|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted May 18, 2010 06:05 PM |
|
|
@Recent Posters:
I can't objectively state that it's not cruel, but I'm not buying it. Remember that forced punishment does not equal cruel punishment, else there would be no penal system. It's not unconstitutional to cause convicted criminals any form of inconvenience.
Putting a guy in a prison cell for years on end, where he follows a forced schedule by a bunch of guards that he has no power over is a pretty severe blow to his pride and manhood, but it happens. I think defending it on that behalf is just a male pride issue, and it's something the offender should have thought of beforehand.
I don't like to rely on emotional arguments, but you guys so heavily emphasize the blow to the rapist, but you have to also address the blow to the victims. Are you prepared to tell one of the many victims of a repeat sexual offender that the rapist's male pride was simply too important to have his condition treated? (And no, I haven't had a close friend or family member raped)
@Bixie:
I speak of males since they overwhelmingly outnumber female rapists. I wouldn't have any issue with likewise treating a female rapist.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 06:20 PM |
|
|
I once had the idea of a novel were a girl had been abused my men since she was very small and she ended up becoming a rapist and murderer herself (raping males). She really hated guys untill she fell in love with one, and in the end she realizes that only a handful of people are truly "evil" though the guys that raped her when she was younger also have her kid - making room for a sequel.
I also had the same idea but with a guy instead.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 07:04 PM |
|
Edited by ihor at 19:05, 18 May 2010.
|
@Bixie
What female rapes do you mean? I understand female rape is one female raping another female with some object and in this situation the best place for female rapist is prison or even more probable clinic. Or you meant female raping male? That moves me to laugh  .
@BlizzardBoy
How do you imagine repeat(!) sexual offender be free? If we can say to victim "Yep, sorry we should had castrated him" then obviously you can tell him following "Yep, sorry we should had left him behind bars", no?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 07:21 PM |
|
|
Dom:
The whole point of government is that it's allowed to do things normal citizens aren't allowed to do. If it can't do what someone else can, then what's the point?
bixie:
Unfortunately, the stereotype is
*female gets raped by male*
Everyone: Poor girl.
*male gets raped by female*
Everyone: I bet he enjoyed it. High-five!
xerox:
Cool story, bro.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 07:35 PM |
|
|
@Mvass
The point is that through unifying ressources of several contributers that you can enhance the acceleration of progress towards whatever purpose government may have.
@DomFontana wrote:
Quote:
But, JJ makes the point of making it an option to avoid jail time. What do you think of that, Pit Lord?
Well, like I wrote in my first post, that's how I'd like it. [Check page 2].
My view in general is that the state or government or what one calls it, have a limited amount of ressources and an application method through current technology. By these, the government have a range of action, i.e. a measure of power.
The government should then use its power the best way to maximize freedom without limiting others freedom is limited [my definition of purpose of state].
In the case of someone is evaluated to be too big of a risk to be able to be a part of society, said person must be isolated (note, with sufficient ressources and technology, a person can never become such a risk). There are several ways of isolation, there's the worst scenario possible, the, in my opinion, highest judgement any government should be able to do, simply throw someone completely out of society by exile from the country. That's the most extreme case and something that in my opinion always should be a choice of the criminal, if it's possible to truely isolate the criminal this way. Then there's the type of isolation where the criminal is still part of the society, but isolated from it. This is where rehab is applied, this is where government still tries to help at the best of its effort.
Since the ressources of today does not allow for the possibility to eliminate threats in other ways than through isolation and rehab (or by making the government criminal itself), then it's currently the best way as it limits someones freedom the least possible [isolation should only be that, isolation from people, unless people still wants to be around said person, not in any other way limiting of rights, i.e. you can still buy the stuff you used to, you can still perform work that does not require team work and get paid like everyone else, etc.]. Now if there are two possibilities of equal merit, one is to eliminate the reason of the sexual offense, another is to isolate and rehab (build up someones will, so they can defeat this urge), then I think it's only fair that the criminal gets to decide on that matter.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 08:34 PM |
|
|
Umm, there is the small matter of COMPENSATION.
Someone doing harm to a member of society has the the duty to recompense the victim or his or her representatives. (Which isn't the case with crimes NOT measured in Dollars and Cents.
It's not the criminal who should decide or pick
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 08:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not unconstitutional to cause convicted criminals any form of inconvenience.
Epic Fail 
Thankfully the US constitution disagrees with this statement. Thankfully, rapist and sex offenders of all makes and sizes have not been put to death (unless they murdered their victim(s)).
Why am I thankful for that? Because as the beings that we are, we are capable of far greater forms of thought and far greater actions than something so obviously barbaric and useless to the cause.
Think for a minute, if you can't think on the humanitarian side of it. Think instead on the reality of it. You think there will not be negative fall out from even trying something like that? Lets continue on this thought for a moment. How many people are actually "sex offenders" by the letter of the law that have not been caught?
The answer to this issue is and has always been one founded on principles of Justice and Mercy. Justice to avenge the wrong and correct the guilty. Mercy for the victims, ALL the victims and that includes the offender.
For everyone that says this is a good thing, for everyone that says break their legs, kill them all or blah blah blah.... I would, I could only encourage you to think about the action before commiting it. You are not on the same wave length as these offenders. We are trying to help them and bring them back to level ground. Or is it just not worth it to you and you would rather spend taxes on building roads or education? Really? Let me remind you (again) that it is the world's part (to a great degree over many civilizations and decades) that have made many of us who and what we are today.
Your parents or guardians helped you to grow up happy and healthy. Yes, I'm sure there are the offenders that grow up that way too, but you know what I mean here. If you grow up in a happy and secure home, your chances of coming out that way are far greater. How many offenders do you think were victimized themselves as children? Honestly? Yet we just pass a blanket law that has us chop off all their happy places just so we can escape the flaws of humanity? We add insult to injury (litterally in this case) because we are not enlightened enough YET to provide an answer comfortable enough for Baklava or anyone else that demands one to feel comfortable with the "right side"????
There are several different roads towards many goals in our lives. But one thing I know for sure to be true is that if we take a barbaric road such as the one suggested in this thread, we will end up with a far worse society. If we wish to reach a goal of world peace, happiness (mental, physical and spiritual) for everyone, we do NOT get there by burrying our problems in the back yard just because we don't know how to fix them right now.
Baklava, (and others)..NO, we don't have the answers. But the only reasonable, humanitarian thing to do is to wait. Yes, punish them with prison time (it IS a severe punishment). Then use that time and after to follow up and through with counseling and proper treatment. If they need more, so be it, if less, then great!
What you guys suggest to do here is a firm and solid step forward to the de-evolution of all of us as a people and society. We must think with more enlightened steps before we take them.
Atleast it is that which I hope for from day to day, for any various issues or subjects.
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 08:44 PM |
|
|
It doesn't matter how they were raised, they're still responsible for their own actions. They chose to act inhumanely, and thus deserve to be treated inhumanely in return. It's wrong to initiate such an action, but it's perfectly justified to strike down the guilty after they have transgressed.
There are practical reasons to be considered here, of course. There's the question of what effect the threat of such a punishment will have on crimes committed. It could be that the threat of castration would decrease rapes but increase, say, murders. Problems like that are definitely worth thinking about. But we should be protecting law-abiding citizens against aggression, not being nice to criminals.
Chemical castration isn't necessarily the best punishment (how about life in prison as a slave instead?), but it's a fair one.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 09:27 PM |
|
|
Well I disagree 100%. I personally find such views very socially pessimistic and revolting.
Real question is this: Is there currently anywhere that actually practices this idea? If so, who?
Dom, looks like this thread will end by all of us on one side of the fence or the other and the only thing we all have in common is agreeing to disagree with the other side.
Either way, those creeps better stay on their side of the fence or I may just chop theirs off for thinking of punishing people in such cruel ways.
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 09:41 PM |
|
|
And you said this wasn't you?
@JJ
I don't discuss economic crimes. I don't have the mental capabilities to make logic to an acceptable degree upon such cases [not in my view], whereby I never include them in my analysis.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 09:57 PM |
|
|
This must be a joke or something.
Economic crimes? Am I speaking gibberish?
COMPENSATION!!! That has nothing to do with economy. Very basically spoken, if you rape me, you owe me something, and that is completely independent from any punishment SOCIETY sees fit. If it was a personal crime - and rape is QUITE personal - the offender's debt is personal as well. You virtually screwed my life, and it's your duty to make up for that, before you can even start to think about going back to a normal life.
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 10:41 PM |
|
|
actually, JJ...I know your speaking to Ohfor there...
But I already did address the issue of "compensation" in this thread in one of my previous posts. I believe it was in reply to when corribus was trying to teach us about how Prison is and I posted to correct those errors....
The offenders to repay their debt to the victims as much as they are able. & no, cutting off their nads will not repay them in one iota. For that matter, it won't even raise the chance of it NOT happening again. It would only make it worse, sure they may not be able to ejaculate or get an...or get excited....but they can take revenge on a most cruel punishment.
And a moment now for the victims. I think it is important to note here that the victims of these types of crimes are not singular. Their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends and family all are affected by such terrible crimes. Much must be done in the way of "paying back" what is owed. But in truth, there is never a way to repay the victim once so offended. However, we can work on changing the man (or woman). Not by chopping off what makes them who they are...but by changing their heads and their hearts.
Are people really so shallow as to think that some people can't be fixed? Sure, maybe there is the ULTRA rare type that can't be fixed but most can. Why is it (for those of you on that side) that you wish to inflict such harm?? In truth you should be helping them, finding out why they did what they did, helping them understand it, helping their victims understand it. Then help them grow and change over time and support..active, constant support. Not by threatening them with some barbaric culture's reputation for harshly treating anyone with this type of issue. Goodness, what does that portend to with other areas? This line of thinking is wrong no matter what shade or crayon you put to the paper. I refuse to believe that society in my culture or any of yours will ever stoop to such means.
But, that's just little old me 
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2010 11:12 PM |
|
|
You think saying "some people can't be fixed" is shallow? Most people can't be "fixed" - most people cannot be made to change. (That is not to say that people do not change - just that it is very rare to make them change in any particular way at a particular time.) However, most people aren't so messed up, so in their case it doesn't matter as much.
In practice, there can be a variety of possible punishments, chemical castration being one among them. 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.
A good rule of thumb when determining how heavy a punishment should be is that penalty should equal the harm done by the crime divided by the chance that the criminal is caught. So suppose someone steals something worth $1000, and the chance of catching a thief of this kind is 1/2, then the punishment should be a fine of $2000 - $1000 [or the original object] (plus interest) paid to the owner of the stolen object, and the rest to the state. Unfortunately, this rule of thumb breaks down when the harm done is difficult to calculate, such as in the cases of murder, rape, and so on.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 01:08 AM |
|
Edited by Father at 01:16, 19 May 2010.
|
Mvass,
1 -- I never said they were shallow because of that simple statement. Actually, I find the Pro side of the argument entirely shallow for all the reasons they have listed combined.
1a -- To continue that, it simple just throws my mind that people would actually even consider entertaining an idea so hidious and wrong as this is. No matter how you get around it, it is barbaric. The whole mentality of an eye for an eye. I have said it before and I will again, 2 wrongs do not make a right, even though so many are trying to rationalize their way around it.
2 -- Good "rule of thumb"? Oh yeah? ROFL. I have two things to say to that.
2a -- Isn't the "rule of thumb" that Corribus so eagerly tried to get your side around by quoting the term "Affect Heuristic"? He went on to explain that we should all consider the idea for a moment and do so without moral considerations. Yet here your arguing that the rule of thumb should be something akin to..oh yes...and eye for an eye, is that right? Let me ask you, how much value do you put on someones virtue Mvass? How much do any of you? Is it worth one pair of balls? Hardly, it can't even be considered in the same scope of thought let alone any stretch of the immagination, no matter how dark and twisted. Yet you say that we should still stop to think about what our "rule of thumb" should be Well at least your stopping to think, which is a huge advantage over some that are on your side.
Listen, this is really simple. Nobody is trying to say not to punish the offenders. We are simply saying you are way off base here and well...3 strikes, your out LOL 
The moment we (as a collective society) let go of a moral compass to decide the outcome of such a morally oppressive offense, we become no better than those that commit the crimes. Case closed. We can not afford (as a people, as a race, as human beings) to stoop to the same level of offense that led them to commit the crime in the first place. We must raise their awareness and even their own moral compass so that the actions will never happen again.
Anything less, yes...is shallow. IMHO.
Now I did go ahead and open up the can of worms about the 3 strikes (like California). Perhaps what this debate needs is a good compromise?
Truly the only good compromise for either side is when neither side is happy. With that being said, something more aggressive could be instituted such as this 3 strikes rule. However I would still do so with some type of limitations.
Strike 1: You go to prison (no chance of probation). You serve a good 10 years of your life there. You go through intensive counseling while there and you remain on parole for 5 years after you get out. During that parole you would check in monthly and pay fees to help pay back for the offense.
Strike 2: Prison and counseling obviously didn't work for this individual. Now more can be offered. He can either go back to prison (for life) or he can get out after 20 years. If he opts to get out, he agrees to a chemical castration and he still must complete another 5 years of counseling and probation after that 20 full years are severed.
Strike 3: This person has obviously come to a point where they have proven a couple things. 1 -- that we can't fix him or 2 -- that he doesn't want to be fixed. What is the answer here? Castration? No, that would only piss him off. Capital Punishment? No, we can not as a society (sorry I know you get tired of me saying that) submit to such terrible laws as this. I can't wait till it is gone all together. So the only answer for now is back to Strike 2 minus the option to get out. That means, yes...he is already chemically castrated but now he must spend the rest of his life in prison until he is dead, dead, dead. (sorry, I love Young Guns)
For my part, I don't think anyone should ever be actually castrated no matter how we try to paint it or look at it, no matter if it be chemical or otherwise. However, if a solution similar to the 3 step one I just made is possible, then some type of compromise may come to be in the future laws of our lands.
Lastly, yes I know the financial burden that prisons can put on us. But each of you should remember as well (as I stated in previous post) that prisons are not nearly as much of a financial burden as some would have you believe. A Prison serves to protect offenders from us and themselves. They are "Correctional Institutions" to help rehabilitate those that have done wrong, and to a large degree they are highly successfull.
Sorry, taking a knife or pill to the groin for males or females is certainly not the answer. And prison? Sure we pay taxes (for that and many many other things, much WAY more useless than the oppinions of some would say for Prisons) But anyway, Prison affords us the opportunity to learn, to grow, to change our society through the ages as we learn more of these devistating mental issues. We will eventually learn to stamp out such things and we will certainly learn how to curb that behavior ever more.
I stand firm that we will learn how to curb that behavior with spoken words and actions, just not the kind of actions that require a pill or a knife...man that is just wrong.
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 01:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Capital Punishment? No, we can not as a society submit to such terrible laws as this.
After being castrated and held imprisoned for 40 years I'd be begging for capital bloody punishment
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 02:17 AM |
|
|
Father:
I see nothing barbaric about "eye for an eye". It's another good rule of thumb. Of course, it also runs into its problems - it's difficult to apply in some cases (like rape), sometimes it's not really a punishment (yes, if the rapist wanted forcible sex and is punished by forcible sex...), and at other times it's just impractical (for example, I would reserve the death penalty only for those prisoners who, in addition to their heinous crimes, cost more to house than their slave labour is worth). But morally I see nothing wrong with it. It certainly aligns well with the Golden Rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And so it should be.
Quote:
Let me ask you, how much value do you put on someones virtue Mvass?
I don't know, which is why the rule of thumb in my previous post doesn't really apply here - it's just a side note.
Quote:
The moment we (as a collective society) let go of a moral compass to decide the outcome of such a morally oppressive offense, we become no better than those that commit the crimes.
No one's letting go of the moral compass. We're trying to decide what justice would be in this case - and justice is a key component of morality. But remember, it is the offenders who offend. The government merely punishes, and therefore cannot be as evil.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DomFontana
Known Hero
NY Yankees
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 02:38 AM |
|
|
@bixie: Not only is it very uncommon, there is actually no female crime called rape. Rape is sexual penetration and when a man commits rape, the woman obviously doesn't have to be and isn't, a willing participant. For a woman to rape a man, the man would have to cooperate, if you get my drift. IOW, if the man is not erect, she can't rape him. So a woman can't force a man to have sex, but a man can force a woman.
For the record, I'm against castration too, but some people here mentioned chemical castration, which is temporary and is reversible. The so-called "castration" ends when you stop taking the medication.
@blizzardboy: It's not a matter of male pride, but of dignity and self-respect.
@mvassilev: Actually, that's what Pit Lord said and I tended to agree with him in this instance. Also, not castrating a rapist is not being nice to criminals. They have to go to jail. That's their punishment. I don't believe in "an eye for an eye..." When you do that, you stoop to the criminal's level and I would like to think that our society is above that.
As far as the "Golden Rule" goes, that's advice as to how a person should act and it's good advice. But obviously the rapist didn't follow that advice. That doesn't mean the same thing should be done to him because he didn't follow that advice.
@Father: Very good posts and yes I think you are right. Nobody is going to change their minds here. We'll all walk away holding our same views.
@JollyJoker: I thought about it and I don't like the idea of giving the rapist the choice of chemical castration or jail time. It might seem humane on the surface, but it's really not. It's like telling someone you can choose between having your hand chopped off or jail time. The person might select the former to avoid going to jail, so you're sort of "forcing" a barbaric act upon the criminal. If the act is barbaric, it shouldn't be an option to escape jail time.
____________
The King
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 03:06 AM |
|
|
You can force an erection. Even if Nancy Pelosi is raping you, the rubbing will trigger the blood to flow in. In so far as men being raped, I think it's more common for another man to rape them over a woman.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
DomFontana
Known Hero
NY Yankees
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 03:14 AM |
|
|
@blizzardboy: Well, maybe I'm being too technical here, but the crime is not called "Rape" when a woman does it. At least in NY, and most other states, only a man can commit the crime of "Rape" and only with a woman. When a man does it to another man, it's called "Sodomy."
____________
The King
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 19, 2010 03:27 AM |
|
|
The point is that sexual abuse is occurring, even if it's not legally defined as 'rape'. It's still a chargeable crime.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
