Child Abusers should be executed!!!!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
More and more lately,i see these useless pieces of trash,hitting the headlines.ANYONE,who advocates,defends or supports these rejects of humanity,needs much of the same.Some bozo on the news just now,wants to,re-educate them,help them back into society!That's total BS!!! She goes on to say..."These people may have other problems,we need to understand".She's right there,their problem is simple....THEY'RE ALIVE!!!! It's a problem that can be solved very,very easily.EXECUTE THESE MORONS!!!!!




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
So how are we going to prevent the next offenders from offending?

The death penalty doesn't exactly act as a good deterrent.

Life without parole costs less than an execution, and accomplishes the same "idealistic" goal; that being, the prisoner can not commit the crime again, and will remain punished (and believe me, child molesters do not have a nice, comfy life in prisons...) for the rest of his life.

Sadly neither option would deter other offenders.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I am so angry at both of you. Child molesters have rights.

They have to right to be considered 'innocent' before trial;

They have the right not to be named before being found guilty;

They have a right to a 'fair' trial;

They have a right to a 'fair and just' punishment if found guilty.

They have the right to face their accuser[s] in a court of law if found 'not guilty' and their accuser[s] should be named and shamed and punished to the full extent of the law and what is more, the accused should be compensated.

We, on the other hand, have the right to hand paedophiles over to the families of the molested, raped or murdered child, so that proper justice can be metted out by those wronged!



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
You're absolutely right, Fritz. EVERYONE has those rights. And if you were the one accused, you'd be singing the loudest. You'd want those rights. You'd fight for those rights...particularly if you'd been falsely accused.



We, on the other hand, have the right to hand paedophiles over to the families of the molested, raped or murdered child, so that proper justice can be metted out by those wronged!


Thankfully no, we don't. Because we all know what happens when we let vigilantism takeover.

The day we punish someone for being guilty before he's had his day in court, is the day that our society will completely fall to pieces.

Unless of course your post was being sarcastic...I might have missed that. Seeing as there was no clue, and I'm not nearly caffeinated enough



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Tinkle old boy, I meant we should hand paedos over to the families AFTER they have been given their rights, had a fair trial, been found guilty by 12 men and women - strong and true - guilty beyond any micro-reason of doubt - then hand them over.

SIMPLE - AINT IT?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Like I said earlier...

It treats the symptom, not the cause.

Wouldn't it be better to try and nip it in the bud before it gets that far?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Tinkle, are you a doctor by any chance? Are you a phsycologist or even a physciatrist?

What symptoms do child abusers display?

I worked alongside an abuser who was a mate's son. I worked with him for 5 1/2 years. During this time, he raped [buggered] some 15 kids. He probably abused more kids at home because he was a council foster parent as well.

Yet he displayed no 'symptoms' and none of the other staff had any idea it was going on.

Just how do you protect kids against abusers who act like the 'grey' man and hide innocently in the background playing the nice family man?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Life without parole costs less than an execution


I fail to see how that is possible. Please provide your source for believing this.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Of course excution is cheaper than life, people are just afraid of killing others and I mean the basis of that fear is important but not if it lets people live and gain enjoyment after they have raped children.

Really people who are against killing them don't help at all, they just become part of the problem with preconceived notions of not being aloud to take another's life regardless if they deserve it or not.

And when you ask who gets to choose if they deserve it, we do. This is our lives, we live here, we can't live under additional rules if all they do is create additional harm, such as letting pedofiles who rape children live and gain enjoyment from life.

I've never seen the logic behind not killing them.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
I fail to see how that is possible. Please provide your source for believing this.


I'd be glad to
Some of the sources come from books I physically own - they can be obtained very cheaply anywhere, and probably online a lot cheaper....and now I think about it, you could probably find excerpts or the entire texts online if you looked for them.

"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of conviction and appeal for capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )

"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."
(The Geography of Execution... The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood 1997 p.6)

In addition (and again, the sources used can be verified independantly, as I'm sure people will balk at the use of Amnesty International's figures):

"A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).'

Source

Now, having noted these facts, it's important to realise:

The majority of increased costs relate to pre-trial and trial proceedings (not the appeals process, contrary to popular belief - this is probably the cheaper part of the entire process), not the act of execution itself. In addition, the simple act of having the death penalty in place is a tremendous burden on State budgets (whether or not it's used).

So there's some figures. Currently, the death penalty as used by the US is not just not cost-effective (from a purely pragmatic point of view); though it might be argued that if it were used more frequently, related costs would fall.

As it stands, however, it's cheaper to house a prisoner for 40-odd years than it is to execute him.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz

What symptoms do child abusers display?

?


I suppose I shouldn't have used what I figured was a common colloquialism.

In this context, the phrase "treating the symptoms", refers simply to the concept of fixing something after it becomes obvious that there's a problem, as opposed to trying to prevent the problem from occurring in the first place. As in: execution won't prevent the next John Wayne Gacy from rearing his ugly head unless we we're able to isolate and identify what causes the deviant behaviour to begin with, which would imply there's a chance at stopping it in it's tracks.

Hope this helps.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
No, not really Tinkle.

Unless you can arrange for paedos to get chemically castrated b4 they offend again!

OOOooooooohhhhhhhhhhh - by the by. Public execution - preferably the short drop, is less expensive than life in a cosy prison cell!



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
No, not really Tinkle.

Unless you can arrange for paedos to get chemically castrated b4 they offend again!



Except castration doesn't work with a huge number of sex offenders.

You know why?

Because it's not just about sex - it's about power, and control. And if they don't have the physical equipment to perform the act....they will simply find the closest object and use that instead.

Next suggestion?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
castration would not work, the paedophile would not require sexual organs to intefere with a child. However, lobotomising or brainwashing the sick individual to remove all sexual thought regardless of age would seem more appropriate and humane.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klepto
castration would not work, the paedophile would not require sexual organs to intefere with a child. However, lobotomising or brainwashing the sick individual to remove all sexual thought regardless of age would seem more appropriate and humane.


Actually....brainwashing (I'm sure there's a more PC term, I just can't think of it - I spent too much time over on the vaccines thread and my brain hurts) is being used in several countries on various sex offenders, with varying results; it's being used primarily to encourage a negative reinforcement; ie when an image of a child is flashed, the subject feels nauseated or other negative emotive response.

To get a further idea of the debate relating to castration in sex offenders, this page will give sites aimed at supporting a "yes" point of view, while this page lists sites to support a "no" point of view

(The main site itself is primarily a tool for use during debate sessions - a very handy tool, at that!)

Makes for some very, very interesting reading.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
former California Gov. Pete Wilson said "For Crimes such as Rape and Child Molestation, It should be ONE STRIKE and you're out."



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I agree with Goldzilla about child abusers, but not execute them. Just throw them in jail and let them rot. They are scum in our society and should be treated as such.

As for rapists and child molesters, if it was up to me they would be caustrated and hooked up to some shock torture device that delivers 300 Volts every half hour for the rest of there lives.

[edit on 8/6/2005 by GoldEagle]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Look at this link and read this story
seattletimes.nwsource.com... 655_duncan15m.html?syndication=rss

It's to Seatlle Times. I HOPE he gets the death penalty. In this case it should be televised on Pay-Per View, and if the family refused to pull the switches or push buttons, a raffle or auction should be done to see whom would like to execute this loser scum.

Now if it was a run-of-the-mill murder, such as a drunk bar fight getting out of hand or lovers dispute or some standard robbery or drug deal going bad, I wouldn't recommend the death penalty. This loser earned it! He earn a one way ticket to Hell for all eternity!



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Well said Godzilla1985.I too am in Washington state and it's the story of this guy,that made my mind up.For those of you unaware,please read the bulletin on Godzillas post.This guy's finger prints,match a murder and child rape case,of 8 years ago in anither state.

Yes by all means,give them a fair trial.The prosecutors have the strongedt of all evidence,including video tapes of his latest escapades.Even his mother,wamts him executed,for these barbaric crimes.

In cases like this,no,you don't put them in prison,and hope they stay there,since we all know,somehow they get parole.Fox News reported only last week,that nationally,the law enforcement agencies,have lost track of over 700,RELEASED,child molesters.

No,i stand by what i said,these morons don't need to have tax dollares spent on them,if they are guilty,nor do we need to hope that the system, doen't screw up.Execute and have the victims families present,if they so wish.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
LWOP prisoners rarely - and I mean rarely - end up being paroled.

Sorry, it just doesn't happen as often as you might think.

Life sentences often do - these are generally given with a mandatory minimum, but an understanding that at some point the prisoner will be able to apply for parole.

But with LWOP - sorry, it just doesn't happen that often...unless the conviction itself is overturned, but that's a different matter entirely. Don't assume that LWOP and "life sentence" are the same thing - they're not.

Letting lose a child molestor just isn't the same thing, brit; for one thing, LWOP is rarely given to even a serial child sex abuser (and that does need to change, absolutely). The reason they get out is because the law only allows us certain maximum sentences - if you're going to fight it, then this is what you should perhaps focus on. It'd be much easier getting politicians to listen to a campaign for LWOP, than a campaign for the death penalty in non-murder cases.

(Can you find another source other than Fox, just out of interest? They're not quite the most reliable little beans in the world, but I'd be interested on the child molestor/"going missing" rate, myself)





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join