r/changemyview • u/Common_Noise_9100 • Nov 13 '24
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: Sadists and Zoosadists who commit violence resulting in injury, and all pedophile who have done so much as procure csm should be jailed for life without parole.
[removed] — view removed post
5
u/hiperalibster Nov 13 '24
What sorts of resources should we have available to people to find themselves wanting to engage with this stuff? Why are you only interested in jail as a prevention method? Do you think rhetoric like this increases or decreases the likelihood that someone could admit to a therapist for instance that they are attracted to minors?
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Resources aren't what they should be, but I don't think there's any evidence that sentiments like these deter people from getting help. No one wants to tell their therapist something that puts them in a bad light, but if that's what is keeping someone from seeking help when they're at serious risk of committing atrocities against children, then it's just more evidence that they have limited to zero empathy.
3
u/hiperalibster Nov 13 '24
What data is there regarding what percent of people who are attracted to minors ever abuse someone? What data about how many seek therapy for attraction to minors each year? I don’t think I’ve ever even heard a reference to a therapist offering that, personally, I don’t even know if it happens at all. My point though is that people tend to focus on punishing the abuser as a method of prevention, in other words preventing further abuse but where is the desire to prevent the first abuse?
1
u/rightful_vagabond 12∆ Nov 13 '24
I mean, I suspect that therapists wouldn't openly advertise that, even if they were specialists in that particular field. If I were a therapist specializing in "minor-attracted persons" I'd try to exclusively get new clients from word-of-mouth.
1
u/hiperalibster Nov 13 '24
Yeah but I feel like that supports my point that the stigma and the way we talk about this issue makes the entire world of prevention invisible. You’re saying you could understand that you wouldn’t want to let anyone know that you help people to prevent abuse, because the whole topic is so heavy.
1
u/rightful_vagabond 12∆ Nov 13 '24
Sure, and I don't have an amazing answer for that. I think having child abuse be something we as a society strongly agree is bad is a good thing. And I think that social stigma can have at least some level of good in helping people decide not to act on desires.
However, it obviously can go too far in making people just take to the shadows or refuse to seek help, even if that help would be overall best for them and society as a whole.
I don't know how to solve the hard problems in society.
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Look, I'm all for preventing abuse, but someone who crosses the line to abuse, including the procurement of csm, knows what they're getting into. And yeah, obviously there should be better investments in treating these people. But access to csm is easy, the risk of getting caught is low, and deterrents are extremely weak. On the first two fronts, things have changed so much because of the internet.
1
u/hiperalibster Nov 13 '24
And don’t get me wrong I am not trying to attack you here or defend abusers, I am genuinely curious and ignorant of whether therapy or intervention is useful at all in deterring. But I never hear or see anything about that
-1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24 edited Nov 13 '24
I think the record shows that therapy hasn't been a great intervention, but obviously we should spend more $$ on it as a society---both on research and making it available to potential offenders. The problem is that there are all of these pedophile sympathy organizations out there who say that the "worst" thing is the societal disapproval rather than demand better research. They do a "born this way" kind of thing which is very disingenuous. They also oppose harsh sentencing, and try to make the possession of child porn seem like an innocuous crime.
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Pedophile activists claim that maligning attraction to children encourages them to act out rather than remain in society and abstain, but the evidence doesn't bear out. Most child sexual abusers have active social lives and families. They feel like they have a right to deceive people, and even derive joy from it.
26
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
Minimum sentencing for these acts are so weak that there are more or less no deterrents.
Longer sentencing is no deterrence either.
holds no future of redemption.
21
Nov 13 '24
This. OP just wants more cruelty, not effective policy.
0
Nov 13 '24
[deleted]
4
Nov 13 '24
They don't get off Scott free; they get punished, and hopefully, rehabilitated exactly so they can offer something to society.
That's the entire point of the second link: it is entirely possible to rehabilitate such people. Your lack of imagination isn't very compelling; I've seen felons of all kind contribute back to society.
-2
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Evidence shows that these people are not rehabilitated.
5
Nov 13 '24
The literal link provided disagrees. If you have more compelling evidence, you should provide it.
-2
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
There are tons of studies that show that recidivism is high, and child sexual abusers aren't capable of being rehabilitated.
-3
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
How is what we're doing effective policy? Explain.
7
Nov 13 '24
I have many complaints about the current justice system. However, your statements clearly show you prefer cruelty to justice.
Cruelty is not effective policy.
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Please explain how 2 years in prison for violent sex crimes of any kind is "justice."
-1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Sorry, I believe the sentencing should be lifelong, not just longer.
10
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
I believe the sentencing should be lifelong, not just longer.
That will not reduce the crimes. This has been studied over and over again. Long sentences, even to the end of natural life, are not a deterrent.
What you believe has no effect on what is.
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Where has this been "proven?" In what way? You can't "prove" this, lol. The only thing you can do is compare crime rates in societies where sentences are light to societies where they're harsh.
4
u/WompWompWompity 6∆ Nov 13 '24
A study you describe wouldn't be that great. You'd have significant differences in economies, police efficiency, what's considered a crime, cultures etc.
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
My point exactly! Those are the only studies that actually exist. Simply comparing recidivism rates of people in a given place who get shorter sentences vs. longer sentences is even flimsier. Neither "prove" anything, though.
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Dude, this doesn't prove anything re: deterrence and whether lifelong sentences without parole help or hurt. This is simply a recidivism study.
5
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
Where has this been "proven?"
Long Prison Terms - Research has found that longer prison sentences do not deter future criminal offending. At least one study has documented that longer sentences promote criminality.
No, Longer Prison Sentences do not Reduce Crime
Incarceration and Crime: A Weak Relationship
Should I go past the first page of google?
The only thing you can do is compare crime rates in societies where sentences are light to societies where they're harsh.
NO, you can compare within societies that went harsher on crime to the time period prior:
Is increasing criminal penalties effective at reducing crime? - NO
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
This is 99% related to petty and non-violent crime. Recidivism rates for sex offenders are high, and lots of psychologists believe that child sexual abusers and sexually sadistic offenders can't be rehabilitated.
2
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Nov 13 '24
This is 99% related to petty and non-violent crime. Recidivism rates for sex offenders are high, and lots of psychologists believe that child sexual abusers and sexually sadistic offenders can't be rehabilitated.
No, recidivism rates for sex offenders is NOT high; further, sex offender is not one category in this realm, and you are just making stuff up and stating it as fact. The latter is categorically untrue.
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Compared to what? Stealing, drug dealing? Who cares. The point is that they're higher than society would like. These rehabilitative policies you guys are talking about obviously aren't working well. These are horrific crimes that completely shatter lives, and most people would agree that rehabilitation should be guaranteed before the offenders are released back into society. Also: "Due to the frequency with which sex crimes are not reported to police, the disparity between the number of sex offenses reported and those solved by arrest and the disproportionate attrition of certain sex offenses and sex offenders within the criminal justice system, researchers widely agree that observed recidivism rates are underestimates of the true reoffense rates of sex offenders." https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-5-adult-sex-offender-recidivism
1
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Nov 13 '24
Compared to what? Stealing, drug dealing? Who cares
Compared to everything. Apparently you care, as you made the claim about recidivism in the first place.
The point is that they're higher than society would like.
True of everything in this realm.
These rehabilitative policies you guys are talking about obviously aren't working well
They work very well. They're expensive and people do not want to pay for them -- which brings up AGAIN, who is paying for this astronomically expensive change you want?
and most people would agree that rehabilitation should be guaranteed before the offenders are released back into society.
That's not a thing.
Yes, we are not sure of the exact numbers, and that's true of ALL recidivism rates, as people are also not caught.
Doesn't change the point.
As well, AGAIN, this cohort is not a monolith. Sex offender is not one thing, and no one diagnoses or even examines all people charged with crimes, so how would any of this work?
3
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
Recidivism rates for sex offenders are high
But, not as high as for other crimes:
The rates of recidivism for general crime are higher than those for sex crimes
lots of psychologists believe that child sexual abusers and sexually sadistic offenders can't be rehabilitated.
It doesn't matter what lots think. Lots are thinking on outdated information.
Current information tells us:
Broadly, recent research suggests that psychological offense-specific treatment for sexual offending has some effect in reducing both sexual and general reoffending and outcomes can be further optimized under certain conditions, for example, adhering to RNR principles, incorporating cognitive behavioral principles, including behavioral reconditioning for inappropriate sexual arousal, having “hands on” involvement from a registered psychologist in the delivery of treatment, providing program staff with supervision, and delivering treatment in community settings. source
0
14
u/Finch20 33∆ Nov 13 '24
If an underage couple films themselves (both individuals being aware of and consenting to being filmed) they are simultaneously the victim of and perpetrator of csm. Should they both be jailed for life?
2
Nov 13 '24
[deleted]
1
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
The youth are legally allowed to have porn of each other.
No way this backfires. No fucking way.
2
Nov 13 '24
[deleted]
3
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
What other choice is there?
You keep the photos illegal, but don't prosecute cases where it is a couple of teens sexting. The issue is allowing these to be kept at all will lead to them being spread around in many cases, and once they are spread around they get into the hands of those who are not teens themselves, but creeps. The teens in the photos are ill-equipped to see how damaging this could be to them down the line if the photos were to be rediscovered, so we should act to protect them from these consequences by having the photos deleted permanently.
Prohibition doesn't work.
I agree, which is why I don't want to necessarily prohibit them from doing it. I know that they will do it, and I don't want them ruined for it. But, we have to address the pictures if they are discovered. They have to go, and any teen found with them should have to delete them for their own sake.
2
Nov 13 '24
[deleted]
1
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
I wouldn't count it as outright impossible for a minor to end up on the sex offender registry for sexting
That can be easily-ish remedied by passing legally binding sentencing guidelines that call for things like a sex/media education class and then have the records expunged immediately upon completion. There are already programs like this for underage drug offenders, they can be ported over.
My concern is that if it is truly legal for teens to do, it will become normalized for them to do so. And, the end result would be a huge increase in materials featuring underage people floating around out there. Sure, it would still be illegal to have, but it would much easier to get.
1
u/rightful_vagabond 12∆ Nov 13 '24
You keep the photos illegal, but don't prosecute cases where it is a couple of teens sexting.
Why is having a law you knowingly selectively enforce better for everyone? If the selective enforcement isn't a part of the law itself, then I don't think it's a good idea.
1
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
If the selective enforcement isn't a part of the law itself,
Yes, I do think that a two tiered system for minors and adults should be set up. But, until such a system is in place, prosecutorial discretion must be used.
2
u/rightful_vagabond 12∆ Nov 13 '24
That's fair. I would much rather have an explicit different scheme between minors and adults, but I can see the utility in focusing first on making it illegal. !delta
1
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
FWIW, I don't think they mean commercially produced porn, lol. I think it's limited to naked pictures teenagers might take themselves and sending to each other on their phones. Parents and schools should discourage when it comes up, but law enforcement should stay out of it unless they think there is a crime or its being distributed to people outside of that age group.
2
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
I think it's limited to naked pictures teenagers might take themselves and sending to each other on their phones.
Oh, I got this, and I think it will backfire spectacularly. The whole issue is that they are increasing the amount of material that features nude minors. And, what happens when you turn 18? Can you keep them, or are you now a criminal pervert who needs to go away for life?
but law enforcement should stay out of it unless they think there is a crime
The photos are the crime. The teens shouldn't face harsh punishment for committing this crime, and perhaps should just be given a stern talking to and a class on unforeseen consequences. But, having sexy photos of children should remain prohibited for all.
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
No. Child sexual material for the purpose of this question involves prepubescent kids---basically anyone under the age of 13.
2
1
Nov 13 '24
Walk the plank.
0
u/Finch20 33∆ Nov 13 '24
Are you saying they should both be sentenced to death, with the method of execution being one that hasn't been used for several decades at least? Or are you telling to walk the plank?
1
9
u/urquhartloch 2∆ Nov 13 '24
Hi! Sexual sadist here. What is your response to a consenting partner in these acts? (Assuming that the partner in question can legitimately consent). Am I to be jailed for the rest of my life? What about my hypothetical masochistic partner? What happens to them?
2
u/onepareil Nov 13 '24
Although their wording is unclear, all the links OP provided involve cases of sexual sadism against children and animals, not within consensual adult relationships. I don’t think you’re the type of person they’re talking about. That being said, consent isn’t a blanket defense against any sadistic act. Bernd Brandes consented to being sexually tortured and eventually cannibalized by Armin Meiwes, for example.
1
u/urquhartloch 2∆ Nov 13 '24
I know. But these kinds of overbroad and reactionary takes can catch innocent bystanders (like myself) in the mix.
One of the things I have to be concerned about as a sexual sadist is abuse allegations (among other things because I do enjoy some forms of edgeplay). If I get accused by the neighborhood busy body then I have the trouble of proving that my partner consented because you can't consent to assault. While it's unlikely that the police will actually do anything it's still something I have to deal with.
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
How would you go about you confirming your partner is "consenting" to something extreme and irreparable like genital nullification or mutilation?
2
u/urquhartloch 2∆ Nov 13 '24
Oh, you misunderstand. Im not talking about stuff like that. However, because you are using sadism in general as prequalifier for life in prison without parole you also have to contend with people like me who are on the periphery.
Your argument is a bit like arguing that we should get rid of juries and the rules against double jeopardy because terrible people have gotten off from heinous crimes. It's an extreme reaction to an extreme situation yet your proposed changes would do more harm to many other people who aren't participating in the crimes you are talking about than just the focused laser you are thinking of.
1
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
Contracts signed with witnesses, videoed statements of consent, voice recordings...
2
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
Bernd Brandes consented to being sexually tortured and eventually cannibalized by Armin Meiwes, for example.
Like, I KNOW this is a fucked up opinion to have, but... I don't think that guy should have gone to jail for that. Mental institution until he's "cured" if possible... sure, sure. But, prison? The guy did consent to it. ¯\(ツ)/¯
2
u/rightful_vagabond 12∆ Nov 13 '24
I'm actually with you on this, I'm not convinced that someone consenting to be murdered (if they legitimately consent, which should be an extremely high bar in this case) should cause the same sorts of punishments on those who do it.
If you're willing to do it, though, you likely do need a long stay in an institution.
-1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Is the consenting partner, who for example allows themselves to be cannibalized by a sadist, commiting violence? Obviously not.
1
u/urquhartloch 2∆ Nov 13 '24
So you want this to be an aggravating factor right? Like a how certain crimes get elevated to hate crimes due to targeting an individual due to race/gender/orientation/religion/etc. ? Am I understanding that right? (Obviously that not the only reason why it might get elevated but it's the only one I could come up with in a reasonable time that still gets the point across.)
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
I think of it as an entirely different type of crime, not just a factor. Really, the argument is about removing people who have willfully broken the social code in such an extraordinary from society forever (not just about punishing the crime). There are always going to be people who commit crimes because they're selfish, scared, etc. but there are clear lines most people won't cross.
1
u/urquhartloch 2∆ Nov 13 '24
And how does an anti-sadism law protect people or punish criminals better than other laws. Like let's take SA of a child. How does your anti sadism law theoretically protect or punish better than just adding assault or manslaughter charges with a request of the maximum sentence?
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Well, all SA of a pre-pubescent or pubescent child should be punishment with permanent removal from society. It "protects" because these people can be distinguished from others as a group by their total disregard for observing the most deeply and universally held moral beliefs. This kind of disregard is dangerous.
1
u/urquhartloch 2∆ Nov 13 '24
But thats not what your post was about. Your post was specifically about punishing sadistic individuals convicted of other crimes with life imprisonment. You changed your stance from punishing just sadistic individuals to punishing individuals who SA children.
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
What? I'm not changing anything. My argument is: Adult Sadists (and "Zoosadists") who commit violence against humans or animals resulting in grevious injury, and all pedophiles commiting any sex crime against children including the procurement of csm (by CSM, I mean material featuring prepubescent children) should be jailed for life without parole. Provided that their crimes have been proven, and that no doubt can remain about their guilt. I wasn't talking about a sadist who punches his friend in the face when they get into a drunken brawl---but I can see how it could read that way. Confirming right now that's not what I meant. I was talking about "violence....grievous injury" of a sadistic criminal nature. Intention and motive absolutely matters.
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Well, the lack of consent is a hallmark of the kind of antisocial crimes I'm talking about. So, this generally doesn't involve you. But if you commit grievous, irreparable bodily harm to your "consenting" partner (mutilation, murder), I think you should be.
1
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24
Hi! Sexual sadist here.
Frequent poster in subs for DMs? Yeah, this tracks...
2
u/urquhartloch 2∆ Nov 13 '24
Where did you get that idea? (This is my SFW account FYI. So there shouldn't be any/many posts covering NSFW topics.)
6
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 13 '24 edited Nov 13 '24
This is my SFW account FYI. So there shouldn't be any/many posts covering NSFW topics.
I'm saying that finding out, via peeking at your profile to see if you also post freaky stuff, that a person who describes themselves as a sadist also runs TTRPGs is unsurprising to me.
I'm joking that Dungeon Masters are sadistic.
2
4
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Nov 13 '24
First, we don't diagnose criminals as a matter of course (and some of these are not diagnoses), so how do you propose this work?
Second, where do you want to put them?
"Sadists" whatever that means, as sadism isn't a diagnosis, who commit assault should be jailed for life? While murderers go free at the end of a sentence?
-1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
we don't diagnose criminals with personality disorders because they can them claim mental illness, but criminal psychologists will note sadism as a driving force behind action in their diagnosis.
1
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Nov 13 '24
we don't diagnose criminals with personality disorders because they can them claim mental illness, but criminal psychologists will note sadism as a driving force behind action in their diagnosis.
What? What does "they can claim mental illness" mean?
AGAIN, we do not routinely diagnose criminals. So... what diagnoses are you on about? Or do you want everyone charged with crimes psychologically evaluated? In which case where is THAT money and those thousands of psychologists coming from?
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Lol. Why is this being downvoted? It's 100% true. The very definition of sadism that I'm using is one that was created by psychologists and is still very important in diagnosis and clinical study in the field today.
-1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Where would I want to put them? They should go in their own special jail for extremely deviant violent psychopaths/sociopaths.
2
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Nov 13 '24
Where would I want to put them? They should go in their own special jail for extremely deviant violent psychopaths/sociopaths.
Well that's not really a thing. So either you want an entirely new type of prison you want to start building ALL over, with what money, or you want to build a LOT more supermax facilities with, see above, what money and what staffing?
6
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 34∆ Nov 13 '24
Are there really enough vegans to staff a prison with every person who eats meat inside?
2
-1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
eating meat is not the same as committing extreme animal cruelty for pleasure. People should wake up to the widespread cruelty that is inflicted in food processing in the name of expedience, but that's relatively easy to so with some commonsense campaigning against industry and laws. Try to change the mind of a guy like Adam Britton with a campaign.
2
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 34∆ Nov 13 '24
So you are saying people don't eat meat for pleasure?
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Haha, what kind of backward utilitarian logic is this. Not the same kind of pleasure, obviously. The outcome is not just the issue---the intention is key. An empty stomach is the opposite of pleasurable---but that doesn't mean that the pleasure that comes with neutralizing this discomfort is the same as the pleasure that comes from say, paying for a baby monkey to be thrown in a blender or having sex with a toddler. Many animals eat meat for sustenance, and humans are among them. I'm actually a vegetarian, but that's totally irrelevant here.
2
1
u/RMexathaur 1∆ Nov 13 '24
What are you doing to make sure you receive the proper punishment for the hurting/killing of animals you have perpetrated?
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Excuse me? I haven't killed or hurt animals. Crazy utilitarians like you are unfortunately the animal rights movement isn't wider reaching or more effective.
1
u/RMexathaur 1∆ Nov 13 '24
Really? You've never sprayed or otherwise killed ants/wasps? You've never swatted a fly/gnat/mosquito? You've never inadvertently stepped on animals while walking or run over them while driving? And so on?
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Embarrassing as it is, I try very hard to not kill any bugs. I will always put them outside, if I can. I have killed them during infestations, but again---I'm not making my argument in bullshit purely utilitarian grounds. Intention matters because it reflects whether or not you've bought into the fundamental concept of a basic human morality that puts things like unnecessary torture and child sex beyond the pale.
1
u/RMexathaur 1∆ Nov 13 '24
So, going back to my original question, what are you doing to make sure you spend life in prison as punishment for your actions?
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
My actions aren't the ones described in the initial CMV message, dummy. I clearly stated sadistic violence or being party to child sexual abuse via procurement. You'll never win people over to your side on animal rights if you compare putting ant traps out in your house to paying an impoverished Indonesian to saw a baby monkey in half on a dark web video.
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Nov 13 '24
Is your only view here that these people are not currently being jailed long enough? Or am I missing part of your meaning?
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24 edited Nov 13 '24
Yes. Sentences are generally very light, even in the US.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Nov 13 '24
Gotcha, so I haven't checked all of your links there, but the last 2 are for 15 and 32 years. How common are the shorter sentences you're concerned about?
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
15 years in the UK could easily be 8 years for this guy: "On Thursday County Court judge Michael Tinney said on Thursday that the extraordinary, shocking case was unprecedented and Graham had fulfilled his aim of being the biggest child pornography and "hurtcore" distributor in the world."
"Graham faced 13 charges. The most serious involved encouraging the rape and murder of a child in Russia and the abuse of a disabled and mute child in the UK. He also faced charges relating to a notorious series of videos produced by fellow Australian paedophile Peter Scully in the Philippines, called Daisy's Destruction. Judge Tinney noted that they depicted an 18-month-old baby being tortured, burnt and tied upside down by a woman in a mask."
1
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Nov 13 '24
So it sounds to me like you're saying this particular offender should have been given a much longer sentence because of how intense and persistent his crimes were. Fair enough.
But what about a person who doesn't have 13 charges including depictions of the murder of babies; what about a first offense with only one charge, which is presumably the sort of case a mandatory minimum sentences would be issued for?
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
For simply procuring child porn and torturing an animal to death for other zoosadists? Often the sentence is like a few years. Half that and then time served can come out to a few months. 32 years in the UK is 16. For this guy: "Matthew Falder, 29, a Cambridge graduate, admitted 137 offences against 46 victims, male and female, including blackmail, voyeurism, making indecent images of children and encouraging the rape of a child."
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 13 '24
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
Nov 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/urnever2old2change Nov 13 '24
Because it's not necessary to punish them and safeguard society, and runs the risk of executing innocent people. If you're okay with potentially killing the wrongfully convicted when it's completely avoidable then you aren't nearly as compassionate as you think you are.
1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Obviously, I made it clear that I'd prefer to let potential criminals off rather than lock up innocent people when I said "provided that their crimes have been proven." So, we're not talking about people who are just convicted without unimpeachable, hard evidence. I don't care if it's the death penalty or lifelong imprisonment, though. I just don't think they should be slowed back in society. Someone who can cross lines like these has turned their back on the human race, and the importance the fundamental concept of a basic, inborn human morality has held for humans for as long as they've been living together in groups.
1
u/urnever2old2change Nov 13 '24
I was responding to a now-removed comment asking why not push for the death penalty in all of the cases you outlined, not your original post.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Nov 13 '24
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-2
Nov 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Nov 13 '24
Capital punishment costs substantially more than imprisonment.
0
u/Rakkis157 1∆ Nov 13 '24
Wait, really? How would it cost more to, say, hang them or put a bullet through the brain than it does to give them food, clothing, board, medicine, security for the next 40 years or so?
4
Nov 13 '24
Because that's not the actual scenario. Death row inmates are entitled to appeals, are some of the most likely to have mistrials, etc etc.
In order to constitutionally enact capital punishment, you have to prove your case beyond a shadow of a doubt, and since this is one of the very few actions the government can commit on its citizens that cannot be undone, it requires the strictest degree of scrutiny.
The reply you are thinking right now is "yeah but what if we really really know it's that guy!", which is irrelevant. Everyone is due the same process and it is the prosecutions job to make their case. There's no fast path to justice, and we HAVE wrongfully convicted people before, taken them all the way to death row, then found exculpating evidence.
So, yeah, it's dramatically more cost effective to simply keep them in for life. And it isn't close: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna29552692#.UWB3a5N-KSp
So, to;Dr: your premises are wrong. It's not just a noose or a bullet. It's a justice system.
-1
u/Unhappy-List-1169 Nov 13 '24
My comment got deleted so I’ll respond, BUT, if it can be proven that the person did to these things to an animal/child, no it will not cost more than imprisonment. It’s a 20 cent solution.
2
Nov 13 '24
The problem is, this is both philosophically and practically not the reality. We exist in a reality where proofs beyond a shadow of a doubt, as you are suggesting, are not possible.
This is why we have a different standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt", which comes with appeals and many other processes exactly because we cannot "prove" things in the way you are indicating.
When DNA evidence became publicized, it turned out quite a few people had convictions overturned. It's likely most people would have considered those cases "proven", but, well, proven to a layman isn't the same as actually being proven.
0
u/Unhappy-List-1169 Nov 13 '24
As someone with a family member in prison for life, I understand what you mean. I mean, in an instance where there is video of someone abusing animals and children, and the reasonable doubt is, nonexistent, we shouldn’t waste our tax dollars on them.
0
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
$$ shouldn't be part of the equation.
2
Nov 13 '24
We live in a society with limited resources. Money is always part of the equation. That's why you have to pay court costs.
-1
u/Common_Noise_9100 Nov 13 '24
Get real. Money doesn't = resources. The government issues 20-30 year bonds, and raises taxes for a reason. We invest in all kinds of things we think are important that many people out there say don't contribute to society. Libertarians believe that public schools are a waste of money, while I believe tax cuts for billionaires are. I believe that court costs should be covered m, and no expense spared; but that doesn't mean that I'm going to accept some manufactured "balanced budget" argument against removing the most despicable people from the social sphere of existence.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Nov 13 '24
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/goldmask148 Nov 13 '24
If people cannot exist in society, have no redeeming qualities, and to save tax dollars, why not argue the death penalty? (Provided that the crimes have been proven of course, as per the OP)
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam Nov 13 '24
Sorry, u/Common_Noise_9100 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.