Poll

I think ALL pedophiles need to be removed from this earth...or at least castrated! There IS NO forgiveness for sexually abusing a child!

It should be obvius that if we kill people no matter what heinous crimes they´ve committed, then we are no better than they are. Also, some people are innocent, and this is not discovered until later. People shpuld be put away to protect others out in society. But they should also be treated with the best possible treatments. There must be good people in there somewhere. There is always a possibilty for healing, a change of heart, understanding of the heinousness of what they have done. If they are guilty they will be gain understanding of ths beyond the grave or in their next lives. When the state kills people it is just perpetuating the problem. When will we ever learn that killing others is wrong? People that commit heinous crimes have been damaged in some way themselves. This is no excuse for committing crimes, but it shows they need healing and love themselves. They are people who have been deprived of love, so we need to give them love, no matter what!

You need to study the psychology of a pedophile...there is no fix.

Iona wrote: "It should be obvius that if we kill people no matter what heinous crimes they´ve committed, then we are no better than they are. Also, some people are innocent, and this is not discovered until lat..."

Very well summarised Iona. I agree completely.

Beth wrote: "You need to study the psychology of a pedophile...there is no fix."

Plenty of paedophiles have rehabilitated, so it's not correct to say there's no fix, however heinous that particular crime is.

James, Jesus did not say "Thou shalt not kill unless it costs society far too much to keep harmful people locked up." It can never be a matter of money. And also what about the many who have been wrongfully executed? And perhaps if we examined criminals whle incarcerated we would find absolute proof of what terrible things they have undergone in their childhood, so we would take steps to protect the children in our societies, as far as possble, from experiencing similar things?

Andreas wrote: "It'd be good if everybody could read this discussion.

I really hope that everybody can read my book, and start working. I'm able to think our way out of extinction, not through old literatures and..."

I have personally been blessed by experiencing divine love on three occasions throughout my life, so I know God is love. It doesn´t better like good people who don´t kill. God IS love. I´ve experienced it, and perhaps one has to experience this in order to understand.

Iona wrote: "James, Jesus did not say "Thou shalt not kill unless it costs society far too much to keep harmful people locked up." It can never be a matter of money. And also what about the many who have been w..."

Valid points Iona...
I'm swaying back to Unsure perhaps.
BUT how come revenge FEELS soooo good? :)

Harry wrote: "Dear Mr. Canmore,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding my little opinion on stringing up nutters.

I concur that the elite are psychopaths. Gotta be.

The prison system needs changing. We all know..."

I agree with you, Harry!

Sash wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "I don't believe sociopaths can be taught, Sash, nor do I think everything is merely a matter of education.
Some people need their brains rewired before they deserve to even wal..."

James, how about providing these psychopaths with Holosync or Neurophone or the like so they can be improved in that way? It´s worth a try!

Sash wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "It has been estimated about 5% of the population are sociopathic...
That's like another species within the human race...A species that is incapable of compassion..."

Now, how'..."

I don´t know about Neurophone, but I know that Bill Harris´s Holosync brain synchronization programme brings awareness, and I am certain this programme could help even sociopaths, As I wrote elsewhere, it´s worth a try!

Beth wrote: "You need to study the psychology of a pedophile...there is no fix."

This is an interrelated subject ... or maybe it's a tangent, I don't know...
How come those who rape children get such minuscule sentences and are able to do the same crime over and over again?
It's crazy!

I just lose patience with the psychopathic minority...and also with lawmakers who seem to be dropping sentences for the worst crimes...

Harry wrote: "Plenty of paedophiles have rehabilitated, so it's not correct to say there's no fix, however heinous that particular crime is. ..."

I am not sure the percentage of successful rehabilitation is that high. Also, I don't buy this idea that it's JUST a perverted sexual persuasion. I mean, even if they have those desires they still have to be evil psychopaths to damage children like that.
So I would argue venturing into a discussion the pedophiles simply need help is potentially too Liberal minded...

James Morcan wrote: "Harry wrote: "Plenty of paedophiles have rehabilitated, so it's not correct to say there's no fix, however heinous that particular crime is. ..."

I am not sure the percentage of successful rehabil..."

I never said anything about the percentage of successful rehabilitation. My point was simply refuting Beth's comment that there is no fix - which is incorrect.

Most paedophiles suffered abuse themselves, so are they not victims too?

I believe in unconditional love towards all. The more we focus on that more than things like 'Should we be killing the bad guys?', the quicker our world will run out of bad guys for it to be an issue in the first place.

James Morcan wrote: "Iona wrote: "James, Jesus did not say "Thou shalt not kill unless it costs society far too much to keep harmful people locked up." It can never be a matter of money. And also what about the many wh..."

Ha, ha, that´s because of your own problems!

Yes, I do.

Going to have to catch up on comments (sitting at four pages right now), but there are some things that are just unforgivable.

I also think there should be better ways to determine guilt, and ensure the right person is taking that walk. And then fast track the criminal.

Erma wrote: "I also think there should be better ways to determine guilt, and ensure the right person is taking that walk. And then fast track the criminal..."

Yay!
Let's do this thing.
When can we start blowing the brains out of these good for nothing suckers?

James Morcan wrote: "When can we start blowing the brains out of these good for nothing suckers? "

My foster mother used to have a wooden plaque by the front door so you could see it as you went out. I read it often.

It said: No man is completely worthless. They can always serve as a bad example.

This happens, how many of those same crimes would become so infrequently acted upon? Just sayin'.

No because murder for murder is wrong.

Felicia wrote: "No because murder for murder is wrong."

I never mentioned for murderers, myself. If so, would that include members of the Infantry, who do that to protect us? Or various other police and security forces?

No. I was thinking of people like this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/justi...

There are countless stories out there of this kinda thing. Too many for a 'civilized' country. Something's gotta give.

Erma wrote: "There are countless stories out there of this kinda thing. Too many for a 'civilized' country. Something's gotta give. ..."

"Something's gotta give"
That's how I feel.
How much of this shit are we as a society gonna take?

Ila, thanks for sharing all this.
Very, very interesting comments from someone who has seen things from all sides: a victim of crime, a police officer and a common citizen.

On one hand, I believe that everyone deserves to live, no matter how morbid they are. On the other hand, if they're that heinous then I feel as if they've chosen to walk that road.

I chose unsure because financially (as someone already mentioned) we cannot support so many criminals in jails with space to be the number one factor and food to be the next. Even those waiting on death row are wasting space.

We, being humans, have no right to really decide when or even "if" someone has the 'right' to die. Morally (trying not to bring religion into this) I just don't believe one can just decide another's fate.

Also, being execrable is something that many upon many people have different viewpoints or even different opinions as to how far "too far" really is.

So unsure...

While I am unsure, I do believe more in the Eye for an Eye theory. Regardless of mental capacity when you make the decision to kill another you have forfeited your right to continue living.

My vote is yes.

But the case has to be open and shut.

They should do this within a reasonable period, not 20 years. Put a maximum of five-seven on it. The victims have rights too to peace of mind.

They also have to do some creative thinking on the future of prisons. They serve everyone's purpose poorly, the criminals and society.

Just from memory I recall vaguely a program on Discovery Channel in the 1990s.

There were three police chiefs. One was a New Yorker who had gone out to Minneapolis. One was in Houston and would soon be going to New York. And the other I think was from Los Angeles. At the end they all summarized their thoughts.

The LA chief said people are put in prison and come out of prison and nothing changes. These are people who refuse to live by the rules of society. They just won't.

So he said they should be given places in the desert where they can live any way they want to and their settlements would be surrounded by barbed wire. These are not concentration camps. They run their own settlements. They can make any laws they want.

That may not be a solution but at least someone is given the matter some thought.

Dov wrote: "They also have to do some creative thinking on the future of prisons. They serve everyone's purpose poorly, the criminals and society."

Very true. Around here, privatization of the prison system is a multi-billion dollar industry. It's not about corrections anymore, it's about making money.

So he said they should be given places in the desert where they can live any way they want to and their settlements would be surrounded by barbed wire. These are not concentration camps. They run their own settlements. They can make any laws they want.

Reminds me of what I read Australia originally was with the penal colonies... Not sure if this is true, though.

On that note, though I want to agree, what would happen to the people being displaced by this being created? (You can consider this a rhetorical if it doesn't fit this thread.)

Dov wrote: "So he said they should be given places in the desert where they can live any way they want to and their settlements would be surrounded by barbed wire. These are not concentration camps. They run their own settlements. They can make any laws they want...."

A colony for psychopaths...I like that.

Voted unsure because who defines most heinous? I would be more likely consider the death penalty for those with potential for repeating such crimes, and/or continuing influence to others to do likewise versus crimes of passion.
Evil exists. And locking it away doesn't rid the world of it. Beliefs and sayings - "all life is precious", etc.. I want to respect and believe that... but also if taking one life saves many others?

From Plato’s Views on Capital Punishment by Anastasios Ladikos
University of South Africa
“ 'Though I prove them ever so guilty, I shall not, therefore advise their death, unless it be expedient... I consider that we are deliberating for the future more than for the present... All, states
and individuals, are alike prone to err, and there is no law that will prevent them; or why should men have exhausted the list of
punishments in search of enactments to protect them from evildoers? It is probable that in early times the penalties for the greatest offences were less severe, and that, as these were disregarded, the penalty of death has been by degrees in most
cases arrived at, which is itself disregarded in like manner. Either then some means of terror more terrible than this must be discovered, or it must be owned that this restraint is useless'
(Thucydides, 1968:152). This passage indicates that human nature cannot effectively be deterred by fear of death. When men venture on a precarious endeavour they are not inspired by fear
of fatal consequences but by hope of successful achievement. Thus crime can be reduced, not by the severity of punishment but by careful administration and certainty of detection."

Bravo, Jason!

Lisa wrote: "Morally superior to who? We are the only species, as far as i know, defining morality.
We are already making the judgment of locking people up and isolating them from society and they are often tr..."

Here is a question for you Lisa, would you want these people who commit hideous crimes out on the street or locked up?

I feel like having a life sentence in prison would be more torture than just being put to death so quickly.
Then again, it may depend on which prison and its conditions.
But I do think that rotting away in prison would be worse a punishment than getting a quick way out- which would be death.

I also believe in forgiveness, which means I don't think taking another's life this way is right- but that doesn't mean there should be no punishment. A criminal should learn their lesson by serving time in jail, but people also need to learn to open their hearts and show love and forgiveness to all people no matter what they've done. Yes, discipline is key to correction, but it's for the better.

I agree that the definitions and maybe the concepts themselves of good and evil are fed to us by our religious leaders thru every venue of communication in our lives: parents, teachers, peers, institutions, religions, governments etc... and these are what validate our supposed right to kill everything that we are supposedly superior to (NOT!) We are taught to kill on every level of our society, and we are taught to disassociate with that killing thru justification and allowing others to take the blame for us. From stepping on a spider because it happened to cross our floor to sending our children to kill other peoples children for ??? We have a right, we're human, we're special, after all didn't our GOD's tell us we had those rights. Didn't they tell us that if we stand up for our rightness and kill everything in our / our god's path that we would have eternal peace and harmony. Hmmm doesn't quite work like that does it? Or maybe we are just to let the GOD do the killing for us, and bow to them so they don't kill us in the hopes that we will get to live forever in peace and harmony with this self absorbed god of destruction??? This planet is a paradise, if you can see beyond the plastic society with artificial values, there are lots of good people out there who have been programmed and do need to be re-educated ie: woken up! I don't believe that is the job of any particular institution but of the enormous amount of brilliant minds and plentiful literature and an opening up of the minds and hearts and eyes to see thru the veil of illusion that has been drawn across all of our eyes by the masterminds of our enslavement and destruction. Be they the self professed gods of the past or the seen and unseen rulers of the present. I don't believe killing accomplishes anything. People whom have been traumatized and broken are capable of horrendous things, people with illnesses especially of the brain can be subject to delusions, voices, visions etc... that can have them react to the world they understand to be true. I believe our consciousness is eternal and that we are all connected via that energy that we are all a part of. Why should we fight against ourselves. Balance is the answer. Don't allow yourself to be triggered by guilt and fear into an unbalanced state because then you are vulnerable to manipulation of every sort! This is where the killing and every manner of atrocity starts.

James Morcan wrote: "Another thing I don't understand is I don't get the difference between sociopath and psychopath, or if there is even one. Maybe it's just degrees of being incapable of compassion? Or is it their ac..."

Psychopaths are born that way, sociopaths form by societal influences, narcissists, formed by incorrect bonding as an infant (up to the age of two). However there is a lot of confusion about the terms and they tend to be used interchangeably. Also all 'paths are narcissists, but not all narcissists are 'paths. All three are characterised by low conscience, and zero or cold empathy, they also have extreme feelings of entitlement, and superficial charm. They cannot change and do not want to change. Therapists avoid them like the plague. Hitler was a narcissist or possibly a sociopath. 20% of CEOs are and I'd say pretty much all politicians of high ranking. The position attracts them.

Psychopaths tend not to go around killing people, unless they have a reason for it AND they feel they can reasonably get away with it. They tend to be harder to pick in a crowd. I think of sociopaths as the bulldogs of the three, but you can have functioning sociopaths too, just as you can with psychopaths. You can live next door to 'paths and narcissists, you can be married to one, or have one as a parent, and although you'll suffer for it, they can stay undercover for years without being outed.

Psychopathy is called the mask of sanity, as they appear more normal, more cool calm and collected than the rest of us. It is a character disorder, not a mental illness as such, but there can also be other problems such as borderline personality disorder, histrionic etc that can present with the psychopathy. They are the proverbial snakes. And they do know right from wrong, even if they don't feel it, and are not affected by it. They just choose to be bastards to everyone around them. They are also pathological liars, goes with the low conscience thing.

People use the term narcissist and psychopath too often, in order to mean my bastard ex boyfriend, or that weirdo who went out and shot someone. Overuse or incorrect use of the term has given us false views of the issue and undermines the very real abuse these low conscience people dish out to the people unlucky enough to be around them.

Anyway, in terms of the poll, I voted NO and had no hesitation. Also would add that I now do believe in evil both in the human population and outside of it. Never did though. Spent my life thinking the opposite. Had a few awakenings to the reality around me.

Recently, in Australia, a man who committed a spate of serious crimes, rape, kidnap etc, was released from Thomas Embling, psychiatric prison/hospital. He was out less than 12 hours before he stalked and killed a beautiful young 17yr old woman. He stabbed her 49 times, from memory. It was a horrific, frenzied attack that took place on a public walking path, in a busy outer suburban suburb, very close to my home, where I have a beautiful 17yr old daughter, too. Fortunately, I send her off on walks with a large, protective, German Shepherd. It could have been her. I look at this situation through the eyes of one who could be thusly hurt. I would forgive, but I would not allow them freedom to repeat that atrocity on someone else. We, each of us, can only view a situation through the lens of what we have experienced, or can empathise with. As for the rest: see James' final comment. I concur.

Iona, let's be quite clear - nobody knows with accuracy what Jesus said. The text of his words and message has been changed so many times by so many people in so many different bibles and belief systems that all we can 'reasonably' say is "Jesus was a good man who didn't like people getting cross at people.", and that is conjecture based on faith. Your faith helps you to be a good and kind person, but not the arbiter of Jesus's words.

Carmel wrote: "Iona, let's be quite clear - nobody knows with accuracy what Jesus said. The text of his words and message has been changed so many times by so many people in so many different bibles and belief sy..."

Agreed, for all we know Christ could only turn the cheek so many times and the psychopaths of this era would have him voting in favour of the death penalty...

I'm spiritually-focused also, but do not think that being spiritual means you must be submissive or so forgiving that you're inadvertently acquiescing crime. The brutal murder of the 17 year old woman Carmel mentioned is all too common with repeat offenders - I would argue that even to save the life of one such innocent person is more important than the combined "rights" of all serial killers.

Many people who oppose the death penalty for the worst offenders say that it's better to just lock serial killers up and throw the key away...However, Life almost never seems to equal Life...Even Charles Manson goes up for parole every so often and who knows he may be released one day.

I've basically had enough of the psychopathic minority terrorizing the public at large. Enough is enough. We need to stop imprisoning those who commit victimless crimes (e.g. drug addicts), give much harsher sentences for the likes of pedophiles to protect children (there should be a zero tolerance policy)...And for the worst serial killers who have repeatedly disrespected others lives we should show their life no respect and wipe them off the face of the Earth if for no other reason than to say "the victims' lives you took had value".

Lisa, other species of beings on this planet also have their own morality and mete out judgement/punishment as seen fit. This includes exclusion from the group, beatings by the group to euthanasia for the good of the group. Perhaps the most unlike this of any species is the hyena, who will attempt to kill each other, even in utero.
But this is not behaviour that is exclusive to humans. We are merely the most prolific and vocal species.

James Morcan wrote: "I've basically had enough of the psychopathic minority terrorizing the public at large. Enough is enough. We need to stop imprisoning those who commit victimless crimes (e.g. drug addicts), give much harsher sentences for the likes of pedophiles to protect children (there should be a zero tolerance policy)...And for the worst serial killers who have repeatedly disrespected others lives we should show their life no respect and wipe them off the face of the Earth if for no other reason than to say "the victims' lives you took had value"."

This. Exactly. All of this, but the bolded especially.

I voted no on this one, mainly because we still don't have a sure way to determine guilt or innocence. If even one innocent person is sent to death row, then it is one person too many.

We have not invested in rehabilitation, and our current approach to helping people with mental health problems is terrible. We need to take some ownership in that, and until we do - until we work to find a better way to prevent a problem through education, counseling, rehabilitation, and a variety of other resources, then some blood may be on our hands. Killing people does not solve the problem. It doesn't even prevent the problem. It simply opens the door for others to commit the same (or worse) acts.

Fay wrote: "I feel like having a life sentence in prison would be more torture than just being put to death so quickly.
Then again, it may depend on which prison and its conditions.
But I do think that rottin..."

Yes, Fay, for people like you and I, perhaps, but sociopaths fear death and the ramifications of what that entails. Plus, what happens if they get an early release, which is a regular event, and then reoffend? Also a regular event. We have had many humans murdered by reoffenders, and in Australia, the search for the bodies of the Beaumont children continue to this day. 3 children, one family and the parents do not know where they are. The alleged killer has been found and is dead now, I believe, dying whilst refusing to release their location. Do we really need these people on this planet? If we were in a war, perfect! They would be the soldier of choice.

Interesting, in the past four days the YES vote (as in Yes for the death penalty) has jumped from 22% to 40% and the NO vote has dropped from 52% to 40%.

Could it be that Undergrounders are seeing the light and agreeing with the point I made earlier -- that some killers (and others) are just plain evil and beyond rehabilitation and so must be put down?

Whatever, this poll is shaping up to be another popular one following on as it does from the legalized prostitution poll. Good stuff!

Carmel wrote: "Do we really need these people on this planet? If we were in a war, perfect! They would be the soldier of choice."

Let me argue that there... Those type of people tend to be what we in the business call 'Blue Falcons' (buddy fuckers for the less PC).

Those are the first to turn on their buddies and screw their Unit, not caring who they hurt as long as they come out unscathed. This could become an incident of National security (and actually has at times, though I won't name names here). So the last person you want in a war is someone in it for themselves.

Just sayin'.

I'd say the intelligence industry would be more suitable for these "Blue Falcons".
Apparently the NSA has a potential employee interview test designed to work out who is psychopathic and who isn't. Guess which ones they hire?

Lance Morcan wrote: "Could it be [...] that some people are just plain evil and beyond rehabilitation and so must be put down?"

Yes. You don't try to rehabilitate a rabid dog. You don't rehab a ranch dog that got a taste for blood (your stock - sheep, chickens, cattle, etc.). You take them out and shoot them.

Anyone remember Old Yeller? He was a good dog, and was put down humanely and with LOVE. It was not just the love of a boy for his dog, but for the greater good of the entire farm, everyone on it, and even complete strangers. Arliss acted out of love, not hate or even revenge.

Humans are animals. At their base, we are mammals, and mammals are a kind of animal. Culling the flock, as it were, is nothing but a way to show love for those that cannot protect themselves.

And as for the argument that we can't prove guilt, what about those caught in the act or 'with the knife in their hand', to quote a literary device. Do they have that same right to be defended and possibly 'proven' as innocent on some incidental?

Nice. Blue Falcons...I'll have to adopt that, if you don't mind. I can think of a few Blue Falcons. :) Thanks.
Erma: I feel you are correct, but the argument would be that they just happened to have stumbled across the scene and found the knife, picking it up out of disbelief. Or were hypnotised, etc. Everyone should wear a cctv camera on their heads! ;)

You're right - guilt can be proven and I would argue the death penalty should solely be reserved for those where there is zero chance they could be innocent. Where the evidence is irrefutable proof and far "beyond reasonable doubt".

Problem with the non-PC version of the term is that if you reverse the order of the words it means something entire different :)

"Do you think there should be a death penalty for the most heinous crimes? "

The question only asks if the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for those who commit the most heinous of crimes. It doesn't bring up the question of discovering guilt or whether innocents have been falsely accused; while those are valid concerns that we as a society should address, that is a different question.

Carmel wrote: "Nice. Blue Falcons...I'll have to adopt that, if you don't mind. I can think of a few Blue Falcons. :) ."

Quite alright! It was not an original term by the time I came along, and I'm sure it will long out-live me. But you're right... There are some that fit the description aptly!

Brendan wrote: ""Do you think there should be a death penalty for the most heinous crimes? "

The question only asks if the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for those who commit the most heinous of crime..."

The perp's guilt is assumed in the question I'd suggest. To clarify the question, let's agree to assume that's the case because I agree we don't wanna be hanging too many innocents. Although there's one or two I'd make an exception for...starting with Trump for one.