Should molesters be killed?

[TheReasoner]

Offering therapy as an option with a view to ultimate releasing someone or improving their quality of life is perfectly acceptable.

Agreed. But according to the OP therapy alone is not always enough. And if it is not, should we let the person out? It could be that what's wrong with pedophiles is exactly the same that makes people homosexuals. They might not have a say, and wanting a change may never bring one. If this is the case then therapy will not work.

Very sad. Would chemical castration fix that, do you think? I don't.

If he had been caught prior to this rampage and had his drive removed why would he abuse the children when the need for it was gone? Castration, and/or therapy might well be needed.

We clearly disagree about the ethics of euthanasia. But in any case, this doesn't address the point I was making. Do the many doctors who euthanise patients out of a sense of compassion have an uncontrollable homicidal urge to kill? I doubt it. I should think that most actually find it very difficult to make the choice to put someone out of their misery. I know that I would. They usually do it for perfectly reasonable reasons, not because of wild impulses. I do not think compassion is a dangerous urge.

Murder=unlawful and premeditated killing... Anyway... Pedophiles are often very calculated and don't necessarily act on wild impulses but abuse kids for long periods. Often for many years on end.

So while if it's against the law in their country, they must unfortunately face whatever penalty that country's legal system deems appropriate, I don't think therapy to rid them of the urge to euthanise is necessary. Apart from anything else, they'll obviously be struck off, so they won't have the opportunity to do it again anyway.

True.

The homicidal maniac is a different kettle of fish. Their actions are likely to be irrational, and they are probably not born of compassion. That is why removing their desire to kill is acceptable. A child sex offender has urges we would prefer them not to have, and offering them treatment to rid them of those urges is fine; but forcing them to have not only their urges for sex with children, but all their sexual desires purged altogether is not acceptable.

Okay. This might be fine but I am afraid it is a view seen through rose-stained glasses. There are actually pedophiles who honestly and truthfully believe that sexual acts with children is beneficial and loving. That what they are doing will help the child develop and grow. Yes, you and I probably agree that this is completely insane. But this is actually their reasoning on the subject. Some of them think they are doing the kid a favor and think the sexual relationship is not lopsided at all.So that they have urges they might prefer not to have is a truth with certain modifications.
When an abuser honestly believes this and actively pursues 'relationships' with children that often result in decades of severe psychological problems. At times resulting in suicide one has to ask, which is actually worse? Putting a gun to someone elses' head and pulls the trigger, or sowing a seed which causes much more suffering over a very prolonged period of time. One could in fact argue that practicing pedophiles actually torture and maybe even murder their victims. Even if the effects are prolonged and may not be seen for decades.
Personally I think putting a person through such a hell can in some cases actually be worse than murder. Mind you, I said some cases. Not all.

I'm not denying any of this. I just think you should be careful not to overstate the consequences.

Right you are, I should. But I honestly don't think I am. And I have fair reason to believe so. For one without education on the subject anyway. Of course I may be wrong. That's always a possibility. But I really doubt it.

Further: it shouldn't be used unless the patient agrees to it.

And I guess I agree that this should also be the case for pedophiles. Yet repeat offenders need to be considered a serious threat to society's most vulnerable members and some significant action must be taken to ensure the cessation of abuse from these sick (literally. I don't mean it emotionally) individuals.

Introduction to other kinds of pornography could be appropriate as part of therapy. Also, child pornography need not have involved real children in its production. I do not think saying "Oh but they might want child pornography" is an adequate reason to deprive someone of their sexual functioning.

Well, showing me homosexual or pedophile pornography will only make me feel profound disgust. I think it is reasonable to assume a pedophile would only feel disgust at non-pedophile porn.

'Sick' has connotations which are not conducive to a reasonable discussion. 'Unhealthy' or 'damaging' might be preferable.

What else would you call it? The behavior causes severe psychological issues for the victims. Sometimes death. It is unnatural and has no benefit for society whatsoever. I don't see why 'sick' doesn't fit. Maybe it is a cultural thing.

It depends on the therapy.

See, I don't think suppression is the way to go.

Well firstly, this is an odd position to take, because a paedophile who intends to act on their desires but has not done so yet is just as dangerous as one who has not. So I would have thought that you would be interested in preventative measures against them too.

That isn't always possible. If it is possible to detect pedophilia before a crime and without severe infringements on liberties and rights - like for example general health checkups as one grows up - then I say go for it. A prophylactic approach, if possible, is best.

Secondly, I do not think we should be thinking in terms of punishment. I think it is a problematic notion, especially with regard to the penal system, which is there for the protection of the public, for reparation, for rehabilitation, and so on, but absolutely not for vengeance.

I concur. Poor choice of words. I meant, we cannot legally respond to actions not yet taken with the judicial system. We cannot order people to be castrated or sent to treatment if no offense has been made. This is crucial if we are to maintain a healthy democracy.

 

[TheReasoner]

Offering therapy as an option with a view to ultimate releasing someone or improving their quality of life is perfectly acceptable.

Agreed. But according to the OP therapy alone is not always enough. And if it is not, should we let the person out? It could be that what's wrong with pedophiles is exactly the same that makes people homosexuals. They might not have a say, and wanting a change may never bring one. If this is the case then therapy will not work.

Very sad. Would chemical castration fix that, do you think? I don't.

If he had been caught prior to this rampage and had his drive removed why would he abuse the children when the need for it was gone? Castration, and/or therapy might well be needed.

We clearly disagree about the ethics of euthanasia. But in any case, this doesn't address the point I was making. Do the many doctors who euthanise patients out of a sense of compassion have an uncontrollable homicidal urge to kill? I doubt it. I should think that most actually find it very difficult to make the choice to put someone out of their misery. I know that I would. They usually do it for perfectly reasonable reasons, not because of wild impulses. I do not think compassion is a dangerous urge.

Murder=unlawful and premeditated killing... Anyway... Pedophiles are often very calculated and don't necessarily act on wild impulses but abuse kids for long periods. Often for many years on end.

So while if it's against the law in their country, they must unfortunately face whatever penalty that country's legal system deems appropriate, I don't think therapy to rid them of the urge to euthanise is necessary. Apart from anything else, they'll obviously be struck off, so they won't have the opportunity to do it again anyway.

True.

The homicidal maniac is a different kettle of fish. Their actions are likely to be irrational, and they are probably not born of compassion. That is why removing their desire to kill is acceptable. A child sex offender has urges we would prefer them not to have, and offering them treatment to rid them of those urges is fine; but forcing them to have not only their urges for sex with children, but all their sexual desires purged altogether is not acceptable.

Okay. This might be fine but I am afraid it is a view seen through rose-stained glasses. There are actually pedophiles who honestly and truthfully believe that sexual acts with children is beneficial and loving. That what they are doing will help the child develop and grow. Yes, you and I probably agree that this is completely insane. But this is actually their reasoning on the subject. Some of them think they are doing the kid a favor and think the sexual relationship is not lopsided at all.So that they have urges they might prefer not to have is a truth with certain modifications.
When an abuser honestly believes this and actively pursues 'relationships' with children that often result in decades of severe psychological problems. At times resulting in suicide one has to ask, which is actually worse? Putting a gun to someone elses' head and pulls the trigger, or sowing a seed which causes much more suffering over a very prolonged period of time. One could in fact argue that practicing pedophiles actually torture and maybe even murder their victims. Even if the effects are prolonged and may not be seen for decades.
Personally I think putting a person through such a hell can in some cases actually be worse than murder. Mind you, I said some cases. Not all.

I'm not denying any of this. I just think you should be careful not to overstate the consequences.

Right you are, I should. But I honestly don't think I am. And I have fair reason to believe so. For one without education on the subject anyway. Of course I may be wrong. That's always a possibility. But I really doubt it.

Further: it shouldn't be used unless the patient agrees to it.

And I guess I agree that this should also be the case for pedophiles. Yet repeat offenders need to be considered a serious threat to society's most vulnerable members and some significant action must be taken to ensure the cessation of abuse from these sick (literally. I don't mean it emotionally) individuals.

Introduction to other kinds of pornography could be appropriate as part of therapy. Also, child pornography need not have involved real children in its production. I do not think saying "Oh but they might want child pornography" is an adequate reason to deprive someone of their sexual functioning.

Well, showing me homosexual or pedophile pornography will only make me feel profound disgust. I think it is reasonable to assume a pedophile would only feel disgust at non-pedophile porn.

'Sick' has connotations which are not conducive to a reasonable discussion. 'Unhealthy' or 'damaging' might be preferable.

What else would you call it? The behavior causes severe psychological issues for the victims. Sometimes death. It is unnatural and has no benefit for society whatsoever. I don't see why 'sick' doesn't fit. Maybe it is a cultural thing.

It depends on the therapy.

See, I don't think suppression is the way to go.

Well firstly, this is an odd position to take, because a paedophile who intends to act on their desires but has not done so yet is just as dangerous as one who has not. So I would have thought that you would be interested in preventative measures against them too.

That isn't always possible. If it is possible to detect pedophilia before a crime and without severe infringements on liberties and rights - like for example general health checkups as one grows up - then I say go for it. A prophylactic approach, if possible, is best.

Secondly, I do not think we should be thinking in terms of punishment. I think it is a problematic notion, especially with regard to the penal system, which is there for the protection of the public, for reparation, for rehabilitation, and so on, but absolutely not for vengeance.

I concur. Poor choice of words. I meant, we cannot legally respond to actions not yet taken with the judicial system. We cannot order people to be castrated or sent to treatment if no offense has been made. This is crucial if we are to maintain a healthy democracy.

 

[Meshavrischika]

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

Since you're a biblically based person, what did God say to Noah about death? If they don't meet that criteria, then the answer must be no right?

 

[cantata]

Agreed. But according to the OP therapy alone is not always enough. And if it is not, should we let the person out? It could be that what's wrong with pedophiles is exactly the same that makes people homosexuals. They might not have a say, and wanting a change may never bring one. If this is the case then therapy will not work.

I was thinking of chemical castration as part of that therapy. Therapy can certainly be offered with a view to release, as an alternative to life-long imprisonment. However, I would be concerned about invasive procedures being forcibly performed on someone.

If he had been caught prior to this rampage and had his drive removed why would he abuse the children when the need for it was gone? Castration, and/or therapy might well be needed.

He may well continue to be dangerous, because people willing to cheerfully abuse children are quite likely to have some other issues, wouldn't you agree? Sexuality is deeply embedded in the psyche. Simply ripping out (metaphorically or otherwise) the source of certain hormones will not desexualise someone who has lived their adult as a sexually mature person. I would imagine that it would also leave them confused and conflicted. And I am not convinced that, if you insist that there are cases where therapists are unable to help them to deal with their willingness to abuse children, those same therapists will nevertheless be able to help them with the issues that will ensue from chemical castration.

Murder=unlawful and premeditated killing...

Correct. I don't see how this remark is relevant to the topic at hand, though. I did not suggest that euthanasia is not murder.

Anyway... Pedophiles are often very calculated and don't necessarily act on wild impulses but abuse kids for long periods. Often for many years on end.

Yes, which is why your comparison with homicidal maniacs was unsuitable.

Okay. This might be fine but I am afraid it is a view seen through rose-stained glasses. There are actually pedophiles who honestly and truthfully believe that sexual acts with children is beneficial and loving. That what they are doing will help the child develop and grow. Yes, you and I probably agree that this is completely insane. But this is actually their reasoning on the subject. Some of them think they are doing the kid a favor and think the sexual relationship is not lopsided at all.So that they have urges they might prefer not to have is a truth with certain modifications.

I didn't say anything about them preferring not to have those feelings. If you re-read my post, you will note that I said that we would prefer them not to have them, but I hope that we would not prefer them to have no sexual feelings at all.

When an abuser honestly believes this and actively pursues 'relationships' with children that often result in decades of severe psychological problems. At times resulting in suicide one has to ask, which is actually worse? Putting a gun to someone elses' head and pulls the trigger, or sowing a seed which causes much more suffering over a very prolonged period of time. One could in fact argue that practicing pedophiles actually torture and maybe even murder their victims. Even if the effects are prolonged and may not be seen for decades.
Personally I think putting a person through such a hell can in some cases actually be worse than murder. Mind you, I said some cases. Not all.

Again, this all may be true, but I don't really see your point.

Right you are, I should. But I honestly don't think I am. And I have fair reason to believe so. For one without education on the subject anyway. Of course I may be wrong. That's always a possibility. But I really doubt it.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

And I guess I agree that this should also be the case for pedophiles. Yet repeat offenders need to be considered a serious threat to society's most vulnerable members and some significant action must be taken to ensure the cessation of abuse from these sick (literally. I don't mean it emotionally) individuals.

But the choice is not between letting dangerous people go as they are, and letting them go after castrating them. It is between keeping them in a secure environment (where they can continue to undergo therapy with a view to eventual release) or letting them go after castrating them and nevertheless subjecting them to extensive therapy. No one is suggesting that we should just release people who continue to put children at risk. That is why I suggest offering them a choice.

Well, showing me homosexual or pedophile pornography will only make me feel profound disgust. I think it is reasonable to assume a pedophile would only feel disgust at non-pedophile porn.

Paedophiles are not necessarily only attracted to children.

What else would you call it? The behavior causes severe psychological issues for the victims. Sometimes death. It is unnatural and has no benefit for society whatsoever. I don't see why 'sick' doesn't fit. Maybe it is a cultural thing.

You are using the word 'sick' - which should, if used properly, refer to the person who is suffering from the sickness - to actually refer to the sickness in terms of the effects it has on others. That is why it is pejorative, and that is why it is inappropriate.

See, I don't think suppression is the way to go.

I quite agree: change is preferable, and achievable.

That isn't always possible. If it is possible to detect pedophilia before a crime and without severe infringements on liberties and rights - like for example general health checkups as one grows up - then I say go for it. A prophylactic approach, if possible, is best.

Would you advocate the chemical castration of everyone found with child pornography, for example?

I concur. Poor choice of words. I meant, we cannot legally respond to actions not yet taken with the judicial system. We cannot order people to be castrated or sent to treatment if no offense has been made. This is crucial if we are to maintain a healthy democracy.

Fair enough.

 

[Ramona]

Depends on the circumstances. Castration is an option I think would be better.

Absolutely not. Rape does not require functioning male equipment to perpitrate.

They all need to die.

 

[Khameo]

Absolutely not. Rape does not require functioning male equipment to perpitrate.

They all need to die.

I'm beginning to think you're not just joking about this.
What a shame.

We should treat people who rape kids the exact same as we treat people who rape adults. Rape is rape. It doesn't magically vary depending on age. If you think it does, you're an angry person who needs to calm down before you make a fool of yourself.

 

[Ramona]

I'm beginning to think you're not just joking about this.
What a shame.

We should treat people who rape kids the exact same as we treat people who rape adults. Rape is rape. It doesn't magically vary depending on age. If you think it does, you're an angry person who needs to calm down before you make a fool of yourself.

I was raped for several years in my childhood and then again when I was in my late teens. I'm fully aware that I come off as incredibly angry here. I believe that all rapists - those who rape children and those who rape adults alike - need to die. And I stand by what I've said.

Rape is the only topic which I feel incapable of not appealing to emotion on, which is why I do not make the laws. In fact, usually I stay away from such debates because I inevitably get infuriated, but for some reason I allowed myself to be drawn in this time.

Unless you know what it's like, refrain from taking that holier-than-thou attitude with me. Cheers.

 

[TheReasoner]

I'm beginning to think you're not just joking about this.
What a shame.

We should treat people who rape kids the exact same as we treat people who rape adults. Rape is rape. It doesn't magically vary depending on age. If you think it does, you're an angry person who needs to calm down before you make a fool of yourself.

Rape is rape. But there is a difference. Pedophiles often abuse over a long period of time. Rape is often not that commonly an offense to be repeated years after years after years.

Still, I really really don't advocate the killing of pedophiles. Nor do I want rapists or murderers killed. I do, however, want to learn what makes them tick and how to fix it.

 

[keith99]

Absolutely not. Rape does not require functioning male equipment to perpitrate.

They all need to die.

Far too often just eliminating the equipment just means that rape takes more brutal forms. I agree a very poor solution.

I'm very wary about death for rape. Like you I have had some experience. Unlike you not as a victim. The one case I was involved with included the wrong person being fingered, and from what I've heard otherwise this is all too common.

I've also noticed that any heinous crime very often results in an attitude of get the b@stard that did this, often at the cose of being sre they got the right b@stard.

Add in the costs of a capital trial and appeals and I'll opt for life in prison instead.

 

[Ramona]

Far too often just eliminating the equipment just means that rape takes more brutal forms. I agree a very poor solution.

I'm very wary about death for rape. Like you I have had some experience. Unlike you not as a victim. The one case I was involved with included the wrong person being fingered, and from what I've heard otherwise this is all too common.

I've also noticed that any heinous crime very often results in an attitude of get the b@stard that did this, often at the cose of being sre they got the right b@stard.

Add in the costs of a capital trial and appeals and I'll opt for life in prison instead.

In all actuality I agree with you. I'm against the death penalty solely because the risk of killing an innocent man or woman is just too great.

However, all rapists deserve to die.

 

[JohnLocke]

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

First things first, I don't think that one should refer to the molestation of a child as an "indiscretion." Whether you believe the activity should be a capital crime or not such behavior is essentially universally reviled as one of if not the most foul and immoral things one can do (admittedly there is a divergence of opinion as to definitions).

Second, it depends on your goal. If the primary purpose is cost-effective prevention of harm, then under the current legal system life without parole actually saves a good bit of money (legal fees rack up right quickly). It also avoids some of the problems of making a mistake in the original conviction, that is to say, how do you say "Sorry I, the State, murdered your family member after "proving" that he or she did something horrible, when he or she did not in fact. Oops."

While I believe very strongly that my life would be greatly improved if various people were to suddenly suffer from explosive decompression, defenestration etc. I am reminded that I too make mistakes, errors in judgment, and that I never have the whole story or the whole truth. And there's that Bible thing running about "Vengeance is mine."

In the end, much as I'd like to, I personally can't support extending capital punishment even to this. The crime is truly horrible, and unlike many, I do see a great deal of value in the victim's favor knowing that the perpetrator was dead. But, at least sometimes, the person killed really will be innocent, just because we live in an imperfect and probabilistic universe, and I can't have that on my conscience. Not when there is a less fatall nearly as effective alternative.

That said, I wouldn't object to any "jury nullification" if a parent managed to kill the individual who had molested their child.

Peace

 

[Khameo]

Unless you know what it's like, refrain from taking that holier-than-thou attitude with me. Cheers.

I do.
And I still don't think that raping a child is any worse than raping an adult.
And I don't think that it's a crime that deserves death.

Rape is rape. But there is a difference. Pedophiles often abuse over a long period of time. Rape is often not that commonly an offense to be repeated years after years after years.

If someone's committed multiple offenses, they should be punished accordingly. What age the victim is shouldn't matter.

 

[cantata]

I do.
And I still don't think that raping a child is any worse than raping an adult.
And I don't think that it's a crime that deserves death.

Although I agree with you that it doesn't deserve death - I don't believe any crime does - do you not think there's a case to be made that raping a child will frequently cause more long-term harm than raping an adult? I'm just speculating.

 

[TheReasoner]

If someone's committed multiple offenses, they should be punished accordingly. What age the victim is shouldn't matter.

Children are less equipped to deal with severe trauma than adults. I do think age matters.

 

[morningstar2651]

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

Indeed. Let's round 'em all up into concentration camps; we already have a registry.

 

[BigBadWlf]

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

Considering what the research shows about just who child molesters are….doing so would deprive millions of children of their fathers

 

[TheReasoner]

Considering what the research shows about just who child molesters are….doing so would deprive millions of children of their fathers

I think sexual molestation is what's meant by molestation in the OP...

 

[Ramona]

Considering what the research shows about just who child molesters are….doing so would deprive millions of children of their fathers

I wish someone had deprived me of my father. Maybe then I could have escaped being raped repeatedly...I don't think I was the first kid he did that to.

I have to unsubscribe, and I'm sorry if I ticked anyone off in my posts. I know my words are emotionally charged, which is why I usually stay out of these threads.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Considering what the research shows about just who child molesters are….doing so would deprive millions of children of their fathers

A child who has a child molestor for a father would be better off to be deprived of that father because most likely they are being abused by them and so are their friends.

 

[TheReasoner]

A child who has a child molestor for a father would be better off to be deprived of that father because most likely they are being abused by them and so are their friends.

Yeah. Given the damage caused by this I have an inkling it'd be better to be without a father or mother than to have one who abuses their kid sexually.