Convicted paedophile found strangled and dumped in woods

There is no apathy for "these beasts", as you put it. If anything, there's a complete opposite of apathy: hysteria. Do you mean something else?



That's immaterial because, as 'solutions' go, it's obviously not a very effective one is it?



Are you plucking this out of the air, or trying to build a strawman? My whole point is that this will continue even with a death penalty. You're not making much sense if you're asking me 'do I realise'? Of course I realise, that's been part of my point. As for "we just might as well have NO punishment for these beasts", I appreciate your hysteria and massive jumps of emotionally-burdened faulty logic, but you're suggesting a ridiculous thing here, and certainly not one proffered by anyone else. No punishment at all? Why should we have no punishment at all? Who would even think this should be the case?



How do you know it works? Can you point to me a large case study where potential paedophiles have admitted they were deterred from acting on their desires because of a death penalty or even life in prison?



And it's because people are so emotive about something, I'm glad people don't have a say.

I agree. Everything I've seen on crowd psychology says similar things. There is, as the famous book says, a Wisdom of Crowds, but this breaks down when it comes to emotional matters.

reply to post by thebox

---

Yes.
Yes yes, Yes, Yes.
This is beautiful.

I only wish I could have been there to partake.

Damn my luck.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by AlienGhandi]

reply to post by TheColdDragon

---

So then do you give no merit to the idea that killing a killer is saving lives?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

---

I don't know who you're bouting with, but.

I 100% agree that all rapists, pedophiles, molestors should be castrated and or hung.

edit

Errrr, didn't mean to double post, but yeah I'll take a few yeses away. I believe firmly that sickos should be removed. Permanetly. And I would have no problem partaking.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by AlienGhandi]

hey hey first post.
anywho
1st I say do we really care that a child rapist is found dead in the woods. Yes they are human or so where told XP.
but
2nd My teacher at my college works a the prison dealing with sex offenders, She believes in there rights
also shes in late 30s not bad looking at all.

just rember the old saying
How does one defeat a monster with out becoming one........

Wow, going off topic but i have to address this. So in your view world war two should never have happened? We shouldn't have stopped Hitler? I mean we had to kill alot of people to stop him but we did it. Nah you're right we should have let him gas and bunr millions of people.

There are occasions for killing and if you don't understand that then you've got some serious issues and you are not someone i would ever like in charge of this world. Otherwise brutal dictators would overthrow and rule everything.

If i have a gun, and someone else has a gun and they're firing at me, should i just allow them to shoot me or should i shoot back? If someone attacks me with a knife, we struggle and it ends up in their chest, should i let them stab me as killing is wrong? Should i be punished like a normal murderer? Are you kidding me here?

[edit on 11-10-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

It might save lives, but, if you're arguing from a standpoint of simply removing paedophiles from society, then so would a life sentence in a prison or secure psychiatric unit.

If you're that serious about saving lives, then why not implement a pre-crime screening process that detects predisposition to paedophilia, rape, murder &c before it actually happens? Why wait until the crime actually happens? Don't you want to save lives? After all, isn't executing a criminal from your point of view a means to stop them convicting again? On the basis they might convict again?

If you don't actually want this, then is this all about prevention and deterrent or is it really about punishment?

reply to post by Merriman Weir

---

Woa there MW. You're making quite a few assumptions there about my position and viewpoint Which I didn't give. You can't infer all that from the question I posed to ColdDragon

[edit on 11-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by TheColdDragon

---

I wholeheartedly agree with your entire post. These people advocating killing of pedophiles, are simply tapping into their own inner murderous natures, and using that fear-fueled ignorance to justify these irrational emotions. Well said, and as I can see already, it's the opinion of the minority in this thread...

great point! Who is to say that whoever killed the pedophile - just wanted to kill someone? Perhaps they didn't even have a moral objection to pedophilia - they just wanted to kill, and figured that killing a pedophile wouldn't cause any stirs - sort of like a step down from killing a homeless person.

What now? How does this street justice hold up to that scenario?

reply to post by scientist

---

Great question!

So it seems a few of you think we have a murderer in our mists.

Let's say he gets caught. Goes through the official procedures, and let's say hypothetically the conditions were such that he is given the death penalty. In fact let us hypothetically say that everyone assumed, based on the evidence in this hypothetical case, that this man was going to be given the death penalty.

What promise do we have that the lawyers, the Judge, the police, the juror, and the people watching from home, are not guilty of the same exact psychological needs you are accusing these street justice guys of? Just because it went through the justice system? Just because it went through the official channels?

I'm not suggesting that you actually do support what I offered as a hypothetical scenario; in fact, I was fairly certain you wouldn't.

The point is, much of the argument for killing paedophiles is - it's claimed - based on the idea of saving future lives. However, this argument has a very serious flaw in it, as where, exactly do you draw the line or how far do you go to save a child's life? Do you execute someone in case they end or ruin another child's life or do you execute someone before they've ended or ruined any child's life? Wasn't the first child's life worth saving if that's what the aim is, to save childrens' lives?

I'd really hope most people can see that this is a very dangerous path to even step foot on because, really, where do you draw the line? Some people would be happy with the nightmare scenario I outlined, where others will be executed before any crime has been committed because 'who will think of the children?' It's about kids and it's an emotive issue and people get irrational when it comes to kids. False flags which half of this board get outraged about are built around the understanding that people will and do hysterical over certain topics.

I've a serious suggestion to make to a lot of the Americans on this thread, and to any British or Europeans who didn't see it either: try and get hold of a copy of the Brass Eye 'Paedogeddon' special. It deals with the inevitable hysteria that surrounds paedophilia and shows how otherwise rational, sane adults get drawn into positions where all objectivity and sensible thinking just go out of the window the minute it's about children.

Actually i think its bloody marvelous and take my hat of to whoever topped this evil sick scum. I condone it and support it 100%. Sorry, i guess i just aren´t as liberal as some, the sicko bastard got what he deserved, its only a shame more paedos dont get this treatment.

Forget keeping them in prison, me and a lot of my mates would happily spend 10 minutes behind a closed door with them and i GAURANTEE they would not reoffend. They wouldnt be able to.

Anyone who hurts or abuses kids gets NO sympathy from me and the scum deserve any vigilante justice that comes their way.

Some crimes are extremely personal, rape is one of those crimes. If those boundaries are crossed there are people that will settle the score in an intimate fashion, and that doesn't bother me in the least.

There are plenty of dangerous people in the world, this sort of crime (specific killing for revenge) should be the least of your worries.

I don't condone killing as a method of preventing crime, because it just doesn't work and more importantly it isn't much of a punishment. Being locked up for your entire life is far worse, and that should be the penalty for sexually abusing children.

Saying that, a paedophile is dead and i am not going to mourn the man. The killer should of course be found and prosecuted. Vigilante justice would lead to anarchy. The rule of law really does seperate us from the beasts.

The lenient sentences given to some paedophiles are a scandal and this act of violence leads directly from those poor sentences. Some paedophiles who have sexually abused children only get a few years inside, usually in a seperate prison wing. Yet you get a lot longer for burglary or agrevated assault sometimes. That's shocking to me.

Judging from the yardstick of someone who has led a better life

Unfortunately, being locked up in prison is actually a better quality of life for some criminals. Partly because their living conditions sucked before, and partly because the prison systems are not as you'd think. They have certain luxuries and they have companionship. And for some it's actually mirror living conditions.

Interesting you mentioned that though, I mean if some people think being locked up in prison for life is actually worse then death. Then wouldn't that make putting them in prison much more extreme then a street justice guy killing him?

[edit on 11-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Yes but the guy had been in prison and was released. The legal system had been played out already. It was not "one or the other" in this case.