Castration is starting to sound good to me...

[Duck Duck Goose]

Sat down to eat lunch just now and read the Saturday paper. Oh boy.

So there's this convicted rapist here on page 3. He raped two women in our area back in 1991 but wasn't caught that time. Five years later he raped someone else in another county, they ran his DNA through the computer and linked him with us, which was enough to get him seven (7) whole years in prison. He got out on parole last year, and recently forced a 4-year-old child (gender not specified in the paper) to perform oral sex on him. A jury has just convicted him of predatory sexual assault. The state's attorney is asking for a sentence of natural life without parole, but I say that's too good for him. I say castration's starting to sound better and better all the time.

What say the Teeming Millions? (pardon me, I can't stick around to hear your answers, I have to go lie down and be sick for a while, the mental image of somebody forcing a baby to perform a blowjob is just too much for me to handle right now.)

[pepperlandgirl]

I'm a big fan of castrating rapists. Some people have pointed out it's not a sex thing, it's a power thing. So? They can't exert power via sex if they don't have the appropriate organs. IMHO of course

[aha]

Take the boy out to the woods, tack his nuts to a stump, set the stump on fire and hand him a dull knife.

Not a real intelligent reply in great debates I know, but I like the sound of it.

[Persephone]

They can't exert power via sex if they don't have the appropriate organs

Yes they can. A man does not need a penis or testicles to exert power via sex. Foreign objects work quite well for damage-infliction. Much better than a penis, in fact.

[pepperlandgirl]

True Seph.
Ok, how about this. It's not to stop them for potentially raping again. Rapists take away something from the women they rape. So they should have something taken away from them that's just as important. I can't speak for all men, but the men I do know place a pretty high regard on their testicals.

[yosemite]

Well, someone can't perform a blow job on a foreign object. Takes all the fun out of it.

But it is true. These twisted bastards will assault and rape their victims with whatever - a broom handle, anything. So castration won't necessarily stop their urge to dominate and terrorize.

So I say, castrate them - take some of their fun away. And then lock them up for life. For LIFE/ - no possibility of parole.

[Iguana Boy]

Why not cut his hands off? I don't mean that as flippantly as it may sound. If you're in favour of some form of mutilation then why not go for one that reminds him all the time of what he did? It doesn't sound as though you all are talking about chemical castration in this thread - only physical punishment (although one with a specfic purpose), and that opens up a whole big can o' worms.

Locking him up forever sounds fine to me, if you aren't in favour of just having him put to death.

I prosecute guys like this on a regular basis, and I occasionally have some sympathy for them, as it is quite clear that some of them are ill, but then I think about the effect on the victims and get confused again. Those offenders that are just plain evil, I have no sympathy for.

BTW regardless of whether I think they are ill or not, I still go for them in court. Their 'illness', assuming it does not amount to insanity, only becomes relevant for sentencing.

[junebeetle]

Jesus, you guys are bloodthirsty! I know this is more of a rhetorical discussion, but still! Just thinking about it makes my balls cringe!

I agree with Iguana Boy. Sure, some jerks deserve to be castrated and worse, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a country where prisoners are tortured or mutilated. We're civilized human beings --- let's not stoop down to the level of the rapists and murderers we're trying to punish!

- JB

[sailor]

>> I'm a big fan of castrating rapists

And I find this interesting since you are such an opponent of the death penalty.

[oldscratch]

While the idea of castrating rapists sounds nice in many people's minds, there are problems with it. I'm going with sailor on this one in that I'm a little suprised at you pepper. Imagine if we accidentaly castrated an innocent person.
Now I have no problem with a woman who was raped turning on her attacker with a big pair of sicsors and doing a little cutting. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's just not something we want to institutionalize.

[Persephone]

Iguana Boy, the cutting off of the hands was something that had occurred to me as well. I actually think cutting off the arms and legs would be a little better.

As for the OP, well, forcing a 4-year-old to perform oral sex....well, I'm pro-death penalty, and that sick f***** seems richly deserving. I've got a three year old child myself. If I ever found out that someone forced my kid to do that, said someone would never go to trial. I might, for homicide, but I'd make it real easy for the prosecution. "Yeah, you bet I cacked him."

[pepperlandgirl]

While the idea of castrating rapists sounds nice in many people's minds, there are problems with it.
I'm going with sailor on this one in that I'm a little suprised at you pepper. Imagine if we accidentaly
castrated an innocent person.
The man's life will still go on. It's not over. He couldn't have kids, but he could adopt. He could continue to work. He could continue to go out and drink with his friends. He could see the sun rise in the morning. But if you kill him, well, then you take his life away.
Taking a man's balls=justifiable
Taking a man's life=unjustifiabe

[oldscratch]

The man's life will still go on. It's not over. He couldn't have kids, but he could adopt. He could continue to work. He could continue to go out and drink with his friends. He could see the sun rise in the morning. But if you kill him, well, then you take his life away.
Taking a man's balls=justifiable
Taking a man's life=unjustifiabe



Now. are you saying that it is justifiable to take an innocent man's balls? And if we start castrating rapists why not cut the hands off people convicted of domestic abuse? Or why don't we just chop off the hands of convicted murderers? Sure, some innocent people will get their hands cut off, but it will send a strong message to those that would think about murder.

[pepperlandgirl]

I don't care what people want to do to convicted murderers. Unless it's extreme torture, the person WILL CONTINUE TO LIVE.
Life to me is more important than balls, hands, legs, noses, fingers, whatever.
Life=good
Death=bad
It sucks that anybody has to die. It is even worse when INNOCENT people have to DIE. But I am advocating aboloshing the death penalty because the State shouldn't get to decide who lives or dies, whether the person is innocent or not.

[oldscratch]

I don't care what people want to do to convicted murderers. Unless it's extreme torture, the person WILL CONTINUE TO LIVE.
Life to me is more important than balls, hands, legs, noses, fingers, whatever.
Life=good
Death=bad
It sucks that anybody has to die. It is even worse when INNOCENT people have to DIE. But I am advocating aboloshing the death penalty because the State shouldn't get to decide who lives or dies, whether the person is innocent or not.



Ok. Let's try a little game of what if.
Let's say the state decides to start physically castrating people.
Now let's say that you are a 20 year old, below poverty line, black man.
You are accused of rape. You are given a sub-par defender. He shows up to court drunk and frequently falls asleep during trial. You are found guilty. You are sent to jail and you are castrated.
Two years later it is discovered that you are innocent.
You are released from jail but you are currently a eunuch.
Would you say to yourself "Well at least I have a fun and exciting life ahead of me as a eunuch" or would you say "This is a barbaric country with a disgusting sense of justice. I can't believe the state castrated me just because I'm poor and couldn't afford a proper defense. I'm going to see to it that we abolish this system of castration." I would think that you would choose the later choice.

[SPOOFE]

Well, there's got to be a balance between "cruel and unusual punishment" and "let the punishment fit the crime". It can be argued that putting men in cells is cruel and unusual. It can also be argued that caning and torture and dismemberment are perfectly suitable and justifiable punishments.

I would support the castration of sex offenders, but not as a standard punishment. I would allow convicted rapists the option of castration in exchange for less jail time.

[pepperlandgirl]

Maybe I don't understand because I don't have them. But would you rather die or have the option of living sans balls?

[oldscratch]

Maybe I don't understand because I don't have them. But would you rather die or have the option of living sans balls?

I think this is something of a trick question. Of course I would rather live sans balls, I would also rather live sans left leg, or right ear. However, that is not the choice. We are talking about locking up rapists or locking them up and castrating them. Any civilized society is going to choose to just lock them up. I would also recommend more treatment programs.

[SPOOFE]

Ideally, we'd have plenty of money available to lock up everyone for the full amount of time, wouldn't have to worry about corrupt prison guards, and have the ability to treat all prisoners with mental illnesses.

Check that. Ideally, we wouldn't have to worry about crime.

But, anyway, seeing as how we can't do everything that we want to do for criminal rehabilitation, we have to do what we can. I like the idea of a flexible justice system... not one that has a personalized ruling for each individual offender, but more options to shorten jail time. Caning, castration, loads of community service, and the like, can provide an opt-out for criminals who wouldn't mind shaving an easy five years off their sentence.

I know it sounds cruel, but so is forcing a toddler to give head. Compared to that, does it really sound so "unusual"?

[pepperlandgirl]

I agree with SPOOFE to a certian extent.

Caning, castration, loads of community service, and
the like, can provide an opt-out for criminals who wouldn't mind shaving an easy five years off their sentence.

I know it sounds cruel, but so is forcing a toddler to give head. Compared to that, does it really sound so
"unusual"?

The only problem I currently have with the system is the state's ability to decide who gets to live or die. However, if we were to implement some of Spoofe's ideas, it could possibly act as a deterrence. AND the community service could really come in handy.
Of course treatment for the mentally ill should also be an option.
I would perfer the system to be about rehabilitation and deterrence, not necessarily about punishment.

[yojimbo]

Duck Duck Goose said:

Five years later he raped someone else in another county, they ran his DNA through the computer and linked him with us, which was enough to get him seven (7) whole years in prison. He got out on parole last year, and recently forced a 4-year-old child (gender not specified in the paper) to perform oral sex on him.


I think the problem is right here. If this guy had got a jail term that was appropriate to his crime he would not have been able to do anything to the poor 4-year old.

I would look at castration or the cutting off of hands as emotional reactionism(?). If society dealt with these animals adequately in the first place a lot of the frustration felt by the people in this tread would be allayed .

[Surgoshan]

Putting a man in prison, it's possible to give remuneration. Cutting off a man's testicles is irreversible.

If you castrate a man and he's later found innocent, how do you apologize? It was for JUSTICE? Fuck that, justice messed up. How much money will make up for the man never enjoying sex again, never having his own children, being forever forced to live on hormone treatments yet STILL always be imbalanced. How do you pay for irreversibly changing a man's life to almost the greatest degree possible?

Whether it's acknowledged or not, the libido is a prime factor in most of our lives. It is responsible for much of our motivation and drive, it gives a flare and zest to life that can't be replaced by an assortment of hormone pills.

Cutting off someone's nuts is NOT the way to go. If someone is irreparably insane, kill them. It's the safest thing to do. If someone is capable of reform, allow them the chance. Immasculation is punishment and punishment only. The purpose of sentencing is not simply to cause pain to criminals. Part of civilization is rising above petty revenge. We want these people to one day be fully functioning members of society. We want to reform them and bring them back into society healthy, happy, and productive. We don't want to react in anger and cut their balls off, put their eyes out, or simply torture them.

Because that's what this is, torture. Nothing less.

I would like to thing we are above simple sentencing for vengeance, that we are capable of intentionally trying to better our society and help our fellow citizens along that path. Punishment for it's own sake does not fill that need.

[timmar68]

No, castration isn't good enough. It should be amputated and that person should experience phantom pain!

[HomeSlice]

No, castration isn't good enough. It should be amputated and that person should experience phantom pain!


Phantom pain...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*wiping a tear from my eye*

I almost forgot about phantom pain. HAHAHAHA!

[tracer]

Actually, castration of sorts has been done to psychopathic sexual predators in the U.S. on an experimental basis. There's a drug -- its name escapes me at the moment -- which causes a man to lose all sexual function, as though his testicles had been removed. If you stop taking the drug, though, sexual function returns.

Use of this drug has been referred to as "chemical castration."

[labdude]

He got out on parole last year,


Castration is not necessary. The problem is right here. If we know the man is a person who hurts people (rapist) and we let him out to hurt more people its our fault.

It's a basic fool me once, fool me twice problem.

For the life of me I can't understand why you nutty California people can keep the bad guys in prison. Here in Louisiana almost noone ever gets out on parole. You get sen to prison in LA and you will most likey die there. There is a nice graveyard at the prison. A&E had a prison special on the other day, and in it they filmed the LA parole board. Prisoners would come before the board and say how really sorry they were and that they would be good now. After they left the parole board members would laugh, and deny their parole.


FWIW I actually don't support a total life sentence for rape, after your about 65 I don't think your much of a danger to anyone anymore. For murder you can die in prison.

[SPOOFE]

I think every human being should be castrated on birth. Eggs should be harvested from every female, and implanted with desirable DNA at a later date, to be grown into another person. People should have cyber-links implanted in their brain stem so they can connect to another person via fiber-optic cabling, and experience mutual pleasure that way. If someone forces his cable into someone else's implant, they can have their own implant deactivated as punishment.

Oh, yeah, and we should have a caste system of Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, etc.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Over in the "death penalty" thread i had a brilliant idea. Reversable surgical Lobotomies. This would work for these scum, too. Think of it, a home full of "happy" droolers, incapable of thinking of commiting crimes, as these are incapable of thinking. Not cruel, but guarenteed no recidivsm.

[avalongod]

SPOOFE: Can I be an Alpha? Puuuuleeease?

Just a couple of comments:

Rape: Let's separate this from the feminist philosophy (not meaning offense...feminism has brought society many wonderful things, but it should not dabble into psychology). Rape is not a power crime...per se...that is to say rapists rape for many different reasons. There is in fact a highly complex classification system for rapists...I don't remember them all offhand, but they include "gentleman" rapists (I am not kidding)...who indeed do rape mainly for the sex, power rapists...who rape for the feelings of power, but also for the sex..and sadistic rapists, once again mostly sex, but they get their giggies out of making another person hurt. So the motives behind rape are multifaceted and complex and usually have very little to do with some grand male plot to keep women down. Rapists deserve death, and most males will acknowledge this (mabey not death, but you get the idea)

Castration: If you want to stop rape, gotta take the schlong off with the boys. Removing testosterone from the male system will not turn of his desire for sex. So the whole package has gotta go. But this will probably not stop him from victimizing women in some other way.

[casdave]

I cannot understand this, the guy commits what like 6 or 7 rapes and only gets 7 years?

I keep reading and seeing on the media how tough the US justice system is. WTF?

Rapists are notorious, especially the child fixated ones, for recidivism and are incredibly difficult to rehabilitate.

Several reasons for this, they are usually kept away from the general prison population as they would be severely damaged and are classified as vulnerable, HAH!!,but when they are in their own little cliques they feed on the perverted fantasies of others like them, and while in prison, they often behave as model inmates appearing to conform looking for all the world like they have mended their ways but of course their targets are not available to them so they behave rationally - until they are released.

Some of them look like you might expect them to, kinda weird and sleazy, but usually they are fairly anonymous and you get the occasional one who you would never suspect until you looked at their docs.

Castration is a thought but whatever happens they must do their jail first and it should be in large doses.

IMHO these people rip at the very fabric of human society which is built, to a large extent, on trust at the most basic level. Their punishment must reflect this.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Note to Labdude: This is not California--this is downstate Illinois, Land of Lincoln, the Corn Belt. The local paper that is carrying the story apparently has the interesting editorial habit of only posting the more upbeat stories on its website. The "police blotter" is conspicuous by its absence, except where it concerns a juicy murder with the perpetrator caught red-handed. So I'm sorry that I can't post a link.

I think Yojimbo and others have a good point--if this guy was still in prison, he wouldn't have been able to do more bad stuff. However, the problem with that is, there just isn't room. We've had an ongoing controversy for years in this area over where the state can or cannot put another badly needed medium-security prison. It's the NIMBY syndrome all over again (that's Not In My Back Yard). Everybody agrees we need more prisons, but nobody wants it in their town. Everybody agrees, "Oh, yes, it would definitely create more jobs", but nobody wants those jobs to be in their town.

I was hoping some people in this thread would respond to the question of whether castration actually has any deterrent value, anyway. I know that "once a child molester, always a child molester" is supposed to be true, also that as Persephone pointed out, you don't need a penis to rape.

But my thought was, "justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." In the Arab countries, the penalty for stealing is to cut off a hand. Nobody AFAIK stands up and says, "Yes, but what if this is an innocent man? We might be wrongfully depriving him of his hand." Do you think that maybe if the penalty for rape here was castration, that it might dissuade some otherwise marginal potential rapists? I mean the guy that's just kinda thinking about it, not the serious psychotic. They say that in Saudi Arabia you can leave your car unlocked and the keys on top of the hood, and nobody will even touch it.

Also, if the penalty for child molesting was more serious, say castration, instead of simply being labeled "sick" and having lots and lots of kind, caring therapy, maybe some of those people who get their jollies out of oral sex with toddlers would think twice.

I realize that I am coming across as something to the right of George Wallace, but I'm really not like that, OK? I'm just here to talk about this on a "what if?" basis. I've got 3 kids that I safely steered through all this "strong kids, safe kids" malarkey, and now that my oldest is, quite frankly, a babe, the thought of someone knocking her down and doing what this guy did to three women so far makes me want to go out to the kitchen and start sharpening knives.

Just curious--how many people who have responded so far in this thread saying, "Castration is cruel and unusual punishment" also have nubile teenage daughters who are just on the brink of starting to seriously date (meaning, being alone in a car with a guy who may or may not be trustworthy)?

[pepperlandgirl]

Just curious--how many people who have responded so far in this thread saying, "Castration is cruel
and unusual punishment" also have nubile teenage daughters who are just on the brink of starting to
seriously date (meaning, being alone in a car with a guy who may or may not be trustworthy)?
I AM a nubile teenager. While I'm not crippled with fear of an attack, I do think about it a lot.

Do you think that maybe if the penalty for
rape here was castration, that it might dissuade some otherwise marginal potential rapists? I mean the guy
that's just kinda thinking about it, not the serious psychotic. They say that in Saudi Arabia you can leave
your car unlocked and the keys on top of the hood, and nobody will even touch it.
I asked my BF last night if he thought guys in general would be more cautious of committing crimes if the penalty was getting castrated. He said yes. That pretty much is what I thought. The hard-core sicko perverts who would rape and humiliate women no matter what would probably not be stopped by castration. However, I think DDG is right, maybe the people who are still capable of some kind of logical thought would be put off by the thought of living life sans genitilia.

[Lamia]

Duck Duck Goose:


Also, if the penalty for child molesting was more serious, say castration, instead of simply being labeled "sick" and having lots and lots of kind, caring therapy, maybe some of those people who get their jollies out of oral sex with toddlers would think twice.


I am hesitant to accept the idea of any sort of extreme punishment as a more effective deterrant to crime than prison, because I don't think that most people who commit crimes believe they are going to be caught. If they don't think they will be caught then the potential punishment won't make any difference to them.

[Arnold Winkelried]

In the Arab countries, the penalty for stealing is to cut off a hand. Nobody AFAIK stands up and says, "Yes, but what if this is an innocent man? We might be wrongfully depriving him of his hand."

Yes, people do oppose the barbaric system of justice in arabic countries, it's just not widely reported in the USA. How often do you see news about other countries reported in your newspaper or television station? Pretty much only when the president of the USA visits that country.

For people that support torture and amputations as a method of justice, you can take a look at Saudi Arabia, in which those practices occur.

Amnesty International - Saudi Arabia campaign - culture of brutality (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/6.html)

I personally believe that promoting torture and other forms of physical punishment in jail is another way of teaching people that violence is acceptable for the right reasons. It diminishes our humanity. Of course, someone will say "well if it was your daughter, you would want to make them suffer physically." Does that mean we should adopt this as a system of justice? Heck, I know some people that have told me that if someone stole their car they would like to find them and run them over / castrate them / whatever. I fail to see how having a brutal system of justice is an improvement over detention and/or treatment.

[Weirddave]

Deterence. Feh! Rehabilitation. Bah! These are all feel good words bantied about by people afraid to look into the sick twisted depths of their soul. It's there in each one of us. When dealing with violent, predatory crimes, the answer lies in RESPONSIBILITY.

It is quite simple, relly. Society has a RESPONSIBILITY to provide each of it's members with certain rights and oportunities. The right to live freely, without fear. The right to an education. The right to make a life for yourself, in whatever field you chose. The right against descrimination. It's a long list. In return, however, each individual has the RESPONSIBILITY to live within the boundries of society's laws, and respect everyone elses right to the same. The solution is simple, darwinian and unpalatable to many. What I propose is that certain crimes be clasified as "disenfranchising felonies". Pre-meditated murder. Forceable predatory rape( Not date rape ) Agrivated assault with intent to maim or kill an innocent person. The list would have to be agreed upon. I would also throw repeat offenders in this group. Kill someone in anger? Ok Prison. Keep doing it when you get out? You qualify. When the state was going to seek such a finding the death penalty would be the result of a conviction. The defendant would be provided, at the states expense, top, TOP legal talent to defend him/her. No expense would be spared, extensive DNA testing would be used, the trial would be treated with an almost super human amount of respect in respect that the outcome potentialy could deprive an individual of his sacred right to life. If, IF, all of the above was done, and the defendent was found guilty, He/she would get one complete appeal, with the same standards of proof necessary, and if the defendent loses again, he or she would quickly be executed by lethal injection. Provisions would be in place for a life imprisonment to be sentenced instead of death, if the prosecution couldn't prove death was warrented. The advantages of the above are numerious. #1, It would be expensive. The state wouldn't take such a step unless it had very compelling evidence. #2, By providing the defense with Jonny Cochran or such, nobody would get convicted because the PD was a wet behind the ears novice who just passed the bar. #3, It gets to the heart of the matter. Deterence is often a joke, because criminals don't usually think they would be caught. Rehabilitation is not posibile with many of the more extreme criminals. What would be happening is that society would be admiting that the defendent, if guilty, has abrogated his responsibility to society, and we reluctently are revoking our responsibility to protect his life. A repeate rapest who is released from prison and forces a child, a child, to preform oral sex? You've proven that you cant live in society. You're outta here buddy.


FWIW, I am a fairly moderate person, and if someone perfected a way to banish such criminals to, say Mars, I would support that instead the above. Some acts are beyond the pale, and should be delt with as such.

Arnold:
The above process would, IMHO, actualy strengthen the humanity of society, by adding another demention to the criminal's whine " Society owes me this." It recognizes that, but ads the coda, "you owe society that".

[tracer]

If the riots following the first Rodney King beating trial (and the outcry following the O.J. Simpson criminal trial) are any indication, "the people" do not want to get "justice" from the justice system -- they are instead out for blood. They heap their collective hatred onto the accused, just like Captain Ahab heaped the sins of the world onto the back of the White Whale, and insist that the accused "pay for his crime". It does not matter how conclusive on inconclusive the evidence is against the accused; the worse and more heinous the crime is, the more the people will scream, "Guilty!"

Our criminal justice system is not set up to be a Court of Vengeance. The main guiding principle behind the common law of every State (yes, even Louisianna ;) ) is that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to punish an innocent man. This is why punishments that cannot be undone, such as execution or lobotomy or (theoretically) physical castration, are only applied in a handful of cases, and then only after a long appeals process has exhausted the legal possibility of reasonable doubt.

Are we really afraid that convicted rapists, if released from prison, will find another victim? Or are we more angered by the notion that a rapist who serves a prison sentence and is then released "got away with it"?

[SPOOFE]

Look at Singapore: Ultra-harsh punishments, near-zero crime. Do they go and cane everyone there? No, but people realize that if they DO break the law, they'll be hurtin'. Deterrence in action.

Now, I, for one, am hardly advising that we adopt Singapore's code of law, but I think it's pretty evident that we need something harsher than a slap on the wrist and free cable TV for those who break the law.

[Lamia]

SPOOFE Bo Diddly


Look at Singapore: Ultra-harsh punishments, near-zero crime. Do they go and cane everyone there? No, but people realize that if they DO break the law, they'll be hurtin'. Deterrence in action.

Now, I, for one, am hardly advising that we adopt Singapore's code of law, but I think it's pretty evident that we need something harsher than a slap on the wrist and free cable TV for those who break the law.


The culture of Singapore is very different from that of the US. I don't believe for one minute that their lower crime rate is due solely to brutal punishments for offenders.

American prisons aren't exactly a Club Med holiday either. I have yet to meet anyone who wanted to go to prison, or anyone who had been in prison and wanted to go back.

[Typo Negative]

I can't help but think of the case where a man was released from prison after 8 years. He had been convicted of a raping an 18 year old woman. After 6 years, she fessed up that he did not rape her. She had never seen him before she picked him out of a line-up. The rape was a hoax, it never happened. Took 2 years to get the guy out of prison.

I don't think castration is all that good of an idea.

[Typo Negative]

Found the info on that case. Here it is. http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume10/j10_3_6_13.htm

[HorseloverFat]

FWIW, I am a fairly moderate person, and if someone perfected a way to banish such criminals to, say Mars, I would support that instead the above. Some acts are beyond the pale, and should be delt with as such.


That's called moderate??


The issue simply boils down to the fact that its near impossible to convince someone to stop doing criminal activity, be it rape or petty theft. Prison may not work but at least isolation keeps them at bay for a while and the innocent can be sent home. Chopping off this or that is just as useless but not reverseable.

If you're really in love with chopping parts off, go live in a Fundamentalist Muslim culture for a while and see what rights you have and how 'criminals' are treated. Its not the utopia you'd think it would be.

[SPOOFE]

I have it! I have a solution to the problem!

We call upon the wisdom of Solomon. During the trial, we tell rape suspects that if they willingly allow us to slice their balls off, they will go free. Those that accept this must surely be guilty, since they'd KNOW that they were guilty, and would want to avoid a trial in such a case. HOWEVER, those that decline must surely be innocent, since they'd know that they were innocent and would have faith that the legal system would find them innocent.

So, those found guilty in such a manner will be castrated AND be thrown in prison! I've just solved all the problems with the legal system! I shall call this "Spoofian Justice".

Thank me now, little people, thank me now.

[JimmyNipples]

Iguana Boy, the cutting off of the hands was something that had occurred to me as well. I actually think cutting off the arms and legs would be a little better.



If a person is a threat to the public, then the threat has to be removed. Arm and leg cutting sounds good, but its complicated and expensive. Can you imagine what would happen if the convict died while being operated on? We're talking about the Mighty USA....there would be lawsuits from the convict's family until the cows came home.

If I was running things, there would be an isolated island where we would drop off criminals. A hoe, a packet of seeds and a kick in the pants is what they would get. A boat drops them off, and that would be that. Several vessels would patrol the waters around the island, with instructions to shoot anything that swam.


As for the OP, well, forcing a 4-year-old to perform oral sex....well, I'm pro-death penalty, and that sick f***** seems richly deserving. I've got a three year old child myself. If I ever found out that someone forced my kid to do that, said someone would never go to trial. I might, for homicide, but I'd make it real easy for the prosecution. "Yeah, you bet I cacked him."


I know exactly what you mean.

[Needs2know]

Funny no one has mentioned chemical castration which is being used, I believe. They give sex offenders Depo Provera shots daily don't they, then they can't get it up. Naturally when the shots stop and the Depo leaves their system they can still do whatever.

Need2know

[smilingjaws]

Hooray! The Island punishment theory! I've been advocating this for years! Let them make their own society on the island--and find out just how it feels to have a society where the strong and the mobs make the rules!

Just make sure the island is surrounded by a healthy shark population!

[Lamia]

Funny no one has mentioned chemical castration which is being used, I believe. They give sex offenders Depo Provera shots daily don't they, then they can't get it up. Naturally when the shots stop and the Depo leaves their system they can still do whatever.


I have heard that some offenders who have been chemically castrated become more violent with their victims than they were previously, due to frustration over not being able to achieve sexual satisfaction. Has anyone else heard this?

[HorseloverFat]

Hooray! The Island punishment theory! I've been advocating this for years! Let them make their own society on the island--and find out just how it feels to have a society where the strong and the mobs make the rules!

Just make sure the island is surrounded by a healthy shark population!



Its been done its called Australia, its a bit bigger than an island though. Australia has sharks and those nasty stinging jellyfish.

[avalongod]

Needs2Know:

quote:

~~~Funny no one has mentioned chemical castration which is being used, I believe. They give sex offenders Depo Provera shots daily don't they, then they can't get it up

I think that the results on this are mixed. I don't believe it technically causes impotenct (though I may be wrong) but rather is SUPPOSED to lessen sexual desires. My understanding is that the empirical evidence on the success rate has actually been pretty bad.

[Needs2know]

accidently ran across this article this morning...
http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/01/castration/index.html

Need2know

[tracer]

Geez ... the guy in the article fondles a 12-year-old girl and then masturbates, then has consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl, and he's branded a "pedophile" and sentenced to 21 years?!

It's like I've always said ... we ought to call adults who have sex with 15-year-olds "pedophiles", which lumps them together with adults who have sex with 7-year-olds. I personally prefer the term "ephebophile" for someone who enjoys sex with teen-agers ("ephebus" being the ancient Greek term for an adolescent -- the term also implied a certain set of rights and responsibilities that descended on a young man in Hellenistic Greece).