Sex Offenders and Death Penalty

My friend Angie came over my house today, we were bored and had nothing better to do but watch TV. I got into a little spaz moment where I kept changing the channel every 5 seconds and it pissed Angie off and we both got into a humorous fight for the clicker. She finally got the remote control and changed to CNN and that's when we saw it.

The case of Sex Offender Laws, and about Samantha Runnion, a five-year-old, very innocent looking, who was abducted, sexually abused and killed in 2002 by this sick bald bastard, who even worse had a bat-like tattoo on his neck which pissed me off more then his illed physical appearance. I always thought the law was too lenient against sexual offenders especially the ones who brutally kill their victims. After listening in on the story about about Samantha Runnion and listening to her mother speak, I got annoyed and muttered, "Why do they keep these guys alive?", Angie who is TOTALLY against the death penalty started arguing with me that no matter how bad these people are their life has the same value as any others and it's better for them to get life in prision anyway for their heinous crimes.

I on the other hand disagree with that. I believe that the prisons are already overflowing and the only way they (the system) reduce the numbers are by giving some criminals parole for "good behavior" and put them back in society again. I believe the extreme sex offenders and other heinous criminals should be put to death since most of the times they are beyond help. I don't know what it is about them but Sex offender type criminals get me angered above all other criminals. Their acts usually marks a permanent grime on the victim (if kept alive) and their family. Our country has the most counts of rape and sex offenders than many others. Nothing else seems to be keeping these rates down and I think that a very fast death penalty against the worst sex offending criminals will set an example for other sex offenders.

See, I don't believe the death penalty to be a good thing. But, I can sympathise with you here, because it's cases or reports similar to this that really try me. To a more specific point, it's when you read about or hear about repeat offenders who are convicted, prisoned, released and two months later they're back to their old ways. It can even get me thinking on the train of thought: "Just why are we keeping people like this alive?".

Sex offenders will be institutionalised by courts, because such people are deemed mentally unhealthy, or socially maladjusted. No matter what lives they ruin, or what minds they scar, death will never be a lawfully approved punishment for the simple fact it is now deemed inhumane.

All life does have value, I do believe that, but if we let our anger at such people drive us to reinvoking capital punishment and death penalties, are we, as humans, any better than the people who are killing?

~ Adhamh.

I believe that people who break laws should lose some or most of their rights. If you refuse to kill a killer, then the next person they kill would have been someone you could have saved. That is why I think murderers should die. As for sex offenders who let their victims live, it depends on how much trauma the person went through.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

I believe that people who break laws should lose some or most of their rights. If you refuse to kill a killer, then the next person they kill would have been someone you could have saved. That is why I think murderers should die. As for sex offenders who let their victims live, it depends on how much trauma the person went through.

By killing someone you become a killer, should you then be killed so that you don't kill again? Better still, if you see a murder should you just go up and kill the guy? Is that justified?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

By killing someone you become a killer, should you then be killed so that you don't kill again? Better still, if you see a murder should you just go up and kill the guy? Is that justified?

That's execution. Murder is unlawfully killing someone, while execution is a process of justified killing. If you see a murder, then it depends on the situation. If I saw a guy with a knife trying to kill one of my friends, then I'd find something and hit him until he fell down and didn't get up. I'd worry about whether or not he was still alive later.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

That's execution. Murder is unlawfully killing someone, while execution is a process of justified killing. If you see a murder, then it depends on the situation. If I saw a guy with a knife trying to kill one of my friends, then I'd find something and hit him until he fell down and didn't get up. I'd worry about whether or not he was still alive later.

Two things, you said kill, not murder. You're also arguing that what is morally right is dictated by the law, which I'd strongly disagree with, if that was true then there'd never be any reason to change the law.

Two, sure, killing someone in self defence may be justified, I was referring more to you seeing a murder committed, say, on TV. You then see the guy who committed the murder on the bus, do you kill him?

You all have interesting points. According to the law, the only time you can lawfully kill someone is through the death penalty, which someone posted was justified killing, when you kill someone who is trying to kill you (self-defense; this doesn't always work), and during war.

Another thing that makes people so against the death penalty is the "no cruel and unsual punishment" thing. The electric chair, lethal injection, gas chamber, and firing squad are all cruel and unusual punishment. Everyone knows that electric is painful, the poison injection have been to solidify in people when injected which is also painful, the gas chamber is heard to be very unpleasant and extremely uncomfortable during the process, and the firing squad, what was it? 12 guys with rifles, each with one bullet, one with blanks, all aim at targets heart and shoot at the same time and all of that leads unto an unethical and let's not forget, a messy kill. I agree that the USA's death penalty is harsh, but I think they should use a non-painful method to dispose extreme criminals.

Honestly, a sociopath will be a sociopath forever, I remember watching Law & Order: SVU where FBI profiler Dr. Huang said that a sociopath can't grow a conscience. And sociopaths are said to do what they do until they are stopped like sex offenders who can't stop their desires. These people are useless and harmful to society why keep alive?

I have my own thoughts about how the stupid legal system should work.
I think killers might think twice about my system It's pretty much, you do something to them, you get the same thing back. Like this....

1. If you kill someone, you die, even if you didn't mean it,(Well to a certain degree of accident) you get it the same wat they did.. You took someones life, you dont deserve yours.
2. I you assault someone, you get the same thing done to you.
3. If you get sexually assaulted, we get a person who is willing enough to rape you.
4. You stab someone, you get stabbed in the same place.
5. You hit someone with your car, you get hit with a car.

Those are my veiws.

"People die all the time. Get over it!"

I personally think we should just reconstruct prisons into "solitary confinement" cells only, and give these creeps bread, water, some fruit perhaps if costs allow it. There is clearly not enough "fear" of being sent to jail, or else crime rates wouldn't be so high. Let's give them something to be afraid of, without killing them. Solitary confinement should work.

Originally Posted by Ozzy

I have my own thoughts about how the stupid legal system should work.
I think killers might think twice about my system It's pretty much, you do something to them, you get the same thing back. Like this....

1. If you kill someone, you die, even if you didn't mean it,(Well to a certain degree of accident) you get it the same wat they did.. You took someones life, you dont deserve yours.
2. I you assault someone, you get the same thing done to you.
3. If you get sexually assaulted, we get a person who is willing enough to rape you.
4. You stab someone, you get stabbed in the same place.
5. You hit someone with your car, you get hit with a car.

Those are my veiws.

"People die all the time. Get over it!"

So, not only do you ignore intent, which is a vital part of the legal system, but you make sure that no Jury will ever convict a person for fear of being wrong and having them suffer cruel and unusual punishment, remember, they're being punished for doing this very thing, that means that society frowns on that act, making it (I'd say) either cruel or unusual.

So, not only do you ignore intent, which is a vital part of the legal system, but you make sure that no Jury will ever convict a person for fear of being wrong and having them suffer cruel and unusual punishment, remember, they're being punished for doing this very thing, that means that society frowns on that act, making it (I'd say) either cruel or unusual.

Okay, edit that....the person has to be found guilty, THEN IT HAPPENS!

GDwarf: I see a lot of you disproving others' theories, but do you have a theory of your own? I'm honestly curious: What do you think is the solution to this problem? If a person decides to harm others for as long as possible, what makes him/her stop without being cruel or endangering his/her life (assuming CT- is correct and isolation (prison) is not an option)?

Better yet, what makes one's life valuable? What exactly is the value of one who does only harm to his/her society?

Well, my take on this entire situation is that only serious cases demand the death penalty. Knowing, planned, and deliberate murder should definitely be one of them. Taking a life, any life, is wrong unless the person whos life is being taken has forfieted his rights. Think of it this way:

You break someone's toy. You have to give them one of yours as compensation. Just, in the case of murder and punishment it's nothing this trivial, its a LIFE for a LIFE and it is as justifiable as saying that someone should repay any damages they have caused. If you demand that someone pays for stealing a car, and by that I mean pay back the owners, it is perfectly logical to have them pay for a life. The only thing worth a life is another life.

I agree with Hostis' call on this matter and partially Ozzy's point. Prison is not enough to scare the most notorious criminals. The worst thing that is said about prison is that, when you go to it you "don't drop the soap" but this however is inaccurate cause if you go to prison you're going to get it whether the soap is down or not. Also getting greenlit or shanked is an issue but this is only from strong criminals to weak ones. Even in prison the worst criminals strike fear.

If death penalty won't be enforced then the prisons should be enforced to some type of fear ground, where all prisoners get to be scared.

Hostis, you scare, I was about to say the exact same thing. The only thing worth a life is a life. Oh and CT-, I also agree with you that there should be something to strike fear. Maybe something like "Even step out of line once, the guards should be allowed to harm you" or something like that". In times like these, "cruel and unusal" don't exist.

The Bible says in Exodus 21:23 "And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life..." I believe that if one murders another person, the government has a Biblical obligation to put these people to death. On the other hand, we as civilians are to forgive people like this.