morality question: do sexual predators deserve to live?

Page 2 of 4 [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


do convicted serial sexual predators deserve to live or should they be euthanised?
yes 69%  69%  [ 20 ]
no 31%  31%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 29

d0ds0t
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 373
Location: Norway

01 Jan 2009, 10:57 am

I don't think rape is a result of the sexual drive and urge in the people who do these things. In many cases
of rape or incidents with sex offenders it is a fantasy or other types of sex that only can become a reality
for the person if they are acted out in certain ways for it to be satisfying, not the sex it self, but the display
and what happens before, during or after. A shot of "anti-sexdrive" drugs would not cure these people.


_________________
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.


b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

01 Jan 2009, 11:10 am

deleted because it was a dumb comment



starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

01 Jan 2009, 11:46 am

b9 wrote:
sexual offenders are usually perverted.
a perversion is a misappropriation of a natural drive.
so people who like to have sex with donkeys are perverted and people who like to have sex with children are also perverted.

the perversion lies in the fact that their desires are misplaced, and are not biologically logical.

even masturbation is a "perversion" because the result is not conducive to reproduction.

but people will act very forcibly to satisfy their sexual urges, even if those urges are "perverted".

i attach no emotional connotation to that word. i just know that sexual drives that are aimed at inappropriate targets are not what we want to happen freely in society.

so how to deal with it?

i would propose not just a chemical castration, but a physical one for people that are driven to criminal acts in order to get sexual gratification.

i think that people who have sex with children, or rape any people, should be ridded of their sexual desires by castration if they wish to remain in our society.

if they want to be given another chance, then they should sacrifice the gonads that drove them to the inappropriate and unsavoury acts they enacted because of them.

a sexless person will never commit a sexual crime.
castrated sexual predators may devote what little wit they have instead to productive development... if they have their "all reigning and authoritative" testicles cut off.




i would say that they should be castrated if they wish to stay in society, or they may remain with their sexual drive and wank away in prison for their lives.


actually, some child molesters who have been on the chemical castration program and effectively had no physical sexual urges and were unable to achieve erection or ejaculation still re-offended by fondling children. it is a compulsion that they cannot stop, that often has very little to do with actual sex itself. they are addicted to power, most of them. not sex.



starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

01 Jan 2009, 11:46 am

sorry for the wording of the poll.....i tried to delete it but it won't let me



starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

01 Jan 2009, 11:52 am

digger1 wrote:
If you're a 40 year old man molesting a 3 year old boy, you've got some heavy-duty problems upstairs most likely stemming from some child abuse so it's partly not the offender's fault. His actions are his own fault, sure but the inherent behavior or the desire to offend - the seed which was planted wouldn't have been there had he not endured the trauma himself. That is why I'm all for rehabilitation.

Touch my daughter and I will f*** you up one side and down the other.

Baited poll answers by the way.


those who identify with the abuser usually go on to become predators themselves. those that empathise with other victims (main experience is that of hurt, fear and shame) don't go on to abuse others because they are unable to inflict on others what someone inflicted on them, because they know how hurtful and damaging it is.

the ones who identify with the predator--they protect their own feelings of hurt by concentrating on the power, control, and satisfaction that the abuser gets from his actions, and so they try to copy those actions in their own lives. they want to feel powerful and in control of others like their abuser was. they want to hurt and make other people afraid because it makes them feel better about their own abuse. that is why they never change. why they can't be rehabilitated. because nothing makes them happy except hurting people and making them afraid, because they are addicted to the sense of power and control that comes from that.

chemical castration is a band-aid fix that is mildly effective, at best.



NocturnalQuilter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 937

01 Jan 2009, 9:08 pm

On the one hand I thought "living" isn't a right, it's a privilege that should not be taken too lightly. Else why have a death penalty?
On the other I think If we arbitrarily euthanize "sex predators" (the latest evil du jour) then what next? What newer, more vile evil will be the witch hunt of the future?
It's too clean, too neat and too objective. Don't like 'em, just kill 'em!
And what if that sexual predator were your cousin, uncle or aunt?
Rehabilitation? Yes.
Kill them? That's just plain wrong and everyone knows it.

ETA: To the 2 that voted to euthanize sex predators, I'm sorry for you.



starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

01 Jan 2009, 9:10 pm

NocturnalQuilter wrote:
On the one hand I thought "living" isn't a right, it's a privilege that should not be taken too lightly. Else why have a death penalty?
On the other I think If we arbitrarily euthanize "sex predators" (the latest evil du jour) then what next? What newer, more vile evil will be the witch hunt of the future?
It's too clean, too neat and too objective. Don't like 'em, just kill 'em!
And what if that sexual predator were your cousin, uncle or aunt?
Rehabilitation? Yes.
Kill them? That's just plain wrong and everyone knows it.

ETA: To the 2 that voted to euthanize sex predators, I'm sorry for you.


if that sexual predator were my cousin, uncle or aunt i would be the first one to turn them in.

rehabilitation is a myth.



NocturnalQuilter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 937

01 Jan 2009, 9:18 pm

starvingartist wrote:

if that sexual predator were my cousin, uncle or aunt i would be the first one to turn them in.

rehabilitation is a myth.


You didn't say anything about "turning them in". You basically asked if it would be ok to kill sex predators. Are you saying you would be the first to kill your cousin, uncle or aunt?

I tend to agree that rehab is a myth- but if killing 'em is your only other option then what becomes of the world then? Who would be next on your kill list?



Abangyarudo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 603

01 Jan 2009, 9:19 pm

starvingartist wrote:
digger1 wrote:
If you're a 40 year old man molesting a 3 year old boy, you've got some heavy-duty problems upstairs most likely stemming from some child abuse so it's partly not the offender's fault. His actions are his own fault, sure but the inherent behavior or the desire to offend - the seed which was planted wouldn't have been there had he not endured the trauma himself. That is why I'm all for rehabilitation.

Touch my daughter and I will f*** you up one side and down the other.

Baited poll answers by the way.


those who identify with the abuser usually go on to become predators themselves. those that empathise with other victims (main experience is that of hurt, fear and shame) don't go on to abuse others because they are unable to inflict on others what someone inflicted on them, because they know how hurtful and damaging it is.

the ones who identify with the predator--they protect their own feelings of hurt by concentrating on the power, control, and satisfaction that the abuser gets from his actions, and so they try to copy those actions in their own lives. they want to feel powerful and in control of others like their abuser was. they want to hurt and make other people afraid because it makes them feel better about their own abuse. that is why they never change. why they can't be rehabilitated. because nothing makes them happy except hurting people and making them afraid, because they are addicted to the sense of power and control that comes from that.

chemical castration is a band-aid fix that is mildly effective, at best.


not exactly correct ... alot that don't empathize still become predators. For instance theres been a few women that have become it through their own personal situations ie: they were raped and molested and as a backlash do the same thing to a member of the opposite sex. One woman molested a 4 or 5 year old boy as a backlash for her being molested for 12 years by her father. Essentially it is also not identifing with the predator if answering no since theres numerous factors that go into it. In my face its a lack in confidence in the justice system and the belief that life shouldn't be just extinguished it is usually more of a punishment to live what one does.



matt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 916

01 Jan 2009, 10:25 pm

No, I don't think they deserve to live. Other people would be safer if sexual predators were not alive, and I believe punishment comparable to its crime(in addition to imprisonment and financial retribution) would be fair.

But I don't support the death penalty for several reasons:

  • Mistakes or corruption by officers, investigators, attorneys or judges may lead to an innocent person being punished. Innocent people have been given the death penalty in the past and later proven innocent.
  • The death penalty is irreversible.
  • Punishment is not assigned equally to every person convicted of a same crime. More-respected people would be likely to receive less punishment for a crime when compared to a less-respected person who had committed a comparable crime.



NocturnalQuilter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 937

01 Jan 2009, 11:30 pm

matt wrote:
No, I don't think they deserve to live. Other people would be safer if sexual predators were not alive, and I believe punishment comparable to its crime(in addition to imprisonment and financial retribution) would be fair.

So killing someone is "comparable" to molestation?
And if the person is dead, how can they make retribution?
matt wrote:
But I don't support the death penalty for several reasons:
  • Mistakes or corruption by officers, investigators, attorneys or judges may lead to an innocent person being punished. Innocent people have been given the death penalty in the past and later proven innocent.
  • The death penalty is irreversible.
  • Punishment is not assigned equally to every person convicted of a same crime. More-respected people would be likely to receive less punishment for a crime when compared to a less-respected person who had committed a comparable crime.


I'm confused. Do you or don't you support killing sex predators?



matt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 916

01 Jan 2009, 11:58 pm

NocturnalQuilter wrote:
matt wrote:
No, I don't think they deserve to live. Other people would be safer if sexual predators were not alive, and I believe punishment comparable to its crime(in addition to imprisonment and financial retribution) would be fair.

So killing someone is "comparable" to molestation?
I didn't say that killing someone was comparable to molestation.

If a predator inflicts significant injury to someone, then I believe that inflicting similar injury to said predator in a similar way would be fair.

It would also be better if people who did such things were dead, because they could not harm anyone else.

NocturnalQuilter wrote:
And if the person is dead, how can they make retribution?
Financial retribution could be made through the estate of the predator.

NocturnalQuilter wrote:
matt wrote:
But I don't support the death penalty for several reasons:
  • Mistakes or corruption by officers, investigators, attorneys or judges may lead to an innocent person being punished. Innocent people have been given the death penalty in the past and later proven innocent.
  • The death penalty is irreversible.
  • Punishment is not assigned equally to every person convicted of a same crime. More-respected people would be likely to receive less punishment for a crime when compared to a less-respected person who had committed a comparable crime.


I'm confused. Do you or don't you support killing sex predators?
I said
Quote:
But I don't support the death penalty
Although others would be safer without predators, I believe that the use of the death penalty means that a significant number of innocent people would be killed, and I believe that preventing that from happening is more important than making sure that all such predators are all dead.



RockDrummer616
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2008
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 910
Location: Steel City (Golden State no more)

02 Jan 2009, 1:03 am

Yes, they have the right to live. In prison.



jawbrodt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,766
Location: Eastern USA

02 Jan 2009, 2:21 am

^That's funny, I was just about to type the same thing. 8)


_________________
Those who speak, don't know.

Those who know, don't speak.


MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,046
Location: Missouri

02 Jan 2009, 3:15 pm

I hate it when people compare predators to killers because I sort of look at it as the same thing only that person will live and be emotionally damaged for the rest of their lives.

Do I believe they should be executed?

I don't believe in any form of capital punishment not even for murders as it doesn't bring the victims back. The U.S. is practically the only western country that still practices capital punishment.

I think it's pretty sad that we justify this over murder. I knew one girl who I grew up with that got molested by an older guy when she was 13 years old. She wasn't like the same person I knew. Last I heard about her was when she got arrested for illegal drug possession.


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


jawbrodt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,766
Location: Eastern USA

02 Jan 2009, 3:34 pm

I think it should be optional for those convicted. There are many inmates on "death row" that want to be executed, and keep getting postponed. I say, if they want it, give it to them. We need the extra space in prisons, plus it is very expensive to keep inmates.


_________________
Those who speak, don't know.

Those who know, don't speak.