[bills217]

[ 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.