Pedophiles and the Death Penalty

[George Costanza]

If we started imposing death for pedophilia it could make pedophiles more prone to kill their victims.

Do you have proof for that?

What proof? It logically follows that if a person knows they will get the death penalty for what they are doing, they are more likely to kill the victim so there will be no witnesses. The thinking of the perp goes like this: "Since I will get the death penalty merely for doing this, what have I got to lose by making sure I don't get caught? I'll kill the victim, so there will be no witnesses. Might as well - they're going to snuff me if I get caught for the molestation anyway."

 

[goldcatt]

Well, I agree that that is your opinion. (and if you read I said I didn't really know what I think on death penalty for molesters). Would you agree that many already do kill their victims?
We see it almost on a daily basis on the news.

Things generally make the news because they're sensational or rare.

The better question is how many molestations with living victims don't make the news? If the death penalty is in fact a deterrent to capital crimes, it must be assumed a certain percentage of those living victims would not be alive if the pedo wasn't concerned about crossing that line. If it's not a deterrent, why do we have it?

Enough DO make the news to get noticed. Constantly missing..and found dead and having been molested.

Of course they get noticed. That's what the news is for. But try to step back from the emotional aspect of it and look at the issues. Easier said than done when kids are involved, but proposing policy out of emotional outrage is a good way to make bad law.

What about all those who aren't killed, the ones you never hear about on the news? Do you think the death penalty is a deterrent in any of those cases?

 

[Kat]

Things generally make the news because they're sensational or rare.

The better question is how many molestations with living victims don't make the news? If the death penalty is in fact a deterrent to capital crimes, it must be assumed a certain percentage of those living victims would not be alive if the pedo wasn't concerned about crossing that line. If it's not a deterrent, why do we have it?

Enough DO make the news to get noticed. Constantly missing..and found dead and having been molested.

Of course they get noticed. That's what the news is for. But try to step back from the emotional aspect of it and look at the issues. Easier said than done when kids are involved, but proposing policy out of emotional outrage is a good way to make bad law.

What about all those who aren't killed, the ones you never hear about on the news? Do you think the death penalty is a deterrent in any of those cases?

I already said I didn't know how I feel about it. I didn't vote in the poll.
As for your last sentence, I can't answer that. I don't have the kind of mind that thinks like a molester.

 

[Kat]

If we started imposing death for pedophilia it could make pedophiles more prone to kill their victims.

Do you have proof for that?

What proof? It logically follows that if a person knows they will get the death penalty for what they are doing, they are more likely to kill the victim so there will be no witnesses. The thinking of the perp goes like this: "Since I will get the death penalty merely for doing this, what have I got to lose by making sure I don't get caught? I'll kill the victim, so there will be no witnesses. Might as well - they're going to snuff me if I get caught for the molestation anyway."

Makes no sense. So murderers don't murder because they will get death? Same diff here.
Come on Georgie. How do you know a molester will murder a victim if they are going to get death? That would be double death penalty then..

 

[goldcatt]

Enough DO make the news to get noticed. Constantly missing..and found dead and having been molested.

Of course they get noticed. That's what the news is for. But try to step back from the emotional aspect of it and look at the issues. Easier said than done when kids are involved, but proposing policy out of emotional outrage is a good way to make bad law.

What about all those who aren't killed, the ones you never hear about on the news? Do you think the death penalty is a deterrent in any of those cases?

I already said I didn't know how I feel about it. I didn't vote in the poll.
As for your last sentence, I can't answer that. I don't have the kind of mind that thinks like a molester.

Then what is your opinion of the death penalty in general? Do you think it works because people don't want to die if they get caught?

 

[Kat]

Of course they get noticed. That's what the news is for. But try to step back from the emotional aspect of it and look at the issues. Easier said than done when kids are involved, but proposing policy out of emotional outrage is a good way to make bad law.

What about all those who aren't killed, the ones you never hear about on the news? Do you think the death penalty is a deterrent in any of those cases?

I already said I didn't know how I feel about it. I didn't vote in the poll.
As for your last sentence, I can't answer that. I don't have the kind of mind that thinks like a molester.

Then what is your opinion of the death penalty in general? Do you think it works because people don't want to die if they get caught?

No. I don't think it works because people don't want to die if they get caught. But that is not why I believe in the death penalty anyway. (for cap murder that is).
I think those who are guilty of heinous crimes should pay. So, I am not thinking deterrent anyway.

 

[goldcatt]

I already said I didn't know how I feel about it. I didn't vote in the poll.
As for your last sentence, I can't answer that. I don't have the kind of mind that thinks like a molester.

Then what is your opinion of the death penalty in general? Do you think it works because people don't want to die if they get caught?

No. I don't think it works because people don't want to die if they get caught. But that is not why I believe in the death penalty anyway. (for cap murder that is).
I think those who are guilty of heinous crimes should pay. So, I am not thinking deterrent anyway.

So it's purely for vengeance?

I don't support the death penalty anyway. But the deterrence argument at least has merit. How is an officially sanctioned revenge killing any different from murder?

 

[Kat]

Then what is your opinion of the death penalty in general? Do you think it works because people don't want to die if they get caught?

No. I don't think it works because people don't want to die if they get caught. But that is not why I believe in the death penalty anyway. (for cap murder that is).
I think those who are guilty of heinous crimes should pay. So, I am not thinking deterrent anyway.

So it's purely for vengeance?

I don't support the death penalty anyway. But the deterrence argument at least has merit. How is an officially sanctioned revenge killing any different from murder?

You are the one using those words..''vengeance - revenge'', not me. I explained my POV.
It isn't revenge or vengeance as you put it. It is a penalty for a crime someone committed.

I understand we do not agree, but let me tell you...I do appreciate very much us being able to have a calm, non name calling discussion. A bit unusual on this forum. So thank you.

 

[Father Time]

This question is badly worded
"Should pedophiles face the possibility of a death sentence?"
We all face the possibility of a death sentence if we commit a horrible crime, pedos should be no different.

Now do I think people should be put to death for being pedos?

Hell no! I do not think we should be prosecuting thought crimes.

Assuming you meant that 'should people be put to death for molesting children'. My answer is still no. I don't like the death penalty very much and molesting children doesn't seem like a bad enough crime to warrant the death penalty. That should be reserved for no less than horrible murders if we have it all.

 

[Liability]

This question is badly worded
"Should pedophiles face the possibility of a death sentence?"
We all face the possibility of a death sentence if we commit a horrible crime, pedos should be no different.

Now do I think people should be put to death for being pedos?

Hell no! I do not think we should be prosecuting thought crimes.

Assuming you meant that 'should people be put to death for molesting children'. My answer is still no. I don't like the death penalty very much and molesting children doesn't seem like a bad enough crime to warrant the death penalty. That should be reserved for no less than horrible murders if we have it all.

The question was not badly worded. It is quite precise, in fact. Let's say that in your state there is a death penalty for specific types of murder. Having the death penalty as an option is not the same thing as saying that everyone convicted of that specific type of murder will get the death penalty.

It is always just one of the options where it exists at all.

So, the question is (acknowledging that the SCOTUS has already ruled on this but assuming that we can eventually get the SCOTUS to reverse that idiotic decision): Should the death penalty be be available as one of the possible penalties for child molestation?

Turning to another line of discussion, those opposed to the possibility of death penalty contend that if these mutts are facing a possible death sentence, their "incentive" to kill the witness goes up. That kind of reasoning applies with equal force to every capital crime. So that reasoning quickly becomes an argument to wave the white flag.

But it gets even worse. In any society that is so highly "evolved" as to prohibit the death penalty in any and all cases, the death penalty opponents usually argue that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the "civilized" alternative to capital punishment. But isn't it true that the mutts don't want to ever get convicted? Isn't their fear of lost liberty for the rest of their lives going to lead them to conclude that the "best" way to avoid that possible punishment is to forever silence the witness(es)? Aren't they pretty much JUST AS incentivized to kill their victims and eyewitness to avoid the consequences as they would be if there were a death penalty they feared? In fact, taking the chance of committing such murders is less of a risk for them where there is no death penalty since they aren't risking their own lives in the process.

Finally, there is no debate about putting pedophiles to death for thinking their evil thoughts. The "thought crimes" argument is pure stupidity. We are talking about the penalties for criminal action. If some sick piece of shit THINKS about raping a child, but never does anything even approaching that twisted thinking, his pedophilia-inclinations aren't subject to any punishment. But if that sick fuck DOES violate some child, then he has committed a crime and would be subject to arrrest, prosecution, conviction and sentencing.

 

[Liability]

Then what is your opinion of the death penalty in general? Do you think it works because people don't want to die if they get caught?

No. I don't think it works because people don't want to die if they get caught. But that is not why I believe in the death penalty anyway. (for cap murder that is).
I think those who are guilty of heinous crimes should pay. So, I am not thinking deterrent anyway.

So it's purely for vengeance?

I don't support the death penalty anyway. But the deterrence argument at least has merit. How is an officially sanctioned revenge killing any different from murder?

Vengeance is and has always been a perfectly valid component of sentencing.

If a PART of the justification for capital punishment includes "vengeance," it is in no way even remotely akin to murder. Murder by definition is the wrongful and unlawful taking of human life by another. A legal execution is neither wrongful nor illegal.

The better question is why would anyone be required to consider it "wrong" to have vengeance as one of the reasons supporting capital punishment. The law is supposed to speak for all of us. Victims and society in general have a right to see justice done. Holding criminals to account in a fair process is part of that. After a determination of guilt so strong that it leaves no room for a reasonable doubt, the purposes of legal punishment are supposed to include an expression of the communities outrage at the violation committed by the convicted.

 

[Douger]

Yes.Child molesting rapists should be killed.
HOWEVER.
The laws of pedophilia must be carefully defined first.
I get 13 to 16 year olds trying to sell me blowjobs when I go to the beach.
I'm not stupid enough to accept, but someone who does would be declared a pedo ?
Stupidity.the little tarts are professional whores.
The rules need to be clear before you plug in the electric chair.

 

[Liability]

Yes.Child molesting rapists should be killed.
HOWEVER.
The laws of pedophilia must be carefully defined first.
I get 13 to 16 year olds trying to sell me blowjobs when I go to the beach.
I'm not stupid enough to accept, but someone who does would be declared a pedo ?
Stupidity.the little tarts are professional whores.
The rules need to be clear before you plug in the electric chair.

Does anyone remember the Long Island Lolita? Underage (teen) Amy Fisher was seduced by a married man (an asshole named Joey Buttafuoco) and they had an affair. Bad enough. But the little bitch decided to get rid of the competition (i.e., her paramour's wife). So, one fine day, she went to the door of the wife's house (also her "boyfriend's" house) and when the wife opened the door, Amy shot her in the head. (The wife somehow survived.)

After Amy got convicted and sentenced, the law enforcement types went after the husband. He ultimately took a plea bargain. Saturday Night Live Weekend Update announced the news in the following fashion (paraphrased from memory). "Joey Buttofuoco pleaded guilty to endangering the moral welfare of an underage teenage prostitute."

So, sure. If you want to include some safeguards in the law, I'm curious where the lines are supposed to get drawn? Would you argue that forcing sex on an unwilling 16 year old is somehow less offensive to society than having "consensual" sex with an 11 year old?

 

[Yukon.]

Vegeance is mine sayeth the Lord.

 

[Liability]

Vegeance is mine sayeth the Lord.

Thank God for our First Amendment and what we call the separation of church and state.

UNTIL THE JUDGMENT, we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

In the interim, Puke-on, I have already told you to go fuck yourself. Go attend to that.

 

[Douger]

Yes.Child molesting rapists should be killed.
HOWEVER.
The laws of pedophilia must be carefully defined first.
I get 13 to 16 year olds trying to sell me blowjobs when I go to the beach.
I'm not stupid enough to accept, but someone who does would be declared a pedo ?
Stupidity.the little tarts are professional whores.
The rules need to be clear before you plug in the electric chair.

Does anyone remember the Long Island Lolita? Underage (teen) Amy Fisher was seduced by a married man (an asshole named Joey Buttafuoco) and they had an affair. Bad enough. But the little bitch decided to get rid of the competition (i.e., her paramour's wife). So, one fine day, she went to the door of the wife's house (also her "boyfriend's" house) and when the wife opened the door, Amy shot her in the head. (The wife somehow survived.)

After Amy got convicted and sentenced, the law enforcement types went after the husband. He ultimately took a plea bargain. Saturday Night Live Weekend Update announced the news in the following fashion (paraphrased from memory). "Joey Buttofuoco pleaded guilty to endangering the moral welfare of an underage teenage prostitute."

So, sure. If you want to include some safeguards in the law, I'm curious where the lines are supposed to get drawn? Would you argue that forcing sex on an unwilling 16 year old is somehow less offensive to society than having "consensual" sex with an 11 year old?

It's a difficult call isn't it.
Is an eleven year old capable of " consensual' sex ? A sixteen year old certainly is.
Maybe in this era of shitty parenting, and the Jewnography invasion online, it's possible that nearly any murkin kid with pubes is capable of consensual sex

Crazy fucking world.

 

[Liability]

Yes.Child molesting rapists should be killed.
HOWEVER.
The laws of pedophilia must be carefully defined first.
I get 13 to 16 year olds trying to sell me blowjobs when I go to the beach.
I'm not stupid enough to accept, but someone who does would be declared a pedo ?
Stupidity.the little tarts are professional whores.
The rules need to be clear before you plug in the electric chair.

Does anyone remember the Long Island Lolita? Underage (teen) Amy Fisher was seduced by a married man (an asshole named Joey Buttafuoco) and they had an affair. Bad enough. But the little bitch decided to get rid of the competition (i.e., her paramour's wife). So, one fine day, she went to the door of the wife's house (also her "boyfriend's" house) and when the wife opened the door, Amy shot her in the head. (The wife somehow survived.)

After Amy got convicted and sentenced, the law enforcement types went after the husband. He ultimately took a plea bargain. Saturday Night Live Weekend Update announced the news in the following fashion (paraphrased from memory). "Joey Buttofuoco pleaded guilty to endangering the moral welfare of an underage teenage prostitute."

So, sure. If you want to include some safeguards in the law, I'm curious where the lines are supposed to get drawn? Would you argue that forcing sex on an unwilling 16 year old is somehow less offensive to society than having "consensual" sex with an 11 year old?

It's a difficult call isn't it.
Is an eleven year old capable of " consensual' sex ? A sixteen year old certainly is.
Maybe in this era of shitty parenting, and the Jewnography invasion online, it's possible that nearly any murkin kid with pubes is capable of consensual sex

Crazy fucking world.

It's a crazy world, alright, as evidenced by much of what guys like you say.

It's simple enough in some respects. An 11 year old deserves protection. No. An 11 year old cannot "consent." Sex with any 11 year old should always be a crime.

Forcing sex on anyone of any age should also always be a crime. But the younger the victim, the more offensive the crime and the more severe the possible punishment.

We could all live without your asshole contributions of stupid non-words like "Jewnography," you nitwit bigot.

Like Yukon, you should go fuck yourself.

 

[Douger]

I'm cool with that.
Enjoy your demise.

 

[Liability]

I'm cool with that.
Enjoy your demise.

Nobody gives a damn what some anti-Semitic piece of shit like you is "cool" with, shit-breath.

I believe I'd enjoy your demise quite a bit more.

Now, until that day comes, get back to business, you scummy shit-brain.

I believe I already directed you to go fuck yourself. Get to it. Be quiet about it.

 

[Yukon.]

Liability.

You are a disgusting swine. Foul, profane, abusive, ignorant. The result of in-breeding no doubt.