How should society deal with child predators?

How should society deal with child predators?

  • Prison for life

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • Prison term, depending upon the offence

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • Put them to death quickly

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Parade them through the streets and publicly kill them

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Total voters
    13
yeah especially when dealing with the testimony of a 14 yr old girl ? Who might be willing to sacrifice someones life to stay out of trouble with mommie and daddy.
 
Watermark said:
Life in prison vs. one wrist slap. Alright since there's no difference put Brent in prison for life. Life in prison is no biggie.
Click to expand...

My point is that we as taxpayers should not be required to provide food and shelter for life to these subhumans. If there is DNA proof and/or and outright plausible confession, there should be one appeal permitted. After that, the execution should be carried out immediately. That would effectively end the whole argument. Or do you have a "moral" argument against the death penalty?
 
Watermark said:
No, that wouldn't be included.
Click to expand...

Ok what is included in this when I was talking of killing em I was thinking of catholic priests with 8 yr old boys and such.
Or similiar non gay stuff.

Far too many sex types of crimes are all lumped together.

For instance you can wind up on the sex crimes registry for getting caught taking a leak in the woods.
 
Thornicus said:
My point is that we as taxpayers should not be required to provide food and shelter for life to these subhumans. If there is DNA proof and/or and outright plausible confession, there should be one appeal permitted. After that, the execution should be carried out immediately. That would effectively end the whole argument. Or do you have a "moral" argument against the death penalty?
Click to expand...

Taxpayers should not be required to pay millions of dollars for the appeals process which is required because of the time limited nature of the death penalty. I'm not going to present a moral argument; you can't win with a moral argument.
 
Watermark said:
Taxpayers should not be required to pay millions of dollars for the appeals process which is required because of the time limited nature of the death penalty. I'm not going to present a moral argument; you can't win with a moral argument.
Click to expand...

yeah if they are poor just hang em quick, they are not contributing to the economy anyway.
 
How we feel morally about the death penalty is often just a result of chemicals in the brain. Most men feel a flush of pleasure whenever someone they think deserves it is hurt in some way. Most women, on the other hand, while not empathizing very strongly, or at all, don't usually feel pleasure. I'm not like most men, I never really experienced anything from having someone I hated hurt. That doesn't make me morally superior, I wouldn't pretend it does. It's just how I am.

However we must realize that if you only believe in the death penalty because it makes you feel good, you are essentially just being selfish. It costs a lot to ensure a fair level of due process that we expect in a modern society. Even the cheapest system would execute a lot of innocent people and wouldn't be much cheaper, or cheaper at all, than simple life imprisonment.

Of the other hand, the family members may experience pleasure from having the convicted put to death, which would could technically make it worthwhile. Then again, I don't really think a small feeling of pleasure would make any lasting, real contribution to their emotional state. Much better it is to just put them in prison and be done with the whole affair.
 
Watermark said:
Taxpayers should not be required to pay millions of dollars for the appeals process which is required because of the time limited nature of the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I already refuted this. Limit them to one appeal, which many lawmakers have considered anyway. Evidently you're not interested in legal reform.
 
Thornicus said:
My point is that we as taxpayers should not be required to provide food and shelter for life to these subhumans. If there is DNA proof and/or and outright plausible confession, there should be one appeal permitted. After that, the execution should be carried out immediately. That would effectively end the whole argument. Or do you have a "moral" argument against the death penalty?
Click to expand...
I do not believe ANYONE who has earned a long stay in the pokey should be a drag on society. We need to remodel the penal system to be reasonable self-sufficient, but without resorting to the types of abuses popular prior to the 60s that caused the system to be "reformed" to the current, unjustifiably expensive, prisoners-have-more-rights-than-their-victims system we have now.
 
Prisoners work at twelve cents an hour.

Does anyone ever deduct the work prisoners do from the "expenses" figure they get? I seriously doubt it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top