Comment on this statement relating to crime and punishment

PoBoy321 · #1 12-13-2005, 02:51 AM

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! · #2 12-13-2005, 02:55 AM

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 · #3 12-13-2005, 03:01 AM

[ 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! · #4 12-13-2005, 03:24 AM

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 · #5 12-13-2005, 03:46 AM

[ 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?

BluffTHIS! · #6 12-13-2005, 03:52 AM

I am saying that since castration, like death, is irrevocable, then it should not be imposed for one time or first offenses, since obviously there is always a small probablility of being convicted falsely. 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.

bills217 · #7 12-13-2005, 03:55 AM

[ 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 · #8 12-13-2005, 04:00 AM

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?

etgryphon · #9 12-13-2005, 10:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

This really has to do with the legal definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt". There is a distinction and the reason for the "reasonable" stipulation. One can look at it in terms of thresholds. The closer you are to zero doubt (i.e. DNA evidence and\or repeat offense) the more leeway you can have in irreversible punishments.

Also, lets say that an innocent person gets unjustly punished. Is that all that bad? Are we looking for a perfect system? Its not going to happen. Stuff happens to supposedly innocent people. Some it unjustly convicted orthers its skiing accidents or whatever...

-Gryph