summary execution of known child molesters is morally justifiable

discuss

do i have to?

what does summary mean

i don't think execution is morally justifiable so i don't even have to get to the object of the execution

It would depend on your line of reasoning and system of moral principles, wouldn't it? An eye for an eye can be given a certain amount of moral justification, too, but it seems fairly crude.

capital punishment is not even justifiable on practical grounds so no need to get into the ethical dimensions.

Which practical grounds

We've had death penalty discussion lots of times nakh whats up

giving the state the power to execute people is more dangerous than jailing awful people for life.

i am in favor of molesting people who execute others

i stand with harbl

is that summary molestation

Which practical grounds

it's too expensive, isn't an effective deterrent, and can't repair the damage done by the crime.

i would allow them a speedy and public trial of a jury of their peers at which they could confront the witnesses against them

You can make anything too expensive if you wish i spose

When used as nilmar has used it, "summary" would mean that once it has been clearly established that a person has molested a child, that person's execution would follow that fact as swiftly as possible. "Summary justice" has some broad connotations of vigilantism. I note that "known" leaves open the type of proof required to induce that degree of certainty.

then you give them a brief summary of what will happen

then you pull their briefs summarily off

a summery execution otoh would be great

the death penalty is disgusting

hi Treeship

I prefer 'Greetings, Your Treeship'.

no summary "discuss" threads

plus you could just have them not do that anymore duh

the summery elocution of molested children, a film by wes anderson and todd solondz

everyone who attends is executed

summarily

execution is at most autamnal

No results found for "morally justifiable discus".

Col. da Silva: Prisoner, molest this child!

Prisoner #1: Um, no way, that's fucked up.

Col. da Silva: Do it now! That's an order!

Prisoner #1: I said no. What the fuck is going on?

Col. da Silva: Okay, you're good. Get the next one.

Guard exits, returns a moment later with Prisoner #2, bleary-eyed

Col. da Silva: Prisoner, molest this child!

Prisoner #2: What?

Col. da Silva: You heard me! The child, molest him!

Prisoner #2: Are you sure? I mean, I...

Col. da Silva: NOW!

Col. da Silva stands quietly for a time

Col. da Silva: Guard, execute this prisoner.

I know two adults who were victims of child molestation. Both of them semi-regularly openly fantasize about killing their molestors and/or other known pedophiles.

i believe the death penalty to be inexcusable but it's difficult to attribute much humanity to child murderers

I know two adults who were victims of child molestation. Both of them semi-regularly openly fantasize about killing their molestors and/or other known pedophiles.

I know victims who do no such thing.

couple of xposts: that's kinda besides the point, anyway, isn't it? That victims more or less justifiably may wish death upon their molestors is not related to the issue of the moral justification of death penalty, that is, state-sanctioned death.

Like, I can well understand the urge to kill someone that has done such a horrible thing to you. Vengeance is as old as time, and that urge is a part of being human, I think. I can not, however, understand how someone can defend the right of the state to decide that a citizen deserves to die. no matter what that person has done.

summary closing of known nilmar threads is morally justifiable

better trollthread catalysis options than this, gotta say

thread would have been much better if it had been 'summary castration'

Nah, life incarceration might spark a one and a half sided shitfight tho

that's just ILX, mind

I've never accepted the argument that The State has no right to decide whether I live or die. The State does it already! It decides whether I get adequate health care, how much of my salary goes towards a pension, if I can get conscripted, whether I can get married to another man, if it wants to aim an armed drone at me. My objections are moral and financial.

My objections are aesthetic

It decides whether I get adequate health care, how much of my salary goes towards a pension, if I can get conscripted, whether I can get married to another man, if it wants to aim an armed drone at me.

Only in the last of those cases is the state actually assuming the right to take your life (and 1, 2, and 4 are really not examples of the state deciding whether you live or die in any but very indirect ways imo). I am unquestionably opposed to the state aiming armed drones at its own citizens as well.

The ostensible point of capital punishment is part deterrent to others and part punishment to the perp, though obviously it succeeds much more as the latter than the former. However, given that child molestation is a compulsion that preys on the most vulnerable in the most vile way, it's hard to muster any sympathy at all. There's a reason why so many of them are killed in prison; even the lowest of the low recognize an even lower low. Which is another way of saying that the death penalty seems pretty unnecessary in this case. A better question is whether a convicted child molester should ever be let out of prison. That seems to me the only place they should have in society. There are any number of reasons one person kills another. But child molesters have no excuse except that they can't stop themselves, which is pretty self-defeating as defenses go.

Last fall, we got a community alert that a convicted child molester, someone who had been convicted of molesting three boys some 15 years ago or so, had been hanging around on the porch of his family's house on Halloween - wearing a costume, no less. Apparently a judge had given him permission for some stupid reason. Fortunately, whatever that stupid reason was was soon rescinded, and he went back to where he came from. But if dude is going to be so brazen, just lock him up and throw away the key.

For the sake of argument, if someone hasn't offended again in 15 years and has given every indication that he has genuinely been reformed or rehabilitated, should they never be let out again in their life?

I can not, however, understand how someone can defend the right of the state to decide that a citizen deserves to die. no matter what that person has done.

― Mule, Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:41 AM (3 hours ago)

it depends, afaic, on whether the threat is perceived as active or passive. when i differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable killing (and i do), it almost always corresponds to this distinction. i find the execution of captive, powerless criminals morally abhorrent because they no longer pose any active threat. this is true no matter what their crime. i find the obama administration’s drone strike program morally abhorrent because so many of the people we kill don’t seem to be doing anything immediately and directly threatening. whether or not they’re u.s. citizens is immaterial to me. framing the issue this way attempts to resolve the tension between my belief that the state has no moral right to kill and my recognition of the inalienable right of individuals and groups to defend themselves.

Can I nail this one?

Imagine someone molests a child, possibly diminished responsibility, possibly not.

If it is a mandatory death penalty, he has no option but to kill the child, as this removes the main witness to the crime.

So, the death penalty would actually kill more children than perpetrators.

Louis CK did part of his stand up on how the severe penalties against child molesters probably cause them to kill children, but I don't know of a good solution to that. Pedophiles have a very high recidivism rate.

More than 300 innocent people released from death row since The Innocence Project started up in 1992, and that's just the ones lucky enough to have their cases taken up by a high-profile, well-funded charitable organization. GTFO with any capital punishment for anything, ever.

Contenderizer, I was primarily thinking in criminal justice terms. I pretty much agreee with your post.

Lol i saw that coming and i'd agree with that, yeah. In the case, as laid out in mh's scenario, i don't think that the death penalty is a huge factor in somebody going from a child abuser to a child killer.

Fine, disagree, it's a subject rife with shitty thoughts and an argument riddled with shitty analogies and angles. But idk if im hugely taken with your 'offence' if i disagree that it's necessarily clearcut i guess.

xpto contends

...transgressions of certain taboos are concerned.

Yeah, because taboos tell a society what it is and isn't. We sexualize youth/youthfulness 94/7 so we have to whiplash react EXTRA HARD to the flouting of this taboo, to keep us from looking more closely at the stuff that's already normalized. That's a dumb thing to even remotely anchor any reasoned response in.

I mean, that's a big "DUH", right?

I was very impressed that the local public radio station, in the wake of a case where a convicted offender had been released and ended up abducting two girls and killing one (and then himself), ended up going to the facility where he'd been incarcerated.

They interviewed a number of people who were in a counseling group, including offenders who were in that group. They've had very good results with people who have made it through that program, but the main problem was funding and the fact they had room for only a very small percentage of the inmates who were eligible. Most of the work was based in teaching empathy and analyzing why these people were there -- much of it due to abuse in their own pasts, or an inability to relate to others, or in some cases, really obvious mental illness.

That's a viewpoint. Another pov might hold that the main problem was that a guy was out and killed two kids, that's another pov right there.

I also find it really problematic to assume that someone who has been abused is in some way permanently damaged. It's a hell of a thing to deal with, but even worse is that stigma -- something that makes people feel devalued because they were abused. I know adults who have been abused or raped and have enough of a hard time facing that self-perception or stigma, if anything we should be helping to enforce the idea that nothing is wrong with being a victim, only that it was wrong that you had been victimized.

That viewpoint isn't at odds with what I said. The guy was out, he shouldn't have been, the system failed. End of story.

Im not saying that anyone/everyone who has been abused has been permanently damaged.

I'd trust you won't disagree, however, that many are?

I do think it's a very interesting/problematic area btwn the damaged caused by abuse and the damage caused by the stigma of having been abused. It's something I've considered bringing up for discussion on ilx before but it's hard to find anything like the rights words tbh. I'm certain that the stigma was a v significant part of the damage done in Irish institutional cases (and even in other isolated cases, just given our catholic society and fucked historical relationship with sexual issues i suppose)

I feel like the word "damage" is where it gets wobbly? Not to say that a person who has been abused can't feel damaged or describe themselves that way obv but it gets used a lot, along with "ruined" and other words with connotations of permanence--on some level, words like that contribute to stigma in a small way too.

I don't know, man, "damaged" when referring to a human being comes dangerously close to the "damaged goods" idea that people can lose some sort of worth. I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that this is the terminology we should be using.

x-post to io, who summed it up better than I could

My post not really in opposition to anyone's point here, I was thinking also of the news reports of the Steubenville rape victim that kept saying, like, "Her life has been ruined" which, I don't want to rule out any rhetorical strategy for communicating the vileness of what was done to her but a woman is not "ruined" by rape, you can see where this is going.

I v much think you are adding that in tbh.

Pick another term that suits i guess, hurt, wounded, w/e.

I will specifically not rule out permanence tho io, for many it is permanent. Not necessarily so, not that it is foisted upon them by society permanently, but that it isn't ever wholly recovered from as an experience that person carries.

We're veering off here, is there a thread more suited.

Its a fuckin nice day out there tbh, i'm done on this today.

this was a troll thread originally iirc

it's permanent in the way that many types of trauma are permanent

Yeah, because taboos tell a society what it is and isn't. We sexualize youth/youthfulness 94/7 so we have to whiplash react EXTRA HARD to the flouting of this taboo, to keep us from looking more closely at the stuff that's already normalized. That's a dumb thing to even remotely anchor any reasoned response in.

― Tottenham Heelspur (in orbit)

truthbomb. applies to other taboo areas, too, like the racism i mentioned above. we express the greatest outrage at that which we hate and/or fear in ourselves.

as far as taboos go, i think a lot of ppl are uncomfortable w/ the explicit sexualization of pre-pubescent humans in advertising.

Not uncomfortable enough for us as a society to stop doing it, though. Or to stop implicitly valuing youth and youthful looks above other qualities.

yeah, people will always vary, but as a society, america seems obsessed with the intersection of youth and sexuality. vein-popping outrage and terrified hand-wringing are part of that, not the opposition.

While denying our real, actual children any practical sex ed, much less any advice or perspective for understanding their personal sexuality.

societies are complex; all kinds of things occur on a societal level that many ppl are uncomfortable with on a personal or communal level. I want to push back on the notion that just bc Abercrombie pushes a particular image/pov that means we as members of the society are somehow allowing it.

I dunno, man, we're not disallowing it either. But in any case, our conflicted issues w/r/t youth and sexuality are what make this thread possible.

at the same time, we shouldn't allow revulsion & outrage, however well justified, to override compassion and common sense.

We should also talk openly about the fact that extra heaps of revulsion for things that are "way the fuck beyond the pale" is not expiation for the things we're not totally comfortable with acknowledging we do, all the time, and they go almost uncommented on.

societies are complex; all kinds of things occur on a societal level that many ppl are uncomfortable with on a personal or communal level. I want to push back on the notion that just bc Abercrombie pushes a particular image/pov that means we as members of the society are somehow allowing it.

well, social responsibility != personal culpability, at least not as "it's ALL YOUR FAULT, mordy!" but it shouldn't come as any surprise when a society that celebrates the undie-flashing "maturation" of miley cyrus also happens to be crazy paranoid about real and imagined threats to children. i mean

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/music/2007/galleries/lindsay-lohan-photos/rs-955-lindsay-lohan-cover-61812/500x595/RS_955_-_Lindsay_Lohan_Cover_-_lg.6387119.jpg

who is the society that is celebrating tho? at least acc to Adorno culture is formed by capitalism which in turn forms our identities- but we don't allow it so much as suffer under it (eg we watch Donald Duck get beaten in order to become accustomed to our own beatings). I don't want to completely reject the idea that culture can sometimes reflect the ppl in the society but add some nuance that the relationship goes two ways.

in america's special case, i'd argue that our strong religiosity and history of puritanism are at least as big a factor as the ever-shifting theoretical mechanics of capitalism. our puritan inheritance contributes an extremely fearful and conservative streak to our national character, one that condemns sexual display while sanctifying innocence. we often seem to loathe sex, yet we hunger for it so intensely that we've become one of the world's chief exporters and consumers of pornography. the pornography we produce is a perfect expression of this conflict: mechanical, debased and often intensely misogynist.

at the same time, we must create a separate, sacred, entirely nonsexual space for childhood innocence. childhood must be entirely isolated from the terrible adult "sins" in which we can't help indulging. unfortunately, this fence is necessarily arbitrary, artificial. young people explore sexuality as they develop. sex an ordinary part of life, while "holy innocence" is a simplistic fantasy. worse, the taboo structures we must build in order to enforce the false separation of youth from sexuality ultimately seem to increase the sexual allure of youth, at least for some people. we are, at this point, both more fanatically protective of children AND more commercially exploitative of youthful sexuality than ever before.

The Libertarian Party, including myself on the platform committee, has tended to shy away from the capital punishment question until a broad consensus on punishment theory is attained within the libertarian movement. Opinion within the movement ranges far and wide, from the ultrapacifist view that all punishment must be abandoned, to the "hanging judge" position that any infraction of someone's private property, however minor, shows that the criminal has no respect for property rights and therefore that this minor aggressor deserves to be executed.

http://mises.org/daily/4468

closing paragraph is spectacular

mises.org always brings the lols

"And I would have executed him too, if not for you liberal busybodies!"

your meddling kids

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/us/2-targeted-sex-offender-to-be-killed-officials-say.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

Robin Frieze, defending, said Ferreira did not attack Bridger to enhance his own status in prison, for reward or because he was incited to do it.

"He does not suggest he was put up to it, but he listened to talk within the prison and he was under the impression that if he put the complainant in a state of fear then it was more likely it would achieve closure for the family of his victim," Frieze said. "He appreciates that was a wholly misguided and wrong thing to do."

In April 2008 Ferreira raped and murdered 47-year-old Elaine Walpole in Dereham, Norfolk, after befriending her. He stabbed her through the neck and there were bite marks on her face.

A 30-year-old man charged with the rape of two young girls who were attending a children’s birthday party in Athlone at the weekend was remanded in custody when he appeared before Longford District Court yesterday.

The accused, who was wearing a black jacket, faded blue jeans and white runners when he appeared in court also had a wound to the left side of his face.

Judge Seamus Hughes remanded the man in custody until Friday. He said he had noticed some marks on the man’s face and ordered that he be put on suicide watch and “afforded all possible protection”.

The children had been attending a birthday party at a housing estate on the edge of the town when they went missing.

Some of the children’s parents later found the children and held the alleged attacker, before he was detained by gardaí.

kinda can't believe the gardaí had much left to take away tbh

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478285/Innocent-man-burned-death-vigilante-neighbours-mistook-paedophile.html

well obv nobody is gonna condone that nakh wtf

Mr Beach, Surrey, 10 hours ago

This is what happens when a child gets raped and the offender gets twelve months! If they got a appropriate sentence people would feel less frustrated!! Rob a postoffice 12 years, rape a baby 2years!!!

freeychromosome, london, United Kingdom, 10 hours ago

Feminist inspired misandry and those like ACPO who profit from it are responsible for his death.

<3 this one

Rob a postoffice 12 years, thomas a becket death

Bishop Rape a Baby

do you think that some of the community's homicidal behaviour here could be condoned if the victim was proven to be a child molester?

The sad misconception of thicko mobs on council estates is that socially ineptness/eccentricity/outsiderness = extra paedo points. They lose track that the really dangerous majority of child abusers just seamlessly slot into society without drawing undue attention to themselves.

well obv nobody is gonna condone that nakh wtf

― drugs/lies: poll (darraghmac), Monday, October 28, 2013 8:21 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark

i do

The sad misconception of thicko mobs on council estates is that socially ineptness/eccentricity/outsiderness = extra paedo points. They lose track that the really dangerous majority of child abusers just seamlessly slot into society without drawing undue attention to themselves.

And it wouldn't surprise me if they'd been targeting this guy for years, just looking for a reason

Have we had a thread about letz go hunting and other homebrew To Catch A Predator efforts?

this thread is probably fine

Okay. I suppose damo's point there is making me think of those web vigilantes and the semi-official vigilantism of TCAP – although they're different phenomena they seem connected somehow?

I don't feel at all comfortable watching that show because, for one, it's structured to provide entertainment (one 'hit' of entertainment per capture) and I don't want to get any kind of entertainment from anything to do with child abuse. But further, I feel like it's helping to fuel this myth that the dangerous people are outsiders, when they're so often not; and maybe the online vigilantes are doing something similar.

I dunno though. I'm suspicious of my suspicions about these things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hJUGi-ODIU