catallus wrote: » If you see any of this as being actually "more closely monitored" than any other serious criminal then that's your problem.
Billy86 wrote: » What other types of criminals have to notify Gardai within 7 days of changing address or any time they go on holiday, for the rest of their life (if they served more than 2 years in prison)? You're basically trying to claim that black-and-white legislature does not exist.
Mr Williams wrote: » The fact of the matter is that gardas dont have the resources to monitor these people. Having a public register of sex offenders would be a much better idea.
Holsten wrote: » Having any type of register is a bad idea. Having something like that public? Sheer stupidity. Read up on American laws to see just how messed up it can get when laws are passed with zero logical thought. Hell those kneejerk laws are even named after victims. Insane. Anyway this thread is about the death penalty, no?
Mr Williams wrote: » The american law may not be perfect but its better than letting sex offenders run wild in the community. People have a right to know if somebody like larry murphy is living beside them.
SV wrote: » Yes but only in extreme cases.
Holsten wrote: » It is FAR from perfect. It's cruel and unusual punishment. No, sorry, people don't have any right to know. The chances of a Larry Murphy type doing anything again are incredibly low. Has Larry Murphy reoffended? Nope.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » You are developing a flair for the exaggeration and passing off of vague opinion as concrete fact. You've been caught out enough times by now to know this. We had this discssion: the people were generally beleived to be iresponsible in the face of availability of said information. They know nothign about said offenders and, worse, don't want to know anything. Blind ignorance is the root of the problem reguarding ideas of publication of the sex offenders reigster and implementation of the death penalty, and nothing will change until people actually do something to learn about the problems rather than just reading tabloids and getting angry. People don;t actually have a right to know who is living beside them.
Mr Williams wrote: » Sex abuse is also "cruel and unusual" yet you dont seem to have a problem with that. Its not like sex offenders on register are all been shot dead the chances of anything happening to them is low. But even if it those who cares ? These beasts deserve everything they get.
OldNotWIse wrote: » I think when you start using sensationalist language like this, all common sense flies out the window. Incitement, mob mentality, hysteria - all come into play when the word paedophile is mentioned. I dont condone protecting abusers, but a system that lets people know the whereabouts of an offender is going to create chaotic witch hunts. I believe it unfair to assume that a poster who does not agree with the death penalty "does not have a problem with" child abuse. It's a remarkable, exagerrated, hysterical leap. I dont think any right-thinking person is ok with child abuse. That doesnt mean we want to get out the pitchforks and allow vigilante justice to prevail.
Mr Williams wrote: » It wound'nt cause a witch hunt there are already many known pediphiles in Ireland yet when was the last time you heard of a vigilante attacking them ?
Mr Williams wrote: » No you have been caught out you could'nt back up your claim that pediphiles can change.
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
Mr Williams wrote: » You would expect them to say that The Irish Times are bleeding heart liberals. They can not be trusted to tell the truth we have seen in abortion debate that the paper is nothing but a propaganda rag for advancing the liberal agenda.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » That kind of proves my point: we both know I never made such a statement - I´ve pointed it out three times at least. We also both know that the only reason you´re saying I did is to avoid having to concede ignorance on a claim that you did make.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » We're back again, are we? OK, so there is no such thing as a Human Rights Brigade, (what is a Human Right in any case if it can be rescinded?), you're not looking for "justice" to be served, you're looking for your "vengeful blood-lust" to be served, there's no evidence to suggest that pedophilia is an unchangeable or untreatable condition, no - it;s not worth 5 or 10 innocent dead people for one guilty dead one* (not to mention, how do you deal with a judge or jury who send an ultimately innocent mand to the grave? Rhetorical question as it's never going to get a sensible responce) and I'm just as unlikley to wind up living beside a convicted mass-murderer if he's jail or if he's dead. I believe that covers all the arguments in favour of the death penalty in the last few days. *yeah, I know that one wasn't made recently, but it wsa made and no one ever backed it up.
Mr Williams wrote: » You still cant back up your claim that pedophilia is an unchangeable. Your the one who is trying to dodge the question by attacking me.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » I said that "there's no evidence to suggest that pedophilia is an unchangeable or untreatable condition".
Billy86 wrote: » Time and again I have linked to where they got those statistics: The CSO's official report, published within the last week - http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/crimejustice/2008/prisonrecidivism2008.pdf You can go down to page two on that report and acknowledge you are wrong (facts tend to have a funny 'liberal bias' don't they?). Or you can do what people who use terms like "bleeding heart liberals" tend to do in the face of proven factual evidence, and shift the goalposts, try to create straw men, or just run away from the debate.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » I´ve dealt with that particlar fallacy, too - a few pages back.
Mr Williams wrote: » Its not like sex offenders on register are all been shot dead the chances of anything happening to them is low. But even if it those who cares ? These beasts deserve everything they get.
Mr Williams wrote: » Even your statistics say there is a 15% chance they will reoffend. Thats means by letting them out other children WILL be abused by these beasts. Anybody who sexual abuses a young child should get a minimum of life in prison. But the human rights brigade want to defend these animals.
Mr Williams wrote: » Even your statistics say there is a 15% chance they will reoffend.
osarusan wrote: » This was in response to you saying they all reoffend. Forgotten that? But rather than admit you were exaggerating, you spout nonsense about those who disagree with you 'defending' or 'not having a problem with' child abuse. Your posts have been an embarrassment.
Mr Williams wrote: » So what do you think should be done with convicted Paedophiles ?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Well, for a start accurate and unbiased determination as to whether an individual is dangerous or not. Saying that soemone is automatically dangerous based one one crime is beyond igorant. So is claming that one particular crime requires the death penalty. If you seriously belive that ALL pedophiles are automatically dangerous you have GOT to back up that statement or retract it, or you´re just going to look foolish. Some are - don´t get me wrong - and these are the ones that should be locked away in a mental assylum indefinitely at the very least - but because they´re dangerous, NOT because they´re pedophiles.
Cydoniac wrote: » The Sun are looking for columnists if you're interested
