The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Korashk
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

The Pelt the Paedos Show will enhance public confidence in the judicial system

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,023 times Debate No: 11321
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Ask most people what they think about the jail terms handed out to convicted child molesters and, unless they happen to be Catholic priests, they are very likely to say they that the sentences are far too lenient. (1)

One way to satisfy the public's desire to see paedophiles punished more severely is to lock them up for longer. Unfortunately, though, the jails are already overcrowded and incarcerating prisoners is also very expensive.

However, justice could still be served by allowing theatre audiences to stone convicted paedophiles that are chained up on the stage.

These events could take place around the country and could be broadcast live on television. I propose they call this TV programme "The Pelt the Paedos Show" and they get Sheriff John Bunnell (2) of The World's Wildest Police Videos fame to present it.

These performances would reassure the general public that justice is being done and they would also act as a deterrent to potential child molesters.

This is how I envisage a typical broadcast:

Off-screen Announcer - And now on Channel X, coming to you live from the Apollo Theatre, it's time join America's most famous law enforcer Sheriff John Bunnell for The Pelt the Paedos Show…

{RUN OPENING CREDITS}

{BUNNEL WALKS ON STAGE TO APPLAUSE}

Bunnell – Thank y', thank y'all. Yee-Ha! Woo! Alright, welcome to the Pelt the Paedos Show – the only show in town where the audience get to throw genuine rocks at goddam no good sonofabitch kiddy-fiddlers transported to this very stage direct from the county jail. Yee-Ha! Bring ‘em on boys. Woo!

{PRISON GUARDS LEAD CONVICTS ONTO STAGE. THEY ARE HANDCUFFED AND THEIR LEGS ARE CHAINED TO THEIR FELLOW PRISONERS}

{AUDIENCE BOOS, SHOUTS ABUSE}

Bunnell – Okay, ladies and gentleman, you've got your rocks, now it's time to pelt those paedos! Yee-Ha! Woo!

{BUNNELL RUNS OFF STAGE, AUDIENCE RAIN ROCKS DOWN ON THE TERRIFIED PRISONERS WHO SCREAM IN PAIN}

What do you think? Sounds good, right? Okay, there might be some human rights issues to consider there but the sentencing judge could offer the child molester the possibility of parole on the condition that he waives his human rights and agrees to take part in The Pelt the Pedos Show.

Overall, I believe this measure will greatly enhance the public's confidence in the judicial system and, therefore, I urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

(2) http://www.facebook.com...
Korashk

Con

I thank brian for creating another debate I will attempt to negate the resolution.

I will argue that those convicted of pedophiliac sex crimes and sentenced to prison time are often killed by their fellow inmates. This is a much harsher punishment even though it is not official [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. I do not think that anyone believes that those convicted of crimes of this nature deserve anything less.

There is also the issue that it would be very possible that a 'thrower' would accidentally kill said pedophile. This would mean that they are guilty of murder and would be sent to prison, I would personally be very angry if I had to go to prison because I accidentally killed a person that raped a kid. This would not be an unlikely occurrence as it is widely known that stoning was a common method of execution many, many years ago and is still utilized in some areas today [7].

You also mention that in exchange for agreeing to do this show the criminal could be granted the possibility of parole. This is a horrible idea simply because it would mean possibly letting a child molester out of prison even sooner than their already too lenient sentence according to you. They would be free to begin raping again.

Lastly, the only people that would be featured on this show are those currently serving time for a sex crime against a child. They are already in jail, therefore the legal system has effectively done its job. Your link (1) even describes going through cases considered too lenient and increasing the sentence. It may be entertaining to see pedophiles get domed with some rocks, but this activity would actually do more harm than good to the justice system.

[1] http://www.komonews.com...
[2] http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com...
[3] http://www.talkleft.com...
[4] http://www.cnn.com...
[5] http://freerepublic.com...
[6] http://www.nospank.net...
[7] http://civilliberty.about.com...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent, Korashk, for accepting this debate.

Mt opponent opened his argument by admitting that paedophiles are often attacked and killed in prison. With this being the case, surely it would be better that these types of incidents were witnessed by the general public, and more importantly, their victims. This would thus ensure that decent, law-abiding citizens could verify that child-molesters were receiving the punishment suitably befitting their heinous crimes.

My opponent then goes on to fret about the possibility of being prosecuted for killing an inmate but he should not concern himself unduly. With so many rocks being thrown by so many people, it would be impossible to prove who was responsible for a kiddy-fiddlers death. In any case, any such legal action would not be in the public interest so the state would be very unlikely to pursue it.

Finally, convicts are generally given the opportunity to seek parole, the condition on paedophiles to take part in a televised stoning would only stiffen their sentence, not weaken it.

Thank you.
Korashk

Con

~~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~~

///Mt opponent opened his argument by admitting that paedophiles are often attacked and killed in prison. With this being the case, surely it would be better that these types of incidents were witnessed by the general public, and more importantly, their victims. This would thus ensure that decent, law-abiding citizens could verify that child-molesters were receiving the punishment suitably befitting their heinous crimes.///

I would think that the announcement of said inmate's death would serve as verification as to punishment served. The viewing of the actual acts by a law-abiding citizen would not change the outcome of said act. It may be more entertaining for the general populace to see these despicable monsters destroyed, but the purpose of the justice system is not to entertain. The purpose of the justice system is to mete out justice.
~

///My opponent then goes on to fret about the possibility of being prosecuted for killing an inmate but he should not concern himself unduly. With so many rocks being thrown by so many people, it would be impossible to prove who was responsible for a kiddy-fiddlers death. In any case, any such legal action would not be in the public interest so the state would be very unlikely to pursue it.///

I agree that it would be difficult to identify a single killer from a mass of stone-throwers normally, but this is on a television show. Television shows have cameras in place that capture all of the 'action' going on for any given show. These cameras would easily record the lethal stone-thrower. Even if pedophiles don't really deserve life the law says that they do unless given the death sentence. Even though this is not my personal belief, murdering those who deserve it is still murder.
~

///Finally, convicts are generally given the opportunity to seek parole, the condition on paedophiles to take part in a televised stoning would only stiffen their sentence, not weaken it.///

This statement contradicts what you claimed in round one. You stated, "...the sentencing judge could offer the child molester the possibility of parole..." this implies that at least some of those on the show would not have previously had this possibility. If, as you said in this round that they did have it, where is their incentive for coming on the show?
~

I thank brian for another enjoyable debate.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Conduct to PRO not because of poor conduct on CON's part, but because I found PRO consistently funny throughout the debate. For lack of a better category to vote in, I considered this 'exemplary conduct' and voted there.

Arguments to CON primarily on the second argument. There seem to be a number of intuitive responses to this argument (using non-lethal weapons or providing amnesty for instance) but PRO never makes those arguments and I buy that video cameras effectively take out PRO's only rebuttal.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
You're welcome. I also enjoy that you spelled things in non-American English. Though that is not why I gave myself sp/gr.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
"I thank brian for another enjoyable debate."

Thank you. The sentiment is reciprocated.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
You're really new to this site. brian's debates are all done like this, you'll find that a majority of his debates offebd many people. He seems to do this indiscriminantly. We all like him.
Posted by DavidSSabb94 7 years ago
DavidSSabb94
"unless they happen to be Catholic priests, they are very likely to say they that the sentences are far too lenient."

Great joke jackass.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
brian_egglestonKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
brian_egglestonKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
brian_egglestonKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04