Hang child molesters?

julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Hang child molesters?

I say, sure.
Especially those who sexually molest young children. Hang the evil bastards!
What justice is that to keep them in prison with the victims' family tax money?!...

No gods with indirect messages to me.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:I say, sure.

julio wrote:
I say, sure. Especially those who sexually molest young children. Hang the evil bastards! What justice is that to keep them in prison with the victims' family tax money?!...

It is subjecting them to continuing punishment rather than simply a brief moment of pain.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:I say, sure.

julio wrote:
I say, sure. Especially those who sexually molest young children. Hang the evil bastards! What justice is that to keep them in prison with the victims' family tax money?!...

I would ask; 'upon what grounds do you call them evil?'

Child molesters are simply selfish individuals acting on their urges at the expense of others.  This more closely resembles amoral hedonism than anything approaching objective 'immorality' or 'evil'.  There are many selfish people, acting on many urges, at the expense of many different kinds of others. 

Why is child molestation worse than all of the perfectly legal harm people choose to put upon others for the sake of pleasuring themselves?

In the cases where these people are not violating the social contract, why are you up in arms about this?

 

 

As to the purpose of prison; the intention is reform and rehabilitation, not necessarily punishment.

 

By wanting to cause them more pain, all you're doing is acting out selfish sadistic urges- for your pleasure- at the expense of others.  I'm not going to say that's evil or not, but I'd ask you what the difference is.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:As to the

Blake wrote:
As to the purpose of prison; the intention is reform and rehabilitation, not necessarily punishment.

 

By wanting to cause them more pain, all you're doing is acting out selfish sadistic urges- for your pleasure- at the expense of others.  I'm not going to say that's evil or not, but I'd ask you what the difference is.

I actually agree, but if the idea of the OP is about punishment or vengeance, then hanging doesn't represent the most severe form of punishment.

If the idea is to simply get them off the streets, then it is even cruder.

If they are kept alive, they may be reformable, even possibly contribute something back to society, at least in a rational justice system.

To the OP: would you consider them worse than child torturers, or killers? Or people who allow their children to die rather than take them to regular doctors, because of f**ked-up beliefs, religious or otherwise?

Shouldn't punishment, if you consider that is the best response, be based on the actual likely long-term harm to the victim, than your personal response to the nature of the act?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I actually

BobSpence1 wrote:

I actually agree, but if the idea of the OP is about punishment or vengeance, then hanging doesn't represent the most severe form of punishment.

I would argue that in the time between the sentencing and the execution, the mortal terror itself represents substantial punishment, which is liable to be greater than significant pain experienced in a lifetime in a resort prison (as in such an extended situation, there are times of lows as well as highs).

I don't agree that prison is more cruel than execution- at least the prisons in the U.S.- now, there are some prisons which might be, and I think we can identify these by the rates of suicide (which would show us that death was the favorable option in those cases).

One could construct a prison situation that would be a more severe punishment than hanging- such as a supervised work camp (with suicide watch) with nearly freezing cold quarters for sleep, and daily water-boarding in lieu of showers.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
If the idea is to simply get them off the streets, then it is even cruder.

 

This is true.  Recidivism after execution of capital punishment is 0%.  (Except for, according to Christians, that Jesus f*cker who had to come back and keep on blaspheming. Eye-wink )

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

If they are kept alive, they may be reformable, even possibly contribute something back to society, at least in a rational justice system.

 

Right... in particular with a crime like child molestation, which largely derives from strong sexual drives, it seems very peculiar to aim to punish these people when the problem itself can often be mitigated chemically some 95% of the time.  *Most* pedophiles have psychological and sexual disorders, and don't really want to be pedophiles.

 

 

Weak will and inability to control oneself is a genuine character flaw if ever there was one, but it is one *most* people possess, and so not one that should be criticized by those with equally weak wills (a human condition-- anybody who is obese and doesn't want to be, smokes and would like to quit, etc.).

The failures of pedophiles at seeking help prior to the expression of those desires is also understandable in the context of our society condemning anybody with those desires as "evil" rather than admitting they could be good people aside and accepting that it is a problem they can choose to correct like any disease.  That inherent condemnation forces the potential pedophiles to rationalize the desires instead of seeking help, and instead form communities of "child lovers" where they convince each other it's O.K., and that, as such, they aren't bad people.

 

These people are human.  They have human problems, human weaknesses, and are vulnerable to the very human tendency to rationalize when confronted with an unacceptable proposition (social condemnation of their natures as inherently evil).  This problem is a social problem, and these people are likely no different from the OP from any more objective moral framework- he probably just happens to be on the 'right' side of a very arbitrary legal framework with regards to his particular selfish whims and indulgences where the pedophiles fall on the 'wrong' side.

 

I won't defend the action of pedophilia- I find it quite terrible- but at the same time I can't suffer the hypocrisy of others who so adamantly condemn the people suffering from it while doing no better themselves with regards to their own vices.

 


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
I have the impression that

I have the impression that one hanged rapist or molester is more security for children in the suburb.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
As for RCC pedophile

As for RCC pedophile priests, I think I have the overall solution:
Blind one - and let all the others pray for his healing.
If he recovers his eyes, he is innocent and we have to apologise!

No gods with indirect messages to me.


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Now, for argument's sake,

Now, for argument's sake, suppose you blinded one innocent RCC priest [he was not a deranged pedophile like many of his colleagues].
In desperation to remedy the evil done to the innocent man, the pope and all his agency will pick up the Rosaries and say a million of them to help the man recover his eyes.
Two matters will be found:

One, the prayers of the entire RCC squadron didn't help the priest in any way;
Two, the RCC is nothing but a deceiving CULT of religious opportunists like the others.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The kid thing is

 

some strange shit. What causes it? Is there a physiological/neurological imbalance going on? And the number of priests involved is a bit odd, too.

I went to boarding school and our greatest competitor, St Stanilaus College, has recently been outed as riddled with molesting priests.

We used to mock them for having no shower curtains or dunny doors when we played footer against them as kids.

When the news of the molestings hit we figured out why.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:I have the

julio wrote:
I have the impression that one hanged rapist or molester is more security for children in the suburb. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You're wrong.

 

1. Threat of death does little to deter crime- criminals would not commit crimes if they thought they would be caught, so the severity of punishment usually only makes them more desperate and dangerous when they realize that they are at risk of being caught.  If they're going to die anyway, they might be more likely to kill the children they molest and hide the evidence more thoroughly to reduce the chances of being caught.  This, in particular, is why the penalty for rape must be less severe than that for murder.  You are not making children safer by making the penalty for molestation more severe, but potentially putting them in more danger of more severe crimes.

 

2. Recedivism after killing pedophiles is 0%, but recedivism after proper treatment can be as low as 5%.  Think about that a little.  95% of these people, after treatment, become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.  Cured pedophiles are a sign to potential pedophiles that they can be good people, and that they can seek help.  Killing pedophiles and claiming that there is no redemption for feeling such urges will only drive them deeper into isolation and perpetuate the social problem (the fact that they feel they are unable to seek help, and instead retreat into groups of pedophiles who convince each other that it's O.K. to "love children" ) .  By curing pedophiles and moderating the public mentality towards the people afflicted with these urges, you are reducing the number of new pedophiles by helping potential pedophiles seek help before they harm children- by killing them, you're driving the rest into the very memes that are perpetuating the problem.

 

3. I have the impression that a hanged smoker is more security for innocent lungs the world over.  Oh, wait... is this not 'violate the social contract with arbitrarily harsh enforcement of things we personally find objectionable day'?  Must have mis-marked my calendar.

Like Bob said, we need to consider more carefully the objective metrics of the harm being caused rather than being ruled by irrational taboos.  Of course being molested isn't good for children, but neither are many things you probably do good for many others (shall we start a list?).  It's important to have some perspective, and more crucially, moral consistency.  Advocating this kind of draconian enforcement of irrational moral whim is threatening to the security of the entirety of society- it does not make us more safe, but far less so.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:[The

Atheistextremist wrote:

[The kid thing is] some strange shit. What causes it? Is there a physiological/neurological imbalance going on? And the number of priests involved is a bit odd, too.

 

It's complicated.  Part of it may have to do with sexual selection in humans- namely, infantilization.  There could be biological components there; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Biological_associations

Part of it probably has to do with psychological problems which I'm not really qualified to expound upon, and which have a shaky foundation with regards to the understanding of them anyway.

Chemically nuking the sex drive and providing therapy is almost a sure fix, though.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I agree

Blake wrote:

It's complicated.  Part of it may have to do with sexual selection in humans- namely, infantilization.  There could be biological components there; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Biological_associations

Part of it probably has to do with psychological problems which I'm not really qualified to expound upon, and which have a shaky foundation with regards to the understanding of them anyway.

Chemically nuking the sex drive and providing therapy is almost a sure fix, though.

 

I agree with you, Blake, that treatment not killing is best. This said, I have no kids. If I did have and you know... I'd be really pissed off.

There are crimes that are hard for a human to rationalise. For a parent, perhaps impossible.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
That is, in your

That is, in your implication, the RCC should adopt a total-safety measure: castrate ALL its priests, no exceptions accepted.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

julio wrote:

That is, in your implication, the RCC should adopt a total-safety measure: castrate ALL its priests, no exceptions accepted.

 

Starting with the Nazi at the top, eh Julio?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:julio

Atheistextremist wrote:

julio wrote:

That is, in your implication, the RCC should adopt a total-safety measure: castrate ALL its priests, no exceptions accepted.

 

Starting with the Nazi at the top, eh Julio?

 

 

Might be a legal problem. I just heard the age of consent in the Vatican is 12. No joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJtZSL0hxyE


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Absolutely! Any pope is as

Absolutely!
Any pope is as trustworthy as any pedophile, in my opinion.
ALL popes have gone through the ranks & experiences of priesthood like the rest.
I trust no pope; popes offend me.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I honestly would feel more

I honestly would feel more anger toward a child torturer or killer.

If the 'molesting' involved force, that would be the worst aspect for me.

Otherwise, I am not really sure what the likely long-term affect on the child would be, it would I think be highly dependent on all sorts of psychological factors.

I would need to see a lot of data on what had been the effects on a number of victims, especially in cases where there was no evidence of force involved.

There is an aspect of playing off the respect a child may automatically have toward an adult, and a feeling they must obey, which definitely does make me uncomfortable.

I can understand the common reactions to the idea, even if I don't share it.

It is the extreme reaction of people like Julio because it involves sex which bugs me.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
If the penalty of sexual

If the penalty of sexual molestation is == to the penalty for murder (death), then why not murder your victim as to remove an eye witness.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: If the penalty

Magus wrote:

If the penalty of sexual molestation is == to the penalty for murder (death), then why not murder your victim as to remove an eye witness.

Good point. However, sexual violation of a minor is worse than murder, some say. Some victims would have preferred death... we hear. To me, the way those molesters are punished is not good justice. I want serious deterrent.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:As to the

Blake wrote:
As to the purpose of prison; the intention is reform and rehabilitation, not necessarily punishment. 

You must really have your head in the sand, if you actually believe that. Of course, many petty criminals are declared "rehabilitated" because of overcrowding in prisons...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: Blake wrote:As

Kapkao wrote:

Blake wrote:
As to the purpose of prison; the intention is reform and rehabilitation, not necessarily punishment. 

You must really have your head in the sand, if you actually believe that. Of course, many petty criminals are declared "rehabilitated" because of overcrowding in prisons...

Yes, I believe that to be true.
Rehabilitation is a big word with little meaning if any.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Good point.

julio wrote:
Good point. However, sexual violation of a minor is worse than murder, some say. Some victims would have preferred death... we hear. To me, the way those molesters are punished is not good justice. I want serious deterrent.

 

I addressed all of this in my posts, I suggest you read them.

 

Kapkao wrote:

You must really have your head in the sand, if you actually believe that. Of course, many petty criminals are declared "rehabilitated" because of overcrowding in prisons...

 

I said it was the modern intention, not necessarily the effect due to practical considerations.  Some do, however, work- and chemical intervention (instead of prison) almost always works.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I honestly

BobSpence1 wrote:

I honestly would feel more anger toward a child torturer or killer.

If the 'molesting' involved force, that would be the worst aspect for me.

I agree, though I don't deny that sex with children, even consentual, makes me very uncomfortable. But this is of course because "consentual" is not black and white. Many adult women have what can only be descriped as "consentual" sex with their husband, in that they willfully agree to have sex with him, but are only doing so because they feel it is their duty, as a wife. They can do this for cultural reasons, or simply because they have low self-asteem and are very doubtful of their own conclusions about what they deserve or don't deserve. This is sad and painful, but true. Some prostitutes find themselves in that situation as well. Technically they are having "consentual" sex, but that doesn't mean they like it very much.

Thankfully, of course, both wives and prostitutes CAN like having sex, but not all of them do, all the time.

In the case of children, they may well agree to have sex, but only because they don't know what it entails, and/or because they are scared of the grown-up, and deferentual to their authority.

Remember, though, that not all pedofiles penetrate children with their penis; I pressume most children would not "agree" to that, but might well suffer it in silence, because they wouldn't know how to object. I think any prepubescent child that suffers anal or vaginal sex at the hands of a pedofile will suffer great psychological damage, not to mention physical, so in those cases the "force" that you and I would object to, is pretty clearly a great part of it.

But with milder forms of sexual interaction, I think the long term damage to a childs psyche can vary greatly, and that does not mean I condone it for a moment, but it does mean that the severity of the offence becomes much less clear-cut.

Sure, being freaked out about it, feeling ashamed about it, and just generally screwing with their heads is sure to affect them, but so does school-yard bullying, spanking, and of course Sunday school threats of hell.

And the individual child, as well as offender, in question will make every situation unique in terms of the negative impact.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Otherwise, I am not really sure what the likely long-term affect on the child would be, it would I think be highly dependent on all sorts of psychological factors. 

I would need to see a lot of data on what had been the effects on a number of victims, especially in cases where there was no evidence of force involved.

...as you clearly agree with here.

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is an aspect of playing off the respect a child may automatically have toward an adult, and a feeling they must obey, which definitely does make me uncomfortable.

As it does me.

But there are millions of other situations in the world where similarly uncomfortable situations occur. Such as women trapped in love-less marriages because of cultural or religious restrictions, or just her own insecurities. The only reason we react so viscirally when it is a child that is involved is because we all have a powerful inate need to protect children, who we consider ill-equiped to fend for themselves, wereas we are more naturally inclined to respect the autonomy of an adult, even though, if we think about it, some adults sometimes need protection too.

But really, there are so many situations outside of sex, that one ought to be equally outraged about. What about child soldiers for example? With them, the "aspect of playing off the respect a child may automatically have toward an adult, and a feeling they must obey", surely plays a huge part as well, and those children surely suffer immensely.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I can understand the common reactions to the idea, even if I don't share it.

I think I do share it actually. At least the visceral, emotional response. But I suspect you do too really. You sound like you do. It is how we temper that emotional response that is important, which is also what you seem to be saying with this statement:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It is the extreme reaction of people like Julio because it involves sex which bugs me.

There is nothing wrong with being outraged, if Julio only recognizes that the fact that sex is involved shouldn't IN AND OF ITSELF be a course for MORE outrage.

In so far as the sexual aspect causes various psychological trauma that IS bad, but there are other ways to exploit children that DOESN'T involve sex, but were the trauma is ALSO primarily psychological.

If you fuck up a childs psychological health in the realm of sexuality, that is serious, since sexuality is an important part of any persons psyche, and that child, in adulthood, will have been damaged, which is of course not cool.

But if you play mindgames with a child in other aspects of the psyche than sexuality, is that really any less severe?

If you emotionally starve a child by never giving them any emotional interaction then, depending in how much you do it, they could arguably become even more psychologically damaged in adulthood.

I mean, while I empathize greatly with adults who have been sexually exploited in childhood, it is undeniable that many of them have suffered only minor, if any, psychological setbacks. It all depends on their particular situation.

There are also many people that have been physically abused in childhood, and there are many of them who carry that with them into adulthood as well, and suffer that phycological trauma throughout their lives.

 

I suppose what I'm saying is: I don't condone sexual abuse of children! But I don't condone NON-sexual abuse of children either! And nor do I condone abuse of adults, sexual and non-sexual alike.

So all I ask is that any given situation is judged on the particulars of that situation. it is allright to be emotional about all types of abuse, but one must always temper those emotions with rationality. If society at large is better of without deamonizing pedofiles, then emotions cannot be allowed to overrule a broader compassion for humanity. We want our societies to reflect our broader compassion for humanity don't we?

 

On a related note, I've been studying ancient Greek this past year, and it is interesting to note that the Ancient Greeks had more or less institutionalized pedophilia. In so many of the texts we translated, there were constant passing referances to adult men and young boys in sexual relationships. Exactly how young these boys were, is not clear, but they may well have been prepubescent. The word most commonly used in the references I read was: παιδίον (Paidion) which means a young child. (Interestingly, it can also mean a slave, which is itself interesting: that there was no linguistic distinction between children and slaves, but that is a different matter).

These kinds of relationships were referenced quite trivially, and clearly not something that caused offence among civilized Greeks. But I can't help but think that while this has surely caused alot of sexual disfunction among the Greeks, is it really any worse than all the other cultures around at that time, in terms of their attitudes to sex? Even if they didn't have institutionalized HOMOsexual pedophilia, HETEROsexual pedophilia seemed par for the course in those days. I mean girls married off at 9 years old anyone? And then there's slavery and war and crazy superstitions. Life back then was fucked up in so many other ways than just this particular aspect.

And the very fact that the Greeks took this practice for granted and that noone had any objections to it, must have meant that the violated boys must have felt very different about their situation, than a modern child would. There certainly was no reason to feel ashamed, as their young lovers were a source of pride for well-respected learned men in Athens. I'm not saying the boys weren't being violated in some sense, but they may well have felt proud themselves that some powerful, well-respected man was madly in love with them.

It still gives me the willies, though, to think about it, but I know better than to let my emotional revulsion overshaddow everything else about Greek Culture.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Very interesting text,

Very interesting text, Nik.
Appreciated.
As for the Greeks and pedophilia, we get only the view of those who wrote what we have today; not an overview of society in those days, as such.
Since illiteracy was common, it follows that what we have is only a biased and distorted opinion of some few writers.
Am I wrong?

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
 My problem with hanging

 My problem with hanging anyone is effectively determining guilt. I can't imagine any system that can perfectly guarantee a completely innocent person is not put to death. Therefore, I am against the death penalty in general.

 

As for punishment I have no problem with locking up the really sick twisted bastards and throwing away the key. I do have a problem with the trend to add sexual offenders to public lists and place restrictions on where they can live. If a person is so dangerous and so likely to offend again that they cannot live withing a mile of a school they should still be in prison. Sexual offenders can drive or take a bus just like anyone else. The outcome of such laws is that some minor sexual offenders and/or people who are completely innocent have their whole lives screwed over while the true sick twisted bastards continue doing what they were doing.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote: As for the

julio wrote:
As for the Greeks and pedophilia, we get only the view of those who wrote what we have today; not an overview of society in those days, as such. Since illiteracy was common, it follows that what we have is only a biased and distorted opinion of some few writers. Am I wrong?

Well yes and no. You are not wrong in saying that anything written 2500 years ago should be taken with a grain of salt, as it will be distorted. But there are many many sources with examples of homo-erotic relationships between old and young men (or boys), so it's not something to be easily ignored.

 

The text I remember best with an example of this is Plato's Symposium, in which Socrates and others discuss the nature of love. Many of the men there bring up the homo-erotic relationship as an example of an ideal love relationship. So they are not simply referencing a personal preference, but rather seem to be talking about their society as a whole. That's not to say it is implied that all Greeks were homosexuals, or pedofiles at that time, but just that it was both a common, and perfectly acceptable, indeed idealized behaviour. 

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wanting to punish crimes

Wanting to punish crimes against children is very natural and understandable. It is the most basic evolution in our species history to want to protect the young.

However, we cannot become a society, ON ANY ACCUSATION, that reacts to the accusation and not the evidence. It is wrong to convict someone on the emotional reaction to a charge. All solid convictions, ON ANY CHARGE, should be based on evidence, and evidence alone.

Unfortunately it can be very easy for a parent to get their kid to lie about someone they merely suspect, or flat out don't like. There was a couple running a day care center who were thrown in jail and spent almost 10 years in prison because of mass hysteria and all because the parents wanted to rid the world of evil.

Even in cases of adults such as sexual harassment it can amount to "he said, she said". I warn everyone not to allow a natural reaction to a horrible act to cloud their judgment. This can be a dangerous attitude for society to take, long term, and can affect the jury pools and law enforcement and lawmakers, ON ALL ACCUSATIONS of the accused.

I had an entire private school angry at me, I was attending at the time. We were having a field day, a play day. A motorist was passing the playground and THOUGHT someone had thrown a rock at his car. I had seen what had actually happened. The rock was kicked up by his front tire. But because I was the only one to step forward and say what happened, I got falsely accused of throwing it. Because I wouldn't confess to throwing the rock, they ended the field day and the entire school was angry at me.

For a 12 year old, which I was at the time, that was very traumatizing. My point is, until, and unless, and hopefully never, anyone here gets falsely accused of something they didn't do, I would warn against blanket statements as to how someone should be punished.

It is easy to say, "I'd beat the shit out of them". It is hard to repair someones reputation and say "I'm sorry" if you falsely accuse someone.

It is natural to want to punish these sickos, no doubt. But it is also easy to ruin someone's life with "he said she said".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: My

Beyond Saving wrote:

 My problem with hanging anyone is effectively determining guilt. I can't imagine any system that can perfectly guarantee a completely innocent person is not put to death. Therefore, I am against the death penalty in general.

Innocents haven't been executed before?? If yes, what was the overall cost to society?

 

Quote:
If a person is so dangerous and so likely to offend again that they cannot live withing a mile of a school they should still be in prison.

And prisons shouldn't be filled to capacity at a near constant, but they are...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:But it is also

Brian37 wrote:
But it is also easy to ruin someone's life with "he said she said".

And some of the biggest court battles are fought largely on witness testimony.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Justice is a grey/gray area.

Justice is a grey/gray area.
It has always been grey, forever.
But we have no other means to punish the criminal.
Justice fails sometimes, for different reasons, and not always for insufficient data.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:Justice is a

julio wrote:
Justice is a grey/gray area. It has always been grey, forever. But we have no other means to punish the criminal. Justice fails sometimes, for different reasons, and not always for insufficient data.

And punishment is not by any means always the most appropriate action, especially if it goes to capital punishment. We do NOT have to punish the criminal.

We should be about deterrence, if possible, and minimizing harm. Also 'cure'/rehabilitation, if realistically possible.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: julio

BobSpence1 wrote:

julio wrote:
Justice is a grey/gray area. It has always been grey, forever. But we have no other means to punish the criminal. Justice fails sometimes, for different reasons, and not always for insufficient data.

And punishment is not by any means always the most appropriate action, especially if it goes to capital punishment. We do NOT have to punish the criminal.

We should be about deterrence, if possible, and minimizing harm. Also 'cure'/rehabilitation, if realistically possible.

Yes, you're not wrong.
Sadly, 40 centuries of practising human justice has not refined the art enough to make white and black clear.

No gods with indirect messages to me.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:BobSpence1

julio wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

julio wrote:
Justice is a grey/gray area. It has always been grey, forever. But we have no other means to punish the criminal. Justice fails sometimes, for different reasons, and not always for insufficient data.

And punishment is not by any means always the most appropriate action, especially if it goes to capital punishment. We do NOT have to punish the criminal.

We should be about deterrence, if possible, and minimizing harm. Also 'cure'/rehabilitation, if realistically possible.

Yes, you're not wrong. Sadly, 40 centuries of practising human justice has not refined the art enough to make white and black clear.

Which is exactly why it is way overdue to abandon the emphasis on punishment, which has been the theme for pretty much all those centuries! It hasn't refined it at all in most of the world.

And it is way overdue to abandon hard black and white, right and wrong, moralistic thinking, and recognize the many factors that contribute to people engaging in anti-social activities, and the need for a more thoughtful, less emotional approach.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Nialler
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:I have the

julio wrote:
I have the impression that one hanged rapist or molester is more security for children in the suburb. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes. You are wrong.

If a child rapist (remember that most child rape victims are known to their rapists) knows and recognises their rapist, then a simple dynamic kicks in.

 

It's a very simple piece of logic from the rapist's side:

 

I've had sex with a child.

If I'm caught I will hang.

A conviction will depend on reliable witness statements.

She's the only only witness.

Errr, if she lives to testify, I'll hang.

If  I kill her and I'm caught then 'll get the same sentence anyway. The same sentence as if I was convicted for raping her.

Best get rid of this witness, then. I'm gonna get the same sentence eitherway, but this way I've got a chance.

You simply cannot mandate the death penalty for child abuse; it will result in more children dead after they've been raped.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:And it is

BobSpence1 wrote:
And it is way overdue to abandon hard black and white, right and wrong, moralistic thinking, and recognize the many factors that contribute to people engaging in anti-social activities, and the need for a more thoughtful, less emotional approach.

 

Tell me, will someone likely steal my wallet if I leave it on a table/counter/whatever for 5 minutes in a Saudi Arabian restaurant?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Bob makes sense. And I would

Bob makes sense.
And I would not want a justice system established on religious grounds - Islamic, the worst!
Take the way women are treated in such a country.
It is only because we can go to Saudi Arabia and see the statute books that matters have changed for the better [?...] in favour of the fair sex.
It is NOT because Islam demands respect and liberation for a woman.
I would not agree with a justice system that cuts hands off, and hangs criminals based on a holy book of a "most merciful" deity!
But, still, shouldn't child rapists be hanged - the clear cut cases?
[Sure, to establish clarity is another matter altogether...]

No gods with indirect messages to me.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:BobSpence1

Kapkao wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
And it is way overdue to abandon hard black and white, right and wrong, moralistic thinking, and recognize the many factors that contribute to people engaging in anti-social activities, and the need for a more thoughtful, less emotional approach.

 

Tell me, will someone likely steal my wallet if I leave it on a table/counter/whatever for 5 minutes in a Saudi Arabian restaurant?

Probably less likely than in our society, but my comments were directed at civilized societies.

And the issues of the effectiveness of extreme punishments are more problematic for crimes involving strong urges such as sex.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 Did you justify the reason

BobSpence1 wrote:

julio wrote:
I say, sure. Especially those who sexually molest young children. Hang the evil bastards! What justice is that to keep them in prison with the victims' family tax money?!...

It is subjecting them to continuing punishment rather than simply a brief moment of pain.

 

Did you justify the reason for hell?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Yup hang em. It's better

Yup hang em. It's better than getting everyone else to pay there way through life so we can pretend to rehabilitate them. Tbh I wold rather have them dead than pay for them while they watch tv. Have them pay for them selves through work/money and then I may change my answer. It's not unreasonable to expect people to work for a meal and a roof over there head. What is ridiculous is that everyone else is expected to pay for there mistakes.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
how often do pedophiles

how often do pedophiles rehabilitate, anyways?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
which cases?

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
But it is also easy to ruin someone's life with "he said she said".

And some of the biggest court battles are fought largely on witness testimony.

 

please list me some of the cases you are referring to?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:how often do

Kapkao wrote:

how often do pedophiles rehabilitate, anyways?

 

With chemical castration?  Something like 95%.  Without- very few to none.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote: Kapkao

Blake wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
how often do pedophiles rehabilitate, anyways?

 

With chemical castration? Something like 95%. Without- very few to none.

 

Well, if forced into a medical procedure, I would not call that “treatment”.

 

OK, I can conceive of a situation where someone has the urge to bone children and for whatever reason that is the only way that the urge will not be acted upon. If that person goes to a doctor and asks for chemical castration as the only way to make sure that he does not bone kids, then we can call that treatment.

 

However, if any medical procedure is not a voluntary thing, then it falls into the category of state sponsored activity. In that case, we are not really talking about people having seen the error of their ways and reforming to become an appropriate member of society.

 

julio wrote:
Justice is a grey/gray area. It has always been grey, forever. But we have no other means to punish the criminal. Justice fails sometimes, for different reasons, and not always for insufficient data.

 

OK julio, there is a piece of what you are saying that I am not seeing. Specifically, why do you want to do this?

 

In your first post, you talk about not wanting to pay to keep the criminal in prison for the rest of his life. Later on, you talk about protecting children. Now both goals are not incompatible but your posts do seem to be showing shifting goals.

 

Let's go with not paying to keep the criminal in prison. If that is valid, then why should the state pay to keep anyone in prison? If someone is a rapist of adults, shall it be permissible to use state resources to keep them locked up for ten years? The victims are paying taxes the same as everyone else and by the logic of your first post, this should not be acceptable.

 

On the other hand, if the goal is to simply keep child molesters away from kids, then prison is just about as good as killing them. On the other hand, if we go with the chemical castration idea that Blake is advocating, why should the state have to pay for that? The child victims will grow up to be adults and eventually pay taxes, part of which will be to pay for the drugs that are keeping their children safe from the abuse that they had to deal with because they were the unlucky ones that had to be abused before the child predator was detected and dealt with.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Law & Order: and you too can be an armchair legal expert!

ex-minister wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
But it is also easy to ruin someone's life with "he said she said".

And some of the biggest court battles are fought largely on witness testimony.

please list me some of the cases you are referring to?

  1. The imaginary cases taken up in my head all the time..
  2. errr why do you ask?

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
then prison is just about as good as killing them.

No, not really.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Also, when you say

 Also, when you say “hang them”, I have to ask if you are insisting on that particular form of execution or are you just going with execution in general?

 

Let me assume that you are just thinking execution as a general thing for the moment. From doing some googling, I gather that South Africa does not do judicial executions. Apparently, you do have the occasional mob rule execution (which apparently involve pinning the victim in a tire, filling it with gasoline and lighting it on fire). Perhaps you think that execution is swift and just?

 

As a resident of one of the last industrialized nations that still does judicial executions, I can tell you that it is never swift and despite the delay, it is still not certain to be just.

 

Let me consider a case where someone robs a bank and kills the witnesses on security video. Then sure, if we can off the guy, there is no question of guilt. However, many death penalty cases are not so clear. Even today, we are still executing people who are later proved to have been innocent after they are dead.

 

That aside, a judicial execution is a rare thing that is subject to many level of control to make sure that we are really doing what must be done. There is a general procedure and specifics that vary from one state to another. For brevity, let me run through the general procedure:

 

First there will be a trial to determine actual guilt. Then there will be a second process to determine if execution is warranted. Assuming that we get to that point, there are several further steps that must happen before we can execute someone.

 

The original trial is subject to a process of legal appeals which is the same as any criminal trial regardless of what the sentence may be. But I will skip over those details.

 

Then the death sentence has to be reviewed. Twice.

 

First by a panel of judges to determine if it is even a reasonable verdict.

 

This point needs to be covered in some detail. Advocates of the death penalty often have ideas such as deterring others from committing murders or the survivors attaining psychological closure (whatever that even means) . However, those are political opinions and are not proper opinions for matters of justice.

 

The real deal here is that we reserve executions for only the very worst of crimes. Stuff like a guy who robs a gas station and while the clerk has already surrendered and is laying face down on the floor is shot by the perp, not to remove a witness (such crimes usually being on camera anyway) but simply because the perp wanted the clerk dead. That kind of crap merits execution in more than half of the US.

 

Second, there will need to be a higher level of review by a state empowered panel of experts on the matter of execution. Lawyers, psychiatrists and other professionals with relevant experience to determine if there are additional factors that should be considered but which would not have come out at trial.

 

The expert panel might find that the convicted criminal might be too mentally retarded to know that killing people is wrong. The could find the the criminal is mentally ill to the point where they cannot understand the reason why the state wants to execute them. Other reason could come out as well.

 

If the criminal gets past all of that and they still are facing an execution, then there are still appeals that they can file.

 

They can apply for a legal procedure called Habeas Corpus, which basically means in this context “don't kill me”. They will still be facing a possibility of life in prison but they will not be executed.

 

They can apply for executive clemency, which means that the governor of the state and/or the president can simply say, “we are not going to kill this guy”. Again, that only remove the death penalty, not the conviction and they still have to spend decades in jail.

 

Now the fact is that this process takes quite a bit of time and many resources.

 

Does execution save the state money compared to keeping a person in jial for the rest of their life? Not by a long shot. The whole deal takes up so much cash that it turns out to be far cheaper to just lock ther person up and throw away the key. Usually by several fold.

 

Does execution give the survivors closure? Well, if they live to see the execution it is a very personal matter that is up to the individual. If they get that, then I suppose that I should be happy for them. However the fact is that the whole process of actually getting to the execution can take over twenty years. Often times, the parents of a murder victim simply do not live long enough to see the criminal executed.

 

If closure is what they are after, then they have to suffer in relative silence while the whole process play out. They will suffer in the full knowledge that ant any of about a dozen points, the sentence can be overturned or simply set aside by executive fiat.

 

That and the fact that the general trend over the past century has been to move towards something that is considered to be a more humane (read nice way to off someone) form of execution. Basically, we are going to judicially off people but we are going to do so in a way that we can feel good about the matter.

 

Where I stand on the matter is that I don't really know if we should be judicially be offing people. If that shall be public policy then it should be considered on a case-by-case deal. However, the idea that we can have feel good executions does not sit well with me.

  1. Those states which have the death penalty still have people committing death eligible crimes, so it is not a great deterrent.

  2. Those states that do not have the death penalty spend far less keeping the worst people locked up for the rest of their days, so it can't be argued reasonably on a cost basis.

  3. Those states that do execute people do not provide any assurance for the survivors of terrible crimes, so it cannot be argued on a closure basis.

  4. Those states that do have a death penalty are moving to the “nicest way” to off criminals. So I fail to see much merit in punishment. Pretty much we are going to kill you but we are going to kill you nicely. Yah, whatever.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: Answers in

Kapkao wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
then prison is just about as good as killing them.

 

No, not really.

 

OK, you destroyed the context by ripping the pull quote that way.

 

If keeping child molesters away from kids is to be the goal, then killing them is an extra move beyond simply locking them up where they can't do that any more.

 

Consider the Catholic church scandal.

 

A priest gets caught boning kids. Due to the doctrine of redemption, he can say that he is sorry and promises never to do it again. Then he can say that it is clearly his calling to minister to young boys so he gets put in a youth ministry in another state. Since all the records are sealed under canon law, nobody knows what the deal is.

 

The bishop who gets the guy is only told that he is being relocated but not why. Then the cycle starts all over again. Many priests have gone through the cycle several times and the only chance of them being detected would be if it all happened under a single archbishop and the matter was actually called to his attention each time. If not, then the priest in question can maintain a career of molestation for decades.

 

On the other hand, if the church would take a stand on the matter, they could say the first time that a priest was caught, gee, we are sorry that you have that in your basic nature. However, we know of a monastery that needs a priest. You can be assigned there.

 

Done that way, no more kids will be getting the holy pole.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for that analysis,

Thanks for that analysis, Answers.

I was sure I'd from a few sources quite some time ago that the extra overhead involved in death-penalty trials, at least in the US, made the process more expensive than life imprisonment, but I didn't feel I had time to check it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Yah, you are, of course

 Yah, you are, of course welcome bobSpence1. That is basically how we deal with the matter over here.

 

It is more expensive that the alternatives and it fails to meet any of the social goals that advocates claim.

 

As I say, I don't know how I would come down on the mater if I was picked for a jury. However, I would not be willing to rule in favor of the deal unless I was willing to do the deed myself. Setting up a situation where a prison employee acts as the proxy for what I decide is simply placing a level of acceptance between me and the decision that I might make.

 

Does that come off as barbaric? I really hope so because that is the way that I mean it. Being willing to think in something approaching a logical manner about whether someone needs to be killed years later can never be anything other than barbaric. In fact, I really hope that the idea comes off as far more barbaric than a “mob justice” execution could ever hope to be.

 

You should possibly consider yourself to be in a good place because you can't ever be called to serve on a death qualified jury. Such is a luxury which I do not have. I could possibly get a letter next week that basically says that I am dropped in the soup. Then I have to make a moral choice.

 

Wow! I am thinking about this in a way that I have not before. This is not an easy thing.

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
However, many death penalty cases are not so clear. Even today, we are still executing people who are later proved to have been innocent after they are dead.

That's profoundly rare, and even arguable.  Most people are exonerated *before* execution, and after execution there just isn't enough active investigation to prove anything most of the time.

That said, while some of them may be innocent of the crimes for which they were executed, most people who are executed are career criminals, deadbeats, alcoholics, etc.  People with clean records don't typically get put on death roe for a first offense with anything but immaculate proof.

I'm not convinced that we execute any decent and law abiding citizens.  In that sense, I don't really disagree with the death penalty.

 

However, logistically, its efficacy is highly dubious, and the cost issue is absurd.

 

 

 

 


Nialler
Posts: 94
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Answers in Gene

Blake wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
However, many death penalty cases are not so clear. Even today, we are still executing people who are later proved to have been innocent after they are dead.

That's profoundly rare, and even arguable.  Most people are exonerated *before* execution, and after execution there just isn't enough active investigation to prove anything most of the time.

That said, while some of them may be innocent of the crimes for which they were executed, most people who are executed are career criminals, deadbeats, alcoholics, etc.  People with clean records don't typically get put on death roe for a first offense with anything but immaculate proof.

I'm not convinced that we execute any decent and law abiding citizens.  In that sense, I don't really disagree with the death penalty.

 

However, logistically, its efficacy is highly dubious, and the cost issue is absurd.

 

There have been many cases in the UK of people convicted of the most serious crimes who were subsequently exonerated. We're not speaking of people simply convicted because of witness evidence either. We're talking of people convicted on forensic evidence. The case of the Birmingham Six is a classic example.  They would certainly have been executed had that option been available to the Judge. They went through various appeals suffering failure after failure.

Eventually it was shown that the forensic evidence was demonstrably false.

Ditto the Guildford Four who had confessions beaten out of them. British law is littered with cases like this. If the police need a conviction they have proven track record in beating confessions out of people, of planting evidence, of employing incompetent and/or corrupt forensics experts.

 

In the cases I cited they presented what seemed an unanswerable case against the defendants. In the case of the Guilford Four the judge when passing sentence even bemoaned the fact that they hadn't been tried for treason - a charge which still carried the death penalty.

 

These people would be dead had the death penalty been available to the courts.

 

Even evidence which appears to be cast-iron can be bad. It may have been in the form of forced confessions, or in the form of forensic data knowingly misinterpreted by an expert.

 

When you sentence a person to death you also make an ultimately positive declaration about the personal probity of every single person involved in the prosecution. I don't know of a single police service that merits such a declaration.

btw, no response to my comment that death for paedophiles might mean that more raped children end up dead?