The death penalty.

[sooey]

Of course, with the paedophile people regard those desires as revolting, and disgusting, and worthy of utter hatred and loathing and contempt, and many people regard them as sick individuals.

Many people don't give a flying f*ck whether they are sick or not, they are more worried about the victims. You haven't answered the question;

So, in certain circumstances you would be happy to set said piece of subhuman sh*t free, with the attendant risk that if the phsychiatrists got it wrong some other child or children might suffer the same fate.

 

[sooey]

Locking up, possibly forever.

So, in certain circumstances you would be happy to set said piece of subhuman sh*t free, with the attendant risk that if the phsychiatrists got it wrong some other child or children might suffer the same fate.

Is that not a risk that perhaps we have to take in a free society?

Not carelessly, or willy-nilly, but recognising that sometimes things will go wrong, despite much care, and that whilst we must do as much as possible to minimise the risk we cannot eliminate it entirely?

Crossed posts, you have answered the question, and what an arrogant fool you are. A risk we have to take, who the f*ck are you and your like to take such risks with innocent young lives. The truth is that the consequences of such risks don't matter to pr*cks like you as long as you can assuage your conscience with the thought of your own superior humanity.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Then you would be laid out flat on yer back .

No doubt by someone like the sub-humans on this forum who relish violence because they are too sick and/or stupid to have either the desire or ability to develop any alternative strategies.

You are either brave, foolish, a liar or a very violent person.

None of the above.

 

[sooey]

and that whilst we must do as much as possible to minimise the risk we cannot eliminate it entirely?

If, in the above case, you can't eliminate the risk entirely, then you can't call it a civilized society. Dead paedophiles don't hurt kids. Banged up for life paedophiles don't hurt kids. Only free paedophiles hurt kids, why can the risk not be eliminated in the above case? Answer, because this country has been taken over by fools who think like you do.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Crossed posts, you have answered the question, and what an arrogant fool you are. A risk we have to take, who the f*ck are you and your like to take such risks with innocent young lives. The truth is that the consequences of such risks don't matter to pr*cks like you as long as you can assuage your conscience with the thought of your own superior humanity.

But it's OK to have the death penalty, is it, and the inevitable risk that innocent people will be put to death by the organs of the state that are supposed to be protecting them?

How many children die at the hands of paedophiles, and how many because we allow people to smoke, or because we allow industry to pollute the planet?

How many children die at the hands of paedophiles, and how many because we allow the private ownership and operation of motor vehicles?

Society takes risks all the time, knowing, absolutely 100% knowing that deaths of children will be the result.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If, in the above case, you can't eliminate the risk entirely, then you can't call it a civilized society.

But it's OK for society to deliberately put innocent people to death in the name of law and order is it?

A society can still call itself civilised if it can't entirely eliminate the risks of killing innocent people but still chooses to carry out actions which it knows will kill them, can it?

 

[sooey]

Some risks are necessary, such as allowing kids to go to school. Some risks are unnecessary, such as allowing known paedophiles to live, or even worse allowing known paedophiles to be at large, after having them convicted and locked away. This doesn't seem very hard to grasp.

 

[joe-90]

Nearly all paedophiles were once the victim of paedophiles. It's like modern vampirism. When does the victim become a candidate for the death penalty? Or is he still a victim?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We don't have to allow people to smoke.

We don't have to allow people to drive at more than 5mph in built-up areas.

 

[sooey]

We don't have to allow people to smoke.

We don't have to allow people to drive at more than 5mph in built-up areas.

There goes the tobacco tax, wouldn't sell many cars either, whoops there goes the road tax and fuel tax as well. Now who's gonna pay all the social workers and advocates, and all the dole money for the workshy and criminally minded who they earn their living off.

 

[megawatt]

One of many of the BAS diatribes on this thread:

It's killing people.

True and no problem whatsoever with doing so in just cases.

It's torturing people.

Errrmmm ... No. The only person who has mentioned torture here is you and capital punishment quite clearly doesn't amount to any form of torture except in your twisted mind.

It's thinking that killing people is OK.

No it isn't, it would be called the LAW.

It's thinking that torturing people is OK.

You are a misguided fool.

It's wanting to see people killed and tortured.

It's nothing of the sort. It is expecting a level of civilised behaviour from the partcipants of our civilisation. Your extreme behaviour on this thread alone suggests you may well fall outside that level of civilisation not those of us who are prepared to debate the issue sensibly.

But it's OK for society to deliberately put innocent people to death in the name of law and order is it?

No, you seem to have missed the point ... We would execute the guilty ones in the name of law and order.

Did you try the anger management link I posted? If so, I'd ask for your money back if I were you ... You were robbed.

MW

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We don't have to allow people to smoke.

We don't have to allow people to drive at more than 5mph in built-up areas.

There goes the tobacco tax, wouldn't sell many cars either, whoops there goes the road tax and fuel tax as well. Now who's gonna pay all the social workers and advocates, and all the dole money for the workshy and criminally minded who they earn their living off.

Oh well - if we have to accept the deaths of children because it raises revenue then that's OK is it?

 

[sooey]

Oh well - if we have to accept the deaths of children because it raises revenue then that's OK is it?

No, we have to accept the deaths of children because some risks are unavoidable, unless we lock them up until they are fully grown. We don't have to accept the deaths of children from known and avoidable risks, such as from perverts who have already been caught. Are you sure that you're not a pervert.

 

[joe-90]

I think it's about time this thread was locked. It's getting silly and unpleasant.

 

[megawatt]

Another first ... For once Mr 90 I agree with you

BAS has forgotten to take his medication today and all those unpleasant thoughts running round inside his head have started to flow out onto his keyboard.

MW