Comment on this statement relating to crime and punishment

[bills217]

[ 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]

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]

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]

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.

[BluffTHIS!]

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]

Very much appreciated. You're forgiven.

[sweetjazz]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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.