...I thought you were asking a question "for those anit death penalty" : "do you really think its better to keep them locked up until they die?" Have you switched it to something else?
If a pedophile knew that if he was caught, his sentence would be to work as a gigolo at a nursing home for 30+ years, pedophilia would disappear overnight.
i have no idea what you are saying... i was just looking for someones opinion who differs and what their reasons were .
I think castration is a viable alternative, instead of the death penalty in these cases... Plus, it everyday reminder that what they did carries consequences. We don't execute drunk drivers (that cause fatalities)...
There was one crime being discussed in this thread. I told you why I thought they should be put away for life, and why it didn't matter if someone considered it "overly punishing" them ( which is why I put that in quotation marks), because it was about prevention. You began by asking why it was better to put someone in prison for life, rather than just kill them, and even said that leaving them in their cell was equal to the inhumane treatment of animals. Now you are no longer talking about this, but are debating whether someone has the right to live. That's a completely different discussion.
is that what jail is for?? prevention? i thought it was designed more for changing of behaviour. i didnt bring up 'right to live' someone else did i just followed a long. but im still open for why its better for someone to sit in a cell for the rest of his life with no possibility for parole, rather than just being killed right away? side note, consider pedophiles are targets in jail, too.
If they are in prison for life then the progression of their behavior doesn't matter. "Someone else" did? Cool... But that was one part of an answer to your original question, and you changed the discussion by choosing that part to talk about. "I don't believe in killing another human being out of vengeance. They shouldn't be allowed to live anywhere where they have even the smallest chance to harm another person, however." "I am against the death penalty, in general, but I don't think their punishment should be any less than what a murderer receives. Solitary confinement for life, maybe..."
Slowly killing someone over thirty years versus Killing then in 3 minutes Actually. . . Banishment is my preference DUde, you got 3 wks to find a country to take you . . . After that you on your own . . . buy a ticket and get there If not . .. we put you on a boat. . and Push you come back . .you can be killed onsite by basically any one because u are PERSONA NON GRATA here You will have no rights that must be a observed Rocket River
Who cares. Under current Supreme Court precedent, only a few special types of murder can be constitutionally tried as capital cases. That's not changing anytime soon.
Castration, chemical or physical, in conjunction with a moderate period of confinement in a mental health facility.
* Why is life without parole slowly killing someone? There is life to be lived in prison -- people to talk to, meals to eat, thoughts to think, things to read and write, gods to worship. Just because your movement and routine are severely limited doesn't mean you aren't living in the mean time. * I don't see anything exceptionally wrong with applying capital punishment to heinous child-rape crimes. My one concern is that what society considers the worst-of-the-worst does tend to facilate a little. In the 70s, the worst thing you could be is a heroin-dealer; cop-killer eventually overtook it. Pedophile seems to be enjoying its moment in the sun. Who knows which one is next. If pedophiles get the death penalty, the next worst-non-murder-crime-you-can-commit is more likely to get it too. So there may end up being a capital punishment creep with more and more crimes punishable by death. * Chemical castration seems acceptable to me and I find it ironic that it would likely run into more constitutionality problems than a death penalty would. * There are several justifications for prison and other forms of punishment, among them: deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and justice. It is interesting to see posters come in with their own pet reason and ignore other motivations the state might have for killing or imprisoning or castrating a criminal. Execution excels at incapacitation, may help with deterrence and justice, but is terrible for rehabilitation. Prison does rehab better, incapacitation worse, and the other 2 are a toss-up. Castration has potential for best rehab, at least decent on deterrence and justice, but bad on incapacitation. You've got to pick your poison -- how much risk are you willing to assume for the criminal's sake; how much justice are you willing to sacrifice to achieve your aims in social order?
There are four purposes for punishment: Deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and vengeance. It has been proven multiple times that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent. By definition, it cannot be rehabilitation. It is incapacitation, but no more so than life imprisonment. It is certainly revenge, and my religious beliefs don't allow me to take that. Life imprisonment has the same effect of incapacitation, so I think that it covers all of the same purposes for punishment as the death penalty except for vengeance.
let the parents of the victim decide ? I say this because I could not come to a conclusion: I think/say I am against murder and this includes capital punishment. However, as a father , if you raped my child I'd slaughter you. I think I feel that forgiving the unforgivable is noble, but pretty sure I couldn't.