English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-09-29 19:40:00 · 29 answers · asked by Doh! 2 in Politics & Government Civic Participation

29 answers

This is a question that many have an opinion on. Pedophiles and other sex offenders can not be rehabilitated. You can find many articles on the web about the rehabilitation model of the 1960's that talk about this. In my opinion chemical and physical castration will only take away one of the methods that pedophiles use to abuse children. Their brains still desire children and it can be acted on in other ways. Hard question to answer. Its an individual decision that at some point will have to be addressed on a national or state level.

2006-09-29 20:12:17 · answer #1 · answered by Cat 3 · 3 0

It would make it easy for your ex to get rid of you.... all he or she has to do is falsely accuse you and given that even law courts work on the basis that some mud sticks, an innocent person can be legally killed at the manipulation of your ex spouse.

How many people really trust their ex's not to use that kind of leverage on them?

Or it's an alternative to piano wire for political opponents!

It would also mean that had he visited the UK, Elvis, and Jerry Lee Lewis (who did visit) would have been executed, because we consider below 16 to be illegal, which is higher than most other countries.

By the way, have any of your kids ever walked in whilst you were watching a, shall we say, naughty movie? That can be a definition of a Paedo too, allowing your kids to see sex on the tv. I'm very strict and don't allow any kids to watch a film over 12 Certificate. How many parents let them get away with watching much older films? For example "Matrix" is a 15.

I find paedo's to be disgusting and sick, but when you are considering a law you need to define the actual offense... paedo can mean a wide range of things, some very inappropriate, but not worthy of a death sentence, and some down right evil.

It's like murder.. I don't know too much about American Law.. especially as they seem to change from State to State, but I am certain that not all murderers are executed, only the worst cases.

2006-09-29 20:02:00 · answer #2 · answered by jezterfezter 3 · 1 0

OK...here we go with another emotive subject.

Spelling first - its paedophile

Regardless of whether paedophiles should get the death penalty or not is irrelevant in the UK, as we no longer use it as a form of control and punishment of ANY offenders.

As for chemical castration...having worked with paedophiles, pederasts and other sexual predators for all of 22 years, I think I can say with some conviction that chemical or any other kind of castration only deals with a small proportion of their offending tools.

Do we remove their eyes to stop them looking at potential victims and viewing images of children and pseudo images?

Perhaps we remove their fingers, digital penetration is common after all...and while we're at it...their toes...and tongues.

The list can go on and on. The only way we can control the men and women who perpetrate these vicious and seriously damaging crimes against some of the most vulnerable in society, is to imprison them and leave them there.

Unfortunately, there are so many people who think that these offenders deserve a second chance in society that the majority are released to over stretched services to supervise in the community....and lets be fair, they would need someone by their sides 24/7 for this to operate effectively.

Now I shall wait for the tirade of abuse for my answer.

2006-09-29 21:40:41 · answer #3 · answered by lippz 4 · 1 0

Yes I do but I also think that all murderers and terrorists should also. And I think an appeal should only be allowed against conviction. Too many people waste time and money appealing against the sentence when they are guilty! If they know what the sentence will be it may deter some of them.
One other thing I think they should bring back 'Ol Sparkie' and the gas Chambers This injection crap is TOO easy on them they should be made to suffer

2006-09-30 03:51:23 · answer #4 · answered by kbw 4 · 0 0

I think they ought to have "PAEDOPHILE" tatooed on their foreheads, to have it in front of them 24/7 - just as the victim who'll carry the abuse with them 24/7. Why should they be allowed any kind of normal life when they have so drastically altered that of a child?
And no to death penalty - principally against it, and it would add further injury to the victim to make them responsible for someone's death. ( An eye for an eye does make the world go blind)

2006-09-30 06:28:29 · answer #5 · answered by Helga J 3 · 0 0

No one grows up thinking " Wow I will be a sex offender when I am big." Many abusers are child victims who go on to replicate their situations when they become adult.
That alone should be big wake up call for all of us.
Instead of shouting "Hang em high!" we should be on our knees saying "There but for God's grace go I!"
Until such time as we learn how to effectively deal with the emotional and chemical ( brain chemistry) issues involved, we should be demanding that sex offenders be kept in their own high security wings. Not necessarily in prisons , but definitely in high security institutions.
We should be trying to figure out how to help these people rather than feeling holier than thou.
There is no place for complacency, it could be our children who get turned that way.

2006-09-29 21:27:07 · answer #6 · answered by Christine H 7 · 0 0

No, neither castration because they would become more dangerous, violent and pervert unless you deal directly with their libido which is another problem. Keeping them in jail is acceptable if they are killers but why lock up for decades a man or a woman who seduces sometimes consensually a teenager ? Really I have my doubts. I had first sex at 17 with a 21 year old woman and it is one of my best souvenirs. Why should this person be still in jail now ?

2006-09-29 19:49:20 · answer #7 · answered by Mimi 5 · 1 0

no i don't think that they should but they should serve there time in jail and after they get out i think they need to be under closer survalliance. in the county where i live they just replace all the electronic anlkle bracelets, w/GPS tracking ankle bracelets. this allows the police to see exactly where the person is and not just whether or not the person is home or not, i feel it would be a good idea to use these to tag pedofiles.

2006-09-29 19:50:55 · answer #8 · answered by g_kennedy12 1 · 1 0

I'm all for an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth when it comes to murderers.

The thing with pedofiles is (coming from a woman who was continually assaulted for six months when she aws a child) is that death isn't right for them.

YOu could castarate them, but there are also female pedofiles, what are you going to do with them?

Lock them up for the rest of their natural lives.

Hoepfully they'll become someone's *****.

2006-09-29 19:52:57 · answer #9 · answered by obscured_obloquy 3 · 0 0

It would be so easy to say yes to this question.I feel by "legally" killing someone you are also punishing the family of the offender.
How would you feel if a close member of your family was put to death,would that also make you a victim?. Lets have less victims
and focus on harsh punishment for these scum..............

2006-09-29 20:11:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers