Comment on this statement relating to crime and punishment

[bills217]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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

[bills217]

[ 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.

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]

[ 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! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] When someone can get 4 DUI convictions and not serve a single day in jail, maybe we ought to re-evaluate things...

[bills217]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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