jeffislivehere:
I see your point. I do also believe that change is possible, but I sceptically think that an abuser usually places more value on whatever pleasure he/she gets out of it than changing. Saying that the vast majority does not change is not the same as can not change.

The same adult repeats the crime,
phase 5: DP.

OR,

The same adult repeats the crime,
phase 5: LWOP.

Tuomas–
Thanks for pointing out a glaring error in my discussion. Of course the law is a ‘two strike’ law, which is different in an important way from just writing people off the first time around.

My main point was to examine what it means to hold somebody accountable for an action (in this case, by first imprisoning them, giving them counseling, giving them one more chance, and then, if they don’t change, killing them) while at the same time acknowledging that you don’t believe that they can possibly change. If the ‘second chance’ offered is sort of lip service–it seems clear to me from Lauren’s original words that she (and her therapist) think that it’s (virtually?) impossible to change in these cases–then I think the whole idea of holding somebody accountable for something they can’t do otherwise still seems sketchy.

Again, I think they should be removed from the general population, because we want them to not hurt anybody else. This is an unfortunate fact of the world, I suppose, that they aren’t, in some sense, responsible for their actions (can they be responsible if they literally can’t do otherwise? I’d say no), but we have a responsibility to protect others from further harm, so we do the lesser of two evils, we imprison them. But why go as far as killing them? (Of course we may now invoke other sorts of reasons–financial and the like–but I was trying to address the basic point I thought Lauren was trying to make, which I saw as not needing any other arugument regarding financial cost/benefit stuff.)

But if one holds the position that they literally can’t do otherwise–that is, the possiblity of rehabilitation is zero–then how is it that you think you can hold them accountable? According to that position, they can’t be anything different than what they are…and, of course, as such, I would advocate for life in prison without the possibility of parole. Keeping them from molesting agian is the right thing to do. But how can killing somebody for doing something that you yourself think they couldn’t have avoided doing in any way just?

Nice strawman. “We must believe people can change”.

In your long and admittedly somewhat thoughtful post, you did not once touch the repeat child molester part that is crucial to Lauren’s post and the position some of the pro-DP in those cases -folks here.

To put it simply:

NO ONE argued:
phase 1:An adult sexually abuses a child
phase 2:The adult is executed because we believe he/she can not change.

What was argued is:

phase1:
An adult sexually abuses a child
phase 2:
The adult gets prison and (IMO essential) compulsory sex therapy, and gets a second chance.
phase 3:
The adult is supposedly cured, and a changed man or woman.
phase 4:
The same adult repeats the crime,
phase 5: DP.

As an aside, if anybody else is still reading these threads, I would love to hear some more responses to the several survivors of abuse who chimed in that they think state executions of child molesters is wrong–that’s more interesting (to me!) than a discussion on whether or not Europe is set up to fall because they don’t perform enough executions.

Disclaimer: As a person who hasn’t been a direct victim of sexual abuse (though I have, like most people, known survivors, and my life has in that way been keenly affected by abuse), it may be that my take on things has many blind spots that I am…well…blind to. I put forth the following in the spirit of discussion, but recognize that I am not an authority, especially not an authority from direct experience. I am trying here to be as sensitive to the issues at hand (and to the survivors of abuse) as possible–please feel free to email me if you can point out my blind spots to me (or, of course, in further comments).

First of all, far be it from me to suggest that maybe statistics/opinions from a CourtTV website might be skewed, but it seems at the very least that the causes of pedophilia as well as the rates of recidivism aren’t things that have been settled in any definite way. Where Lauren says her therapist says that child molesters are incapable of being rehabilitated, other sources suggest that recidivism rates for child molesters, while not encouraging, are very far from 100%, as is often suggested–one study says as low as 7%. The point of the article I cite is actually that nailing down whether child molesters can be rehabilitated is the most tricky sort of guessing (made more difficlut, of course, by the potential damage being wrong about it can do)..

But let’s say for the benefit of the doubt that Lauren’s therapist is correct. Further, let’s take very seriously the amount of damage, both in pure numbers of people sexually abused as well as the immesurable damage done to anybody who is sexually abused. Given these two things (the first of which is not resolved in actuality, but for sake of argument), it seems more than reasonable that we as a society ought to make very sure that when a person has been found to be a child molester, that he (mostly he’s) is kept from ever being in a position to do so again.

Now, there may be compelling cost-benefit arguments to explain why execution is better than keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives; but there also seem to be compelling cost-benefit arguments to support the converse. We can never set aside the cost of either, in reality, but Lauren’s position doesn’t seem to, on the face of it, care much about the accounting of the situation–rather, she’s pointing out that it’s the right thing to do to execute child molesters.

But given her opinion that the molesters can’t change, combined with the fact that the main causes that are currently advanced by people ‘in the know’–not unlike Lauren’s therapist–are that molesters may have higher testosterone rates and/or were molested/observed molestation as children, seems to me to suggest that Lauren’s position is that once a person becomes a molester, even if becoming that is largely the result of chemical reactions he has no control over (at least on the face of it) and/or the result of having been molested himself, then basically the position boils down to: Because the crime is so horrible, it doesn’t matter that the molester was a person who had no control (possibly) over becoming what he has become, and has no control over it now–he should be killed.

I’m not here advocating the position that these men (mostly) shouldn’t be held accountable for their crimes. (In fact, I’m of the opinion that molesters can change, and do so in greater numbers than is suggested by Lauren’s therapist.) But if one holds the position that they literally can’t do otherwise–that is, the possiblity of rehabilitation is zero–then how is it that you think you can hold them accountable? According to that position, they can’t be anything different than what they are…and, of course, as such, I would advocate for life in prison without the possibility of parole. Keeping them from molesting agian is the right thing to do. But how can killing somebody for doing something that you yourself think they couldn’t have avoided doing in any way just?

I think about it this way: What if a son of mine was (heaven forbid) molested. What if, further, he happened to have higher testosterone levels than normal? What if he grew up so screwed up because of what happened to him that he became a molester? According to how I see Lauren’s position, such things wouldn’t be, at some point, under his control (no rehabilitation, remember?) I would certainly want him to be removed from the general population (again, if it is the case that such people can’t be rehabilitated), but I wouldn’t want the state to kill my son simply for doing that which he couldn’t do otherwise.

Well, Robert got it

That’s not exactly high praise for a joke.

Frankly, I didn’t know what the hell you were talking about. Indicating that you were talking about temperature might have helped; otherwise you just seemed pissed off about something.

Well, Robert got it, so it’s not like it was incomprehensible. That said, no sweat, miscommunications happen.

George Bush oversaw quite a number of them and routinely rejected clemency requests after cursorily glancing at summaries prepared by Alberto Gonzalez, summaries that routinely left out mitigating factors.

Here you go: Texans are more murderous. Leaving out mitigating factors (assuming those are reasonable and, more importantly,recognized by the law) just to ensure someone gets executed isn’t something I can approve.

DP is something that requires care, fair trial and sincere respect for law, not sloppiness and political ambition to appear tough. But I’d still like the option to exist.

It was an off-topic half-joke directed against your comment that warfare is hot and criminal prosecutions are cold: The winter of 1939-1940 in Finland got as cold as -40 celcius (that’s -40 fahrenheit, too, so no confusion).

I’ll spare you the history lesson, if you don’t see the grim joke in that then you don’t see it.

So you’ll now dismissing my position as being “tweaked”?

Frankly, I didn’t know what the hell you were talking about. Indicating that you were talking about temperature might have helped; otherwise you just seemed pissed off about something.

Well, that was bizarre. I don’t know what your grandfather has to do with anything or what you’re getting so tweaked about.

It was an off-topic half-joke directed against your comment that warfare is hot and criminal prosecutions are cold: The winter of 1939-1940 in Finland got as cold as -40 celcius (that’s -40 fahrenheit, too, so no confusion).

I’ll spare you the history lesson, if you don’t see the grim joke in that then you don’t see it.

So you’ll now dismissing my position as being “tweaked”?

Such as? These are two American states. Unless you’re saying that Texans are just naturally more murderous than Michiganders.

The state of the Bush family and all… :P

No, honestly. I don’t exactly know the differences, I’m not American. But are you saying that Texans=Michiganders, except for DP?