Should repeated sex offenders be chemically castrated?

Excellent link littlek - thank you.

0 Replies

You're welcome.

0 Replies

Sunlover,
....First of all, although it may be that we hear many references of drunken rages, alcohol feuled violence, etc.,, seldom if ever does one hear about, cocaine rage, heroin feuled violence,etc..
....Second of all, You can't pick certain cases to dust off the old electric chair, because it was an especially heinous crime. You either have it, or you don't.

0 Replies

Boo, can't recall when Coke was first invented (1930's?) but it did have a pinch of Cocaine in it. By law, it was forbidden in the drink because of the meaness that became obvious in Coke drinkers. Also don't remember if Coca-Cola was the drink's first name.

I think any derivitive of opium can cause a person to become violent, but depends on the person's character traits, prior.

But, no, I don't think I said anything about capital punishment, which I certainly do not agree with! Sorry if my comment sounds to the contrary.

The electric chair? I saw a remake of the movie about Ted Bundy, telling it like it REALLY was. Unspeakably disgusting, both the scenes leading up to the chair itself, and what this terrible man did to all those women.

Still, however, I do not believe in killing killers. As someone said, that's too easy.

0 Replies

sunlover wrote:

Boo, can't recall when Coke was first invented (1930's?) but it did have a pinch of Cocaine in it. By law, it was forbidden in the drink because of the meaness that became obvious in Coke drinkers.

I think any derivitive of opium can cause a person to become violent, but depends on the person's character traits, prior..

.....First of all, I was a user of most major drugs, for over twenty-five years, and then I studied them for three semesters of college. (A)Coke was invented years before that. and it was indeed legal as was opium and it's derivitives. Alcohol was the violent, and dangorous drug, that was targeted by the abolishionist groups Heroin was originally used as a CURE FOR ALCOHOL! Shocked

The Harrison Act, was originally meant to focus on alcohol. The focus was changed later for racist reasons.
.....(B) I suppose it's possible , that sometime, somewhere some human being was believed to be driven to violence from the use of heroin, cocaine, or marijuana, but in my twenty plus years of usage, I have never witnessed, or heard about such a phenomenon. And of course I haven't read or heard about such a thing in college. And finally. I have never heard of such a thing after fourteen years in the meeting rooms, for drug dependency. I'm not saying you're wrong, of course; it's just that in my little humble experience, perhaps I haven't been privey to the same things you apparently have, my learned friend.

0 Replies

Can't disagree with you on this one. You are much more learned on this subject than anyone I've met in a long time.

I know exactly nothing about drugs from personal experience, never having taken a drug stronger than Tylenol. But, for about 8 years in the 1980s I attended all the addiction meetings writing stories about the people there, how the groups worked, how the people were able to heal addictions of all kinds including alcohol & drugs, anorexia, obesity, agaraphobia. My talent was to write about people, how and why they fail, succeed, accomplish, grow, meet their challenges, overcome any adversity.

Thinking about this now, I don't really KNOW if heroin, cocaine, whatever else, can cause people to be violent. So, I stand corrected. I hated drugs because of the older students who came into the elementary schools to peddle the stuff to our little kids. I hated the stuff when it was my job as a writer to expose the insidiousness of drug use in the high schools. But, nobody got "violent" that I ever knew of except in the movies.

Hey, you have my respect, Booman. I had to overcome being raised in a children's home but there was a fun side there, a sort of being sheltered too. It was the shock of joining the outside world, wow, but I was so damn dumb, not knowing much of anything, I just breezed thru it all. Then, I learned.

0 Replies

You've certainly got my respect by not trying to defend a defenceless position. If you're still working on that or simply want to personally learn more. I should be able find some titles where you can learn more about the subject.

0 Replies

I am sure it is just a matter of thyme and rosemary before DNA altering sequencers will be applicable to completely shut down the entire instinct for sex.Maybe that is chemical castration from another POV.But the results of doing that to a person might have other concequences.Equal opposite.I think todays medicines are opposite almost all of them risk permanent damage regardless of their so called healing properties.

0 Replies

Quote:

Should repeated sex offenders be chemically castrated?

No, they should be given to the badass fags that are serving life in prison to be their little bitches. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Hah!....I'm feelin' you Cyracuz... Cool

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Should repeated sex offenders be chemically castrated?

No, they should be given to the badass fags that are serving life in prison to be their little bitches.

Totally with you on that one...also on the drugs and violence issue..there might be a correlation but its still a matter of choice..one chooses to take drugs..and that should not be an excuse from taking responsibility...

0 Replies

Also about the death penalty: I support it for certain cases, not for rape though.

Let me differentiate: in cases of rape, child abuse etc. the victim loses certain rights, that is the right to consent..however, this right while important is not the right to life which i hold to be of greater importance. The punishment must fit the crime and just because the thought of sexual abusers repulses me is no reason to kill them.

death penalty cases: Ofcourse i'm not for state execution of someone who might be innocent. The death penalty should be applied when their is no possible doubt, as in cases of irrefutable evidence, confession, reliable witnesses, etc.

My reasons for supporting the death penalty are not for want of blood:

here they are:

1. the death penalty acts as a deterrent, the perp has more to lose.

2. The victim lost their right to life. A human should be made to understand that he is only entitled to the same rights he recognises for other people. This is a more general lesson, but do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

3. The victims family deserves closure.

I understand that the state does not have the ability to return the life that it takes. But the same applied to the victim. We seem to focus too much attention on the why and forget the what.

0 Replies

Does the death penalty act as a deterrent? Is this proven? I would have thought that a higher probability of being caught might be an effective deterrent, but I'm not sure that death would be more of a deterrent than a life sentence. Isn't most murder spur-of-the-moment, with no thought of punishment?

Quote:

A human should be made to understand that he is only entitled to the same rights he recognises for other people. This is a more general lesson, but do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Does that mean that if I class animals as 'people', I can kill and eat non-vegetarians? What if a murderer didn't class his/her victim as a person? Or felt that the person had lost/not-earned the right to live? And can I kill the executioner? As they say, an eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth, makes for a world of blind and hungry people...

0 Replies

Animals, while great in there own right are not people!! This is not an arbitrary classification..its just a fact. Also their is something called a food chain, we eat species below us on that chain..for the most part..its natural...

A person is.....a person..with all the rights and privileges that entails..including not being eaten by you..

Also we are not talking about random vigilante acts of revenge but state sponsored execution. The responsibility for the execution lies with the state, not the executioner.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Should repeated sex offenders be chemically castrated?

No, they should be given to the badass fags that are serving life in prison to be their little bitches

Yeah, hooray for rape! Rolling Eyes

physgrad wrote:

do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

That rules out capital punishment, doesn't it. You wouldn't want anyone to kill you, so you shouldn't kill anyone. You should not kill anyone unless you would have them kill you - and I doubt that you want to be killed. What you really mean is, "do unto others as they do unto you," or, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." This, as djbt has suggested, is bad ethics. What about cases of rape? If we're going to murder murderers, shouldn't we rape rapists?

I believe that Human rights are fundamental - you can't lose them, no matter what you do. Even a mass murderer has the right to live their life as long as nobody else is harmed in the process. Which is why I agree with locking up dangerous people for the sake of protecting other potential victism, but I do not agree with capital punishment. In fact, I don't agree with punishment at all. Causing criminals to suffer in prison does not change their ways - all we need to do is keep them there, so that they can't harm anyone, and then let them live under our supervision, and aim to rehabilitate them if possible.

But anyway, that's irrelevant. All I want to say is that the rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" goes against capital punishment, and what you really mean is eye for an eye, etc., which is much less practical.

0 Replies

raping rapists seems mute doesn't it..they only raped someone for sex..you want to give them that??

Also capital punishment is meted out by the state, so the do unto you is mute.

What i mean is that when one commits first degree murder, then one forfeits the right to life. You may not agree with this statement and I can understand why, but is the other point of view so alien that you cannot comprehend it?

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

Animals, while great in there own right are not people!! This is not an arbitrary classification..its just a fact. Also their is something called a food chain, we eat species below us on that chain..for the most part..its natural...

Natural? So's rape. And murder. And racism, and sexism. But I digress...

Quote:

A person is.....a person..with all the rights and privileges that entails..including not being eaten by you..

But they can be executed.

Quote:

Also we are not talking about random vigilante acts of revenge but state sponsored execution. The responsibility for the execution lies with the state, not the executioner.

Could I execute the whole state then? Or does the buck stop with someone?

Quote:

What i mean is that when one commits first degree murder, then one forfeits the right to life. You may not agree with this statement and I can understand why, but is the other point of view so alien that you cannot comprehend it?

Why do you think anyone has a right to life? Where did these rights come from?

agrote wrote:

Which is why I agree with locking up dangerous people for the sake of protecting other potential victism, but I do not agree with capital punishment. In fact, I don't agree with punishment at all. Causing criminals to suffer in prison does not change their ways - all we need to do is keep them there, so that they can't harm anyone, and then let them live under our supervision, and aim to rehabilitate them if possible.

Totally agree. Punishment is revenge in the guise of justice.

0 Replies

Quote:

Natural? So's rape. And murder. And racism, and sexism. But I digress...

huh..

Quote:

But they can be executed

Yes, by the state, after due process, and without cruel and unusual punishment

Quote:

Could I execute the whole state then? Or does the buck stop with someone?

Again these are not random acts of murder by a certifiable nut case but deliberate actions taken to redress the wrong done to society. How does your killing anyone have state sanction?

Quote:

Why do you think anyone has a right to life? Where did these rights come from?

The right to life stems from the state. That means that it s the state's duty to protect it. And to punish the offenders.

Quote:

Punishment is revenge in the guise of justice.

If you dont want to punish anyone for anything then embezzling should not even be a crime. The point being punishment is justice, for the most part.

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

raping rapists seems mute doesn't it..they only raped someone for sex..you want to give them that??

The primary purpose of rape isn't usually sex (though, as I have argued in other threads, sex obviously plays a part). The experience of being raped is, I assume, extremely unpleasant. So if we wanted to we could easily punish a rapist in the same way that he has punished his victims. But we don't, because that would be cruel and unusual punishment. And so would execution - what's the difference? How is execution not cruel and unusual?

Quote:

Also capital punishment is meted out by the state, so the do unto you is mute.

I don't understand this, please explain.

Quote:

What i mean is that when one commits first degree murder, then one forfeits the right to life. You may not agree with this statement and I can understand why, but is the other point of view so alien that you cannot comprehend it?

It seems arbitrary to me to try and define some point at which someone loses their right to live.

Quote:

The right to life stems from the state. That means that it s the state's duty to protect it. And to punish the offenders.

So what happened before there was a state? In prehistoric times, which of us had the right to life?

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
Also capital punishment is meted out by the state, so the do unto you is mute.

I don't understand this, please explain.

Quote:
What i mean is that when one commits first degree murder, then one forfeits the right to life. You may not agree with this statement and I can understand why, but is the other point of view so alien that you cannot comprehend it?

It seems arbitrary to me to try and define some point at which someone loses their right to live.

The do unto you as you would do unto me is mute when capital punishment is meted out by the state. The problem I think is that you are getting confused betweem victim an offender.
Take the following scenario:
A and B are husband and wife. X is B's father.

At this point all are granted the right to life, defended by the state.

A wants to marry again with no alimony payments, so he kills B.

What I mean is that after this point A has officially forfeit his right to life. However, that life is now forfeit to the state, as it is the state which was responsible for the defence of B and A.

So if X now kills A, X would be a murderer and round and round we go..

However, as A forfeit his life to the state, the state can now choose to end his life.

So bottomline no confusion about who killed who and who has the right to life at any point. The right to life is secured by the state and and can only be forfeited to that state.

Quote:

So what happened before there was a state? In prehistoric times, which of us had the right to life?

Interesting question but it kind of answers why we have civilization and what is the purpose of government. Before civilization we had survival of the fittest, "I'm bigger than you, but you found more food, so I take the food and kill you". Thus you could argue that they had a right to life, but in the absence of a guarantor of that right, the right was mute. So the right to life with any meaning requires a guarantor.

Then we had tribes, which would avenge the death of members, thus we started to get the concept of action and consequence. Now if I wanted your food I'd have to deal with 20 of your tribesmen, so it suddenly isn't a good idea anymore.

And now we have government.

0 Replies

Should repeated sex offenders be chemically castrated?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know