Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
The way I see it, this could potentially be a good idea. If you think about it, if you castrate a rapist, it's impossible for them to **** someone again, even if they want to. As well as not ****** anyone outside of prison, they also wouldn't be able to **** anyone within prison either. Obviously this would be done under anesthetic.
However, there's always the thought, 'Is it morally justifiable?' Obviously involuntarily castrating someone is normally highly immoral, but **** can be considered a worse crime IMO, so I think it should be allowed. What do you think?
I feel that it's wrong to commit ****. But I also feel that it's inhumane to do such a thing. Rapists and pedophiles deserve to just be locked away for what they've done.
Well if you want to go down a Stalinist path in law enforcement methods, that would be great. Even better would be to execute every single individual who commited a crime, that way they'd never come back to commit another crime. Unfortunately that doesn't really fly well with most people.
Thing is, the urge to commit **** isn't necessarily a sexual thing. I mean it obviously it's forced intercourse, but married men and men in relationships will commit **** even though they have a willing sex partner. **** stems from psychological issues, and those are the things that need to be addressed. Obviously it won't work on everyone, but then that's what happens when you take human rights into consideration.
There are certain consequences to acting in a humane fashion with criminals, but that's just the way this society has come to be, and the majority will agree that it's very inhumane to lop off someone's sexual organs against their will.
In some countries, the people believe it's perfectly fair to execute even adulterers and those who have sex outside of marriage. Tell me then, why are they wrong? They believe they're right, and to be perfectly frank, laws and morals are completely arbritrary and completely subjective.
To be honest, I think that as long as a law has a majority backing with the public, it isn't unjustified. If people are happy living under certain laws, there's no reason why they don't have to be that way. Wherever you happen to be a citizen or visitor, it is your responsibility to abide by the laws of that country/state. If you don't like it, then too bad, leave or in the case of being a visitor, don't go there.
So in terms of castrating rapists, if the public is happy with it, why would it be objectionable? Something's only inhumane if you believe it to be so, so if the majority don't see it that way, then by that society's standards, it isn't inhumane.
Just a bit of related knowledge, convicted rapists in Rome had their testicles crushed between two stones.
I can kinda see where you're coming from Teran, but there are a couple of thing I disagree with.
For a start, involuntary castration is nowhere near as bad as killing someone. Personally, I don't think it's as bad as **** either. Sometimes a woman who's been ***** may never trust any men ever again because of it.
Imagine that someone punched you in the stomach. Now imagine that someone hit you in the stomach with a sledgehammer. Which is worse?
In fact, there have been debates on whether or not certain women should be sterilized if they abuse their previous children. This situation is no worse.
Besides, people castrate pets against their will all the time. Surely castrating a person to stop them reoffending isn't any more unjustifiable?
And obviously it wouldn't be done by crushing them with stones.....
Denying people the right to procreate, or just the simple act of removing their sexual desire is a form of killing them. You remove a part of what makes them who they are. Also, if a man can't procreate, he's pretty much been killed in terms of the fact that his genes no longer have any chance of continuing. Are we allowed to deny people this when we're talking on a humane level?
Denying people the right to procreate, or just the simple act of removing their sexual desire is a form of killing them. You remove a part of what makes them who they are. Also, if a man can't procreate, he's pretty much been killed in terms of the fact that his genes no longer have any chance of continuing. Are we allowed to deny people this when we're talking on a humane level?
It doesn't necessarily have to be permanent castration. Chemical castration is usually reversible after the treatment ends. And I realise this may seem like a horrible thing to say, but the population of the world is too high as it is...
BTW, while I was pondering this, it turns out that Poland legalised forced castration of child molestors on 25th September this year. Here's a link:
**** is a terribly heinous crime, especially when the victim is young. However, I don't think that punishment of convicted rapists by means of castration is a wise practice to use. The 8th amendment of the Constitution clearly states 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted'' (source). In my opinion, this, as well as any other form of sexual punishment would fall under 'cruel and unusual'.
As Teran mentioned, castration does more than limit one physically. I don't know if I could ever support the manipulation of a criminal's hormone levels. I feel that such an act could lead to some severe psychological problems for the (likely already unstable) individual in the future which probably wouldn't be much of a benefit to society.
Also, not all **** cases are cut-and-dry. There are so many cases in which it is difficult to tell whether or not the sex was consensual (often due to suspected drug and/or alcohol use at the time of the incident). To me such a form of punishment would not be suitable for this type of scenario.
The forms of punishment we use set an example for us within the rest of the world. I can't help but see this is as somewhat barbaric, as if we would be taking a step back on the timeline leading from barbarism to civilized living. It should be a priority of our nation (or any other imo) to set a good example for others to follow, and in that race I would see this as taking a step backward.
Then wouldn't that contradict the chemical castration as a punishment at all?
Since technically, all the chemical castration is doing is lowering the convicted's libido level to not commit the crime again.
The convicted is simply injected with Depo-Provera, a birth control shot givin to women, but for men, it decreases their sexual thoughts http://www.sacpdx.com/depoprovera.htm . So once the convicted is "treated", they go off Depo-Provera.
But won't they just simply go back to their old ways?
What percentage of ***** are committed because of hormonal disorders? It would have to be high for this punishment to be viable at all. However, I already know the answer to this question; it isn't high. There's a strong correlation between rapists and psychological problems, not hormonal problems. There's repercussions of this as well. Lets say you castrate a rapist with some serious psychological problems. Since **** was his way to satisfy his psychological disorder, what will he turn to now that he can't be sexually satisfied? More than likely, something inhumane. Murder is the first thing that comes to mind, hypothetically.
So, the only reason for doing this would be revenge on the rapist. Which to be honest I don't blame people for wanting revenge. If someone ***** my wife, I am undoubtedly going looking for the guy. However, this doesn't change the fact that this punishment unjust and lacking evidence for it's use.
The way I see it, this could potentially be a good idea. If you think about it, if you castrate a rapist, it's impossible for them to **** someone again, even if they want to. As well as not ****** anyone outside of prison, they also wouldn't be able to **** anyone within prison either. Obviously this would be done under anesthetic.
However, there's always the thought, 'Is it morally justifiable?' Obviously involuntarily castrating someone is normally highly immoral, but **** can be considered a worse crime IMO, so I think it should be allowed. What do you think?
No. The Eighth Amendment prohibits it and for good reason. Ours was actually a much later document than England's laws, and they saw fit to proclaim this back in the 1600's.
Our current law forces "rapists" to register as sex offenders. I put in quotes because, there have been a few cases where High School students have ended up having to register because of statutory **** laws, ruining their lives forever. I find this cruel and unusual also, though it's slipped under the radar until now, arguably because it serves a greater purpose, that is... creating more ways to imprison minorities.
Also the assertion that removing ones genitals will prevent **** is false. Watch Just Casue http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113501/ for a colorful illustration of this.
And in prison, **** is usually accomplished with more than the genitals.
It's cruel and unusual punishment. If you can castrate rapists then we need to set arsonists on fire and force drunk drivers to be on the receiving end of a car collision while we're at it. As good as that sounds, it is fundamentally illegal.
All in all, it would be a waste of money that should be used to keep the psychos and scumbags behind bars forever, anyway.
It's cruel and unusual punishment. If you can castrate rapists then we need to set arsonists on fire and force drunk drivers to be on the receiving end of a car collision while we're at it.
Those punishments, as well as physical castration, would be cruel and unusual. Chemical castration would still be a punishment, although it would be temporary.
As long as the convicted is incarcirated, we the taxpayer are still paying for both their incariration, and their "punishment" with Depo-Provera.
After reading both these statements, I personally think it's easier to simply just let the convicted serve their time. Even though chemical castration is reversible, we still have to pay for their estrogen shot to lower their testosterone. http://www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/15375.htm
Then please explain to me why chemical castration is a cruel and unusual punishment?
In my opinion, physical castration is a far greater punishment. Not only are you causing physical harm to the convicted, you're also ceasing the convicted's reproductive system permanently. And as Teran stated previously...
Denying people the right to procreate, or just the simple act of removing their sexual desire is a form of killing them. You remove a part of what makes them who they are. Also, if a man can't procreate, he's pretty much been killed in terms of the fact that his genes no longer have any chance of continuing. Are we allowed to deny people this when we're talking on a humane level?
As Teran mentioned, this would work excellently in a Stalinist government. But we don't abide by the laws of one. The 8th Amendment clearly rules that "....cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted". Castrating someone for a crime, even a rapist, would definitely fall under that category.
The best thing we can do is hope that they learn their lesson through inprisonment, and if not, simply jail them again. Granted, castrating them would be a much more economically-friendly path to take, but it is prevented by the laws set down by the founders of this country.
Physical castration is indeed cruel and unusual. Chemical though, well sadly it's already in practice.
At least nine states in the United States (California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin) have experimented with chemical castration. California was the first state to use chemical castration as a punishment for sex offenders. In cases in which the victim is under 13 years of age, California judges may require first-time offenders to undergo chemical castration. After a second offense, treatment is mandatory. In Iowa and Florida, offenders may be sentenced to chemical castration in all cases involving serious sex offenses. As in California, treatment is mandatory after a second offense. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed Senate Bill 144 June 25, 2008, allowing Louisiana judges to sentence convicted rapists to chemical castration. -source
Apparently the debate that the ACLU made against this was overturned in those states. Also the drug has been around since the 60's in its earliest forms, and so has passed the Nuremberg Code's requirements for human experimentation.
On the other hand, there is an issue involving the 14th amendment and due process, as "the procedure fails to guarantee due process of law - although the laws mandating the treatment do so without respect to gender, the actual effect of the procedure falls disproportionately upon males." I don't necessarily buy this last bit however, due to the fact that sex offenders are predominantly male.
I however still find Chemical Castration unsafe, as it denies the human right to procreation, which the ACLU also pointed out, but again has been overturned in those select states.
The slippery slope is too slippery to chance. Take what I said about stat **** cases. I technically commited stat ****, when I was 21 dating a 17 yo. Had I been arrested, tried and convicted, I would 1.) have to register as a sex offender even though both my gf AND her mom had NO PROBLEM at all w/us having sex, thus ruining my life. 2.) -could- have been ordered to be chemically castrated as a condition of my parole, which could lead to medical problems (it don't always go back to normal, folks) etc. etc.
No, castration of any kind is cruel, it's unusual, and it cannot be used as a deterrent, or punishment.
This is a terrible idea. No chemical or drug should be forcefully induced to change the way any person behaves. If you drug rapists with estrogen, you might as well give Ritalin to all workers so they will work better.
Changing a person like that definitely falls under cruel and unusual punishment.
Incorrect. The urge to commit **** is not at all nullified. Again, see Just Cause for a colorful illustration of this.
Basically the man ***** a child -because- he was castrated, and by the police no less.
**** is violent crime. It rarely has any real basis in sexual desire. Chemical castration simply changes the hormonal content of a human being. A man who undergoes this, begins to physically transform into a more feminine version. Breasts start to form, voice starts to change, etc. etc. As a side effect of THAT, their sexual performance abilities wan, to the point they cannot get an erection, or ejaculate.
You honestly think changing a dude into a chick is NOT unusual? Or Cruel? You think taking away someone's ability to have kids isn't unusual? Or Cruel?
For those who doubt these words please read the 8th amendment carefully ... the whole point of the amendment, is that you do NOT punish a criminal in ways that otherwise 'seem' to fit the crime. Yes, **** is horrible, child **** even worse, arguably, but that doesn't mean the perp should be ***** repeatedly from that time on, or be changed into the opposite sex in some attempt to reduce their urges, etc. Incarceration, that's it. All that remains to be decided in most cases is how long of an incarceration, and the sex offender registry for parole purposes.
Oh, and here's an interesting tid bit.
A classmate of my wife's shot and killed another fellow classmate. He was tried as an adult (was close enough to 18 when it happened) and sentenced to life in prison. The judge ruled that a picture of the victim was to be placed in the convicted felon's prison cell for the rest of his days.
Cruel? Unusually? Yep, but the appeal to that never happened, because you cannot appeal -part- of a sentence, and to appeal the life sentence decision would mean appealing the verdict of guilty of murder, which he failed to succeed in doing.
Sucks to be him, this sort of thing is exactly why Judges sometimes have too much power. Just imagine this on a larger scale now, judges issuing forced drug treatments to convicts for all manner of things. Thievery, force them to take anti-depressants because it was assumed they committed the crime due to depression caused by being poor. LOL obviously this is hyperbole and highly unlikely, but that is the whole point behind the 8th amendment, to stop things like that from even happening.
If you are willing to ruin a mans chance of procreating on the assumption that EVERY convicted **** charge is just.. then it is still cruel and unusual
but you have to take into account that someone convicted could possibly be NOT guilty. Doing that to someone not guilty is rediculous. It's also sexist or ignorant to assume that there has never been a case of a female rapist before.
I was ***** before when I was younger, and I'd never ask that something like this be done to them. Having an 'eye-for-an-eye' style punishment system is not what america or the constitution is about. More importantly, as a free person with an opinion -- it is not what i am about.
This reduces our judicial branch to a mafia-style revenge market.
I believe that criminals should be chemically castrated for proven **** at first, and physically castrated if they ever do it again. I mean, if they do it more than once, then there's a chance they would do it again. Many things in the world are formed by habit, and if they've done it two times, that we know of for that matter, there's no telling if they've done it even more times than that. There has to be a line drawn, because **** is a horrid crime, and could emotionally scar someone for the rest of their life.
I ask you, is **** humane? Especially when the victim is young, I think we can all agree that it's not. An inhumane crime should have an equal punishment. I mean, that's what payign your debt to society means and all. It may not be about an 'eye-for-an-eye' but that doesn't change the fact that someone has to pay for their crime, and the pain they've caused. Which is why I believe they shoudl eb chemically castrated first, to give them a chance to learn from their mistake, give them a second chance, because everyone deserves one. But messing up again in such a manner, after having the knowledge not to do so, and knowing the consequences(if physical castration was the consequence) then and only then do I believe that they should receive physical castration.
But I ask you, if someone were to **** you, wouldn't you want others to not have to go through the same pain you did?
I believe that criminals should be chemically castrated for proven **** at first, and physically castrated if they ever do it again. I mean, if they do it more than once, then there's a chance they would do it again. Many things in the world are formed by habit, and if they've done it two times, that we know of for that matter, there's no telling if they've done it even more times than that. There has to be a line drawn, because **** is a horrid crime, and could emotionally scar someone for the rest of their life.
This is still not justification to overturn the 8th amendment. "horrid" is subjective, and irrelevant. "maybe" is not "absolutely" and so cannot be used as an argument for law.
I ask you, is **** humane? Especially when the victim is young, I think we can all agree that it's not. An inhumane crime should have an equal punishment. I mean, that's what payign your debt to society means and all. It may not be about an 'eye-for-an-eye' but that doesn't change the fact that someone has to pay for their crime, and the pain they've caused. Which is why I believe they shoudl eb chemically castrated first, to give them a chance to learn from their mistake, give them a second chance, because everyone deserves one. But messing up again in such a manner, after having the knowledge not to do so, and knowing the consequences(if physical castration was the consequence) then and only then do I believe that they should receive physical castration.
But I ask you, if someone were to **** you, wouldn't you want others to not have to go through the same pain you did?
Again, the 8th amendment strictly prohibits the passing of sentences that in a person's (Judge's) mind seem to fit the crime. You're applying emotional basis for litigation, and this can not and should not be the case. The Penal System may not seem like enough for you, personally, but it at least abides by the Law of the Land (The Constitution), and so it is enough for us as a society. You actually may be correct in that Castration as a punishment may in fact deter more rapists from ******, however, someone who is technically not guilty of ****, who ends up being found guilty, would have to undergo this treatment by your logic. Yes you said "proven" ****, but once again, that is a subjective analysis, and there is no way to guarantee that someone who didn't **** wouldn't actually be found guilty, despite thier innocence.
This is still not justification to overturn the 8th amendment. "horrid" is subjective, and irrelevant. "maybe" is not "absolutely" and so cannot be used as an argument for law.
How about the words heinous, disgusting, putrid, vile, or anythign that could possibly be used to describe ****. It's not irrelevent because it's an adjective for the crime itself.
Again, the 8th amendment strictly prohibits the passing of sentences that in a person's (Judge's) mind seem to fit the crime. You're applying emotional basis for litigation, and this can not and should not be the case. The Penal System may not seem like enough for you, personally, but it at least abides by the Law of the Land (The Constitution), and so it is enough for us as a society. You actually may be correct in that Castration as a punishment may in fact deter more rapists from ******, however, someone who is technically not guilty of ****, who ends up being found guilty, would have to undergo this treatment by your logic. Yes you said "proven" ****, but once again, that is a subjective analysis, and there is no way to guarantee that someone who didn't **** wouldn't actually be found guilty, despite thier innocence.
But isn't it true that juries are supposed to come to a verdict from what is in their mind from the evidence stated. These things bring forth emotional basis, and people's own justifications of morality. It's human nature to aply emotion to these sorts of decisions. Even including the Judge's sentence for instance. To what extent is killing a man humane, but castration inhumane? They try to justifiy their means by saying the electric chair, or however they kill a person is the most humane way possible. The people who sign death sentences are just hiding behind the wall of capital judgement and "laws" set by MEN themselves. It's not the law of the land, otherwise there would be no misunderstanding or this matter.
The point that I'm trying to make is that there are more inhumane sentences than castration, it should be given more thought and consideration.
Also, on the proven **** point I was trying to make. IF an innocent person is found guilty for the first time at least it is not a perminant loss, I still support that fact.
How about the words heinous, disgusting, putrid, vile, or anythign that could possibly be used to describe ****. It's not irrelevent because it's an adjective for the crime itself.
Murder is horrid. **** is horrid, theft can be horrid. My point is this is obvious and therefore goes w/o saying. And it is therefore irrelevant. The 8th amendment protects us from the very thing you are seeking. Just because it's a horrible crime, does not mean it deserves a cruel or unusual punishment. You will need to prove to me that Castration is not Cruel or Unusual, for me to buy that it'd be an appropriate punishment. And that won't happen, because if you read above, you'd see exactly why it IS cruel and unusual. Seriously, changing a man into a women, that doesn't even work! They could still ****, as I outlined, maybe not with their genitals, but with a pitchfork, maybe. It is a -violent- crime, and changing the hormonal content of a person will not abate that, nor will removing their genitals, especially if it is deep seeded enough. And who knows, maybe it could make it worse!
But isn't it true that juries are supposed to come to a verdict from what is in their mind from the evidence stated. These things bring forth emotional basis, and people's own justifications of morality. It's human nature to aply emotion to these sorts of decisions. Even including the Judge's sentence for instance. To what extent is killing a man humane, but castration inhumane? They try to justifiy their means by saying the electric chair, or however they kill a person is the most humane way possible. The people who sign death sentences are just hiding behind the wall of capital judgement and "laws" set by MEN themselves. It's not the law of the land, otherwise there would be no misunderstanding or this matter.
I felt this coming. The Death Penalty cannot be used as a justification for Castration to be considered not cruel or unusual. Why? Cause The Death Penalty is also cruel and unusual in my humble opinion as is in the opinions in any state where that sentence has been removed. Also my point about jurors is more theoretical. The best of juries can be convinced a person's guilty when in fact they're not.
The point that I'm trying to make is that there are more inhumane sentences than castration, it should be given more thought and consideration.
Oh it has, as I stated in a previous post, it's USED in some states as a punishment, deterrent and requirement for parole. I believe it's a mistake on those states' parts, and I won't ever consider it a just or correct punishment however.
Also, on the proven **** point I was trying to make. IF an innocent person is found guilty for the first time at least it is not a perminant loss, I still support that fact.
-Usually-. Key word, there. It can have negative side effects, it can also become permanent, in that the reproductive organs can fail to allow the subject to procreate. And if one innocent is found guilty, the whole system doesn't work, at least with a prison sentence, they get paid restitution when finally released. To impose a physical abnormality on someone is not just, it's not right. I don't care if they ***** 100 babies while their mothers were tied up and forced to watch. You don't cut someone's hand off for stealing, you don't blind them for peeping, you don't castrate them for ******.
Incarceration is the only civilized, and viable punishment for a violent crime. The only ? that remains is how long.
I believe that criminals should be chemically castrated for proven **** at first, and physically castrated if they ever do it again. I mean, if they do it more than once, then there's a chance they would do it again. Many things in the world are formed by habit, and if they've done it two times, that we know of for that matter, there's no telling if they've done it even more times than that. There has to be a line drawn, because **** is a horrid crime, and could emotionally scar someone for the rest of their life.
I think chemical castration is against our constitution in the united states, and infringing on that would further the idea that the constitution is just a piece of paper.
The new statute raises several constitutional issues, including possible violations of the right to refuse non-consensual medical treatment, the right to privacy, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, due process and equal protection, and double jeopardy
The point of having constitutional rights, is to not become enslaved by a facist government. It is to keep us free. It is to protect us.
To go against that and possibly do something like this to someone who may be innocent is ludicrous. Raise the sentances, do what you must, but do not ruin someone's life like that.
I ask you, is **** humane? Especially when the victim is young, I think we can all agree that it's not. An inhumane crime should have an equal punishment. I mean, that's what payign your debt to society means and all. It may not be about an 'eye-for-an-eye' but that doesn't change the fact that someone has to pay for their crime, and the pain they've caused. Which is why I believe they shoudl eb chemically castrated first, to give them a chance to learn from their mistake, give them a second chance, because everyone deserves one. But messing up again in such a manner, after having the knowledge not to do so, and knowing the consequences(if physical castration was the consequence) then and only then do I believe that they should receive physical castration.
An inhumane punishment should have an equal punishment, but not one that is equally inhumane. It is at that point, that we cross the line ourselves, and decent into a hoard of barbarians.
I was someone who was *****. I do not advocate ****, and would like to see no one experience what I have. Likewise, why would I want someone else to go through something horrible like castration?
Joseph Frank Smith, a convicted child molester, became an advocate for chemical castration after undergoing the therapy in the 1980s. Smith stopped using the injections in 1989. In 1999, he was convicted for molesting a five-year old girl and immediately returned to prison
Murder is horrid. **** is horrid, theft can be horrid. My point is this is obvious and therefore goes w/o saying. And it is therefore irrelevant. The 8th amendment protects us from the very thing you are seeking. Just because it's a horrible crime, does not mean it deserves a cruel or unusual punishment. You will need to prove to me that Castration is not Cruel or Unusual, for me to buy that it'd be an appropriate punishment. And that won't happen, because if you read above, you'd see exactly why it IS cruel and unusual. Seriously, changing a man into a women, that doesn't even work! They could still ****, as I outlined, maybe not with their genitals, but with a pitchfork, maybe. It is a -violent- crime, and changing the hormonal content of a person will not abate that, nor will removing their genitals, especially if it is deep seeded enough. And who knows, maybe it could make it worse!
I never said that it wasn't, but IMO, if I were to put myself into a rapist's shoes, I wouldn't want to be castraed, but considering it's me, and I have my beliefs I would understand it. I thought of things in a more olden way. "If a man steals, let his hands be cut off" in a sort of way, in order to prevent it. Although, I'm certain, that within my willpower, I would never **** a person, so I wouldn't understand how bd it would be to be castrated, it never crossed my mind. While I'm convinced that castration shouldn't be done, I still believe that jail time isn't proper punishment. As in, there should be someting to ensure that the true rapists never strike again.
I never said that it wasn't, but IMO, if I were to put myself into a rapist's shoes, I wouldn't want to be castraed, but considering it's me, and I have my beliefs I would understand it. I thought of things in a more olden way. "If a man steals, let his hands be cut off" in a sort of way, in order to prevent it. Although, I'm certain, that within my willpower, I would never **** a person, so I wouldn't understand how bd it would be to be castrated, it never crossed my mind. While I'm convinced that castration shouldn't be done, I still believe that jail time isn't proper punishment. As in, there should be someting to ensure that the true rapists never strike again.
Yes. Now you see, this is where lawmakers have a hard time, because incarceration is the only real alternative, so again the question becomes 'how long' of an incarceration. I believe repeat offenders should get life sentences. The justification to this goes well along the lines of your original line of thinking.. a **** victim is traumatized, some for life. We can't trade eye-for-an-eye, but we can darn sure lock 'em up and throw away the key. AND this would serve as a better deterrent AND would remove from my mind, the unease in the Sex Offender Registry, which I would also deem cruel and unusual (remember The Scarlett Letter)... having paid your debt to society, you still have to register, and be branded a deviant. Might as well just stay in prison! 1st offenders too could get life, depending on the severity of the **** (if the victim is crippled), the age of the victim, etc. ****** a child for instance can be more traumatic in many cases because they have not developed proper coping skills and lack fundamental knowledge of foresight and hindsight.
I never said that it wasn't, but IMO, if I were to put myself into a rapist's shoes, I wouldn't want to be castraed, but considering it's me, and I have my beliefs I would understand it. I thought of things in a more olden way. "If a man steals, let his hands be cut off" in a sort of way, in order to prevent it. Although, I'm certain, that within my willpower, I would never **** a person, so I wouldn't understand how bd it would be to be castrated, it never crossed my mind. While I'm convinced that castration shouldn't be done, I still believe that jail time isn't proper punishment. As in, there should be someting to ensure that the true rapists never strike again.
Firstly, what is this from? It looks way cute. Too cute for me not to ask
back on topic:
The reason that cutting off hands of theives and castrating rapists is unacceptable is the unfairness to the realistic consiquence of an incorrect verdict of the court they were offered.
Forced Castration as breakingthe constitutions right to not undergo cruel and unusual punishment.
The reason the verdict of a court case is not expanded by the creativity of the judge, and is usually either death or jail, is because of this. We cannot submit someone to cruel and unusual punishment -- which I feel this is -- is because the people who worked the constitution out, and designed our rights understood the possability of unfairness, or incorrectness. Cutting off someones hand for stealing is making us just as awful as them in ways.
Forced Castration as breakingthe constitutions right to not undergo forced medical practice
Stuff like chemical castation would require a forced medication of the patient in question. This is both unacceptable and unconstitutional. The medical benefits from this are absent, and infact, even harmful. The chemical castration has a roster of unignorable side effects also.
