Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Paramite Pie · 22-12-2013 01:59AM

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.

Bepolite · 22-12-2013 02:09AM

DNA is frequently trotted out as a conclusive catch all - it simply isn't. To be fair I've seen certain people make the argument who should know better so it can be forgiven here. CSI is to forensic science what Star Trek is to space exploration, yes it has some loose basis in fact but most of what you see is pure nonsense.

It's very rare that a full DNA profile is used. It's normally only the male part of the DNA that's tested (Y-STR) and this is not unique. In rape cases it is usually impossible to get a full DNA profile of the rapist because the female DNA contaminates the sample. Furthermore different DNA profiles can't be compared, mistakes happen, junk science happens and sometimes people even make things up.

If you require 100% proof positive for a crime DNA simply isn't the answer in the majority of cases.

Savage Tyrant · 22-12-2013 02:17AM

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.

end of the road · 22-12-2013 02:23AM

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.

not good enough, no DNA evidence or any technology will be good enough to allow somebody to be executed, any case where the death penalty is handed down isn't "justice served" but ferrel savagery and hypacricey

Bepolite · 22-12-2013 02:32AM

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.

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.

Holsten · 22-12-2013 02:33AM

Mr Williams wrote: »

What are you talking about ? The majority of paedophiles go on to reoffend.

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

Billy86 · 22-12-2013 03:12AM

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.

Well, you see, his main problem is that sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rates of all convicted criminals, with under 15% as of the latest report published less than a week ago. It really hurts his argument, and really shows that he gets his information from the Jeremy Kyle or some such nonsense.

Much like 'B.A. Baracus' who tried to laugh off official gov't reporting as trivial but couldn't give the statistics of equal credibility he claimed to have and then just ran away when his own 'simple question' was asked back to him, but that's another matter.

As for reformation of paedophiles, I think their attraction is a lot less likely to subside than their likelihood to act on it. Because, horrible as it is to say in circumstances like this... what gets you hard, gets you hard. But you can't kill someone for what at the end of the day is a chemical reaction (I've always had a strange admiration of sorts for people with this attraction who managed to put it away for their entire lives because they know how wrong it is - I find it bizarre and creepy, but to deny your sexual urges for your whole life must be difficult, and they are definitely out there). I reckon for a good number of paedophiles, 'standard' porn or even 18-21 years olds or whatnot can do the trick, and many others can be brought around to see why they should never in any way act on it, and have and do do so as statistics will back up. I also think the recidivism rates are lower because as a sex offender if would likely be much harder to gain release back to the public from a qualified jury than it would as a car thief or home invader, but let's not let facts and logic get in the way of things for the Daily Mail brigade, eh?

Billy86 · 22-12-2013 03:14AM

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

I quoted that exact article a few days ago on this thread and a death penalty apologist tried to label it as made up 'Google' facts. I directed them to the official CSO article... and they disappeared from the thread after a nonsensical rant about 'working' people in an argument. Shows the level of genius that you will typically be arguing with here.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 22-12-2013 03:35AM

Can you change a person's sexual deviancy, isn't it an ingrained part of them? I don't think you develop Paedophilic tendencies over time.

Take a person with psychopathic tendencies who acts out violently to achieve gratification, while taking onboard that other people who could be classed as psychopaths live their whole lives without ever acting out in a violent manner, Sociopath is a word which is used.

It's obviously those of the violent nature who come to laws attention but how can you ever change their manner, listen to the late Jeffery Dahmer speak, he knows what he did was very wrong but he admitted that he still had those sick desires.

Better still Robert Kuklinski 'The Ice Man' He in a television interview stated that he needed to be locked up for the rest of his life. This was a guy who committed his first murder at 14. The human mind is complex, it's not a simple fix when there's a fault detected.

catallus · 22-12-2013 03:49AM

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-12-2013 12:53PM

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.

While true, when someone comes on and suggests that such-and-such an offense deserves death because they will never change, the chances of rehabilitation are going to effect the way people will view certain irreversable punihsments.

Mr Williams · 22-12-2013 08:40PM

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.

They always use that line in the their defence its the same as the average scumbag who claim they had a hard upbringing and its not their fault that they have committed so many crimes.

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.

Somebody whos been abused themselves should be the last person to abuse a child.

Mr Williams · 22-12-2013 08:50PM

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.

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.

Billy86 · 22-12-2013 08:53PM

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.

It is quite fascinating how your own personal opinion so consistently finds itself at odds with statistical evidence and reality on this matter.

Your last paragraph has also been covered in full literally in the last few pages of this very thread.

end of the road · 22-12-2013 10:06PM

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.

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?

Mr Williams wrote: »

Somebody whos been abused themselves should be the last person to abuse a child.

ideally yes, but in the real world it doesn't work like that for some

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-12-2013 11:33PM

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.

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 · 23-12-2013 12:12AM

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

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.

Mr Williams · 23-12-2013 12:17AM

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.

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 · 23-12-2013 12:22AM

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 ?

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 · 23-12-2013 12:35AM

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.

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.

Billy86 · 23-12-2013 12:49AM

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.

So if 15% reoffending means none should get out, and the rates are higher for all other types of crime, then by your logic, no criminals of any sort should ever be released.

Steal a car, life inside! Break and enter, life inside! Drugs offences, life inside! Insurance fraud, life inside! Sure they're just going to reoffend anyway.

And what about the Asian guy who was tied up in what was described as a 'bloodbath' as he was beaten so bad with hammers that his screams woke the neighbours after he stood up to people who broke into his house? Or the family in Tipperary with 8, 6 and 3 year old daughters who had their front window absolutely pummelled through, and were tied up by a gang threatening them with machetes and guns. You reckon this is 'not so bad'? Do you want these people living in your area?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-12-2013 01:17AM

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 ?

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 · 23-12-2013 01:31AM

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.

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

Can you also ask you what made you ask the second question?

Becuase if you really believe sex offenders can charge you should have no problem with one of them moving into your area.

catallus · 23-12-2013 01:36AM

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.

osarusan · 23-12-2013 01:37AM

Mr Williams wrote: »

Your not able to back up your claim that pedophiles can change. When all the evidence shows that they cant.

That's twice you've simply ignored statistical evidence which counters your argument.

Why should anybody take you seriously and engage in debate with you?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-12-2013 01:38AM

Mr Williams wrote: »

Your not able to back up your claim that pedophiles can change.

Never made the claim.

When all the evidence shows that they cant. Just look at this scumbag whos still trying to abuse children.

There is no evidence to show this.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/children-welcome-at-paedos-apartment

Sunday World? You're trolling me now, right?

Becuase if you really believe sex offenders can charge you should have no problem with one of them moving into your area.

Again - never made the claim.

end of the road · 23-12-2013 01:51AM

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.

and you also have to take it as being true unless evidence confirms either point of view

end of the road · 23-12-2013 01:56AM

Mr Williams wrote: »

Your not able to back up your claim that pedophiles can change. When all the evidence shows that they cant.

well obviously all the evidence doesn't show that they can't change as only 15 % re-offend, that leaves 85 % either changing or unknown, whatever way you try it your still wrong as only 15 % definitely re-offend

catallus · 23-12-2013 02:00AM

Given the under-reporting of such crime, and the rigmarole which is the taking of any such crime before a court, any person who uses the 15% stat to bolster the argument that any treatment is a success is either being deliberately dumb or deliberately defending such awful crime.

Billy86 · 23-12-2013 02:02AM

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.

Well I'll commend you for bringing some genuine points to the argument there, but I have to point out that the recidivism statistics were brought up in direct response to the wild claims that 'every sex offender will re-offend the moment you let them out' type nonsense coming from the other side. It wasn't brought up without independently by those against the death sentence or default 'life without parole' approaches.

Would you support the reintroduction of the death penalty?

Comments