What laws would need to be changed to allow legal hunting of pedophiles?

Question

Putting aside any moral apprehension or hopes of rehabilitation, how could it be possible for citizens to legally hunt and kill pedophiles? Would this require a decision from the Supremes, a Constitutional change, or could it be a state-by-state decision?

Are there any countries where this is already legal?

To clarify, I'm specifically talking about convicted with DNA evidence and confessed pedophiles. I'm not interested in being the thought police. I do like the idea of reclassifying them to something other than human.

Answer 1

This question is sick! You are glorifying murder. What is next? Shooting people based on race or are 5 or more pounds overweight, diagnosed with schizophrenia, etc.
There is no constitutional right and never will be to support killing. You also have no right in your freedom of speech to suggest an idea. Some of these guys who have to register as sex offenders may not know they were under 18 while having consensual intercourse. They are set up!

Also, may I remind you of one of the 10 commandments and the most important in my heart? THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

Since pedophilia is solely a mental condition -- finding children attractive -- and entirely independent of whether the person has ever touched or harmed (or even interacted with) a child....

First, you need to eliminate the Constitutional protections that prevent people from being attacked or killed based solely on what they are thinking. That allows the govt to execute people based solely on what they are thinking.

Then, you need to eliminate the Constitutional requirements that prevent people from taking the law into their own hands. That allows them to kill anyone whose thoughts they don't like. That would require a constitutional amendment, because no court is ever going to dissolve the rule of law.

Now, if all you wanted was to allow capitol punishment for child molesters -- the only things that need to be changed are the sentencing laws for those crimes. That can be done on a state-by-state basis, but only applies for people who commit the crimes after the change -- unless you also eliminate the part of the Constitution that prevents retroactive changes to criminal laws (the "ex post facto" clause).

But you still cannot have your vigilante justice -- where anyone can kill someone they don't like -- without eliminating all of the Constitutional guarantees of due process and the basic concept of the rule of law.

Answer 3

I think the problem is that people that have been a victim of a pedophile are to ashamed or scared to speak out, so maybe we should be concentrating on making the victims feel like they can come forward and report cases of abuse.

I don't think hunting and killing pedophiles is going to encourage victims to come forward as they are already battling with feelings of self-doubt, shame and they would feel worse if they reported it and they new that this person (whom they probably know) is going to be killed.

Hope that makes sense.
Does anyone else share my opinion?

Answer 4

No, the states would lose all their tax dollars allowing us to kill all the freako's. Plus, all the bleeding hearts would piss and moan about civil rights violations. I vote just execute them on their first offense or throw them into the general population in prison with a big sign hanging off of them that says: I LIKE TO F**** LITTLE KIDS.
Problem solved.

Answer 5

Maybe we should make hunting anyone convicted of a crime legal. That would help reduce over-population!

Answer 6

<> in basic terms because of the fact something it criminal does not propose this is suited. <> there's a reason you won't manage to spell 'assume' with out '***'. people who assume too plenty finally end up making asses of themselves. <> does not make experience, does it - and yet, there you're advocating human beings in basic terms assume the government is solid! <> incorrect! <> advert hominem assaults harm your credibility. perhaps Marc, like me, does not see too plenty interior the way of credibility whilst examining your question. <> The term "fetus" actually ability "the greater youthful interior the womb". The fetus IS a living individual. existence starts off at concept, not start nor some arbitrary component in between. consequently, each abortion constitutes the homicide of an unborn individual. <> however the fetus IS human. consequently, abortion IS homicide. <> what's so slender minded approximately acknowledging the unborn for the living human beings they're? because of the fact you're actually unable to try this, does not that propose your strategies is quite greater slender than mine? <> That in basic terms is going to coach how schizophrenic human establishments could be - and you prefer to assume such an enterprise (the government) is solid.

Answer 7

Maybe the definition of 'human' to exclude them?

And an 'open season' would help.