Why must pedophilia always be brought into it? I’ve always maintained that pedophilia is a sickness, and to be afflicted with it must - in some cases - be some kind of living Hell. Yes, I’ve no doubt there are remorseless, irredeemable child-molesters out there who will actively attempt to justify their crimes and need to be locked up where they can’t hurt anyone. Equally, however, there must be fundamentally decent people out there struggling with a compulsion they know is wrong - people who never touch a child, or commit a single crime in a moment of weakness, and haven’t we all been weak on occasion?
It upsets me that I inevitably end up arguing Devil’s advocate in these situations, but the simple math of Kiddy-Diddler = Worthless Animal Kill-Kill-Kill always forces me to try to see the other side of the issue. It reeks of holier-than-thou moralistic masturbation. Or recreational outrage, if you will.
Actually as a Canadian, “we” don’t put down any criminals. I have always stated, and I stand 100% behind this statement.
“The death penalty should be reserved for people that deliberately hunt and kill other people, Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo etc, people that kill cops, and people that deliberately and consciously hurt and/or rape kids.”
My reasoning is simple. People like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo have no place in society, they cannot be rehabilitated.
People that kill cops show a fundamental lack of respect for law and order, we need L&O in society to function.
People that knowingly hurt and rape kids, have something wrong with them, they too are not fit for my society.
It’s not that I value one person’s life over another, but I do believe we are all capable of killing, we just don’t usually. I do understand the temporary madness that leads to crimes of passion, and those people just need to be punished. BUT, I do believe once they have served their time they can become productive members of society again. Same with other crimes gone wrong and people dying, if you did not wake up and decide today is the day I am going to go hunting and kill someone, you can be rehabilitated, usually.
What does that even mean? It has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
The obvious point being that there’s a lot of ways we treat humans and animals different, so “we put down vicious dogs” isn’t relevant one way or another to how we treat people.
I didn’t mention evil, you did. I am talking about repeated patterns of behaviour - people who continue to show no regard for others. And I think society should educate people to understand that if they want to harm others there is something wrong with them. They shouldn’t think it is right to act on their impulses. They should do something about it and, if they can’t, they should spare society their presence and know they are doing the right thing. If you have an overwhelming impulse to kill hookers be a cool guy and kill yourself. Thinking of killing your kids, your ex-wife and then yourself - reverse the order, be a man.
I am certain that serial killers have something wrong with them. Something incurable, something that makes them not suitable to living with other people…ergo
Crazy but not a sociopath well I forgive you. We will put you in the mental health facility you should have been in in the first place if the government hadn’t closed them all.
Unless the 16 year old is “shagging” many 15 year olds against their will what does it have to do with anything I said. I would not execute any one time rapists even or one time murderers. Most of such events are mistakes, more pathetic than “evil”.
Okay? And the death penalty is the only option for keeping dangerous people out of society?
What if there were such a thing as a test that could prove that a certain 5 y.o. could not be rehabilitated (and he committed a heinous act)? Should he be executed?
Of course you do. You couldn’t possibly be for the death penalty if you didn’t.
Of course it does. I was going to post the same exact first sentence, “We eat cows, so we should eat people”, but AW beat me to it.
You said, “My reasoning for the death penalty is simple. We put down vicious dogs, so we should put down vicious people.”
The response shows that just because we act towards one way towards certain animals, it doesn’t automatically mean we should treat humans the same way. If we were discussing using humans for food, would you have written this: “My reasoning for eating people is simple. We eat innocent cows, so we should eat innocent people.”
I’m against the death penalty for practical purposes, but I think that there is a strong philosophical justification for it that your post overlooks.
People who commit heinous crimes have pretty much abrogated their humanity. Those qualities that allow us to live in society (compassion, respect, a sense of right and wrong, etc.) are the very qualities that separate us from animals. When you so blatantly demonstrate a lack of those qualities through some heinous crime, there is nothing left but a dangerous animal. What do we do with dangerous animals? You know the answer.
Now that analysis has nothing to do with the fair, dispassionate, and efficient administration of the death penalty, which I agree is more than we’ve been shown to be capable of.
I’m not talking hypothetical, I’m talking reality.
Fair enough, I will restate. I find every murder tragic. I support the Death Penalty for the following 3 instances…
Better?
Again with the hypothetical. This is the Pit, not GD, I am stating my opinion, and my reasoning for my opinion. If you don’t like it tough. You can try to make me see your point of view, I am always open to that. But eating people and putting 5 year old kids to death just wouldn’t work in my world.
I see your analogy DT, but to me it is relevant because people that hunt other people are animals in my eyes. Hell, they are worse then animals, and I see no point in keeping them as part of my society.
The problem is that the above is not possible to establish as fact. You state it as if we all just know it’s true, and also that which criminals have abrogated their humanity (making it moral to kill them) will be obvious to everyone. I see that you acknowledge the failure of the system to deal death in a just way, but I’m curious what system you imagine that could do any better at deciding objectively when a human being has become an animal? So far it seems like the various ways people have tried to do that through history have gone, to put it mildly, a bit sour.
And I’m not sure I agree with your assumptions regardless, but it would make for a better GD thread, the idea of whether a single act can invalidate any future behavior on the part of a person.
I will state, however, that I have no problem with the death penalty for extreme cases like Nazi war criminals. Or if we ever manage to get our hands on Osama Bin Laden. I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about him.
Yeh - regardless of whys, whats and whens, we need only look at a grainy cctv image of him to decide that due to the fact he was there holding a gun and has ‘eeevil’ eyes, he should be executed.
yup - i cant see why the death penalty could possibly be a bad thing. Shame India doesnt have a right to carry eh ? Then you could have executed him on the spot to save time ( ooh and money - dont forget about saving money )
FarmerChick: how you gonna deal with the crazy ? I suspect many of them have non of the social qualities that you describe and have done terrible crimes. What you going to do with them ?
The crazies need to be locked up and helped. BUT, once they are deemed not crazy, I don’t really know, should they then be punished for their crime?
There is a case in Edmonton that just hit thenews, this delusional guy killed someone on Nov/04, was committed in Dec/05, and is already allowed to be out in the community.
Until someone is willing to guarantee that these monsters will never see the light of day, that they will never engineer a murder behind prison, that they will never kill anyone in prison, that they will never escape and kill more people, I’m all for killing serial killers/mass murderers/spree killers and others like the guy in the OP that have commited crimes so horrible that they don’t deserve anything that would give them a seconds worth of pleasure.
Serial killers are in a class all by themselves. You cannot compare Olson and Bernardo to someone that has a one time psychotic break. Again, this is just my opinion. These two, hell Bernardo’s ex-wife Homolka too IMHO, should all have been put to death. They are evil fuckers with no redeeming qualities.
WARNING - THIS SHIT IS UPSETTING TO READ, SO YOU ARE WARNED.
This is precisely why I’m against the death penalty. When I get caught up in the heat of the moment, with emotions blurring my reasoning, I should be able to take comfort knowing that the state isn’t falling into the same trap. (IOW, the government should be the buffer between people like this, and people like me.)
Until someone is willing to guarantee that not a single innocent person will ever be executed for a crime they did not commit, I’m going to have to completely disagree with you.
“Tis better to allow ten guilty men to go free, than to murder one innocent man.”
Or, as J. R. R. Tolkien wrote in Lord of the Rings, “Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
-Gandalf the Grey
