SonnySide Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 So I'm hearing a lot of support for Sharia law then?~Bang No, with Sharia law the VICTIM would be stoned to death for dishonoring their family :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me.It'll never work. ~Bang I was thinking the same thing. These guys are the absolute scum of the Earth, but they're also forced to wear a scarlet letter of sorts under the current law (registering as a sex offender). This, to me, is in direct violation of the 8th Amendment; and as much as these people sicken all of us, the law still applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnySide Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 It's real simple: if you sexually assault someone, you spend the rest of your life in jail. If you sexually assault a CHILD, you spend the rest of your life as a corpse....problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The whole point of this is not some type of medieval vengeance, but that chemical or surgical castration will address the chemical and hormonal causes of their behavior. Uh, I disagree with your opinion about the motivations behind this proposal. I'm not going to claim that preventing repeat offenses isn't part of the motive. (Although I would assert that the death penalty, or life without parole, would serve the purpose, too. And do so without our society casting aside the Constitution and "getting medieval".) But let's be honest, here. We both know that a big part of the motivation is "Hey, everybody! Look at me! I can be more barbaric that the politician next door can!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnySide Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I was thinking the same thing. These guys are the absolute scum of the Earth, but they're also forced to wear a scarlet letter of sorts under the current law (registering as a sex offender). This, to me, is in direct violation of the 8th Amendment; and as much as these people sicken all of us, the law still applies. The reason they are forced to wear a "scarlet letter" is because they made a choice to do something heinous. If we built more prisons we could put these scum away for life and not have to worry about their feelings of being ostracized on the outiside when they should still be on the inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweedr01 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 It's real simple: if you sexually assault someone, you spend the rest of your life in jail.If you sexually assault a CHILD, you spend the rest of your life as a corpse....problem solved. I would like to like this post, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 But let's be honest, here. We both know that a big part of the motivation is "Hey, everybody! Look at me! I can be more barbaric that the politician next door can!" Sure that's my suspicion, but the bill is requesting the medical arguments be researched, not that elected officials get to perform public castrations. "Republican Sen. Emmett Hanger's bill would require the state to study the use of physical castration as an alternative to civil commitment for sexually violent predators." "Castration is an effective treatment when it is combined with therapy and other aspects of treatment, but it is not a cure-all, said Dr. Fred Berlin, director of the Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit at Johns Hopkins University." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The reason they are forced to wear a "scarlet letter" is because they made a choice to do something heinous. Really? You got any idea how many people we're slapping that "scarlet letter" on, committed the "heinous" act of making out with a girl while they were both in High School? If we built more prisons we could put these scum away for life and not have to worry about their feelings of being ostracized on the outiside when they should still be on the inside. Built more prisons? Or "quit filling the prisons up with people who had some drugs on them"? ---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 12:54 PM ---------- "Castration is an effective treatment when it is combined with therapy and other aspects of treatment, but it is not a cure-all, said Dr. Fred Berlin, director of the Sexual Behaviors Consultation Unit at Johns Hopkins University." Odds of the "off with their heads" politicians approving "therapy and other aspects of treatment"? What do you suppose happens to the politician whose opponent accuses him of wanting to give therapy to child molesters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 What do you suppose happens to the politician whose opponent accuses him of wanting to give therapy to child molesters? The politician would reply "My worthy opponent is against castration treatment for child molesters even though the medical and financial arguments are compelling." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The reason they are forced to wear a "scarlet letter" is because they made a choice to do something heinous.If we built more prisons we could put these scum away for life and not have to worry about their feelings of being ostracized on the outiside when they should still be on the inside. Agreed, I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying we don't need to chop anyone's balls off. I happen to be a Constitutionalist and take the 8th Amendment very seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Going back and releasing someone found to be not guilty would be messy. Yeah, that's a serious problem with this idea. so what Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me.It'll never work. ~Bang They better make darned sure that the suspect is guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I wonder if anyone really thinks that without balls the predator would suddenly stop wanting to hurt people.I'm all for the harshest prison terms for sexual criminals, I just don't think castration will do any good. It won't remove their need to harm someone, and that's what drives their other need most of the time. They'll just use other methods. ~Bang why wouldn't removing the testosterone production center make someone less aggressive and less sexually excitable? seems obvious to me ---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 07:11 PM ---------- Seriously? ummm yeah the oooh that's gross! emotional arguments are pointless. Use reason, not fallacies. Furthermore the "oh those foreign barbarians would do this" argument is equally stupid. For one, I'm not sure they do. Two, it's not like America is so exceptional that we have nothing to learn from other societies. child molesters go to jail and get raped, they come out and do it again because they have a mental illness. Cutting off (no pun!) the chemical supply that exacerbates the issue means that they wouldn't be nearly as likely to commit it again. This would be good for ALL of society. Only repeat offenders though IMO. They better make darned sure that the suspect is guilty. we trust the criminal justice system to execute people. We trust them even when it disproportionately sentences black people to death. We trust them to send convicts to prisons that run rampant w/ sexual abuse and disease. IMO using this method as an alternative to prison is not the horrible boogeyman it's made out to be. The punishments we consider perfectly ok today are much worse than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Two, it's not like America is so exceptional that we have nothing to learn from other societies. We did learn from other societies. 200 years ago. That's why we forbid barbaric punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 What's "barbaric" about it? And why are you attacking labels? Call it whatever you want. It is what it is. If you want to talk cost benefit go ahead, but I'm not going to help you beat up strawmen for the hell of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 They better make darned sure that the suspect is guilty. The system cannot even get it right where death is concerned. This will not happen. If it does, I PRAY that no ex-girlfriend with an ax to grind, lies on me just so that I'll get my junk loped off. I'm not kidding, half of the time, this is what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 disgusting, cruel, monstrous. pointless brutality for the sake of revenge. a step backwards for civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Anyone wonder WHY the Virginia state budget for monitoring sex offenders is going through the roof in recent years? I doubt it is because of any spike in child molestation. Actually, I suspect that it is because of other "tough on crime" measures passed in the last few Legislative sessions, ones that were just as horrible overkill as this proposed bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 why wouldn't removing the testosterone production center make someone less aggressive and less sexually excitable? . Because for the large part of the rapists the excitation comes from the violence, the domination. the sex itself is secondary. If you take away his nuts, all you've done is take away his nuts. But he's still nuts. Rapists don't rape to get laid. If his junk doesn't work, he'll likely find other ways to satisfy his desire to dominate and hurt someone. I don't think that it is reasonable to expect that they'll turn into docile dogs that don't stray too far from home after they get fixed. They'll just have a whole new reason to be angry, depressed, or whatever it is that makes them violent in the first place. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Anyone wonder WHY the Virginia state budget for monitoring sex offenders is going through the roof in recent years? Because they, like everybody else, lumps thousands of people under the label of "sex offenders", who shouldn't be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 we trust the criminal justice system to execute people. We trust them even when it disproportionately sentences black people to death. We trust them to send convicts to prisons that run rampant w/ sexual abuse and disease. IMO using this method as an alternative to prison is not the horrible boogeyman it's made out to be. The punishments we consider perfectly ok today are much worse than this. IMO this "trust" becomes less an less every day because of exposure of prosecutorial & LEO misconduct and criminality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I wonder how many teenagers dating in high school will end up castrated once prosecutors decide to classify any sex crime as a violent sex crime. Just look at the bang up job they've done with the sex offender registry. ---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 10:02 PM ---------- we trust the criminal justice system to execute people. We trust them even when it disproportionately sentences black people to death. We trust them to send convicts to prisons that run rampant w/ sexual abuse and disease. IMO using this method as an alternative to prison is not the horrible boogeyman it's made out to be. The punishments we consider perfectly ok today are much worse than this. We do? The main reason I don't support the death penalty is because I don't trust prosecutors and why should I? They have no fear of accountability outside of losing their position and moving on to more lucrative positions in private practice. Sean Taylor got robbed by known criminals and the DA sided with them against him! Until DA's face jail time and civil lawsuits for misconduct I'll support no expansion of their power be it directly or by ambiguous law making like the whole "sex offenders" thing turned out to be. I don't even support hate crime legislation anymore, which I find entirely rational, because of the way these ambitious suits have decided to apply it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Originally posted by The United States ConstitutionExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Just gonna leave this here and remind everyone of it, just in case we forgot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goaldeje Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Political grandstanding at it's worst. Why bother doing actual work when you can appease the masses by showing that you are tough on sex offenders! Sure fire way to get reelected! What a ****ing joke. Anyone who is even moderately in favor of this ridiculous proposal, read the article at this link. All jokes and insults aside, read it. See if it doesn't change the way you look at this subject. http://www.economist.com/node/14164614 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Political grandstanding at it's worst. Why bother doing actual work when you can appease the masses by showing that you are tough on sex offenders! Sure fire way to get reelected! What a ****ing joke. Anyone who is even moderately in favor of this ridiculous proposal, read the article at this link. All jokes and insults aside, read it. See if it doesn't change the way you look at this subject. http://www.economist.com/node/14164614 no doubt, but I'm thinking about it in a much more limited cases than that, in general I think the motivation is to do something "barbaric." But while the motivation is bad, I think it's an idea to be looked into, at least because it seems less cruel than prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.