I hate these kind of discussions. I never understood how poeple have so much compassion for criminals but so little for the innocent lives they destroy.
I agree with jpinmilwaukee but these people should stay in jail, kept busy with hard labor as in lifting very heavy things.
jpinmilwaukee,
....I was looking for the post(s) that showed compassion for criminals. Icouldn't find any of them. Could you direct me to some of them.
The very fact that there are
repeat sexual predetors shows compassion for criminals over compassion for the innocent.
goodfielder wrote:
Quote:And since it doesn't work, what's the point of doing it? We don't know what motivates them and we don't know how to cure them. So the only thing we can do is lock them up until they die in prison or we find a way of curing them.
Locking them up is fine with me... but we have to keep them there.
agrote wrote:Castrating paedophiles is cruel and unusual punishment. And it's pointless, when you can just as easily keep them in prison, away from children.
Rape is cruel and unusaul punishment for the innocent.
Then you wrote:
Quote:....Some things you don't do because, it just ain't right.
Rape, for instance is one thing that you just don't do. To bad nobdy told the rapists.
Quote:There are things you might do if you came upon the perp in the act, or shortly after, but after time has passed, civil people just can't allow themselves to stoop to the level of the person youl loathe. That's why I consider proponents of capital punishment as cold blooded, vicarious murderers. A notch below people who do their own killing.
Funny... I feel the same way about rapists. Why is it alright to do things "if you came upon a perp in the act, or shortly after" but not after time has passed? Has the crime changed? Has the victim healed? Why does time effect what you can and can not do to a perp?
I only meant civll people. It seems from your post. that you have no problem with a few innocent being legally murdered, as long as we as long as get to murder the people who are most likely guilty, and can't afford the best legal defense. If that is a true assesment of you, I of course wouldn't think of arguing with you.
booman2 wrote:I only meant civll people. It seems from your post. that you have no problem with a few innocent being legally murdered, as long as we as long as get to murder the people who are most likely guilty, and can't afford the best legal defense. If that is a true assesment of you, I of course wouldn't think of arguing with you.
The title of the thread is "Should repeated sex offenders be chemically castrated?"
That would imply that not only are they guilty once... they are guilty more than once. Now where did I say ANYTHING about killing people? As a matter of fact I said:
Quote:Locking them up is fine with me... but we have to keep them there.
So try reading my post again and come back with a better "assesment " (sic) of me.
The reason I ASKED was that a corect assessment, was because when I was speaking of what a person might do when you came upon a perp in the process of say raping child, me or anyone else, in the heat of the moment, might actually KILL the #@*&$#. I thought you would understand it could get that drastic. So when you said why should you. act any different after a passage of time.........You see where that's going JP?
Yes, I see where that is going...
Here's the thing. If a person rapes a child, or an adult, gets caught, goes to jail, gets out again and does the same thing to a different child (or the same child) why should we care what happens to him? He has proven to me that he has no regard for human life. He willingly ruined two lives for his own sick pleasure.
I feel sorry for the first victim but I feel worse for the second victim. We had a chance to protect the second victim by keeping the rapist in jail, but instead we decide to let him out thereby ruining a life that could have been saved. Rapists in my book are the lowest form of life on earth. Their victims live with the pain they inflict for the rest of their lives. Jail them. Kill them. Whatever it takes to keep them from harming more lives.
What if there was a way to prove, beyond a doubt, that a person was guilty. Lets say you walked in, saw the crime happening and stopped it. The victim testifies, you testify, there is DNA evidence... beyond a doubt guilty. Would you have a problem with the death penalty?
I would, mainly because if the victim is able to testify, this should not be a death penalty case.
Sometimes rape cases, even repeat child rape offences are not really very bad offences.
What is this fascination with wanting to kill people by way of punishment?
Chemical castration is certainly an option, especially if the fellon requests it.
Chemical castration doesn't work.
If you have the death penalty for rape and the death penalty for murder there is effectively no deterrence to a rapist murdering their victim.
Chemical castration, using depo provera or other drug, is temporary. Surgical castration, using cleaver or scalpel, is permanent. Both have been shown to be successful in certain cases. Each case requires individual assessment. One thing is true. If the offender is not willing to make changes in thinking, in his lifestyle, in his habits, the odds are against him and society.
Jpinmilwaukee,
....First, you and I are on the same page, as for as life without parole.
....Second, here are two reasons I'm against the death penalty, outside of the fact that I don't want to be a proponent of legalized murder. One reason is that you couldn't reinstate it just because someone says they actually saw the crime. It's not about the guilty, it's about making absolutely sure no innocent person is musdered by the state. I don't know what your limit is, but one is too many for me . Years ago I spent a few months in jail. I know that's hell, and it's harder on a person that commits rape, or any crime against a child. All the other inmates are against him. If I came upon a man right after raping and killing, a grandaughtr of mine, if I could get to him I could easily see me getting emotional and taking his life. However, if somebody grabbed me, and the criminal goes to court and is convicted I would literally beg the judge not to send him to his death and possible everlasting peace. Please judge, put him in prison for the rest of his life, and please God, let him live another hundred years.
jpinMilwaukee wrote:Locking them up is fine with me... but we have to keep them there.
Definitely. Unless we can be sure that a dangerous criminal isn't going to strike again, we need to keep them locked up. We should try and rehabilitate this people though, rather than punish them in prison for life - the main purpose of prison should simply be to keep people locked up where they can't commit further crimes, not to make them suffer for their actions.
Quote:agrote wrote:Castrating paedophiles is cruel and unusual punishment. And it's pointless, when you can just as easily keep them in prison, away from children.
Rape is cruel and unusaul punishment for the innocent.
Yes. Of course you are right. But you seem to be implying that you favour the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" philosophy. I am strongly against this, and therefore I am against the death penalty. As your mother may have told you, two wrongs don't make a right.
A murder by any other name,(capitol punishment,euthanasia,abortion) is still a murder
neologist wrote:Chemical castration, using depo provera or other drug, is temporary. Surgical castration, using cleaver or scalpel, is permanent. Both have been shown to be successful in certain cases. Each case requires individual assessment. One thing is true. If the offender is not willing to make changes in thinking, in his lifestyle, in his habits, the odds are against him and society.
Care to be the judge who takes the chance and orders chemical castration instead of permanent incarceration?
As for the offender's motivations, I think perhaps you're relying too much on free will. This is a compulsion. Yes there are some proselytising paedophiles who - for whatever reason - try to convince themselves and society that there's nothing wrong with it (!) But there are many who would give anything to have the compulsion removed. That's my point about us not knowing how to treat them.
Maybe in these horrible crimes involving children a judge should ask the one so charged: What do YOU think should be done to prevent you from repeated such acts? How do you think you should be punished, for what you've done? The answer could be enlightening, even helpful to the person while in prison.
Maybe the questions should include: What, exactly, do you think you DID? Quite honestly, I don't think "good" defense attorneys are the way to go with this sort of horrid crime. These people are either insane, or they're on heroin, cocaine, etc. etc., or both.
Then, of course, there's the chance they got the wrong guy. But, I'm speaking of cases like the creep involved with the little Lundsford girl, Jessica.
I
no thats to kind.Put them on an abondoned tropical island to live out their days by themselves.Suppling the necessary rations for survival.
I'm feeling you AK.
...Although I opted for incarsaration for life, where they would likely become aquainted with the recieving end of rape, I must concede, yours is more humane....
If anyone's interested, there was a discussion on NPR's Talk of the Nation: Science Friday (today) on this subject. You can listen to the show here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4651059
