Should child rapists be "sexually neutralized"?

So many of you seem concerned with attacking the effects of crime and not the causes. It's like the quack doctor who prescribes some medication to fix the symptoms of his/her patients while not helping them to the knowledge of the methods of the prevention of sickness. The disease will return and so the patients will flock back to the quack doctor for more medication. The quack profits by it and the clientele will grow in numbers. Prisons and rehabilitation systems attack the symptoms of a diseased society, but they do little or worse -- nothing -- to change the root causes of these problems.

I think that the advocation of violence leads to its acceptance by society, sanctioned or not. An understanding of the proper way to die is a good thing but I do not think that a knowledge of the best ways to kill people will lead one to this knowledge. Knowledge of the proper way to live will reveal knowledge of the proper way to die. Besides, the Coliseums of the old Empire were meant to serve as a distraction to the populace in much the same way that television functions today; the Emperors knew they were giving the people something to think and talk about which would offer them some escape from their banal, unobserved existences. The Roman people saw the Empire abiding by the sword and so the sword became the way of life, either in service to the Emperor or service to the self in a life of crime. Violence has its place but I do not think that violence done in the service of the State, vengeance, or any other arbitrary human value is the correct usage.

A greater understanding of human nature is what is needed to overcome the problems of our system of justice. We need to take a very close look at the systems that work in other parts of the world and we need to figure out why it is that these systems work. Then we will have to incorporate these reasons into our own system. Essentially, American culture has inherited Hammurabi's body of laws and although the words have changed the basic meaning is still the same: an eye for an eye. I believe it was Ghandi who said something to the effect that if everyone took an eye for an eye the world would be filled with blind people. And filled with blindness it is, in my opinion.

People don't see so much of the hypocrisy inherent in our system of justice. Most would draw their lines separating black areas from white, figuratively speaking, when in reality there is so much gray area. Everyone's concept of justice differs from each other person's. This ties into the epistemological theory of a "higher" or objective justice but which among us can validly make the claim of a perfect understanding of this sense of justice?? There are things that are good for society and there are things that are bad. I think that positively reinforcing the negative aspects of our society is not a good thing; confinement and death accepted by society at large leads to society's greater use of confinement and death. I feel that we should provide positive reinforcement for the POSITIVE aspects of our society. We must set aside the wicked and offer greater encouragement to those people that are pursuing the good; the wicked will become good in order to partake of these incentives. I think that the way things are now, in America, there is more incentive to be bad and that is why we see corruption on so many levels. This trend must be reversed.

 

It's human nature to be violent. Hurrah, problem solved! No, I didn't read the rest of your post

I'm not sure whether he meant it or not, but there's a great quote from Heinlein's book Starship Troopers on violence - naked force has resolved more issues than anything else in history (that's the gist of it anyway).

Hell, they still chop the hands of thieves in Saudi Arabia, have blood debts and everything. I believe it was also legal at some time (and may still be) to shoot trespassers. I'm not saying we should be like Saudi, but they've got the right idea on some things.

Queensland (part of Australia) has also passed a law recently allowing the state to indefinitely detain prisoners who have been convicted of sexual crimes and who are still considered to be a threat to society. Some people don't like it, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I personally think rape is generally worse than murder, but there are differing degrees of it, and even though mandatory sentencing sounds appealing, it isn't always the right solution. Someone is always going to slip through the cracks, and I don't like the idea of someone being convicted of a crime they didn't commit, especially if that person is me. That said, I fully support harsh punishments in the right cases.

 

Heinlein also wrote stranger in a strange land, a book where the over all tone, message and philosophy promoted a completely benevolent and communist view of society. Either he was an idiot, a political schizoid, or Starship Troopers was just a great millitary/action/adventure book that failed to get its satire across in an easily interpreted way.

As for rape being worse than murder... The victim of a rape will get over it, but if you're dead, you're dead. I know that sounds pretty fucked up, but yeah, imo murder is worse. You can have an abortion to revert the effects of rape, what do you do if you're dead?

When it comes to indefinite imprisonment I'd be tempted to agree with you, but then again, I think being able to have someone on probation indefinitly would be a little more humane. May be put a camera in his car? In his house?

 

This isn't really an answer to the question but it certainly is the same sort of thing. The other day i read in a newspaper that a man convicted of pouring acid in his fiancee's face, blinding her, in some Arab country somewhere has been sentenced to a prison term. Not only that however, the judge has also ordered that the man have acid poured in his face in the local sports gym in front of members of the public.
Now I'm not saying violence is the answer but i think in certain cases this would be a very effective deterrant. Would you rape a child if you knew you would be castrated if caught or beat someone up if you knew it would happen to you. I just don't think prison works as a deterrant. Criminals nowadays don't seem to care if they go to prison

 

Yes! Let's bring back the idea of violence the Romans had. Our movies would become so much more realistic, because whenever they need to kill someone, they would ACTUALLY do it.
Justice system would practically not exist. If you were accused, you were assumed guilty until a judge either realized the accusation was silly or decided how you would die.
Isn't that the nice, modern system we need?
Maybe we should introduce an actual "Unreal Tournament" so that criminals can gain notoriety by killing each other.

 

To those of you who support the death sentence, I think it's really fucked up. Especially to you Rp, man what the fuck? It's like in to kill a mockingbird, the black guy gets killed because he's black. What I mean is how do we know they're guilty. You're all talking about punishment by the government. Well, I say:

Government sucks. Anarchy is the only way!

 

I'm all for the unreal tournament idea, i rock at that game...

We'd still come back to life and respawn right?

As for the anarchy thing... there are so many things wrong with that philosophy, but there are also so many things right with it... but its still an impossible system to implement, because its just what exists outside our government, its nothing. If we were to force anarchy upon the world there would be no anarchy because we'd be organized in our deposing of the establishment. And after that, what would happen to education? Farming? Plumbing? I'm all for a utopian society, but I'm not enough of a woodsman (bushman for all you aussie's) to know which leaves not to wipe my ass with. So fuck that idea.

 

Hey, all we have to do for anarchy is to create a massive slaughter where we kill all politicians, all past politicians, and all those who might possibly give be an ascendent of a politician in the future. See, easy. But seriously, Anarchy probably wouldn't work, but I'd prefer that to having some government piece of shit decide whether I should die.

 

Wolf, if we had anarchy anyone could walk up to you and decide whether you should die. Do NOT wax poetical on me about how robbery, killing, and chaos aren't really characteristics of anarchy but of capitalism, because I am NOT in the mood.

*adds political theory to list of things not to discuss with preadolescents, and considers cramming useless political science degree down Wolfie's throat*

 

Thirteen year olds are adolescents. Canis, you've been blinded by your need to mock me at every turn.

 

Not always. I've seen studies concerning the onset of puberty, and some 13-yr-olds still haven't quite gotten with the program. So I thought I'd make a passing half-joke as a nod to your total lack of sexual knowledge. Though it is true that puberty seems to be starting earlier and earlier, perhaps because of childhood obesity or some sort of dairy additive.... Anyway, I know when adolescence starts. I went through it. Did you really need me to explain the wording of my post to you?

I take it you no longer wish to debate the merits of anarchy vs. the capitalist republic?

 

He knows a homo, he knows a lot more than everyone else did at 13, AND hes an adolescent! You never cease to amaze!

The truly wise got that way by listening more than questioning, and questioning more than protesting.

 

He got a good english, though better than mine

As for anarchy, it won´t work because of human nature, there is allways going to come some psycho along that wants power, and there is allways going to be differences between man that sooner or later leads to a society like ours.

 

Poland is like an democratic anarchy, you can't fell safe in this fucking country, you can be raped,beaten up, robbed and the police does no fucking shit about it. Yes we have a goverment but it's corupted.
In Poland you can bribe anybody... doctors, teachers, journalists,
politics, police, shit you could even bribe a dog in this sick country,

 

Hey! I'll have you know that my grandfather was Polish. Sounds like a cool country.

 

Yes, I'm sure your manly 13 year old frame is quite suited to running away, having the crap beaten out of it, and lying in the foetal position in a corner after you've been gangraped.

If what jankiel says is true of course. What do you think Jinxed?

Unless proven otherwise, I don't think much of protestors.

 

What I was saying is you should listen before you ask questions, and you should make sure you know the answers to all the questions before you argue against something. (ie protest)

 

But still I like Poland because I like to live in the jungle

 

Yeah, living in POoland would be like going on a non-stop vigilante slaughter.

 

It can't be so bad, Jank. Have u ever been to Slovakia (for folks not so interested in central europe: SK and POL are neighbores)? Most places are peacefull (police are doing what they have to do but still they are "bribeable"). But some places are aaachhh... a can't even look at it. All those gypsies... goverment had took them flats for free and they really showed their gratitude... They haven't had even paid a bills and oppressed the indoor as well. And if ye saw their "junksetlements" in the suburbs of some cities you would be sick. I hate tenses, I hate tenses, I hate tenses so much!
I u wanna, call me a racist! But I'm not! I don't mean "I hate gypsies because they are gypsies". Certainly, not all of gypsies are like those, still there are some "normal" ones. Actually I've got some gypsie friends who are civilised.

Bribing is another problem of postcommunist contries like SK or POL.

And one thing, Jankiel:

This insult cannot be unanswered.