[PoBoy321]

[ 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.