In Britain Jimmy Saville's name is poison; in Ireland the Christian Brothers get to celebrate!

[bernadette]

If they're actually trying to hurt or murder them and you kill them in defence, that's clearly permitted in my view laid out earlier - so long as killing is the last resort. Killing because you lost the rag with them is a defence under provocation (in England anway).

But that's not what we are talking about here, we're talking about when they're already in custody or else not an immediate danger to anyone - then you have zero right to kill, in morality or in law - in the latter you would be convicted of murder. The state has no moral right whatsoever to kill a person already put out of harm's way.

Unlessm of course you merely mean that you have the right to lynch them because you believe that they are a danger to your or other children. In which case you're off the wall. Do you remember the paediatricians in Paulsgrove a few years back?...

Yes I remember it. I know the difference between paedophile and paediatrician too.

I am not saying lynch anyone I'm saying where a paedophile has been caught abusing a child more than twice in spite of serving prison sentences then that paedophile is beyond the help of pills or prison term.

[toxic avenger]

Yes I remember it. I know the difference between paedophile and paediatrician too.

I am not saying lynch anyone I'm saying where a paedophile has been caught abusing a child more than twice in spite of serving prison sentences then that paedophile is beyond the help of pills or prison term.

So keep them detained, where they are incapable of causing further harm, whether beyond help or not..

[bernadette]

So keep them detained, where they are incapable of causing further harm, whether beyond help or not..

Hanging is quicker, cheaper and safer.

[toxic avenger]

Hanging is quicker, cheaper and safer.

The death penalty in the USA, for example, costs four times as much as imprisonment for life, one of the reasons that bankrupt California is proposing to do away with it.

And hanging isn't safer for the person being hanged, is it?

The only possible reason for it is sheer bloody vengeance. It's uncivilised and it brutalises society, let alone the possibility of the death of innocent people. It is unacceptable in all its forms, and it is never going to be reinstated as EU membership precludes it.

[bernadette]

The death penalty in the USA, for example, costs four times as much as imprisonment for life, one of the reasons that bankrupt California is proposing to do away with it.

And hanging isn't safer for the person being hanged, is it?

The only possible reason for it is sheer bloody vengeance. It's uncivilised and it brutalises society, let alone the possibility of the death of innocent people. It is unacceptable in all its forms, and it is never going to be reinstated as EU membership precludes it.

How does it brutalise society? The UK had hanging until the sixties their society wasn't brutalised. I did say for paedophiles had been caught and found guilty twice previously. I also said I knew it wouldn't be reinstated.

[toxic avenger]

How does it brutalise society? The UK had hanging until the sixties their society wasn't brutalised. I did say for paedophiles had been caught and found guilty twice previously. I also said I knew it wouldn't be reinstated.

Children turned up at 19th Century public hangings and cheered the killing taking place before them.

In modern day American terms, here's a good answer...

http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Pu.../dppotter.html

[fluffybiscuits]

Only if it is agreed or sought by the person themselves. Compulsory sterilisation is not acceptable.

You are not taking away thier ability to be themselves nor are they beinf dehumanised. Its akin to giving someone medecine to treat an illness, its for their own benefit. Some patients with psychological conditions are detained if they are a danger to society, chemical castration may allow some sex offenders to resume normal life . Its a lot more human than banging them up in jail..

[bernadette]

Children turned up at 19th Century public hangings and cheered the killing taking place before them.

In modern day American terms, here's a good answer...

http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Pu.../dppotter.html

The thing about hanging child abusing scum is you can be quite, quite sure that it will not be abusing any more children. Its not like robbing a bank or mugging. A child is the most vulnerable in society its dishonest to pretend that locking a paedophile up for a few years protects all children for the future. It does not. Castration chemical or otherwise is not a good option and yours to leave them in the lap of luxury until the law takes mercy on them because of their 'good behaviour' is denying their sexuality which is something they would not do once released.

You are not talking about a curable illness.

[toxic avenger]

You are not taking away thier ability to be themselves nor are they beinf dehumanised. Its akin to giving someone medecine to treat an illness, its for their own benefit. Some patients with psychological conditions are detained if they are a danger to society, chemical castration may allow some sex offenders to resume normal life . Its a lot more human than banging them up in jail..

No, people with mental health issues are not capable of making a rational decision and need intervention from without in order to regain that capacity. Sex offenders/paedophiles are usually quite rational, and no such justification can be put forward to defend such medical or physical intervention on their bodies without their consent. What if the state decides that not just paedophiles, but criminals generally should be sterilised in order to prevent the criminal classes breeding? Why grant the state such a draconian right voluntarily?

[fluffybiscuits]

No, people with mental health issues are not capable of making a rational decision and need intervention from without in order to regain that capacity. Sex offenders/paedophiles are usually quite rational, and no such justification can be put forward to defend such medical or physical intervention on their bodies without their consent. What if the state decides that not just paedophiles, but criminals generally should be sterilised in order to prevent the criminal classes breeding? Why grant the state such a draconian right voluntarily?

That is where you are making the fatal mistake though to assume that we want to stop them from breeding. As was mentioned before the idea is to quell the sexual urges that a paedophile is experiencing in order to make them less attractive to children. There is no permenant quelling of libido and if someone in a position wanted a family they can come off it. Paedophiles are not capable of making a rational descision as their urges drive them to commit an act like sexual abuse or some other act . Paedophilia is a mental illness and as such should be treated as that with correct measures in place to help them accordingly.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

bernadette is right in pointing out that the only way to guarantee that a child abuser doesn't strike again is to execute them.

Try attacking the young of a sizeable animal in the wild and see where you get with your appeals procedure.

The reason the death penalty costs states so much in the US is because of the exhaustion of the legal system in costs of appeals.

I agree that the US is too ready with the death sentence and that where a capital crime is being decided all care should be taken to ensure a wrongful conviction is avoided. The US system falls down there too.

People like Ivan Payne on the other hand- there is no doubt there and he should have been executed a long time back.

[bernadette]

bernadette is right in pointing out that the only way to guarantee that a child abuser doesn't strike again is to execute them.

Try attacking the young of a sizeable animal in the wild and see where you get with your appeals procedure.

The reason the death penalty costs states so much in the US is because of the exhaustion of the legal system in costs of appeals.

I agree that the US is too ready with the death sentence and that where a capital crime is being decided all care should be taken to ensure a wrongful conviction is avoided. The US system falls down there too.

People like Ivan Payne on the other hand- there is no doubt there and he should have been executed a long time back.

Totally agree.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

No, people with mental health issues are not capable of making a rational decision and need intervention from without in order to regain that capacity. Sex offenders/paedophiles are usually quite rational, and no such justification can be put forward to defend such medical or physical intervention on their bodies without their consent. What if the state decides that not just paedophiles, but criminals generally should be sterilised in order to prevent the criminal classes breeding? Why grant the state such a draconian right voluntarily?

Then we could deal with that proposal as it arises. Paedophiles do not respond to psychological intervention or treatment. The same as serial killers don't.

If a dog has rabies in an area where it could attack children you destroy it. No questions asked. A paedophile is the human equivalent of a rabid dog. The only difference being that the victim is always sentenced to suffer the attack. For life.

A ten year jail sentence sees the paedophile released, given a new identify and allowed go free. This is not right. It isn't justified in terms of risk to the public.

[toxic avenger]

A number of you have now said that paedophilia is a mental illness, that paedophiles can not act rationally, even that they're the equivalent of a 'rabid dog'.

Does that not mitigate against their culpability for their acts? People with mental illness are not held fully responsible for their acts in law (in civilised societies, anyway), so it is logical then to conclude, on this reading, that paedophiles are not able to control their actions and must thus be treated as not guilty by reason of this mental affliction. In which case killing them is murder.

Or you could just hold,as I do, that they are fully responsible for their acts and are rational actors who should be dealt with as such - lock them up until they are provably not a danger to children...

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

A number of you have now said that paedophilia is a mental illness, that paedophiles can not act rationally, even that they're the equivalent of a 'rabid dog'.

Does that not mitigate against their culpability for their acts? People with mental illness are not held fully responsible for their acts in law (in civilised societies, anyway), so it is logical then to conclude, on this reading, that paedophiles are not able to control their actions and must thus be treated as not guilty by reason of this mental affliction. In which case killing them is murder.

Or you could just hold,as I do, that they are fully responsible for their acts and are rational actors who should be dealt with as such - lock them up until they are provably not a danger to children...

The only way a paedophile is not a danger to children is when they are removed from society. So far the judicial systems tend to jail and then release them after a period- You think Ivan Payne isn't a threat to children after his minimal jail sentences and he is living in some community under a false name?

Would you feel the same way if you had kids and noticed Ivan Payne had moved in across the road? I doubt it.

Paedophila is not a treatable mental affliction. There are no treatments despite the claims of various chancers trying to keep their paedos out of jail somehow.

You may not have noticed but mental illness of any kind can affect one in four adults at some point in their lives. Sometimes it is paranoia or delusion from identifiable sources such as drug abuse. Sometimes it can be something which is there but dormant such as schizophrenia. And then we have the serious pathologies.

A characteristic of paedophiles is their sometimes amazing capacity to deceive- to be able to work their way into a position of trust with children. The clear plan being their twisted version of 'sex' which isn't sex at all but rape and subjection of those who cannot defend themselves. Another characteristic of these pathologicals is to find a way to suggest to the victim that it was somehow the victim's fault.

They are closer to serial killers than the category of 'suffering' a mental illness. They do not recover because their urges are a part of what they developed into.

In the natural world, of which we are a part whether the dingbats like it or not, attacking the young of any family will get you mauled if not killed.

Because other fauna on this planet are smarter than we are in this respect- they know that a predator that views their young as meat is unlikely to go away unless it is fed. So it has be driven off or killed.