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.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You can't reform pedofiles.

If it is indeed comparable to homosexuality, and if homosexuality is indeed a genetically determined behavior, then this is true. That being said, not all child molesters are pedophiles.

Here is a brief summary of what dogma is talking about.

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/focus_on_the_cause.html

At no point was I trying to say that worry was not warranted. Being terrorized by a shell of a person though, is simply a waste of time, and a fantastic way to inflate their superficial ego. With the worst cases, it seems to be directly hinged on having the power to manipulate people; through their habits, and their crimes. I would sooner spit in a Pedo-bears eye, than give him (or her) the satisfaction of having actual power over my actions.

The fact that people are biased is not a license to be as biased as you please. People that hear accusations of pedophilia and shout for the death penalty are every bit as bad as aggressive pedophiles. Its stupid, reactionary nonsense designed to generate personal catharsis at the expense of another beings life.

How do angry family people get compared to a pedophile?

To be honest, i think its worrying that you would even say something like that.

dogma wrote:The fact that people are biased is not a license to be as biased as you please. People that hear accusations of pedophilia and shout for the death penalty are every bit as bad as aggressive pedophiles. Its stupid, reactionary nonsense designed to generate personal catharsis at the expense of another beings life.

You just equated people calling for harsh sentencing with child rapists. Thats so nonsensical it makes me think someone logged in using Dogma's password.

How do angry family people get compared to a pedophile?

Angry family people saying that many other people should be killed.

You just equated people calling for harsh sentencing with child rapists. Thats so nonsensical it makes me think someone logged in using Dogma's password.

I also noticed it was badly spelled before the edit. I theorize dogma may have hit the sauce.

That second sentence is the first untrue thing I’ve seen Dogma post in the thread. Up to this point his posts were full of win and awesome.

That said, the other two sentences were still pure truth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Easy to say until it's your kid that gets molested.

Yes, it is. That doesn't mean any given person should judge any possible child molester as though he might have molested their child. That's pretty much precisely what the justice system is set up to avoid. It doesn't exist to be your personal catharsis machine.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:One immediately can tell Shuma has no kids or he would shut the feth up.

Since when did emotional proximity to an issue make you a more qualified judge of appropriate punishment?

dogma wrote:The fact that people are biased is not a license to be as biased as you please. EDIT: Uncharacteristic overstatement deleted. Its stupid, reactionary nonsense designed to generate personal catharsis at the expense of another beings life.

QFT.

JD21290 wrote:How do angry family people get compared to a pedophile?

To be honest, i think its worrying that you would even say something like that.

Because all they want is blood, regardless of whether or not its the blood of the right person. Its not a desire to improve society, or even protect their children, its simply a desire to feel personally vindicated. Though, you and several others are right, its not directly comparable. Though its still reprehensible.

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:It can't be both more barbaric and less painful. Unless you're just using "barbaric" to mean "bad".

Barbaric just means relatively wild, or uncivilized. A punishment can be more barbaric in that its based entirely on an emotional response, and less painful in that, were emotion not the driving force, a more painful response could be formulated. Though I don't think that's what Lord-loss was trying to say.

Its barbaric because its uncivilized to kill people. Also for the law to say, that killing is bad and people shouldnt kill each other. Then one of the punishments for killing someone, is killing the person who killed someone.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Relapse wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:[

Easy to say until it's your kid that gets molested.

WATCH YOUR KIDS DAWG, UNCLE RELAPSE WARNED US A PEDOS ON THE LOOSE!

As someone who had a 3 year old molested in what was supposed to be a guarded enviorment, I will tell people there are pedos on the loose. I had to edit this a couple of times to make a more civil response to your ignorance.

My ignorance? Of what? Your family history? I'm sorry you think that being strongly involved emotionally somehow makes you more capable of making rational decisions concerning the situation.

Just the fact of you making light of pedophilia makes me sick. I'm real close to breaking a few forum rules and getting banned because of the moronic quality of what you wrote.
I have learned a lot about pedophiles because of what happened and I can tell you that judging by what you've written so far, you don't know a Goddamned thing about them.

relapse wrote:No, definitly not a threat.

I understand that, it is just in poor taste to promote it in the first place. Which is in many ways, what you did. 'Your stupid, so you need to learn a lesson', -or-, 'You'll learn that lesson the hard way'. I take little offense to this, but it is still beyond what I would consider necessary in a casual conversation online.

I have seen first hand the heartache of what happens in these cases and it's not something I would wish on anyone. It's just that you are too sure of what people are not capable of and this makes you vulnerable.

I worry more about whether or not this happens within my family (and my friends families), and that is simply relying on statistical evidence. I have absolutely no desire to accuse anyone of anything, but the data shows very solidly, that this individual, along with his group, present a much smaller threat than you would like to present.

People are capable of atrocious, and despicable things; being a cynical person by nature, I do not exclude people by default. This also assumes that in order to have a healthy life, I do have to trust some people. Some creepy old guy that I just met, is simply not among that group of people. Having a child, I would only be more wary about said creepy old dude.

ShumaGorath wrote: I theorize dogma may have hit the sauce.

It somewhat amuses me that people can tell when I've been drinking.

Relapse- Writing as someone who helped raise a child from the age of four, and as someone who took child abuse reports for the State of NH for three years, he has valid points.

Wrexasaur wrote:

relapse wrote:No, definitly not a threat.

I understand that, it is just in poor taste to promote it in the first place. Which is in many ways, what you did. 'Your stupid, so you need to learn a lesson', -or-, 'You'll learn that lesson the hard way'. I little offense to this, but it is still beyond what I would consider necessary in a casual conversation online.

I have seen first hand the heartache of what happens in these cases and it's not something I would wish on anyone. It's just that you are too sure of what people are not capable of and this makes you vulnerable.

I worry more about whether or not this happens within my family (and my friends families), and that is simply relying on statistical evidence. I have absolutely no desire to accuse anyone of anything, but the data shows very solidly, that this individual, along with his group, present a much smaller threat than you would like to present.

People are capable of atrocious, and despicable things; being a cynical person by nature, I do not exclude people by default. This also assumes that in order to have a healthy life, I do have to trust some people. Some creepy old guy that I just met, is simply not among that group of people. Having a child, I would only be more wary about said creepy old dude.

The thing is, this is not a creepy old dude someone just met. He was well known and liked. That being said, he apparently had gone a long time before being caught and that is scary.

Allrighty why don't we like frigging move off the topic of child molesters and closer to the topic no?

Lord-Loss wrote:
Its barbaric because its uncivilized to kill people. Also for the law to say, that killing is bad and people shouldnt kill each other. Then one of the punishments for killing someone, is killing the person who killed someone.

It isn't objectively uncivilized to kill people. Indeed, there are many instances in which civilization turns a blind eye towards killing. You might consider that to be hypocritical, but that's only true if you consider something bad to be beyond justification. Its perfectly feasible to understand badness as that which requires justification.

Maybe 'uncivilized' was the wrong word.

dogma wrote:It somewhat amuses me that people can tell when I've been drinking.

I generally refuse to assume that you haven't been....Prost!

Mannahnin wrote:I think he could possibly have expressed himself more clearly, but I think I get basically the idea.

a) People who commit murder, by and large, are either not thinking about the consequences OR think they can get away with it. Compare our murder rate with those of other Western countries without the death penalty. It doesn’t seem to be an effective deterrent.
b) From a philosophical standpoint, many people do find it abhorrent for our government (expressing our collective will) to kill people. It’s not necessary, in many cases the wrong person has been convicted and killed, and in many cases it seems to be done more out of a desire for cathartic revenge, than for justice.

I think you aren't getting any sort of opinion from Lord-Loss so much as you are parroting your own views.

It being ineffective as a deterrent because people don't consider either death or life in prison in their committing of the crime doesn't tell us which one is more frightening, nor is it related to barbarism (being used in this context to denote some sort of fundamental immorality, and simply being aesthetically unpleasant, or bad policy due to financial expense).

That many people find it abhorrent for the government to kill people is similarly irrelevant. I know Lord-Loss finds it fundamentally abhorrent, I'm saying this is irrational. The wrong person being killed is no worse than the wrong person dying in prison (in fact it's better, according to Lord-Loss). Cathartic revenge and justice are two sides of the same coin; so long as the effect is the same there's no reason to distinguish between them.

The way the death penalty is used in the United States is rather inefficient. It costs too much, it leaves less flexibility than prison sentences, it may make it more difficult for jury to reach a verdict (which leads to a different appeals process being put into place, and goes back to the cost issue), and as dogma said it comes off as strange to not execute terrorists (as they're probably the most destructive criminals being dealt with) but executing them isn't that great of an idea (in addition to the martyrdom aspect, there is more room for political corruption in issues of terrorism, and a quick execution may end up too convenient of a method to cover up a mistake).

These are criticisms of the death penalty's implementation though. They aren't fundamental traits of the death penalty itself, and they certainly don't make it "barbaric" (in a useful sense of the word).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord-Loss wrote:Also for the law to say, that killing is bad and people shouldnt kill each other. Then one of the punishments for killing someone, is killing the person who killed someone.

What's the punishment for kidnapping?

I'm going to say yes. Some individuals are too dangerous to be allowed to remain in society at large and cannot be reformed; what's more, returning such individuals to a "state of nature" where they're not bound to the rules of society as social contract theory would suggest is impractical. Even if you were to dump these psychopaths somewhere in the jungle they wouldn't survive as they are dependent on the technology and infrastructure provided to members of society; therefore they are harmful parasites and must be done away with.

Orke- that's a much more useful post, thanks.

You're right that I was more expressing some of my views and a broader general point, rather than directly trying to translate for Lord Loss.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: I theorize dogma may have hit the sauce.

It somewhat amuses me that people can tell when I've been drinking.

No, it's pretty much just me. Your tone changes and you make more spelling errors.

I dont think you understand what Im trying to say Orkeo, but I dont make it easy to understand really.

If someone dies in jail (after serving a life imprisonment) they have served their punishment, they had have X number of years to think over what they had done. The last years of their life had been spent in jail, away from friends and family (If they got any) Should the offender have to be put through the exact same horror that their victim felt when (s)he murdered/raped them? Or should they be submited to a different type of horror, a much more humane punishment, that not only, has the prisoner alone and away from all family and friends, but gives them a large amount of time, to think over what they had done, to be left alone, and away from society. Isn't that a greater punishment?

There are more murders now, then there were ten years ago. So, if there has been a steady increase in the last ten years, it means the death penalty hasnt achually done anything, so whats your excuse now, for taking human life, even if it is the life of a person, who has murdered, or raped someone? It would probally save money, if the death penalty was used alot more, but since when has money, been more important then human life?


There have been over fifty cases, where its later discovered that after the offender is dead, that (s)he is achually innocent. Since 1730, over 130 have been released from death rows after its been discovered that their innocent. How can you support such a faulty system?

It would probally save money, if the death penalty was used alot more, but since when has money, been more important then human life?

Doesn't it actually cost more to put someone to death? The repeated appeals process is considerably more expensive than maintaining a concrete box and making some lunchables.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091229/ap_on_re_us/us_maryland_girl_slain;_ylt=AuV5esJJgDXiU2Fels_TALRvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTJzMmFranVkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjI5L3VzX21hcnlsYW5kX2dpcmxfc2xhaW4EcG9zAzIwBHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDYXV0b3BzeW9uc2xh

Yay, I get to chime in.

So LL, you are saying that the man in the article, Thomas Leggs, served his time and was "punished" properly so his being in prison on previous molestation charges was punishment enough?

Tell that to the mom of this little girl who won't get to see her (daughter) graduate HS and get married, etc etc.

Death is more humane than what most people executed have done to their victims.

Money has always been more important than human life, and always will be. I'm not claiming it's right, just true...

Mannahnin wrote:Orke- that's a much more useful post, thanks.

You're right that I was more expressing some of my views and a broader general point, rather than directly trying to translate for Lord Loss.

I suppose my big problem with the fundamental condemnation of the death penalty is that it devalues freedom when it's compared to life in prison. Suddenly it's a fundamental crime against a person to kill them outright, but to rob them of their life in a different manner is acceptable. I see both sentences as being similar in harm inflicted.

The fact that many people consider life in prison to be a worse sentence than the death penalty is sort of comforting in that regard (although I can't fathom why a person with that opinion would then continue to condemn the death penalty as being barbaric).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord-Loss wrote:I dont think you understand what Im trying to say Orkeo, but I dont make it easy to understand really.

If someone dies in jail (after serving a life imprisonment) they have served their punishment, they had have X number of years to think over what they had done. The last years of their life had been spent in jail, away from friends and family (If they got any) Should the offender have to be put through the exact same horror that their victim felt when (s)he murdered/raped them?

There's no particular reason for it, but that doesn't mean you have to avoid doing it. Kidnappers are forcibly taken away and locked up, that doesn't mean that society is condoning kidnapping, or something silly like that.

Or should they be submited to a different type of horror, a much more humane punishment, that not only, has the prisoner alone and away from all family and friends, but gives them a large amount of time, to think over what they had done, to be left alone, and away from society. Isn't that a greater punishment?

No, it is not by definition, because you said it was more humane. If it is more humane it is less painful. You can't condemn someone to a fate worse than death and say it's more humane than death.

There are more murders now, then there were ten years ago.

I'm not sure this is correct per capita. Crime rates are going down as a rule.

So, if there has been a steady increase in the last ten years, it means the death penalty hasnt achually done anything, so whats your excuse now, for taking human life, even if it is the life of a person, who has murdered, or raped someone? It would probally save money, if the death penalty was used alot more, but since when has money, been more important then human life?

The appeals process for death row puts it at pretty much the same expense as a life sentence. A little more. However, money is always an issue; otherwise all of our soldiers would wear power armor. What if we saved so much money that we could double the number of policemen on force? Etc.

The excuse for taking a human life is that the person in question is a murderer or serial rapist. It's the same excuse for taking their life away from them through imprisonment.

There have been over fifty cases, where its later discovered that after the offender is dead, that (s)he is achually innocent. Since 1730, over 130 have been released from death rows after its been discovered that their innocent. How can you support such a faulty system?

I don't support the use of the death penalty under the current system in the United States. It's inefficient.

That doesn't mean the very concept of the death penalty is immoral. Is is barbaric to build a giant wall around the United States to keep terrorists out? No, it would just be a bad idea.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/

Yep, the death penalty cost more. Texas have executed 431 people since 1973, but I guess that Fraz for ya'.

Well FW, the problem there is that he was let out of jail. He obviously wasnt fit to be let back into society, if he kills a girl, after he is released.

I'm still at a loss as to how keeping him in jail would be more humane than death.

I'd rather die than be locked in a cage (which is more or less what a jail cell is) the rest of my life. That's just me, your idea of what you'd rather have happen will differ from mine.

Lord-Loss wrote:
If someone dies in jail (after serving a life imprisonment) they have served their punishment, they had have X number of years to think over what they had done. The last years of their life had been spent in jail, away from friends and family (If they got any) Should the offender have to be put through the exact same horror that their victim felt when (s)he murdered/raped them? Or should they be submited to a different type of horror, a much more humane punishment, that not only, has the prisoner alone and away from all family and friends, but gives them a large amount of time, to think over what they had done, to be left alone, and away from society. Isn't that a greater punishment?

How can something be both more humane, and more severe? If life imprisonment is worse than the death penalty, then the death penalty is more humane than life imprisonment.

Lord-Loss wrote:
There are more murders now, then there were ten years ago. So, if there has been a steady increase in the last ten years, it means the death penalty hasnt achually done anything, so whats your excuse now, for taking human life, even if it is the life of a person, who has murdered, or raped someone? It would probally save money, if the death penalty was used alot more, but since when has money, been more important then human life?

Killing someone over prosperity in the context of a war, or even a home invasion, has been acceptable (for a lot of people) for a very long time. Simply stating that a human life is priceless* doesn't really get at the crux of the matter in the context of a society in which human life does, in fact, have a price*. You don't live free from effort without being a fundamental drain on the resources* of others, and there is a certain threshold at which the cost* of proving one's innocence exceeds the likelihood that said innocence will lead to a net social gain.

The question we should be asking is not whether or not our system is fair, because it never will be so long as inequality exists, but whether or not it benefits society. Basically, how much are we willing to pay* in order to guard against unjustified punishment?



*Where issues of value relate to matters of money, as well as matters of societal health.

Lord-Loss wrote:
There have been over fifty cases, where its later discovered that after the offender is dead, that (s)he is achually innocent. Since 1730, over 130 have been released from death rows after its been discovered that their innocent. How can you support such a faulty system?

What is the percentage of cases overturned versus cases reviewed?

Orkeo wrote:Kidnappers are forcibly taken away and locked up, that doesn't mean that society is condoning kidnapping, or something silly like that

But murder is alot more serious then kidnap.

You can't condemn someone to a fate worse than death and say it's more humane than death.

Im not good with words But if you replace 'human'
with 'hypercritical' and 'more' with 'less', then it makes more sense.

But what I was trying to say...Im not sure, what I was trying to say really. But Its less painful, and more painful at the same time. I guess it depends on the person being executed.