SAD NEWS

Status
Not open for further replies.
the punishment doesn't fit the crime..

if you knew that you would have a finger lopped off for theft, would you do it?
your foot cut off for theft of a vehicle?
your willy cut off for rape?
death sentence for murder?

paedo's should be castrated.. there's not way they should be alloed to have children of their own, and the lack of testosterone would curb ANY sexual desire they felt..
 
paedo's should be castrated.. there's not way they should be alloed to have children of their own, and the lack of testosterone would curb ANY sexual desire they felt..

The age of sexual consent varies around the world, between 12 - 20 years of age. Would you also castrate holidaymakers who didn't have a full understanding of the law?
 
it's a simple fact that this country no longer exercises capital punishment, so alternatives have to be found. in previous times there were no facilities for long term imprisonment for 'serious' offenders, so sentencing was swift and harsh.
today we like to think our penal system is more humane. we can't all agree with it but it's where we're at.
i've said it before that the system is a compromise, and a very expensive one, but personally i don't wish to see someone hung draw and quartered because they have a sick mind. out of 60 million people there are bound to be a percentage who act in ways the rest of society finds repulsive.
for incurable sex offenders, castration is a viable option as it would appear that no amount of 'therapy' is effective, but where offences involve murder, perhaps a very severe form of incarceration would be a better deterrent, as i don't agree with the comfortable lifestyle some serious offenders appear to enjoy at the expense of taxpayers.
it's a complicated and sad subject, and i wish that mere words could provide comfort to the families of victims, but i know that's not the case.
lagm, don't take this as an argument I simply want to explore your point. You say:
i don't wish to see someone hung draw and quartered because they have a sick mind. out of 60 million people there are bound to be a percentage who act in ways the rest of society finds repulsive. For incurable sex offenders, castration is a viable option as it would appear that no amount of 'therapy' is effective.
But how does castration cure a 'sick mind'? The 'sick mind' will still be there. The 'sick mind' will just seek out 'other' methods of satisfaction/relief etc if castration is carried out. It could therefore be argued that castration and subsequent release (at some point), could lead to more 'sickening' crimes being committed by those 'sick minds'.

My argument has always been 'what is evil'? I mean, we hear of these crimes and then we talk about how he/she is an evil b*stard but you'll have their 'defence' saying no he/she is mentally ill. But my argument is that in committing a crime so horrendous you have to be 'mentally disturbed' in some way. So what is 'evil' then? We can't have it both ways. In the last few years there has been a definite move away from defining someone who rapes and murderers a child as 'evil' instead they're described as 'mentally ill'. So where did 'evil' go then? Did evil people all die? I'm inclined to think not!

Whichever way you want to look at it, psychologists basically agree that 'evil' is either a word used by us to defend our want of 'vengeance' against an 'evil person' and/or it is something that an 'evil person' just doesn't recognise. He/she is 'removed' from feelings of compassion etc. So in both respects, evil is a 'mental' state of mind.

So I'd argue that someone wanting to 'do Huntley in' is not evil, they're simply driven by a mental state that sees Huntley as evil and therefore they want revenge and if all 'evil' is a 'mental' state of mind, they therefore cannot be held accountable for their actions in trying to kill Huntley et al.
 
The age of sexual consent varies around the world, between 12 - 20 years of age. Would you also castrate holidaymakers who didn't have a full understanding of the law?

absolutely.. it's legal to take certain drugs or drink alcohol in some countries, but not others..

if you're going on holiday then you familiarise yourself with the local laws..
ignorance of the law is not an excuse..
 
no prob, blas,
i don't see castration as a cure for a sick mind but it will curtail any sexual drive and may (stress may) lead to a sex offender being rehabilitated. if other criminal acts are involved, then castration on it's own probably won't effect much change.
i'm not a bleeding heart liberal but i recognise that mental illness does exist in many forms and of varying degree.
as i've said before i don't see a simple answer to such complex problems.
edit
in my post i did say 'for serious sex offenders' etc
 
I think my post defends their 'enjoyment' somewhat Dex...

My argument has always been 'what is evil'? I mean, we hear of these crimes and then we talk about how he/she is an evil b*stard but you'll have their 'defence' saying no he/she is mentally ill. But my argument is that in committing a crime so horrendous you have to be 'mentally disturbed' in some way. So what is 'evil' then? We can't have it both ways. In the last few years there has been a definite move away from defining someone who rapes and murderers a child as 'evil' instead they're described as 'mentally ill'. So where did 'evil' go then? Did evil people all die? I'm inclined to think not!

Whichever way you want to look at it, psychologists basically agree that 'evil' is either a word used by us to defend our want of 'vengeance' against an 'evil person' and/or it is something that an 'evil person' just doesn't recognise. He/she is 'removed' from feelings of compassion etc. So in both respects, evil is a 'mental' state of mind.

So I'd argue that someone wanting to 'do Huntley in' is not evil, they're simply driven by a mental state that sees Huntley as evil and therefore they want revenge and if all 'evil' is a 'mental' state of mind, they therefore cannot be held accountable for their actions in trying to kill Huntley et al.
 
Interesting talk about 'evil'.
For example, no-one that is mentally ill should go to prison, they should go to a secure hospital...but can someone kill someone in cold blood and NOT be mentally ill??

I guess 'evil' is a very subjective word. I don't think anyone would acknowledge that they, themselves, were evil...otherwise they wouldn't want to be doing whatever it was that they thought made them evil. I think we are a spectrum of people, from the nut cases that go around killing people to the people who still get upset if you say "hell" or "damn", none of which considers itself to be at fault in any way.

'Evil' is anything which a large enough proportion of society considers to be wrong. Nothing more.
 
The pedants will hasten to add that schizophrenic people don't have alter-egos, they have voices. Dissociative identity disorder or split personality have multiple egos :)
 
I think my post defends their 'enjoyment' somewhat Dex...
I disagree - having pleasurable thoughts about (or in light of) someone else's misery is evil. Thus what huntley did was evil, just as the pleasure derived by those on here from news of the attack on him. Just because it's the "majority" view doesn't make it right nor just.
 
Well I think we'll leave all of that for now otherwise this topic will go the way of the last bloody one!!!
 
I think my post defends their 'enjoyment' somewhat Dex...
I disagree - having pleasurable thoughts about (or in light of) someone else's misery is evil. Thus what huntley did was evil, just as the pleasure derived by those on here from news of the attack on him. Just because it's the "majority" view doesn't make it right nor just.
.....it's evil..to you...I used to laugh at "you've been framed"...is that evil?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top