|
Post by PaulsLaugh (God/Almighty) on Mar 17, 2023 17:51:34 GMT
Fair concern on behalf of the wrongly accused but unlike the death penalty, chemical castration is reversible in all but rare cases. If he’s in prison, why does he need it? He’s not going to be raping women in there. He will probably become a bitch and be raped himself.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh (God/Almighty) on Mar 17, 2023 17:52:31 GMT
Never heard of it being done as part of the sentence, I thought it was used by consent of the prisoner as part of conditions for parole. This is unConstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 17, 2023 21:17:58 GMT
Fair concern on behalf of the wrongly accused but unlike the death penalty, chemical castration is reversible in all but rare cases. If he’s in prison, why does he need it? He’s not going to be raping women in there. He will probably become a bitch and be raped himself. If you'd taken 30 seconds to glance at the article, you'd know the chemical castration happens upon his release. You'd have a hard time arguing that this is cruel and unusual punishment. Chemical castration is reversible and in this case, a 30-year-old man raped a child. There's nothing cruel and unusual about limiting his sex drive when his sex drive compelled him to rape that child, a heinous crime. Nor is chemical castration itself an inhumane punishment when applied to said child rapist. It's not excessive, it's not arbitrary, and it does serve a function; to reduce the likelihood that he rapes more kids once his sentence is finished and he reenters society.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh (God/Almighty) on Mar 17, 2023 21:45:57 GMT
If he’s in prison, why does he need it? He’s not going to be raping women in there. He will probably become a bitch and be raped himself. If you'd taken 30 seconds to glance at the article, you'd know the chemical castration happens upon his release. You'd have a hard time arguing that this is cruel and unusual punishment. Chemical castration is reversible and in this case, a 30-year-old man raped a child. There's nothing cruel and unusual about limiting his sex drive when his sex drive compelled him to rape that child, a heinous crime. Nor is chemical castration itself an inhumane punishment when applied to said child rapist. It's not excessive, it's not arbitrary, and it does serve a function; to reduce the likelihood that he rapes more kids once his sentence is finished and he reenters society. Let’s let the SCOTUS decide this one. Because denying people the ability to have sex is the punishment. Do we as a nation really want to go there where a non-doctor can force drugs into us? People went speshit over a needle, but hey, let’s castrate people. What’s next? Cut off fingers for stealing? And how do know it’s reversible and the man will not suffer side effects that hospitalize him. If so, does the taxpayer pick up the medical bill. He’s paid for his crime doing time. This is denying him his right to reproduce offspring with a women using consensual sex and masturbate. This is not a required punishment for rape in other jurisdiction. And couldn’t a prescription of viagra still produce an erection? This sure is a juicy revenge punishment, but it’s not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Mar 17, 2023 21:49:47 GMT
Especially since Steve Bannon and Ron Watkins were saying that all Liberals and Democrats should be considered to be child predators and should be castrated. The pizza-gate conspiracy began through a social media troll farm that Ron Watkins and Fredrick Brennan started with funding given to them by Steve Bannon and Roger Stone. www.npr.org/2021/04/22/989241933/q-a-documentary-unravels-twisted-knots-of-qanon-movementIt didn't help matters that Tucker Carlson greatly amplified that message. Donald Trump can be held accountable for whipping a crowd up into launching an insurrection on the capital on Jan6th. However, nobody wants to hold Tucker Carlson accountable for inciting the public to do violence to anyone who isn't a Maga Republican. Because it would seem unamerican to hold a "newscaster" accountable for inciting violence either deliberately or by accident. You have to consider that Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon got that crowd ready to do violence before they arrived at the capital, and that Ron Watkins had no small part in coordinating the attack on the capital in real time through social media. Likewise Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Ron Watkins incited violence against anyone wearing a covid mask and Democrats in general. All of those terrorist cells such as Proud Boyz, Oath Keepers, and Boogaloo Boys spread through the vector of social media such as 4chan and 8chan. This all greatly complicates any prosecution of any child predators which was the original intention behind spreading those kinds of lies such as pizza-gate aside from the fact that it allows predators like Matt Gaetz to go free it is also designed to do political damage to the people who vote Democrat. So from the outset it was designed to be an effective form of voter intimidation.
|
|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Mar 17, 2023 21:56:49 GMT
Never heard of it being done as part of the sentence, I thought it was used by consent of the prisoner as part of conditions for parole. This is unConstitutional. 25 years ago it used to happen a lot more often than you think. 5 suspects in Fort Worth Texas alone who had theirs surgically removed as a condition for not being sent to the electric chair. It is just that people didn't want to talk about any of that not even when they got really drunk. After 25 years I don't suppose it would do any harm to say a little bit about the court case as long as I don't name any names, jury duty can be really rough and you are sometimes called on to make really tough decisions in some really ugly cases.
|
|
|
Post by hugsfromlv426 on Mar 17, 2023 22:24:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 17, 2023 23:52:36 GMT
If you'd taken 30 seconds to glance at the article, you'd know the chemical castration happens upon his release. You'd have a hard time arguing that this is cruel and unusual punishment. Chemical castration is reversible and in this case, a 30-year-old man raped a child. There's nothing cruel and unusual about limiting his sex drive when his sex drive compelled him to rape that child, a heinous crime. Nor is chemical castration itself an inhumane punishment when applied to said child rapist. It's not excessive, it's not arbitrary, and it does serve a function; to reduce the likelihood that he rapes more kids once his sentence is finished and he reenters society. Let’s let the SCOTUS decide this one. Because denying people the ability to have sex is the punishment. Do we as a nation really want to go there where a non-doctor can force drugs into us? People went speshit over a needle, but hey, let’s castrate people. What’s next? Cut off fingers for stealing? And how do know it’s reversible and the man will not suffer side effects that hospitalize him. If so, does the taxpayer pick up the medical bill. He’s paid for his crime doing time. This is denying him his right to reproduce offspring with a women using consensual sex and masturbate. This is not a required punishment for rape in other jurisdiction. And couldn’t a prescription of viagra still produce an erection? This sure is a juicy revenge punishment, but it’s not worth it. Well, those are certainly some... arguments. Where to begin? I'll start with your slippery slope argument. Cutting the fingers or the hands off thieves is not currently reversible. You are disfigured and disabled for life. Someday we may have replacement hands like Luke Skywalker, but for now, once they're gone, they're gone. Fingers and hands are important for so many tasks aside from stealing that writing an exhaustive list would take ages. It'd also be an exercise in futility because most people have functioning hands and understand their myriad of uses, everyday, all the time. Society is set up with the expectation that the vast majority of people have working hands. You're going to struggle in virtually every aspect of your life, for the rest of your life, when a hand is taken away from you. When you cut off a thief's hand, you're not just (arguably) limiting their ability to steal; you're limiting their ability to do anything else for the remainder of their life. It's an obviously excessive punishment given the severity of the crime. Chemical castration, by contrast, is reversible. How do we know it's reversible? Because it's been around for a long time and we have years and years of medical data. It's not used only as a form of punishment; it's used medicinally as well. That gives us a lot of information about the effects and it shows that overwhelmingly, it is reversible. Once the treatment stops, the body starts going back to normal. That can vary, absolutely. The longer you're on it, the greater the chance that it can't be reversed. However, that's a risk; not a guarantee. It's not like lopping off a hand and being guaranteed to never play the accordion. Chemical castration also isn't damaging to every element of a person's life. They care less to nothing about sex, their balls shrink, their dick won't prick, and maybe rarely they're at risk for side-effects down the road. This will not impede their trip to the supermarket to buy a can of beans. It is not all-consuming. And, oh boy... this is the point where I have to show some heavy disdain towards your opinion. This crime is about a 30-year-old man raping a child (possibly two) and you have the gall to stand up for his rights to conceive and masturbate? What the fuck is this take? A child rapist does not stop sexually fantasizing about molesting children. Ever. It's what gets them horny and what will always get them horny. It's not a fad. It's not a fucking phase a person goes through. If he masturbates, it's about raping children. If he conceives, maybe he doesn't rape his own kids out of respect for the family unit, but their friends are still open game. You're going to tell me you think this guy comes out of prison and doesn't want to rape kids anymore? You think after 25 years in prison as a child rapist that he's going to come out reformed rather than desperately needing to feel good again and immediately turning to his basest, most self-gratifying impulses? It defies every understanding of violent sex offenders and pedophiles. If their sexual drive could be eradicated, not only would it protect children from rape, it would unburden the pedophile. They're no longer consumed with doing something that only brings them suffering. This may come as a shock, but a child rapist is the absolute worst thing in the world a person can be and pedophiles know that. Chemical castration gives them the opportunity to get rid of that drive and those thoughts. If anything, it's a mercy to everybody involved. Where is the cruel and where is the unusual here, Paul?
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on Mar 18, 2023 0:40:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Mar 18, 2023 0:47:25 GMT
Your avatar is outstanding as always.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Mar 18, 2023 1:54:47 GMT
If he’s in prison, why does he need it? He’s not going to be raping women in there. He will probably become a bitch and be raped himself. If you'd taken 30 seconds to glance at the article, you'd know the chemical castration happens upon his release. You'd have a hard time arguing that this is cruel and unusual punishment. Chemical castration is reversible and in this case, a 30-year-old man raped a child. There's nothing cruel and unusual about limiting his sex drive when his sex drive compelled him to rape that child, a heinous crime. Nor is chemical castration itself an inhumane punishment when applied to said child rapist. It's not excessive, it's not arbitrary, and it does serve a function; to reduce the likelihood that he rapes more kids once his sentence is finished and he reenters society. I'm not necessarily against this.
But it can be argued that any physical procedure performed on the prisoner's body is cruel and unusual. It is "cruel" to castrate, whether the fool deserves it or not. And in the history of criminal punishment, this one is certainly "unusual".
If our system deems "cruel and unusual" as prohibited by the state in punishment of criminals, a strong libertarian case can be made against it.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh (God/Almighty) on Mar 18, 2023 4:18:29 GMT
Let’s let the SCOTUS decide this one. Because denying people the ability to have sex is the punishment. Do we as a nation really want to go there where a non-doctor can force drugs into us? People went speshit over a needle, but hey, let’s castrate people. What’s next? Cut off fingers for stealing? And how do know it’s reversible and the man will not suffer side effects that hospitalize him. If so, does the taxpayer pick up the medical bill. He’s paid for his crime doing time. This is denying him his right to reproduce offspring with a women using consensual sex and masturbate. This is not a required punishment for rape in other jurisdiction. And couldn’t a prescription of viagra still produce an erection? This sure is a juicy revenge punishment, but it’s not worth it. Well, those are certainly some... arguments. Where to begin? I'll start with your slippery slope argument. Cutting the fingers or the hands off thieves is not currently reversible. You are disfigured and disabled for life. Someday we may have replacement hands like Luke Skywalker, but for now, once they're gone, they're gone. Fingers and hands are important for so many tasks aside from stealing that writing an exhaustive list would take ages. It'd also be an exercise in futility because most people have functioning hands and understand their myriad of uses, everyday, all the time. Society is set up with the expectation that the vast majority of people have working hands. You're going to struggle in virtually every aspect of your life, for the rest of your life, when a hand is taken away from you. When you cut off a thief's hand, you're not just (arguably) limiting their ability to steal; you're limiting their ability to do anything else for the remainder of their life. It's an obviously excessive punishment given the severity of the crime. Chemical castration, by contrast, is reversible. How do we know it's reversible? Because it's been around for a long time and we have years and years of medical data. It's not used only as a form of punishment; it's used medicinally as well. That gives us a lot of information about the effects and it shows that overwhelmingly, it is reversible. Once the treatment stops, the body starts going back to normal. That can vary, absolutely. The longer you're on it, the greater the chance that it can't be reversed. However, that's a risk; not a guarantee. It's not like lopping off a hand and being guaranteed to never play the accordion. Chemical castration also isn't damaging to every element of a person's life. They care less to nothing about sex, their balls shrink, their dick won't prick, and maybe rarely they're at risk for side-effects down the road. This will not impede their trip to the supermarket to buy a can of beans. It is not all-consuming. And, oh boy... this is the point where I have to show some heavy disdain towards your opinion. This crime is about a 30-year-old man raping a child (possibly two) and you have the gall to stand up for his rights to conceive and masturbate? What the fuck is this take? A child rapist does not stop sexually fantasizing about molesting children. Ever. It's what gets them horny and what will always get them horny. It's not a fad. It's not a fucking phase a person goes through. If he masturbates, it's about raping children. If he conceives, maybe he doesn't rape his own kids out of respect for the family unit, but their friends are still open game. You're going to tell me you think this guy comes out of prison and doesn't want to rape kids anymore? You think after 25 years in prison as a child rapist that he's going to come out reformed rather than desperately needing to feel good again and immediately turning to his basest, most self-gratifying impulses? It defies every understanding of violent sex offenders and pedophiles. If their sexual drive could be eradicated, not only would it protect children from rape, it would unburden the pedophile. They're no longer consumed with doing something that only brings them suffering. This may come as a shock, but a child rapist is the absolute worst thing in the world a person can be and pedophiles know that. Chemical castration gives them the opportunity to get rid of that drive and those thoughts. If anything, it's a mercy to everybody involved. Where is the cruel and where is the unusual here, Paul?I wrote why above and not repeating it. This goes beyond one man raping a woman and we have been punishing men for the offense...the few that are convicted...for thousands of years without such barbarism. This is medieval shit. Even the Bible didn't have this punishment. 3Deuteronomy 22:28–29, “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh (God/Almighty) on Mar 18, 2023 4:20:59 GMT
This is unConstitutional. 25 years ago it used to happen a lot more often than you think. 5 suspects in Fort Worth Texas alone who had theirs surgically removed as a condition for not being sent to the electric chair. It is just that people didn't want to talk about any of that not even when they got really drunk. After 25 years I don't suppose it would do any harm to say a little bit about the court case as long as I don't name any names, jury duty can be really rough and you are sometimes called on to make really tough decisions in some really ugly cases. Savages are bad as the people they punish. But let one rich preppy get accused and he gets spot on the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Mar 18, 2023 12:01:04 GMT
Alan Turing was rightly convicted of being a fag and took his punishment like a coward so he wouldn't be sent to prison for his heinous crime of buggery. The combination of public outrage and criminal justice always gets it right if lynching is no longer acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Mar 18, 2023 16:06:37 GMT
Alan Turing was rightly convicted of being a fag and took his punishment like a coward so he wouldn't be sent to prison for his heinous crime of buggery. The combination of public outrage and criminal justice always gets it right if lynching is no longer acceptable. How can Britain criminalize 90% of it's male population?
|
|