An American Federal Prosecutor arranges to have sex with a 5-year- old

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

He was attempting to make arrangements with the 'mother' for the first time. Saying he has done it many times before implies multiple victims. By his own words he is a repeat offender.

According to the law he is not a repeat offender. And for the sake of this argument would not be considered a repeat offender. If you catch someone who has murdered someone, but said to someone that he has murdered 5 people, you can't put him in prison for 150 years. People lie. I'm not necessarily giving him the benefit of the doubt, but if our law system was designed by the people in this thread he would be killed because is in capable of being rehabilitated. Which I have doubts believing.

[Azure]

Didn't Tranny start a thread on this....

FATA!

Actually I have no idea. I'll go look.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=47305

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Give YOUR head a shake buddy. You are comparing humans to animals.

Humans are animals. I'm not sure how anyone could suggest otherwise. I think the comparison of a sick animal to a sick human being is relevant, because there are some situations where society benefits as a whole with the removal of an individual from the collective.

Like baby rapers.

You have no idea. Most pedophilies are they way they are because someone else did it to them when they were very young.

The majority of pedophiles weren't abused as children. It is true that some were, and that there are clear cycles of violence that perpetuate. But you have jumped to the conclusion that all offenders have the excuse that they were once victims too.

It simply isn't true.

Do you have any concept of forensic psychology?

Yes, I do.

Most ****ed up people in this world are the way they are because of tramatic childhood experiences. They did not choose for those things to happen to them. Like you said, they are the way they are....they cannot help it. This doesn't mean that they cannot choose to act on their impulses, they DO have that choice and if they violate someone they need to be removed from society...forever.

I agree. Lets remove them permanently with 100% certainty and break the cycle of violence against kids.

But don't be so quick to say someone deserves death. How would you feel if some freak molested you as a small child and screwed you mental for life? Do you think you should be put down like a sick animal or atleast be allowed to live without risk of hurting others? Who knows, someday they may beable to cure this.

I'm sure the cure for homosexuality is right behind (sarcasm). Lets get real - there isn't going to be a magic bullet that "cures" pedophillia any more than years of work in psychology has cured depression.

Long enough term? Sure, we might get some sort of brain shocking implant or other sci fi thing. But that's a strawman. Far enough out anything's possible.

In the meantime I don't see any big loss in losing a few child skinners from the gene pool.

I have zero tolerance for sexual predators aswell, that doesnt mean they deserve a death sentence.

In my mind executing child molesters is completely justified for the reasons above

• It's incurable.
  
• It's preyed upon our weakest individuals.
  
• It is deliberately thought out and pre planned.

I guess you'd rather have society support these freaks in prison - where they have access to the internet, the possibility of parole, etc etc, to the tune of 80 grand a year.

I'm sure the next little girl who gets raped with give you a big "thanks" for being so enlightened.

Where do you draw the line???? Does some guy deserve death because he took one picture of a naked child?

Oh look - the slippery slope argument. Wow, big surprise. You point out who is suggesting the death penalty for a dude looking at a naked child, and I'll answer your question.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Humans are animals. I'm not sure how anyone could suggest otherwise. I think the comparison of a sick animal to a sick human being is relevant, because there are some situations where society benefits as a whole with the removal of an individual from the collective.

Ok...here we go....you were the one comparing them to unintelligent animals and then when I say they are not the same you go with......well we are animals aren't we.....good way to defend your position.

Originally Posted by flashpoint

The majority of pedophiles weren't abused as children. It is true that some were, and that there are clear cycles of violence that perpetuate. But you have jumped to the conclusion that all offenders have the excuse that they were once victims too.

It simply isn't true.

Really....do you have some proof? Because I have seen studies ranging from 20% to 65% of pedophiles had been abused either sexually or physically as a child. So don't sit on your high horse and say "it simply isn't true"

Several studies have confirmed that pedophiles are very likely to have been victims of violence and sex abuse as children, in a victim-to-perpetrator cycle. If the victims of the perpetrators are neglected and lack supervision, along with abuse by a female, and witness violence among family members (as it often happens), they are more likely to develop real pedophilia, becoming the sexual aggressor as an adult to accomplish this emotional shift.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Which...ia-46799.shtml

There are several theories for the cause of Pedophilia with non of them being confirmed. So again you have no basis to make your statement.

Originally Posted by flashpoint

I agree. Lets remove them permanently with 100% certainty and break the cycle of violence against kids.

We can remove them from society by indefinate incarceration....not by murdering them.

Originally Posted by flashpoint

I'm sure the cure for homosexuality is right behind (sarcasm). Lets get real - there isn't going to be a magic bullet that "cures" pedophillia any more than years of work in psychology has cured depression.

Oh, because you have a PhD in psychology? Ok......now you are starting to sound like Tom Cruise......psychology has made huge steps in the treatment of depression both through pharmaceutical drugs and psychotherpy.

Originally Posted by flashpoint

Long enough term? Sure, we might get some sort of brain shocking implant or other sci fi thing. But that's a strawman. Far enough out anything's possible.

Lets just kill everyone person with psycholpathic dendancies then because we dont have a cure for them. Good lord man.

Originally Posted by flashpoint

In the meantime I don't see any big loss in losing a few child skinners from the gene pool.

You might not see a loss but I think the people that you are advocating murdering might see a loss.

Originally Posted by flashpoint

In my mind executing child molesters is completely justified for the reasons above

• It's incurable.
• It's preyed upon our weakest individuals.
• It is deliberately thought out and pre planned.

Again...lets kill all people with who are diagnosed as psychopaths....becuse the chance of being able to cure them are the same as pedophiles. They prey on the weak and vulnerable (usualy the elderly) and their actions are deliberately thought out and pre planned.

Originally Posted by flashpoint

I guess you'd rather have society support these freaks in prison - where they have access to the internet, the possibility of parole, etc etc, to the tune of 80 grand a year.

They should have access to the internet and it costs more to run someone through the death penatly process than it does to keep them incarcerated for 25 years. So that arguement is a no go.

Originally Posted by flashpoint

I'm sure the next little girl who gets raped with give you a big "thanks" for being so enlightened.

Putting these people in jail for ever would prevent them from hurting anyone else just as killing them would. So why would you post this suggesting that I want pedophiles to hurt little children.

[pope04]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Give YOUR head a shake buddy. You are comparing humans to animals.

You have no idea. Most pedophilies are they way they are because someone else did it to them when they were very young. They are hardwired because some freak show molested them when they were young and now you want to give them a death sentence because they were a victim in the past....unbelievable. Do you have any concept of forensic psychology? Most ****ed up people in this world are the way they are because of tramatic childhood experiences. They did not choose for those things to happen to them. Like you said, they are the way they are....they cannot help it. This doesn't mean that they cannot choose to act on their impulses, they DO have that choice and if they violate someone they need to be removed from society...forever.

But don't be so quick to say someone deserves death. How would you feel if some freak molested you as a small child and screwed you mental for life? Do you think you should be put down like a sick animal or atleast be allowed to live without risk of hurting others? Who knows, someday they may beable to cure this.

I have zero tolerance for sexual predators aswell, that doesnt mean they deserve a death sentence. Where do you draw the line???? Does some guy deserve death because he took one picture of a naked child?

Sad....really really sad.

Do you have kids?

I have a five-year-old, as son, and if anything happened to him like this I'd gladly spend 25 years in jail after I've wreaked vengeance.

[photon]

Originally Posted by pope04

Do you have kids?

I have a five-year-old, as son, and if anything happened to him like this I'd gladly spend 25 years in jail after I've wreaked vengeance.

An appeal to emotion isn't a good enough reason IMO.. I have a son and if someone did that to him I'd be angry too. Probably not angry enough to kill them, but who knows.

Exactly the reason why I wouldn't be in the best position to make a decision about what's appropriate in that situation.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by Burninator

According to the law he is not a repeat offender. And for the sake of this argument would not be considered a repeat offender. If you catch someone who has murdered someone, but said to someone that he has murdered 5 people, you can't put him in prison for 150 years. People lie. I'm not necessarily giving him the benefit of the doubt, but if our law system was designed by the people in this thread he would be killed because is in capable of being rehabilitated. Which I have doubts believing.

You are right the law will probably let the repeat offensive nature of this particular offender slip through the cracks. I am certainly not an advocate of the status quo.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by photon

Very true, he chooses to cross that line of violating another person's rights at the most extreme level possible (like a rapist does).

But in the past people saw homosexuals at the same level, if killing offenders was acceptable then homosexuals would have been being killed.

I'm just saying I don't think killing off things that we haven't learned how to deal with yet is a good thing for a society to do, as a society I think it crosses a line.

You're attracted to women or men.. imagine having that same attraction all your life, except you can't ever act on it, ever. If anyone knew you had that attraction you'd be cast out at best and killed at worst. Sexuality is core to the human psyche, but you can't express that ever. What kind of effect would that have on your mind? Hopefully you'd choose to be celebate and just live with it.

Some (most? who knows) aren't and eventually give in and act out.

I don't know I just hope that some day we can actually help people who do these kinds of things rather than sticking them in prison and hoping they somehow work it out and don't reoffend....

Sorry but I see the decisions being made by a homosexual (and for the record I do not believe homosexualism is a choice) and a pedophile as vastly different. One is simply satisfying urges with people of the same mind for lack of a better term, while the other is satisfying urges that can and do destroy lives of others incapable of protecting themselves.

As for victims of sexual abuse becoming predators themselves, I realise the odds are greater of that happening. Now what would the odds be of the original offender creating more potential offenders by permanently and irrevocably removing them from our existence? How would the odds of the victim becoming an offender be affected if, along with extensive, and comprehensive couselling and therapy, they knew their predator suffered far greater pain and torture than even they could imagine as a result of their actions? Would they no longer see becoming a predator themselves as a way of coming to terms with their assault? It's a worthwhile experiment in my opinion.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by pope04

Do you have kids?

I have a five-year-old, as son, and if anything happened to him like this I'd gladly spend 25 years in jail after I've wreaked vengeance.

No I don't have children.....yet. And yes, I can only imagine the emotions and the rage any parent would have if their child was violated like this. I to would no doubt feel the same way. But that is why decisions and laws are made under rational conditions.

If you murdered that person, there would be three lives destoyed not just 1. If you went to prison you would prevent your son from having the support he needed from his father and you would make matters even worse not to mention you teach your child that revenge is how you solve your problems.

[V]

I wouldn't even think twice if anyone did this to my three year old girl. So sue me, I don't care.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by V

I wouldn't even think twice if anyone did this to my three year old girl. So sue me, I don't care.

Thats the problem.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Sorry but I see the decisions being made by a homosexual (and for the record I do not believe homosexualism is a choice) and a pedophile as vastly different. One is simply satisfying urges with people of the same mind for lack of a better term, while the other is satisfying urges that can and do destroy lives of others incapable of protecting themselves.

Read what I wrote I didn't say they were the same at all. Please don't place words in my mouth, especially words like that.

I said there was a time when people saw homosexuality the same, and if killing people that society considered "broken" was an accepted practice, then there'd be many groups of people that would be being killed simply because we don't understand. In the case of homosexuals, because then it wasn't understood that it's not evil, and in the case of pedophiles because we don't have a way to help them yet.

As for victims of sexual abuse becoming predators themselves, I realise the odds are greater of that happening. Now what would the odds be of the original offender creating more potential offenders by permanently and irrevocably removing them from our existence? How would the odds of the victim becoming an offender be affected if, along with extensive, and comprehensive couselling and therapy, they knew their predator suffered far greater pain and torture than even they could imagine as a result of their actions? Would they no longer see becoming a predator themselves as a way of coming to terms with their assault? It's a worthwhile experiment in my opinion.

I think that sets our society back rather than moving it forward. I would rather see real ways to help the victims and the perps, rather than some notion of revenge (their abuser suffered more than they did).

[V]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Thats the problem.

Meh, you see removing scum from the genepool as a problem. I see using taxpayer money to feed, clothe, shelter and entertain these scumbags as a problem. Good thing I'm not running the judicial system, I suppose.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by photon

Read what I wrote I didn't say they were the same at all. Please don't place words in my mouth, especially words like that.

I never put words in your mouth. I simply stated the major difference between the two circumstances, and why that difference really makes the comparison invalid. One is purposely hurting people, the other is not. Whether we understand their psyche or not doesn't change that fact.

Originally Posted by photon

I think that sets our society back rather than moving it forward. I would rather see real ways to help the victims and the perps, rather than some notion of revenge (their abuser suffered more than they did).

Perhaps, but there is also value in cutting your losses, and minimizing the potential for reoccurence. It's time the Risk vs. Reward ratio for the offenders is tweaked. I am more interested in the deterent than the revenge.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by V

Meh, you see removing scum from the genepool as a problem. I see using taxpayer money to feed, clothe, shelter and entertain these scumbags as a problem. Good thing I'm not running the judicial system, I suppose.

Well....like I posted earlier...it cost more to process someone on death row than it does to jail them for 25 years.....so you really have no argument there.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

I never put words in your mouth. I simply stated the major difference between the two circumstances, and why that difference really makes the comparison invalid. One is purposely hurting people, the other is not. Whether we understand their psyche or not doesn't change that fact.

You say it makes the "comparison invalid", but I didn't make a comparison at all. You are saying I DID make a comparison, which I did not, so you are putting words in my mouth, or missing my point entirely.

Who is the judge of what things are worthy of instant death as a punishment in society? Who decides? What happens when things like knowledge and values change? Oh sorry, too bad about all those people that were killed now that we found out their behaviour was a result of Cause A.

Or does none of that matter?

Perhaps, but there is also value in cutting your losses, and minimizing the potential for reoccurence. It's time the Risk vs. Reward ratio for the offenders is tweaked. I am more interested in the deterent than the revenge.

Not so much risk vs. reward as cost vs. benefit. Why don't we kill all violent offenders? Or all repeat criminals? Huge deterrent, huge benefit. So why don't we? What's the cost that isn't worth paying?

As for "deterrent"... what deterrent? Being cast out from society, hated by everyone, no chance of ever getting better, no one willing to help, every chance of being caught, put into prison to likely die at the hands of inmates, hating yourself, living with the damage done to others.. how much more deterrent can you can you create? Why doesn't all of that deter them already? Maybe the problem is seated much deeper?

Killing them all is a middle ages kind of response.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Photon,

Respectfully, you tried to parallel homosexuality and pedophilia, and how society perceives and deals with them. Can you not see the fundamental difference between them? Can you not see one requires severe reaction while the other does not? Even when homosexuality wasn't given the level of acceptance it has today, was it ever considered as evil as raping children?

There is a reason homosexuality has obtained the higher level of acceptance than child rape. Without putting words in anyone's mouth, I hope we can at least agree on that.

... and for that I do not see how your parallel has any bearing on this topic.

As far as who gets to be the judge, well it certainly isn't me, and never will be, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about the manner in which we proceed.

I am not going to get into the slippery slope argument with you and draw a line where people do and do not deserve to die. I will just simply say this particular man, in this particular case is on the wrong side of that line.

You may call it a middle aged response, but protecting the right to live of monsters such as this man, and keeping the potential alive for reoccurance is not what I consider progress.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by V

Meh, you see removing scum from the genepool as a problem. I see using taxpayer money to feed, clothe, shelter and entertain these scumbags as a problem. Good thing I'm not running the judicial system, I suppose.

Why do death penalty proponents always bring the money angle into it?
It's NOT CHEAPER to give someone the death penalty!!!!

[photon]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Photon,

Respectfully, you tried to parallel homosexuality and pedophilia, and how society perceives and deals with them. Can you not see the fundamental difference between them? Can you not see one requires severe reaction while the other does not? Even when homosexuality wasn't given the level of acceptance it has today, was it ever considered as evil as raping children?

I give up. Of course I can see the fundamental difference between them! I didn't try to parallel them at all, I only said that homosexuality USED to be viewed by most of society (incorrectly) the same as pedophilia and that if killing to clean out the gene pool was accepted they would have been killed as well.

Ignore that then and take any other thing that nowadays we're more enlightened about, my point remains the same.

There is a reason homosexuality has obtained the higher level of acceptance than child rape. Without putting words in anyone's mouth, I hope we can at least agree on that.

Well of course! One's something private between two adults, the other is an act of violence.

... and for that I do not see how your parallel has any bearing on this topic.

Only that often what society views as wrong and (in your case) deserving of instant death with no recourse is changeable. What used to be thought of as horrible (say interracial marriage) is now commonplace and acceptable. I'm not discussing the rightness and wrongness of these things, I'm trying to discuss the wrongness of the idea of killing people based on things that are thought of as wrong at any given time.

In the future I would hope that being abused is thought of as a terrible wrong, but the ability to help the victim is so great that the downside of the abuse is almost zero. At that point would killing the abuser be justified? Because the difference between then and now is only a matter of our ability to heal the mind.

As far as who gets to be the judge, well it certainly isn't me, and never will be, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about the manner in which we proceed.

I am not going to get into the slippery slope argument with you and draw a line where people do and do not deserve to die. I will just simply say this particular man, in this particular case is on the wrong side of that line.

You may call it a middle aged response, but protecting the right to live of monsters such as this man, and keeping the potential alive for reoccurance is not what I consider progress.

We can all have opinions, but our system of dealing with stuff like this has to be based on far more than opinion. Because slippery slope or not, that line has to be drawn (and already is in countries that have death penalties). I didn't say that we should be keeping the potential alive for re-offending. Find other options.

In my opinion, any time a society has to kill a member, even if for the greater good, is a failure of that society (be it war, capital punishment, or the crimes themselves).

[V]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Why do death penalty proponents always bring the money angle into it?
It's NOT CHEAPER to give someone the death penalty!!!!

I don't care which is cheaper. The idea of funding someone like that makes my skin crawl. I'm not sure why it matters which is cheaper.