Self Defence, or Murder?

Self defence, or murder?

  • Self defence

    Votes: 13 35.1%
  • Murder

    Votes: 14 37.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 1 2.7%

  • Total voters
    37
...What I've said so far in this discussion is very unclear, sorry.

In your example, the man probably could have taken his daughter back without killing. So I kinda agree with it here.

I can bring my example back about the girl and her father... But I suppose that the blame belongs to the retarded system that we have for pedophiles and the way that we handle these particular cases.
And it was a bad example anyway, because she did kill him.
But still, what else could she have done to make him pay? Not much.

So basically, you've been raped continually for a few years? That sucks little girl. We'll send your father to our special pedophile "prison" with free experts to "cure" him while he can brag to other pedophiles about what he did with you. Then we'll release him in a few years. You're suffering from a traumatism? Heh if it's that serious, you can probably pay for a psychologist yourself. Or let your new family do it. (Or the department of "protection" of the youth or whichever alternative.)


Edit: (To give a sense to these two paragraphs...)
She had the choice between letting him meet new pedophile friends, or go to prison herself and make him pay.



(...)but if he's not actually in danger at the time then there's no reason for him to be attacking. Either way, if he could have left without beating her up first then that's what he should have done. The self defence laws are very clear about not covering revenge or vigilante attacks, e.g. if the husband leaves the house but then comes back and attacks his wife he's way over the line.
That's what I'm saying. When it's not a question of life and death, don't do to them what they do to you, even if they deserve it, or else you won't get help from the police.


Maybe the reason why it was unclear is because I didn't make it clear that I didn't mean life and death cases.
I meant the countless other "secondary" cases.

Meh, maybe everything I said in this thread was off-topic.
 
I don't understand. Do you think making someone pay, as you put it, is of some benefit to the victim?

You're not going to get any argument from anyone, ever, that paedophilia is one of the worst crimes imaginable, but just punishing the paedophile because it might make the victim feel better is not the reason we have laws. At the same time, paedophilia is one of the most dangerous accusation you can make; you call a person a paedophile in public and even if charges are never brought and there's no evidence of anything, they're fucked for life. The sex offenders offenders who actually manage to get released don't exactly have an easy life, either; they're social pariahs who are lucky if they can find work and not be hounded constantly be their neighbours. The vast majority of paedophiles are mentally ill, but there is no known cure, only treatments that have shown limited success in curbing recidivism. If you're not going to treat them, then what? They're sick people, and just locking them up forever doesn't help anyone, really.
 
Well, how to cure pedophilia... I think there's a way that can work very well.
Send them in a real prison.
You know, where many prisoners are prisoners because they had a difficult life and some of them were abused by their parents when they were young.

Send pedophiles in there, and this will probably cure their mental illness for the rest of their life.
And possible future pedophiles will think thrice before touching a kid.

Dr. Plume says so.



I don't know about making someone pay.
There are indeed many false pedophilia accusations, and killing the said pedophiles should probably not be acceptable by the law.
Same for killing anyone who does not threaten your life.

But I think it's illogical that when you're the victim of something that does not threaten your life, you can't defend yourself or else the police won't help you. I think the law should be a little more loose in these cases.
If you were the victim and you defended yourself, even by killing your aggressor, ...sure, maybe you should do prison or some kind of community service, but something lighter, shorter than if you had been the aggressor.

(And since pedophiles remain a possible danger, even when they say that they are "cured", maybe killing them shouldn't be much of a big deal.)
 
I can't believe you're making me look like I'm defending paedophiles. :<

Sending them to jail isn't going to do anything. They're sick in the head. Like a psychopath, sending them to prison for any length of time will not change them. The only hope is with proper treatment. That doesn't excuse them, and people have this misconception that going to a criminal hospital is a free ride; it isn't. A paedophile can even show remorse for their actions and wish to be punished, and that's good, but it's not going to help anyone.

But where is anyone saying that you can't defend yourself from a sexual assault or that police won't help kids in those situations? That's simply untrue.

Capitol punishment is utter failure, across the board. But that's a different topic.
 
Back
Top