Should repeated sex offenders be chemically castrated?

Okay. But where do this rules come from? You're still arbitrarily deciding that once a person has murdered somebody, they no longer deserve to live. What is the basis for this decision?

0 Replies

Its hardly an arbitrary point, the point at which one commits premeditated murder is hopefully well defined.

The basis of the argument is that you are only eligible to those rights that you are willing to extend to others. Without this basic concept the whole idea of rights doesn't hold up. If you violate my rights, you should not be allowed to get away with it, otherwise the rights become priveleges and society falls apart.

0 Replies

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.

The state giveth, and the state taketh away...

Quote:

The basis of the argument is that you are only eligible to those rights that you are willing to extend to others.

Is this a general rule?
So if you've ever stolen, you have not right to property? If you've ever hit anyone, you have no right to be free from violence? If you've ever broken a speed limit, you have no right to road safety? Ever trepassed and you have no right to privacy?

I think the right to live is about the only one I have left...

Arguments like this are part of the reason I prefer to think of interests rather than rights. You don't have to earn an interest, and you can't lose it. And, contary to the above statement, when the C19th utilitarians started thinking in terms of interests rather than rights, society didn't fall apart (unless their action led to Swidon, in which case it did). I may be factually incorrect on above point, please pull me over if so.

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

Its hardly an arbitrary point, the point at which one commits premeditated murder is hopefully well defined.

The basis of the argument is that you are only eligible to those rights that you are willing to extend to others. Without this basic concept the whole idea of rights doesn't hold up. If you violate my rights, you should not be allowed to get away with it, otherwise the rights become priveleges and society falls apart.

It still seems like the state should be raping rapists according to your rules.

0 Replies

It'd be one helluva good recruitment drive for the police force!

0 Replies

agrote

Quote:

But where do this rules come from? You're still arbitrarily deciding that once a person has murdered somebody, they no longer deserve to live. What is the basis for this decision?

The basis is in the principle of retribution.
Almost all european countries don't accept that principle - and, therefore, have no death penalty.
Another argument for death penalty is dissuasion. But there are no studies, to my knowledge, that show that when a state implements death penalty, the number of capital crimes decreases.

I think the most acceptable principles, in the case of punishing criminals, is to prevent them from doing it again and, if possible, rehabilitate them.
For the first purpose we have jails, long term detentions. But I think that, regarding the second purpose - rehabilitation - we have not find yet the most adequate solutions.

0 Replies

val wrote:

I think the most acceptable principles, in the case of punishing criminals, is to prevent them from doing it again and, if possible, rehabilitate them.
For the first purpose we have jails, long term detentions. But I think that, regarding the second purpose - rehabilitation - we have not find yet the most adequate solutions.

I agree.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

val wrote:
I think the most acceptable principles, in the case of punishing criminals, is to prevent them from doing it again and, if possible, rehabilitate them.
For the first purpose we have jails, long term detentions. But I think that, regarding the second purpose - rehabilitation - we have not find yet the most adequate solutions.

I agree.

Me too.

0 Replies

Me too. (Note to Val: a somewhat utilitarian conclusion, that the best cause of action is to cause no more pain than is necessary to prevent greater pain, and, if possible, bring pleasure (through rehabilitation) also...)

0 Replies

Physgrad,
....I'm trying to say this in a respectful way. You apparently being a college graduate, me being a humble high school dropout, I must tread carefully here. Your belief that a law could be made that would allow the state to murder the absolutly, irrefutable guilty is pure folly.
....First of all, I have seen many a report on the possible detterent ablities of legal murder, but I've never seen one that said it was.
.....Secondly, the interpretation of this law would still be in the hands of lawyers. This means there would still be a low number of rich while men murdered, and a greatly disapportionate murder of poor men of color. The only way to attempt to equally satisfy the bloodlust, is to give all defendents , legal aid lawyers, and somehow hide their race. Jurys would be a bit more aprehensive about the state accidently murdering an innocent white man than a non-white.

0 Replies

Should repeated sex offenders be chemically castrated?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know