The Instigator
DeeZeeQuinn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Pedophiles Should Be Executed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,972 times Debate No: 26916
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

DeeZeeQuinn

Pro

I am an advocate for children. I cannot wrap my mind nor my heart around the deliberate abuse of a child. I cannot understand why the society in which I live is so tolerate of any sex offenders behavior against children nor why we don't demand change? I believe that anyone convicted of a sex crime against children should be put to death immediately. I present that results of very long and conditional scientific studies demonstrate clearly that once a pedophile, always a pedophile thus I believe that these individuals have no place in our society.
Zaradi

Con

I accept this debate.

The affirmative has the burden to prove that killing pedophiles for the sake of being pedophiles is a good thing to do. I will argue that killing people is always immoral and bad, irregardless of the scenario.
Debate Round No. 1
DeeZeeQuinn

Pro

John Couey was arrested for the sexual battery and murder of Jessica Lunsford in February 2005. His criminal record was extensive, included many crimes, but overall and in the majority the molestation of a child occurred. He honestly admitted during the multitude of justice and medical interviews that he participated in that he could not stop. He had previous convictions of molesting children, and was often released early post conviction, because at that time pedophilia was a misunderstood crime.

There is a long list of pedophiles to be reviewed, it is there that one will learn of the quandaries that face the medical profession in determining what makes the twisted mind of this individual work. It is there that one will learn that the majority confess that thoughts of children stimulate their minds and control their normal and daily activities. You can read that in a pedophiles mind the thoughts of the crime itself never reside too far from the central core of their lives. I offer you this reference, http://en.wikipedia.org..., while simple in this discovery it gives you reference to a majority of the reading material available online, most of which supports my conclusion that pedophilia cannot be changed. It cannot be rehabilitated, it cannot be loved away, and it cannot be controlled.

Pedophiles are sexual deviates, unable to respond and/or perform in a "normal" sexual relationship where the scales are balanced and both parties choose to participate. Regardless of homosexual or heterosexual preference, the pedophile does not seek the attention of any one but that of a child. He or she will never change. Therefore it is a futile attempt to rehabilitate them, even more futile to house them and pray for change. There is absolutely no evidence to support that a pedophiles behavior can be controlled, nor a case in existence that supports a good and moral attempt.

On average it costs the taxpayers approximately $20,000 annually to house, feed, and clothe an individual inmate. It has been suggested that pedophiles should be locked away for the balance of their natural lives, but truth is, at present there are approximately one million pedophiles registered in the United States, do the math, it would cost the taxpayers billions annually to support an individual that has no promise of rehabilitation. The plight of a criminal that becomes incarcerated is commanded by the promise to the taxpayer for not taking his life to rehabilitate, it is that simple. Pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. I ask you, why waste these funds?
Zaradi

Con

I thank my opponent for their case in this debate and for their fairly timely response. Before I begin, I'd like to make a few notes about the resolution itself and the topic of debate, and then shall move into my own case while attacking my opponent's case.

The resolution is about whether or not killing someone who has sexually violated another person is a good thing to do or not. While certainly people who commit acts of pedophilia are not in the moral right, their actions should not and do not affect the permissibility of killing someone. Therefore, involving descriptions of their acts and how horrible it is to be a pedophile or other attempts at emotionally appealing to the audience on the ground that pedophilia is horrible so we should just off them all should not be weighed, as it is non-topical to the debate over the permissiblity of killing.

With that in mind, I will move onto my case and advocacy. Whenever we describe what we should do or not do, we are essentially assigning value or non-value to an action or event. This, of course, only begs the question of how we assign that value or what gives the action or event value. To this end, there must be some sort of framework to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of the action in this topic (killing a person). To that end, I will advocate for Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative(1) which says we should act in ways that we can wish that every person would act. For example, if I am considering the rightness of helping an old lady across the street, I would have to consider if I could wish everyone else to do this action. Since I could do that and it would still be good, then I could say that helping an old lady across the street to be a good action. As for another example, if I were considering the rightness of cheating on an exam, I would have to consider if I would wish everyone else cheated on their exams. Since I couldn't do that and still call it okay, then cheating on my exams would be wrong.

Bringing the Categorical Imperative back to the resolution, for killing a criminal to be okay, I would have to wish that everyone killed criminals. Sure we could consider killing to be okay for people who commit mass murders or genocide or something like that, but would killing be an appropriate punishment for shoplifting? Or jaywalking? Surely not. Therefore, since I cannot wish that it happen in all cases of criminals, I cannot wish for it to happen in the one case of pedophilia. Thus, killing pedophiles cannot be considered a good action, and thus something we shouldn't do, even if the alternatives are worse economically or something like that.

With that, lets go and adress my opponent's case.

The problem with my opponent's case is two-fold:

Firstly, My opponent's case essentially boils down to one point: because pedophilia is bad, and because putting them in prison is too expensive, we should kill them. The problem with this is she claims that pedophilia is bad without much warrant to it other than an emotional appeal (not that I'm contesting this, just bear with me), and doesn't really warrant why putting them to death is a better option than housing them (which is exactly what I'm contesting). As for this, her case and advocacy is very poorly warranted. Because of this, there really isn't much of a reason to look to her case when I'm providing a reason as to why we shouldn't do the resolution.

Secondly, her own source seems to contradict the point she's trying to raise that there is no way to rehabilitate those who are pedophiles. If you look specifically at the section that says "Treatment"(2), it lists a bunch of ways that lower the recidivism rate of pedophiles, as well as suggests physical or chemical castration as a viable way of permanently preventing pedophilia. This means that there are better ways to fix the problem than killing them.

Because of this, I must urge a con vote on the resolution.

Sources:

(1): http://simple.wikipedia.org...
(2): http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
DeeZeeQuinn

Pro

Con you have mixed general criminal elements with the single criminal element of which I reference. I, like you must consider my actions and/or my support of another's action based solely on the right thing to do. However, pedophilia is not a generalized crime like shoplifting and the like. Pedophilia has proven in countless cases to be non-rehabilitative, and it is very often treated like any general crime, with the exception of the Sex Offender Registry, which I reiterate has become ineffective and antiquated, already.

Pedophilia does not constitute any consideration of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, if it did then wouldn't it be an even better consideration that the pedophile is treated in the very same manner in which he treated his prey, he or she should be terminated, immediately, it is my hope in the very same fashion. There is substantial evidence to support that the age old myth of "what comes around, goes around," has never really proved one hundred percent effective. A majority of the pedophiles in the penal system are housed separately, obviously to detour Karma, which some would consider prison justice. We protect these sick minds even after they've committed the most horrific crimes. Why?

Regarding my source and it's contradiction of my beliefs...you are accurate it does present these concepts as a means to an end in the pedophile mind, but if you read further you'll discover that not one case of castration has deterred a pedophile, NOT one. They are referencing mere experiments that to date have proved ineffective, thus my source remains in tact. Pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated, there are no simple resolutions to the issues that these men and women represent nationwide, but on a daily basis approximately six hundred children are affected in some way by a pedophile, be it a mere touch or the full extent of the damage that he or she can cause.

There are children that suffer quietly, they are afraid to speak up, and when they finally assemble the courage to speak the pedophile has already destroyed many lives. I reference the Sandusky case, need I say more? A pedophiles behavior is usually marred with many red flags, it is up to the various systems in place to see these flags and thus stop the madness, until such a time comes to us, our children will continue to suffer. And when that single pedophile whose history has repeated itself time and again finally presents his/her ugly head to the justice system, they should be sentenced to immediate death. There should be no further consideration of rehabilitation that has not proved successful, to castrations that do not work, nor to any type of segregation from an already angry population, hurt a child, come to prison, and you may die in prison. That is until and of course the penal system is forced to consider that this twisted human has any rights.

A child is innocent, devoid of judgement, and in most cases consumed by child like manners, for any adult to take advantage of pure innocence calls for immediate death, as I assure you that pure and innocent child died the moment the pedophile puts his/her hands upon the child's body.
Zaradi

Con

My opponent continues to reference the emotional appeal that pedophilia is a horrible thing, thus her position has to be right. As I outlined (and my opponent dropped), this debate isn't about the rightness or wrongness of pedophilia, but rather the rightness of wrongness of using deadly force as a response. She still has provided no real warrant other than "pedophilia sucks so they should all be dead since we can't rehabilitate them". Since she's still not providing any warrant as for why killing is good in this case, you default to the Categorical Imperative, which negates the use of killing in any case.

While it's true that I'm including general level crimes in with pedophilia when I make my calculus of the Categorical Imperative, the reasoning behind that is there's no real substantitive difference between a crime and a different crime: they're all just a crime against the law. There's no really morally relevant distinction between them that doesn't devolve into subjective, arbitrary opinion.

My opponent also misrepresents the Categorical Imperative in her refutation of it. The Categorical Imperative is not talking about a Karma-ish, "what comes around goes around" kind of mentality. The source I cite clearly states that the Categorical Imperative is talking about an action is good if I can wish other people to perform the same action in any other situation. This has nothing to do with Karma. Since my opponent doesn't provide an alternate way to evaluate the goodness or badness of an action, even if you buy her refutation of the Categorical Imperative, you still have to look to it since I'm the only providing some method of evaluating good and bad and thus have the only risk of offense in the round. And if the Categorical Imperative is true, then killing is categorically rejected since it cannot be wished to happen in every situation. This means that killing pedophiles simply for being pedophiles would be rejected.

Also, my opponent's response to my criticism of her just isn't sufficient. For one, her own source says that, and I quote, "Castration, either physical or chemical, appears to be highly effective in removing such sexual impulses". This seems to contradict what she's saying, just slightly. But even if castration isn't effective, she's dropped that her source says that, and I quote, "Cognitive behavioral therapy, also known as relapse prevention, has been shown to reduce recidivism in contact sex offenders.", that, and I quote again, "Medications are used to lower sex drive in pedophiles by interfering with the activity of testosterone, such as with Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate), Androcur (cyproterone acetate), and Lupron (leuprolide acetate).". So there are workable alternatives to castration and death that do work.

As such, the debate breaks down very easily:

1. The Categorical Imperative categorically rejects killing, which means that killing pedophiles is wrong.
2. There are clear alternatives to killing, such as behavioral treatment, medication, and castration.
3. My opponent failed to uphold their burden of proving why killing pedophiles is something we should do. I upheld my burden to show why we shouldn't kill pedophiles.

Thus, the resolution is easily negated.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by agree_disagree 1 year ago
agree_disagree
I personally agree with this so your argument is invalid and i will always be upset when i hear about child molestation .In my town there are reports of molestation and rape but none are charged THIS ANGERS ME SOO MUCH
Posted by GreenTeas 4 years ago
GreenTeas
Ignore the fact that the en-dashes and single quotes within my comments all oddly turned into double quotes.
Posted by GreenTeas 4 years ago
GreenTeas
<<< CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT >>>

PRO counters that it is proven pedophilia is non-rehabilitative but unfortunately provides no sources. PRO argues that castration does not work, however, the article cited previously is not clear on whether it would work. It only states that there are limitations to the treatment, such that sexual impulses driven by anger or power might not be affected (whereas, those driven by libido might be affected). PRO argues that the emotional damage caused by pedophilia warrants execution. But, even if pedophiles are dangerous and damaging to society, PRO has not presented an adequate case as to why execution is preferred over other alternatives, such as life-time imprisonment or rehabilitation. PRO"s argument of economic efficiency " even if assumed to be true, which it isn"t "provides no reasoning as to why human life is more or less valuable than some amount of taxpayers dollars, and does not address the issue of rehabilitation.

Ultimately, the burden of proof is on PRO to establish that we should kill all pedophiles. CON was able to show that PRO did not provide adequate support for execution over other alternatives. CON wins.
Posted by GreenTeas 4 years ago
GreenTeas
<< EXPLANATION OF MY VOTE >>

PRO argues that pedophiles are sexual deviants that cannot be rehabilitated, and that their inherent sexual preferences cannot be controlled. Because of this incurable condition, PRO implies the only solution " for the purposes of public safety " is to execute them. PRO appeals to economic efficiency and argues that it will cost taxpayers less to execute pedophiles than maintain them as inmates. However, PRO is wrong that executions cost less, as numerous studies have demonstrated that death row prisoners cost more taxpayer dollars overall than general population prisoners. I will not elaborate on this point but CON failed to counter this incorrect assertion.

CON invokes a rudimentary Kantian argument to claim that pedophilia does not warrant execution. He strangely argues that because we cannot rightly execute all criminals, that we cannot execute pedophiles. It seems as though he improperly expands the scope of the action to include executing all criminals, when the correct analysis is whether we could wish the execution of all pedophiles, rather than all criminals.

CON is correct to point out that PRO has not provided evidence as to why execution of pedophiles outweighs non-execution, with the exception of the incorrect economic justification. CON"s strongest argument, though, is that the evidence actually suggests that pedophiles can be rehabilitated " or, perhaps at least recidivism rates can be reduced, even if those inherent urges do not disappear. CON is also correct to point out that castration could be effective, without having to kill the pedophiles.

<<< CONTINUED IN NEXT COMMENT >>>
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Let the emotional appeal of the pro begin.
Posted by DeeZeeQuinn 4 years ago
DeeZeeQuinn
Okay young men, bring it.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
I so call dibs.
Posted by baseballkid 4 years ago
baseballkid
So many people would do this but you messed up the criteria.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I'll do it if you change the criteria.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I hate rapists
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
DeeZeeQuinnZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con explained why death isn't as good as converting the pedophile to be good person of our community very well. Whilst I felt no justification for death apart from prison money, which doesn't mean you should just kill the person. Both used equally reliable sources had good conduct and grammar.
Vote Placed by GreenTeas 4 years ago
GreenTeas
DeeZeeQuinnZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for my explanation.