This how to treat paedophiles.

BillinghamPoolie · **Posted:** Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:06 am

Kolley Kibber wrote:

garthwd wrote:

I was talking generally as it all seems to be centred on the criminal and the victims seem to be forgotten. I do think if someone commits a crime up to a certain level and want to be helped then the state should help them rehabilitate as much as they need. I think far too many people are continuous offenders and just taking away their liberty doesn't seem to work, and then it seems as if they are given many many chances with slaps on the wrist before they even end up in prison. I think prison should be a lot harder than it seems to be for the habitual criminal (and I haven't been to a prison so only going on a pre-conception I have, rightly or wrongly) and for the very worst offenders then I don't necessarily think they should be kept in prison for 30+ years when a much cheaper alternative is available. Personally I believe in human rights but I also believe if you badly violate someones human rights (especially the violent offenders) then why should the system be expected to respect yours.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue for the death penalty then think of a better argument than it's a 'cheaper alternative' than incarceration. Maybe I'm not catching your drift correctly but I'd go as far to suggest that's the type of argument the Khmer Rouge or the Nazis used to justify the killing off of criminals (though I don't mean it as a slight against you Garth, you're a fellow Poolie after all). Besides, do you really think they'd be executed overnight a la the 18th century? In the US it can take up to 20 years for the execution to take place. In a fair and civilised society the chance to appeal would have to be there. Your last quote - 'Personally I believe in human rights but I also believe if you badly violate someones human rights (especially the violent offenders) then why should the system be expected to respect yours' - the state should respect their human rights because the state is meant to rise above the mindset of criminals! To be dragged down to their level is morally wrong.

What he said.

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22638

I forgot chemical castration.

Take one paedophile and one bucket of chemicals (hydrochloric acid works best) then simply pour the acid onto paedo's genitals.

grabec · **Posted:** Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:10 am

And now I'll give in and say what Mr I probably hoped someone would say all along, and which Mr Head has already touched on....that photo shouldn't have been posted on the board at all without a warning

Mr Irrelevant · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:25 pm **Posts:** 22638

grabec wrote:

And now I'll give in and say what Mr I probably hoped someone would say all along, and which Mr Head has already touched on....that photo shouldn't have been posted on the board at all without a warning

Why would I hope someone would say it? Contrary to the bleeding hearts I believe that the planet is a much better place without these people. Once someone has been conclusively found guilty of paedophila then in my opinion death should follow. Believe me, if it was my little girl who was molested then death would definitely follow; even if I couldn't get to him I'd wipe out his entire blood line.

GighaPooly · **Posted:** Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:52 pm

Mr I wrote:

grabec wrote:

And now I'll give in and say what Mr I probably hoped someone would say all along, and which Mr Head has already touched on....that photo shouldn't have been posted on the board at all without a warning

Why would I hope someone would say it? Contrary to the bleeding hearts I believe that the planet is a much better place without these people. Once someone has been conclusively found guilty of paedophila then in my opinion death should follow. Believe me, if it was my little girl who was molested then death would definitely follow; even if I couldn't get to him I'd wipe out his entire blood line.

Fair enough - thats for you to decide, I said I would do the same but didnt go into the graphic technicalities of it! My point is just that the state shouldn't be involved. If you were caught for single-handedly removing the said paedo's bloodline, the state would punish you accordingly - not actively take a part in the process.

This kinda stuff is always devisive and will rarely be a subject for compromise due to its nature, but hey ho. 3 points on Saturday and buttock unclenching can start ...

garthwd · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:23 am **Posts:** 792

Kolley Kibber wrote:

I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue for the death penalty then think of a better argument than it's a 'cheaper alternative' than incarceration. Maybe I'm not catching your drift correctly but I'd go as far to suggest that's the type of argument the Khmer Rouge or the Nazis used to justify the killing off of criminals (though I don't mean it as a slight against you Garth, you're a fellow Poolie after all). Besides, do you really think they'd be executed overnight a la the 18th century? In the US it can take up to 20 years for the execution to take place. In a fair and civilised society the chance to appeal would have to be there.

Of course you would have the right of appeal and I wouldn't just kill off anyone. However, there are a number of cases currently where the person is bang to rights guilty of horrific crimes and there wouldn't need to be a 20 year wait. You mention how you perceive a fair and civilised society would act, I would ask though, are we in a fair and civilised society? Many people aspire it but too many lowlifes make it a dream rather than reality. Comparing my views that I would want the death penalty for mass murderers, etc. to the Khmer Rouge and the Nazis is ridiculous. The Khmer Rouge and Nazis killed off untold numbers of people who were innocent of any crime. A bit of a difference to my viewpoint I would suggest.

Kolley Kibber wrote:

Your last quote - 'Personally I believe in human rights but I also believe if you badly violate someones human rights (especially the violent offenders) then why should the system be expected to respect yours' - the state should respect their human rights because the state is meant to rise above the mindset of criminals! To be dragged down to their level is morally wrong.

Going by your principle though, what right do we have to incarcerate any offender? Surely we are violating his human rights by caging him.

Kolley Kibber · **Posted:** Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:56 pm

garthwd wrote:

Kolley Kibber wrote:

I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue for the death penalty then think of a better argument than it's a 'cheaper alternative' than incarceration. Maybe I'm not catching your drift correctly but I'd go as far to suggest that's the type of argument the Khmer Rouge or the Nazis used to justify the killing off of criminals (though I don't mean it as a slight against you Garth, you're a fellow Poolie after all). Besides, do you really think they'd be executed overnight a la the 18th century? In the US it can take up to 20 years for the execution to take place. In a fair and civilised society the chance to appeal would have to be there.

Of course you would have the right of appeal and I wouldn't just kill off anyone. However, there are a number of cases currently where the person is bang to rights guilty of horrific crimes and there wouldn't need to be a 20 year wait. You mention how you perceive a fair and civilised society would act, I would ask though, are we in a fair and civilised society? Many people aspire it but too many lowlifes make it a dream rather than reality. Comparing my views that I would want the death penalty for mass murderers, etc. to the Khmer Rouge and the Nazis is ridiculous. The Khmer Rouge and Nazis killed off untold numbers of people who were innocent of any crime. A bit of a difference to my viewpoint I would suggest.

Kolley Kibber wrote:

Your last quote - 'Personally I believe in human rights but I also believe if you badly violate someones human rights (especially the violent offenders) then why should the system be expected to respect yours' - the state should respect their human rights because the state is meant to rise above the mindset of criminals! To be dragged down to their level is morally wrong.

Going by your principle though, what right do we have to incarcerate any offender? Surely we are violating his human rights by caging him.

It's obvious we're going to disagree whatever we say so is there any point me answering back? We both have our viewpoints and I don't think anything is going to change that!

parmopooly · **Posted:** Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:08 pm

hang the bastards!!!!!!!! rolf

MutleyRules · **Posted:** Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:55 pm

grabec wrote:

And now I'll give in and say what Mr I probably hoped someone would say all along, and which Mr Head has already touched on....that photo shouldn't have been posted on the board at all without a warning

I'm sorry Miss.Grabec....but I find the photos that I posted of Dogs been tortured and killed much much more upsetting than seeing a convicted child killer and paedophile swimging on the end of a rope!!!! confised

BillinghamPoolie · **Posted:** Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:01 pm

"I would ask though, are we in a fair and civilised society? Many people aspire it but too many lowlifes make it a dream rather than reality. "

It isn't the lowlifes actions that stop a fair and civilised society. A state that acts or reacts in a barbaric way would be responsible for society slipping back into something akin to the Dark Ages.

This how to treat paedophiles.

Gadgies online