Originally posted by StevenDye
No i see the difference...I just do not see how that difference means one man should be killed and the next should not...

He should never have been allowed onto the streets again, but he should not have been killed. That is STILL wrong...and it isn't an awful lot better than what he did to those children.

The man who killed the paedophile COULD understand the difference.

The man who killed the paedophile didn't believe the paedophile should have been allowed on the streets again either.

So right there, you and the killer have something in common.

But despite your belief that the paedophile should not have been released ... the powers that be DID believe he should .. and they ALLOWED him back on the streets.

And THAT is what caused the problem. For the paedophile.

Because the paedophile's killer was NOT prepared to entrust people's children to the powers that be again.

Whereas the powers that be had nothing to lose, apparently .. children did have a lot to lose.

But children weren't able to eliminate the paedophile.

So, a grown-up, in every sense of the word ... did the job .. primarily for the sake of children .. and their parents .. and, defacto .. on behalf of the dimwit powers that be.

End result ? One paedophile less.
No more victims as result of THAT particular paedophile, eh ?

Shame he survived into his 70s.
Shame someone didn't eliminate him at least 50 years earlier.

Lesson to be learned ?
Eliminate paedophiles as soon as they give just cause.
Don't give them time to strike again
Don't waste public money in proven-to-failure 'rehabilitation' attempts
Dont' waste public money on State employed 'psychologists' and 'psychoanalysts'
Don't waste money on luciferian parole-boards

Just eliminate them as soon as paedophiles evidence they are paedophiles

We're wiser now and far less tolerant

We no longer believe solicitors' BS

We no longer trust 'psychologists' or parole boards

We no longer trust legislators or politicians

We no longer trust the police until they have PROVED they, individually, CAN be trusted

We no longer trust bleeding-heart paedophile-apologists

Simple really. We don't want paedophiles sharing the same air that we and our families breathe

wow, im just shocked that he wasn't killed in prison!
its like a law i prison haha. child molesters and/or child killers must die!

but at least eventually he got what he deserved.

Many many criminals re-offend...we pay for them. There are more no-child molesters in prsion, they cost us more money.


Do not use this as an excuse to kill the few when it will make little difference. He should not have been released....but he should not have been killed.

He was in his 70's, it's not very hard to use a few simple scare tactics on him. He did not have to be killed...

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by thebox

In stories like this, it's never about justice, it's about revenge and trying to satisfy that anger and hurt.

Maybe so, but a lot of the people who have...less than a big problem with what happened to this guy, do not feel that way because of a desire for revenge, or anger and hurt.

People keep saying in these threads that the only reason anyone would want paedophiles dead is for the sake of revenge. Not true! I've never been a victim or had family or friends that I know of who were victims, I can say with a level head that I believe that repeat offenders and those caught in the act should be put to death. Not for revenge, but instead because I honestly do not think these monsters should be allowed to live. They will do it again, and if they are locked up forever, that creates an unfair strain on the taxpayer.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by maus80]

You Get What You Give I suppose. I'm sure he had it coming. I can't speak for the U.K. but the American justice system is out of control. The focus is far to centered on the rights and well being of the prisoners vs. the victims. Prisoners now use their new found free time to get mail order degrees so they can file frivolous law suits because they were served cold green beans at lunch. Prison is not a deterrent anymore. Prisons operate like downsized cities with their own economy, currency and justice. Most live better in prison than they did on the outside.

If justice were placed in the hands of law abiding citizens, I would guarantee a drastic drop in all crime. The punishment should fit the crime. Bring back public humiliation on the town square. If you are a convicted sex offender you should have neon orange license plates. Some states issue different license plates for DUI offenders why not the sex offenders.

Originally posted by Heike

I say castrate 'em after the first conviction.


[edit on 10-10-2008 by Heike]

The problem with this is even with chemical castration these criminals still find a way to commit their crimes. Part of the issue is that sexual crimes are not about sex, it is about control, and pedophiles etc. do not need a specific sexual part to get off on the "control" of another person. Those who commit sexual crimes cannot be rehabilitated. It is a proven fact, so I still do not understand why anyone who has committed a sexual crime is ever let back out into society.

Originally posted by StevenDye
Many many criminals re-offend...we pay for them. There are more no-child molesters in prsion, they cost us more money.


Do not use this as an excuse to kill the few when it will make little difference. He should not have been released....but he should not have been killed.

He was in his 70's, it's not very hard to use a few simple scare tactics on him. He did not have to be killed...

This will have to be my last post for a while.

You say he was in his 70s and a few 'scare tactics' would have deterred him.

You're being disingenuous.

Read the literature. Educate yourself. That's if you don't already know. That's if you're not feigning naivete in the hope of deluding others.

There have been exhaustive studies conducted on paedophiles. These studies endured for decades. Thousands of paedophiles were studied extensively.

And the inescapable conclusions FORCED upon the researchers .. AGAINST their will .. and AGAINST influential people with vested interests were --- that paedophiles are, for want of a better word, 'incurable'.

In other words, NO amount of therapy or treatment (and many were trialled) has any effect upon paedophiles.

WORSE .. paedophilia --- unlike other sexual perversions --- does NOT decrease with age. Paedophiles in their 80's were still actively seeking child victims. Gross ? Doesn't adequately describe it, does it ?

Normal, sexually healthy males want sex. They think about it a lot. They go to extreme lengths to satisfy their sex drive.

Paedophiles have the same or stronger sex drive. It does not decrease even when they're of advanced age. They think about sex a lot. They go to extreme lengths to satisfy their sex drive. And the FOCUS of that demonic sex drive is CHILDREN ! They lust for children. ANYone's children.

Now, do you get it ?

Scare tactics ? Like what ?

Ever tried 'scare tactics' on a male intent on rape? He'd kill you and continue without blinking an eye. We're talking about a 'normal male rapist' here.

What makes you imagine a subnormal child rapist would be any different ?

Unless of course you're talking scare tactics such as a sub-machine gun spitting bullets.

There are NO cures for paedophiles.

No matter what they say .. they do not WANT to be 'cured', any more than a normal male wants to be 'cured' of his attraction to adult women (or to adult men, for the sake of the homosexual contingent here).

There is NO cure for paedophilia

The only way a paedophile is 'cured' is when he has finally breathed his last.

Now, don't know about you, but I can think of far better uses for my taxes than to keep an army of paedophiles in jail, all of them plotting how to get out so they can get their hands on someone's children. Because THAT is ALL they care about. Until they die.

And UNTIL they die, they are intent on violating children. It's what they live for. It's all they live for. Every other element in their lives revolves around children.

They take jobs that put them in proximity to children
They get MARRIED in order to have access to children
They relocate to other COUNTRIES in order to have access to children

Some men go to prostitutes

Paedophiles regard children as their sexual outlet

BUT .. they don't consider what the children want.
Obviously, they don't CARE about the children's rights or welfare

SOMEone has to protect those children's rights
SOMEone has to protect those children against paedophiles

So it comes down to whomever you, as an individual, believe has the most valid 'rights: paedophiles .. or children.

There can be no ambiguity. One or the other. No fence sitting.

THAT is the position paedophiles place you in.

Originally posted by Dock6

YOU clearly prefer the term 'child molester'

'molestation' does not even begin to adequately describe the acts performed by paedophiles upon their child victims.

'Molestation' does not adequately describe the rape of a child. Rape is not 'molestation'.

Rape, mutilation, murder of a child victim by a paedophile far exceeds the term 'molestation'.

You might think this, but "rape, mutilation, murder of a child victim" isn't actually covered by the actual definition of paedophilia.

You're as guilty of fudging definition as you're claiming StevenDye poster is.

You will NOT persuade me to describe paedophiles as 'mere' child molesters, so stop trying, thank you. I regard your repeated attempts to push your point as being attempted minimisation of the heinous crimes perpetrated by paedophiles.

I doubt anyone on this thread is actually trying to diminish the severity of the crime, but what you are describing with mutilation and murder isn't paedophilia per se, it's exactly what it is: mutilation and murder. Whether you like it or not, they are distinctly separate acts from paedophilia. A paedophile might commit those acts, but so might a non-paedophile; therefore they're not specific to paedophilia.

Originally posted by Dock6

Because death is the only way to solve some problems

Is it? For example, America's traditionally been quite fond of the death penalty but murder, rape and paedophilia still occurs. It might have deterred some, but it didn't deter others. Yes, a dead murderer, rapist or paedophile won't commit a crime again, but that lesson to society obviously doesn't work too well as others take their place.

If rape, murder and paedophilia are therefore an inevitability, death penalty or not, why not actually initiate the kind of pre-crime Big Brother measures that half of ATS are frightened to death of, where we're all screened for predisposition to these kind of crimes and others? And then just kill them there and then before the crime actually happens so we can then protect the children. Why wait for the crime? Surely it's a disservice to the children we are ultimately allowing to be hurt by waiting for the crime?

Yes a few scare tactics being the parents of the local community showing up on his doorstep onenight giving a 'friendly' warning may well have deterred him.

I don't know about you, but my science lessons taguth me that we are all individual, you don't know what a warning like this may have done unless it was tried.


I can think of better ways to spend my taxes than helping people who seem to condone murder. Don't forget how many people are wrongly convicted.

All I can really say is that I've always been a fan of the Boondock Saints...

I wouldn't feel any remorse if I knew someone was out there killing felons out on bail or gang lords...

I know its wrong... but its not like I'm a saint...

Well, what do you say we get our facts and definitions straight?

Not all pedophiles are child molesters, and not all child molesters are pedophiles. Say what? Yep.

A pedophile is: "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children." Note that a) a person could be sexually attracted to young children and not act on that attraction, and that b) it specifies YOUNG (typically prepubescent) children.

A child molester is "an adult who engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification." A man who has exposed himself to his attractive 16 yo old cousin is a "child molester." But do we really want to put THAT guy in the same category as the man who rapes six year olds? I'm sure the 16 year old's parent's will be plenty mad, but it isn't really quite the same thing, is it?

There could also be (and probably are) pedophiles who do not act on their proclivities. In other words, people who are sexually attracted to young children but don't DO anything about it (just like you may be sexually attracted to some movie star but know better than to try to do anything about it.) I would suggest that this type of "pedophile" would deserve our compassion (and maybe respect) and help.

But the CONVICTED pedophile has acted on his deviant desires, and since true pedophiles are often attracted ONLY to young children and can't have normal relations with adults, a pedophile who has already "acted out" once, or more than once, will almost surely do so again and, as others have pointed out, is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to "rehabilitate."

So, what do you say we stop fussing about semantics and stop thinking that maybe messing around with a "minor" isn't so bad and focus our attention on someone who has already raped a child, most likely a child younger than 10, and will do so again.

I say the only valid choices are lock him up for LIFE (no possibility of parole) or execute him, since Badge doesn't like my castration idea. Although personally I still think castration would work for some of them. No testosterone, no desire. I've seen it.

Anyway, letting a dangerous predator back out on the streets to destroy the lives of more little kids is morally wrong, and in my opinion MORE SO wrong than killing said predator, since the children are innocent and the predator isn't. I don't condone vigilante justice, but if the SYSTEM had done it's job properly, no convicted pedophile would have "license" from prison.
System Failure, and we need a serious upgrade.

My .02 (again)


[edit on 10-10-2008 by Heike]

Where do you stop? Shoot up a suspected drug dealer? What if he's not?
Drunk driving causes lots of deaths in this country, and tragically, lots of children's death. So, if you fail a breathalizer test, should the cop administer a bullet between the eyes, just to make sure it won't happen?

No not a bullet but if they really truly wanted to stop drunk driving, or at least slow it down, a stiffer penalty would be put in place. First offense 1 year prison no bail and no early release for good behavior. Truth is drunk driving is another money machine for the government. They charge them huge fines and let them out again. I know a guy who had 8 dwi's and never served a day in jail.

That is the problem with relying on the justice system. They talked out of both sides of their mouth. Don't Drink and Drive. Yeah right. They say it but they don't mean it.

I have kids and if the law did nothing to them, well, I think you get the picture.

Originally posted by Merriman WeirDespite the fact I find paedophilia abhorrent, I can't see how anyone on this site could actually condone this man's murder.[edit on 10-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

I condone it due to the fact he was an evil beast who ruined children's lives possibly forever. In cases such as this human rights should not apply to the offender as the crime committed is inhuman.

That's one single ticket to hell.

What comes around goes around....