h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

John Gibson thinks so*.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188044,00.html

(He even invents a new adjective "Talibany" but I'll let you discover that jem for youselves.)

I don't think his hyperbole stands up to much examination (Death to brazen perverts!) but I thought this might prompt a debate about what crimes, if any, do warrent the execution of the individual?

None. No crime warrents the killing of the culprut...

exactly. Agrees with 2legs.

Totally agree. No death penalty.

One of the main problems with the death penalty (aside from it being barbaric, etc) is that the wrong person is often condemned for a crime they hadn't committed.

What I see as more reasonable in the sort of case described in the linked article is that a *true* life sentence be handed out, meaning one with no possible chance of parole *ever*. Unless new evidence comes to light later on that proves the person was not guilty. Though clearly this person is guilty since he was filmed committing this heinous crime. So, there should be no chance in his case of him ever being paroled (imho).

From the article:

"Why just for the live molestation? What's the difference between child porn pictures and live transmission of a molestation? Just the brazenness, I suppose. The audacity, the gall, the sheer descent in depravity."

As I say, it isn't an opinion thing (brazenness, audacity, gall, etc) but the fact that this man was actually caught on film. So there is no question of his guilt. Hence - a *true* life sentence. Let him rot in prison.

Oh, and also cut his goolies off.


az

I'm not quite as liberal as that.



If an individual has committed crimes, and no way can be found to prevent this individual from doing something similar in the future, there comes a point when society has to execute that individual to protect the innocent victims of crimes not yet committed.

Not an easy decision to make, regardless of how black and white an individual case might appear.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"there comes a point when society has to execute that individual to protect the innocent victims of crimes not yet committed."

Society does not execute. The executioner executes. Society includes me and I refute that vehemently.

Surely there are other ways of protecting potential victims? One is life sentence = life sentence.

W

Yes but if a life sentance actually was a life sentance then they ren't going to do any harm.

Quite agree, sigsfried. If a life sentence was truly a life sentence, then no problem. We could all rest assured that these scumbags wouldn't ever be given the chance to re-commit their horrible crimes. But heck, even Charles Manson gets brought up for parole every few years. Um . . . why?


az

There's also another angle to this.

I strongly think that the use of the death penalty is tied to the maturity of the society.

For a death penalty to be considered, society must think that a person is immutable. That a murderer is a murderer and will muder again. Or, more basically, that a person can be intrinsically 'evil'. Thus there is no reason really to not kill them. It satisfy the urge for revenge and punishment and also conveniently does away with society having to feel any responsibility.

Whereas a more mature society realises that humans are never so simple. A lot of what has been learnt about ourselves has been learnt from studying those whose behaviour patterns differ from the societal norms. If we kill these people, we have no chance to understand them. And if we can't understand them then we do not gain the insight and knowledge to make the changes or interventions required to prevent another from following the same path, or even that individual from acting like that again.

Nope, in my opinion in a decent society you do not execute anyone, ever, period.

Maybe I'm being totally liberal and naive here, but I like to judge a society not upon how it treats the best of its people, but upon how it treats its worst. I still believe that there should be a strong rehabilitation element in any imprisonment, and that almost nobody is beyond redemption.

As to life sentences, well there are very few crimes for which I believe someone should be locked up for the rest of their natural life. (There are currently about 20-25 prisoners with that status in the UK.) I mean what is the point in doing that on a wide scale? Maximum security nursing homes anyone? Ridiculous!

In addition to the "no death penalty, ever" stance, could I just point out that an awful lot of child molestation happens within families? Do you really think a young girl could face her grandfather being executed for his sins? What sort of impact would that have on the rest of the family?

<> (GD)

Possibly - and hopefully. But in the case of the guy in the article? What do you think?


az

Well it's a little unfair to ask what should happen to that guy as I only know the bear outlines of the case.

But as you put me on the spot, I'd say life sentence; parole in 6 years if rehabilitation is successful, or 10 if it's not. Then like all ex-lifers to be on license for ever once released.

So, does that make me a bleeding heart liberal then?

Sounds like it, GD!

Heck, if we can't cut their goolies off and hang them in the main square (the person, not the goolies), at *least* we can make sure they never see the light of day again! F**kers. You really think a man who has violated a baby on film can be rehabilitated? Really?


az

"But as you put me on the spot, I'd say life sentence; parole in 6 years if rehabilitation is successful, or 10 if it's not. Then like all ex-lifers to be on license for ever once released."

Despite what I said earlier I'm inclined to agree. Make it 15 years if not sucessful and I'm happy certainly.

I'm inclined to feel that an attempt at rehabilitation should be made & each person should at least be reviewed periodically.

Life sentences should mean life though, not just 20 years. Those showing 'good behaviour' could still gain some benefits within prison in terms of privileges awarded.

Az, again it's difficult to make a judgement as we don't know the full facts. There might be previous convictions; we don't know if this abuse is an isolated incident, or if it's longstanding. We also don't know of there are other crimes for which he's going to be charged. What I would say, there's no additional punishment for filming the incident, surely rape is a crime enough.

As to the sentencing I suggested. Well 10 years is about what someone raping in infant in the UK would do in British jail. But sadly there would unlikely to be an treatment for them peovided, so they'd be back out on the streets still sick a decade later.

Can peadophiles be treated? Yes, most of them can be. There was a clinic based at a mental health hospital in Surrey that treated peadophiles on a residential out-patient basis after they'd been released from prison on parole. Sadly when the whole hopsital moved about 6, 7 years ago to a new site as a part of a service reprovision, the clinic was lost as no-one wnated to have paedophiles - like a dozen or so of them - living in their community. Therefore no more treatment. Oh dear

Lordy! How many typos

I think my fingers are a bit cold. I'd better go and turn the heating on...

No