Comment on this statement relating to crime and punishment

[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.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

Basically, my argument is: we already do x, which is worse than y, so why not y?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we shouldn't be doing x either?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Because we shouldn't be doing x either?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're changing your argument.

Before you were saying my proposal violated our basic judicial tenets (presumably as determined by the SCOTUS, since they are the authority on the matter), but now you're changing the argument to say it violates what you personally think our judicial tenets should be, which doesn't hold much water.

You just admitted that your initial argument is false, which is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

I can accept that argument from you from a personal standpoint (and I actually agree with you on the death penalty), but then, your only argument is that you have a different value judgment than me, which really doesn't solve anything.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

Now you're changing your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious as to how I am. I didn't give any reasoning for why I don't think that we shouldn't use the death penalty, so I'm really curious as to how you can assume what my reasoning is.

The rest of your response is pretty much just patently ridiculous and I'm not even going to go through the effort of responding.

[etgryphon]

[ 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

[BluffTHIS!]

We don't allow convicted felons in most states the "right" to own firearms after they are released, and we shouldn't allow those convicted multiple times of sex offenses the "right" to keep their "gun" loaded and be able to destroy more innoncent young lives. Repeat sex offenders are the same as rabid dogs, and the public has a right to be protected from them after their release from prison.

[bills217]

If you think we shouldn't use the death penalty, that's fine w/ me, I actually agree with you.

Apparently I misinterpreted your argument. I thought you were arguing that castrating sex offenders would be inconsistent with our current judicial practice. But, since the death penalty is legal, it clearly is not.

So, are you arguing that we shouldn't castrate sex offenders because that punishment is not reversible? I've already addressed that as well...no punishment is reversible, not even a 10-day prison sentence.

So, what exactly is your argument? By all means, please continue...I'm trying to understand your point of view...perhaps I am wrong...if so, please convince me otherwise.