as opposed to changing someone's body to protect the person themselves. That is the difference.

Not when you're a pedophile.

Paedophiles are not always incapable of relationships with adults. Many are married, in fact. Many will never commit a single child sex offence.

So you're against forcefully medicating homicidal maniacs?

Again, the difference is that a homicidal person's desire to kill is not related to any healthy or appropriate desires. The desire to have sex is healthy, even though it can be misdirected. So to remove someone's desire to kill is more acceptable than to remove someone's desire to have sex.

I can guarantee I am not overstating it.
I wish I was.

You are overstating it.

It is an uncomfortable truth that some victims of child sexual abuse recover totally. The reality of the matter is bad enough. You need not over-egg the pudding.

What should we do about those who refuse? Lock them up permanently? Have them under surveillance?

I would suggest that you give them the choice between chemical castration, or incarceration in a secure mental hospital until such time that they are deemed to be safe to release, having undergone psychiatric treatment.

Which - according to the op - they already are. Obviously more than just popping a neutering pill is needed. Psychological followup is quite necessary.

Right, and are you going to do that before or after you castrate them?

Possibly. Yet what if said person is incapable, due to their condition, to have a healthy sexual attraction to an adult person isn't he or she already incapable of healthy sexual relations?

Yes. But he or she may still enjoy their sexuality in other ways, via masturbation, for example. To neuter them is to remove the potential for that enjoyment.

But if that function is tied to something sick, then what? Like for example pedophilia or necrophilia...

You need to stop using emotive language. You find paedophilia and necrophilia disturbing. So do I. But I remain hopeful that people can be helped to enjoy healthy sexual relationships, and also that they can enjoy their sexuality alone.

Ah. But even with this you're in effect altering the chemistry of the person's brain.

Yes, you are. The difference is that with hypnosis you could potentially treat the unhealthy desires while leaving the healthy ones untouched, thus not denying someone all sexual enjoyment for the rest of their life.

I actually underwent some training in a program called the lightning process a month or so ago. And I have first hand experienced how powerful it can be. I have used it to alter the chemistry of my body so that former food intolerances vanished. My sisters have used the same method to get through ME. Yes, the human mind is under-researched and under-estimated.

So yes. I will grant you that this is a good point and that this avenue should be explored.

I'm glad you agree.

Yet if we accept the belief that sexual natures - such as homophilia, necrophilia, pedophilia and more cannot be changed, but that it is a constant - then what? If we want to pursue this avenue it may change how we look at homosexuals forever. It may lead to it being seen as a disease yet again, as it is changeable.

I strongly believe these things are changeable. (I am a living example of someone who has successfully changed her sexual orientation.) Truth is important, as is people's wellbeing. I would rather that people were helped to become healthy, and that the LGBT rights movement had to find a new tack for its campaigns, than that we leave people in a state of psychological discomfort to avoid treading on anyone's toes.

Of course, I happen to believe that there are almost no good reasons to want to change from, say, homosexual to heterosexual, or heterosexual to homosexual. I do think there are good reasons to want to change from hetero- or homosexual to bi- or pansexual, though. I also think there are good reasons to want to remove desires to have sex with children, animals, or corpses.

If that sexuality is as harmful as pedophilia is.... It's healthier.

Paedophilic desires are only dangerous if they are acted upon. I can assure you that many - perhaps even most - paedophiles never act on their desire to have sex with children.