Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I would rather kill all the Murderers, Rapists and Pedophiles than risk having a single escape and loss of an innocent life.

In theory so would I. However this just goes right back to the point of wrongful conviction. If even one of the alleged murderers, rapists and/or pedophiles you convict and kill was wrongfully convicted than you've taken an innocent life right there. I doubt they or their family would see it as dying for the greater good either. Its like a Catch-2 I guess. You can get a bunch of heinous criminals off the streets and make sure they can no longer harm innocents but at the same time you could kill multiple innocent people in the process.

Does anyone know what the requirements are to place a criminal on death row?

I would think solid DNA evidence would be required to sentence an alleged pedophile to death.

Even then though you'd have to rely on humans being infallible, and also uncorrupted.

I read a wrongful conviction article a while back where a man was convicted of molesting/raping/killing (I can't remember exactly) one of his young nieces I believe. He sat in prison for years and rotted knowing he didn't do it. All along everyone thinking he committed this heinous crime. Turns out he didn't do it and it has something to do with a corrupt coroner/medical examiner.

Originally Posted by sew12

I read a wrongful conviction article a while back where a man was convicted of molesting/raping/killing (I can't remember exactly) one of his young nieces I believe. He sat in prison for years and rotted knowing he didn't do it. All along everyone thinking he committed this heinous crime. Turns out he didn't do it and it has something to do with a corrupt coroner/medical examiner.

I think I saw that on TV. That sucked so much for him; even when he got out, his entire family still hated him, since I guessed they were used to doing that already :/.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I don't want to present a straw man argument here, but by that logic killing in self defence would be something you consider morally wrong? If I'm drawing the wrong conclusions here, please correct me.

Personally, yes, I do. It is a major moral decision and one that will forever carry the consequences of the action, but in it's purest form, it is taking a human life and, therefore, ultimately wrong. As I stated before, society looks upon it with less opposition, but in my opinion, it puts into action the call to "Turn the other cheek".

If someone hits me, I don't hit back. If I am wronged, I move on.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy" - Matthew 5:7 (To draw from our Catholic schooling)

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I've acknowledged the problem of incorrect verdicts in my previous post. It is the only logical argument against the death penalty, and a huge problem even if the number of people executed in this manner is low. But the path with less innocent lives being taken is the best, and the number of murders that would not have happened if the death penalty HAD existed in Canada would most likely have been much higher than 8. Obviously this statement is just an assumption that can't be proved (and the number of people later proved innocent might have changed had the deterrent existed, since the crimes might not have been committed).

We seem to be drawing considerably from the notion that the death penalty is any sort of deterrent, so I'll address that issue more throughly.

Take this into consideration:

The crimes that carry the most weight (murder, sexual assault, etc.) are often committed by those who have the mental compulsion to do so.

A pedophile is someone whose genetic make-up makes them sexually attracted to children. We don't know enough about their mental structure to determine why, all we know is that they are.

We frown upon this in our society. It is a deviation from the norm and we seriously dislike that.

So we drive their culture underground...we force them to release their urges through the most violent and vile means possible. And through years of shaming them for their behaviour, we make them feel intensely (and quite often, rightly) guilty for their actions, so they are stuck in a cycle of perpetual guilt and emotion that leads them to kidnap, assault and then murder some of societies most innocent.

So, assume we institute the death penalty for pedophiles. Then we are executing people because they are mentally ill. We are not studying them, we are not trying to help them, we are simply killing them because they were born that way.

And some people think that is perfectly acceptable.

So I ask you to remember, that 50 years ago, you could have easily replaced the word "pedophile" with "homosexual".

Homosexuality is now accepted in the western world because we acknowledge the fact that, whereas pedophilia hurts those who don't know any better, homosexuality carries less of a social cost. In many countries though, it is still a crime punishable by death.

We have taken it upon ourselves to study the causes of homosexuality and many breakthroughs have been made. Why can't we do the same for pedophiles? If we study their genetic make up and their general psychology, then we may be able to help them overcome their urges or control them to a manageable extent.

Or we could kill them. But is that doing all within our powers to make life better for people on this earth?

Would killing more pedophiles deter pedophilia?

Would it stop one more child from being harassed by a brand new pedophile?

Will it eradicate the causes of this mental disorder?

Or will it simply end a life.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

(Although I would very much like to see the stats behind the at risk youth programs).

http://www.hamiltonmountainn ews.co...article/175152

Studies done in Britain, where the program was first initiated, show participants reoffend three times less then those placed in detention centers.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I would rather kill all the Murderers, Rapists and Pedophiles than risk having a single escape and loss of an innocent life.

I would rather not kill any prisoner in the chance that, they too, are innocent.

An innocent life is an innocent life, regardless if they have been labelled a criminal or a victim.

SEE: http://criminaljustice.chang e.org/...n_innocent_man

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

They have way too much power, but they are doing a heck of a good job with it so far. I can't logically support them because of what would happen if they started misusing their power (the same for any gov't). But it is hard to argue with their results.

I find it very easy to argue with the moral legitimacy, not to mention results, of a system that willfully executes minors and the mentally ill thanks to forged evidence and sham legal proceedings.

If someone does not respect another person's right to life, they are indeed a danger. But if we kill them rather than simply incarcerating them, what does it solve? I touched on this earlier...

Does killing a murder stop someone else from being killed by a brand new murderer?

No.

Does killing a rapist stop more rapes from happening?

No.

Does killing a pedophile solve the problem of pedophilia?

No.

And what's more, does killing an offender stop the hurt already incurred?

How does killing a murderer stop the family of a victim feel any better? Yes, it may satisfy a carnal lust for revenge, but would it not be better to stop the hurt from ever happening?

We should be focusing our attention on crime prevention methods, not on "law and order" style methods. We need to deter crime, not simply punish it to the harshest extent possible! We need to seriously re-align our values so that we stop the mess from happening instead of throwing all our effort into the clean up.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Personally, yes, I do. It is a major moral decision and one that will forever carry the consequences of the action, but in it's purest form, it is taking a human life and, therefore, ultimately wrong. As I stated before, society looks upon it with less opposition, but in my opinion, it puts into action the call to "Turn the other cheek".

If someone hits me, I don't hit back. If I am wronged, I move on.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy" - Matthew 5:7 (To draw from our Catholic schooling)

So if you had the potential to kill someone who was about to kill someone innocent you cared about; you'd rather let the person you care about die rather than killing the guy trying to kill said person?

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

So if you had the potential to kill someone who was about to kill someone innocent you cared about; you'd rather let the person you care about die rather than killing the guy trying to kill said person?

Clearly this person has never found themselves in a domestic violence situation or any other situation where it is kill or be killed.

How can you just turn the other cheek if someone is about to kill you and the only way to save yourself is to kill them?

This isn't a "if someone punches me I don't punch back" situation. We're talking about a violent person who is seconds away from murdering you.

It's easy to say killing in self defense is wrong but in practice that is ludicrous that you would look at say a woman trying to defend herself from a violent husband and killing him to defend her own life (ie like the movie Enough) in the same light as you would look at a cold blooded murderer, or the husband himself even.

Also the arguments presented above on pedophilia assume that they can be helped or rehabilitated. As mentioned before it has been noted that pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated and run an extremely high risk to re-offend.

I also don't like the idea that pedophilia is a culture, as you put it and that it somehow shouldn't be "driven underground." What do you even mean by this? That they should be allowed to practice their culture like any other actual culture would be practiced in the open? This isn't a freedom of expression issue.

You're right, there is something mentally wrong with these people. That said they still know right from wrong and know that their sexual urges, if acted upon would be illegal and life destroying. Those who act upon those urges make a conscious decision to do so. That is the bottom line. It is unfortunate that they were born this way and it would be great if it were possible to treat them but it isn't right now. Treating pedophilia the same as other mental illnesses where the imbalance doesn't have such dire, life destroying consequences for children would be a mistake. Again, it isn't a culture that it is like some sort of ethnic culture where people should be free to practice is.

Your whole argument on pedophilia is riding a thin, dangerous line, imo. I was just wondering if you could clarify, especially things like the use of the word culture. It isn't a culture that is to be tolerated or accepted, regardless of the fact that it may be a mental deficiency inherent in these people.

To be clear this isn't an argument pro-capital punishment for pedophiles, its a separate argument on their "culture."

Originally Posted by Ownaginatios

So if you had the potential to kill someone who was about to kill someone innocent you cared about; you'd rather let the person you care about die rather than killing the guy trying to kill said person?

This sounds a lot like an argument my Grade 12 political science teacher gave us. His question was "If a terrorist was outside the classroom with a bomb, would you kill him to save the whole class or not?" I argued on the side of not killing him and the class was essentially equally divided.

If I ever found myself in that situation, I would use all the methods available to myself to stop them, save actually killing them. It is unlikely that I would be able to live with the intense pain of killing someone, regardless of what their actions were going to be, so I would be emotionally and morally scarred for life. The trauma to the other individual of both being within moments of death and seeing another person die before their eyes would hurt them just as much.

Again, which is why I was saying we need to stop the culture of violence we live in and work toward preventing such occurrences rather then simply dealing with them after they've hurt so many people.

Originally Posted by sew12

How can you just turn the other cheek if someone is about to kill you and the only way to save yourself is to kill them?

Living by your morals is an extremely difficult choice but I stand by my statement. I would not kill someone who was going to kill me. I would do everything in my power aside from killing.

Originally Posted by sew12

I also don't like the idea that pedophilia is a culture, as you put it and that it somehow shouldn't be "driven underground." What do you even mean by this? That they should be allowed to practice their culture like any other actual culture would be practiced in the open? This isn't a freedom of expression issue.

Your whole argument on pedophilia is riding a thin, dangerous line, imo. I was just wondering if you could clarify, especially things like the use of the word culture. It isn't a culture that is to be tolerated or accepted, regardless of the fact that it may be a mental deficiency inherent in these people.

There was no implication of the sort made. The issue is that, with any deviant behaviour, there is a 'culture' around it. News reports about child pornography busts tell stories of websites where this culture is promoted and groups like NAMBLA actually lobby on their behalf.

Stories emerged quite a while ago about anorexics who have websites that openly promote anorexia as a lifestyle and where anorexics can gather to talk about their weight and methods to deny themselves food. Its the same thing with pedophiles...they have a culture that is so forbidden, it brings with it the shame that sometimes compel them to murder their victims.

Their culture should not be accepted, no. It is dangerous and twisted, but we still need to do more research into the reasoning behind it.

My argument is more that we should not be killing them, rather, doing everything in our power to correct this behaviour. It may or may not be possible, but we'll never know until we try. If we keep simply throwing them in prisons to let them die there or, as some people advocate, killing them, we'll never even get the chance.

Hey, I can't speak for c.erl, but I think it's important to consider that nobody chooses to be a pedophile. That means that it appears to be purely by luck that you and I don't have those tendencies. And if you think about it, pedophiles lead a miserable life. They apparently have urges that would make them stigmatized across the board, if anyone found out about them. So they can't seek help.

It doesn't make sense to assume that the death penalty would deter pedophiles from doing pedophile things. Being a pedophile already makes you the most despised person around. But, what if being born with that unfortunate mental condition didn't immediately make you a social reject? What if people could seek help from therapy, or from medicine? It's possible that social reform or medical research would help people born with these tendencies to figure out how to lead a normal life (and obviously not act on their urges).

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that people with a pedophile-tendency absolutely can be helped to integrate normally into society; I'm just saying that it is a possibility that shouldn't be ruled out without attempting improvement. I think it's unlikely that the death penalty would help the situation much, compared with the existing 25 year prison sentences.

In general though, capital punishment is basically a non-issue in the developed world. Even the US only executed 37 people in 2008. Just look at the list of countries in the global distribution of executions from 2008. It's a bunch of countries in Africa, the Middle East, South and Central Asia, along with China (with >5000), the US (37) and Japan (15). Also I've read that China is known to have an especially barbaric justice system.

Also I'd point out that even in states such as the US, where violent crime is unusually high compared to other developed countries, violent crime is trending downwards. Furthermore, when violent crime does occur it's mainly among poor people, in what they call the projects in the US. So the violence is internalized: it doesn't affect people living in suburbs. I think this is the most important social change that has to occur if people want to reduce crime: bring the roughly 15% of people in the US living below the poverty line out of poverty. Same thing applies to Canada.

If people are brought out of poverty by social reform, and brought up to livable conditions, then I think that would have the most positive impact on the violent crime rate. And if some other needed changes, such as legalization of marijuana, are made then the imprisonment rate can be further cut down.

edit: minor fact check

Originally Posted by dukeb

Hey, I can't speak for c.erl, but I think it's important to consider that nobody chooses to be a pedophile. That means that it appears to be purely by luck that you and I don't have those tendencies. And if you think about it, pedophiles lead a miserable life. They apparently have urges that would make them stigmatized across the board, if anyone found out about them. So they can't seek help.

First I'll address this and then move onto c.erl's continued defense of morals.

As I've said already it is truly unfortunate that pedophiles are born the way they are. It would be great if there was something that could be done to help them but again at this point there isn't. Perhaps more research should be done to discover the genetic defect or what have you that gives someone pedophilic tendencies. That said the problem still lies within society, who is going to fund this research? Its a vicious cycle if you think about it. Who wants to fund research to help pedophiles when you have the option to instead fund research to discover life saving treatments for people with cancer? No one looks upon a pedophile with sympathy b/c of the media perception that all pedophiles are the kind who kidnap, rape, murder and otherwise torture and abuse children. No one thinks about those who don't act on their urges and have to live a miserable existence and go through an every day battle and decide not to give into something they unfortunately desire. So on and so forth. I'd have to look further into it, I'm curious if it has been definitely proven that they cannot be rehabilitated or if they are just currently unable to be rehabilitated, it's a pertinent piece of information.

Is there any real way to help these people at this point? You can't cure them but there's also no way you can help to satisfy them. You cannot help with them their problem without a cure. Its either a cure, or allow them to hurt innocents, there's no in between and one those things is very obviously not an option.

In any case I'm still not saying the death penalty should be in place but sex crimes against children is pretty much the most heinous crime out there and for those pedophiles who choose to act on it there needs to be a much, much harsher penalty. The most important distinction to make is that while they can't help but have those kinds of feelings towards children they do have the free will and conscious not to act on them.

As for cerl's continued defense on moral grounds I'm curious about something. His defense has a flaw in it for me personally. His defense assumes that his morals are somehow stronger or better than any of ours b/c he wouldn't kill, even in self defense. It seems like a huge oversight to me. Just b/c someone would be okay with killing in self defense or okay will the death penalty for heinous crimes (in the hypothetical perfect world without wrongful convictions even) doesn't make them any less morally sound than yourself. You assume it isn't hard for them to live by morals just b/c they don't agree with your view of what is right and wrong.

Also its one thing to say you'd never kill in self defense and its another thing to actually live a situation where you'd be given the choice to kill or be killed. You can preach from the rooftops all you want about how you'd do everything in your power but kill but until you're in that situation you can't know what you'd really do. When all your power to help yourself in other ways is gone it is a completely different ball game than the hypothetical.

Originally Posted by sew12

As for cerl's continued defense on moral grounds I'm curious about something. His defense has a flaw in it for me personally. His defense assumes that his morals are somehow stronger or better than any of ours b/c he wouldn't kill, even in self defense. It seems like a huge oversight to me. Just b/c someone would be okay with killing in self defense or okay will the death penalty for heinous crimes (in the hypothetical perfect world without wrongful convictions even) doesn't make them any less morally sound than yourself. You assume it isn't hard for them to live by morals just b/c they don't agree with your view of what is right and wrong.

Also its one thing to say you'd never kill in self defense and its another thing to actually live a situation where you'd be given the choice to kill or be killed. You can preach from the rooftops all you want about how you'd do everything in your power but kill but until you're in that situation you can't know what you'd really do. When all your power to help yourself in other ways is gone it is a completely different ball game than the hypothetical.

Naw, I never said that either. I said "Living by your morals is an extremely difficult choice but I stand by my statement". Granted, my statement wasn't worded very well if it can be re-interpreted just such, but the core of what I'm saying is that my morals dissuade me from killing. I live by my morals, you live by yours. If yours state that killing in self defense is fine, then live by that. But I never said or even implied my morals are of higher quality than yours. My morals are different, not better, not worse.

As for your second statement, again, I'm trying my hardest to set morals and live by them. If I say I'll do (or not do) something, I'll stick by my word. But I really hope I'm never in that situation regardless.

Now, if you'll excuse me, there is a rooftop I need to get back to.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Naw, I never said that either. I said "Living by your morals is an extremely difficult choice but I stand by my statement". Granted, my statement wasn't worded very well if it can be re-interpreted just such, but the core of what I'm saying is that my morals dissuade me from killing. I live by my morals, you live by yours. If yours state that killing in self defense is fine, then live by that. But I never said or even implied my morals are of higher quality than yours. My morals are different, not better, not worse.

As for your second statement, again, I'm trying my hardest to set morals and live by them. If I say I'll do (or not do) something, I'll stick by my word. But I really hope I'm never in that situation regardless.

Now, if you'll excuse me, there is a rooftop I need to get back to.

Well at least you defend your positions well when questioned. Someone with faultier logic or flimsy basis for their opinions would flake when interrogated, so to speak.

I still think it would be a different story if presented with the situation, but as you said, hopefully you never are.

Would you really rather die than have to kill someone who is threatening your life directly?

Originally Posted by sew12

Well at least you defend your positions well when questioned. Someone with faultier logic or flimsy basis for their opinions would flake when interrogated, so to speak.

I still think it would be a different story if presented with the situation, but as you said, hopefully you never are.

Would you really rather die than have to kill someone who is threatening your life directly?

No human who values and enjoys their own life and who cares about their family/friends would not sacrifice themselves just to uphold their morals. Morals aren't gonna do you shit when you're dead. I'll argue this to the death. XD

Originally Posted by lawleypop

No human who values and enjoys their own life and who cares about their family/friends would not sacrifice themselves just to uphold their morals. Morals aren't gonna do you shit when you're dead. I'll argue this to the death. XD

Obviously cerl (Chris is it?) does value human life otherwise he wouldn't be so vehemently opposed to killing. Again I stand by my position that you can't say for sure that you wouldn't kill in self defense unless actually presented with the situation.

We're for the most part relatively young students with minimal real world, life experience under our belts. Its hard to say how you'd act in a variety of hypothetical situations. Every situation that could arise needs to be considered individually weighing your options, your feelings, you capabilities etc. There are tons of variables to consider.

Its a waste of time to hymn and haw about hypothetical situations really. cerl says he's opposed to killing in any situation based on his morals and that's all he can say, and he will obviously continue to defend that position with the information he has presently (ie not having been in a real situation).

For some people dying standing up for their beliefs is very important.

Originally Posted by sew12

In theory so would I. However this just goes right back to the point of wrongful conviction. If even one of the alleged murderers, rapists and/or pedophiles you convict and kill was wrongfully convicted than you've taken an innocent life right there. I doubt they or their family would see it as dying for the greater good either. Its like a Catch-2 I guess. You can get a bunch of heinous criminals off the streets and make sure they can no longer harm innocents but at the same time you could kill multiple innocent people in the process.

I completely agree, which is why I can only argue for Capital Punishment in theory. For it to actually be implemented one of two things must first happen: a technological advance that rules out the possibility of wrongful convictions, or we find a good indication that more people would be saved by capital punishment than would be wrongfully killed.

I'd argue that the first is fast approaching, and will probably arrive before any research could really develop into the second. But that's not really here nor there; nor based on any hard evidence.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Personally, yes, I do. It is a major moral decision and one that will forever carry the consequences of the action, but in it's purest form, it is taking a human life and, therefore, ultimately wrong. As I stated before, society looks upon it with less opposition, but in my opinion, it puts into action the call to "Turn the other cheek".

If someone hits me, I don't hit back. If I am wronged, I move on.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy" - Matthew 5:7 (To draw from our Catholic schooling)

Of course, we are talking about them wronging you in a manner that will NOT allow you to move on. You will be dead. You're life will be over. You talk quite a bit about defending the right to life, when this would suggest that you don't value your own enough to protect it.

Originally Posted by c.erl

We seem to be drawing considerably from the notion that the death penalty is any sort of deterrent, so I'll address that issue more throughly.

Take this into consideration:

The crimes that carry the most weight (murder, sexual assault, etc.) are often committed by those who have the mental compulsion to do so.

A pedophile is someone whose genetic make-up makes them sexually attracted to children. We don't know enough about their mental structure to determine why, all we know is that they are.

Well, until we find some sort of "pedophile gene" you will have no proof of that. You can't assume something is genetic without any observable evidence of such. There is no evidence of pedophilia running in families, and no genes have been found that are exclusively common to pedophiles. Assuming you were using "genetic" as a synonym for "something beyond their control" instead of "relating to, or caused by genes", it is still irrelevant. Even if they cannot control the fact that they are sexually attracted to young children, they still have the choice of whether to act on those urges or not.

Originally Posted by c.erl

We frown upon this in our society. It is a deviation from the norm and we seriously dislike that.

Its actually quite a bit different from just being a deviation from the norm- because that deviation involves them raping children. If someone is sexually attracted to children and doesn't act on their urges, then fine. Whatever. As soon as they act on those urges they cross a line.

Originally Posted by c.erl

So we drive their culture underground...we force them to release their urges through the most violent and vile means possible. And through years of shaming them for their behaviour, we make them feel intensely (and quite often, rightly) guilty for their actions, so they are stuck in a cycle of perpetual guilt and emotion that leads them to kidnap, assault and then murder some of societies most innocent.

So, assume we institute the death penalty for pedophiles. Then we are executing people because they are mentally ill. We are not studying them, we are not trying to help them, we are simply killing them because they were born that way.

As opposed to having sex with children in a peaceful and pleasant way? Killing them for being sexually attracted to children =/= killing them for raping children. (An adult having sex with a child is always rape since they can't properly consent).

Originally Posted by c.erl

So I ask you to remember, that 50 years ago, you could have easily replaced the word "pedophile" with "homosexual".

What goes on between two consenting adults should stay between two consenting adults. If it doesn't harm someone, there is no logical justification for it being a crime.

People who considered homosexuality wrong because of religious reasons, not because of any logical justification.

There is an incredibly good reason for treating the rape of children in a manner different from that- someone is being harmed.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Homosexuality is now accepted in the western world because we acknowledge the fact that, whereas pedophilia hurts those who don't know any better, homosexuality carries less of a social cost. In many countries though, it is still a crime punishable by death.

All that that shows is that can be a huge difference between what is moral/immoral and what is legal/illegal. Some countries still practise many stupid laws. The fact that drug traffickers get harsher sentences than pedophiles who act on their urges is testament to this.

Originally Posted by c.erl

We have taken it upon ourselves to study the causes of homosexuality and many breakthroughs have been made. Why can't we do the same for pedophiles? If we study their genetic make up and their general psychology, then we may be able to help them overcome their urges or control them to a manageable extent.

Keep in mind that the basis of a lot of those studies was also to try and "cure" homosexuality. Keep in mind that none of them worked.

Also keep in mind that people are indeed studying the causes of someone becoming a pedophile currently. No genetic link has been found, which suggests that it is a nurture thing, not a nature thing. (Which doesn't suggest bad parenting as most people assume, nurture involves factors like hormone levels while in utero, etc). And keep in mind that these people tend not to display their sexual tendencies till a few decades after whatever conditioning happened occurred.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Or we could kill them. But is that doing all within our powers to make life better for people on this earth?

Would killing more pedophiles deter pedophilia?

Would it stop one more child from being harassed by a brand new pedophile?

Will it eradicate the causes of this mental disorder?

Or will it simply end a life.

Yes.

It might not stop people from being pedophiles, but it might stop them from making the decision to rape a child.

It will stop a brand new child from being harassed by the same one pedophile.

It can stop the effects of the disorder, i.e. the rape of children.

It would involve the ending of a life, yes.

Originally Posted by c.erl

http://www.hamiltonmountainn ews.co...article/175152

Studies done in Britain, where the program was first initiated, show participants reoffend three times less then those placed in detention centers.

Link to those studies? :p

Regardless, its a completely different situation with children who still have a chance to change, who are committing petty crimes, than someone who is an adult, committing major heinous crimes to which no reparations can be made. I would not risk letting any sort of rapist walk free again, whether that means death or actual life in prison. Its possible that they might be able to be rehabilitated, but not worth the risk of trying it out.

Originally Posted by c.erl

I would rather not kill any prisoner in the chance that, they too, are innocent.

An innocent life is an innocent life, regardless if they have been labelled a criminal or a victim.

SEE: http://criminaljustice.chang e.org/...n_innocent_man

Well, to be completely fair, if they are a criminal they are not an innocent life. If they are wrongly accused of being a criminal than see the points I made to Stefanie's post.

Originally Posted by c.erl

I find it very easy to argue with the moral legitimacy, not to mention results, of a system that willfully executes minors and the mentally ill thanks to forged evidence and sham legal proceedings.

If someone does not respect another person's right to life, they are indeed a danger. But if we kill them rather than simply incarcerating them, what does it solve? I touched on this earlier...

Well, the low low crime rates of Singapore would suggest that it solves the problem of crime. I don't know of any country that has a judicial system that actually locks up offenders for real life sentences (ie until they die) to compare it too. It is certainly more effective than our system though, to say nothing about the morality of it.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Does killing a murder stop someone else from being killed by a brand new murderer?

No.

It stops any possible murders by the same murderer.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Does killing a rapist stop more rapes from happening?

No.

It stops any more rapes from the same rapist.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Does killing a pedophile solve the problem of pedophilia?

No.

It stops the pedophile from raping any children. And as with the above two cases it does add a deterrent. It might not keep all pedophiles, murderers and rapists in line, but it can help.

Originally Posted by c.erl

And what's more, does killing an offender stop the hurt already incurred?

How does killing a murderer stop the family of a victim feel any better? Yes, it may satisfy a carnal lust for revenge, but would it not be better to stop the hurt from ever happening?

It gives them a sense of closure, and it gives them a sense of justice.

Preventing the hurt in the first place can be achieved through the deterrent that the death penalty offers when it is properly carried out.

Originally Posted by c.erl

We should be focusing our attention on crime prevention methods, not on "law and order" style methods. We need to deter crime, not simply punish it to the harshest extent possible! We need to seriously re-align our values so that we stop the mess from happening instead of throwing all our effort into the clean up.

We can deter crime by punishing it to the full extent possible. People commit crimes by making choices. Every choice we make is a cost vs benefits decision. If you increase the cost of one option, you decrease the likelihood of that option being picked.

Originally Posted by c.erl

This sounds a lot like an argument my Grade 12 political science teacher gave us. His question was "If a terrorist was outside the classroom with a bomb, would you kill him to save the whole class or not?" I argued on the side of not killing him and the class was essentially equally divided.

If I ever found myself in that situation, I would use all the methods available to myself to stop them, save actually killing them. It is unlikely that I would be able to live with the intense pain of killing someone, regardless of what their actions were going to be, so I would be emotionally and morally scarred for life. The trauma to the other individual of both being within moments of death and seeing another person die before their eyes would hurt them just as much.

Of course, the obvious thing to point out is that it is not just your life on the line. In the terrorist example by not killing him you kill everyone in your class. Even if it is a random lone gunman with no one in the vicinity but you, not killing him risks the chance of him killing someone else at a later point. (Unless you know that the reason he is killing you is somehow justified and that you deserve it).

So by not killing you are often causing more lives to be lost. For most people the fact that they're own life would be lost would be enough, but how do you respond to the killing by inaction argument?

Originally Posted by c.erl

Stories emerged quite a while ago about anorexics who have websites that openly promote anorexia as a lifestyle and where anorexics can gather to talk about their weight and methods to deny themselves food. Its the same thing with pedophiles...they have a culture that is so forbidden, it brings with it the shame that sometimes compel them to murder their victims.

Anorexia is a perfectly valid lifestyle, in the sense that they don't hurt anyone but themselves doing it. If they want to trade their health for looking good (at the very least good in their own eyes) then we don't have any logical reason to stop them. It hurts no one but them.

Pedophilia hurts others. Its as simple as that. Even if it is the shame that compels them to murder their victims (which sounds like total bull, but w/e) the rape part is still worthy of death.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Their culture should not be accepted, no. It is dangerous and twisted, but we still need to do more research into the reasoning behind it.

My argument is more that we should not be killing them, rather, doing everything in our power to correct this behaviour. It may or may not be possible, but we'll never know until we try. If we keep simply throwing them in prisons to let them die there or, as some people advocate, killing them, we'll never even get the chance.

There is no reason that they can't be studied while in prison. If you want to argue for keeping some alive for research purposes, fine. The thing is, you will never see if it is not possible or not (please see my post to Stef at the bottom).

Originally Posted by dukeb

Hey, I can't speak for c.erl, but I think it's important to consider that nobody chooses to be a pedophile. That means that it appears to be purely by luck that you and I don't have those tendencies. And if you think about it, pedophiles lead a miserable life. They apparently have urges that would make them stigmatized across the board, if anyone found out about them. So they can't seek help.

Actually, they could turn themselves over to a mental health facility or to the police. But its a cost/benefit thing, again. Cost= Being stuck in a mental asylum. Benefit= not hurting others. Based on that alone it is unlikely that they would ever do so. However there are often other costs, like the image people would hold of you. If death, and containing yourself were the other options people would certainly be less likely to risk not containing themselves.

And as stated about a thousand other times, being a pedophile does not mean you have to act on your urges. And if you don't act on them, you don't have to worry about what they do to the people who do act on them.

Originally Posted by dukeb

It doesn't make sense to assume that the death penalty would deter pedophiles from doing pedophile things. Being a pedophile already makes you the most despised person around. But, what if being born with that unfortunate mental condition didn't immediately make you a social reject? What if people could seek help from therapy, or from medicine? It's possible that social reform or medical research would help people born with these tendencies to figure out how to lead a normal life (and obviously not act on their urges).

Killing people tends to be a pretty good motivating factor. The risk of that social reform not working is far too high though, and we need to do something until we can treat pedophilia (which is unlikely to ever happen).

Originally Posted by dukeb

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that people with a pedophile-tendency absolutely can be helped to integrate normally into society; I'm just saying that it is a possibility that shouldn't be ruled out without attempting improvement. I think it's unlikely that the death penalty would help the situation much, compared with the existing 25 year prison sentences.

Well, there is one good reason why it would. A dead pedophile doesn't rape people. One that was released after 25 years and is at a high risk of reoffending does. (All pedophiles are high risk).

Originally Posted by dukeb

Also I'd point out that even in states such as the US, where violent crime is unusually high compared to other developed countries, violent crime is trending downwards. Furthermore, when violent crime does occur it's mainly among poor people, in what they call the projects in the US. So the violence is internalized: it doesn't affect people living in suburbs. I think this is the most important social change that has to occur if people want to reduce crime: bring the roughly 15% of people in the US living below the poverty line out of poverty. Same thing applies to Canada.

Serial killers, rapists and pedophiles, if you argue that they can't help their urges, would not be affected by anything done to poverty. And to the best of my knowledge are not known to have significantly more numbers from poorer demographics. The poverty debate is a different one, that is irrelevant from the morality debate. Regardless, living in poverty does not excuse your choices, and should not excuse your punishment.

Originally Posted by sew12

I'm curious if it has been definitely proven that they cannot be rehabilitated or if they are just currently unable to be rehabilitated, it's a pertinent piece of information.

You cannot prove a negative, so we can never prove that they won't- at some point in the future- be able to be rehabilitate these people. We don't know what technological advances are possible.

You can certainly make a good guess of it (Example: There is no documented evidence of unicorns, almost every area of the globe has now been explored, and the parts that haven't would not make a good habitat for a 4 legged equine, therefore I can conclude that unicorns probably do not exist). But you can never know for sure.

The fact that we can't identify what causes someone to be a pedophile, and the fact that whatever causes it is over at least a couple of decades before the pedophile's reveals themselves through their actions make it unlikely that the underlying cause would be found. Without knowing the underlying cause we don't know what to try. Which makes it unlikely for a cure to be found.

So in the end its not relevant.

Wow A.Marlowe... I think you win the award for longest post I have ever seen...