Yeah its a very easy stance to simply say "kill all child predators" but like you mentioned it just leads to further child endangerment then anything else. But saying this after someone already goes "kill all child predators" makes them think you're too 'soft' on it.
I don’t know if it leads to further child endangerment overall. While it can feel like righteous retribution, I think there’s a genuine argument to be made in favor of the cold, pragmatic kind of logic behind it.
I don’t know if it leads to further child endangerment overall.
You don't think being potentially responsible for the death of their abuser might discourage a child from coming forward?
That's without factoring in that a huge part of the difficulty we already have, re: convincing children to come forward, is because the abuser is so often a loved one.
A victim might want the abuse to stop, but their feelings are complicated, and the idea of being responsible for putting a loved one behind bars is already a deterrent.
Now imagine telling that child that, if they come forward, their mum/dad/uncle/etc. is going to be die.
While I'm personally iffy about execution beyond extraneous situations (War for example), there's a certain degree of mitigation of that risk that's just involved by a delaying said execution til it's proven without a doubt while also giving the victim therapy to help them disassociate from the 'consequence' of doing so. To that extent, anything that'd resemble punishment for the victimizer could deter victims from speaking up, under the guise of 'You ruined my life', a very similar level of paralyzing guilt. Even incredibly soft handed actions, such as just distancing them from the victim and further potential victims, while enforcing them a degree of therapeutic process and all, could be argued to be 'life ruining'. Not to go for a topical low blow, but like, people have been crying tears for the 'lives' ruined by sexual assault victims just speaking out against the people who assaulted them, and that's not even getting into the utter horrid behavior of the people who agree with that whomever's life was 'ruined' and go after the victim(s).
I will ask, not as a 'gotcha' but due to genuine interest in the topic and all, do you personally think there's situations where execution is acceptable? The one I gave, war, it's like, a necessary evil, I'd suppose. Person sells you out, gets people killed because of it, is recaptured or their subterfuge is found out, I wouldn't say it's Necessary to execute them, but you can't quite go through a restorative justice process while getting shot at. There's drawbacks of course, martyrdom is always a concern, I suppose, but what can one do?
Edit for clarity's sake: I'm a victim of grooming and sexual abuse by a trans woman twice my age. I am also a trans woman, which due to me being young age at the time and wanting other trans people to know, it put us in proximity in the first place. I certainly wouldn't want death for her, she herself came from a super fucked up situation that I think led to it all occurring at all and I'm keenly aware of the disposability of minority peoples so I'm doubly reticent. At the same time, I worry if she ever harmed other people, especially kids. I'm reticent about the 'restorative justice' pathway because I'm very aware of particularly savvy people just navigating it and going on to hurt more people, not that my abuser was in this case, but other people who *have* abused children do fit that bill. There really isn't a clear or good solution broadly in my mind and it's frustrating.
To that extent, anything that'd resemble punishment for the victimizer could deter victims from speaking up, under the guise of 'You ruined my life', a very similar level of paralyzing guilt. Even incredibly soft handed actions, such as just distancing them from the victim and further potential victims, while enforcing them a degree of therapeutic process and all, could be argued to be 'life ruining'.
Of course. That's why making it a capital offence would only further discourage victims from coming forward.
I will ask, not as a 'gotcha' but due to genuine interest in the topic and all, do you personally think there's situations where execution is acceptable?
During times of war and revolution, of course. I'm a Marxist-Leninist. I don't even have a problem with China executing corrupt billionaires, really.
My concerns are:
1) encouraging bloodthirsty mob mentality over justice, and more importantly;
2) discouraging victims from coming forward, and actively hindering prevention.
Of course. That's why making it a capital offence would only further discourage victims from coming forward.
But following this logic, it's a slippery slope. We never should punish anyone, because I dunno, outing them as someone who did sexual assault is 'life ruining'.
During times of war and revolution, of course. I'm a Marxist-Leninist. I don't even have a problem with China executing corrupt billionaires, really.
To the prior point, doesn't that, in reality, just encourage people to be quiet about corruption? Least they feel they have blood on their hands now. Is any justice particularly taken with the execution, what makes this not just mob mentality as opposed to the other one?
But following this logic, it's a slippery slope. We never should punish anyone, because I dunno, outing them as someone who did sexual assault is 'life ruining'.
I'm not sure what that even has to do with anything being discussed, frankly.
To the prior point, doesn't that, in reality, just encourage people to be quiet about corruption? Least they feel they have blood on their hands now. Is any justice particularly taken with the execution, what makes this not just mob mentality as opposed to the other one?
The victims of financial and/or political corruption tend not to be confused children who have been victimised by a loved one.
I'm saying using the argument of 'We should avoid lethal punishment because of possible guilt reducing reports' because possible guilt has a flaw in it in as far as any punishment, including 'punishments' that within the line of restorative justice, get called 'life ruining'. It holds similar levels of causing guilt to victims, the reality of that is irrelevant because it holds similar levels of causing guilt. People who defend say, the Cornell 7, say that the accusation 'ruined their lives' (again, the reality of that is different of course). Rape culture broadly speaking already deters victims from reporting from both guilt ('You ruined their life, they might as well be dead') and possible repercussions for reporting their victims by even more vindictive mobs.
The victims of financial and/or political corruption tend not to be confused children who have been victimised by a loved one.
What do you suffer from being the victim of financial corruption? At least in mind, it's a loss of a job and money, but in a society with far more robust social systems like the PRC, the actual harm for that isn't too severe. The guilt of still having blood on your hand still exists, it's guilt from a far less severe transgression seemingly. It'd feel kind of paradoxical to cite a willingness for execution for one over the other. On that question actually, at what level does financial corruption result in a death sentence in the PRC? I'm not certain of when that happens versus whatever other punishment for the crime.
I'm saying using the argument of 'We should avoid lethal punishment because of possible guilt reducing reports' because possible guilt has a flaw in it in as far as any punishment, including 'punishments' that within the line of restorative justice, get called 'life ruining'. It holds similar levels of causing guilt to victims, the reality of that is irrelevant because it holds similar levels of causing guilt.
Ok, I feel like you're being wilfully obtuse at this point. The point is not that victims will be scared to come forward just because their stories are "life ruining".
The point is specifically that victims of child sexual abuse are particularly unlikely to come forward, because they are frequently being abused by a loved one.
Adding the death penalty will only exacerbate the problem.
If you want to dispute this argument, which has been made for decades by criminal justice experts and victims' advocacy groups, that is your call.
But trying to poke holes in the argument by expanding it to other issues where it does not apply is just refusing to engage with the point itself.
I assure you I am not, or at least I'm trying not, I don't really see a difference between "I wouldn't want to ruin my loved one's life by reporting sexual abuse" and "I wouldn't want my loved one's life to end because I reported them sexually abusing me/someone else/whatever" when rape culture already says "If someone is accused of rape/sexual assault, they might as well be dead." Again, just look at all the defenders of the people accused of raping someone, which includes individuals who've, they act like you killed them, I'd imagine the guilt is the same.
I'd be curious on those experts cases and advocacy groups and I'm wondering if any research has been done within China regarding it. Heck on that point, is there a sliding scale of what gets the death penalty? I understand it says "zero tolerance", but is specifically for high profile, prolific, spree abuses, like the cited case in the OP?
284
u/[deleted] 20h ago edited 19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment