Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
About time ?
After the abduction of that poor little girl in Portugal. Is it not time that we should adopt a complete zero tolerance on animals that prey on kids. I know it is not a foregone conclusion that it is indeed a nonce responsible, but i sadly feel it is but a matter of time until it is the case. I wish that we could bring back hanging for these b##tards. Kids should be safe all of the time. Parents should not have to worry about deviants . (Footnote) Please do not post comments regarding "why did the parents leave her there ?" as i am sure they will live with that for the rest of their lives.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Neilzulu1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nick, because in a society that appears to care more for the perpetrator than for the victim, they won't be locked up for life - and even if given a life sentence, life rarely means life - so the chances are they will eventually be released. Apart from that there will always be someone who will support their release - Lord Longford and Myra Hindley spring to mind.
naomi - my sentiments are not "worthy", I do not have these views out of philanthropy, I have them because I feel the best way to protect children is to concentrate on the minority of potential re-offenders, and to have a society where people can seek help if they feel might harm a child without fear of being sent to the gallows.
pilchardI'm curious what do you consider old enough???
I consider it on a case by case basis. I don't think that a 15 year old boy having sex with a sexually active 15 year old girl should result in a death sentence for the boy. That is what is being called for on here.
Neilzulu1"Just where exactly do you stand on this debate oneeyedvic ?" If you read all my posts you will see where I stand. I have even put in bold letters in case you are short sighted that in certain circumstance I maybe for the death sentence
naomi24 "Vic, this report began by saying that 8 out of 53 convicted child abusers who were released into the community went on to abuse again. And you want me to read on and listen to 'reason'? No I want you to use your intelligence and look at the samplings. If you weren't so lazy, you would read that there are different risk categories which have different rates of reoffending. This is why in my post I stated: Personally, I think I would accept the death penalty for convicted paedophiles in the high / medium-high categories. .
My question to you 3 - I'm sure that we can all agree that paedophiles have something wrong with them mentally - do you want to put people to death who have this mental illness / what about other mental illnesses?
I consider it on a case by case basis. I don't think that a 15 year old boy having sex with a sexually active 15 year old girl should result in a death sentence for the boy. That is what is being called for on here.
Neilzulu1"Just where exactly do you stand on this debate oneeyedvic ?" If you read all my posts you will see where I stand. I have even put in bold letters in case you are short sighted that in certain circumstance I maybe for the death sentence
naomi24 "Vic, this report began by saying that 8 out of 53 convicted child abusers who were released into the community went on to abuse again. And you want me to read on and listen to 'reason'? No I want you to use your intelligence and look at the samplings. If you weren't so lazy, you would read that there are different risk categories which have different rates of reoffending. This is why in my post I stated: Personally, I think I would accept the death penalty for convicted paedophiles in the high / medium-high categories. .
My question to you 3 - I'm sure that we can all agree that paedophiles have something wrong with them mentally - do you want to put people to death who have this mental illness / what about other mental illnesses?
I have said that people who commit SEX crimes should hang, not other people with mental problems. It is not proven that it is a mental illness, they are a cancer on society. If two 15 year olds are having sex, they would be doing it with consent. Are you missing the point, i am on about people who rape, kidnap for sexual purposes. I mean the perverts who do things against the victims will.
Strangely enough the term 'pervert' relates to a 19th century psychological basis.
Surely this means that the people you speak of aren't perverts at all..and are in fact just plain evil people with nothing psychologically wrong with them at all.
Psychologists have to work long and hard to differentiate between 'mad' and 'bad'. Criminals used to be hanged without the luxury of a 'mind doctors' opinion. There is also the opinion which is widely expressed..people can't just be evil, they have to be mentally ill to commit certain crimes.
Ian Brady was/is mentally ill. Myra Hindley wasn't.
Surely this means that the people you speak of aren't perverts at all..and are in fact just plain evil people with nothing psychologically wrong with them at all.
Psychologists have to work long and hard to differentiate between 'mad' and 'bad'. Criminals used to be hanged without the luxury of a 'mind doctors' opinion. There is also the opinion which is widely expressed..people can't just be evil, they have to be mentally ill to commit certain crimes.
Ian Brady was/is mentally ill. Myra Hindley wasn't.
Vic, Rudeness is a sorry resort in any debate. However, that aside, according to you then, you'd advocate the death penalty for those classified high or medium risk, but not for those classified low risk? So when people classfied low risk are released, society must take its chances on whether on not they continue to prey on children - and that's ok? Personally, I'm not interested in risk categories which is why I didn't read the rest of the report. If something tells me initally that paedophiles have been released and have re-offended I don't need to know any more because the authorities can have no excuse for putting children's safety at risk. People who pose any threat whatsoever to children should be removed from society. Full stop. If that means locking them up for life or executing them, then so be it. Rather their lives than a child's. Who knows what that poor child in Portugal has been subjected to - it doesn't bear thinking about. I say again I have absolutely no sympathy for paedophiles - none - whatever category they're placed in.
Your question on mentally ill people is irrelevant to this discussion.
Your question on mentally ill people is irrelevant to this discussion.
The problem with any paedophilia debate is that it ends up turning into a contest as to who cares most about children's welfare. When in fact, we all do.
"I really hate paedophiles. I think they should be locked up for life."
"Well, I really really hate them. I think they should be castrated."
Well, I really really really hate them. I think we should kill them all."
Let's agree that none of us want to see kids getting abused. But what's the best way to stop it?
The knee-jerk answer is harsher sentences - capital punishment etc. But, as well as the problem of it being too final (you can't un-kill a wrongly convicted man), the danger of that is that it drives paedophiles underground and makes it harder for the authorities to manage the problem and nigh on impossible for them to get help.
It might make people feel better. But if, by executing one paedophile to ensure he never reconvicts, you allow another 5 to go undetected/untreated, then is that in the best interests of the children?
"I really hate paedophiles. I think they should be locked up for life."
"Well, I really really hate them. I think they should be castrated."
Well, I really really really hate them. I think we should kill them all."
Let's agree that none of us want to see kids getting abused. But what's the best way to stop it?
The knee-jerk answer is harsher sentences - capital punishment etc. But, as well as the problem of it being too final (you can't un-kill a wrongly convicted man), the danger of that is that it drives paedophiles underground and makes it harder for the authorities to manage the problem and nigh on impossible for them to get help.
It might make people feel better. But if, by executing one paedophile to ensure he never reconvicts, you allow another 5 to go undetected/untreated, then is that in the best interests of the children?
naomi - I may not have made my point clear enough. Currently it's clear that life doesn't mean life, so we're debating what should be done with the paedophiles to protect the kids. Why not call for life imprisonment (if that's what it actually meant), rather than death? Why make the leap to killing them is my point when you could equally well keep them away from children through imprisonment?
Nick, even if these people were given a life sentence that was supposed to mean life, there's no guarantee that the law wouldn't change and their sentence be commuted at some future date. If they were executed - and I mean those where there is no doubt of their guilt NJOK - the problem would be solved once and for all. They'd never be free to do it again.
