Comment on this statement relating to crime and punishment

[bills217]

I recently was having a discussion w/ someone regarding crime and punishment (sparked by the whole Tookie thing), when the other party made this statement after I stated that I believed sex offenders should be castrated (both as a deterrent and a preventative measure against future crime):

"I think castration is equivalent to the death penalty."

Regardless of whether or not you agree with my opinion, please comment on that statement.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[sweetjazz]

[ 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!!!

[bills217]

[ 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.

[PoBoy321]

I assume that he meant it's problematic because, like the death penalty, should it be applied to an innocent man, it's irreversible.

[BluffTHIS!]

You have a good point about this, but it only means that such punishment should be done on multiple crime perpetrators and with DNA evidence, so that for a one time alleged offense based on the word of one person without forensic evidence, that there could be no miscarriage of justice.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
You have a good point about this, but it only means that such punishment should be done on multiple crime perpetrators and with DNA evidence, so that for a one time alleged offense based on the word of one person without forensic evidence, that there could be no miscarriage of justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that, in a strictly legal sense, some people can be more guilty than others? I'm curious how this could be implemented without a complete breakdown of basic tenets of our legal system.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[PoBoy321]

[ 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?

[sweetjazz]

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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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.