Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
Good, then you can have your kids live next to a "rehabilitated pedo", because I know I won't.

What does this have to do with execution?

mattyrm wrote:
If you are 100% certain (video evidence, DNA on a corpse among others) hang the fether.

Easy.

Its interesting to me that one of your examples implies murder. Do you want pedophiles hung if they murder children in addition to sexually assaulting them, or do you want them hung on grounds of sexual assault?

Remember, not all child molesters are pedophiles.

Relapse wrote:

From what I've learned of Pedos from research and talking to cops, once they've been at it a while, forget about rehabilitation because they can't or won't.

Paedophiles are ill, many exist who will not do crimes and just stick to child porn. Not every one is a rapist. I dont think those people need to be in prison, the pornographers most certainly do. Best thing to do with a paedo who has yet to commit an actual physical offence is to section them and let mental health services deal with them.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Good, then you can have your kids live next to a "rehabilitated pedo", because I know I won't.

What does this have to do with execution?

Just answering a statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Relapse wrote:

From what I've learned of Pedos from research and talking to cops, once they've been at it a while, forget about rehabilitation because they can't or won't.

Paedophiles are ill, many exist who will not do crimes and just stick to child porn. Not every one is a rapist. I dont think those people need to be in prison, the pornographers most certainly do. Best thing to do with a paedo who has yet to commit an actual physical offence is to section them and let mental health services deal with them.

If they are into child porn, then they are causing children to be victimized by more active types. I think they should be in prison and more active offenders, if undeniably proven as such, executed.

Relapse wrote:
If they are into child porn, then they are causing children to be victimized by more active types. I think they should be in prison and more active offenders, if undeniably proven as such, executed.

Dogma, as i said, im not some wingnut that leaps enthusiastically onto the "hang em all" bandwagon.

As i said, i am all for mitigating circumstances and such. I think that the DP should be used, but for a small amount of cases, those where we are 100% certain of guilt, and where we are 100% certain of an inability to rehabilitate, such as Ian Huntley or any other well known murderer of Kids and such.

No, i do not think that sexual assault is grounds for hanging people, though, i do think we need to be tougher with sentancing for a whole laundry list of crimes.

Relapse wrote:
If they are into child porn, then they are causing children to be victimized by more active types.

So you're assuming some kind of economy of child porn? As far as I know, that's baseless.

Relapse wrote:
I think they should be in prison and more active offenders, if undeniably proven as such, executed.

Why put non-active offenders in prison so that they can come out of prison, and continue to be non-active offenders? Why not make an attempt to deal with them via qualified, rehabilitation personnel?

mattyrm wrote:Dogma, as i said, im not some wingnut that leaps enthusiastically onto the "hang em all" bandwagon.

I didn't mean to imply that you were.

mattyrm wrote:
As i said, i am all for mitigating circumstances and such. I think that the DP should be used, but for a small amount of cases, those where we are 100% certain of guilt, and where we are 100% certain of an inability to rehabilitate, such as Ian Huntley or any other well known murderer of Kids and such.

No, i do not think that sexual assault is grounds for hanging people, though, i do think we need to be tougher with sentancing for a whole laundry list of crimes.

Ok, so its the murder which you believe merits the death penalty, that clears things up. I also agree, at least insofar as we set aside the debate between life without parole and the death penalty.

mattyrm wrote:My take doesnt involve a wall of text - if you are 99% sure a guy is a paedo, send him to prison.
If you are 100% certain (video evidence, DNA on a corpse among others) hang the fether.
Easy.

The wall of text is about capital punishment not paedophilia. I mentioned the controversial topics deliberately because they are emotive. Your thinking is in two dimensions, you think rationally on capital punishment you need to be dispassionate.

Capital punishment has to deal with scum, presumed scum, people framed as scum, people who some dont think are scum but are scum, and some who the people think are scum not are not scum. There are no 'easy' solutions, just plenty of opportunity for knee jerk reactions.
To have a capital punishment system you have to look at all those who might get executed, its very comforting to say 'kill the paedos' but who, when, where and how. Who decides how far along with one crime or another is the point where the rime becomes capital and why etc etc etc.
The emotive responce is by far the worst, you need to be comprehensive and look at the issues clearly. One of the best arguements fo not having capital punishment is envoked by the knee jerk comments on this thread calling for the deaths of one subset of pariahs. iI ends in all sorts of trouble, and is not 'easy' at all.

Hence my devils advocate defence of the undefendable, because paedos are just the public eye case. The knee will also likely jerk in the direction of terrorists, possibly rapists and murderers too. You might be willing to lend a little thought before advocating the execution of a murderer, some morderers had motives that are more understandable than others, in any case you might envoke a blanket understanding for murderers that is different than that for paedoseven if a paedo does less actual harm. Thus you can fall into a legal quagmire, as justice is leaving and being replaced by raw anger. This can only end in ruin. You have to look at each case from the same mindset, and clearly you and others put paedos in a different category.

We take the worst cases paedos and terrorists because if you cannot think dispassionately about them then you cannot be relied uopon to have a balanced view on capital punishment. The ultimate legal sanction can only be approached by thoe who have level heads and are unswayed by personal distaste, disgust or taboo.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
If they are into child porn, then they are causing children to be victimized by more active types.

So you're assuming some kind of economy of child porn? As far as I know, that's baseless.

Relapse wrote:
I think they should be in prison and more active offenders, if undeniably proven as such, executed.

Why put non-active offenders in prison so that they can come out of prison, and continue to be non-active offenders? Why not make an attempt to deal with them via qualified, rehabilitation personnel?

Are you implying that kiddie porn just comes from nothing? A lot of kiddie porn sites have paying subscribers, movies aren't handed out for free, nor magazines. There is a whole industry at work here that is supported by people that view it. How you assume otherwise I don't understand.
To me what you term "non active offender" is ludicrous. If nothing is acted on, then there is no offense. However, by supporting the kiddie porn industry, these creeps are causing someone, somewhere to put children through this living Hell.

Capital punishment makes little sense in a system where its more expensive to kill offenders than to keep them behind bars. Also putting people to death when they were innocent is also pretty heinous in itself and unfortunately a consequence in the status quo. In addition the legal bureaucracy is also corruptible and susceptible to poor and rushed judgement. Due to these reasons the death penalty makes little sense to me and I'm glad that this normally trigger-happy state has finally started to decline on that end especially after all the controversy Gov. Rick Perry had with the Cameron Todd Willingham case.

Cane wrote:Capital punishment makes little sense in a system where its more expensive to kill offenders than to keep them behind bars. Also putting people to death when they were innocent is also pretty heinous in itself and unfortunately a consequence in the status quo. In addition the legal bureaucracy is also corruptible and susceptible to poor and rushed judgement. Due to these reasons the death penalty makes little sense to me and I'm glad that this normally trigger-happy state has finally started to decline on that end especially after all the controversy Gov. Rick Perry had with the Cameron Todd Willingham case.

Actually its on decline because of less convictions for capital murder.

Actually its on decline because of less convictions for capital murder.

And lowering murder rates (overall, regionally YMMV, midwesterners seem to love killing eachother).

Relapse wrote:
Are you implying that kiddie porn just comes from nothing?

I'm implying that it need not be related to direct support in the economic sense, as is the case with any other type of pornography present on the internet.

Relapse wrote:
A lot of kiddie porn sites have paying subscribers, movies aren't handed out for free, nor magazines. There is a whole industry at work here that is supported by people that view it. How you assume otherwise I don't understand.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm operating from a position which offers no claim in either direction as I haven't done a lot of research into the distribution of child porn.

Relapse wrote:
To me what you term "non active offender" is ludicrous. If nothing is acted on, then there is no offense. However, by supporting the kiddie porn industry, these creeps are causing someone, somewhere to put children through this living Hell.

Yes, and putting them in prison does nothing to stop that. You aren't addressing my point, you're just continuing on an irrational path which puts punishment above improvement with respect to the number of offenses.

The presence of sodomy laws did nothing to curtail homosexuality, why would you expect that imprisonment on grounds of possessing child pornography would have a different effect?

ShumaGorath wrote:
And lowering murder rates (overall, regionally YMMV, midwesterners seem to love killing eachother).

Not much else to do out here.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Are you implying that kiddie porn just comes from nothing?

I'm implying that it need not be related to direct support in the economic sense, as is the case with any other type of pornography present on the internet.

Relapse wrote:
A lot of kiddie porn sites have paying subscribers, movies aren't handed out for free, nor magazines. There is a whole industry at work here that is supported by people that view it. How you assume otherwise I don't understand.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm operating from a position which offers no claim in either direction as I haven't done a lot of research into the distribution of child porn.

Relapse wrote:
To me what you term "non active offender" is ludicrous. If nothing is acted on, then there is no offense. However, by supporting the kiddie porn industry, these creeps are causing someone, somewhere to put children through this living Hell.

Yes, and putting them in prison does nothing to stop that. You aren't addressing my point, you're just continuing on an irrational path which puts punishment above improvement with respect to the number of offenses.

The presence of sodomy laws did nothing to curtail homosexuality, why would you expect that imprisonment on grounds of possessing child pornography would have a different effect?

ShumaGorath wrote:
And lowering murder rates (overall, regionally YMMV, midwesterners seem to love killing eachother).

Not much else to do out here.

I'm thinking we are at risk of derailing this thread since I could tell you a lot on this matter you don't seem to know, so I think a new one on this topic is in order.

I'm thinking we are at risk of derailing this thread since I could tell you a lot on this matter you don't seem to know, so I think a new one on this topic is in order.

Funny, you didn't seem to want to tell me anything aside from "how scary it is".

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'm thinking we are at risk of derailing this thread since I could tell you a lot on this matter you don't seem to know, so I think a new one on this topic is in order.

Funny, you didn't seem to want to tell me anything aside from "how scary it is".

Nice attempt at a flame. I didn't want to talk to you after a while yesterday because I was getting in the mood to hit someone the more ignorant your posts became.
You seem to be trying to start some kind of fight with me on this forum for whatever reason, and since I don't have jack crap in the way of respect for you because I think you're just a pissant who doesn't have balls enough to say face to face what he says over the internet, I'll just ignore you.

To anyone else that reads this, I have to apologize, but the circumstance of why I said what I did to Shuma just went beyond my tolerance level.

Relapse wrote:
Nice attempt at a flame. I didn't want to talk to you after a while yesterday because I was getting in the mood to hit someone the more ignorant your posts became.
You seem to be trying to start some kind of fight with me on this forum for whatever reason, and since I don't have jack crap in the way of respect for you because I think you're just a pissant who doesn't have balls enough to say face to face what he says over the internet, I'll just ignore you.

He baits people, but you're not really doing anything better by leaping to conclusions for which you have no evidence.

As ever, claiming the ignorance of another party is simply a veil for a poor argument.

At least Dogma, you don't try to bait people. You put some reasoning behind your posts.

Hehe, I got banned for attacking Shuma. I took the bait once. Never did apologize and never will and to my shock and horror I agree with him on something in one of the 40k threads (or maybe it was two somethings).

Executions would be a lot cheaper if the victims family were allowed to do it. I'd execute someone for a case of beer and compensation for any ammo I expanded (most cases it would be a single .45 to the back of the dome, right where the brain stem meets the spinal column).

@OP

You're in favour of 30 minute trials that don't take into account mental illness?

GG.

Modquisition on. this thread has been reported, obviously because you turkeys have not seen the light and agree with everything I say.

As a reminder lets follow Dakka Rule #1 and try to remain polite.

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on. this thread has been reported, obviously because you turkeys have not seen the light and agree with everything I say.

Not being in complete agreement with Frazzie is an eventual likelihood for anyone posting in lucid coherent sentences.

Orlanth wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on. this thread has been reported, obviously because you turkeys have not seen the light and agree with everything I say.

Not being in complete agreement with Frazzie is an eventual likelihood for anyone posting in lucid coherent sentences.

I think Polonius said it best:
"What Frazz is trying to say, and failing at because he's actually barely literate due to dementia and laudenum addiction..." Polonius

mattyrm wrote:My take doesnt involve a wall of text - if you are 99% sure a guy is a paedo, send him to prison.
If you are 100% certain (video evidence, DNA on a corpse among others) hang the fether.
Easy.

Wait, is this a hypothetical paedophile or a murderer?

Wait, are you even sure?

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:
Wait, is this a hypothetical paedophile or a murderer?

Wait, are you even sure?

sA

He cleared it up a bit further down. He meant people who murder children.

and since I don't have jack crap in the way of respect for you because I think you're just a pissant who doesn't have balls enough to say face to face what he says over the internet, I'll just ignore you.

You've clearly never met me. I'm not a pacifistic person.

Hehe, I got banned for attacking Shuma. I took the bait once. Never did apologize and never will and to my shock and horror I agree with him on something in one of the 40k threads (or maybe it was two somethings).

You'll have to get banned 3 more times if you want to catch up to me.

ShumaGorath wrote:You'll have to get banned 3 more times if you want to catch up to me.

Ah yes, our local glutton for punishment. Keep coming back for more eh?

JEB_Stuart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You'll have to get banned 3 more times if you want to catch up to me.

Ah yes, our local glutton for punishment. Keep coming back for more eh?

I just keep making enemies of a certain old crotchety mod.

Yeah see his absurd reply to me in the thread below.. he either has an IQ of 65 or he is doing it on purpose cos he likes to bait people. And you can tell the guy isnt an idiot, ergo Its called "winding someone up" and can be most amusing, so try not to get upset, i dont like to see anyone getting banned or anything over a war of words.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah see his absurd reply to me in the thread below.. he either has an IQ of 65 or he is doing it on purpose cos he likes to bait people. And you can tell the guy isnt an idiot, ergo Its called "winding someone up" and can be most amusing, so try not to get upset, i dont like to see anyone getting banned or anything over a war of words.

It's called needling. Its a form of underhanded debate tactic which just happens to work wonderfully against an entrenched position built largely on a moral highground rather than a foundation of fact or logic. It's similar to the rope a dope of Rocky fame, except it's in a fight without rings and weakness the opposition shows can be exploited by others.

MODQUISITION ON EVERYONE OFF THE PERSONAL NOW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Yeah see his absurd reply to me in the thread below.. he either has an IQ of 65 or he is doing it on purpose cos he likes to bait people. And you can tell the guy isnt an idiot, ergo Its called "winding someone up" and can be most amusing, so try not to get upset, i dont like to see anyone getting banned or anything over a war of words.

It's called needling. Its a form of underhanded debate tactic which just happens to work wonderfully against an entrenched position built largely on a moral highground rather than a foundation of fact or logic. It's similar to the rope a dope of Rocky fame, except it's in a fight without rings and weakness the opposition shows can be exploited by others.

Thts also why you have been suspended three times.