150 arrested in child prostitution sting

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

Eye for an eye, whole world goes blind, etc.

Old phrase to try to refute an argument without actually arguing, etc.

I was being tongue-in-cheek.

[Sigmaleph]

Cruel and unusual punishment is a basic violation of human rights that the eighth amendment prohibits. Do you really want our society to encourage barbaric behavior?

Towards slavers and child molesters? Yes.

Other than satisfying your revenge fantasies, what does that accomplish?

Incidentally: Child molesters are possibly the most convenient bogeyman, after terrorists. Anyone criticising your latest internet censorship bill? Just frame it in terms of stopping child pornography! Now everyone who disagrees with you is siding with the paedophiles, and is probably a paedophile themselves.

Declaring one particular segment of society as Designated Pure Evil, even one as obviously evil as child molesters, creates a powerful mind-killer. I.e. a topic where any related discussion is that much harder to be approached rationally, because the powerful emotional associations dominate every other aspect of the conversation. Godwin's law is the obvious example: the Nazis are the go-to Clearly Evil group, so anything that can be remotely compared to Nazis, no matter how irrelevant the comparison, is automatically evil.

Passably rational discussions are rare enough as it is, no need to give people any further excuses to immediately shut-down their brain when encountering subject X. And that is exactly what you contribute to when you argue, seriously, that child molesters should be tortured. It's not a useful deterrent, it doesn't undo any of their actions, it doesn't stop them any better than prison does, all it does is give a short-term sense of satisfaction, create pain, and encourage simplistic thinking.

Hell, let's be generous and assume that pain suffered by evil people is irrelevant, or even a positive by itself (I disagree, but I can understand the impulse). What happens when, inevitably, someone is wrongly accused of being a child molester? It's a difficult accusation to defend yourself from, because of all its mind-killing aspects, and eventually an innocent will end up tortured. What is the guilty-vs-innocent ratio you're willing to tolerate, here? How many guilty child molesters should be tortured, to offset the negative of one innocent person being tortured alongside them?

And, yes, the question is rhetorical. I don't expect an actual number. I'm just trying to get across why it's a bad idea for a civilized society to encourage barbarism, even against the obviously evil.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

^^ Well said.

[Meshakhad]

While I'm in favor of the Eighth Amendment, I don't think that "cruel and unusual punishment" covers "any death that is not painless". If a criminal suffers five seconds of pain before death, that's OK.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

Honestly, I have difficulty understanding how people can believe that the death penalty isn't cruel and unusual in itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep if the next Albert Fish is executed, but the whole thing still feels incredibly barbaric to me.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Cruel and unusual punishment is a basic violation of human rights that the eighth amendment prohibits. Do you really want our society to encourage barbaric behavior?

Towards slavers and child molesters? Yes.

Other than satisfying your revenge fantasies, what does that accomplish?

Incidentally: Child molesters are possibly the most convenient bogeyman, after terrorists. Anyone criticising your latest internet censorship bill? Just frame it in terms of stopping child pornography! Now everyone who disagrees with you is siding with the paedophiles, and is probably a paedophile themselves.

Declaring one particular segment of society as Designated Pure Evil, even one as obviously evil as child molesters, creates a powerful mind-killer. I.e. a topic where any related discussion is that much harder to be approached rationally, because the powerful emotional associations dominate every other aspect of the conversation. Godwin's law is the obvious example: the Nazis are the go-to Clearly Evil group, so anything that can be remotely compared to Nazis, no matter how irrelevant the comparison, is automatically evil.

Passably rational discussions are rare enough as it is, no need to give people any further excuses to immediately shut-down their brain when encountering subject X. And that is exactly what you contribute to when you argue, seriously, that child molesters should be tortured. It's not a useful deterrent, it doesn't undo any of their actions, it doesn't stop them any better than prison does, all it does is give a short-term sense of satisfaction, create pain, and encourage simplistic thinking.

Hell, let's be generous and assume that pain suffered by evil people is irrelevant, or even a positive by itself (I disagree, but I can understand the impulse). What happens when, inevitably, someone is wrongly accused of being a child molester? It's a difficult accusation to defend yourself from, because of all its mind-killing aspects, and eventually an innocent will end up tortured. What is the guilty-vs-innocent ratio you're willing to tolerate, here? How many guilty child molesters should be tortured, to offset the negative of one innocent person being tortured alongside them?

And, yes, the question is rhetorical. I don't expect an actual number. I'm just trying to get across why it's a bad idea for a civilized society to encourage barbarism, even against the obviously evil.

I don't like it being used to kill debates, or shut anything down, but I do believe that pain suffered by evil people is a good thing in itself. I don't support torture for it in every case, but if someone is found picking up kiddie prostitutes or having kiddie sex slaves in their house, I think it's clear-cut enough to do it.

Honestly, I have difficulty understanding how people can believe that the death penalty isn't cruel and unusual in itself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep if the next Albert Fish is executed, but the whole thing still feels incredibly barbaric to me.

Some people think it deters crime. They're wrong. However, as I've said before, I am more vengeance-minded. That's why I am okay with it.

[Meshakhad]

And I am all in favor of severe restrictions on when it can be used. There must be no doubt at all that the defendant is guilty.

[Witchyjoshy]

Personally, I think that vengeance has no place in the legal system.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

Some people think it deters crime. They're wrong. However, as I've said before, I am more vengeance-minded. That's why I am okay with it.

I understand the desire for revenge, but surely you see why we can't base societal decisions on our violent impulses.

[davedan]

Personally, I think that vengeance has no place in the legal system.

I know I don't often agree with you. But this is a facsimile of my opinion.

[Stormwarden]

So, how do we know when we get it right? In this case, we do, but what about all the times that the courts get it wrong, and there's an innocent person in there? Is it any consolation to the innocent made to suffer that the bad people suffer all the horrific things you want done to them? I'm curious. Maybe we should make sure the courts get it right, and that they are given the proper means to correct the situation when they get it wrong.

In this Nancy Grace society, we find ourselves in that "Guilty until proven innocent" mindset that pisses me off on general principle.

[PosthumanHeresy]

So, how do we know when we get it right? In this case, we do, but what about all the times that the courts get it wrong, and there's an innocent person in there? Is it any consolation to the innocent made to suffer that the bad people suffer all the horrific things you want done to them? I'm curious. Maybe we should make sure the courts get it right, and that they are given the proper means to correct the situation when they get it wrong.

In this Nancy Grace society, we find ourselves in that "Guilty until proven innocent" mindset that pisses me off on general principle.

Like I said, I say you should have high, high, high restrictions on it. But, if someone's caught actually hiring a child prostitute or has child prostitutes in their possession, go for it.

And I am all in favor of severe restrictions on when it can be used. There must be no doubt at all that the defendant is guilty.

Agreed. Here's the thing: while I support horrific punishments here and support the death penalty, I think it should be extremely restricted to the point of "unless there is video or photographic evidence, or we arrested them during it" then it should not be used. If the defendant was found holding the murder weapon while with the body with blood splatters matching where and how it would end up if they are the one doing it, go right ahead. If their semen is in a ripped and torn vagina and the person is covered in cuts and bruises, go right ahead. If they have naked child sex slaves in their house, go right the fuck ahead.

[Witchyjoshy]

So all of this torture and maiming and horrific executions makes us better than them... how exactly?

[guizonde]

While I'm in favor of the Eighth Amendment, I don't think that "cruel and unusual punishment" covers "any death that is not painless". If a criminal suffers five seconds of pain before death, that's OK.

i dunno, i'm anti-carceral, and i favor rehabilitation rather than locking up in most cases. for some people (namely frauds, abusers, and rapists) i'd rather shame them, thus why i think the stocks should be brought back. give the guy a few days locked up in full view of people (with security to prevent mob justice) and the shame could possibly get them back on the right track. shame is a powerful tool.
oh, and i'm kind of not really ok with the death penalty (something sticks), but as for cruel and unusual punishment i'm right up there. if people actually feared the legal repercussions (a hardened criminal isn't afraid of getting locked up) less people would commit crimes based on the simple social shame. what used to be a heavy sanction? exile. THAT is violent, since basically it means that person is /ban from his or her community, family, friends, and homeland.

please note i never specified that i am pro-physical pain. more mental anguish and social perception IF the crime deems it necessary. otherwise, rehabilitate where applicable as a first measure.

edit: i don't have the time to go into detail, but to add to this, a hefty fine should be added to compensate the victims.
also, i'm mostly against the carceral system due to ethical reasons and results, but there's also the fact that the taxpayer pays for these people that rankles. it should be the other way around.

[Sleepy]

Ah, good old torture. Because the societies who still use that are in tip-top shape.