• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Death penalty for rapist and pedophiles?

Wow....it's just that, it's not the dark ages anymore. I think the times for dungeons and torture and maiming inmates is perchance over.

Well let's think about it, we don't do those things anymore, now we are 'humane'... and the # of such violent offenders is through the roof (so to speak)...

Perhaps it's time to stop being PC and a bunch of sissies and actually remove scum from the earth.
 
You said physical as well, and the government can't do either.

It would be the choice of the convicted if one were to go with chemical or physical castration.

Since when has the word 'can't' been in the government's vocabulary? New laws could say it can.

Drug treatments are already in use for those who desire them to keep them from doing certain things. This would be no different.

Compulsive sexual behavior: Treatments and drugs - MayoClinic.com
 
It's still punishment. There is a lot wrong with our prison system, much of which is a result of overcrowding. We can address those problems as well. But we cannot use the government to maim inmates anymore. That part is over.


I personally advocate for an "Escape from New York" system. Isolate an island of property, put the prisoners in it, and let them decide on what justice is. ;)
 
Well let's think about it, we don't do those things anymore, now we are 'humane'... and the # of such violent offenders is through the roof (so to speak)...

Perhaps it's time to stop being PC and a bunch of sissies and actually remove scum from the earth.

No, government is limited in action. We can do a lot to improve prison conditions and public safety without resorting to medieval tactics.
 
It would be the choice of the convicted if one were to go with chemical or physical castration.

Since when has the word 'can't' been in the government's vocabulary? New laws could say it can.

Drug treatments are already in use for those who desire them to keep them from doing certain things. This would be no different.

Compulsive sexual behavior: Treatments and drugs - MayoClinic.com

No, the government is limited, it cannot do anything it wants. Castration would fall under cruel and unusual.
 
I personally advocate for an "Escape from New York" system. Isolate an island of property, put the prisoners in it, and let them decide on what justice is. ;)

Can we make it NYC itself? It's already pretty much a prison.
 
No, the government is limited, it cannot do anything it wants. Castration would fall under cruel and unusual.

No, it's not cruel and usual. Let the punishment fit the crime.

There are those will argue for and against, but when all is said and done, throwing a sexual offender of these types in with the general population could be deemed cruel and unusual punishment.

What do you feel would be appropriate? Before you answer, consider the crime they have been convicted of.
 
I think that is an excellent suggestion. :)

We should also then set it adrift. I've been trying to figure out who one could set NYC adrift for awhile now.
 
It's still punishment. There is a lot wrong with our prison system, much of which is a result of overcrowding. We can address those problems as well. But we cannot use the government to maim inmates anymore. That part is over.

Like most other systems governed by the hand of government bureaucracy in the United States, the major problem with our prison system has always primarily lain in the giant mess of compromises and ineffective half-measures that form the intrinsic core of the beast's nature. It has been effectively built from the ground up as a dumping ground for "P.C." committee consensus and the lobbying of special interests.

Simply put, life long imprisonment is the coward's way out. It temporarily pushes a certain problem aside by putting it "out of sight and out of mind." This would be fine... if it weren't for how expensive keeping prisoners detained indefinitely happens to be, just how out unreasonably large our nation's prison population has grown to become in recent years, or the way in which violent crime seems to have actually only gotten worse in spite of this approach to justice.

Again, like most everything else in the modern United States, we are paying far too much for a system which only provides subpar outcomes.

This is never going to change if we don't toss the kid gloves aside at some point and start opting for tougher measures to deal with dangerous repeat offenders. Quite frankly, most of these people deserve no mercy anyway.

Or cut your junk off?

I'd probably do it myself if I had the courage and the presence of mind to realize the harm I might cause. However, if I were to happen to possess niether, why would it be wrong for the state to step in and force me to take certain proactive steps in order to curtail my behaviors and ensure the safety of the general public?

We already do this for the mentally ill.

Granted, there would be potential for abuse in such a system. This is why I stated earlier that impariality would have to be guaranteed before I would support such measures.

However, if such impartiality could be ensured, I would see no problem with the idea of mandatory chemical castration for dangerous offenders on a theoretical or moral level.
 
Last edited:
I realize those things, however killing someone who has not killed, is not justice. Justice implies a balancing of the scales, and society killing them would be unjust. As I said earlier, if it were me walking in on someone molesting my own child or grandchild, I'd shoot them without hesitation, but as a societal policy and action, I could not support it.



It is only as a societal policy that it makes sense. Absent society in its broadest definition, the pedophile is isolated and unable to cause harm.

Out of curiosity, from a societal perspective, how do you feel about abortion?
 
Thanks Lovejoy, but even in all the "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children" hysteria going on here, we still must think about the institutions and penalties we call into action and the consequences for having done so.

Paying a lifetime of room and board is cheaper than killing them, if you can prove that they need to be in jail for life then there you go. Already a punishment on the books which will take these people off the streets for good without calling on a system that innately consumes lives, where innocents can be killed, which costs way more money, and has at best dubious moral implications.



It costs more for a lethal injection than for a 50 stay in a prison?

It costs about $45K per year for an inmate to be kept in prison.

How much does it cost to house a prison inmate for a year? - Yahoo! Answers
 
Like most other systems governed by the hand of government bureaucracy in the United States, the major problem with our prison system has always primarily lain in the giant mess of compromises and ineffective half-measures that form the intrinsic core of the beast's nature. It has been effectively built from the ground up as a dumping ground for "P.C." committee consensus and the lobbying of special interests.

Simply put, life long imprisonment is the coward's way out. It temporarily pushes a certain problem aside by putting it "out of sight and out of mind." This would be fine... if it weren't for how expensive keeping prisoners detained indefinitely happens to be, just how out unreasonably large our nation's prison population has grown to become in recent years, or the way in which violent crime seems to have actually only gotten worse in spite of this approach to justice.

Again, like most everything else in the modern United States, we are paying far too much for a system which only provides subpar outcomes.

This is never going to change if we don't toss the kid gloves aside at some point and start opting for tougher measures to deal with dangerous repeat offenders. Quite frankly, most of these people deserve no mercy anyway.



I'd probably do it myself if I had the courage and the presence of mind to realize the harm I might cause. However, if I were to happen to possess niether, why would it be wrong for the state to step in and force me to take certain proactive steps in order to curtail my behaviors and ensure the safety of the general public?

We already do this for the mentally ill.

Granted, there would be potential for abuse in such a system. This is why I stated earlier that impariality would have to be guaranteed before I would support such measures.

However, if such impartiality could be ensured, I would see no problem with the idea of mandatory chemical castration for dangerous offenders on a theoretical or moral level.

Well written! :thumbs:
 
Like most other systems governed by the hand of government bureaucracy in the United States, the major problem with our prison system has always primarily lain in the giant mess of compromises and ineffective half-measures that form the intrinsic core of its nature. It has been effectively built from the ground up as a dumping ground for "P.C." committee consensus and the lobbying of special interests.

Life long imprisonment is the coward's way out. It basically pushes a certain problem aside by putting it "out of sight and out of mind." This would be fine if it weren't for how expensive keeping prisoners detained indefinitely happens to be, just how out unreasonably large our nation's prison population has grown in recent years, or the way in which violent crime seems to have actually only gotten worse in spite of this approach to justice.

Again, like most everything else in the modern United States, we are paying far too much for a system which only provides subpar outcomes.

This is never going to change if we don't toss the kid gloves aside at some point and start opting for tougher measures to deal with dangerous repeat offenders. Quite frankly, most of these people deserve no mercy anyway.

Not deserving mercy is just your opinion, and not proper basis for argument on exercise of government force. Life in prison is a life without freedom, it removes the individual from society and gives the same amount of safety as a death penalty. Without all the downsides of having a death penalty. There is very little purpose of a death penalty in an advanced and evolved society.

I'd probably do it myself if I had the courage and the presence of mind to realize the harm I might cause. However, if I were to happen to possess niether, why would it be wrong for the state to step in and force me to take certain proactive steps in order to curtail my behaviors and ensure the safety of the general public?

We already do this for the mentally ill.

Granted, there would be potential for abuse in such a system. This is why I stated earlier that impariality would have to be guaranteed before I would support such measures.

However, if such impartiality could be ensured, I would see no problem with the idea of mandatory chemical castration for dangerous offenders on a theoretical or moral level.

For the mentally ill? We chop off pieces of them? Pretty sure lobotomies ain't used as treatments. And the medical treatments they receive are not quite on level with castration. The problem is that this is an emotional discussion, and we've made several such topics overly emotional so that people stop thinking and just start reacting. And that's not a good thing. Cruel and unusual is out, sorry, but this is a free Republic with a supposedly limited government.
 
No, government is limited in action. We can do a lot to improve prison conditions and public safety without resorting to medieval tactics.

Perhaps you missed my point, I think that by avoiding such tactics, we have gone soft, shown that in general we don't care what criminals do. And screw that whole 'improve prison conditions'... improve? the hell with them, they committed crimes, they should suffer.
 
Perhaps you missed my point, I think that by avoiding such tactics, we have gone soft, shown that in general we don't care what criminals do. And screw that whole 'improve prison conditions'... improve? the hell with them, they committed crimes, they should suffer.

Perhaps you missed my point. I think that by addressing the TRUE problems of the prison system, we can create a better and safer prison system for everyone without devolving.
 
Perhaps you missed my point. I think that by addressing the TRUE problems of the prison system, we can create a better and safer prison system for everyone without devolving.

The 'prison system' is not the problem. Criminals that barely classify for human, if at all, is the problem. Getting rid of worthless humans who serve no purpose in society but rather cause pain and death to innocent people, is not devolving. It's doing what needs to be done.
 
The 'prison system' is not the problem. Criminals that barely classify for human, if at all, is the problem. Getting rid of worthless humans who serve no purpose in society but rather cause pain and death to innocent people, is not devolving. It's doing what needs to be done.

The prison system is not for revenge, and your "worthless humans" assessment is opinion, not proper argument for use of government force. Life in prison is good enough, accomplishes everything one could get with the death penalty, and avoids the pitfalls of the death penalty.
 
The prison system is not for revenge, and your "worthless humans" assessment is opinion, not proper argument for use of government force. Life in prison is good enough, accomplishes everything one could get with the death penalty, and avoids the pitfalls of the death penalty.

So your opinion is that child molesters have value? That's interesting. I disagree.

No, life in prison is not 'good enough'. Extreme torture for years on end is good enough, but I'll accept a lethal injection.
 
So your opinion is that child molesters have value? That's interesting. I disagree.

My opinion is that all human life has value. But beyond that, government is limited in action, the judicial system is not a system of revenge, using the death penalty is expensive and innately consumes life - including innocent life. The use of government force against the LIFE of its citizens is one of the most aggressive, irreversible uses of government force; it cannot be thrown around lightly, if at all. The death penalty, simply put, is irrational. And calls to torture and maiming are despotic, pathetic and demeaning to where humans have come to. We're better than this, we don't need to go Neanderthal.

No, life in prison is not 'good enough'. Extreme torture for years on end is good enough, but I'll accept a lethal injection.

Yes, it is, it produces the same result.
 
My opinion is that all human life has value.

Can you explain to me what value a human has that rapes and kills a 6 year old? Or that has raped a woman and beat her almost to death, more than once?


Yes, it is, it produces the same result.

No, not even close. One get's rid of the problem, forever, the other doesn't.
 
Can you explain to me what value a human has that rapes and kills a 6 year old? Or that has raped a woman and beat her almost to death, more than once?

Human life has intrinsic value


No, not even close. One get's rid of the problem, forever, the other doesn't.

Life in prison without parole does the same for the general public as the death penalty.
 
Coddling rapists? Are you daft? Not using the government to maim people is not codding. Jesus, the hysterics are getting out of hand.

Not being hysteric. I just have a grand total of zero sympathy for those who decide to abuse other people. And yes, I do believe they deserve to be maimed.
 
Not being hysteric. I just have a grand total of zero sympathy for those who decide to abuse other people. And yes, I do believe they deserve to be maimed.

And I do not believe your opinions give proper cause to use grandiose government force against the individual.
 
Human life has intrinsic value

That kinda avoids the question. No, life doesn't have any 'intrinsic' value, unless one believes in mythology and such. When you work, raise a family, help others, you generally have value... when you murder, rape and molest, you have ZERO value to society.

Life in prison without parole does the same for the general public as the death penalty.

Has anyone in prison, on a life without parole sentence, killed a guard? That the possibility exists means that no, they are not removed from society.
 
Back
Top Bottom