Doc,Mar 24 2006, 07:55 AM Wrote:Clickity

I am all for it. Repeat offenders should never be given the chance to repeat their crime in the first place.

Hang them I say. Preferably publicly. And round up everybody currently on some sex offender list and make them watch.

It's going to be complicated dealing with this, because anybody not voting for it or in support of it will be labeled as being in support of child rapers, which, well, as I am sure you know would be very bad. Political suicide to not support this bill.

There are people around here with four or five strikes against them. I am baffled. I can not see how they are getting out of prison to keep diddling kids. It keeps happening, and sooner or later, some little kid's daddy or mommy takes justice in to their own hands, and blows the kiddie rapist's brains out, and then they go to jail, away from their child, for a very long time. Save the citizens the trouble and just put these sick #$%&s out of their misery. They have a disease in their mind, and they are not going to stop. It is better for everybody in the long run to terminate their lives.
[right][snapback]105346[/snapback][/right]

Occhidiangela,Mar 24 2006, 09:37 AM Wrote:Define child molester.  Like murder, there are varying degrees of that crime.

As to the appeal for public hangings, I'd like to see the criminal justice process judge every case on it merits.  Let the punishment fit the crime.  Allow for death penalty in capital cases. 

The one thing we don't need is mandatory sentencing.  All that has done is overcrowd our prisons. 

I am also a fan of the death penalty for rapists who commit rape in prison on other prisoners.  That too is a sexual offense against persons.  How often is that punished?  How is it that society condones that crime on its behalf?

Occhi
[right][snapback]105348[/snapback][/right]

ShadowHM,Mar 24 2006, 10:17 AM Wrote:Doc, why the heck do you persist in dragging out the dead horse out to flog yet again?  :angry:

We have danced around the mulberry bush over and over and over again on the topic of the death penalty - for any purpose/reason/rationale.   

Do you somehow think that you are going to change anyone's mind by chiseling away at the topic?
[right][snapback]105352[/snapback][/right]

Doc,Mar 24 2006, 10:25 AM Wrote:Like it or not, there are people that just do not deserve to live. The greater good dictates that a few must die on occasion for the benefit of many.
[right][snapback]105354[/snapback][/right]

ShadowHM,Mar 24 2006, 11:08 AM Wrote:Blah blah blah - again !&nbsp; <_<

Doc, as long as you choose to keep repeating this drivel, I will muster the patience to stay and disagree, lest you or someone else think that you have actually changed my mind.&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:

Some people do not deserve to live.&nbsp; &nbsp; But I will never condone the notion that the 'greater good' is served when you have a legal system that will certainly kill some innocents while trying to benefit the many.&nbsp; &nbsp; Collateral damage is unacceptable.
[right][snapback]105363[/snapback][/right]

Doc,Mar 24 2006, 11:17 AM Wrote:Prisons are so crowded around here that most child molesters only spend maybe a year or so at most. And they are back out on the street again.

[right][snapback]105366[/snapback][/right]

ShadowHM,Mar 24 2006, 10:08 AM Wrote:Blah blah blah - again !   <_<

Collateral damage is unacceptable.
[right][snapback]105363[/snapback][/right]

ShadowHM,Mar 24 2006, 11:28 AM Wrote:Implication:&nbsp; Your government imprisons too many people, so you cannot impose life sentences (with no chance of parole)?&nbsp; So you have to kill them!&nbsp; :blink:
[right][snapback]105368[/snapback][/right]

Doc,Mar 24 2006, 11:43 AM Wrote:That man will never have a normal life. Neither will any of the others. They have a disease of the mind, and there is no cure. They are sexually attracted to kids, and nothing can stop them from their desires.

It would be better for them to tie a millstone around their neck and throw themselves in to the sea.
[right][snapback]105374[/snapback][/right]

Maitre,Mar 24 2006, 12:40 PM Wrote:Two points:

1) sex offender lists can include lost of people who have not committed offenses against children, and some whose only crime landed them on the list (soliciting a prostitute forces you to register if I'm not mistaken, and I think peeping might as well).&nbsp; And I'm not sure about this, but it seems like the lists would not tell you what offences were committed, so before you go checking off your local list, make sure you feel that 1-time lonely folks deserve the same fate as the 4-time child rapists.

2) I want to make sure I'm not taking you too far out of context here, and I know that this will come off as an attempt to trap you on your position, but I do want to make sure I understand.&nbsp; When you say "they have a disease of the mind," are you condemning them to die because you find their specific disease reprehensible, or are you condemning them to death because they have a disease?&nbsp; I'm not trying to trap you into a line drawing discussion here, I just want to understand: my brother, at 23, lives at home with his mother and father, will never have a normal life, he is not likely to be hired becuase of his "disease of the mind which has no cure," very little can stop him from indulging in that which he disires, he recieves a monthly entitlement payment, and his healthcare is provided by Medicare.

I'm not sure why I'm so irked by this discussion, but I think it has to do with the way you phrased that last statement that hits a little too close to home.

edit: It occurs to me that the following clarifying statement may be warrented: my brother is not a sex offender.&nbsp; I purposely did not specify the root of his predicament because I want to know whether Doc's more concerned about a specific "disease" or "disease" in general.
[right][snapback]105378[/snapback][/right]

Maitre,Mar 24 2006, 11:40 AM Wrote:I'm not sure why I'm so irked by this discussion, but I think it has to do with the way you phrased that last statement that hits a little too close to home.
[right][snapback]105378[/snapback][/right]

Occhidiangela,Mar 24 2006, 01:02 PM Wrote:Probably because your gut instinct is compassion.

When dealing with folks whose situation falls outside three standard deviations from the norm, there is no cookie cutter solution.&nbsp; Some approaches tend toward&nbsp; the purely rational, others the purely emotional, many fall somewhere in between.&nbsp;

A recent defector, one Ri Kwang-chol, alleges that the North Koreans use a scientifically efficient approach, euginics driven I suspect, to treat birth defects.&nbsp; He did not indicate (per the rather short article) if this is applied this to later "defects," be they genetic, behavioral, or otherwise acquired, nor where the line is drawn on how far along in the growth process a "birth defect" is considered to be "manageable" versus "grounds for disposal."&nbsp;

Doc might appreciate thenip it in the bud optoin, or a "prune the tree when a sickened branch grows from it."&nbsp; Or not.

I tend to the "pest control" school of thought on capital punishment.

Another application of science and judgment include the use of ultrasound to key the decision to terminate a pregnancy early -- if the gender of the prospective child is undesirable.&nbsp; About 10 years ago I saw a documentary on that issue in India.&nbsp; Not sure if that situation continues.

Judgment and decision making: what do you do, and why?&nbsp; Is it for emotional reasons, rational reasons, or some of both?

Occhi
[right][snapback]105382[/snapback][/right]

Doc,Mar 24 2006, 12:49 PM Wrote:Their disease causes them to be monsters.

So the specific disease line of thinking applies here.
[right][snapback]105380[/snapback][/right]

Doc,Mar 24 2006, 12:08 PM Wrote:Ugh, no. That's just wrong. Those babies killed have done no wrong.
[right][snapback]105383[/snapback][/right]

Maitre,Mar 24 2006, 01:10 PM Wrote:To whom are they "monsters?"&nbsp; (Yeah, okay, don't answer that, its rhetorical).&nbsp; You've pronounced your judgement, based on your moral convictions.&nbsp; Upon whose moral convictions does the law reside?&nbsp; I don't have an answer to that, but I find a definition similar to that used by the Supreme Court to identify pornography (I'll know it when I see it) to be insufficient in determining who deserves death.

I started out in the mood to get into a line drawing discussion but I couldn't stick carry it out.&nbsp; Simply put, my problem is who would do the line drawing about what offenses deserve death.&nbsp; Yeah, sure, a jury of my peers.&nbsp; I wouldn't trust em as far as they could throw me.
[right][snapback]105384[/snapback][/right]

ShadowHM,Mar 24 2006, 10:17 AM Wrote:Doc, why the heck do you persist in dragging out the dead horse out to flog yet again?&nbsp; :angry:

We have danced around the mulberry bush over and over and over again on the topic of the death penalty - for any purpose/reason/rationale.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Do you somehow think that you are going to change anyone's mind by chiseling away at the topic?
[right][snapback]105352[/snapback][/right]

Ghostiger,Mar 24 2006, 04:29 PM Wrote:I think youre misunderstanding his point - namely because your a Canuk..

I dont think Doc was addressing people who are agsint the death penalty itself. I think he was addressing the majority of American who are ok with it if its applied clearly proven first degree murderers.
Myself I favor the death penalty in concept but feel it fails in application in most cases - see Texas.
[right][snapback]105402[/snapback][/right]