Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cody Dawg · Feb 24, 2005, 09:31 AM

Here's a great argument for it at this link.

I've been trying to lay off of my death penalty arguments, but that's what I immediately thought of when I read the story. At the very minimum forced sterilization is in order, I believe.

JohnSmithXTREME · Feb 24, 2005, 09:38 AM

Eh, I think there's something about "cruel and unusual punishment" by the government being forbidden. Just put him in a jail like everyone else, and let the inmates give him the cruel punishment he has coming.

Mastrap · Feb 24, 2005, 09:45 AM

We had this argument before: You're confusing 'justice' with 'retribution'.

ghporter · Feb 24, 2005, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Eh, I think there's something about "cruel and unusual punishment" by the government being forbidden. Just put him in a jail like everyone else, and let the inmates give him the cruel punishment he has coming.

I have to agree with John. The individual (I can't call him/her/it a "person," let alone a human being) should suffer the sanctions the state has to offer.

Being from Texas, I can tell you that those sanctions will include a long-but unfortunately not indefinite-stay at one of our luxurious penal institutions. And since we the public are queasy about assessing the ultimate punishment except in exceptionally dire circumstances involving the death of the victim, that is all the state can do.

But the state can't monitor the behavior of each and every inmate at all times. Let's just think back to how Jeffrey Dahmer met his end-in prison, at the hands of a fellow inmate in for murder. Done thinking? On the same wavelength as I am? Thought so.

effgee · Feb 24, 2005, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
... At the very minimum forced sterilization is in order, I believe. ...

Perfect argument, indeed - "in dubio pro castratio".

And without being sarcastic - every now and then, you might want to put a little "cooling-off" period between you reading the news and talking/writing about them. The concept of "forced sterilization", especially when used while one is angry, sounds a bit, uhm ... "crazed".

Cody Dawg · Feb 24, 2005, 10:19 AM

You've hit the nail on the head: Pharmaceutical sterilization.

Seriously, I think that all sex offenders should be considered candidates.

On the same wavelength as I am?

Yessiree, I certainly am.

tooki · Feb 24, 2005, 11:04 AM

The problem is that in many sex offense cases, the "evidence" amounts to nothing more than hearsay, and (esp. in the 80s) tons of innocent men were jailed for stuff they didn't do, based only on the testimony of lying women. (There are all sorts of things wrong with that, but I'll leave those for now.)

In any case, it's not just to do permanent bodily harm to someone whose guilt you haven't actually proven. The risk of harming the innocent outweighs the risk of letting a guilty one go free.

So, while I support bodily harm (including death) in principle, in practice, the risk of harming an innocent person is too great.

tooki

DeathToWindows · Feb 24, 2005, 11:22 AM

I figure, just send the sick bastard to prison and let Bubba make him his bitch.

JohnSmithXTREME · Feb 24, 2005, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
I figure, just send the sick bastard to prison and let Bubba make him his bitch.

Bill Clinton is in prison?

Mastrap · Feb 24, 2005, 11:26 AM

Interesting, isn't it? No guilt has been proven, no facts established, yet the dogs are already baying for blood.

moodymonster · Feb 24, 2005, 11:40 AM

could of put a bit of a warning on that link - that's horrific

TheBadgerHunter · Feb 24, 2005, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
You've hit the nail on the head: Pharmaceutical sterilization.

Seriously, I think that all sex offenders should be considered candidates.

Yessiree, I certainly am.

Why though? Being unable to have children doesn't inhibit them. How many have children first anyway? Might as well just cut off his left arm for all it does.

You seem like the kind of person you'd find in an angry mob.

fireside · Feb 24, 2005, 12:11 PM

forced sterilization? what good will making people not able to have children do? i fail to see how this is punishment. or are you implying that because a father is a pedophile his children will be?

Cody Dawg · Feb 24, 2005, 01:06 PM

I'm saying that IF this person is guilty...IF...then he or she should have their sexual drive inhibited.

I thought they did that in some places already?

This kind of stuff makes me SO upset.

It is really one of the worst evils in the world, period.

It's disgusting. I probably shouldn't read the news anymore and then I wouldn't get upset and then I wouldn't post here because I feel the need to vent...and then people wouldn't have to tell me that these people deserve a chance to be rehabilitated and put back into society.

Still, I like the idea of sending these people to prison and making sure that everyone knows who they are and what they did and maybe the guards can be sure to be occupied and not watching them very closely.

That's one thing I respect about prisoners: Even people in prison have values and an idea of what is acceptable and not acceptable and they have a code. I always respected them for that, to be honest.

OldManMac · Feb 24, 2005, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Mastrap:
We had this argument before: You're confusing 'justice' with 'retribution'.

Some people never seem to get that point, because they're really not interested in justice. If it were up to them, they would commit heinous crimes in the name of justice, all the while not understanding that they sink to the level of those they condemn.

paully dub · Feb 24, 2005, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I'm saying that IF this person is guilty...IF...then he or she should have their sexual drive inhibited.

That would only protect against repeat offenders. It wouldn't have prevented this case unless it's proven that the perpetrator was already convicted of a similar crime.

Being angry at those who commit these crimes, and punishing them is not going to deter others. It's a serious compulsion that is often the result of severe trauma during childhood, for example.

It's certaainly the cheaper, simpler politically viable "solution" but I don't see how it solves anything. And locking up prisoners isn't stopping crime is it? Is the death penalty stopping people from committing murder?

This is looking at the problem the wrong way, in my mind. We're investing in our prison system and cutting our social services budgets. Cause and effect?

TheBadgerHunter · Feb 24, 2005, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I'm saying that IF this person is guilty...IF...then he or she should have their sexual drive inhibited.

That's one thing I respect about prisoners: Even people in prison have values and an idea of what is acceptable and not acceptable and they have a code. I always respected them for that, to be honest.

What paully dub said.

No, if they had values they wouldn't be in prison now would they? Condoning beating the crap out of a sex offender is no better than condoning beating the crap out of some kid.

effgee · Feb 24, 2005, 02:12 PM

Of course it is looking at the problem the wrong way - but is this really what politicians are trying to do? Solve problems?

Or is the laughable attempt at finding a simple, five-word-maximum answer to the most complex problems out there?

How am I, as a politician, going to get re-elected in 3, maybe 4 years if all I do is kick off a program that will solve problem A within a ten-year time span instead of continuously battling the symptoms? I've got do something now - make sure that I will be re-elected. Always keeping in mind the fact that a large percentage of my electorate is no longer capable (I'm purposely not saying "able" here) of listening to any explanation that consists of more than two consecutive sentences.

Crime? Put 'em bastards in prison until they rot. Drugs? Declare war on them. More crime? Build more prisons. Too many prisoners? Ah, what the hell - privatize all prisons to keep the cost down.

Etc., etc. - fixing a leaking dam with band-aids. It'll hold - one way or another.

turtle777 · Feb 24, 2005, 02:36 PM

-t

ghporter · Feb 24, 2005, 02:43 PM

Sexual assault is not about sex. It is about power. The smaller the perpetrator's ego, the smaller the victim. In almost every case (especially those in Texas) assaults on infants have been committed by either the infant's father or the mother's boyfriend. The perpetrator is almost always emotionally immature and cannot deal with the emotional and mechanical realities of living around an infant, let alone raising one well. In this case I believe that the assailant will turn out to be a live in boyfriend who was having emotional problems with the child's mother, and used the child as a way to get back at her.

Sex drive has nothing to do with the use of sexual organs as weapons. It is all about one person imposing his will on another person, and using the victim's sexuality against her. This is true in assaults, abuse/incest, and any other such incident.

I got out of the victim's advocacy gig a long time ago because of two parallel issues. First, I could not get across to enough people (like victim's families, some cops, etc.) the fact that sex has almost nothing to do with sexual assault, and second, that I could simplify things so much for a victim by just finding the perp and offing him.