sdimock said:
To excuse actions based on "heredity" is denying responsibility for your actions.
Absolutely correct. In fact, by identifying pedophilia as 'nature' rather than 'nurture' (the idea that something is genetic/hereditary rather than learned), lends itself to the idea that it cannot be cured. It does not absolve the creep from his actions, but does explain how these compulsions came about. We also have a hereditary compulsion to promiscuity, but it doesn't make infidelity right.
sdimock said:
You don't believe in capital punishment under any circumstances so you have eliminated that as part of the fair and proportional justice.
Yes I have. And every other western nation except the US agrees with me, and disagrees with you. Perhaps another thread is in order for this topic, but basically capital punishment is wrong for 3 basic reasons:
1- Risk of executing an innocent man. With life sentences, you can reverse the sentence. Case in point is David Milgaard, who was jailed for 15 years (IIRC) for a murder he did not commit.
2- Lack of ethical and moral jurisdiction. Governments do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies. What right do we have to decide to end another's life? They are there, in this instance, to protect Canadian society. There are more acceptable means of protecting society. If execution is used to protect society, then why not just jail them for life with no parole?
3- You can't make someone feel better about their loss by killing another. Too often, the execution of a criminal is justified due to the pain he has caused his victims family. How can you justify ending someone's life to ease the emotional pain of another? How is their emotional health more important than his existence? Also, how exactly is killing someone going to make another feel better about losing their spouse, child, parent or sibling? Is their pain so superficial that it can be eased by simply ending another's life? Keep in mind that their pain is focused around the victim not the perpetrator. It is caused by the loss of that loved one, it is not caused by the act of the criminal. If you could bring the person back by killing the perpetrator, then that would be different. In the end, after you kill the murderer, the victim is still dead, and their pain remains.
sdimock said:
I also wonder if being against capital punishment could be seen as being a socially conditioned emotional response and not based on fact.
Actually, my position is devoid of emotional response. It is as logical and factual as I can make it. We should remove as much emotion as possible when dealing with crime and punishment. Emotion has nothing to do with it. Case in point, if one person is devastated by the break in of their home, does the perpetrator deserve a stiffer penalty than the one who broke into the home of someone who really didn't care? No, it should not. Punishment/sentencing should be based on the severity of the crime, the risk of re-offence, and the risk to society.