|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 1:31:13 GMT
Chemically castrating someone, does not mean they are not going to stop committing sex crimes. It might reduce the sex drive, but the dynamic is much more than this when it comes to coercion and control over others. This is a bullshit article I'd say too.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 1:32:42 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. 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.
It is sick, unethical and immoral. All it means is that the justice system is broken, corrupt and criminal within itself.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 1:37:02 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. It was done in the UK last century as part of sexual crimes sentencing. Alan Turing underwent it, just for having a private homosexual affair in the UK. It was a choice he was asked to make, imprisonment or hormone therapy. If you haven't seen The Imitation Game, please do.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 1:39:21 GMT
Fair concern on behalf of the wrongly accused but unlike the death penalty, chemical castration is reversible in all but rare cases.You mean like Transgender? How so and with what side effects/residual consequences?
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 19, 2023 2:05:25 GMT
Fair concern on behalf of the wrongly accused but unlike the death penalty, chemical castration is reversible in all but rare cases.You mean like Transgender? How so and with what side effects/residual consequences? Actually, I didn't even allude to transgenderism because it's not germane to this discussion. Thank you for injecting it though. God knows we can't have a topic in the modern era with signaling our virtues. How so? The treatment stops and the body reverts back to normal. With what side effects? Permanently lowered sex drive, possibly depression and later cardiac problems; there are a few as with any medical treatment. What's the argument for a child rapist keeping his sex drive?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Mar 19, 2023 2:09:28 GMT
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.
It is sick, unethical and immoral. All it means is that the justice system is broken, corrupt and criminal within itself. Okay, I thought about this. It's definitely a violation of a citizen's rights over an oppressive state. Now sure, none of us give a whit about the child molester.
But it's a dangerous precedent to allow the legal system to use drugs and medical procedures as a form of punishment. Where does it end? Will violent offenders be drugged to curb their aggression? How about cutting off a thief's hand? Nah, this is not something we want the government doing.
The U.S. Constitution has a prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment. This is definitely cruel and definitely unusual regardless what we think of the offender's crime.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Mar 19, 2023 2:10:33 GMT
You mean like Transgender? How so and with what side effects/residual consequences? Actually, I didn't even allude to transgenderism because it's not germane to this discussion. Thank you for injecting it though. God knows we can't have a topic in the modern era with signaling our virtues. How so? The treatment stops and the body reverts back to normal. With what side effects? Permanently lowered sex drive, possibly depression and later cardiac problems; there are a few as with any medical treatment. What's the argument for a child rapist keeping his sex drive? What's the argument for a thief keeping his hand?
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 2:11:47 GMT
You mean like Transgender? How so and with what side effects/residual consequences? Actually, I didn't even allude to transgenderism because it's not germane to this discussion. Thank you for injecting it though. God knows we can't have a topic in the modern era with signaling our virtues. How so? The treatment stops and the body reverts back to normal. With what side effects? Permanently lowered sex drive, possibly depression and later cardiac problems; there are a few as with any medical treatment. What's the argument for a child rapist keeping his sex drive? It sounds like you don't get the argument. You have appeared pro-transgender and with kids, any hormone blockers and body mutilations are difficult to fix as they were originally. Surely you know this. Sex drive isn't always the issue.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 2:13:12 GMT
It is sick, unethical and immoral. All it means is that the justice system is broken, corrupt and criminal within itself. Okay, I thought about this. It's definitely a violation of a citizen's rights over an oppressive state. Now sure, none of us give a whit about the child molester.
But it's a dangerous precedent to allow the legal system to use drugs and medical procedures as a form of punishment. Where does it end? Will violent offenders be drugged to curb their aggression? How about cutting off a thief's hand? Nah, this is not something we want the government doing.
The U.S. Constitution has a prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment. This is definitely cruel and definitely unusual regardless what we think of the offender's crime.
I think it is bullshit too and won't make one bit of difference as to why there are sexual offenders. This goes much deeper and this man was already damaged goods himself.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 19, 2023 2:37:06 GMT
It is sick, unethical and immoral. All it means is that the justice system is broken, corrupt and criminal within itself. Okay, I thought about this. It's definitely a violation of a citizen's rights over an oppressive state. Now sure, none of us give a whit about the child molester.
But it's a dangerous precedent to allow the legal system to use drugs and medical procedures as a form of punishment. Where does it end? Will violent offenders be drugged to curb their aggression? How about cutting off a thief's hand? Nah, this is not something we want the government doing.
The U.S. Constitution has a prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment. This is definitely cruel and definitely unusual regardless what we think of the offender's crime.
And you'd likely be wrong. When somebody is determined to be mentally ill and has committed violent crimes against other people, there isn't going to be an argument over whether they should be medicated upon release. They risk they pose to society has already been proven as greater than the risks associated with side-effects from the medication and infringement on individual rights. This is a massive hurdle to clear even with the most generous approach towards cruel and unusual punishment. For it to be cruel or unusual, the punishment has to be excessive in regards to the severity of the crime. You know, like breaking all their bones and disemboweling them. Letting a child rapist walk the streets provided he takes his shots, if anything, is extremely lenient considering the severity of the crime of raping children. You can try to distance against the child rapist here, but unfortunately, that's whose rights and punishment we are considering in this topic.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 19, 2023 2:42:56 GMT
Actually, I didn't even allude to transgenderism because it's not germane to this discussion. Thank you for injecting it though. God knows we can't have a topic in the modern era with signaling our virtues. How so? The treatment stops and the body reverts back to normal. With what side effects? Permanently lowered sex drive, possibly depression and later cardiac problems; there are a few as with any medical treatment. What's the argument for a child rapist keeping his sex drive? It sounds like you don't get the argument. You have appeared pro-transgender and with kids, any hormone blockers and body mutilations are difficult to fix as they were originally. Surely you know this. Sex drive isn't always the issue. It's not an argument at all. It's an attempt to divert to an entirely different issue involving entirely different concerns. I understand you want to virtue signal against trans people here but it's a discussion of the application of justice in the case of a child rapist being ordered to undergo chemical castration in 25 years. Sex drive isn't always the issue in rape? How do you figure? Certainly power and domination play a large role but they stem from a need for sexual gratification to begin with. It's a large part of the equation.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 2:51:41 GMT
It sounds like you don't get the argument. You have appeared pro-transgender and with kids, any hormone blockers and body mutilations are difficult to fix as they were originally. Surely you know this. Sex drive isn't always the issue. It's not an argument at all. It's an attempt to divert to an entirely different issue involving entirely different concerns. I understand you want to virtue signal against trans people here but it's a discussion of the application of justice in the case of a child rapist being ordered to undergo chemical castration in 25 years. Sex drive isn't always the issue in rape? How do you figure? Certainly power and domination play a large role but they stem from a need for sexual gratification to begin with. It's a large part of the equation. You claimed its reversible. Bringing up Transgender and those that approve of it to virtue signallers, is a valid point. What is reversible? Sex drive is part of the equation, but taking away someone's sex drive, especially from an already broken and damaged individual, is going to help what? Not to commit anymore sexually motivated crimes? Do you have data and evidence to provide this would work? Don't dig anymore holes for yourself here Bart, because you will keep falling into them. Your phony virtue signalling distorts you.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Mar 19, 2023 2:53:42 GMT
Okay, I thought about this. It's definitely a violation of a citizen's rights over an oppressive state. Now sure, none of us give a whit about the child molester.
But it's a dangerous precedent to allow the legal system to use drugs and medical procedures as a form of punishment. Where does it end? Will violent offenders be drugged to curb their aggression? How about cutting off a thief's hand? Nah, this is not something we want the government doing.
The U.S. Constitution has a prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment. This is definitely cruel and definitely unusual regardless what we think of the offender's crime.
And you'd likely be wrong. When somebody is determined to be mentally ill and has committed violent crimes against other people, there isn't going to be an argument over whether they should be medicated upon release. They risk they pose to society has already been proven as greater than the risks associated with side-effects from the medication and infringement on individual rights. This is a massive hurdle to clear even with the most generous approach towards cruel and unusual punishment. For it to be cruel or unusual, the punishment has to be excessive in regards to the severity of the crime. You know, like breaking all their bones and disemboweling them. Letting a child rapist walk the streets provided he takes his shots, if anything, is extremely lenient considering the severity of the crime of raping children. You can try to distance against the child rapist here, but unfortunately, that's whose rights and punishment we are considering in this topic. If they are absolved of the crime due to a mental condition, they will be put against their will in a psychiatric facility. There they can be treated and drugged. But upon release the state cannot require them to be medicated.
When a criminal is released from prison, there will be conditions of his parole or probation. So yes, during parole, the child molester can be forced to take chemical castration drugs.
However, in this case, after the legal system has released this person from parole, they cannot require them to do anything.
Unless the child molester is on parole for the rest of his life, the state cannot permanently drug him.
There is also a problem here. Rape is about power, not always sexual desire. The castrated offender may still rape children as an act of power. Nothing has been resolved here. You just feel better about it. Chemical castration doesn't stop the offender from raping a child.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 2:54:43 GMT
Okay, I thought about this. It's definitely a violation of a citizen's rights over an oppressive state. Now sure, none of us give a whit about the child molester.
But it's a dangerous precedent to allow the legal system to use drugs and medical procedures as a form of punishment. Where does it end? Will violent offenders be drugged to curb their aggression? How about cutting off a thief's hand? Nah, this is not something we want the government doing.
The U.S. Constitution has a prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment. This is definitely cruel and definitely unusual regardless what we think of the offender's crime.
And you'd likely be wrong. When somebody is determined to be mentally ill and has committed violent crimes against other people, there isn't going to be an argument over whether they should be medicated upon release. They risk they pose to society has already been proven as greater than the risks associated with side-effects from the medication and infringement on individual rights. This is a massive hurdle to clear even with the most generous approach towards cruel and unusual punishment. For it to be cruel or unusual, the punishment has to be excessive in regards to the severity of the crime. You know, like breaking all their bones and disemboweling them. Letting a child rapist walk the streets provided he takes his shots, if anything, is extremely lenient considering the severity of the crime of raping children. You can try to distance against the child rapist here, but unfortunately, that's whose rights and punishment we are considering in this topic. Yes, you are wrong, because he will walk the streets eventually and be more broken than before, due to assholes with attitudes like yours. You know nothing of this mans past and what made him the sick person he became. What is your excuse?
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 2:56:31 GMT
And you'd likely be wrong. When somebody is determined to be mentally ill and has committed violent crimes against other people, there isn't going to be an argument over whether they should be medicated upon release. They risk they pose to society has already been proven as greater than the risks associated with side-effects from the medication and infringement on individual rights. This is a massive hurdle to clear even with the most generous approach towards cruel and unusual punishment. For it to be cruel or unusual, the punishment has to be excessive in regards to the severity of the crime. You know, like breaking all their bones and disemboweling them. Letting a child rapist walk the streets provided he takes his shots, if anything, is extremely lenient considering the severity of the crime of raping children. You can try to distance against the child rapist here, but unfortunately, that's whose rights and punishment we are considering in this topic. If they are absolved of the crime due to a mental condition, they will be put against their will in a psychiatric facility. There they can be treated and drugged. But upon release the state cannot require them to be medicated.
When a criminal is released from prison, there will be conditions of his parole or probation. So yes, during parole, the child molester can be forced to take chemical castration drugs.
However, in this case, after the legal system has released this person from parole, they cannot require them to do anything.
Unless the child molester is on parole for the rest of his life, the state cannot permanently drug him.
There is also a problem here. Rape is about power, not always sexual desire. The castrated offender may still rape children as an act of power. Nothing has been resolved here. You just feel better about it. Chemical castration doesn't stop the offender from raping a child.
That this isn't understood, by so-called intelligent people like phony Bart is bamboozling.
|
|