The Death Penalty -

Steve · #61 02-13-2002, 11:46 PM

that would be an interesting case.

judge:what is your defence?

Jacob:well.....I saw them in the newspaper, I have cuttings and everything......they're pedifiles.

anyway to stop this from being spam. why wouldn't they be able to be rehabilitated? alchoholics can be rehabilitated and thats genetic.

Sydney · #62 02-14-2002, 03:58 PM

Even for psychos who are beyond rehabilitation, you can't just kill them. Sweet Jesus, have some compassion!

Jacob · #63 02-14-2002, 04:13 PM

Psycho' dont rape little children who are the age of 1 mth old - 16 yrs old do they? They just kill people. Paedophiles should be drown at birth if we ever get the technology to rehabilitate them. And alchoholism is quite easy to cure, so is drug addictions and sex addictions. Raping little children makes the vile creature who does it feel fulfilled in that sadistic way they do. It also makes them feel 'Loved' and wanted. My family actually kicked in a paedophile who lived down our street one time...it was quite amusing.

Sydney · #64 02-14-2002, 04:17 PM

I'd call someone who rapes babies psychopathic!

If a pedophile can't control their urges, they should be locked up in a 4x4 cell and fed through a tube in their stomach. But I wouldn't say kill them, cuz then you're just a killer!

Jacob · #65 02-14-2002, 04:43 PM

But the cell thing would never happen. The killing thing would. Especially in Prison...anyone heard of that paedophile in America who got killed in prison...that amused me.

Danny · #66 02-14-2002, 06:30 PM

Chris, that's sick. You can't go around beating people up. Even the fact that they are paedophiles is not a good reason. Besides, if it is incurable, then it isn't their fault, is it? It seems that the whole "incurable" thing is both the crux and the downfall of your argument...

Basically, I believe that there is never any justification for killing another Human Being other than to prevent harm to others. And then only if there is no alternative.

PinkHaired Mudokon CWR · #67 02-14-2002, 06:37 PM

Okay, since some of you guys think that the death penalty is bad and so is rap (which they are bad), what do you think about abortion? That's like killing a child also. People sometimes thinks that it's not bad but it is.

Danny · #68 02-14-2002, 07:43 PM

You've already posted a topic on this, so why bring it up here?

Jacob · #69 02-14-2002, 07:49 PM

:

Chris, that's sick. You can't go around beating people up. Even the fact that they are paedophiles is not a good reason. Besides, if it is incurable, then it isn't their fault, is it? It seems that the whole "incurable" thing is both the crux and the downfall of your argument...

Ok...if someone cannot be cured from something...and they are suffering. People would say "Kill them and put them out of their misery" Rite? Well...these creatures are incurable but they instead do harm to others, children. So...wouldn't it be better for society if they got killed off. And to the fact you called my family sick, the paedo who got attacked was prowling the neighbourhood and looking for little kids. He even approached me and gave me some money for no apparant reason, and that is basically why my family kicked the living crap out of him and forced him out of the neighbourhood. Most Paedophiles dont want to be cured n e way. They find it easier to chat up a child then a actual adult...which is true...but only because the child can be won over with money or puppys or kittens.

Danny · #70 02-14-2002, 08:09 PM

:

My family actually kicked in a paedophile who lived down our street one time...it was quite amusing.

THIS was what I was saying was sick. Anyway, if there was a Paedophile prowling the neighbourhood, you don't beat them up, you report them to the police. Otherwise, you're just taking the law into your own hands, which is wrong.

Anyway, Paedophiles do not cause harm to children once they are imprisoned, and they do not cause harm to children once they are rehabilitated. The fact that they have not been is a fault with the prison system, it is not justification for killing them. If Paedophiles are reoffending, we should think "Why are they not rehabilitated?", and try and work out how to improve our prison system, instead of avoiding the issue by just killing them.

I still don't believe the incurable thing. Could you please tell me what newspapers ran stories on it? Just look on your cuttings, if you're not sure...

PinkHaired Mudokon CWR · #71 02-14-2002, 08:15 PM

:

Originally posted by Danny
You've already posted a topic on this, so why bring it up here?

Um no, this comment was before I placed that topic yo.

Jacob · #72 02-14-2002, 09:05 PM

:

Paedophile prowling the neighbourhood, you don't beat them up, you report them to the police.

Other neighbours did and the police said they couldn't do anything unless they had proof of the activity.

:

Anyway, Paedophiles do not cause harm to children once they are imprisoned

True...but Paedophiles do not get a proper sentence and are out within 5 years. The lowest sentence a Paedo has got was 2 months...not exactly justification and what are we...society...going to do when one of our children gets sexually molested? Ring the police so they can give another low sentence...i think not!!

:

If Paedophiles are reoffending, we should think "Why are they not rehabilitated?"

I believe the Government around the countries have been trying to do that to no prevail. And anyway, why would you want to run the risk of one being near you. Say you have 3 children...and you know you have a "Rehabilitated" Paedo next door to you...would you be at ease? No parent would...there would always be "What if..." in the back of your mind...its best just to get them out of society. Try searching for what you want on search engines...like Google.com...thats a good engine.

Steve · #73 02-14-2002, 09:26 PM

1. I'm too lazy to quote anything

2. if you had no proof them why did you suspect him to be a peadofile

3. there was a paedofile in the area near us and he got about a 20 year jail sentance for looking at child porn not exactly five years and that wasn't molesting.

4. why would you know about your neibors backround anyway? it seems like they wouldn't want to talk about it

Danny · #74 02-14-2002, 09:29 PM

:

Originally posted by Jacob
Other neighbours did and the police said they couldn't do anything unless they had proof of the activity.

And you had no proof of his activity? Then how could you justify attacking him?

:

True...but Paedophiles do not get a proper sentence and are out within 5 years. The lowest sentence a Paedo has got was 2 months...not exactly justification and what are we...society...going to do when one of our children gets sexually molested? Ring the police so they can give another low sentence...i think not!!

Like I say, if they're not getting long enough sentences, you don't kill them, you just give them longer sentences...

:

I believe the Government around the countries have been trying to do that to no prevail. And anyway, why would you want to run the risk of one being near you. Say you have 3 children...and you know you have a "Rehabilitated" Paedo next door to you...would you be at ease? No parent would...there would always be "What if..." in the back of your mind...its best just to get them out of society.

If they are rehabilitated (and I will believe that it is possible until I see evidence to the contrary), then the parents need not know. The majority of paedophiles who are released do not reoffend.

:

Try searching for what you want on search engines...like Google.com...thats a good engine.

No offense, but I'd rather you told me what papers you read it in, so that I know you're not making it up...

Jacob · #75 02-14-2002, 09:55 PM

:

. there was a paedofile in the area near us and he got about a 20 year jail sentance for looking at child porn not exactly five years and that wasn't molesting

I dont really know were you live. So i cant judge. But if your from the UK, that is a blatant lie as Paedophiles can only get a maximum of 3 years FOR molesting. There was a new law set for 10 years but i do not think that is in progress and still it is not enough.

Danny...the paper was the Mirror.

:

And you had no proof of his activity? Then how could you justify attacking him?

If you read that properly i stated the POLICE needed actual proof of activity, everyone else already knew (If it was my fault through wording then sorry)

:

If they are rehabilitated (and I will believe that it is possible until I see evidence to the contrary), then the parents need not know. The majority of paedophiles who are released do not reoffend.

So...you would be happy to set a new law that if a Paedophile seems rehabilitated and he is next door to a family who has children of the age of 3-14 the parents need not know. Think of it this way, WHEN that creature attacks the kids then it will be on your concience. You should check the Richard and Judy site...that discussed it recently. And if you really want to know how disgusting these people are...they actually tune themselves into areas were children are. On Richard and Judy they were speaking to a police man who said that his colleges had arrested a Paedo and while he was been taken to the car he stopped and asked them if they heard that. The policeman replied 'What?' in which the paedo replied 'The school' it was later found out that a school was nearby but not in earshot...but because this man (If you can call him that) was so obsessed with children...he could tune himself into sounds of their laughing and playing. Sick.

Danny · #76 02-14-2002, 10:14 PM

:

Originally posted by Jacob
Danny...the paper was the Mirror.

Ta.

:

If you read that properly i stated the POLICE needed actual proof of activity, everyone else already knew (If it was my fault through wording then sorry)

I knew what you meant. What I meant was: How can you be sure he was a paedophile if you have no proof? And if you had proof, why didn't you give it to the police?

I know the police aren't exactly the best they can be, but that's a problem with procedure, not actual law. The Death Penalty was a barbaric, medieval institution, and it is not the answer to current problems.

Jacob · #77 02-14-2002, 11:02 PM

:

How can you be sure he was a paedophile if you have no proof? And if you had proof, why didn't you give it to the police?

They (The neighbours) all had proof. He also led one of my friends to his house and nearly INTO his house, but one of the elderly neighbours got to my mate jus' in time. Everyone knew positivly that he was a Paedo but the police said for us to record the events and gave him a "Warning" which in the end never worked cos he approached me. And my family who said "We aint getting involved cos we mite put Chris at risk" suddenly went "We are getting involved cos Chris is at risk" and my 3 uncles (All Ex-Rugby players) caught up with him, chased him down the street and ended up beating the crap out of him...after that he left...problem solved. Even if the police had found evidence Paedos can actually get bail, and you say the law should give them longer sentences...well...yeh, sure they should. But will they...no. 3 years is not alot at all...and i am hoping that the law that states that people can gain access to the Sex offenders register is soon to be passed. Did anybody hear about that paedo ring that got busted...well...the policemen who were involved with that were sickened. They had to pretend that they were into child porn and trade images with the paedos which they said were very traumatic and disgusting images...in the end it involved a nation wide raid of all the Paedos from Germany to the US to the UK...and in the UK these are the sentences they got: They ranged from - 12 months - 30 months (2 and a half years that is i think)
Now the one who got 2.5 years actually raped a child LIVE on Webcam. And thats all that they got...jus' because they pleaded guilty. And even if they didn't...the max they could have got would be 3 years. On the documentary they did, they spoke to one who told the watchers what a Paedo' insentive was and he said it was something to do with the exitement and like i said before how easy it is to get a child than a woman. Looking at child porn is enough...but doing something like that LIVE on cam...is just sick and you do deserve to die for that.

Danny · #78 02-14-2002, 11:16 PM

Again, the short sentences isn't a problem with Law, but Procedure. Just because people aren't getting long enough sentences for a crime, doesn't mean they should be killed. If you're going to change the law (as all English Dealth Penalty supporters are), then why not just impose longer sentences?

Jacob · #79 02-15-2002, 05:22 PM

Longer sentences!? They would still get out eventually wouldn't they...life is 15 years. And even if they did get longer sentences...you have the fact that they could escape...at least when they are dead they go to Hell...and then Lucifer sends them to the Primal Hell were the 2 previous Deaths are due to their misdemeaners (Spelt wrong...i know)