should convicted paedophiles be executed and if so how?

Answer 1

Let's just say..... you are 18 and have a 17 year old g/f. Would YOU want to be considered a child molester? That's what these laws do. READ UP:

Sexual Predator Hysteria

It’s NOT only kids who need education on the dangers in this world – ALL of them! Yes, they do need education about proper behaviors on the net, also. However, PARENTS/Educators need more accurate comprehension of the TRUE nature of “sexual predators”.

As an educator and/or parent Start YOUR education here:

http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/?20064


Test your Sexual Offender Intelligence Quotient here:

http://www.soab.state.pa.us/soab/cwp/browse.asp?a=3&bc=0&c=39615&soabNav=|

Move along to these quotes from:

http://portlandme.wpadmin.about.com/?comments_popup=257612:

>According to data compiled by the U.S. Justice Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex ), the high recidivism rate of sex offenders is a myth. Sex offenders have an overall recidivism rate of less than 6 percent over three years, and 40 percent of those who do re-offend do so in the first year after their release. More detailed analysis confirms that a sex offender’s likelihood of committing a new crime decreases the longer he or she remains free; in other words, if they’re going to commit another crime, it will probably happen in the first few years after their release.

Of course, this sort of data doesn’t make for good sound bytes for politicians seeking to foster a “get tough” image to bolster their chances for election or re-election; but it’s the truth, as much as they may deny it.

Nonetheless, the supposedly high sex offender recidivism rates that politicians seem to pull out of thin air (when was the last time you heard one cite an actual study to validate the numbers they quote?) have created an environment where the mere presence of an individual who committed a sex crime five, ten, or twenty years ago is enough to cast a community into a state of panic. Given the misinformation and lies of the politicians (and the media’s dutiful reporting of same), it’s no wonder that some, at least, feel that vigilante justice is an appropriate response.

In the end, it all comes down to a simple question: Should our government be in the business of facilitating vigilantism? Certainly the legislators who wrote these laws will argue that that was not their intention, but the effect is the same.

These laws remind me of the “attractive nuisance” concept in liability law. People who work with potentially dangerous equipment (circular saws, pesticides, chemicals, and so forth) are required to safeguard those items to prevent curious children (and others) from hurting themselves. If a carpenter leaves his circular saw unattended and a child picks it up and cuts himself, the carpenter is liable for costs and damages related to the child’s injuries. The argument that it wasn’t the carpenter’s intent that a child pick up and play with his circular saw is irrelevant. By leaving it unattended, he created an attractive nuisance; and he is therefore liable.

Creating a public hysteria about sex offenders, and then publishing their names and addresses on the Web, where anyone can access that information without so much as providing identification, is akin to leaving a power saw unattended. Anyone — stable or unstable, honorable or malicious — can access that information and use it in any way they like. This opens the door not only to vigilantism, but also to innocent people being killed because of mistaken identity.

If this information is to be made public at all (personally, I think it should only be available to law enforcement professionals), then the only safe balance between the public’s “right to know” and the concept of the rule of law is to release the information only to adults who physically walk into a police station, present identification, and make an inquiry about a particular individual. This creates accountability and helps safeguard against random vigilantism.

In other words, if the neighbor down the street seems to be a bit too friendly towards your children and you want to check him out, that seems to me a legitimate use of sex offender registration information. But to simply publish all of this data on the Web, with no safeguards to prevent it from being used irresponsibly or criminally, is unconscionable in a society whose conduct supposedly is based upon the rule of law.

Comment by Bugsy — May 4, 2006 @ 10:01 am

Anyone who values their liberties and who has studied history should be afraid - very afraid — of these laws.

Long before Hitler killed the first Jew in Nazi Germany, he paved the way for the wholesale disenfranchisement of human beings by — you guessed it — attacking the rights of sex offenders. From 1933 through 1936, a series of amendments were passed to Paragraphs 173 through 188 of the German Penal Law specifically targeting homosexuals and others determined to be “sexual deviants.”

The sex offender laws created under the Nazi Third Reich may as well have been the model for “Megan’s Law.” They established the first sex offender registry, required sex offenders to register their whereabouts and to wear pink triangles, and established draconian punishments for sex crimes that included long prison terms, loss of voting rights, confinement in concentration camps, and (sometimes) the death penalty. All of these laws were justified by the Nazi’s in the same way that our present-day politicians justify Megan’s Law: to protect the children from sexual predators.

Of course, Hitler had other things in mind, as history shows us; and targeting sex offenders was just a way to establish the precedent of wholesale deprivation of human rights in preparation for his later attacks against the people he truly hated.

It’s doubtful that the German people would have acquiesced to Hitler’s rounding up Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, trade unionists, and so forth, and sending them off to death camps in 1933 when he first ascended to power. Hitler had to first establish a precedent that some people were subhuman and unworthy of human rights — and he started with the most universally despised group he could find.

Anyone who thinks that this couldn’t happen again is delusional. The simple fact is that history shows that you can’t single out one group for deprivation of civil rights without weakening those rights for everyone else.

Comment by Liberty Lover — May 7, 2006 @ 8:54 am<

And while you're at it take a long hard look at these and THINK about the consequences of the afore mentioned Hysteria created by online 'S-exual O-ffender L-ists':

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1855771&page=1

After you have read that one just think; If some vigilante found their next victim and instead found someone else at home, what would happen then???

And THINK about this one while you're at it:

http://saltlakecity.about.com/b/a/257300.htm

Take this Poll on SOLs:

http://saltlakecity.about.com/library/blsub/blpoll/blpollsexoffender2.htm

Or just view the Results:

http://saltlakecity.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http%3A%2F%2Fsaltlakecity.about.com%2Flibrary%2Fblsub%2Fblpoll%2Fblpollsexoffender2.htm&poll_id=5911059616&poll=3&submit1=Submit+Vote

At the time I took this poll a whopping 60% of us felt these lists did more harm than good!!!


Now for FBI info:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm

If the FBI continues to make lists of people, we ALL will find ourselves on at least ONE of them!!! Which list will YOU be on???

All of this flies directly in the face of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution/Bill of Rights they forged for our country to begin with.

http://findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Giving up your rights that millions have fought for just so you can 'feel safe' is the very definition of cowardice.

BTW: A No Brainer: Predators Prefer Dimwitted Prey

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060802_brain_prey.html

This “list making” is growing:

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2532

Answer 2

Not at 1st. I believe that most pedophiles are sick, and should be viewed/treated as such. I think they should be placed in a prison hospital and tested. I think a full range of medical tests should be run on them, like MRIs, CT Scans, Testosterone levels, etc. I like to believe that science may be able to pin-point a specific problem, which is responsible for this aberrant behavior, and w/ that knowledge, hopefully, identify pedophilia and prevent it from happening. I don't believe pedophiles are evil, I believe they are sick. Clearly, their actions are base and wicked. But I believe they may not be able to help themselves.

Furthermore, the definition of pedophilia seems a bit cloudy, given that legal age of consent varies from place to place. If a 14-year old male/female has consensual sex w/ a 20-year old male/female, I don't consider that pedophilia. If it's consensual, it's OK. There are a slew of other possible situations like this, which are "against the law", but morally sound. For example: Last summer, while on the French Riviera, I became rather fond of a young Italian girl. She was very pretty and had a tight, tone, tan body, which was real pleasing to view. She was around 15 and I was 28. NOTHING happened, but it might have. Would that be pedophilia? I say no. It’s not always black and white.

Answer 3

No

They should be put in prison for a long time with none of these crap luxuries they get now, no tv no playstation, no dvd player and no bleedin video.(this should go for every bloody prisioner)

I used to believe that the family of the person they hurt should be left alone in a room with them to do as they wish however wouldn't that make the family stoop to there level? Isn't that against basic human rights and despite what someone has done paedophile or murderer or any other crime for that matter don't they at least deserve there human rights?

I do believe our country is way too soft on criminals and that our system is down the pan however you need to be careful on where you would draw the line. If we started killing people where would we end up? Public flogging, Public hanging? Wouldnt that make the people who kill them murderes too? it's just too touchy a subject and opens a huge can of worms.

And before i get flamed for suggesting the criminals should have there basic human rights, I have been both kidnapped and raped and as hard as it is to live with i am a strong person and can move on with my life but i think i would find it harder if i knew that both these people had been killed.

Answer 4

They are sick and must be kept away from kids, but they are still humans and should not be treated badly like these people have suggested.

Common sense will tell you they can't be trusted around kids, but who except an insane person would be driven to do that? Punishment will not help. Capital punishment is too severe and cannot be taken back in case they are later found innocent. Also, if they are wrongly convicted and executed, the case is closed and the real perpetrator goes free.

Maybe they should have to work for victim's restitution.

My sympathies to all the tragic victims of paedophiles...

Answer 5

Do you people who recommend such heinous treatment for these sickies think you are better than they are?
It requires a scientific approach to root out the cause of their behaviour, however, until a cure can be found, I think chemical castration would be a merciful way of dealing with their abnormal cravings. From what I've read, they don't WANT to hurt kids, they just can't help themselves.
If you're a smoker, for example, and are craving for a cigarette, how long can you hold off lighting one before you start to go crazy?

Answer 6

as with any crime it would depend as has been said if it is 2 underage kids no, if it is an adult to an infant yes and why do so many of these answers refer ONLY to MEN - WOMEN ABUSE AS WELL - the legal system is unequal if a death sentence is pronounced it should be whatever method is used for any other crime

Answer 7

I discussed this with a friend of mine.

We came to the conclusion that there's only two ways to go here - execute them and put them out of every one else's misery, or round them up and put them on an island so they can be with one another.

Answer 8

Yes, they should be put in front of the public to be humiliated before being tortured to death then the rest of em might think twice before even thinking about it

Answer 9

If its proved then yes. Either atart with cutting their eyelids off and ask them what they're staring at and then their balls. Then finish off with 3 months in the electric chair.

Answer 10

1

Answer 11

I worked with a fellow who said Devil's Island was really a good idea, and should never have been discontinued. He said when people have demonstrated they have no intention of ever living in peace with society's rules, and following society's rules, stick them on Devil's Island where they will certainly meet people more fierce than themselves who also don't wish to follow society's rules.

And, pedophiles, for example, will probably receive free gender change surgery, and those who don't bleed to death, will make really good honey's for the really tough guys.

There won't be any kids there and they will serve a useful purpose at least within their group, heh, heh.