Page 2 of 22
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:21 pmby The Scientific States
As Blasveck said, our justice system shouldn't revolve around cruel and unusual punishments for revenge.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:21 pmby The Scientific States
America Libertaria wrote:An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. There is nothing cruel and unusual about it.
The Bible=/=The Constitution.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:22 pmby Phocidaea
Ponyfornia wrote:Ain't "unconstitutional" a word Republicans love to use? I'm pretty sure this word applies to that bill.
For Republicans, "unconstitutional" is just a roundabout way of saying "put forth by Democrats" (c.f. PPACA)
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:23 pmby Sauritican
Finally something I'll agree with some republicans, I'd support this bill
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:23 pmby Ponyfornia
The Scientific States wrote:America Libertaria wrote:An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. There is nothing cruel and unusual about it.
The Bible=/=The Constitution.
Now we just need a massive advertisement campaign to make people know the difference.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:24 pmby Vazdania
Genivaria wrote:GOP Rep. introduces bill that would require castration for child molesters One of the most disturbing acts one can do is sexually molest a child. In one state, a drastic punishment is being presented that is seen as controversial by many.
No matter what side of the political aisle you stand on, there is no debating the actions of an adult taking advantage of an innocent child. When a person is tried and convicted, the punishment should fit the crime. In Alabama, Republican state Rep. Steve Hurst has re-introduced a bill that would require child sexual molesters over the age of 21 to be surgically castrated before they are released from prison.
Hurst's bill would also require that the felon be required and obligated for 100 percent of the medical cost. The bill is being submitted for the 2014 legislative session after failing to make it out of the committee in 2013. According to CNN, "at least" nine states have laws involving chemical castration for child sex offenders.
"At least nine U.S. states, including California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin have versions of chemical castration in their laws. It's unclear how frequently chemical castration is used in the United States."
Amnesty International was quick to criticize chemical castration and described it as "inhuman treatment," but others aren't so quick to take a stand against it. The bill will be brought up for considering, but it is not known how well it will fair moving forward.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-rep ... -molestersOk first off I wanna make clear that there is a difference between saying something vicious in anger when you're emotional (guilty) and actually trying to make something vicious into law.
That said I personally am very uncomfortable with this idea and see it as monstrous in nature, and there's the fact that would likely count as 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Thoughts?
I'm pretty sure amendment 8 covers this....
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:24 pmby Fartsniffage
Benuty wrote:Ailiailia wrote:Quoting the bible are we? Let's see the context ...
Nothing cruel or unusual about any of that is there?
Oh look its "Quote the shittier version of the scripture" time already.
Is there a better version?
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:24 pmby Neo Arcad
This is... okay with me. I'm not big into "eye for an eye" stuff, but this seems like an easy, efficient way to prevent future offense, at less cost to the community than constantly monitoring every child molester as long as they live. It'd be more humane, really, because then those former child molesters wouldn't have to report themselves as such to their neighbors and whatnot. They could live more normally.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:24 pmby AiliailiA
It's irritating that congress members waste time and money with bills like this. Even if passed, it would never be enforced. What a charade.
Forced chemical castration is pretty disturbing too. I guess the difference is that if the convict is later exculpated by other evidence the chemicals can be stopped and they'll probably regain normal function of their testicles. Most importantly fertility.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:24 pmby The Scientific States
Ponyfornia wrote:The Scientific States wrote:The Bible=/=The Constitution.
Now we just need a massive advertisement campaign to make people know the difference.
In today's society with today's politicians...erm not going to happen
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:26 pmby Yrikuedomann
I think it's a bit extreme to be honest. Maybe someone should invent temporary castration or something.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:26 pmby Benuty
Fartsniffage wrote:Benuty wrote:Oh look its "Quote the shittier version of the scripture" time already.
Is there a better version?
The Tanach of-course ( ie Jewish "Old Testament").
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:26 pmby AiliailiA
Fartsniffage wrote:Benuty wrote:Oh look its "Quote the shittier version of the scripture" time already.
Is there a better version?
Well the same phrase appears in Matthew. Quite specifically saying "eye for an eye is wrong".
If Benuty is complaining about me using the wrong translation I don't give a damn. I don't read Ancient Greek or Aramaic, and bet Benuty doesn't either.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:28 pmby Regnum Dominae
That's just wrong. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:28 pmby Neo Arcad
Yrikuedomann wrote:I think it's a bit extreme to be honest. Maybe someone should invent temporary castration or something.
Chemical castration is that, kinda?
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:28 pmby AiliailiA
Benuty wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:Is there a better version?
The Tanach of-course ( ie Jewish "Old Testament").
You honestly expect me to quote a passage in Hebrew ... which I don't speak or read ... on an English-language website?
No. Do it yourself if you think that's better.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:31 pmby Fartsniffage
Benuty wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:Is there a better version?
The Tanach of-course ( ie Jewish "Old Testament").
What does that say on the matter? Translated into English for those of us who still have a foreskin please.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:32 pmby Fartsniffage
Regnum Dominae wrote:That's just wrong. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
There'd probably be one guy who could see, He'd be the only one able to see the others coming.
And then he'd end up as king.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:35 pmby Genivaria
The Scientific States wrote:America Libertaria wrote:An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. There is nothing cruel and unusual about it.
The Bible=/=The Constitution.
Actually I think that's the Code of Hammurabi.
The fact that he's following that code instead of the 'forgive and forget' code espoused by Jesus is something I find ironic.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:35 pmby Benuty
Ailiailia wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:Is there a better version?
Well the same phrase appears in Matthew. Quite specifically saying "eye for an eye is wrong".
If Benuty is complaining about me using the wrong translation I don't give a damn. I don't read Ancient Greek or Aramaic, and bet Benuty doesn't either.
Aramaic and Koine Greek were secondary and third languages in the process of compilation/translation of the various books not in the process of
writing them.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:37 pmby Benuty
Ailiailia wrote:Benuty wrote:The Tanach of-course ( ie Jewish "Old Testament").
You honestly expect me to quote a passage in Hebrew ... which I don't speak or read ... on an English-language website?
No. Do it yourself if you think that's better.
The Tanach is not a Hebraic exclusive book what on earth granted you that idea?
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:46 pmby Wisconsin9
I'm sad that my state allows this.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:48 pmby Benuty
Wisconsin9 wrote:I'm sad that my state allows this.
Honestly though what possible reason could they get that was great enough to excuse "compulsory sterilization"?
I mean the idea itself is riddled with the blackness of past mistakes.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:48 pmby Des-Bal
Modern politics is a series of assholes and liars trying to be more angry than each other until someone lets a racist epithet slip and they all scatter like roaches.
Posted:
Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:50 pmby Genivaria
Des-Bal wrote:Modern politics is a series of assholes and liars trying to be more angry than each other until someone lets a racist epithet slip and they all scatter like roaches.
Ya know what.
I'm going to AQ this.