Ok here's a question for you.......

**djfoot** · 18 July 2006, 11:54

Controversially, I believe that all of our personnas are subject to the physical makeup of our brain. I therefore vote for the latter 'treatment' option.

Once inside, we'll fry their brains, castrate the paedos and search for the final solution...do I sound too much like a Nazi?

**sasguru** · 18 July 2006, 11:56

Originally posted by John Galt

With all the threads on paedophiles, terrorists, Chico etc - how many of you believe that some people are inherently evil and should, therefore, have their crimes punished by death and how many believe that no-one in their right mind could commit attociously violent crimes and therefore they must be mentally ill and should be 'treated' rather than incarcerated.

Unpopular though the idea is, neuroscience is increasingly showing that some people really can't control their actions e.g. psychopaths lack activity in a key area of their brain - there is a physical problem. Another piece of evidence is that some people who develop brain tumours have their behaviour totally changed afterwards.
What we should do with such people is an interesting question. At the moment there is no way to treat them. However it is clearly unfair to kill them. So they should be incarcerated for life. And life should mean life.

**Dundeegeorge** · 18 July 2006, 11:57

Death

for killers/multiple rapists/recidivist paedophiles.
1st offence - treatment in a secure environment for 5 years
2nd offence - secure prison for 10 years
3rd offence - death
Society is entitled to protect itself.

**Dundeegeorge** · 18 July 2006, 11:58

Clearly unfair to kill them?

Originally posted by sasguru

Unpopular though the idea is, neuroscience is increasingly showing that some people really can't control their actions e.g. psychopaths lack activity in a key area of their brain - there is a physical problem. Another piece of evidence is that some people who develop brain tumours have their behaviour totally changed afterwards.
What we should do with such people is an interesting question. At the moment there is no way to treat them. However it is clearly unfair to kill them. So they should be incarcerated for life. And life should mean life.

Why is it clearly unfair?

**sasguru** · 18 July 2006, 12:00

Originally posted by Dundeegeorge

Why is it clearly unfair?

Because no one should be punished by death for what they have no choice over. However as you say society should protect itself. Hence the locking up solution which is the most humane option available.

**AtW** · 18 July 2006, 12:02

Originally posted by Dundeegeorge

for killers/multiple rapists/recidivist paedophiles.
1st offence - treatment in a secure environment for 5 years
2nd offence - secure prison for 10 years
3rd offence - death
Society is entitled to protect itself.

This ought to be the most reasonable post by Dundee I've ever seen: there is no excuse to people who continue to commit crimes, 3 strikes and you out.

Replace death sentense with proper full life sentence (death is too quick to be a good punishment).

**djfoot** · 18 July 2006, 12:04

Originally posted by sasguru

Because no one should be punished by death for what they have no choice over. However as you say society should protect itself. Hence the locking up solution which is the most humane option available.

Absolutely agree. What do our friends the police do with drunks. Lock them up for their own and OUR safety. At the other end of the scale, if we could test for likelyhood of someone committing a crime, should we lock them up before they've done it. Problem is, we are all potential rapists (even SASGURU, but would have to wear a strap-on).

**Dundeegeorge** · 18 July 2006, 12:06

No one?

Originally posted by sasguru

Because no one should be punished by death for what they have no choice over. However as you say society should protect itself. Hence the locking up solution which is the most humane option available.

Not even the victims of terrorists?
Not even the victims of murderers?
Not even the victims of rapists?
Why should those victims be forced to pay for the incarceration of the animals who destroyed their lives? (Obviously not the victims of murderers, d'oh!) If someone is going to spend the rest of their life in prison, what is the point of keeping them alive, that actually sounds more spiteful and vengeful than death.

**sasguru** · 18 July 2006, 12:11

Originally posted by Dundeegeorge

Not even the victims of terrorists?
Not even the victims of murderers?
Not even the victims of rapists?
Why should those victims be forced to pay for the incarceration of the animals who destroyed their lives? (Obviously not the victims of murderers, d'oh!) If someone is going to spend the rest of their life in prison, what is the point of keeping them alive, that actually sounds more spiteful and vengeful than death.

On a practical level, executing terrorists makes them martyrs. A life sentence is indeed a better punsishment.

On another tack the Nazis tried your death solution. Problem is they labelled anyone who disagreed with them as deviant or damaged. Now imagine that Labour took your idea on board. How soon before most people on this forum would be executed?

Ok here's a question for you.......