What to do with child molesters?

[Divinus Arma]

Set them on fire.Then put out the fire. Then set them on fire again. Then put out the fire again. Then set them on fire again. Then put out... etc.etc. eternity.

Yay.

[ichi]

Set them on fire.Then put out the fire. Then set them on fire again. Then put out the fire again. Then set them on fire again. Then put out... etc.etc. eternity.

Yay.

I have a little experience and knowledge about what happens when people are burned, and to be honest, no one deserves this.

That said, I support severe punishment, including castration and the death penalty, for pedophiles

ichi

[Soulforged]

One thing is what you like to do, and another thing is what the state can do...The better way is to put yourselves in their shoes. How do you know that you'll never become one? Even more if the society causes this problems (as it sure does) then how can society protest for his own creation, and even execute them...It always amuses me how some people think really...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What purpose does the death of the pedophile serve -- aside from vengeance.

Removal from society until cured (which is unlikely at best) is a necessity.

Working to identify any possible genetic component, definable mental abberation so as to head off such horrible events before they occur is highly desirable.

Torture or cruelty in effecting punishment is simply sadism. I have problems seeing the value of torture to extract information that may save lives, enacting torture or maiming a criminal so as to let her/him suffer more seems a little sick. If their sins have earned them eternal torture in some classical version of Hell, it will arrive soon enough and last long enough without society adding to it -- and lowering itself in the process.

If the only means of effectively removing such a criminal from society is death, it should at the least be quick and as painless as possible. We do put down mad dogs, but we don't drag them behind a pickup truck for 6 miles to accomplish it.

Seamus

[Soulforged]

If the only means of effectively removing such a criminal from society is death, it should at the least be quick and as painless as possible. We do put down mad dogs, but we don't drag them behind a pickup truck for 6 miles to accomplish it.

You can remove him from society if you want with life in prison. That's the equivalent here to death penalty. If the state makes a mistake they've the possibility to take him out. But again this is not a problem of vengeance. The retribution (possition that I'm begining to abandon) gives rational canons of proportionality to the matter. If you put a murderer in jail, let's say for life, then the molester cannot have that punishment, it has to be much less. After all the state cannot tell you what's best for you. Then if you commit the crime you're for, let's say, 10 years 15 max in jail and then you get out. This kind of reaction of people calling other mans "dogs" or "rabid dogs" or doing that kind of anallogy really impresses me, hopefully the law considers them humans nontheless.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You can remove him from society if you want with life in prison. That's the equivalent here to death penalty. If the state makes a mistake they've the possibility to take him out. But again this is not a problem of vengeance. The retribution (possition that I'm begining to abandon) gives rational canons of proportionality to the matter. If you put a murderer in jail, let's say for life, then the molester cannot have that punishment, it has to be much less. After all the state cannot tell you what's best for you. Then if you commit the crime you're for, let's say, 10 years 15 max in jail and then you get out. This kind of reaction of people calling other mans "dogs" or "rabid dogs" or doing that kind of anallogy really impresses me, hopefully the law considers them humans nontheless.

Please note that the initial line of my post spoke against the judicial use of the death penalty. The "rabid dog" analogy was only a fallback point, noting that cruelty in punishment was unjustified even if you believe death to be a valid judicial penalty. Aim your sarcasm at the totality of my message, do not pick and choose separate bits. To do so is unfair to my point. If my point is not clearly expressed enough for you, ask me to clarify.

As to your other point (proportionality in sentencing and the state's right to act/control in such instances), I believe my rights cease when they harm the life, liberty or property of others. In the case of violent crime, I believe society has the reluctant duty to incarcerate the malefactor so as to protect society as a whole. Graduated sentencing and an often haphazard parole system may not be accomplishing that goal. I have little sympathy whatsoever for recidivists, and I am annoyed that my country's judicial system allows for too much of it.

Seamus

[Redleg]

As to your other point (proportionality in sentencing and the state's right to act/control in such instances), I believe my rights cease when they harm the life, liberty or property of others. In the case of violent crime, I believe society has the reluctant duty to incarcerate the malefactor so as to protect society as a whole. Graduated sentencing and an often haphazard parole system may not be accomplishing that goal. I have little sympathy whatsoever for recidivists, and I am annoyed that my country's judicial system allows for too much of it.

Seamus

Couldn't agree with you more.

[yesdachi]

You can remove him from society if you want with life in prison.

Being in prison is not being removed from society.

[Soulforged]

Being in prison is not being removed from society.

yes it's. They're called "cilvil deads". Trully.

If the only means of effectively removing such a criminal from society is death, it should at the least be quick and as painless as possible. We do put down mad dogs, but we don't drag them behind a pickup truck for 6 miles to accomplish it.

A) My post was not aimed with sarcasm. b) It was not aimed at you, but in general. c) I was against your last point (the one quoted). D) The dogma in law, and law itself, provide general appliable laws (norms, principles, models) that must be abstract. The judge can move within those lines. The legislation cannot leave to the arbitrarianess of the judge the decision over the kind or intensity of the punishment.

I believe my rights cease when they harm the life, liberty or property of others.

I too.

In the case of violent crime, I believe society has the reluctant duty to incarcerate the malefactor so as to protect society as a whole.

I too, though I differ in the way that society intercedes.

Graduated sentencing and an often haphazard parole system may not be accomplishing that goal.

I believe that too, but as a general rule. In concret cases if there's no need for more reprehenssion then the subject can and must be freed (if I understood the meaning of parole). However in the somewhat inverse case (reincidence) I totally disagree, the state must limit itself to judge actions and not persons, wich this rule does.

I have little sympathy whatsoever for recidivists, and I am annoyed that my country's judicial system allows for too much of it.

I don't understand the word "recidivist" (it would help me if you explain it to me ).

[Kaiser of Arabia]

It is an interesting question, one requiring much thought and such. Can any of these people be reformed? Is it worth it?

Attacks on children are some of the most henious crimes against the human race I can think of. Anyone who would attack an innocent child out of hatred or lust is obviously a sociopath. Of course, everyone has their uses. And maybe some of these people can be reformed.

But the sad reality of the matter is most of them cannot be. And we must base descisions on the majority, rather than the few. So, the only solution I can see is either life imprisonment or, well, death.