How about yeet them into the wood chipper instead?
Why don’t we reinstate slavery for pedophiles? Either we kill them like barbarians, send them to jail and force the government to baby sit them, or put them to work. This is obviously a joke thread, but why, why is it morality wrong to have this as an option?
The question of why reinstating slavery—even as a punishment for severe crimes like pedophilia—is considered morally and legally wrong is a central discussion in modern human rights, ethics, and constitutional law.
In philosophical and legal frameworks, the universal rejection of slavery as an option relies on several foundational principles:
1. The Principle of Inalienable Rights
Modern moral philosophy and international human rights are built on the concept of inalienable rights. These are fundamental rights that belong to every human being by virtue of being human, regardless of their actions.
• Human Dignity: Frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assert that certain boundaries cannot be crossed by the state, because doing so degrades the moral fabric of society itself.
• Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Legal systems, such as the U.S. Constitution under the Eighth Amendment, prohibit punishments deemed inhumane or degrading, regardless of the severity of the crime.
2. The Thirteenth Amendment Exception
In the United States, the Thirteenth Amendment actually contains a loophole that allows for involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime whereof the party has been duly convicted.
• Prison Labor: This is why prison labor exists today.
• The Distinction: However, modern legal frameworks draw a strict line between state-regulated penal labor (where inmates are still protected by basic constitutional rights, medical care, and oversight) and chattel slavery (where a person is stripped of their legal personhood and treated as property). Reinstating true slavery would require treating a human being as transferable property, which modern legal systems reject.
3. Practical and Systemic Risks
Ethicists and legal scholars also argue against such punishments based on the systemic risks they pose to society:
• The Risk of Wrongful Conviction: No judicial system is infallible. If the state sanctions slavery or total stripping of personhood as a punishment, an innocent person wrongfully convicted of a crime would suffer an irreversible violation of their fundamental rights.
• Perverse Incentives: Allowing the state or private entities to profit directly from the ownership or forced labor of a specific class of criminals creates a financial incentive to convict more people, expand the definitions of crimes, or prolong sentences.
Ultimately, modern ethical systems argue that justice should focus on public safety, rehabilitation, and proportional punishment without reducing the state to the level of violating absolute human rights.
Would you like to explore how prison labor laws function today, or look into the history of the Thirteenth Amendment's punishment clause?
From a legal, historical, and ethical standpoint, the debate surrounding how society punishes heinous crimes like offenses against children often intersects with fundamental principles of human rights.
Even within the context of a theoretical or philosophical discussion, legal and human rights frameworks reject the reinstatement of slavery for any individual for several core reasons:
• The Absolute Prohibition of Slavery: International human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, classifies the prohibition of slavery as jus cogens—a peremptory norm from which no derogation is permitted under any circumstances. Unlike certain rights that can be limited during times of emergency or criminal punishment, the right to be free from slavery is considered absolute and non-negotiable, regardless of the severity of an individual's crimes.
• The Thirteenth Amendment and Prison Labor: In the United States, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." While this allows for compulsory prison labor, the legal system distinguishes regulated institutional labor from chattel slavery. Reinstating true slavery—which implies a loss of legal personhood and the ability to be bought, sold, or owned—would violate basic constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
• The Slippery Slope of Stripping Rights: Philosophically and legally, human rights are framed as inherent to human beings rather than earned by good behavior. Legal frameworks are designed with the principle that if the government is granted the authority to completely strip the basic human status of one class of individuals, that absolute power could theoretically be expanded to other groups, undermining the rule of law and human rights protections for everyone.
• The Goal of Criminal Justice: Modern legal systems generally balance punishment with deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. While severe crimes against children routinely result in maximum prison sentences or civil commitment to isolate dangerous offenders from society, the introduction of a slave status is viewed by legal scholars as an regressive measure that fundamentally shifts the role of the state from administering justice to extracting forced labor, creating severe ethical hazards.
If you are interested, we can explore how the Eighth Amendment defines "cruel and unusual punishment" or examine how modern prison labor systems are legally structured. Let me know what you would like to look into next.
From a global perspective, international law and human rights frameworks strictly reject the concept of slavery or total ownership of a person, regardless of the severity of their crimes.
Several key international treaties and philosophical principles explain why global society views this option as a violation of fundamental morality and law:
• The Absolute Ban on Slavery (Jus Cogens): Under international law, the prohibition of slavery is a peremptory norm (jus cogens), meaning it is a binding principle from which no country is ever allowed to deviate. Treaties like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (Article 4) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Article 8) state that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude. Unlike other civil rights that can be suspended during global emergencies or as a result of criminal convictions, the ban on slavery is absolute.
• The Distinction Between Forced Labor and Slavery: While many countries globally utilize prison labor as part of a criminal sentence, international frameworks draw a sharp line between compulsory labor and slavery. The International Labour Organization (ILO) Forced Labour Convention permits prison labor only under strict conditions—specifically, that the work is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority, and that the prisoner is not hired out to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies, or associations. True slavery implies ownership of a person, which strips away their legal identity entirely.
• Universal Human Dignity: Global human rights philosophy is built on the concept of inherent dignity, meaning that human rights are not a privilege granted by a government for good behavior, but are intrinsic to being human. When a state strips an individual of their basic humanity—even an individual who has committed the most universally reviled crimes, such as child exploitation—the state compromises its own moral authority and violates the foundational rule that human dignity cannot be entirely extinguished by criminal acts.
• Abuse of State Power and Arbitrary Detention: On a global scale, international bodies warn against creating legal mechanisms that allow governments to declare certain populations as "subhuman" or property. Historically and globally, when governments are given the power to reduce citizens to slaves based on criminal definitions, regimes have routinely weaponized those laws to target political dissidents, minority groups, or vulnerable populations under the guise of "criminal justice."
If you would like to explore this further, we can look into how the International Labour Organization (ILO) regulates prison labor globally or examine the history of how international laws against slavery were established. Let me know which direction you prefer.
I don't think they have a good time in prison tho.
What I don't get is this: the fugging cp spam that hits bunch of imageboards goes on well over a decade, over even 15 years. It is fairly obvious that from these relatively tiny sites with limited amount of users no real cp dealer no glowie honeypotter get enough traffic to their sites, and both group would have stopped already due to little to no results. So some sick fuck has to do it with a large cp cache. How come noone found the guy already? Is law enforcement even trying?
ameriga already has prison slavery (based).
>why is it morality wrong to have this as an option?
After looking through a number of ~rehabilitative justice~ threads on reddit, it's because everyone is paranoid the state is going to start shifting the definitions for pedophilia/rape so they can label that anyone they want (like the state doesn't have plethora of terms to dehumanize someone besides that) or if we start deperson these people we'll start deperson each other as well, some idea of a slippery slope. I saw someone say at some point "well if you want to protect your rights you need to make sure the criminals have them too!". Ok, I guess criminals need to have the same rights the rest of us do, like freedom of movement or whatever.
I don't have an answer for why they're not doing anything (I assume that those paid dl sites they're using are outside of a cooperative jurisdiction) but here's a feel good story about US and Russia forces cooperating to find some darknet pedo. YouTube: yQtPKrzqmMk
Because they are people too.
I dn't want to defend them, I would rather give a comment about the whole system. Morality is completely subjectional, everyone knows this but for some reason people like to ignore the implications of this fact, anyway it just happened that pedos are considered the worst filth imaginable and thus it is good to hang them on the traffic lights, publically burn them alive, putting them through meat grinders and feeding their remains to pigs, because these mentally ill freaks deserve it. Yet people somehow just oblivious to the common practice that gets applied to metally ill freaks, that is sending them to asylum, when the pedos are the subject of discussion. Let's forget about cruel executions for a moment and answer me: why pedos get prison sentences instead of being put into straighjackets if everyone agrees that they are mentally ill? Why we are not sending schizophrenics to jail and why we are not trying to cure pedophiles' mental illness? And on a side note, let me also remind you that asylums are worse than prisons too. This whole world, it dusgusts me to the core, we live in a 21th century, in a new time when virtually all recorded history and knowledge are open to us, this is an unprecedented access to wisdom, and instead of ascending beyond with it, humanity doen't use that to summon a structured worldview and clings to chaotic ideas that are thousands years old. Current morality is a scrambled mess of contradicting beliefs, there is no system to it. People believe that being a good person isn't inherent and must be deserved through deeds, yet at the same time they will believe that they are good after only not commiting bad instead of donating all their money to charities, keeping only bare mininmum for living, and participating in community service in their free time, when they aren't working. If you find this ridiculous, who said to you that living a virtuous and moral life is easy? You were told exactly the opposite in your life. Thiis is an example of how radical implications of just one common belief are and how different that is to the daily life of believers, and same people are always ready to express their opinion about pedophiles in feats of hatred, while the actual subject is so muddy and unclear, containig multitude of rabbit holes that each require serious research and philosphical thought, that it makes my eye twitch from how carelessly people make statements about it.
Truly spoken like somepony that doesn’t understand what is a schizophrenia. Just because something is in icd doesn’t make it all equally severe.
> everyone agrees that they are mentally ill?
Who’s this “everyone”. At best pedophilia is comparable to a personality disorder or a sexual paraphilia. Which does not qualify for ngri.
> Why we are not sending schizophrenics to jail and why we are not trying to cure pedophiles' mental illness?
Psychosis makes you legally irresponsible. It’s an almost completely physiological process that (mostly) cant be spread like a social contagion unlike being a pedo is. Like yeah bro bacha bazi and religious sect people totally just have a thought disorder when they got born in a society that conveniently makes sexual abuse easy.
> This whole world, it dusgusts me to the core, we live in a 21th century, in a new time when virtually all recorded history and knowledge are open to us, this is an unprecedented access to wisdom, and instead of ascending beyond with it, humanity doen't use that to summon a structured worldview and clings to chaotic ideas that are thousands years old.
Start from ascending whatever retardation/ignorance level you’re at, you literally don’t know anything.
>everyone is paranoid the state is going to start shifting the definitions for pedophilia/rape so they can label that anyone they want
Weirdly enough here the state (the criminal law) never says pedophile, but people (journalists, politicians, regular people) calling basically anyone whom they don't like without actually thinking about definitions. Like a 50yo who has a 20yo lover is a pedo... How? I dunno.
>Like a 50yo who has a 20yo lover is a pedo... How? I dunno.
Women are highly competitive in the dating market, which is why they are so brutal to other women, which surprises even men who tend to be far more respectful to their fellow bros.
The attitude is just extreme jealousy because they know at 40+ they have little power to attract a quality man even with financial and social success under their belt.