Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
No, you mistakenly believe that pedophiles are only those who have committed sexual abuse of children. In reality, many pedophiles limit themselves to fantasies and masturbation, thus not committing any crimes, and such people need help. Do not forget that pedophilia is regarded by many as a mental disorder, so it is better to send pedophiles to research. And you can also recall the past, where adults married children, and this did not cause censure (however, I do not say that this is correct). The question is complex, but deserves more detailed consideration than the banal impulsive cries – ” cut off the balls and break your arms.”
Let's start with the fact that a person is not guilty of being a pedophile. He is only to blame for the fact that he could not cope with his vice. Killing sick people is at least unethical (healthy people too). We do not live in the Stone Age for a long time and it is a shame to seek pleasure in the torment of other people, even in the form of punishment, because they are mostly insensitive, but rational and should solve the urgent problem, and not go about emotions. Therefore, I am still in favor of treatment and re-education. Existing technologies, if used wisely, can help avoid recidivism.
I suppose not. The death penalty is banned as a form of punishment in the vast majority of European countries. The punishment should be fair, humane and individualized. I think that Europeans believe that the main value in law is human life and health, but freedom is also a legally protected value. The State has the right to restrict the rights of its citizens/subjects if they commit illegal acts, and many would agree that it is more humane to restrict freedom than to restrict a person's right to life. This is if we consider the question of why the LEGISLATOR does not consider the institution of the death penalty as something sharply necessary in a number of types of punishments. And if we look at the issue from a domestic point of view, then in one Italian newspaper (unfortunately, I don't remember now) there was an article that several prisoners wrote a petition to replace their life sentence with the death penalty. They argued that their life had lost its meaning, had become gray, every day was like another, and every day they were experiencing a “small death”, so it was precisely in order to humanize the punishment that they asked for the death penalty. Taking into account all the above, I can say that pedophile rapists are people who do not deserve life, but despite this, I personally believe that it is better to walk for 15 minutes every day with a bag on their head and experience this ” small death “than to be subjected to painless” humane ” killing.
If we talk about punishment as a priventive measure-absolutely not. Just because a person has some (even potentially dangerous for society) deviations – it would not be fair to take his life. After all, according to this logic, it would be necessary to execute half of the categories of patients in psychiatric hospitals, and maybe go even further.
If we talk about the punishment for pedophiles who have committed the corresponding illegal acts , the question is more complicated.�
It seems to me that even from the point of view of victims and their parents, who want the most severe punishment for such categories of criminals, it would be more logical to demand life imprisonment. After all, the death penalty, let's be honest – once causes harm to the criminal, while imprisonment makes a person suffer much longer. Methods of killing people sentenced to death can be so fast that the criminal will not even have time to feel discomfort. In this sense, the death penalty does not stand up to any competition with the same life imprisonment (IMHO).
No one should be punished with the death penalty. Most often, ethical arguments are made about this. I agree with them. But there is another argument. Imagine that there is an afterlife. The executed criminal in this case will be born again, taking from his past life the qualities that he had there. In other words, he will be born again, having the qualities of a pedophile. Do you want to get rid of the evil (or threat) in his face forever, or do you just want to move this evil in time? If there is an afterlife, then it is useless to execute and kill someone. By doing this, you only delay the deadline for solving the problem. Therefore, both for ethical reasons and because of the probability of the described possibility, even the most terrible criminals should be re-educated and retrained, and not executed.
No. In my opinion, the death penalty is not a very effective procedure at all.�
Yes, it removes the issue of recidivism of particularly serious crimes for obvious reasons, removes the issue of keeping the criminal both in terms of costs and in terms of possible escape.
Against the death penalty (let there be pedophiles, since about them), for me personally, the argument is that having abused a child, and knowing what awaits him for this, it will be easier for a person to simply kill this child, hiding his tracks and eliminating the person who can identify him. And in the end, there will be two (at least) corpses – a child and later a rapist, but there could have been none.