What to do with child molesters?

[Soulforged]

Chemical castration works in The Netherlands. See my earlier post.

So you think it's for a model of modern and rational society? please...

[scooter_the_shooter]

Kill them every last one of them (if there is solid proof). I may have removed some groups from my "kill them all" list recently but pedos are still on there.

[Adrian II]

So you think it's for a model of modern and rational society? please...

The method is rational, the treatment is humane. I wouldn't know about modern, I hear that notion has been deconstructed..

[Adrian II]

Kill them every last one of them (if there is solid proof). I may have removed some groups from my "kill them all" list recently but pedos are still on there.

Well, that is a relief, as well as big news for the entire forum. I have had sleepless nights wondering who was on Ceasar010's deathlist and who wasn't. This means I can sleep again. Thank you for your invaluable contribution.

[Byzantine Prince]

Provided there is no doubt that they are actually child molestors:

forgive their actions, and then kindly place a bullet through their heads for courtesy.

[Adrian II]

Provided there is no doubt that they are actually child molestors: forgive their actions, and then kindly place a bullet through their heads for courtesy.

I hate to think what you would do to adult molesters.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Well, that is a relief, as well as big news for the entire forum. I have had sleepless nights wondering who was on Ceasar010's deathlist and who wasn't. This means I can sleep again. Thank you for your invaluable contribution.

Its not really a death list...I just want killers, pedos, etc dead (car jackers and bread thieves used to be on there though)

..................................................................



Seriously though...they ruined a kids life why not kill them?

[Malcolm Big Head]

guillotine.

[AntiochusIII]

The issue seems to be complicated.

On an emotional-only point of view, you'd be surprised how many people advocate immediate, brutal execution of such offense. That is understandable, but is it right? I don't believe so.

Viewing logically, however, pedophilia is complicated in itself. There are claims that it's caused by being a victim of an earlier pedophile; others claim genetic makeup. But since both biological and psychological studies around these things are pretty much conflicting and/or lacking, we couldn't properly agree on anything. I, myself, of course, would agree on different levels of punishment based on the seriousness of the crime.

Indeed, for the most serious cases (actual murder, rape, etc) death may, in fact, be considered a merciful action. And, even among those who completely disagree with any death penalty, society is, to a point, justified to defend itself.

For less serious ones, though still damaging to the victim, my opinion would be that these people should be put into a mental facility for at least 10 years, with no utterly stupid "punishment time reduction" rules put in. And close monitor after that. Of course, repeated offense would require that the individual be removed from society. Though death penalty is, in my opinion, too severe in this case. "Lock up for life" would be a good choice. The argument that the cost would be too high is not wise. Who are we to determine a life's worth?

For very mild ones, that I'd say being "rehabilitated" and closely monitored for several years. And perhaps regular meeting with psychologists for close inspections. Who knows? Could it be healed? Human minds are too complex for a few millenia of isolated studies with no real direction.

However, for my standpoint, the safety of "society" (though mainly concentrated on would-be victims) comes first.

[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

[yesdachi]

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

Being in prison is not being removed from society.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Then why dont we just shoot them?

[Templar Knight]

waste of bullets, water is free

[scooter_the_shooter]

But a bullet is quicker.

[ah_dut]

Caution: What I'm going to type now is going to upset a lot of you

Todays societies, and ESPECIALLY Dutch society, force young people and especially girls to become...err, mature early on. This is the MTV generation, kids being stimulated everywhere they look. In the Netherlands C&A is selling string underware for girls as young as 12! I could think of more such examples, but that would be kind of redundant.
When discos fail to keep 13 year old girls out (and I mean come on, bouncers are doing this several evenings per week- how difficult is it to tell if a girl is 13 or 21?)
Older guys visit those discos, guys who also grew up with MTV etc...on top of this, it's not just a case of an older guy wanting a young girl- the young girl wants him too.
Stuff like that happens outside of discos too. Kids have sex younger and younger when the years pass, and don't mind doing it with somebody way older.
So it's easy to put them in jail, and even easier to give them the electric chair. Ignore the root of the problem and just kill the guy, the mob approves anyway.

I know this isn't what you meant in your post Don, but those guys fall under "pedophile" too and I wanted to add some nuance here. As for the kind of guy you're talking about, ie the old pervert who abducts little girls in cars, I can be brief. Unless we can be very, very certain that in a particular case there's practicly no risk of recidivism, life long imprisonment. Otherwise a long sentence and compulsory psychiatric treatment before released in the open (TBS in the Netherlands allows this lifelong, dunno about the rest of the world)
So no public floggings, live executions on TV, etc

Excellent post Germaanse Strijder, as English Assasain has already stated, we must decide what precisely constitutes a pedophile. A Pedophile who rapes and kills children (or just the first) is what EA calls a type A...give em to Capo/Kaiser is my honest opinion...

As to statuary rape, I'm sure Malcolm will back me up on this (him of Glasgow) and that's if they're child rapists (which they technically are) then a good few of my friends are going byebye...As to my understanding the boy is the rapist in USI situations. That's 2 consenting 14 year olds in this case, though in one particular situation I'd rather not get into it involved a 12 year old girl and a 14 year old.

Germaanese Strijder again presents an excellent point on the both parties are consenting and clubbing thing...I've never been able to get into a club (even one for 16 and over...I'm a pretty scrawny 14 year old so understandable) but many girls I know have (which I just don't get...) but that's life. What happens if a 14 year old girl wants a 40 year old man and vice versa? My answer, I'm going to run away as ihave no clue. Actual rape (as in one side didn't consent, mainly talking about the underage party here) is probably unforgivable and again, I'd say hand em to Kaiser or just throw away the key