cultivating of young girls and boys by pedophiles is a heinous crime
Certainly, but is it a crime that needs the death penalty? At age 10 I too experienced some sexual exploitation and exposure to other family member's incestuous relationship, but I don't think anybody needed to be executed for it.
Most pedophiles harm more than one child. So yes, I think it is warranted. These perpetrators have no feeling for others, just their own gratification and they use any means to get that gratification.
I do not feel that the death penalty would encourage offenders to kill their victims.
I acknowledge your feelings and I am sure they are justified. But how do the offenders feel about it? That is the important question, since a lesser penalty for non-murder could possibly save some victims from being killed. Isn't that a worthwhile goal?
I think that what the offenders think about has very little value. I don't believe that it would save any victims. On the contrary, the offender would be more likely to kill any future victims, to avoid going back to jail-especially since pedophiles are so hated amongst the prison population.
[quote]Sources have shown that offenders need to ratchet up the violence to continue getting their jollies. So I would still be for the death penalty in child rape/molestation convictions.
But then we would be convicting and punishing them for crimes they have not yet committed! There has to be an approach that respects due process.
No, they would be executed for crimes already committed.
For example, I rather like the idea of getting life-time supervised parole after a decade or two in prison if he volunteers to have all his man-parts removed. (That would include blood testing to make sure the parolee was not taking any steroids or male hormones.) That removes the drive AND the rewards for additional sexual offenses. I think this kind of penalty would be a good fit to the child rapist who DIDN'T kill his victim.
And what about what's a "good fit" for the victim? "Sorry, we know that you were raped and tortured, but your safety and other children's safety is not nearly as important as trying to save a pedophile who deliberately plans and sets out to lure and hurt children." This is exactly what a lot of victims and families would be afraid of. Sexual desire is not just genitals and hormones. The brain has a lot to do with it. And short of lobotomy, these pedophiles will continue to committ these kinds of crimes. The solution posted above would force the victims to be in fear that the perpetrator will come back to finish the job-now that the perp was surgically and permanently maimed and that the perp would still target other children, putting them in their own private Hell.
In cases where a violent assault of any type ended in death and there is absolutely no doubt, then I have no problem at all with execution. But I would never want to see anybody executed solely on the eyewitness testimony of a person who did not know them well. Way too many "looked like him" ids have been turned into invalid convictions.
So not only is the child a victim of a heinous crime, but under suspicion of being a liar, too? Isn't that a form of torture for the victim? To hell with the victim, we must save the poor misunderstood criminal?
