People attracted to kids, but with the self control to not act upon their attraction are "okay" (In the sense that they're not ruining lives for their pleasure). They're not the criminals. The ones that ruin other peoples lives with their actions are the people to be concerned about, and they are the criminals. They deserve punishment for their actions not their attractions. The "long arm of the law" seems to have trouble with paedophiles and prosecution, because to do so they need to have good reason to get the warrant to search the persons private property. I'm firmly of the belief that paedophilia in the 21st century is an easy thing to act upon, given the right time frame and resources. Anonymous punishing those who go unpunished because of the law enforcement groups inability to act is a karmic comeuppance - They deserve it, but they do not deserve to be beaten to death/killed/tortured as is advocated by so many irrational, scared, people. Therapy, monitoring, and if needs be, imprisonment for their inability to resist the temptation to act - That's the way to deal with paedophilia. No, no one wants it to happen to their kids, and no one should want it to happen to other peoples kids - But to kill someone for something that they simply lack the mental fortitude to control? That's harking back to killing homosexuals for, well, being homosexuals and engaging in the crime of sodomy. It's just not acceptable for a supposedly civilised society. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Children are unaware, innocent, easily led, powerless. To suggest that it's purely down to someone's lack of control over their own behaviour is a pretty weak excuse for them.
There is a fundamental difference though. The vast majority of homo and heterosexual sex is consensual. Children can not consent to sex as they do not understand what it is there fore it's all ways rape.
And this is why we need to treat paedophiles who act on their urges as they are, dangerous and devious members of society, who are predators against the weakest members of our society - children. I would turn a blind eye to a nonce being given a good beating, and I wouldn't have the slightest sense of guilt over it either. If a man or woman makes the concious decision to sexually attack children, then they must be prepared to suffer the consequences, whatever they may be. Having said that though, the mob mentality, and rough justice is a dangerous combination. Innocent people have been caught up in child sex scandals, and really suffered because of it. I've just been reading the news on BBC, and the government is to extend the life sentencing tariff, to include more crimes. There was mention of a 2 strike system for sexual offences, I think it should be just 1 for child sex offences. A sexually abused child never recovers from their abusers actions, so why should the abuser be given a second chance within our society?
Weak excuse/reason/whatever, it's still not a reason to kill someone. Yes, I understand that, and I did not suggest, at any stage, there was such a thing as consensual sex between an adult and a child - But to suggest someone be killed for being weak willed? **** me, man, that's really poor showing for a supposedly rational person. I see there's a difference, but there are similarities. People being killed for breaking the law, for example. Yes, homosexuality is perfectly okay between consenting adults, but even though paedophilia is not okay to act upon - That does not then make it right to kill the paedophile. Yes, if they have sex with a child or view someone having sex with a child deliberately, they deserve to be punished, but not killed. People willing to kill paedophiles are scared, and to quote Yoda: "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." Death is not a punishment.
Depends on which perspective from which you are involved. If someone abused my children, I would want blood, and would want the guilty person dead. I would go so far as to say I don't know whether I could be trusted not to try and follow through on this. My reason would be simple, my child would have permanent mental scars, as well as physical ones. They could go through their lives in turmoil, and all due to the acts of one person. My child's life could pan out vastly different to how it would have if they had not been attacked, and maybe much worse. For this reason, I would want the attacker dead. Call it revenge, blood lust or whatever, this is how I would feel. I suspect any other parent would do too, however much they may try to say otherwise. That is the paternal/maternal bond at play. It's much too easy to play the liberal and denounce the views of others, but until any of us are in the situation, none of us can say how we would react. For that reason alone, arguments like this are pretty futile to be honest.
I see rapists, including child molesters, as a serious problem. We have two choices: 1) People can work hard and attempt to rehabilitate/fix/control these problems. 2) The problem can be eliminated, and as a bonus/fringe benefit the money saved can go towards helping people that deserve it, such as sick people that haven't tried to kill or rape anybody perhaps Now just to point out the bleeding obvious, because it seems I need to do so: 1) I'm not suggesting that gay people should be killed, unless of course they are rapists or murderers. 2)I'm not suggesting to kill people in the interest of saving money. Just because saving money is a benefit, does not make it a reason. 3) I know this isn't going to happen, like others, we're just voicing our opinion. I know much time and money will be wasted on providing food, shelter and care for convicted rapists and murderers, and this sickens people like me. 4) realistically, I suppose I can hope they receive long sentences with hard labour, and at least this way they can possibly cover their costs.
So that paternal instinct somehow justifies killing someone? I strongly disagree, and am quite upset that anyone could even begin to suggest that murder, and let's not forget, that's exactly what it would be, is ever "acceptable". What if homosexuality was still a horrible nono like it was, would you still advocate beating people to death because they "disgust you"? It's disgusting that people think that way, more so than people being attracted to children. ****ing pathetic to even begin to suggest that you know enough to know who should live and who should die. "No one said it was" This entire thread seems to be filled with people advocating beating paedophiles to death because "it disgusts them" - If that isn't saying, regardless of everything, they should be killed.. Well, I simply cannot understand what is. "I don't think anyone is suggesting that weak willed people should be killed, and there definitely haven't been any suggestions that homo sexual, or left handed people be killed either btw" Would you please pay some attention to my previous posts? I quite clearly said that there are paedophiles who are weak willed and do not resist the temptation to violate a childs life for their pleasure - And that they are the bad guys, the criminals, the assholes, however you want to phrase it. BUT. There are paedophiles who do not act, view, or try and view anything to do with children being abused. Those are the "normal" ones that, despite being attracted to kids, do not deserve punishment. They're harming no one, and they deserve no harm nor being ostracised in return - Yet, so far as this thread portrays, it is apparently okay to beat the **** out of anyone attracted to kids for the sole reason that they are attracted to kids - Which is morally, and ethically, disgusting. Well, when you put it like that, why don't we just shoot alcoholics too? I mean, they're a burden on their family watching them die, they might drive and kill someone (And do, frequently), and if they were just shot then that'd save a lot of money on rehabilitation, and medical expenses. In fact, all that money (Which, while not a reason for shooting them, is a benefit of shooting them) could be spent on people who've learned to stop at two scotches, rather than two bottles! Killing someone is not punishment, it's a pathetic bloodlust that is just as disgusting as the crime. Long sentences and hard labour (So long as it wasn't "to the death" hard labour)? Fair enough. They've done damage that, no matter what, will never be completely healed. They deserve to be punished for it.
The way I see it, it takes a very strong will to rape someone, including violating a child. It's also a very sick and twisted will, but it's not a weak one. The weak part, are things like the criminal's respect for others and themselves. I can only assume others may feel the same, but when I admit that I'd kill someone for even attempting to harm my child, I'm not pretending that it would be civilized or mature behaviour, i'm just being honest. But yes, we can agree that long term hard labour would be a civilized punishment.
Given the social stigma against paedophilia, I'd have said it takes more will power to ignore your own urges to bend to societies rules than it does to follow your urge, regardless of what society has taught you is morally reprehensible. If I have children, of course I don't want them to be molested for someone else's pleasure, but were the worst to happen, I'd want justice - Not blood. Justice is not a dead body. Not yet, anyway.
Hmmm. Interesting perspective. I differ somewhat. If its someone elses child, I'd hurt him - badly. If it was my child, he's a dead man. I can honestly say i would take the life of a person who would harm my future children or family's children. Of course i would go to prison, but it would be worth it. Just knowing that i've rid the earth of someone like that is enough for me..
I wouldn't want to go to prison for it, I'd try to get off on some sort of self defence or insanity plea. If I didn't think I could get away with it, I'd just beat up the rapist, take the good behaviour bond, let them go to prison... then visit the prison, and tell the other inmates what I think of that guy and that I'll be back with cigarettes or whatever else they like that I'm allowed to give them. @liratheal Someone who is weak willed, will cave in to peer pressure, and since society frowns upon pedophiles, a weak willed pedophile would conform to society.
Ever ? war, self defence? you would never kill anyone for the greater good of the many? are all people to be allowed to live regardless of the harm they have or will do to others? Yes it is murder, if anyone don't think so they are in my eyes deluding themselves, but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world where a slap over the wrist is enough. people are talking about paedophiles whom DO act, any paedophile that does not act has done no wrong. like someone who would like to strike someone else but never does so, no harm done nothing to punish. You cannot and should never punish anyone from thinking, on for acting on their thoughts. Remember the difference between fact and opinions here, that you think that killing is not punishment does not make it a fact. This threat is about opinions and you may take anything said here as such, including mine. But I can kinda follow you in it, however for me death is as you said not a punishment, but a way to make sure a person who will never be integrated into society without hurting others is neutralized with the lowest possible costs to society. Jails are expensive and I would rather use the money on schools than keeping certain individuals alive.
Precisely. It's almost exactly the same thing with addiction; drugs (legal or otherwise), tobacco, alcohol, etc. I know the horrifying deaths and diseases that smoking can cause; I know the effect it has on the body; my grandmother died from lung cancer because she smoked heavily. None of that - none of it at all - stops me from diving outside every two hours or so for a quick smoke break. I say "almost exactly the same thing" because, obviously, smoking and paedophilia are vastly different things. However you cannot deny that the thought processes are very similar: you know it is wrong and socially unacceptable, but the desire doesn't go away. Obviously it's not a crime to smoke (although it certainly seems to be going that way - topic for another day), but it is a crime to molest a child. The punishments could certainly be strengthened; I have no problem with longer sentences, provided that guilt beyond reasonable doubt is proved (as with any crime). But it must still be handled by the law. Justice is not dealt out by angry pitchfork-wielding villagers, it's dealt out by the law.
That's ridiculous Light up a cigarette almost anywhere outdoors, and see if anyone says anything to you. If anything, you'll most likely be asked by someone for a light, or for a spare cigarette. Light up a cigarette in any indoor public place, and you'll probably be asked to put it out or leave. If anything, smoking gives people an opportunity to go outside and socialize with people, and be instantly accepted by many. Similar scenarios with drinking alcohol at a bar or a party, etc. If anyone sees you molest a child, indoor or outdoor... bad things are very likely to happen
Actually, in my recent experience, people are just as likely to treat me with the same disdain as if I'd dropped my kecks and squeezed out a fresh steaming turd on the pavement. But I think you miss my point; I'm talking about the psychology, not the act.
I was merely pointing out that compare pedophilia to homosexuality is not really a fair comparison. I agree with you, its not an excuse to murder someone.
How can you compare child molestation to smoking? I can only presume that the people who think it is outrageous to want to murder someone who attacks your child doesn't have children themselves. If someone ever went near my children in that way I'd go Clyde Shelton on their ass.
I can see that you're trying to compare the need, the requirement for something to satisfy someone's lust, whether it be nicotine or molesting a child. It's just that the comparisons you're trying to draw on are poles apart. Child molesting is far, far and away more severe than just being socially unnacceptable. The punishment against paedophiles does seem to be very lenient. I would agree that death is OTT. I'd suggest a life imprisonment for each life affected.
