So what, we're keeping bad psychopaths alive to see if we can cure them? So if someone has slaughtered and raped 100 children in his psychopath days, gets caught and cured completely, should we release him back into society? Is that really alright?
Let's talk about this hypothetical situation... Why not? If it were a biological pathology that caused their behaviour, and can be proved to now be completely absent and they are not only no longer dangerous, but could be a productive member of society. What would be the purpose of keeping them detained?
Maybe if they spend less money on keeping monsters alive or spending it on costly death sentences, they'd have more money for proper investigations. Again, that's a problem with the way people are convicted. Not with the actual act of the death sentence.
Torture of these creatures is not for personal satisfaction, that's just a nice side effect. Torture is an advertisement to other lesser life forms of what awaits them if they fiddle with kiddies. Much like the old English putting heads on stakes, or did you think that was for decoration? The only bad thing about appropriate justice is you have to be 100 % sure you have the right person, which is the problem.
Are you saying we should bring back having heads on spikes in our towns? And the people who will be wrongfully killed because of wrongful conviction (being nice here and assuming you even care about the conviction part), are their deaths ok because it's worth a few innocents dying for revenge?
What about his victims and their parents and loved ones? I know it's self-satisfaction, but is it okay if they have to live with the fact that the guy who brutally raped and murdered their baby daughter is now living an even happier life than ever? How about someone who is not a psychopath and murders and rapes a bunch of people? No curing that guy, he just likes it.
Good point. But should we be punishing out of vengeance, or trying to rehabilitate and purely thinking of what is best for society as a whole? Do those people exist?
People that do things that would warrant the death penalty aren't put off by the repercussions. Either because they don't think they will get caught, don't care if they get caught, can't control themselves or aren't of sound mind. Do you think people only do these things because they don't get punished enough?
The monster gets to live a happy life, while the parents and loved ones are forever destroyed, even more so by the fact that their baby's killer is living the good life. I'd rather just not waste money and effort on those people and not cure them at all. We are defined by our acts, not our thoughts. That's what I believe in anyway. It wouldn't surprise me.
Just because there's already been a few pages: Zinowar, I will reply to your post on page 2 mate but I've been at college and I'm on my phone now which makes breaking up your post like I want to quite hard.
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf The death sentence does not reduce murder rates.
Please take your time and break my posts thoroughly. I learn a lot when people completely break my arguments. Don't get yourself in trouble at school though.
It is not uncommon for dementia sufferers to be violent and/or sexually innapropriate with their carers. Some children on the autism spectrum can be violent and sexually abusive to their peers or younger children. Should they be judged by their actions? Should we be killing autistic children who are a risk if unsupervised? Is it a waste of money and effort to look after these people?
Bit of a quantum leap there no? But the first bit, no I'm not! I'm telling you the point and purpose of torture/ death penalty. It is not just for some sordid enjoyment, it is sending out a message to others of what will happen if you do this. And I'll bet that message is echoing throught brazil to other pedophiles ! And hopefully keeping kids safe and alive. As to your other diatribe, where did that come from?
The punishment as a result of consequences of an action almost never stop people from committing crimes (unfortunately).
You said that heads on spikes were a good deterrent. If it works, why not have the heads of paedophiles on spikes around town? The point about wrongful conviction is what makes your argument fall down. Unless you think that it's ok to torture/rape/kill a certain proportion of innocent people, as long as we mostly get the right ones?
Yes...the execution of inmates has reduced murder and the torture of suspected islamists has cured the world of islamic terrorism. Oh wait. No it hasn't.
About the autistic kids; isn't that because they don't understand right from wrong? They need to be taught what they can and can't do, but they'll never understand why. Or something, I don't know. Either way, I believe those are special cases and the general logic used with murderers and rapists shouldn't apply to those cases.
