Libertine

Think about what you're saying... you're using the word "cured", which implies a sickness, and then you use the word "deserve".

If it is a sickness which can not be cured, one can assume that it is something they did not choose, in which case you can't logically hold them responsible for their actions in the way that you hold a sane person responsible for their actions.
In that case, the only course of action that can be morally justified is to protect society from them in the way that is least invasive to their human rights, e.g. either putting them in a mental hospital for life or, if possible after all, curing their disease.


However, that would imply that man has no control over his actions, which is something I for one strongly disagree with.

So let's take a look at the other side, the one in which they bear full responsibility for their actions, and illnesses, personal traumas etc have no moral significance whatsoever. In that case, they would indeed deserve full punishment for their actions... however, it would make the significance of their actions far less.
After all, the reason why we consider pedophilia a bad thing is mainly the effect it has on the victims, the impact it has on their lives, the pain it causes them and the damage it does in their development.
If we assume that people bear full responsibility for their actions however, and things like past events (e.g. getting abused as a child) or current mental states (depression, etc) play no part whatsoever in what a person becomes, then the very thing which makes child abuse bad (the effects on the victims) becomes pretty much irrelevant - which makes it something that isn't all that bad at all. And, at the very least, it is nowhere near as significant as any crime which would actually cause physical damage.

Clearly, that can't be right either.


The only logical way to look at pedophilia/child abuse is a combination of someone having a mental dysfunction (for which they bear no responsibility, but which does necessitate protection for society) and that person making morally wrong choices (for which they do bear responsibility, and which therefore warrants punishment).

So, the only appropriate reaction of society to child abuse is a combination of punishment and protecting society. Now, death might sound like the perfect solution, but it seems to overstep the bounds of appropriate punishment. Seeing how the consequences of the crime are significantly less than, for instance, murder (which follows from the argument that people in fact do have the possibility of self-determination), and how the perpetrator only bears part of the responsibility (that is, he can not be found "guilty" of the sickness which was a contributing cause to his actions, only of the decision to act on his urges), the punishment should not be excessive.
On the other hand, since chances of recidive are extremely high with sex offenders, he shouldn't be set free either.

Clearly, then, life in prison is the only logical punishment. NOT in general population, ofcourse.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

QuaWee

just what his sick ass gets

__________________
i luv mainstream