Should convicted rapists be castrated

Kell

sliabh wrote:

Ultimately you can't build a society that is built on hate and fear and revenge.

Yes, I am quite angry, but I do not advocate what you are suggesting I advocate. The stone cold reality is that if we want a society that is humane, we need to address issues like poverty, like proper social services, like proper re-hab of victims (and if you like the perp ((Kell begrudges))) but these are areas that governments round the globe are not taking too much interest in.

Lets face it, any government spend on health or social welfare, isnt so much a strategy, its a vote gathering tool (ok so I'll limit it to the Irish example). Without the investment in avoidance therapies i.e. educating the uneducated that it is wrong to steal, assault and rape, then all we are doing is fire fighting and while we are fire fighting, too many people are getting burnt.

When we stop spending money on property, government jets, weapons programmes and the rest and instead look to doing something good with the planet and society, then yes, we will have achieved a humane society. The sad reality is that our governments elect arent giving enough time and effort to the issues we debate here and until they do, then an awful lot of damage is yet to come.

K-

sliabh

Kell wrote:

Lets face it, any government spend on health or social welfare, isnt so much a strategy, its a vote gathering tool (ok so I'll limit it to the Irish example). Without the investment in avoidance therapies i.e. educating the uneducated that it is wrong to steal, assault and rape, then all we are doing is fire fighting and while we are fire fighting, too many people are getting burnt.

Up to a point I would agree.

I remember an interview I heard on the radio a few years ago with some "Howyas" from one of the deprived estates on the west of Dublin. The interviewer was asking these two lads why they were involved in stealing cars. The lads gave the answer that there was nothing else to do, so they went joy riding. The interviewer then asked, "but what about the youth centre" and talked about some of the facilities there. The response:
"But wez barred from dere"

:-)

sliabh

In a slightly related and lighter topic. I get Boards.ie notifications sent to my mail account to tell me when there are new posts. I recently moved to a Google "Gmail" address so you get linked ads based on the content of the mails. For all other boards postings I get various ads for computers, books travel and what not.

But for mails relating to this "Castration" subject the ad section is blank. Google just doesn't know what to try to sell me

:-)

pretty-in-pink

the debate for best way to deal with a sex offender could rage on forever----it has in a way cause its an age old problem. let god take care of the sinners cause if we destroy them we are no better ( i know slight change of heart but iv been thinking bout it in a way the cruelty is worse if its subtle.....little things to undermine u, make u feel bad and then acting innocent like u havent done anything.) if its out and out obvious then you cant help but know its wrong....if its hidden u question your sanity too.

its a big grey area really. the only definates in it are assualt is wrong and that it feels crappy. when u draw in motive, degrees of cruelty, appropriate punishment etc it all starts to cloud in. everyone is screwed up, but we all react differently. i think its the "stop" barrier....some of us can but some of us cant. im sure everyone here has wanted to do damage to something r someone...but we dont all do it. hmmmm this is really complicated

Sleepy

Silent Grape wrote:

honestly sleepy, the death penalty for rape is ridiculous idea. the 'eye for an eye' attitude of some people is bad enough, without people like you, who are trying to make yourself sound like you know what your talking about, saying that 'an eye for an eye, plus a leg, and heck why not whole body'

If someone can't live by society's rules, in my opinion, they have no place in that society. Sure, we all make mistakes once in a while, but when society tolerates (and to some extent seems to even pity) scumbags that have no regard for others or their property, we jsut contribute to making this country a place where none of us are safe. Lock repeat offenders up and throw away the key is another solution but to do this punishes the innocent by making them pay higher taxes for other's misdeeds. If you want to let people live by the knife, you have to allow society to see to it that they die by the knife.

the running for mayor thing was sarcastic, i really didnt want to learn about all ur problems with our country. you dont believe in democracy? so what do you believe in, Lord of All Knowlege Sleepy??

Meritocracy. Rule by those fit and qualified to do so. And no, I don't include myself in that number yet.

people are forced onto the dole for many different and complex reasons. my brother is on the dole at the moment, he cant work due to having addiction/mental illness problems. you cant generalise to such a huge extent.

I'm sorry to hear that but surely your brother is on disability as opposed to the dole? Where did I state I had a problem with disability benefit?

Your whole attitude is so self reightous and idealistic. your only 23, you're not wise enough to be making these kind of potent remarks, which i am slightly offended by.

You're perfectly entitled to be offended to my remarks. However, to state that I'm idealistic is really quite strange. I see scumbags and I offer a solution. You see them and want to help them. I'm sorry but someone who has that kind of a rapsheet can't be helped. They are scum, incapable of living in any civilised society.

you go talk to a rapists family, and see what they think of the 'bullet to the head' approach. see there's more than one person involved here. just the way my family had to suffer the trauma of my rape, so do the rapists family, plus their sons murder.

I think many rapists families would agree with me. I'm sorry you had to experience the ordeal but an attitude as soft as you advocate merely encourages those involved to re-offend. By not punishing those at fault harshly enough you place others in danger of experiencing the same terrible events that you've had the misfortune of having to survive.

JTPB wrote:

It would appear, then, Sleepy, that you don't really expect castration to work very well, since you expect there could be a third offence, is that correct?

As others have already pointed out, those determined enough to re-offend could do so through black market purchasing of testosterone injections. I would imagine that castration might work for some portion of these people, hence it would be solution enough.

JTPB wrote:

Could I ask, is it only repeat sexual offences that you would consider the "bullet penalty" for?

Not at all. To my mind, if someone has the sort of rapsheet that many of Ireland's career criminals have with numerous charges of assault, GBH, burglary, GTA, etc. etc. etc. they deserve the bullet.


Please bare in mind that I advocate harsh justice in allignment with proper funding of social services. The extremity of punishment in my proposals would, to my mind only be a short term necessity. Once certain sections of our community realise that crime doesn't pay (which at present it most certainly does) they'll see that it's in their own best interest (because, after all, this is all they're interested in anyway) to comply with the law, better themselves (with the institutions, services and facilities made available to them) and become worthwhile members of the community instead of leeches making others live in fear.

Kell

Sleepy wrote:

Please bare in mind that I advocate harsh justice in allignment with proper funding of social services. The extremity of punishment in my proposals would, to my mind only be a short term necessity. Once certain sections of our community realise that crime doesn't pay (which at present it most certainly does) they'll see that it's in their own best interest (because, after all, this is all they're interested in anyway) to comply with the law, better themselves (with the institutions, services and facilities made available to them) and become worthwhile members of the community instead of leeches making others live in fear.

Someone who purports my idea. Mmmn. Are we starting a movement?

I remember an interview I heard on the radio a few years ago with some "Howyas" from one of the deprived estates on the west of Dublin. The interviewer was asking these two lads why they were involved in stealing cars. The lads gave the answer that there was nothing else to do, so they went joy riding. The interviewer then asked, "but what about the youth centre" and talked about some of the facilities there. The response:
"But wez barred from dere"

Sliabh, I dont understand you interjection of this article (I might just be stupid). I am not sure how this example fits in with your other arguments. I am not sure whether you are trying to state that rehab is a waste of time when the damage is already done, or, generally what was inferred by the article at all.

Can you let us know what you meant by it?

Cheers,

K-

Sleepy

What I inferred from Sliabh's comment there was that it doesn't matter how much you give some scumbags, they'll still just be scumbags. If you can't live without the need to harm others, you don't deserve life. It's that simple really.

It's not fair to punish a population for the acts of one person.

JTPB

Sleepy wrote:

As others have already pointed out, those determined enough to re-offend could do so through black market purchasing of testosterone injections. I would imagine that castration might work for some portion of these people, hence it would be solution enough.

I don't see why, though, if you what you really want is a Final Solution, you are prepared to tolerate the ineffective half-measure of castration. At least imprisonment would mean that they 100% could not rape - for the length of time they were locked up. Hence, imprisonment would be more effective - even if more expensive. (I know there was this business mentioned of the possibility of killing the wrong person - but imprisonment rather than a bullet through the head would ensure that this would not happen).

Sleepy wrote:

Not at all. To my mind, if someone has the sort of rapsheet that many of Ireland's career criminals have with numerous charges of assault, GBH, burglary, GTA, etc. etc. etc. they deserve the bullet.

Thank you for the clarification. I don't think I have ever seen a poll or a discussion started asking for example if we should chop off theives hands, which is why I asked. (Or, for example, if the law should blind security-van raiders who threaten to blind security guards with ammonia).

Sleepy wrote:

Please bare in mind that I advocate harsh justice in allignment with proper funding of social services. The extremity of punishment in my proposals would, to my mind only be a short term necessity. Once certain sections of our community realise that crime doesn't pay (which at present it most certainly does) they'll see that it's in their own best interest (because, after all, this is all they're interested in anyway) to comply with the law, better themselves (with the institutions, services and facilities made available to them) and become worthwhile members of the community instead of leeches making others live in fear.

I will.

By the way, I came across this nugget of information:

"FACT:.Of 9,691 sex offenders released from prison in 15 states, 3.5% were re-convicted of another sex offense within 3-years of release. (This is the second lowest recidivism rate of all crimes)


here:

http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/index.html

This would seem to contradict what I usually read in newspapers, that sex-offender recidivism is very high.

sliabh

Sleepy wrote:

What I inferred from Sliabh's comment there was that it doesn't matter how much you give some scumbags, they'll still just be scumbags.

That would be my point. You cna do all you want to try to remvoe sources of crime but some people still won't care. I remember a Guard saying once that some people would never commit a crime, some always would and the battle then was for the hearts and minds of the rest.

Sleepy wrote:

If you can't live without the need to harm others, you don't deserve life. It's that simple really.

That very definitly was NOT my point. I am anti-death penalty, But I don't think there are easy solutions to these sort of problems. If there were we would have found them a long time ago.

Iago

IMHO I think the Arab states have it right, let the punishment fit the crime, if you steal something you lose a hand, if you rape someone you lose your genitals etc.

If these punishments were applied without fail in every case where the suspect was proven to be guilty the crime rate would decrease dramatically. It would only have to be a short term thing because people would stop committing crimes. I agree that you will always have some people who are predisposed to criminal activity, but the vast majority of people wouldn't commit crime, the people who are circumstantial criminals (e.g. teens and early twenties coming out from nightclubs and fighting or causing disturbance) would soon dissapear and Ireland would be a much better country for it.

The lack of capital punishment in schools and the home is directly responsible for the decline in respect, good manners and decency in this country and the only way to stamp it out is to take drastic measures.

There is of course the argument that some people who are initially convicted of a crime are later proved innocent and this form of punishment isn't compatible in those cases, but my conscience can live with that. It will happen, after all the system is designed by humans and we make mistakes but as far as I'm concerned the benefits far outstrip the risks...

just my 2c

luckat

Bit embarrassing if they hadn't done it, though, wouldn't it?

Darren

I don't believe that castration would be a suitable punishment. Remember people have been exhonorated on appeal before.

10 years for a crime such as rape seems very lenient though. I would have thought that 30 to 40 years would have been more fitting.

Zulu

Iago wrote:

IMHO I think the Arab states have it right, let the punishment fit the crime, if you steal something you lose a hand, if you rape someone you lose your genitals etc.

If these punishments were applied without fail in every case where the suspect was proven to be guilty the crime rate would decrease dramatically. It would only have to be a short term thing because people would stop committing crimes. I agree that you will always have some people who are predisposed to criminal activity, but the vast majority of people wouldn't commit crime, the people who are circumstantial criminals (e.g. teens and early twenties coming out from nightclubs and fighting or causing disturbance) would soon dissapear and Ireland would be a much better country for it.

The lack of capital punishment in schools and the home is directly responsible for the decline in respect, good manners and decency in this country and the only way to stamp it out is to take drastic measures.

There is of course the argument that some people who are initially convicted of a crime are later proved innocent and this form of punishment isn't compatible in those cases, but my conscience can live with that. It will happen, after all the system is designed by humans and we make mistakes but as far as I'm concerned the benefits far outstrip the risks...

just my 2c

...and would society pay benifit for all the handicapped people you are about to create? or do they, say in the example of a carpenter that steals a loaf of bread, just let them suffer with no chances? He has his hand cut off, -for a loaf of bread, he has now paid not only a limb, but his trade also :rolleyes: now thats justice!

And if Arab states have it so right - how come crime is SO prevlent there? If you bothered noticing - the lowest crime rates are in the countries like sweden where the state and the people seek to rehabilitate. Capital punishment is abhored.

Sleepy

The problem with imprisonment is that the state can't afford it. Thanks to "prisoners rights" (to my mind the term is an oxymoron) groups, criminals in this country are provided with clean cells, TV's, a daily menu for their three meals and FAR too much luxury. They're let away with murder (one of the countries most senior prison officials has gone on record as saying that without the calming influence of cannabis, Mountjoy would be unworkable).

If you want to take the softer option (i.e. imprisonment instead of a bullet), you have to make sure that a few points are met before it's a viable alternative:

1. Prisons should be work camps so that inmates can in some way pay their way in life.
2. Prison life should be hard. No TV, no games rooms, long working hours (ten hours a day with Sundays off maybe).
3. No drugs allowed.
4. More prison officers, less insane over-time.
5. Time off from work only granted to those taking a pre-approved training course of some sort (e.g. FAS courses etc.)

Yes, you allow rehabilitation but prison should be a terrible place to be. It is not enough to take a criminals liberty, you must take his comforts too, leaving him no choice but to sit with his thoughts and allow any sense of conscience he/she has enough time to rehabilitate him/her.

Zulu

Sleepy wrote:

The problem with imprisonment is that the state can't afford it. Thanks to "prisoners rights" (to my mind the term is an oxymoron) groups, criminals in this country are provided with clean cells, TV's, a daily menu for their three meals and FAR too much luxury. They're let away with murder (one of the countries most senior prison officials has gone on record as saying that without the calming influence of cannabis, Mountjoy would be unworkable).

If you want to take the softer option (i.e. imprisonment instead of a bullet), you have to make sure that a few points are met before it's a viable alternative:

1. Prisons should be work camps so that inmates can in some way pay their way in life.
2. Prison life should be hard. No TV, no games rooms, long working hours (ten hours a day with Sundays off maybe).
3. No drugs allowed.
4. More prison officers, less insane over-time.
5. Time off from work only granted to those taking a pre-approved training course of some sort (e.g. FAS courses etc.)

Yes, you allow rehabilitation but prison should be a terrible place to be. It is not enough to take a criminals liberty, you must take his comforts too, leaving him no choice but to sit with his thoughts and allow any sense of conscience he/she has enough time to rehabilitate him/her.

You preposal will just serve to increase the bitterness these people already feel towards society as a whole, resulting in more repeate offences.

Do you prefer the term "Gulag" or "Concentration Camp"?

Silent Grape

sleepy please stop patronising me, i dont have a 'soft attitude', i just dont agree with violence as being the answer. i believe in locking them up for 50 years. i also dont see how imprisonment is the 'soft' option at all. im sure anyone living in one or 'your' prisons would prefer death, but howandever.

my brother cannot get disability as he is not technically 'disabed', so by being so arrongant towards people on the dole, your including a lot of people like my brother who for many complicated reasons, have the dole as their only option for income. so cut it out sleepy, you cant know everything.

meritocracy - and who decides who is 'qualified' to rule or not?

oh lord, you actually think a rapists familly would agree with you about the death penalty?? i suppose you base this on your vast experience and intimate knowledge of whats its like to first have a son rape someone, then have the possiblity of having them killed? christ almighty.

i dont want to help scumbags, i want to put them away in the hopes that when they come out they will have learned something. i dont want to sit down with them and have a chat about their traumatic childhood. christ.

stop with the whole tax thing, there's always going to be taxes, they're always going to be too high. i certainly wouldnt swop paying taxes for a life!

on a personal viewpoint, human life is too precious to be thrown away, no matter what. nothing is going to give me back my virginity, nothing at all, so killing the guy who raped me is not going to give me any satisfaction at all. locking him up for 50 odd years would though. as it happens he a free agent, but thats another thread...

anyway this is an upsetting thread and im needlessly depressed so im going to retire from the debate.

s x

lisa.c

absoloutly if there guilty 100% then cut there bits off bastards like rapists should never be able to enjoy the joys of sex. if i had power to punish them i would first skin them and then douce them in vinegar and salt see how they like it then.....

JTPB

Sleepy wrote:

The problem with imprisonment is that the state can't afford it. Thanks to "prisoners rights" (to my mind the term is an oxymoron) groups, criminals in this country are provided with clean cells, TV's, a daily menu for their three meals and FAR too much luxury. They're let away with murder (one of the countries most senior prison officials has gone on record as saying that without the calming influence of cannabis, Mountjoy would be unworkable).

If you want to take the softer option (i.e. imprisonment instead of a bullet), you have to make sure that a few points are met before it's a viable alternative:

1. Prisons should be work camps so that inmates can in some way pay their way in life.
2. Prison life should be hard. No TV, no games rooms, long working hours (ten hours a day with Sundays off maybe).
3. No drugs allowed.
4. More prison officers, less insane over-time.
5. Time off from work only granted to those taking a pre-approved training course of some sort (e.g. FAS courses etc.)

Yes, you allow rehabilitation but prison should be a terrible place to be. It is not enough to take a criminals liberty, you must take his comforts too, leaving him no choice but to sit with his thoughts and allow any sense of conscience he/she has enough time to rehabilitate him/her.

I think that's quite reasonable. Prisoners should be expected to pay their way through prison - or as much of their way though prison as possible, say 70%, if it is not possible for some unforeseen practical reasons to pay their way through all of it.

It would be punitive, but not barbaric, or excessively retributive. :cool:

Zulu

lisa.c wrote:

absoloutly if there guilty 100% then cut there bits off bastards like rapists should never be able to enjoy the joys of sex. if i had power to punish them i would first skin them and then douce them in vinegar and salt see how they like it then.....

So you agree with torture then? Fantastic!

pretty-in-pink

just an observation, and correct me if im wrong, but with the exception of one person all those who are getting really het up about sexual offenders have not experienced it.(BTW thats a really good thing and long may it last)


Is this the kind of thing that you learn to accept and deal with better by having been through it? The next question is then, who is best to play judge and jury? family, friends, people who have been attacked, attackers? I reckon if we made attackers see what their actions have caused that the majrity would go straight................you will always get tossers but we are born with the ability and right to chose between good and bad

Zulu

naughty_girl wrote:

Is this the kind of thing that you learn to accept and deal with better by having been through it? The next question is then, who is best to play judge and jury?

Well fellows peers in society should be suitable.

naughty_girl wrote:

I reckon if we made attackers see what their actions have caused that the majrity would go straight................you will always get tossers but we are born with the ability and right to chose between good and bad

I think you're being a little nieve here. Rape is about power; it's very very rarely done out of ignorance; the rapist knows the effect of the crime - and that's what they get off on.

Sleepy

Zulu wrote:

You preposal will just serve to increase the bitterness these people already feel towards society as a whole, resulting in more repeate offences.

Do you prefer the term "Gulag" or "Concentration Camp"?

I think it would be more likely to deter people from committing the crime in the first place if they knew that jail would not be a pleasant place instead of the soft, bleeding heart attitude our current prison system seems to have. If you do the crime be ready to do HARD time, not sit on your ass for 6 months at the tax-payer's expense. The last part of that post isn't worth dignifying.

Silent Grape wrote:

sleepy please stop patronising me, i dont have a 'soft attitude', i just dont agree with violence as being the answer. i believe in locking them up for 50 years. i also dont see how imprisonment is the 'soft' option at all. im sure anyone living in one or 'your' prisons would prefer death, but howandever.

Sorry if I've seemed to patronise you, that's far from my intention. However locking someone up for 50 years is the exact same as killing them. You deprive them of the rest of their life. So surely it's just as humane to kill them?

my brother cannot get disability as he is not technically 'disabed', so by being so arrongant towards people on the dole, your including a lot of people like my brother who for many complicated reasons, have the dole as their only option for income. so cut it out sleepy, you cant know everything.

I never claimed to know everything, however when you said your brother receives the dole because he can't work, that simply didn't make sense to me. I was under the understanding that if you can't work you get disability, where as if you simply can't find or are too lazy to work, you get the dole. My inaccuracy, however, surely you'd agree that there should be something to distinguish between the two groups of people as they are very different circumstances.

meritocracy - and who decides who is 'qualified' to rule or not?

I would determine that someone is qualified to rule if they were professionally qualified to do so. Preferably a system involving a dedicated degree in sociology, economics, negotiation and logistics. Using our CAS system, this would obviously attract a large amount of interest and therefore the high points required would restrict the course to those intelectually capable of ruling whilst the course would give them the means to do so.

oh lord, you actually think a rapists familly would agree with you about the death penalty?? i suppose you base this on your vast experience and intimate knowledge of whats its like to first have a son rape someone, then have the possiblity of having them killed? christ almighty.

Sorry, I misread your initial post. For some reason I thought you meant rape victims families. Any that I know would seek justice and I know very few people who consider 3 - 5 in Mountjoy as just punishment for rape. That said, were I ever to raise such a scumbag no doubt I'd grieve but I think I could live with the system.

i dont want to help scumbags, i want to put them away in the hopes that when they come out they will have learned something. i dont want to sit down with them and have a chat about their traumatic childhood. christ.

That's the status quo (granted the status quo leans more to the having a chat about their traumatic childhood). I'm sorry but it doesn't work. These kids had over thirty prior charges on their rapsheets ffs.

stop with the whole tax thing, there's always going to be taxes, they're always going to be too high. i certainly wouldnt swop paying taxes for a life!

on a personal viewpoint, human life is too precious to be thrown away, no matter what. nothing is going to give me back my virginity, nothing at all, so killing the guy who raped me is not going to give me any satisfaction at all. locking him up for 50 odd years would though. as it happens he a free agent, but thats another thread...

anyway this is an upsetting thread and im needlessly depressed so im going to retire from the debate.

s x

Point taken that taxes will always be too high under our current system. Maybe I am a bit idealistic in that I can see a system whereby that needn't be the case.

Some human life is precious. A newborn baby, a person who has lived a good life or even someone who has tried their best to live a good life and generally succeeded, the majority of the posters to these boards I would credit with such. A scumbag without the ability to belong to civilised society I couldn't. They're a disgusting thing that should be gotten rid of. They waste our money, harm our bodies, steal or destroy our property, make people afraid of leaving the house and what do we do? Lock 'em into the easiest place in the country to get good drugs for a year or so before releasing them back onto our streets where they can start the whole cycle again. I'd sooner see them put down than I would a sick labrador.

Sleepy

Zulu wrote:

Well fellows peers in society should be suitable.

Not their peers, their superiors. It insults the general public to call them peers to scum.

Zulu

Sleepy wrote:

I think it would be more likely to deter people from committing the crime in the first place if they knew that jail would not be a pleasant place instead of the soft, bleeding heart attitude our current prison system seems to have. If you do the crime be ready to do HARD time, not sit on your ass for 6 months at the tax-payer's expense. The last part of that post isn't worth dignifying.

Prisons used to be very harsh through out the ages - yet crime prevails. The whole work-camp/dungon thing has been done to bits, but to no avail. A modern and inovate approach is needed. Calling our prison system soft/bleeding heart deserves as much dignity as my Gulag comment.

Sleepy wrote:

Some human life is precious. A newborn baby, a person who has lived a good life or even someone who has tried their best to live a good life and generally succeeded, the majority of the posters to these boards I would credit with such. A scumbag without the ability to belong to civilised society I couldn't. They're a disgusting thing that should be gotten rid of... ...I'd sooner see them put down than I would a sick labrador.

That is very scary talk to me. :eek: I hope your not serious.

Zulu

Sleepy wrote:

Not their peers, their superiors. It insults the general public to call them peers to scum.

Nazis talked of superiors. Be careful how you say what you want to say - your talk is sounding...

Sleepy

Our prison system is soft. How can you argue otherwise? No-one serves either a just or a full term. They often get better food, more privacy and more comfortable accomodation than they had at home. They get genuinely free education and training. Surely it'd be a better spend of the taxpayer's money to invest this cash into the main education and public housing budgets? Why favour law-breakers?

I'm entirely serious about not considering all human life precious. To use your own example of Nazism, do you believe that Hitler's life was precious? To believe that all life is equally valuable is the height of naievety to my mind. Some lives have no value, or more importantly are a cost rather than an assett to society at large. Before I'm accused outright of being a Nazi, I'm not talking about the handicapped or those incapable of contributing to society. I'm talking about those that wilfully and actively try and achieve to take away other's rights, property or lives.

BuffyBot

However locking someone up for 50 years is the exact same as killing them

That really is an astounding observation. Exact same thing - yes, except for the being dead part...

Zulu

Sleepy wrote:

Our prison system is soft. How can you argue otherwise? No-one serves either a just or a full term. They often get better food, more privacy and more comfortable accomodation than they had at home. They get genuinely free education and training. Surely it'd be a better spend of the taxpayer's money to invest this cash into the main education and public housing budgets? Why favour law-breakers?.

Well, no, if we can train them to be more productive members of society, perhaps they won't resort to crime when they are released! Convicts are less likely to re-offend if they are opportunities for them to succeed. If they can break out of the social circles they were stuck in, people tend to want to better themselves. (Agreed some, just can't help themselves - kleptomaniacs etc. but these are mental illnesses that need care not punishment) Again I stress the emphasis should be on prevention of crime.

It's worth noting that we have a space problem in our prisons, hence people get released early. This is because we can't afford more prisons. Keeping convicts in prison for longer periods won't solve this problem - it fact it will compound it.

Sleepy wrote:

I'm entirely serious about not considering all human life precious. To use your own example of Nazism, do you believe that Hitler's life was precious? To believe that all life is equally valuable is the height of naivety to my mind. Some lives have no value, or more importantly are a cost rather than an asset to society at large. Before I'm accused outright of being a Nazi, I'm not talking about the handicapped or those incapable of contributing to society. I'm talking about those that wilfully and actively try and achieve to take away other's rights, property or lives.

Ok but here - YOU would "wilfully and actively try and achieve to take away other's rights or lives" (scum bags anyway), so how are you any better?
As for Hitler, had his upbringing been more socially sound, perhaps he wouldn't have resented the Jews so much? Had that been the case...

Nuttzz

Look no further than Pulp Fiction (and forget all this Nazi business) "Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' ****, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', hillbilly boy?"

Dont do the crime if you cant take the time.....

JTPB

Darren wrote:

I don't believe that castration would be a suitable punishment. Remember people have been exhonorated on appeal before.

10 years for a crime such as rape seems very lenient though. I would have thought that 30 to 40 years would have been more fitting.

You don't even serve that length for killing a Garda. Besides, if it's the Cratloe case you are talking about, as it seems you are, remember they were legally children at the time of the offence.

"Suffer little children to come unto me", and all that innocence, y'know.