Least important part first to get it out of the way: it's pretty difficult to interpret "deserves" another way from how I did, and you fail to actually present a distinct meaning from my interpretation either in your last comment or here, you just sort of deflect to talking about something else while either tacitly relying on exactly the understanding of "deserving" that I explained, or talking about things consequentially instead with no relation to that term. You have failed to demonstrate that I was incorrect, you're just doing motte-and-bailey argumentation.

This isn't some matter of trivia or being woke, when you say "kill them if they're convicted" you are effectively signing off on killing some number of innocent people and preventing retrials in the case of new evidence, which is a problem with the death penalty generally.

Much more interestingly, in the very same sentence as you make this accusation of me, you say:

Typical westerner who says all AES states are bad

I talked about China being revisionist, and you extrapolate it to this view, something I never said and do not believe. I don't even think China is "bad," at least pragmatically, and I have probably as much admiration for Cuba as you do. You took me speaking poorly of China and incorrectly overgeneralized it to my whole view of China, and then incorrectly overgeneralized that to my whole view of every nominally-socialist state everywhere, and came up with a bunch of cute details that I'll get to in a moment. Maybe you're the one who's shadow-boxing in this circumstance?

Not making statements as to the effectiveness of the American justice system.

As at least one other person noted, you keep saying "people who are in prison" and things like that. You even keep saying it in this comment. The simple fact of the matter is that "people who are in prison" is not a subset of "people who are guilty of the crime they were accused of," it's an intersecting set. But nonetheless, you talk about how "people who are in prison" "deserve" mutilation, death, etc.

Then talking about rehabilitation for people like that as if its the same thing as rehabilitating an emperor who was ignorant and insulated, and whose crimes were systemically taught to him as a good thing/necessary his entire life.

These people went against what is societally acceptable in their own societies.

This is an interesting argument, but I think you're giving Puyi a little bit too much credit here. He was aware of Japan doing colonialism and more. It's also worth noting that he was 28 when he became a puppet emperor on behalf of Japan (though he had been a chief executive for two years prior), something far removed from being the sovereign of China that he was theoretically groomed to be and taught to value and a disgrace to his imperial predecessors (themselves despicable monarchists, but we're meeting people where they're at, right?). It was a cynical choice made for his own benefit.

In the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Puyi testified as a witness and claimed that he was held by the Japanese against his will (Behr, 273). It was clear to the judges that Puyi was saying what was needed to protect himself. Edward Behr, the author of The Last Emperor, described Puyi as “showing himself to be a consistent, self assured liar, prepared to go to any lengths to save his skin” (278).

https://www.pacificatrocities.org/blog/prince-puyi-chinas-last-dynasty

Ironically for our conversation:

There is also extensive reporting on him being such a sadistic little shit that even his handlers had the wrangle him a little, but I won't dwell on that because he was a minor then.

The more important thing is that it wasn't part of his grooming to sell off his country in mass land seizures, enslavement, promoting the racial supremacy of the Japanese, and criminalizing any dissent against them. Even Unit 731 was operating within Manchukuo, his jurisdiction, and he surely wasn't reading their "lab reports," but it seems unlikely that he knew nothing about it. He nonetheless went along with all of it and then tried to evade responsibility however he could once it was over. If you actually care about his rehabilitation under Mao, Puyi did go on to accept responsibility for his actions and didn't pretend to just be an ignorant child, even if there were things that he was unaware of and ways that his perspective was warped by his environment.

Anyway, enough about Puyi.

These people went against what is societally acceptable in their own societies. To harm children in the most despicable way possible in order to fufill their own desires.

You say this, but preying on minors is pretty normalized among some parts of society. I'm sure I don't need to tell you about all the radio hits about fucking kids, or the child bride laws in some states, etc.

Regardless of how nice to might sound to say we can just "Fix" them we cant. We don't know how. If one day we figure out WHY they do what they do, and how we can fix them then sure we can do that. But its not something we know how to do.

This is absolutely bizarre. As you yourself seemed to mention, the main issue here isn't the medical condition, it is their response to it. The "why" is a question of decision-making, of personal conduct and values (and expectation of punishment or lack thereof). There is no grand mystery here, they are criminals in the same way that a wife-beater is a criminal, because they made bad choices. It might take more effort to unpack on a case-by-case basis, like with other domestic abusers, but there's no magical curse that makes them unable to choose the right thing.

To let them walk the streets again registry or not is untenable. Did you read the article i sent you? . . . You would what? Put them in jail for a few years then put them on a list, release them, and hope they don't do it again? That is absolutely irresponsible and ridiculous.

I would put them in prison to be rehabilitated until they are rehabilitated, and if they refuse then they're stuck there for life. I'm not saying we have a fixed 3-year sentence and then release them, it's a question of if and when a given individual can be released (which, for the record, I expect would take longer than 3 years).

It not only allows those very people to go commit the same crimes again, but tells others who might think of doing those crimes that they will survive it even if caught.

I know you love when I consider word choice, so I'll do it again: "Survive"? I knew I was right to make the bail reform comparison; you're talking like a miserable boomer. The death penalty isn't a very effective deterrent, this has been shown again and again, and it's especially bad in the case of prosecuting sexual violence, because if you're already going to die for being convicted of molesting someone, why not just kill them too and avoid leaving a witness?

Even if you think I'm completely in the wrong on rehabilitation, you are independently demonstrating that you've completely sacrificed critical thinking or looking at evidence in favor of the most ill-considered "kill the baddie" reflexes because, idk, perhaps it's cathartic to you or something. If you cared about victims, you might try actually reading about this subject. This defective reasoning is very compatible with the defectiveness of "deserving" as a moral framework, btw.

The people in jails for it are the ones who DID act on it.

And also some innocent people, statistically.

It's the action that gets them arrested.

It's getting charged that gets them arrested and conviction that puts them in prison. There is a strong correlation to committing the crime, but you're not considering that the justice system is not overseen by an omniscient God.

As for you refusal to see my point on the justice system i will remind you America is not the only country on earth. Why would i bring up America centric issues like its justice systems tendency to wrongfully convict when talking about a global issue. On top of that the justice system in any nation does not exist to get 100% of its convictions right all the time anyway

Excellent, so we agree that you have no point because America's problem is quantitative and all of these systems are fallible. I apologize for using an obvious and familiar example to you, but I'm glad you were able to extrapolate from it.

I have a bit more to say, so bear with me 1/