Paramite Pie wrote: » As uncomfortable as I am with the thought, I think the death penalty has some merits. When Saddam Hussein was on trial, many human rights activists were saying the death penalty is wrong and he should serve his sentence for life. At the time I agreed. Death Penalty was always wrong. The Iraqi Court didn't agree and he was sentenced to death. The world didn't end and justice was served. That's the moment I began to consider the death penalty. If there's clear evidence proving someones guilt (CCTV, DNA etc...) then I think some extreme cases warrant it (Ian Watkins *cough*) but never in the case of circumstantial evidence. Many of us forget that the Death Penalty was abolished at a time when there was less scientific/forensic certainty. We all know that innocent people were wrongly executed, often with only circumstantial evidence and/or racial prejudice. All I can say to that is; Well the times they are a changing.
Savage Tyrant wrote: » I personally would be in support of the death penalty in certain cases. I personally don't think that child abusers, rapists and various other "grades" of sex offenders aren't worth the time or effort to rehabilitate or to house for years on end at the expense of others. I don't say that in a rabble rousing "burn all pedos" mentality. I just think it would be a better option to have rid of them.
Mr Williams wrote: » What are you talking about ? The majority of paedophiles go on to reoffend.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » I said that "there's no evidence to suggest that pedophilia is an unchangeable or untreatable condition". If you disagree, the next step is to prove me wrong by providing said evidence (that you have read and with relevant comments - not just the first link from a google search, as others have done) that proves my statement incorrect, not posting incorrect analogies.
Holsten wrote: » This is a myth. I mean I don't know the actual statistics on pedophiles but I read in the Irish Times recently that sex offenders have the lowest re-offending rate of all criminals. See for yourself : http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sex-offenders-least-likely-to-commit-further-crimes-1.1623468
catallus wrote: » While it is very understandable that this debate has degenerated into a "who can punish sex-offenders most savagely" fiasco, the point of the thread is being lost. Everyone gets riled up when sex-offences get mentioned; probably some primal reaction to perceived injustice mixed with sexual envy, and the innate hunger for revenge, etc. etc. but to confine the issue to the punishment of sex-offenders is to allow the thread to be derailed. It has been a while since any post has addressed the proper place of capital punishment in the array of sanctions offered in the pantheon of justice. Is it because people have lost sight of the true inescapable nature of justice itself? The fact that punishment and revenge and justice are all part of the same thing? Like I said, jumping straight to the sex-offenders thing is a logical short-circuit, unbecoming of a proper debate.
Bepolite wrote: » Most sex offenders are damaged individuals, often victims of sexual abuse themselves. If we had better mental health facilities, invested more in treating people who themselves have been abused, we'd have less sex offenders. I simply can't agree with a position where we simply say, sorry mate you're not worth the effort we're gonna kill you.
Mr Williams wrote: » So how can you "treat" a pedophilie ? the only "treatment" I could think of that would work would be castration.If you want evidence just pick up any newspaper and see storys of sex offenders with multiple convictions for sexual related crimes. I wonder would you like a larry murphy type character to move into your area ? if we follow your logic hes now reformed and is a harmless individual.
Mr Williams wrote: » If I was a Judge and I heard a sex offender claiming they had been abused themselves I'g give them double whatever sentence I was going to give them.
Mr Williams wrote: » Somebody whos been abused themselves should be the last person to abuse a child.
Mr Williams wrote: » So how can you "treat" a pedophilie ? the only "treatment" I could think of that would work would be castration. If you want evidence just pick up any newspaper and see storys of sex offenders with multiple convictions for sexual related crimes. I wonder would you like a larry murphy type character to move into your area ? if we follow your logic hes now reformed and is a harmless individual.
end of the road wrote: » right, so you would give them double the sentence not for the crime commited but because they told the court that they were abused themselves and in their heads were made to think that it was normal? ideally yes, but in the real world it doesn't work like that for some
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » You're still missing my point: I questioned your stance that pedophiles can not change. THAT is the satetment under discussion. THAT is the statement that needs backing up. And I'm talking about evidence from studies and scientists, not tabloid newspapers. Proving that one pedophiel did not chagne does nothign to prove your statement. You also need to stop making assumptions about points I never made in order to sidestep the request.
Mr Williams wrote: » Can you show me any cases were a person was able to change their sexualty through treatment ? Also are you saying you would have no problem if a sex offender moved into your area ?
Billy86 wrote: » 1. Under 15% of sex offenders re-offended as of the latest data from the CSO published less than a week ago. It is the lowest recidivism rate of any grouping of criminal offences that there is. End of discussion. 2. This question has been covered in depth literally in the last few pages. Would you want someone who broke into peoples houses living in your area? Because the last guy asking your question couldn't answer this. They are more than four times more likely to re-offend than a sex offender.
Mr Williams wrote: » Those statistics dont really prove anything since most rapes are not reported. Its likely that child abusers just get more clever to avoid getting caught. Breaking into someones house is not on the same level as raping a child. The fact that 15%(by your statistics) of them reoffend should be reason enough to never let them out, because if you let them out other children will get abused.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » That's not how this works: you made the statement. It's up to you to prove it or come clean and state that you don't know whether the statement you made is true or not. I don't have to prove anything because I haven't made that statement. The point I'm making is that it is pure fallacy to say that you support the death penalty for pedophiles (or any other offense/offender) based on a point that is ultimately wrong. It's even dangerous to support the idea that people should put other people's lives on the line over such a stateemnt.
Can you also ask you what made you ask the second question?
Mr Williams wrote: » Your not able to back up your claim that pedophiles can change. When all the evidence shows that they cant.
Mr Williams wrote: » Your not able to back up your claim that pedophiles can change.
When all the evidence shows that they cant. Just look at this scumbag whos still trying to abuse children.
http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/children-welcome-at-paedos-apartment
Becuase if you really believe sex offenders can charge you should have no problem with one of them moving into your area.
Mr Williams wrote: » I dont believe it when they say they were abused. Any criminal who is charged with a crime will come up with some sob story to try and justify what they did. We are dealing with people who are pure evil so you have to take whatever they say with a large pinch of salt.
catallus wrote: » The problem with the argument of the last few pages is that it is constraining itself within the provably ineffective parameters of using statistics and levels of "relative harm" to critically assess the merits of punishment, be it capital or otherwise, i.e the whole debate going on here is contextualising itself within the pre-existing rules of "Risk Avoidance" which have permeated nearly every part of the social fabric which is touched by any part of the state, in this case the judiciary. It is this fanatical adherence to the principles of avoiding risk which have led us to the sorry state of sentencing which has grown over the past 40 or so years. The fact that the whole structure of sentencing has completely sided with the rights and needs of the perpetrators, and totally ignores those of the victims of crime, can be identified as the ultimate consequence of this aversion to risk: the total capitulation to the rights of the wrongdoer if there is an ounce of an iota of "innocence". All this talk of re-offending and deterrence is just so much beating about the bush. The fact is is that the justice system is way too lenient when dealing with heinous crime such as theft or assault or burglarising homes.
