Bill that requires child molesters be castrated.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Remove their ovaries, uterus, and their clitoris.
But that does nothing to stop them from re-offending.
That way we can ensure they don't spread their dirty child-molesting seed to our population.

But that does nothing to stop them from reoffending.

I am being purposefully sarcastic (not towards you, but I am making it sound exactly how pro-crastration advocates make it sound).

Or course it wouldn't, and I'm not sure if I am ready to digest knowing we are sending women and men to be mutilated.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

However, mutilating a person is not justice and will very likely increase the amount of victims that are murdered because of the threat of castration. And given that sexual desire is often not the primary motivator in these sorts of crimes the offenders will simply use objects on their next victim. Also, castration is only effective on males. What of female offenders?

You speak of castration as though the government would be taking an axe to the offenders genitals. It's actually a very simple procedure, basically a vasectomy, it hardly qualifies as "mutilation". It seems to me that if the punishment for molestation being harsh would encourage murder, the fact that murdering a child will in may places lead to the death penalty would have an opposite effect. As for sexual desire, that is only part of the point of castration, the other half of the equation is for punishment to be harsh enough to dissuade the criminal in the first place. As for castration only being effective on males, that is very true, However, that does not mean that female offenders would not be punished, it simply means that that particular punishment would not be available for them.

Of course we can.

Have you ever noticed that female castration can be done if we remove the ovaries? It's the same procedure so what can go wrong?

[Fartsniffage]

This is a worthy question, but it is a question that can be applied to any punishment. There are really only two solutions, and neither is perfect. We can either drastically reduce the punishment for a given crime for fear of punishing the innocent, but then the punishment ceases to be a punishment, or we can do everything in our power to insure that no innocent is ever found guilty, which, while I believe it to be the better option, will inevitably fail.

Until we can find a way to perfectly divide innocence from guilt, innocent people will be punished for the crimes of the guilty. It is not acceptable, but it is unavoidable, and we cannot abandon justice in the quest for perfection.

we actually have this on criminal court: it's called a "beyond any reasonable doubt" and "beyond a shadow of a doubt" burdens of proof.

What is "beyond a shadow of a doubt" used for?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

we actually have this on criminal court: it's called a "beyond any reasonable doubt" and "beyond a shadow of a doubt" burdens of proof.

What is "beyond a shadow of a doubt used for?

None, as it is impractical, but "beyond any reasonable doubt" is the best a court of law can do.

However, my point still stands, just not all of it.

[Primo Victoria]

This is a worthy question, but it is a question that can be applied to any punishment. There are really only two solutions, and neither is perfect. We can either drastically reduce the punishment for a given crime for fear of punishing the innocent, but then the punishment ceases to be a punishment, or we can do everything in our power to insure that no innocent is ever found guilty, which, while I believe it to be the better option, will inevitably fail.

Until we can find a way to perfectly divide innocence from guilt, innocent people will be punished for the crimes of the guilty. It is not acceptable, but it is unavoidable, and we cannot abandon justice in the quest for perfection.

we actually have this on criminal court: it's called a "beyond any reasonable doubt" and "beyond a shadow of a doubt" burdens of proof.

In truth those are two very different things. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the current standard in the american jury system, and refers to any doubt you can give a logical reason for holding. In the vast majority of cases, there will always be a shadow of a doubt, because generally the jury was not witness to the crime, and cannot truly know for sure.

Edit: it would seem I was beaten to the punch on this one.

[Scomagia]

But that does nothing to stop them from reoffending.

I am being purposefully sarcastic (not towards you, but I am making it sound exactly how pro-crastration advocates make it sound).

Or course it wouldn't, and I'm not sure if I am ready to digest knowing we are sending women and men to be mutilated.

I see. Sorry.

[Scomagia]

However, mutilating a person is not justice and will very likely increase the amount of victims that are murdered because of the threat of castration. And given that sexual desire is often not the primary motivator in these sorts of crimes the offenders will simply use objects on their next victim. Also, castration is only effective on males. What of female offenders?

You speak of castration as though the government would be taking an axe to the offenders genitals. It's actually a very simple procedure, basically a vasectomy, it hardly qualifies as "mutilation". It seems to me that if the punishment for molestation being harsh would encourage murder, the fact that murdering a child will in may places lead to the death penalty would have an opposite effect. As for sexual desire, that is only part of the point of castration, the other half of the equation is for punishment to be harsh enough to dissuade the criminal in the first place. As for castration only being effective on males, that is very true, However, that does not mean that female offenders would not be punished, it simply means that that particular punishment would not be available for them.

This makes for de facto inequality in punishment and should make it painfully obvious why this is a bad proposal.

[CTALNH]

I would support such bill.

[Scomagia]

I would support such bill.

Then you would support stupidity and inequal sentencing.

[CTALNH]

I would support such bill.

Then you would support stupidity and inequal sentencing.

I also support death penalty and I believe the justice system should be a punishment system not a rehabilitating humane one.

[Primo Victoria]

You speak of castration as though the government would be taking an axe to the offenders genitals. It's actually a very simple procedure, basically a vasectomy, it hardly qualifies as "mutilation". It seems to me that if the punishment for molestation being harsh would encourage murder, the fact that murdering a child will in may places lead to the death penalty would have an opposite effect. As for sexual desire, that is only part of the point of castration, the other half of the equation is for punishment to be harsh enough to dissuade the criminal in the first place. As for castration only being effective on males, that is very true, However, that does not mean that female offenders would not be punished, it simply means that that particular punishment would not be available for them.

This makes for de facto inequality in punishment and should make it painfully obvious why this is a bad proposal.

All punishment is unequal. If all punishment were equal then ever speeder would get a $57 ticket, ever rapist would get 23.7 years in prison, and every murder would get the death penalty. The punishment must be equal to the crime, not to other punishments, and castration being a male punishment does not mean that all females will get off light, there are still other options for punishment.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This makes for de facto inequality in punishment and should make it painfully obvious why this is a bad proposal.

All punishment is unequal. If all punishment were equal then ever speeder would get a $57 ticket, ever rapist would get 23.7 years in prison, and every murder would get the death penalty. The punishment must be equal to the crime, not to other punishments, and castration being a male punishment does not mean that all females will get off light, there are still other options for punishment.

Such as?

[Almaz]

Only with DNA evidence is this considerable. In other words, the offender must have raped the child. Kids can be coached, parents can make untrue accusations, and if you tell a kid something long enough, they'll believe it. Further, young kids can be molested and name the wrong person. Especially if they're drugged. Also, as others have said, it has the ring of cruel and unusual. Further...in this country we are supposed to be "better" than the scum that commits these crimes. I'm not talking about thieves or addicts or prostitutes. I mean the scum that rapes and murders in cold blood. We don't stoop to their level.

Also...does this truly prevent them from reoffending? It might prevent them from rape but there is plenty more you can do.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then you would support stupidity and inequal sentencing.

I also support death penalty and I believe the justice system should be a punishment system not a rehabilitating humane one.

Because we can see how well it is working on the US now.

[Scomagia]

This makes for de facto inequality in punishment and should make it painfully obvious why this is a bad proposal.

All punishment is unequal. If all punishment were equal then ever speeder would get a $57 ticket, ever rapist would get 23.7 years in prison, and every murder would get the death penalty. The punishment must be equal to the crime, not to other punishments, and castration being a male punishment does not mean that all females will get off light, there are still other options for punishment.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[Primo Victoria]

All punishment is unequal. If all punishment were equal then ever speeder would get a $57 ticket, ever rapist would get 23.7 years in prison, and every murder would get the death penalty. The punishment must be equal to the crime, not to other punishments, and castration being a male punishment does not mean that all females will get off light, there are still other options for punishment.

Such as?

Prison, Labor, Death, Fines, Just because we introduce a new (for us) form of punishment does not mean the old ones are invalid.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Such as?

Prison, Labor, Death, Fines, Just because we introduce a new (for us) form of punishment does not mean the old ones are invalid.

So everything else but ripping their ovaries out?

How egalitarian of you.

[Scomagia]

Only with DNA evidence is this considerable. In other words, the offender must have raped the child. Kids can be coached, parents can make untrue accusations, and if you tell a kid something long enough, they'll believe it. Further, young kids can be molested and name the wrong person. Especially if they're drugged. Also, as others have said, it has the ring of cruel and unusual. Further...in this country we are supposed to be "better" than the scum that commits these crimes. I'm not talking about thieves or addicts or prostitutes. I mean the scum that rapes and murders in cold blood. We don't stoop to their level.

Also...does this truly prevent them from reoffending? It might prevent them from rape but there is plenty more you can do.

It most certainly does not prevent them from raping. It merely prevents them from using their own genitals to do it. They can instead use objects, a victims genitals against another victim, or force the victim to abuse themselves.

[CTALNH]

I also support death penalty and I believe the justice system should be a punishment system not a rehabilitating humane one.

Because we can see how well it is working on the US now.

Please the US legal system is nowhere near enough us tough us I would want it to be.

[Scomagia]

Such as?

Prison, Labor, Death, Fines, Just because we introduce a new (for us) form of punishment does not mean the old ones are invalid.

Would you be ok with seperate sentences based on skin color?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because we can see how well it is working on the US now.

Please the US legal system is nowhere near enough us tough us I would want it to be.

So you would like it to be like Hamurabi's code?

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, makes perfect sense. Let me know when will we re-implement the concept that women and children have no rights and that farming is the premier work to do, so we should have huge families.

[CTALNH]

Please the US legal system is nowhere near enough us tough us I would want it to be.

So you would like it to be like Hamurabi's code?

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, makes perfect sense. Let me know when will we re-implement the concept that women have no rights.

Please tell me when we will implement a total military federal world state.

[Scomagia]

Because we can see how well it is working on the US now.

Please the US legal system is nowhere near enough us tough us I would want it to be.

No the problem is a focus on punishment and not on rehabilitation. Respond if you like but I'm adding you to the block list with the other internet tough guys.

[United Marxist Nations]

So you would like it to be like Hamurabi's code?

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, makes perfect sense. Let me know when will we re-implement the concept that women have no rights.

Please tell me when we will implement a total military federal world state.

How would that be relevant?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So you would like it to be like Hamurabi's code?

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, makes perfect sense. Let me know when will we re-implement the concept that women have no rights.

Please tell me when we will implement a total military federal world state.

Top debating skills.