JigSaw :

It isn't exactly free to sentence a criminal to death...

soxfan849 : I never said it was free I said if you want to get raped of money put the child molester in prison for life.

JigSaw :

The death penalty is far more expensive in terms of short-term costs and in the end both wind up costing millions of dollars. Either way you go, taxpayers lose.

Definitely! They are sick and twisted, and what they do to children is just so... Terrible and sickens me. They deserve the death penalty for such a horrible crime.

I think they should. If not put to death at least life in prison with no chance of ever getting out. 

Kryptic : No, they shouldn't be put to death. At a certain threshold of offending, perhaps. But a lot of countries have outlawed the death penalty. You have to make sure the punishment fits the crime...and also rehabilitating people is a good idea. If we were going to put child molestors to death we'd have to put people to death for other types of non-violent crime as well.

Blessedj01 : Best part is the punishment DOES fit the crime. These are CHILDREN we're talking about. The most innocent things on the planet. Death is not only the best solution but in my opinion the only solution. You can't fix a pedophile, that person is going to be a pedophile forever and regardless of whether or not you put them in therapy for the rest of their lives that person no longer deserves the life they have.

Hmm well yes and no  i suppose it all really  depends on other peoples views but as for my own answer maybe not all of them even deserve to die perhaps some of them deserve torture or some fate worse than the release of an ever lasting sleep  wherever their souls end up is nothing to do with this however, as i figure it would be up to the circumstances of the situation  the people involved were in and stuff like that  to determine a course of action best suited for said punishment.

AnemoneRose : I get where you're coming from but I don't think it's that simple. For starters there's whole spectrum of offenses in that category. Also there is a broad category of offenses that could have one classed as a "pedophile" that aren't necessarily what you or I are thinking of when we use that term.

Blessedj01 : I'm thinking people who touch children. I don't see any other way one could be a pedophile.

Heck there are so many scary things about this.
I know so many people related to this subject.
They really don't deserve to live.
I think they should be nuked into the sun.
And that's my opinion.

To me don't think u put them to death.only does who commit murder should be put to death.they should have a punishment that fits the crime.for child molesters they should give them a drug that take away there sex drive they cant get hard no more and cant reproduce anymore.that what should happen to them.

Yeah I agree they should put to death, because the kids are to young for those type of things, and it just plain wrong to do that to a little kid when you are an adult.

I honestly think that they should be put to death, because thats just wrong to mess up a young childs life, when they are plenty girls and guys out there looking for the same thing you're looking for.

I'm actually very surprised by the general agreement on this topic.  I was coming here and expecting that I would be the odd ball out!  I guess I'm very very proud to say I'm a part of the in-crowd! I believe child molesters should be put to death.  I don't think there should even be room for debate on the issue.

Then again, I think all rapists and most murders should be put to death as well.

Wow... seriously? I'm shocked to find such a debate... and then even more shocked at what I'm reading at skimming over the replies...

You're really suggesting that death is a fair trade for a crime that did not take one's life? How does that even make any sense? Are we going to suggest the death penalty for theft next?

I don't condone child molestation in any way. Of course, it's a repulsive act that should be punished. Yes, it's an outrage that it even occurs. Yes, people who do it are sick and twisted. But come on, people... think about what you're saying for a moment.

Punishment for a crime isn't supposed to be worse than the crime itself. In most of the country, murderers don't get the death penalty that often and you want someone to be killed for molestation???

How can you really justify ending a person's life in response to something they did that while damaging, did not actually end the life of another person? It's fair game to say someone should be killed for killing others... but not for this.

There's another fatal flaw in this argument that I'd like to point out now. The justice system is far from perfect. Not ever verdict is correct. Cases are decided by human beings who are fallible. So even if you believe that child molestation is an offense that deserves a punishment as extreme as death... what about those who are wrongfully convicted? Are you suggesting that we should just end someone's life who actually did nothing wrong? It's very possible for someone to get convicted of child molestation who didn't do a thing. Who is a jury going to believe: a cute little kid or some guy who the prosecution has painted to be a creepy pedophile? Obviously, they'll eat up whatever the prosecution says and not give the guy a chance. People are easily swayed by their emotions.

There are measures that can be taken to protect children that don't go overboard. Make the person atone for their crimes. Alert neighborhoods that a known child molester is in the vicinity. These are better ways to handle the situation than just robbing someone of their right to live for something that isn't equatable to that.

Crazy Li: I'm going to have to debate with your argument,


but I respect your decision and your beliefs on how to deal with child


molesters (this is a Debate thread so might as well start a debate.)

Your argument about death is a fair trade for a crime that


didn't take one's life is a valid question. However your next two sentences in


your first paragraph doesn't reinforce your idea that the death penalty is a


fair trade for a crime that didn't involve one's life being taken away (I'm not


trying to be technical or mean, it's just when you’re trying to support an idea


that you believe in you need to reinforce it with valid reasons why. To answer


your question about the idea of the death penalty would be a good idea for


child molesters is because the nature of the crime fits the punishment. What I


mean by my statement is that when a child gets molested, the pain doesn’t stop


after the molester gets arrested and locked away. The psychological trauma that


the child is going to suffer for most likely the rest of his life is in my


opinion enough to justify the OPTION (not the outright solution) of the death


penalty. Add in the fact that the parents of the child and/or the child himself


in the future would end up spending thousands of dollars to try and help the


child psychologically get over the crime (which may or may not work, but


hopefully it does work). Also add the fact that the child might never recover


from the trauma and might go through life having problems with touching other


people (both sexually and non-sexually). Plus the child is going to have the


trail of the molester be on national television like MSNBC, CNN, FOX, and Nancy


Grace; so the child is going to have the whole country know that he was


sexually abused and is going to have both immature children and adults make fun


of him/give him dirty looks/say how sorry they are. Now when you say something


like “what will they do next…” or “are we going to suggest that…” it comes off


as being somewhat ignorant (I’m not saying you are, just that your last


sentence does) so in the future try to avoid that statement when you are


explaining why you believe something is wrong or right (again not trying to be


mean, “that guy”, or the grammar police).

Again with what I said in the last sentence of my paragraph;


you should never justify something with the statement “think about what you’re saying”.


Part of debating is to prove or disprove your arguments even if that argument is


logical or far out there. You had a great set-up to disprove the pro-death


penalty side by agreeing that the act is repulsive, sick, and twisted; but you


should have again offered a reason why the death penalty shouldn’t be an option


for this particular case that we are debating. You could have also introduced


other options of punishment to punish the child molester without resorting to


using the death penalty. Again I’m not trying to be mean or anything like that;


I’m just trying to help you out in the future.

In response to your argument that punishment for a crime isn’t


supposed to be worse than the crime; I ask you this: If a person is falsely


convicted of a crime they didn’t commit and are sentenced to live in prison for


a certain period of time depending on the crime; is that not a crime also? The


reason why I ask this question is because sometimes the punishment for a crime


is worse than the crime and sometimes the crime is worse than the punishment (I


reference OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony to support my statement.) I would


personally (in my opinion I remind you) rather see that our legal system that


punishes people worse than the crime they commit then have the crime be worse


than the punishment (meaning that I would rather that punishment be to hard


then the punishment be too lenient.) In response to your statement that most of


the country murderers don’t get the death penalty that often; I ask that you


provide evidence as too what part of the country and what country (again I’m


not trying to be mean, I’m just trying to help). If you mean the United States


I should tell you that more than half the states in the United States have the


death penalty as an option. Now depending on the state that you reside in and


what the death penalty option can be considered (i.e. murder, rape, fraud, etc.);


you should know that at any time the state legislature can pass laws outlawing


the death penalty or allowing the death penalty. If your hoping that the United


States Supreme Court would outlaw it, don’t hold your breath, the court’s


philosophy changes with each justice added so the Court is never going to say


that the death penalty is illegal and there is no way that an Amendment to the


United States Constitution would get enough votes or states to ratify the it.


Also if it’s not just one child that has been molested and a whole bunch of


children have been molested (I speak of the Penn State Jerry Sandusky issue),


then yes he should be killed (at least the government should execute him, but I’ll


bet that someone in prison will shank him.)

As I said before in my first paragraph, the damage caused by


molestation can damage the child to the point that (as sad as I am that I’m


saying this) that the child might as well kill himself to end the pain (and


sometimes the child ends up doing just that, which of course you can now try to


seek a charge of murder to the law proceedings.) I’m a little concerned with


your next sentence. Earlier you said that murderers don’t get the death penalty


that often makes me believe that you support life in prison as a form of


punishment for the crime of murder. Yet in your next paragraph you say that “it


is fair game” which makes me believe that you support the death penalty in some


cases. I ask you which one are you: for death penalty or against death penalty


(not for child molesters, but for murder, rape, and other terrible crimes.)


Cause if you come off in favor of the death penalty in some cases, then one


could argue why wouldn’t the death penalty apply to child molesters (serial or


not) when you support it to murders? Punishment is black or white; there is no


gray or in between; you’re either for the death penalty or against the death


penalty (sorry if I come off as mean; but it is true.)

I totally agree with your statement that the justice system


is far from perfect and not every verdict is correct (I again reference OJ


Simpson and Casey Anthony.) Those who are wrongfully convicted are guilty of a


false conviction and shouldn’t be compared to someone who is found guilty of a


crime they did commit but are getting severely punished (unless you can offer


evidence that support your claim, but you didn’t post anything to relate it…again


not trying to be mean.) I thought that we were to assume that the child


molester was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? If we are talking about someone


who didn’t molest someone and they could face the death penalty then we have a


bit of a problem (usually there is process that must take place as to decide if


the death penalty is to be used or not; and usually the person who


starts/introduce the debate should say if the child molester is innocent or


guilty, but I think it was implied for this debate.) I agree with your last


statement even thou juries are supposed to not think with their emotions and


just with the facts of the case.

There are measures that can be taken to protect children and


usually they work (not 100% of the time, but they don’t always work.) Sometimes


the person who commits the crime doesn’t atone for it (usually you find that


most criminals who get arrested say that they only regret getting caught as


opposed to confessing an sympathy for the crime.) Again neighborhoods are


alerted when a child molester has moved to their neighborhood. I suggest that


you do some research on some things that are put in place to protect the


victims who have been molested and still make life difficult for the child


molester (but they sometimes find a way to get passed it.)

Again I will say this: I respect your belief and your


opinion and I’m not trying to be meant or make you feel stupid, feel bad, or


feel that you’re wrong for believing what you believe.