Instigator / Con
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#5053
An unjustified, unnecessary punishment for said child pursuer.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Pro
0
1264
rating
357
debates
39.64%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
I heard of a case where an adult individual was in a chatroom online appearing to communicate with a twelve year old. The two agreed to rendezvous and the adult was apprehended . After getting a statement, the person was transferred to jail and eventually received a sentence of seven years imprisonment plus 20 years registry on the sex offender list.
Anyone that disagrees with the penalty either more or less or none, accept the challenge, make your case in consistent points.
Questions on the topic, leave a comment.
Round 1
Ok the opposing can make their case . Go ahead.
Lex talionis is a principle of exact retaliation.
Since the person in question did no harm, it follows that no harm should be done to him.
Even if we take into account what we assume would have happened, it is simply not as harmful as 7 years in prison.
From information provided, the girl seemed to be willing.
7 years of prison often includes being raped and beaten on top of being denied everything except food and water.
According to the principle of Lex talionis in this case, there is simply no equality between harm done by person and harm done as retaliation because harm done as retaliation was obviously much greater.
Therefore, punishment is unjustified.
Lex talionis is a principle often mentioned in the Bible as "eye for eye".
Round 2
"Since the person in question did no harm, it follows that no harm should be done to him."
Do people go to prison for attempted crimes?
Why?
Research if needed before responding.
"Even if we take into account what we assume would have happened, it is simply not as harmful as 7 years in prison."
You should know this doesn't make sense. The court of law does not operate and convict on assumptions, there has to be evidence.
The law requires evidence of NO harm. The "simply not as harmful" as an assumption is no good, let alone assuming there'd be no harm. So the penalty is in place for an attempt for possible risk because society and the government will not tolerate having our children at risk .
"From information provided, the girl seemed to be willing."
The "girl" was actually a decoy in this case. That's how the predator got caught. In other words, it doesn't matter the consent of a child. What's illegal is not based on what the will of a minor is here.
"7 years of prison often includes being raped and beaten on top of being denied everything except food and water."
Also the loss of this person's spouse. They expired while he was imprisoned.
"According to the principle of Lex talionis in this case, there is simply no equality between harm done by person and harm done as retaliation because harm done as retaliation was obviously much greater.
Therefore, punishment is unjustified."
You don't have to harm anybody in order to be prosecuted and sent away to do time. Just think of all the white collar crimes, irs, federal offenses, etc.
"Lex talionis is a principle often mentioned in the Bible as "eye for eye"."
Punishment is justified to correct a problem which is necessary to do to possibly deter other predators and or eliminate imminent danger and adverse risk.
I dont think deterence requires an additional punishment other than eye for eye.
It is also unjustified to punish one person for possible future crimes of another.
Also, punishing possible future crimes would send everyone to life in prison.
Also, you are confusing what the law says with what is justified.
Round 3
*I dont think deterence requires an additional punishment other than eye for eye."
The punishment itself functions as the deterrence. I'll elaborate connecting it to the next response.
"It is also unjustified to punish one person for possible future crimes of another."
By giving penalty to one, it's an example to others that may attempt to commit the same crime. This is what is called deterrence. It is necessary and therefore justified.
"Also, punishing possible future crimes would send everyone to life in prison."
You can't punish a future crime. You can deter it. A prison sentence amount is decided by the law, no contention over that.
"Also, you are confusing what the law says with what is justified."
I'm reiterating a case I heard about and agrees with it.
Again, deterrence demands draconian punishments and not "eye for eye".
Also, deterrence is unjustified, because you are punishing a person for crime he didnt even commit.
Round 4
"Again, deterrence demands draconian punishments "and not "eye for eye"."
I don't get your point here. If you could elaborate on your points, that could help us.
"Also, deterrence is unjustified, because you are punishing a person for crime he didnt even commit."
I don't know if you're just distracted or what it is but I've explained about attempted crimes.
Once more my questions are not rhetorical. Do people go to prison for attempted crimes?
Why?
Here's an example of a child touching a stove, playing with a knife , scissors or even a gun. Although the worse hasn't happened, no life has been taken by another or by the same, because of the possible ramifications, a penalty is implemented to DETER what would be the worse.
If you know what the point of deterrence is, you would know it is the effort to prevent something. You continue to make a point about punishment shouldn't be before a crime. Laws are not just in place for us to know when a crime has been committed but to also enforce behavior in prevention of crimes.
We're laboring to prevent atrocities, disasters and massacres. So this debate is good as done.
As I said, you cannot punish people for crimes they didnt commit and wouldnt commit anyway.
If you are punishing me to deter someone else, then you are punishing me for someone else's crime, not just my own.
Likewise, if you punish me to deter some future crime you assume I might commit, then again you are punishing me for something I didnt even do.
Round 5
Debate is as good as done.
No offense but I'm talking to a wall.
No matter what I say it's not getting through.
No matter what the opposing side says, the reality is they lock people up for what they're arguing against to not do .
Apparently their arguments are not strong enough to change the law.
Thank you for the debate.
Sorry if you think your arguments are not getting to me, but the whole point of a debate is to disagree, and not to agree!
If we agreed, there wouldnt be a debate to begin with.
I will argue that the penalty should be none.