|
| Thread: Castration for hardcore sex offenders? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
DomFontana
Known Hero
NY Yankees
|
posted May 19, 2010 03:33 AM |
|
|
Yes, you're absolutely right about that, BB. I agree with you on that point.
____________
The King
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 04:27 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 04:28, 19 May 2010.
|
I don't think some people are fondamentaly evil and I think everyone can change (of course, not saying it is easy, but it is possible)
but you have to make the rapist understand that it is in his interest or he won't change. and yes it is probably possible to find logical arguments in that goal.
Quote:
Real question is this: Is there currently anywhere that actually practices this idea? If so, who?
err... probably. given that they are still people who have a great respect toward life forms, that must exists.
Mvass : what do you call morality? that could be a whole debate actually. it is just incredible now how some people say some things are moral/immoral based on popular beliefs alone without thinking further.
Quote:
Another could be working as a slave for the rest of their life, and part of the income gained from this work would be sent to the victim. Alternatively, the victim could choose the punishment.
it's inhuman too. ever heard of goulags?
Quote:
In Italy, if a man finds his wife in bed with another man and kills them both, he's just given a slap on the wrist. It's considered justifiable homicide. Not so, in the US.
lol justifiable homicide?  IMO it's worse than rape and murder. I mean, justifying a homicide by saying you loved the victim, it's just ignoble.
|
|
DomFontana
Known Hero
NY Yankees
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 05:02 AM |
|
|
@Fauch: It is odd, but that's how they are in Italy. And it's not a matter of loving the victim (wife) because he kills her, too. It's considered "Justifiable Rage."
____________
The King
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 05:06 AM |
|
|
Fauch:
Gulags were bad because the innocent were imprisoned, not for any other reason. If they were full of violent criminals, they'd have been okay.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 07:38 AM |
|
|
*Sigh*
Let's just repeat some points here:
1) Some people are just sick. Wired wrongly. Missing vital parts of the brain. I gave a link. Serial offenders are DIFFERENT. A considerable part of them is missing the... equipment to understand what they are doing to other persons and what that means. The current situation is, since they cannot be cured they cannot be corrected either.
2) Some people have their sexuality attached to the "wrong" persons. Children. A considerable part of those isn't happy with the consequences of their desires either, because they see those consequences. Here chemical castration works because it solves a problem for all.
3) Let's face it, whoc cares about the offender? Offender's "rights" are clearly last on the list. First on the list is - or should be:
a) Protecting society to prevent further damage.
b) Actual and existing victims, their healing and "compensation" in order to enable them to continue their life (if any).
That second point is important for the first one as well, since violence seems to always breed new violence.
4) Then there are the wrongly accused and the really curable. Becuse of them - and mainly because of them - punishment, if too hard, bears the danger of doing people wrong.
The "compensation" is important, in my opinion, and in our society this point is not really considered. For example, if someone has been a victim of abuse - let's for simplicity's sake say that it was a really bad abuse, for example a rape under threat of being killed with a knife, combined with beating or a couple of cuts -, can you imagine what it may mean for the raped person, that the offender who did it, is sitting in a jail, may enjoy what he did in his imagination, and may get free in a couple of years? Can you imagine what the abuse as such will mean for the life of said person? And for the family?
Offender's are obviously owing to the victims: they basically ruined their life, and I don't see any reason at all to allow those offenders a modicum of normal life before they at least tried to make up for that, make amends, "compensate", change and so on (which is obviously extremely difficult and rare), since those offenders most of the time are not sorry for what they did, because if they could be sorry, they wouldn't have done it in the first place,
This is completely different from impersonal offenses. If someone nicks your car, you lost your car, period.
Which means, for me: "personal" offenders lose basically all rights, because they have no right to live a better life than their victims. For compensational purposes, there was, again in my opinion, nothing wrong to treat abusers in much the same way than the abuser treated the victims, with the victims being offered to have a part in it (sounds barbaric, I know). until, and that's the important, the very important point: until the victim(s) say(s), it's enough. The victims are those who have to move on, and as long as they can't put it to rest, the issue simply isn't at rest.
Is that an eye for an eye? Probably. But think about it. If you've been badly abused, how will you ever feel "safe" or "at ease" again, as long as you know that the offender may come free some time soon. You may have had a terrible time at court already, going through the motions, recounting stuff, having to bare being in the same room with the offender; you feel fear, shame, anger, hate, all at once. Your life was messed up, and you can point to the one responsible.
See it this way: from the moment this person decided to mess up your life, that person has lost the right to life, because if you'd managed to somehow kill the person (grabbing something, hitting the person or something), it would have been self-defense. Just because the offender has been lucky, planned it all cleverly or was simply too strong, that doesn't change anything about it. The right to self-defense is still there, as long there is an ongoing relationship between victim and offender in that way that the life is still messed up and the abuse is - in a way - still going on. It's somewhat pending.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 09:21 AM |
|
|
@Dom:
I remember watching a show not to long ago, it was a fictional show, but it's easy to see how it would happen in the real world. A woman date-raped a man, by slipping rohipnol and viagra into his drink. when the man succumbed to the rohipnol, the woman raped him.
and the reason why they don't often get reported? Alot of men don't want to do it because most people wont take them seriously. it's rare, but it happens.
as for chemical crastration, I think that would be the best alternative for everyone. far better than the scissors... or the cement.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
DomFontana
Known Hero
NY Yankees
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 09:52 AM |
|
|
@bixie: That's true. Also, many men are embarrassed to report it. Another point is that when a woman is raped, she is the one being violated because the man enters her. Not so, when it's the other way around.
@JollyJoker:
Quote:
Which means, for me: "personal" offenders lose basically all rights, because they have no right to live a better life than their victims.
I want to be clear about something. I don't think anyone here who is opposed to castration is taking the part of the criminal or condoning their actions in any way. It's a despicable act and they should be punished, but what we're discussing here is the form of punishment. For virtually every other crime, people accept the usual forms of punishment. It's just with rape, where some people mention castration. So, I don't agree that with "personal" offenses, offenders lose all rights.
Here are some forms of Puritan punishment, which were were designed to be humiliating above all other emotional or physical pain:
Stocks and Pillory
Stocks were made of two heavy wooden planks with holes cut out to hold the ankles and wrists. The pillory was designed to hold the criminal while standing, and had holes for the head and hands. The stocks were designed for the lower class, and the pillory was designed for the elite in the community. To add insult to injury, the community would hurl insults and leftovers at the captive.
The Ducking Stool
The ducking stool was reserved for wives who were deemed disrespectful and women known for gossip. The tool of judgment was a plank of wood balanced at the central location, much like a see-saw. A stool was strapped to the end of the plank, where the woman would be tied, and placed over water. A judge would assign a number of dunks based on the level of offense, and the criminal would face the judicial system wet and humiliated.
Letter-Wearing
Letters were often sewn onto a criminal's clothes. The letters would represent specific crimes. For example, a "T" would stand for "thief" and a "D" would stand for "drunk in public." In some cases, instead of stitching a letter into clothing, the criminal would have a letter branded on the flesh. Typically, this flesh was the forehead, but other body parts have also been documented for branding.
Whipping and Brutal Punishments
On occasions of grave offense, whipping would be inflicted. Most criminals would receive 20-40 lashes. Some records show that alleged criminals were punished by having their ears cut off.
Execution
The most common form of execution was hanging, but some people were burned at the stake. Records show that one particularly offensive Puritan was dismembered, or "drawn and quartered."
We don't do these things anymore. My point is that castration is similar to the Puritan punishments mentioned above and that's why I'm opposed to it.
____________
The King
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 10:22 AM |
|
|
Punishment has nothing to do with it!
I mean, who cares about punishment?
It's ONLY about protection of society and compensation (or rehabilitation, that is, healing) of victims.
Of course this has been different in other times, when punishment was meant to deter from breaking the law, but it did never do an effective job, but instead just turns the violence screw by upping the ante for offenders.
The idea of deterrence is still there, but deterrence works only the first time. Once an offender has been convicted and gone through the motion, they are either deterred or not, after their punishment is over.
"Justice" may be an often used word - but it IS just a word; if there is justice anywhere, I didn't see it until now, and I doubt it's easily defined. So "putting an offender to justice" is just a bad case of wrong phrasing.
That's different, when it's impersonal. Theft is usually a pretty easy thing, and here all those words are a lot more valid, better defined and so on.
It depends on the motive of the crime: if the motive is, for example, greed, it's basically a rational thing, where punishment is a factor: you want money for better living, not working, whatever. However, you risk punishment when trying something illegally, and then it's what the hell or no, I rather not.
However, if the motive is lust, a perverted need for pleasure that involves harming other persons, it's IRRATIONAL and punishment makes no sense at all, because deterrence works on a rational level.
Which means, punishment has nothing to do with it in this case.
|
|
DomFontana
Known Hero
NY Yankees
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 10:35 AM |
|
|
@JollyJoker Yes, I understand that punishment may not be a crime deterrent and that you're suggesting castration as a way to prevent future crimes. So I'll ask you this. If you kill the rapist, you're assured that he can never rape again. Do you think there should be the death penalty for rapists?
____________
The King
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 10:38 AM |
|
|
Note about using a 'golden rule'. Any kind of rule is judged the qualities it provides. Those qualities must be consistent with the purpose of the state. If you look at a quality only as such as minimizing crime, without taking into account the importance of threating every person well, then you've in my opinion based the 'golden rule' on matters inconsistent with the purpose of the state as I see it.
My guess is that those on each side of the fence (though the fence is curving a lot in that case) simply have different idea of what is the purpose of the state, as I'm certain their suggestions are consistent with that purpose as they see it.
@JJ Wrote
Quote:
Economic crimes?
I got the impression you were talking about economic crimes from this quote:
JJ wrote:
Quote:
(Which isn't the case with crimes NOT measured in Dollars and Cents.
Maybe you use the term compensation different than I do, but whenever something bad happens that was not your responsibility and which either
A) Was due to unconsciouss or unintended and regular actions (accidents)
B) Was due to consciouss and intended actions (crimes)
Then what can be done, which is meaningful in the idea of progress towards a purpose that revolts around freedom are:
C) Undo the bad that happened
D) Learn from it, so it doesn't happen again
The place I see compensation comming in, is under 'C)', anything else seems very little different from the idea of revenge and eye for an eye topic, though much hidden and thereby no as obvious.
@JJ wrote:
Quote:
3) Let's face it, whoc cares about the offender?
*Waves*
You ask who cares, but then you list priorities, those are not the same. Something can be lower on priority, yet still something that is cared for. If it wasn't (or its consequences), it wouldn't be a priority at all.
Quote:
can you imagine what it may mean for the raped person, that the offender who did it, is sitting in a jail, may enjoy what he did in his imagination, and may get free in a couple of years? Can you imagine what the abuse as such will mean for the life of said person? And for the family?
So because of imagination the offender owe something? I disagree. Yes it is awful to have to live with it, and we should do the best we can to help these people, but it does not give them the right to limit the freedom of the offender as much as the offender had not the right to limit their freedom in the first place.
If they only can get emotional satisfied through other emotional gains, such as revenge and money, i.e. a feeling of power, it's no different than when people are bored they don't attack the problem, but try to distract it by distracting themselves through other actions.
Counseling and what else that is possible to help the victims getting over their emotional distress should of course be offered, eventhough we are responsible for our own emotions, then it's not a common view in our society and therefore it'd be most practical to offer free service. However any kind of revenge is not acceptable, because it isn't a progress towards maximizing freedom.
[Note I don't include economic crimes in this, but that's because the way the free market and capitalism in general works, it's more of a focus of having a good flow of money in these cases, and economical compensation is not about changing someone, but letting the flow stay good, and is to be considered when someone did an economic crime in the first place (otherwise the system might break down)].
It's "funny", you want it to be the victims to decide what punishment and for how long it should be, whereas I just want it to be up to the victims, if there should be pressed charges.
JJ wrote:
Quote:
See it this way: from the moment this person decided to mess up your life, that person has lost the right to life, because if you'd managed to somehow kill the person (grabbing something, hitting the person or something), it would have been self-defense.
I disagree with your argument that because in self defense the person can resist harm through harm then so is it from there on.
First of all, there's something called to only apply self defense to the degree of absolutely necessary. If someone tries to rape you and you have the upper hand and total control, yet you still decide to kill this person, you'll be hold responsible for that action, as you'd a clear choice between killing and not killing without your freedom getting more reduced in either.
Also, it's the exact same with the justice system, here a ton of power is used to make sure the offender can't suddenly overpower those who is holding the offender back, the offender is at no risk at the current moment, it's completely different from the situation of which the crime happened, thereby it'd again be wrong to kill the offender or do anything that's not absolutely necessary.
What is absolutely necessary in each case depends, in the first case, it's about you not getting your freedom reduced, in the second it's about the purpose of the state. In my opinion this partly shows the only valid purpose of the state is exactly to focus on maximizing freedom and avoid other getting their freedom reduced.
@Mvass wrote:
Quote:
They chose to act inhumanely, and thus deserve to be treated inhumanely in return.
That statement equals an infinite negative circle, unless you specify that that rule is only valid for some definable groups of people.
It's an infinite negative circle, like the eye for an eye principe, because a criminal could have been acted towards in a way of whatever defines inhumanely in the first place, and the criminals act would then treat those offenders inhumanely in return.
If you do specify the rule so it only apply for a definable group, that is everyone else than the state, then you allow the state to be a criminal that can't be charged. Doing what others did makes you just as bad no matter how much power you've. Power does not make it 'right', power makes it possible.
The big point here is that eye for an eye does not evolve towards a freedom oriented purpose. It doesn't undo the crime, if you let the crime happen to the offender.
It doesn't prevent it from happening again at a minimal freedom reduction, if it prevents it at all.
Also the idea of letting the victim to choose the punishment makes the idea of justice system irrelevant in my opinion, because then there'd be an emotional influence at a large degree and it'd be much more about revenge than anything else. Honestly, why should the victim care for the criminal after all?
@DomFontana wrote:
Quote:
So a woman can't force a man to have sex, but a man can force a woman.
Sex is not only intercourse. Woman can rape men in various ways which had the man agreed to it, then it'd be labeled as sex. Not to mention, a highly frequent panic response of the human body is to actually get aroused to some degree. Which is rather sad, because due to the confusion there is a lot in society about 'feelings/body respone=me', people think because their body responded in a way they'd normally see positive, they must have enjoyed in and thereby it's not rape. The point is though, you could have got all the dopamin in the world and it'd still be rape as long as it's something you do not want.
DomFontana wrote:
Quote:
I thought about it and I don't like the idea of giving the rapist the choice of chemical castration or jail time.
I agree that it is like "so what way do you want to be limited?" kind of choice, but that's because it's the least amount of freedom reductino possible due to the ressources and technology available.
In my opinion, I think it's fair when there are several equal valid possibilities that the person who is going to be affected by these gets to choose. After all, the alternative is that they don't get to choose, as I see it.
Also you're correct that rape is (or was?) defined as when a man forces sexual acts (actually for a long time only penetration) upon a woman. Though luckily we get smarter and change the definition appropiatly.
DomFontana wrote:
Quote:
My point is that castration is similar to the Puritan punishments mentioned above and that's why I'm opposed to it.
Unlike the methods you wrote about, which purpose was to humiliate and entertain, chemical castration may remove the emotional urge to perform a crime (i.e. for the cases where it's a crime of affect, just like jealousy crimes), which means the person looses the lack of free will and won't, due to his unchoosen body function, have to be isolated from the rest of society. As long as it's a choice, the problem of limiting the victim unnecessary dissapears to the limit of ressources and technology available. [I.e. there's actually a point behind this option that is not about rediculing someone, if someoe thinks it's rediculing, then they're a) free to choose not to have it happened b) probably needs to stop listening to ones emotions, as there's nothing ridiculing about it, in my opinion].
@Fauch wrote:
Quote:
I don't think some people are fondamentaly evil and I think everyone can change (of course, not saying it is easy, but it is possible)
I agree with you. I think that it gets very hard to change, on the conditions of:
1) The way the person have learned to reflect upon the world around includes some believes to be seen as absolute truths which cannot be questioned (fanatiscm).
2) The persons wants, or at least, to say, through the way the person reflects upon information and the next batch of informations influence upon this have defined a will towards acts of which we'd define as evil [I'm not saying there isn't a consciouss choice, but just pointing out the consciouss choice is always in relation to the information of the outside world]. In short, there might exist conditions of which any persons consciouss choice would in a range of only evil acts.
These, I believe, would be the hardest persons to change, because it's not a matter of conditioning them, conditioning would simply try to revert them as a type of slave or machine (limiting their free will) and that's not the right way in my opinion. Yet trying to talk sense into them through reason by applying their own logic doesn't work as well, because they're fanatics.
Yet it doesn't mean they don't get influenced all the time, we all do, and we all decide actions upon that. So for these people to truely change their ways, one probably needs to change their environment in a way at which their wants would be a paradox in relation to one another (if one is fulfilled the other can't be) [to eliminate the fanatic part]. Then through proper argumentation in such an environment, deliver to them information at which they relfect upon to be as informed about why their earlier wants were wrong.
All in all, I think, if you've the ressources and technology, there's not much you can't do.
Fauch wrote:
Quote:
I mean, justifying a homicide by saying you loved the victim, it's just ignoble.
Yeah there's not much love about it, I also think it's more the emotional love, and I think such actions are known as crime in affect [emotional influenced].
It's not only in Italy it is so, and I doubt they only get a slap on the wrist. In general it's exactly the type of crimes that falls under emotional actions (non choosen, yet happened, like if your cars steerweel something went odd and you happened to hit someone, you didn't choose it, but it was your responsibility that the car worked, as well as with the body). Rape, for the sex drive, is also an emotional action just as well, because it's assumed if there were no sex drive there'd be no rape.
It's something people can learn to control and it's the more easy part of rehab in my opinion.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 10:56 AM |
|
|
Ohforf:
Quote:
It's an infinite negative circle, like the eye for an eye principe, because a criminal could have been acted towards in a way of whatever defines inhumanely in the first place, and the criminals act would then treat those offenders inhumanely in return.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
As for the state, it can already do what is criminal for other people to do. And, to a certain extent, it should be able to. For example, a certain amount of taxation is necessary, although it is coercive. And yet we don't allow private citizens to coerce.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 11:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@JollyJoker Yes, I understand that punishment may not be a crime deterrent and that you're suggesting castration as a way to prevent future crimes. So I'll ask you this. If you kill the rapist, you're assured that he can never rape again. Do you think there should be the death penalty for rapists?
I don't believe in the death penalty, no matter the crime.
@ ohfor
No sense in debating this. I firmly believe that offenders have very limited rights only (depending on the actual offense). That they have a lot more rights in practise is just to protect the innocent , that is, to protect those who may be under suspicion, but actually be not guilty.
I point to another thread where you can read that I don't think there is something like natural rights. Rights, for me, are granted by the whole of society, because it has the power to do so (rights must be protected, which a society can or cannot). Rights are for all members of a society (while priviledges are only for a few). An offender breaking the general law of a society is moving outside of that society - the offender breaks with it. Therefore the offender cannot claim any rights for themselves anymore, but has to take what society grants.
Society on the other hand has a couple of goals itself, for example, it wants to avoid arbitrariness in questions of the law, which means in connection with the aim to protect those suspects that prove innocent, that there are fair rules how to proceed with offenders and suspected offenders, but that has hardly something to do with "humanity" or something.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 11:20 AM |
|
|
@Mvass wrote:
Quote:
As for the state, it can already do what is criminal for other people to do.
That's why I wrote:
Quote:
unless you specify that that rule is only valid for some definable groups of people.
And also commented on why I think that's wrong.
About your example on taxation, here's my view upon it:
To be member of any kind of society (i.e. a group of people who by themselves sets term of requirements and consequences of being a member) you must either fulfill said requirement, or not be a member.
At the case of your example, to be member of the state you need to pay taxes, in turn you get the consequences there comes with being a member of the state.
I think it's a bad idea that it's not optional (you are either a member of our society, or you've to move away), as either it's forced membership, or it removes the idea of private property to a large degree.
So taxation is only coercion because the state forces you to a large degree to be a member. It would not be coercion, like it's not when you pay to be part of the local chess club, if you'd a choice on the matter. Thereby I don't see it as needed coercion.
Edit:
@JJ
It's my view as well that rights are meaningless if they cannot be uphold. Those who can uphold the rights are those in power. There is no 'pr. definition' "right" about 'rights', it's just an attempt for the state to live up to its purpose by giving those and thereby an objective standard of which actions can be determined.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
DomFontana
Known Hero
NY Yankees
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 11:27 AM |
|
|
@Pit Lord: I'll just respond to the one point you made. I was perhaps being too technical, so let me clarify it. "Rape" is only when a man penetrates a woman. The other types of sex crimes are called "Sodomy" or something else, but I agree that I'm splitting hairs because it doesn't matter if it's officially called "Rape," they are all sex offenders and that's basically what we're discussing here.
Another clarification, I should have said that almost always the man can force sex upon the woman, but a woman cannot always force sex upon a man. There have been cases where the woman is totally or partially unconscious when the man forces sex upon her. However, if the man is unconscious, the woman isn't going to be able to force sex upon him. By sex, I mean intercourse.
Also, women forcing sex upon men is not really a problem in our society, but men raping women is.
@JollyJoker: Quote:
I don't believe in the death penalty, no matter the crime.
Wait a minute. I detect there may be an inconsistency in your reasoning here.  Why don't you believe in the death penalty for any crime?
____________
The King
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 12:21 PM |
|
|
Because death as punishment or penalty serves no viable purpose - it accomplishes nothing.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
DomFontana
Known Hero
NY Yankees
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 01:29 PM |
|
|
@JollyJoker: Quote:
Because death as punishment or penalty serves no viable purpose - it accomplishes nothing.
Interesting. Let's see if I understand your reasoning. You are Pro-Castration, not as a form of punishment, but because it will prevent the crime from happening again. But wouldn't the death penalty accomplish the same thing? That is, prevent the crime from happening again?
[The Socratic Method.]
____________
The King
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 02:26 PM |
|
|
You mean, like, killing everyone will prevent every future crime from happening?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 02:29 PM |
|
|
So will castrating everyone in the regard of sexual offense which is due to the reasons of which castration eliminates.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
DomFontana
Known Hero
NY Yankees
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 03:27 PM |
|
|
@JollyJoker: Quote:
You mean, like, killing everyone will prevent every future crime from happening?
No. I mean why are you opposed to killing rapists if it will accomplish the same thing that castration will? That is, the castrated rapist won't rape again, but neither will a dead rapist. They both accomplish the same thing. Why are you opposed to killing them?
To make it clear, I'm not saying to kill them. I'm just asking why you don't think they should be killed.
[The plot thickens...]
____________
The King
|
|
Lure_of_Lilith
Adventuring Hero
2nd Level, Expert Blind
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 03:28 PM |
|
|
Man, stuff here is getting too long to read.
But I have to say, interesting points of view we got goin' on here.
____________
|
| |
|
|
