Unofficial punishment - Right or wrong?

[HalloweenJack]

how do you castrate a female rapist and paedophile?

[Galant]

Well, if you can give us a way of convicting people with 100% accuracy, then we can deal with irreversible consequences. Until then, it's a moot point.

In fairness, there can be such instances - cases where the individual was caught red-handed, in the act, for example. Off the top of my head the only instance of a potential capital crime I can think of is the Lee Rigby murder, but that's not a case of paedophilia, which is what we're discussing, and in the broader scheme of things, if we were talking about rape of children as a capital crime, I think there would have to be a distinction upheld between statutory rape (with a minor) and whatever the technical term is for aggressive/forced rape of the same. If in the future the age of consent gets lowered or raised then there would be all sorts of questions about those killed for something no longer a crime, or those who would then be eligible for the most serious of punishments.

[sammyc]

Even if you want to use the argument that it's a mental illness... One could argue that the rapist WAS fully aware of what he was doing and he chose to do it because he enjoyed doing it. But if caught he will plead the whole Mental Health issues etc.

You seem to be saying, 'you could use the argument of mental illness.. but let's then go on to disregard that as a valid argument'.
Even taking your example of someone 'pleading Mental Health Issues' (ie pleading an illness where none exists*), your across-the-board proven guilty/capital sentence stance means that you are grouping those with/without mental conditions together and as such making no distinction anyway. If I interpret you correctly.

*with the caveat that determining mental condition is far from black & white as per Agent's point.

[wasabi]

You seem to be saying, 'you could use the argument of mental illness.. but let's then go on to disregard that as a valid argument'.

Difficult one. You could argue that anyone who wants to have sex with children is ipso facto insane. From a biological viewpoint it makes no sense as there is no reason to do it. Same can be said of surfing.... Double problem of it being a massive grey area where they're probably a bit nuts but also a bit pervy, but entering an insanity plea can result in a much less harsh sentence.

[Agent]

In fairness, there can be such instances - cases where the individual was caught red-handed, in the act, for example.

Maybe if you're not relying on witnesses. If you are, the difference in stories you'll often get means there is some uncertainty.

Video 'proof' is also subject to tampering. Even home video editors now can make some absolutely stunning footage which can fool people.

I've no doubt that some cases are pretty clear cut, the Lee Rigby murder being a good example, due to the sheer number of witnesses and the situation. But I think in general, a lot of cases don't fall into that category.

[Saracen]

....

Video 'proof' is also subject to tampering. Even home video editors now can make some absolutely stunning footage which can fool people.

...

Fooling an ordinary member of the public, say a jury member, with a casual viewing or two, and fooling expert analysis of the integrity of video with access to equipment, are very different things, though. The former might be relatively easy, but the latter is distinctly not.

But ultimately, as with every death penalty thread, this issue comes down to two factors :-

- what do people believe is right, and/or justified IF guilt is absolutely certain, and

- seeing as it rarely is, when is "beyond reasonable doubt" established.

It's worth noting that that latter is ALWAYS for each and every individual jury member to decide for themselves, whatever the sentence may be. And it's quite possible you and I, for instance, could sit side by side on the same jury, hear the same evidence, and I end up beyond reasonable doubt and you don't, or vice versa.

At the end of the day, for lack of a better term, any jury verdict is both a judgement call (literally ), and something of a crap-shoot. Which is why we have 12 people on a jury and, at a minimum, a substantial majority verdict is required for conviction.

[Rave]

Two more ***** I have to pay my taxes to lock up for 30+ years for a senseless slaughter. Everyone in charge at that prison should be sacked for incompetence IMO, and lose whatever pension they've accrued. At the end of the day it's my tax revenue paying these useless ***** to fail to protect their charges. I work in the quasi-private sector and I'd lose my job in an instant if I screwed up that badly.

Sack the lot of them.

[Millennium]

Prisons seem to be really overcrowded, and the bullying is a major problem. No one wants the criminal justice system to have to deal with a society in which people believe prisons to be bad places for their long term physical or psychological health (no matter what they may believe this in reference to or for).

I honestly just don't get this. Why aren't they disciplined boring dark somewhat damp hostels, like they should be?

[wasabi]

Two more ***** I have to pay my taxes to lock up for 30+ years for a senseless slaughter. Everyone in charge at that prison should be sacked for incompetence IMO, and lose whatever pension they've accrued. At the end of the day it's my tax revenue paying these useless ***** to fail to protect their charges. I work in the quasi-private sector and I'd lose my job in an instant if I screwed up that badly.

Sack the lot of them.

Prisons are full of criminals. The ones stupid enough to get caught. Large groups of stupid violent blokes locked up together equals strong chance of violence. Locking them up in solitary 24/7 would fix the issue but I'm sure you won't accept that either.

[DeludedGuy]

This is shocking, what if they did this to an innocent man who was wrongly convicted? The crime was awful, the sentence he received was mediocre but it all depends on the circumstances of the case, which I know nothing of - what I do know is that people are wrongly convicted of crimes everyday.

[DeludedGuy]

Prisons are full of criminals. The ones stupid enough to get caught. Large groups of stupid violent blokes locked up together equals strong chance of violence. Locking them up in solitary 24/7 would fix the issue but I'm sure you won't accept that either.

It's been proven and is widely believed that solitary confinement does more harm than good.

[RobbieRoy]

Although the mental illness aspect of paedophilia has been mentioned, for instance by Agent, it's been overlooked that there are many studies that have shown that if an individual is abused as a child then they themselves are at a very high chance of going on to abuse someone else themselves.

The murdered inmate relevant to this thread did, I read, first offend at the age of 15. I wonder what sort of upbringing he had in order for him to have formed such behaviour patterns so young in life - and consequently, how much was his further offending predictable or preventable.

As for all of us, my perspectives and proclivities could have been so different to what they are, had I received a different set of experiences in early life.

[wasabi]

It's been proven and is widely believed that solitary confinement does more harm than good.

I doubt it has been proven in any real scientific sense, but I agree it isn't a desrable thing to do to people either. But it would stop them shanking each other.

Prison is a waste of time so I'd get rid of 90 percent of custodial sentences and impose other punishments, including death penalty.

[surino]

This is the backlash of media interest in horrific crimes. I wonder if it will be more common now that high profile court cases are broadcast on TV. Is Pistorius safe in jail? His court case received a great deal of media attention and a lot of anger has been expressed over the verdict.

[Saracen]

Although the mental illness aspect of paedophilia has been mentioned, for instance by Agent, it's been overlooked that there are many studies that have shown that if an individual is abused as a child then they themselves are at a very high chance of going on to abuse someone else themselves.

The murdered inmate relevant to this thread did, I read, first offend at the age of 15. I wonder what sort of upbringing he had in order for him to have formed such behaviour patterns so young in life - and consequently, how much was his further offending predictable or preventable.

As for all of us, my perspectives and proclivities could have been so different to what they are, had I received a different set of experiences in early life.

I also wonder just how strong tne causal link is, though? There's a lot of people that suffered horrific abuse as kids that didn't go on to become abusers themselves.

I've seen some work suggesting that certain criminal tendencies have physiological roots that can even be genetic. For instance, if the over-dominance or under-existance of certain neuro chemicals in the brain leads to susceptibility to certain types of criminal behaviour, like violence, or a lack of "normal" empathy, and if you did or did not inherit that particular brain mutation is the determinant. It may be that if you were abused as a child AND have that inherited abnormality, you become an abuser, but with either factor on it's own, you don't.

It may also well be that that abnormality isn't as simple as you do or you don't suffer, but rather a broad spectrum, like autism or dyslexia is a spectrum, and that quite where you are on that scale, combined with the degree to which you were abused, determines how likely you are to be an abuser.

And, of course, if being a paedophile isn't entirely an act of volition, then it adds an extra degree of moral complexity. Do we lock people up because of factors beyond their control, be it an abusive childhood or their genetic makeup? But if we don't lock up known paedophiles, what about a duty on society to protect their future innocent victims from the predations of those we knew were predatory, knew that couldn't help themselves, and could have locked up but didn't?

How do we explain to next year's victims that we could have prevented them becoming victims, and didn't because we were concerned more about the rights of the abuser, whatever the reason they're an abuser, than protecting kids from them?

Personally, I say err on the side of protecting innocent kids from those that have already proven themselves to be predators, regardless of why they are predators. If we can help "cure" predators, great, do so. If not, the kids come first.

[RobbieRoy]

It may also well be that that abnormality isn't as simple as you do or you don't suffer, but rather a broad spectrum, like autism or dyslexia is a spectrum, and that quite where you are on that scale, combined with the degree to which you were abused, determines how likely you are to be an abuser.

How do we explain to next year's victims that we could have prevented them becoming victims, and didn't because we were concerned more about the rights of the abuser, whatever the reason they're an abuser, than protecting kids from them?

You are right to introduce the complexity of 'abnormal' behaviour, the aspects of predisposition and the spectrum distribution of various mental conditions. These are complex issues.

Overall, I feel that society should be brave enough to seek understanding and base the treatment of the dangerous ones upon that understanding. I do, though, acknowledge that our understanding of these things is by no means complete.

It's also not about rights of the abuser trumping those of the victim - that could never be just or justified. It is about understanding the abuser so that he (mainly, but sometimes she), is known, controlled and treated as much as is necessary so that the vulnerable are always protected. That is the responsible approach.

Also, as previously stated in this thread, it is the rule of law and not of the mob, that underpins the sanity of our society. It's easy to bray, far more difficult to understand.