Don't know where else to post this

Depends on the severity of their crimes I think. Scully for instance is a piece of shit who deserves to be tortured to death.

Depends on the crime and the person. A psychopath that will continue killing or raping people without any fucks to give is like a rabid dog. You don't kill the dog because you are lazy or don't have morals, you do it because you can't cure them and you're not willing to risk keeping the dog around to hurt more people. It's something to only be used for repeat offenders of the most heinous crimes.

You seem to greatly overestimate our current level of medical technology.

As with any social tumors, pedophiles are varied. Some are full on, kindergarten-raping psychopaths- no punishment will ever change them. These should be executed. Some are burdened with unbearable temptation, but feel immense guilt and shame over their actions they gave into. These should be imprisoned for life. Others wouldn't hurt a fly, but nevertheless are internally blighted with sparse fantasies or thoughts. These should be mostly left alone. You can go to a barbecue with these people, or the movies, and nothing would ever happen, but generally speaking you wouldn't want to keep your kids around them just as a precaution. And others are barely even pedophiles, they might prefer petite or youthful appearances, maybe if they're a total otaku geek their taste in hentai is a little questionable, but other than that, totally sane and good behavioured people.

It's the same with all kinds of criminals. Some people have fantasies of violence, especially if they're abused, bullied, or shunned. But it takes a certain incurable sickness to be a mass shooter or a cold-blooded premeditated murderer.

As for psychological reconditioning, I think in some cases that could be abusive. A Clockwork Orange is a novel that greatly showcases this fictionally.

See: You are disgusting.

You're literally defending child fuckers by denying them punishment of death and then call others disgusting for wanting to exact punishment on these people.

Supreme Bait.

Thinking that sexual criminals are somehow psychologically special and significantly different than other malicious criminals is unfounded, and if their actions are the result of a mental illness then it can likely be cured or contained. It's absurd to think they cannot change by any means like they're some rabid dog. Execution is inefficient, politically motivated murder, so no. I'm assuming that by child molester you mean people who actually rape little kids, and not someone who breaks arbitrary AOC laws with a consenting minor.

A justice system built upon retribution is an inherently inefficient and immoral system.

For (You)

Are you supporting my position or just calling it bait instead of arguing?

>anything i don't like is bait
Typical atheist, gets upset when a system not built upon feelings and ideology is created.

Punishment is an unjustifiable act, reread my post and you will see why.

woah there statist

He's right jackass. We don't send murders, rapists who rape over eighteen and teriorists to the chair (a large percentage of the time) but you retards just have to drop all sense of morality when you hear about a pedophile in the news.

Randomly claiming that someone else is an atheist, despite nothing in the posts' contents hinting so, and then projecting all sorts of animosities unto that enemy image is a waste of everyone's time.

Test:

*´¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.•` ¤ Desu

The first question is descriptive, the second question can be either descriptive or normative, but is generally intended to be normative. The natural sciences ("science") alone cannot answer normative questions, because any answer to a normative questions requires value judgements, which cannot be derived from empiricism.

You can't rehabilitate a pedophile, it's deeply ingrained in their psyche.

>despite nothing in the posts' contents hinting so
Wanting to murder those that are different is a very atheistic mindset.

You don't need to rehabilitate pedophilia, just a part about molesting children.

retributive justice is integral part of out legal tradition, you can't just dismiss it ans "inherently inefficient and immoral system." i would argue desiring retribution is part of what makes us human.

most pedophiles aren't executed (a large percentage of the time); scully was a particularly heinous offender.

It sure is

Get off Veeky Forums if you're going to be a revisionist. The Crusades were to stop Muslim invasions of Europe and to dispute claim over the Holy Land, as in the actual land and who has the rights to its maintenance.

> The Crusades were to stop Muslim invasions of Europe
This is why they destroyed the only thing that was between Europe and Muslims aka Byzantium.

>it's not murder when we do it

war has never been murder

>implying

Murder doesn't really exist in war besides purposely attacking villages and such.

Killing somebody because of your insecure ideology is murder

Rehabilitation just means to make someone fit to live as an upstanding citizen in society again. A jailed pedophile doesn't need to get rid of his pedophilia to become rehabilitated again, because his sexual preference doesn't determine him to commit crimes again.

After all, being a pedophile alone isn't a crime and it's actually the acting upon that preference, like abuse or acquiring/spreading of material originating in or thought to encourage abuse, is what law tends to forbid.
You may then ask "but sex is a strong drive and not being able to act upon throughout all your life seems almost impossible, so how does a pedophile's sexual frustration not result in crime?", but this stems from the misconception that someone absolutely has to materialize his sexual preference and that the only way to do so are aforementioned forbidden methods
.
However, there are actually people with normal sexual preferences right on our boards, few of which don't even fap to porn, that don't have sex for 30+ years, so it definitely is possible not to act upon one's preference for a prolonged time.
Furthermore, one can act upon one's preference in unconventional ways that could be taught to sex offenders: Like, instead of raping children, masturbating to child pornography. But that's also immoral and forbidden, so the offender could instead masturbate to drawn or CGI pornography, which I know no moral objection of that wouldn't apply to violent videogames. Since that also tends to be illegal in many countries, the offender could instead turn to written child pornography, which tends to be accepted, or restrict himself to fantasies.
Lastly, the offender doesn't even have to turn to pornography to masturbate, but the erotica equivalents and even innocent things such as a children bathing suit catalogues could suffice.

Train them in satisfying their lust this way, and you could get functioning, upstanding citizens even without making them non-pedophiles, which isn't possible.

>retributive justice is integral part of out legal tradition, you can't just dismiss it ans "inherently inefficient and immoral system."
You can argue about the claim of morality in that proposition, but the claim of ineffectiveness is well-supported.

Child molesters should be shot and hung for the world to see

As is in accordance for what is best for the state and its people

its not about rehabilitation its about abstinence

The best for the state is to have child molesters be turned into value-producing members of society who do not infringe the law anymore
Some would suggest rehabilitation, I'm personally surprised of how no one ever mentions forced labour, which is what I'd advise

BRUH

Child rapists shouldn't be treated different than any other perpetrators of sexual assault.

Sexuality cannot be "cured". It can only be repressed to some degree.

Fun fact, men are much more likely to manifest pedophilic tendencies, than, lets say, homosexual. This would imply that pedophilia is somehow more "natural" than homosexuality.

The truth is that both are sexually deviant.

I don't even understand what exactly you're suggesting. It just sounds silly.

it's called a full frontal lobotomy

>Should they just be executed?

Yes, inshallah bismillah my Mu`min

> should they be executed

It depends, you need to take a nuanced approach with some but actual child rapists? yeah id pop them myself.

Leave it to people like me OP, we'll do the hard work for you, you and the other anons here can debate the ethics.

This is the way its always been. You, the interlectual can think about it but me, the common man, will do the acts for you, no problem.

Push em into a seedy london pub and shout "He's a PEADO!"

What if you were in jail and you had a magical choice between cellmates. You either got to live with a guy who murdered someone in a home invasion gone wrong, or a guy that killed 5 people by tying them to a tree, carving their eyeballs out, and playing in their blood. Some people are fucked up and its not right to make even other murderers or prison guards to have to be near them. At some point its not about retribution, its about being able to sleep at night knowing you and other people are going to wake up with eyelids intact.

Maybe some people cannot be helped and will just always be criminally insane, and I guess all you can do it keep them imprisoned and keep trying to rehabilitate them, possibly until they die, or if the world was structured differently, exile them. Execution has a lot of cons: it's mostly political; it's costly and inefficient because you have to made sure an innocent guy isn't going to die; it's impossible to know that someone can't be rehabilitated; and lastly it's the state murdering it's own citizens, you can say it's justified or whatever, but you're still saying that the state has the authority to murder, which is morally and practically troubling.

Someone murdered 5 people by tying them to a tree and carving out their eyeballs and playing in their blood. Who are you going to ask to rehabilitate them? Who are you going to ask to guard them? Are you going to make these prisoners vegetarians for the rest of their lives too or are you going to feed them cows and pigs that never cut nobody's eyeballs out and would literally make better people than what they are being fed to? What part about that is politics- the eyeballs or the playing in the blood. Some people are just fucking scary. Governments murder people all the time for shittier reasons- its called war and whether you like killing or not someone has to participate in them sometimes for defense. Even in World War II when we had to stop the Nazis there were men on both sides that just wanted to eat soup and brush llamas being forced to march into trenches and kill each other. One day you are going to have to jump out of your mother's womb and realize that sometimes life is about survival and as much as you want to sit on a fence and read a book there's a rabid dog heading your way and you can be as high minded as you want but if you like living and give two shits about the two-year old next door then it's best to put Old Yeller down.

>Who are you going to ask to rehabilitate them? Who are you going to ask to guard them?
The same people who do it now.
> Are you going to make these prisoners vegetarians for the rest of their lives too or are you going to feed them cows and pigs that never cut nobody's eyeballs out and would literally make better people than what they are being fed to?
I don't see what animals have to do with this. They're raised to be eaten, it's pretty irrelevant who by.
>What part about that is politics
The part of "I think these people need to die because it will satisfy my political beliefs and I don't care if it's more efficient to lock them up or more morally valid to try to rehabilitate them"
> Governments murder people all the time for shittier reasons- its called war
Which isn't justified either. The difference is also the fact that execution is the government murdering its own citizens, the ones it is supposed to protect and serve.
>but if you like living and give two shits about the two-year old next door then it's best to put Old Yeller down.
And in this hypothetical case the person already committed those gruesome crimes, so it's irrelevant if they're executed or imprisoned.

a major point of retributive justice is to provide consolation to the victims, do you have evidence that it is ineffective in doing this? i can understand that retribution is ineffective as a deterrent because criminals don't plan on ever getting caught but i doubt there is any data showing that victims don't feel a sense of closure knowing that the bad guy gets what he deservd.

It doesn't make them feel fine about what happened, it might just provide a sense of closure. But regardless, their desire for vengeance shouldn't be acquiesced.

the sense of closure for the victims outweighs the concern for the criminal's wellbeing

Punishing based upon the victim's feelings is arbitrary, partial, and likely to lead to excesses. Practically it also doesn't solve anything and causes the problem to become worse, both because the criminal will become hardened and also because it will encourage a culture that promotes a cycle of hate and violence.

Not that guy (I disagree with him entirely actually) but this is bullshit. It sucks that Dawkins has been such an asshole and has given atheists a bad name. There is no such thing as an "atheistic mindset," that doesn't even make sense. Atheism is just not being theistic. It defines as much about you as you want it to. It is not a static ideology, it does not have a doctrine.

Stalin or whoever being a dogmatic faggot is not representative of atheism because his atheism did not define those acts, since it can't. It has no principles. Some people will be assholes with that void, some won't. Some Catholics may molest children but it's not like that's representative of Christianity either.

t. pacifist atheist

psychological closure is neither arbitrary nor meaningless for victims and the criminal isn't hardened if they're executed

No, I'm saying that punishing based upon whatever will bring the victim "closure" is arbitrary, partial, and likely to lead to excesses.
>the criminal isn't hardened if they're executed
So the punishment of all crimes is execution? Or does it just depend on what the victim wants?

>Do you think child molesters can be rehabilitated?

Yes, but they don't deserve it. If it were your kid in danger, you'd want the person dead. You have a responsibility to extend the same protection to other people's children.

it's not arbitrary knowing that a perpetrator of a vile crime is punished to the fullest extent of the law and obviously not all crimes are capital offenses

If the law is designed with the victims' feelings in mind then whatever the hypothetical fullest extent is would be arbitrary.
> obviously not all crimes are capital offenses
Which are? The ones that really upset certain people? What if someone murders a hobo no one cared about, since no one is bothered by it, why would he be punished?

you can't get any fuller than capital punishment and it's up to the government to decide which laws trigger such a punishment

itt: pedophiles thinking they're doing nothing wrong

>a major point of retributive justice is to provide consolation to the victims, do you have evidence that it is ineffective in doing this?
I was solely talking about the ineffectiveness as a deterrent.

Think that the hammer of justice should crush the lives of all queers of any form.
The degenerate larger society will disagree with me here although they suddenly develop sexual morality when it comes to pedos bizarrely.
By the way I don't consider it pedophilia if the girl is sexually developed irregardless of the age.

Good post.

Two bullets to the back of the head, bill to the family for the two bullets.

>irregardless

youtube.com/watch?v=eyiVSBAq2Nw

So you're saying you care passionately about the lives of serial killers for some reason but don't give two shits about the lives of animals subjected to industrial farming... So basically you're saying you draw arbitrary lines determining the value of life based on species with no concern to actual cognitive awareness or past actions... If you are going to sit on your moral high horse judging people and society then maybe you should do some research into the intellectual capabilities of farm animals and how they are raised and eaten, so you actually realize how hypocritical you sound.