Comment on this statement relating to crime and punishment [Archive]

sweetjazz

12-13-2005, 03:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Since sex offenders have a high recidivism rate, then I believe castration would not be cruel and unusual for offenders who re-offend, regardless of how the SCOTUS interprets cruel and unusual. And I don't mean chemical either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you would say something like this. Creating political disunity at home by questioning SCOTUS rulings is only helping our enemy in Iraq.

I just hope and pray that Zarqawi will not see your post and become further emboldened. Still, I fear your post has him chanting "All praise be to Allah" and ordering another insurgent attack.

Your post is just another example of why freedom of speech needs to be curtailed. NOW!!!

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 03:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that sex offenders who re-offend, i.e. they have been convicted and punished and then convicted again, are extremely unlikely to have been convicted for multiple offenses wrongly and also by their re-offending have shown that they are a danger to society if released again. So I would therefore say that castration is an appropriate punishment when that repeat offend criterion has been met.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the repeat offenders who almost certainly are guilty. If you're saying that repeat offenders should be castrated because they definitely ARE guilty, you are, by corollary, admitting that other convicted sexual offenders might not be guilty. If you admit that people who are convicted in a court of law, supposedly beyond a reasonable doubt, might not be guilty, do you see how that would throw every conviction into jeopardy?

bills217

12-13-2005, 03:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you would say something like this. Creating political disunity at home by questioning SCOTUS rulings is only helping our enemy in Iraq.

I just hope and pray that Zarqawi will not see your post and become further emboldened. Still, I fear your post has him chanting "All praise be to Allah" and ordering another insurgent attack.

Your post is just another example of why freedom of speech needs to be curtailed. NOW!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's now official: My thread has been hijacked by a troll.

BluffTHIS!

12-13-2005, 03:52 AM

I am saying that since castration, like death, is irrevocable, then it should not be imposed for one time or first offenses, since obviously there is always a small probablility of being convicted falsely. Thus the harshest punishment is reserved for those cases when such a probability is very close to zero, which should be the case for multiple occasion offenders.

bills217

12-13-2005, 03:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thus the harshest punishment is reserved for those cases when such a probability is very close to zero, which should be the case for multiple occasion offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, our justice system should not allow repeat sex offenders.

Is castrating x amount of innocent accused worth saving y number of innocent potential victims?

I'm thinking y >>> x here, but what do I know.

Edited to add:

In the following statement:

"Is castrating x amount of innocent accused worth saving y number of innocent potential victims?"

accused should actually be convicted.

Very sorry for any confusion caused by this error.

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 04:00 AM

But if you are saying that castration would be an effective punishment because it lowers recidivism, and that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate, it would only be logical to, if as our justice system presupposes, people are only convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of their guilt, castrate all sex offenders at the outset.

If, on the other hand, you think that castration should be used as a more severe punishment for repeat offenders, what is the benefit of that over life in prison, aside from poetic justice?

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 04:01 AM

You clearly don't know that our justice system is designed on the principle that it is better to set a guilty man free than to imprison an innocent one, hence why the burde of proof is on the state.

sweetjazz

12-13-2005, 04:03 AM

Hey bill,

I should apologize for my other reply. While I was attempting to make a point about freedom of speech in a playful way (and probably failing at that), my comment was completely off topic from your initial post and not helpful in adding dialogue to your thread.

I'll attempt to give a serious reply to your initial post, as retribution for my past sin. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

As far as the quote goes, it sounds from the context of it that it was meant as a joke, i.e. not being able to engage in sexual activity is as bad as death. If that's the case, then it's just a silly statement.

But it's interesting as a serious statement. Both castration and the death penalty involve the state doing to people what would be criminal if that person did it to another person. At the same time, so would locking someone up in a cell for many years.

The ultimate question is how much power should be given to the state, and how much certainty should we have the state has correctly assessed the guilt or innocence of the person on trial before it implements a given penalty.

I don't think I can agree with the claim made by the other party. Castration is not equivalent to the death penalty. Castration involves the state taking an invasive action against you; the death penalty involves the states taking an invasive action you that is on another level. After the death penalty, that's it. After castration, you still have the ability to enjoy some aspects of human life. So they just aren't the same. Of course, they might both be legitimate punishments or they might both be illegitimate punishments.

But they are not equivalent. All punishments involve some form of invasive actions, and they differ by their degrees of invasiveness. In this regard, there is no comparision between loss of sexual potency and loss of life.

BluffTHIS!

12-13-2005, 04:05 AM

Unless you are being purposefully obtuse, you should see that while a person wrongly convicted and incarcerated could later be exonerated with only lost time, such a person being castrated would have endured a punishment that lasts for a lifetime if later found to have been wrongly convicted. That's why I said incarceration for first offense and castration for next.

And regarding life in prison, that's OK as an alternative if it really was life and not life but get paroled after 10 years anyway.

bills217

12-13-2005, 04:07 AM

Very much appreciated. You're forgiven.

sweetjazz

12-13-2005, 04:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus the harshest punishment is reserved for those cases when such a probability is very close to zero, which should be the case for multiple occasion offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, our justice system should not allow repeat sex offenders.

Is castrating x amount of innocent accused worth saving y number of innocent potential victims?

I'm thinking y >>> x here, but what do I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to your logic, wouldn't it be better (compared to how things are done now) to castrate everyone accused of a sexual abuse crime plus yourself? Since y >>> x in your argument, isn't y still > x (probably still by a lot)? (Or alternatively, imagine that it was you who was framed for sexual assault.)

But would you seriously endorse such a plan?

I think you are overlooking the many dangers that take place when you don't have rigorous burdens of proof before inflicting state punishments.

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 04:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you are being purposefully obtuse, you should see that while a person wrongly convicted and incarcerated could later be exonerated with only lost time, such a person being castrated would have endured a punishment that lasts for a lifetime if later found to have been wrongly convicted. That's why I said incarceration for first offense and castration for next.

And regarding life in prison, that's OK as an alternative if it really was life and not life but get paroled after 10 years anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that if you admit that you wouldn't castrate a first offender because he might not be guilty and castration is irreversible, you really can't say "Two convictions, cut his balls off," you can really only say "Two conviction, it's less likely that he was wrongly convicted," and no matter how many convictions you get, you are still admitting the possibility that they are wrongful convictions and that there is the chance that he is innocent. If you then decide that there's a point at which it's likely enough that he's guilty, but still admit that he might be innoent, and should be castrated, you're admitting that the possibility of innocence really isn't a deterrent from castrating offenders, and you might as well have castrated him the first time around.

bills217

12-13-2005, 04:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You clearly don't know that our justice system is designed on the principle that it is better to set a guilty man free than to imprison an innocent one, hence why the burde of proof is on the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I understand that perfectly. My parents were prosecutors. I don't think you got my meaning.

In the specific case of sex offenders, as we've discussed here at some length, very many of them become repeat offenders when released.

So, I don't really see how your last post is relevant. I'm comparing castrating innocent people vs. saving potential victims(since sex offenders often repeat offend), not simply setting free guilty parties who may never offend again. My argument is specific to sex offenders.

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 04:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So, I don't really see how your last post is relevant. I'm comparing castrating innocent people vs. saving potential victims(since sex offenders often repeat offend), not simply setting free guilty parties who may never offend again. My argument is specific to sex offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how your argument is specific to sexual offenders when your same argument can be applied to victims of any crime.

bills217

12-13-2005, 04:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
castrate everyone accused of a sexual abuse

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, now I think I see the problem we're having.

accused should be convicted as in, convicted under our current legal system where the burden of proof is satisfied. Surely you didn't think I meant anyone who is randomly accused? If so I apologize, and apologize anyway for the careless wording. In my mind I was equating accused w/ convicted, not sure why I did that...

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 04:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
castrate everyone accused of a sexual abuse

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, now I think I see the problem we're having.

accused should be convicted as in, convicted under our current legal system where the burden of proof is satisfied. Surely you didn't think I meant anyone who is randomly accused? If so I apologize, and apologize anyway for the careless wording. In my mind I was equating accused w/ convicted, not sure why I did that...

[/ QUOTE ]

But by your other argument, it would be better to castrate anyone accused of a sexual offense because it would be the most effective way of saving potential victims, y'know, in case he's wrongly acquitted.

sweetjazz

12-13-2005, 04:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You clearly don't know that our justice system is designed on the principle that it is better to set a guilty man free than to imprison an innocent one, hence why the burde of proof is on the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I understand that perfectly. My parents were prosecutors. I don't think you got my meaning.

In the specific case of sex offenders, as we've discussed here at some length, very many of them become repeat offenders when released.

So, I don't really see how your last post is relevant. I'm comparing castrating innocent people vs. saving potential victims(since sex offenders often repeat offend), not simply setting free guilty parties who may never offend again. My argument is specific to sex offenders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but our justice system isn't designed on predicting what will happen in the future.

I can't go and kill George W. Bush and say that I saved more future lives of soldiers in Iraq, so I did okay. Nor can I go kill Jesse Jackson and argue that his message would have created at least two more murderers had he lived.

Your whole calculus deals with generalities and predictions about future behavior, but our justice system is designed to handle specific cases that judge accountability for past behaviors. It's generally not considered fair to give people harsher penalties because you suspect they are more likely to repeat their offense. Justice is not about looking into magic 8-balls, but rather assigning an appropriate penalty for past crimes. What is appropriate in given situations, of course, is a matter of huge debate. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

bills217

12-13-2005, 04:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But by your other argument, it would be better to castrate anyone accused of a sexual offense because it would be the most effective way of saving potential victims, y'know, in case he's wrongly acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're oversimplifying my argument here.

It's not JUST about saving the potential victims, i.e., the only way to abolish car accident deaths is by abolishing cars.

I just think the best way to do things (i.e., highest +EV) is to castrate first-time sex offenders when they are convicted in a court of law. Sure you will castrate a few innocent people. But I think the effect of castrating these few innocent people may be worth saving many many more potential victims.

Please humor this completely unrealistic hypothetical example:

Say my sex offender castration policy is adopted, and after 100 years, we know by looking through a crystal ball that only one castrated offender was innocent, but we saved, say, 100,000 potential victims by preventing repeat offenses. Would you agree that under that scenario it would be a good policy? Do you see my point now?

Castrating innocent people would be awful, sure. But we wouldn't be killing them.

Lifetime imprisonment for a first offender would also be fine w/ me (instead of castration...the point is they would no longer be a threat to society), I just think the castration + long prison term route might be more realistic, although I could be completely wrong. Of course this leads to the argument of which punishment is worse etc.

Obviously I think it's a complete crock that some states are hesitant to adopt a law giving first-time sex offenders a minimum 25-year sentence.

12-13-2005, 04:36 AM

Castration is in no way equivalent to the death penalty. The death penalty is irreversible, while castration requires quarterly injections of Depo-Provera (progesterone). If a sex offender was wrongfully castrated, the procedure would be reversed once the injection wore off.

bills217

12-13-2005, 04:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's generally not considered fair to give people harsher penalties because you suspect they are more likely to repeat their offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is data that supports that released sex offenders are
more likely to repeat offend, and it makes sense, since someone who likes molesting children is obviously a different sort of animal than the rest of us.

It is not a random prediction of future behavior; rather, it is based on past evidence.

Even if I conflict somewhat w/ the basic tenets of our justice system here, maybe all that means is I think we should adopt some different basic tenets! /images/graemlins/smile.gif When someone can get 4 DUI convictions and not serve a single day in jail, maybe we ought to re-evaluate things...

bills217

12-13-2005, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but our justice system isn't designed on predicting what will happen in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is. What purpose does the death penalty have other than to be a deterrent to future criminals? We already do this, and what I am advocating is much less severe.

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 04:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]

It's not JUST about saving the potential victims

[/ QUOTE ]

But that was your main argument for castration of first offenders, so I don't see how it ISN'T about just saving potential victims.

[ QUOTE ]
Please humor this completely unrealistic hypothetical example:

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm certainly going to try to tear it apart.

[ QUOTE ]
Say my sex offender castration policy is adopted, and after 100 years, we know by looking through a crystal ball that only one castrated offender was innocent, but we saved, say, 100,000 potential victims by preventing repeat offenses. Would you agree that under that scenario it would be a good policy? Do you see my point now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it would also be just as effective to execute them, or ship them all to a desert island, cut off their arms and legs, or imprison them for life without parole. The obvious difference is that with life without parole, should exculpatory evidence be found, the punishment can be reversed and the wrongly convicted person can be released from prison. Not so with castration, which is ultimately my primary objection.

[ QUOTE ]

Castrating innocent people would be awful, sure. But we wouldn't be killing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, only implementing a different irreversible punishment. FWIW, I think that many men would much rather be dead than a eunich.

[ QUOTE ]

Lifetime imprisonment for a first offender would also be fine w/ me (instead of castration...the point is they would no longer be a threat to society), I just think the castration + long prison term route might be more realistic, although I could be completely wrong. Of course this leads to the argument of which punishment is worse etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply don't see what would be so unrealistic about lifetime imprisonment, or at the very least supervised custody for a first offender. We already have sex offender registries which are, essentially, lifetime sentences, and I don't see why it would be such a stretch to implement life sentences.

[ QUOTE ]

Obviously I think it's a complete crock that some states are hesitant to adopt a law giving first-time sex offenders a minimum 25-year sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure which laws you're talking about, but you have to realize that there is a wide spectrum of sexual offenses. A 19 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old is far different from a 55 year old forcefully raping an 8 year old.

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 04:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Castration is in no way equivalent to the death penalty. The death penalty is irreversible, while castration requires quarterly injections of Depo-Provera (progesterone). If a sex offender was wrongfully castrated, the procedure would be reversed once the injection wore off.

[/ QUOTE ]

We aren't discussion chemical castration.

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 04:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's generally not considered fair to give people harsher penalties because you suspect they are more likely to repeat their offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is data that supports that released sex offenders are
more likely to repeat offend, and it makes sense, since someone who likes molesting children is obviously a different sort of animal than the rest of us.

It is not a random prediction of future behavior; rather, it is based on past evidence.

Even if I conflict somewhat w/ the basic tenets of our justice system here, maybe all that means is I think we should adopt some different basic tenets! /images/graemlins/smile.gif When someone can get 4 DUI convictions and not serve a single day in jail, maybe we ought to re-evaluate things...

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see what punishments for DUI has to do with anything in this thread.

sweetjazz

12-13-2005, 04:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Please humor this completely unrealistic hypothetical example:

Say my sex offender castration policy is adopted, and after 100 years, we know by looking through a crystal ball that only one castrated offender was innocent, but we saved, say, 100,000 potential victims by preventing repeat offenses. Would you agree that under that scenario it would be a good policy? Do you see my point now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is your point that your argument is based on a wildly hypothetical estimate that is completely unrealistic and completely unverifiable even in principle? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Seriously, how do you avoid me justifying anything I want by your approach? If I can convince someone that I think your descendants are likely to include some sex offenders, then am I justified in killing you? Can I assassinate the president even if I think his policies will be much worse than the vice-presidents would be?

I agree that your intent is good. But you seem to be missing the point that our justice system is not based on doing the most socially +EV thing at all times. It's also about insuring that everybody gets treated fairly.

Ridiculous scenario:

Person X is a sex offender. He agrees not to commit any future sex offense crimes if YOU are killed and he goes unpunished, and let's assume we have some reliable way to know that this is true. We don't have any reliable way of telling whether or not you will commit future crime. Since there is some risk (perhaps very small) that you'll become a sex offender, it is now more +EV for society to kill you instead of punishing Person X.

But so what? Person X should be punished. You are innocent and should not be punished.

bills217

12-13-2005, 04:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't see what punishments for DUI has to do with anything in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing whatsoever, other than pointing out another area where our judicial system currently fails, which might justify a revision of our judicial system.

Oh, wait, I think that might be somewhat relevant.

Anyhow, I digress.

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 04:58 AM

DUI sentences are not a fundemental tenet of our judicial system. Presumption of innocence, however, is.

New001

12-13-2005, 05:00 AM

I understand what you're trying to say here, but I think one of the most important premises of our legal system is that it's not based on pure EV. An innocent man convicted of a crime is worse in my eyes than preventing any reasonable number of future crimes.

bills217

12-13-2005, 05:01 AM

I really don't understand how we got to this point, maybe it's my fault.

Currently, we unjustly convict people all the time. It happens.

All I am proposing is that, the punishment for convicted sex offenders be such that it prevents these people (who have an unusually high tendency to repeat offend) from repeat offending, whether that be by castration or lifetime imprisonment. How is this analagous to murdering innocent people who might be sex offenders? How is it different from what we currently do, other than changing the punishment, arguably making the punishment somewhat worse?

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 05:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How is it different from what we currently do, other than changing the punishment, arguably making the punishment somewhat worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

What we currently do can be reversed. What you're proposing can't. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that.

12-13-2005, 05:07 AM

Surgical castration would be hideous and cruel, but still not equivalent to the death penalty. Cutting off testicles of sex offenders would be more like cutting off the hands of thieves. A wrongfully convicted person would be disabled until medical science advanced significantly, but he would still be able to continue with some quality of life. Of course each of these punishments is unacceptable and unnecessary.

bills217

12-13-2005, 05:09 AM

The SCOTUS has upheld the legality of the death penalty in this country, correct? Well, what purpose does it serve? Especially when you consider that the offender would be no longer be a threat to society anyhow (assuming lifetime imprisonment)? Do we not already kill innocents through the death penalty?

In my estimation, what I propose is far far far less severe than the death penalty, which, as you know, is currently legal and practiced in our country. If what I propose violates our fundamental judicial tenets, then why doesn't the death penalty?

bills217

12-13-2005, 05:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What we currently do can be reversed. What you're proposing can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOTHING we currently do can be reversed.

If someone wrongly convicted serves one hour in prison, but is then exonerated, that punishment cannot be reversed, for they will never get that hour of their life back. I hardly see how you can classify someone exonerated after 20 years in prison as having their punishment "reversed."

And, as I've already stated, the SCOTUS has upheld the death penalty, and it is, quite clearly, not reversible.

sweetjazz

12-13-2005, 05:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand how we got to this point, maybe it's my fault.

Currently, we unjustly convict people all the time. It happens.

All I am proposing is that, the punishment for convicted sex offenders be such that it prevents these people (who have an unusually high tendency to repeat offend) from repeat offending, whether that be by castration or lifetime imprisonment. How is this analagous to murdering innocent people who might be sex offenders? How is it different from what we currently do, other than changing the punishment, arguably making the punishment somewhat worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well initially you gave a quote that compared castration to the death penalty, and that was off the mark. I think we agree on that point.

And I am not on principle against increasing penalties for specific crimes, though I think mandatory castration for all first-time sex offenders is a bit absurd. But that's just my value judgment.

I think the point that we are disagreeing with you is that one can cavalierly accept that an innocent person is going to be given a punishment.

Obviously it does happen a lot in our criminal justice system, and while I would like to see that changed, I admit that it must be admitted that it does happen.

I generally favor punishments that are flexible in how they can be applied, but with the added proviso that there must be a fair way of applying them. (We don't give harsher penalties because the person is Hispanic, or a woman, or roots for the Padres, or something else irrelevant.)

So I generally favor a system in which there are different penalties for (1) someone who is convicted for brutally sexually assaulting someone based on the corrobative evidence of several independent witnesses and for (2) someone who is convicted for sexually assaulting someone in a date rape case based on the evidence of one witness whose psychological health is questionable and whose defense counsel is an inept state-appointed lawyer. Imposing a mandatory sentence makes that hard to accomplish, in practice.

How much the sadistic nature of the crime is relevant, how much the reliability of the conviction is relevant, etc. is a matter for debate, but I think these issues should be on the table to a certain degree. As such, I think that the psychological state of the convicted person can be used to assess his likely threat to the community (closely related to his probability of recidivism (sp?) ). But it's only one factor, and there should be degrees of punishment.

It's also hard to say what should be done regarding the criminal justice system, because in my opinion (without getting too off topic here) there is so much wasted money spent on trying to police the drug trade that there aren't enough resources to effectively deal with other much more serious crimes.

bills217

12-13-2005, 05:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point that we are disagreeing with you is that one can cavalierly accept that an innocent person is going to be given a punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if it cannot be avoided, then why can't I cavalierly accept it? I don't harm anyone in the process, do I?

[ QUOTE ]
And I am not on principle against increasing penalties for specific crimes, though I think mandatory castration for all first-time sex offenders is a bit absurd. But that's just my value judgment.

[/ QUOTE ]

*in a whisper* Don't tell anyone else posting in this thread, but do I really think first-time castration for all convicted sex offenders, regardless of the specifics of the case, is a good idea? I don't know.

But I'm making the argument for it as a way of illustrating my larger point.

When you negotiate something, you always argue for a little more than you actually want, so you'll have a better chance of getting what you actually want.

Although this argument is not as simplistic or trivial as negotiating the price on a car, I hope you get my meaning. If I have influenced anyone that it might be a good idea to toughen penalties for convicted sex offenders, then I have accomplished my objective.

I will say that my value judgment definitely leaves castration open as a possibility depending on the circumstances. I definitely do not see it as cruel or unusual as long as the death penalty is not considered cruel or unusual.

Basically, my argument is: we already do x, which is worse than y, and less beneficial than y, so why not y?

We already have the death penalty for convicted murderers, which is worse than castrating convicted sex offenders, and serves no real purpose other than to act as a deterrent (assuming lifetime imprisonment), while castration of sex offenders would act as a deterrent and also tangibly prevent repeat offenses, so how is castrating sex offenders somehow wrong while the death penalty is ok?

Edited to add: bold content, shortly after initial post.

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 05:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Basically, my argument is: we already do x, which is worse than y, so why not y?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we shouldn't be doing x either?

bills217

12-13-2005, 05:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Because we shouldn't be doing x either?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're changing your argument.

Before you were saying my proposal violated our basic judicial tenets (presumably as determined by the SCOTUS, since they are the authority on the matter), but now you're changing the argument to say it violates what you personally think our judicial tenets should be, which doesn't hold much water.

You just admitted that your initial argument is false, which is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

I can accept that argument from you from a personal standpoint (and I actually agree with you on the death penalty), but then, your only argument is that you have a different value judgment than me, which really doesn't solve anything.

PoBoy321

12-13-2005, 05:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Now you're changing your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious as to how I am. I didn't give any reasoning for why I don't think that we shouldn't use the death penalty, so I'm really curious as to how you can assume what my reasoning is.

The rest of your response is pretty much just patently ridiculous and I'm not even going to go through the effort of responding.

etgryphon

12-13-2005, 10:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that sex offenders who re-offend, i.e. they have been convicted and punished and then convicted again, are extremely unlikely to have been convicted for multiple offenses wrongly and also by their re-offending have shown that they are a danger to society if released again. So I would therefore say that castration is an appropriate punishment when that repeat offend criterion has been met.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the repeat offenders who almost certainly are guilty. If you're saying that repeat offenders should be castrated because they definitely ARE guilty, you are, by corollary, admitting that other convicted sexual offenders might not be guilty. If you admit that people who are convicted in a court of law, supposedly beyond a reasonable doubt, might not be guilty, do you see how that would throw every conviction into jeopardy?

[/ QUOTE ]

This really has to do with the legal definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt". There is a distinction and the reason for the "reasonable" stipulation. One can look at it in terms of thresholds. The closer you are to zero doubt (i.e. DNA evidence and\or repeat offense) the more leeway you can have in irreversible punishments.

Also, lets say that an innocent person gets unjustly punished. Is that all that bad? Are we looking for a perfect system? Its not going to happen. Stuff happens to supposedly innocent people. Some it unjustly convicted orthers its skiing accidents or whatever...

-Gryph

BluffTHIS!

12-13-2005, 04:43 PM

We don't allow convicted felons in most states the "right" to own firearms after they are released, and we shouldn't allow those convicted multiple times of sex offenses the "right" to keep their "gun" loaded and be able to destroy more innoncent young lives. Repeat sex offenders are the same as rabid dogs, and the public has a right to be protected from them after their release from prison.

bills217

12-13-2005, 05:37 PM

If you think we shouldn't use the death penalty, that's fine w/ me, I actually agree with you.

Apparently I misinterpreted your argument. I thought you were arguing that castrating sex offenders would be inconsistent with our current judicial practice. But, since the death penalty is legal, it clearly is not.

So, are you arguing that we shouldn't castrate sex offenders because that punishment is not reversible? I've already addressed that as well...no punishment is reversible, not even a 10-day prison sentence.

So, what exactly is your argument? By all means, please continue...I'm trying to understand your point of view...perhaps I am wrong...if so, please convince me otherwise.