IS CHILD ABuSE WORTH THE DEATH PENATLY?
to me it is, i won’t go into details about why this is a personal subject for me, but if you have to beat a innocent and helpless child and have no remorse.....you fucking deserve to die a slow and horrible death
ReportReport this topic to moderators FlagFlag as not safe for work.
Views: 785
RATE
29
Posted: 2010-05-16 05:48:22
Psst.
Responses (29) / Sorted by points
If someone did anything to my (future) children, he won't even make it to court. I know my point of view is kind of confusing, but I suppose it's the result of uncaring court system in my country. It is a pretty tough choice, thank god I don't work in court.
Prison is a form of crime in of itself. Who gives authorities control over an individual? Power, society, constitution, politicians ?
Power does not translate to righteousness, if I pointed a gun at you I'd win the opportunity to take your wallet. What I was able to do was not just, but power made that option viable to me.
Society, if one's rights end where the next one's begin, what right does an unrelated group of people have to control a deviant? Where does society get the right to judge what is punishable and what not? Numbers? If numbers make rules, then Germany invading a smaller country is perfectly just, Asia should decide what's punishable and what is not, and two people beating one would be right.
Having taken down power and society, which are the fundamental building blocks of constitution and politicians causes a "domino effect" to the later two.
That being said, I won't leave it to a see above statement, I'll add another:
Time, most constitutions are written long before we even got to this world. A constitution is, thus, not only made by society (hopefully), it is also made by one whose views and knowledge are some centuries too old and under extreme conditions (i.e. after stealing the land by force, european settlements founded the now called USA)
Politicians thrive upon constitution,society and as back-up plan, power.
It's impossible to pin down a universally accepted statement over a simple topic, let alone a massive one like righteousness.
Power does not translate to righteousness, if I pointed a gun at you I'd win the opportunity to take your wallet. What I was able to do was not just, but power made that option viable to me.
Society, if one's rights end where the next one's begin, what right does an unrelated group of people have to control a deviant? Where does society get the right to judge what is punishable and what not? Numbers? If numbers make rules, then Germany invading a smaller country is perfectly just, Asia should decide what's punishable and what is not, and two people beating one would be right.
Having taken down power and society, which are the fundamental building blocks of constitution and politicians causes a "domino effect" to the later two.
That being said, I won't leave it to a see above statement, I'll add another:
Time, most constitutions are written long before we even got to this world. A constitution is, thus, not only made by society (hopefully), it is also made by one whose views and knowledge are some centuries too old and under extreme conditions (i.e. after stealing the land by force, european settlements founded the now called USA)
Politicians thrive upon constitution,society and as back-up plan, power.
It's impossible to pin down a universally accepted statement over a simple topic, let alone a massive one like righteousness.
Prison is a form of crime in of itself. Who gives authorities control over an individual? Power, society, constitution, politicians ?
Power does not translate to righteousness, if I pointed a gun at you I'd win the opportunity to take your wallet. What I was able to do was not just, but power made that option viable to me.
Society, if one's rights end where the next one's begin, what right does an unrelated group of people have to control a deviant? Where does society get the right to judge what is punishable and what not? Numbers? If numbers make rules, then Germany invading a smaller country is perfectly just, Asia should decide what's punishable and what is not, and two people beating one would be right.
Having taken down power and society, which are the fundamental building blocks of constitution and politicians causes a "domino effect" to the later two.
That being said, I won't leave it to a see above statement, I'll add another:
Time, most constitutions are written long before we even got to this world. A constitution is, thus, not only made by society (hopefully), it is also made by one whose views and knowledge are some centuries too old and under extreme conditions (i.e. after stealing the land by force, european settlements founded the now called USA)
Politicians thrive upon constitution,society and as back-up plan, power.
It's impossible to pin down a universally accepted statement over a simple topic, let alone a massive one like righteousness.
Power does not translate to righteousness, if I pointed a gun at you I'd win the opportunity to take your wallet. What I was able to do was not just, but power made that option viable to me.
Society, if one's rights end where the next one's begin, what right does an unrelated group of people have to control a deviant? Where does society get the right to judge what is punishable and what not? Numbers? If numbers make rules, then Germany invading a smaller country is perfectly just, Asia should decide what's punishable and what is not, and two people beating one would be right.
Having taken down power and society, which are the fundamental building blocks of constitution and politicians causes a "domino effect" to the later two.
That being said, I won't leave it to a see above statement, I'll add another:
Time, most constitutions are written long before we even got to this world. A constitution is, thus, not only made by society (hopefully), it is also made by one whose views and knowledge are some centuries too old and under extreme conditions (i.e. after stealing the land by force, european settlements founded the now called USA)
Politicians thrive upon constitution,society and as back-up plan, power.
It's impossible to pin down a universally accepted statement over a simple topic, let alone a massive one like righteousness.
I wouldn't necessarily view the death penalty as punishment, so much as removing Killers from the population, and scaring would-be killers into thinking twice.
Does a spanking constitute child abuse? because sometimes you have to do something that gets through to them, and a nice talking to doesn't quite cut it. I was spanked as a child and I honestly believe it has made me a better person.
Ok... Suppose the child really... REALLY deserves it... And i don't mean going into an orphanage and punching the poor little girl who's scared of thunderstorms and nobody will help. I mean the golden-spoon-fed white boy in his early teens who thinks even though he's from Beverly Hills he's really from the Ghetto.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support Child Abuse. But some people need to have the shit beat out of them so there is room for common sense.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support Child Abuse. But some people need to have the shit beat out of them so there is room for common sense.
I think that child abuse is horrible...not death penalty...but certinely jail or prison time. but causing your child breif pain to teach a lesson really works well.
they define abuse so loosely. if a parent smacks a kid in the mouth for talking back, they risk having their children taken away.
not death. i think things along the line of rape/murder/attempted murder/pre-meditated felony assault/armed robbery should be met with a hanging.
but some people that beat on kids... they do it to feel powerful. those people should just be dragged out of their homes and beaten in the street, the beating depends on the severity of the abuse.
not death. i think things along the line of rape/murder/attempted murder/pre-meditated felony assault/armed robbery should be met with a hanging.
but some people that beat on kids... they do it to feel powerful. those people should just be dragged out of their homes and beaten in the street, the beating depends on the severity of the abuse.
I would agree that when people do horrible things to children they deserve to die. The only downside to enforcing those actions with the death penalty is that nothing would stop them from just going ahead and killing the kids, their mindset would be something like "Hmmmm... let them live and risk them snitching and I get killed anyway, or kill them before they tell anyone?" either way they would face the death penalty.
Absolutely, we need to remember that the main priority is to protect or rescue the abused children as opposed to simply having vengence. The ideal system would reward as well as punish. Parents who recognize that they are abusive and turn themselves in should be encouraged, while those who have abused children for years and only stopped when the police kicked in the door should be dealt with harshly.
I have no regard for the life of any child abuser, but if there is no incentive for them to stop, they won't.
I have no regard for the life of any child abuser, but if there is no incentive for them to stop, they won't.
i think we shud just kill people. Im talking u rape someone. kill them. Kill someone. Kill them. GBH. Kill them. But only if it is proven beyond doubt it was them and it was their own fault and not in defense. Like when a bunh of hoodies beat up and kill an old man after smashing up his car. They deserve to die.
well child abuse is more then just beating them. its also insulting them, but i would wnat someone to die for child abuse but i think that the govrenment sould suport the famly because their losing a pay check and their worst off then before.
People guilty of child abuse should be castrated (if they're men of course) women however should get life sentence and/or be made sterile.
Post a response
Related posts
