Poll: Paedophile sentenced to be beheaded then crucified

[Zildjin81]

Isn't desecration of a body a crime?

 

[SnipErlite]

The guy had raped 5 children. Dumping one of them in the desert, left for dead.

I'm finding it hard to feel much pity for him to be honest

 

[Booze Zombie]

Really, they should've actually established without a shadow of a doubt that he was the perp, lawyer and all that.

Of course they wouldn't, though. It's not what they do in that Government's law system.

 

[Symplify]

It's interesting how everyone's glazing over the fact that he didn't have a fair trial.

It doesn't matter whether the punishment fits or not, because we can't be sure that he was the one who committed the crime.

He got caught trying to catch another kid, if you read the article. They probably also had testimony from the kids.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Why not crucify him first? He deserves far worse then that. Sure, it's not very humane, but I doubt the children he raped think he's very humane either.

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

It's not just an eye for an eye. It's protecting society from future offenses. Prison won't make it better.

Again, having horrible punishments does not help to prevent future crimes. It never has, and it never will.

So, the criminal is going to turn into a zombie and start eating people?

 

[Internet Kraken]

Why not crucify him first? He deserves far worse then that. Sure, it's not very humane, but I doubt the children he raped think he's very humane either.

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

It's not just an eye for an eye. It's protecting society from future offenses. Prison won't make it better.

Again, having horrible punishments does not help to prevent future crimes. It never has, and it never will.

So, the criminal is going to turn into a zombie and start eating people?

.......ehat?


I think we both may have misinterpreted what the other was trying to say.

 

[stranamente]

Yes, about death penalty... what about if he's innocent?
Let's talk about that...

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Why not crucify him first? He deserves far worse then that. Sure, it's not very humane, but I doubt the children he raped think he's very humane either.

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

It's not just an eye for an eye. It's protecting society from future offenses. Prison won't make it better.

Again, having horrible punishments does not help to prevent future crimes. It never has, and it never will.

So, the criminal is going to turn into a zombie and start eating people?

.......ehat?


I think we both may have misinterpreted what the other was trying to say.

Sorry, that was a bit difficult to understand, I'll admit. My point was that regardless of whether or not it deters other criminals, it will stop this one from committing any more crimes without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Yes, about death penalty... what about if he's innocent?
Let's talk about that...

What about the fact that he was caught in the act and the kids can give testimonies?

Let's talk about that.

 

[Silva]

So, the criminal is going to turn into a zombie and start eating people?

You have a one track mind here. Kraken was talking about the fact that other people will merely replace the person sentenced to death. In that sense, no future crime will be committed. Besides which, life in prison prevents crime against non-convicts (and, depending on the prison, may prevent all further offences entirely), so death has no actual advantage over life here.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

A lot of people have said that they think he should be treated; someone explain how you would intend to treat a person like this.

Life imprisonment either in a prison or mental institution, whichever one the judge sees fit, and some psychiactric help.

Violence disgusts and disturbs me profoundly, no matter what crimes the perpetrator and victim of such violence has comitted. I'm kinda proud of it.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

So, the criminal is going to turn into a zombie and start eating people?

You have a one track mind here. Kraken was talking about the fact that other people will merely replace the person sentenced to death. In that sense, no future crime will be committed. Besides which, life in prison prevents crime against non-convicts, so death has no actual advantage over life here.

Prisons put criminals behind bars but otherwise solve nothing. In fact, they often encourage future offenses.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Sorry, that was a bit difficult to understand, I'll admit. My point was that regardless of whether or not it deters other criminals, it will stop this one from committing any more crimes without a shadow of a doubt.

While I disagree with killing someone for such a purpose, I will say that if you do so at least do it in a humane way. Beheading someone and then crucifying their corpse serves no purpose.

 

[Maze1125]

It's interesting how everyone's glazing over the fact that he didn't have a fair trial.

It doesn't matter whether the punishment fits or not, because we can't be sure that he was the one who committed the crime.

He got caught trying to catch another kid, if you read the article. They probably also had testimony from the kids.

Yeah, because of course, in a country where they deny people lawyers, there is absolutely no way someone could coach some traumatised children into fingering whoever they wanted. Right?

Oh yeah, he was caught offering a child a lift home. That's not circumstantial in the slightest...

 

[Enzeru92]

i say yes because the bastard should die but still not sure on the Crucifixion tho

 

[Silva]

What about the fact that he was caught in the act and the kids can give testimonies?

Let's talk about that.

Framing, lying and false accusation are still possible in that equation. It is a very rare situation that can be substantiated by an irrefutable mountain of evidence, since people are generally smart enough not to offend in a place with more than five witnesses, and not all incriminations can be supported by genetic evidence.

 

[asdasdasdasda]

You're missing the point.

Maybe I am, but then again, a prison sentence is just another form of eye for an eye (And IMO, a poor one). Why aren't you off arguing against that?

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Sorry, that was a bit difficult to understand, I'll admit. My point was that regardless of whether or not it deters other criminals, it will stop this one from committing any more crimes without a shadow of a doubt.

While I disagree with killing someone for such a purpose, I will say that if you do so at least do it in a humane way. Beheading someone and then crucifying their corpse serves no purpose.

It stops repeat offenses and provides some emotional relief for the victims.

I believe the punishment should fit the crime. If you kill and rape children, I think a punishment like this is perfectly fitting, especially considering that rape gives people mental illnesses (I know this for a fact), and pretty much screws up their whole lives.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

What about the fact that he was caught in the act and the kids can give testimonies?

Let's talk about that.

Framing, lying and false accusation are still possible in that equation. It is a very rare situation that can be substantiated by an irrefutable mountain of evidence, since people are generally smart enough not to offend in a place with more than five witnesses, and not all incriminations can be supported by genetic evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a fair trial. I'm just presenting the fact that he was caught.