What to do with child molesters?

[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 ).

[sharrukin]

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

It means a criminal who is a repeat offender. Usually in the case of child molestors it is half a dozen child victims or more before the state actually does something.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

A recidivist is a repeat offender, a person for whom criminal acts may well have become a modus vivendi. I believe you are addressing the same thing when you say "reincidence" (American English would use the word recurrence or re-occurrence).

You seem to be advancing the position that each action be judged and dealt with on an individual basis, and that a person with a history of similar actions be treated no differently than a person for whom a criminal action is an anomaly. While valid on a philosophical level, I do not believe that this would be practical. In my country, most crime is the work of people who pursue criminal activity as a career. Such individuals are a threat to social order and should be removed from society more or less permanently (rehabilitation is possible, though infrequent) as soon as their willingness to become a careerist criminal is demonstrated.

Seamus

[yesdachi]

Originally Posted by yesdachi
"Being in prison is not being removed from society."

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

A society is a sum of its parts. Prisons and the prisoners in them are a part of the sum. Being given a title doesn’t remove them from society and neither does hiding them away. They are a financial burden and force a negative influence on the people.

Here’s an exert from a report I found on $ spent in my state, other states (like CA) are way higher…

Michigan’s Department of Corrections will spend more than $1.7 billion from the state’s general fund this year, consuming more than 20 percent of the state’s general fund revenues. The state’s prison population, now around 49,000 inmates, has risen by more than 40 percent since the early 1990s. The MDOC requires nearly 19,000 employees, and according to the state Senate Fiscal Agency, it costs approximately $28,000 each year to imprison an inmate in Michigan.

How can something that takes 20% of my tax money, and has 49,000 people in it not be a part of my society? And this is only the money factor and not the harder to quantify “influence” factor that these monsters force on society with just their presence.

Criminals in prison may be removed from the mainstream but are still very much a part of society.

20% of my tax money!!! GAH!!!

PS. If you try and counter with “it costs more to sentence the death penalty than life in prison” I can refute that nonsense.

[Templar Knight]

As with any sex offender lock them up and don't let them out. The re-offending rates are shockingly high.

[Meneldil]

I just watched a tv documentary about recidivist rapers, and apparently both physical castration and chemical castration aren't fully effective.

The guy may still buy testosterone pills (?) and rape another woman/child.