What's worse: Pedophiles or Murderers?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Cutting down" on wrongful convictions is not enough when the punishment is death. There need to be NO wrongful convictions, and seeing as that won't happen, there needs to be no death penalty.

-AC

We can cut down greatly on the number of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases by eliminating the word reasonable from the phrase "reasonable doubt". As in if you are going to elect to ask for the death penalty you must have proof of their guilt beyond a doubt.

This thread is a gross simplification of people who suffer from pedophilia and those who have murdered.

What do you constitute as murder? Just those which have been commited on purpose? So what about person who has been systematically abused for years on end, physically and mentally, until the point that they have ''on purpose'' murdered their abuser to stop the pain?

Murder or pedophilia. Is not that simple.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This thread is a gross simplification of people who suffer from pedophilia and those who have murdered.

What do you constitute as murder? Just those which have been commited on purpose? So what about person who has been systematically abused for years on end, physically and mentally, until the point that they have ''on purpose'' murdered their abuser to stop the pain?

Murder or pedophilia. Is not that simple.

In Canada under the law we have a set of defenses which greatly reduce the sentence on murder. So a person in that situation wouldn't even be charged with murder let alone put to death. They would probably either be released on self-defence or charged with 2nd degree manslaughter.

pedophiless. there is no reason in the world to hurt a child like that to take that away from someone so young. but there is reason's in life to kill. people can say wat they want but if you had to you too will take a life.

Originally posted by Starhawk
We can cut down greatly on the number of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases by eliminating the word reasonable from the phrase "reasonable doubt". As in if you are going to elect to ask for the death penalty you must have proof of their guilt beyond a doubt.

Originally posted by ThePittman
You have brought up this point before and it hard enough to get a conviction with “reasonable doubt” and to make it “beyond doubt” will make it nearly impossible to get convictions and in turn if you are trying to seek the death penalty for these crimes you will end up releasing more than you are trying to convict and put to death.

No that will not happen because if the prosecutor doesn't have the proof to get it he will opt for the jail time.

Originally posted by Starhawk
We can cut down greatly on the number of wrongful convictions in death penalty cases by eliminating the word reasonable from the phrase "reasonable doubt". As in if you are going to elect to ask for the death penalty you must have proof of their guilt beyond a doubt.

Read what I said again:

"Cutting down" on wrongful convictions is not enough when the punishment is death. There need to be NO wrongful convictions, and seeing as that won't happen, there needs to be no death penalty.

Don't read this, then reply with "But we can cut down on wrongful convictions.". It's not good enough.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What do you constitute as murder? Just those which have been commited on purpose? So what about person who has been systematically abused for years on end, physically and mentally, until the point that they have ''on purpose'' murdered their abuser to stop the pain?

Murder or pedophilia. Is not that simple.

It is actually that simple unless you make it complicated.

The act of murder; Killing another human being unlawfully. Or something along those lines.

The act of paedophilia; An attraction, acted upon or otherwise, to children.

Right? Right.

So what's worse? An act that brings about DEFINITE death, or an act that brings about POSSIBLE non-lethal trauma?

No need to go into all the technicalities or possibility of situation, we're discussing on a base level; What is worse?

Would you rather have your kid molested or killed? Simple answer.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Would you rather have your kid molested or killed? Simple answer.

-AC

It depends on the parent....if the parent catches the pedophile that molested his child he might kill the pedophile.

Originally posted by Starhawk
In Canada under the law we have a set of defenses which greatly reduce the sentence on murder. So a person in that situation wouldn't even be charged with murder let alone put to death. They would probably either be released on self-defence or charged with 2nd degree manslaughter.

Yeah. My boyfriend is Canadian (from Quebec) and he says that your laws in regards to murder are quite good. You also have really good probation service.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Would you rather have your kid molested or killed? Simple answer.

-AC

I'm having déjà vu... I could swear it was said early in the thread yet people sidestep or cirlce it.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm having déjà vu... I could swear it was said early in the thread yet people sidestep or cirlce it.

What do you mean? The tread starter did not ask whats worse, someone molesting your child, or killing it.

The thread starter asked about pedophiles or murderess as separate entities. He did not at any point imply that the the choice is between murdering a child or molesting a child.

Murder constitute of self defense, accidental, manslaughter, or intentional.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What do you mean? The tread starter did not ask whats worse, someone molesting your child, or killing it.

The thread starter asked about pedophiles or murderess as separate entities. He did not at any point imply that the the choice is between murdering a child or molesting a child.

Not the thread title/starter... I believe that someone else (it could have been AC) in the nascent stages of this thread asked the same question and like now, it was/is avoided. It is a valid question no?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not the thread title/starter... I believe that someone else (it could have been AC) in the nascent stages of this thread asked the same question and like now, it was/is avoided. It is a valid question no?

Oh I see. I was reffering to the thread starters question, anyway.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It depends on the parent....if the parent catches the pedophile that molested his child he might kill the pedophile.

Can nobody here answer the question for themselves? Simply? Is everyone that scared?

It does depend on the parent, but to say you would prefer your child dead than molested is possibly history's best definition of idiotic, illogical and vomit-worthy.

Would you rather have your child murdered or molested? Please answer with one or the other.

No need for a fat disclaimer or run-on, murdered or molested? Simple.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm having déjà vu... I could swear it was said early in the thread yet people sidestep or cirlce it.

everyone avoided it. simply because its completely logical and completely dooms the topic. the ones who actually answer it give that "fate worse than death" nonesense.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Would you rather have your child murdered or molested? Please answer with one or the other.

-AC

I don't have a child. 313

(stalemate)

If you had a child, would you rather it be molested or killed?

It's really simple. Grow some.

-AC

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I don't have a child. 313

(stalemate)

OK, Would you want your sidekick to be murdered or molested? 😆

To be honest....neither.

Grow what? 🤨

well of course niether. however what seems like a more likely scenario to you?

1-child raped and parents thinking "well thank god he's still alive"

2-child murdered and parents thinking "well thank god he wasnt raped"