Should convicted rapists be castrated

dubhthach

For murdering a garda you get a 40year sentence with no parole, it use to be the death penalty until this was abolished in 1984.

JTPB

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, .........(snip)

Nice tongue-in-cheek one ......and don't forget the stoning penalties for adultery....

JTPB

dubhthach wrote:

For murdering a garda you get a 40year sentence with no parole, it use to be the death penalty until this was abolished in 1984.

Yes, I know that's the sentence, but as far as I remember, the max time ever actually served for the crime was 17 years.... the name escapes me at present.

JTPB

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.....

But what punishments would then be left for those who had skinned people alive?

How do you feel about convicted rapists undergoing forceable rape as a form of retributive justice?

dubhthach

JTPB wrote:

Yes, I know that's the sentence, but as far as I remember, the max time ever actually served for the crime was 17 years.... the name escapes me at present.

No doubt then again the sentence was only brought in with the end of death penalty in 1984 so it will be a while before we can give a proper average on wether people served the full term or not

Silent Grape

i wouldnt wish rape on my worst enemy. that wouldnt solve anything.

argh said id leave and im back..

Darren

JTPB wrote:

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.

I was actually thinking about all the women in the UK who have been released recently that were accused of killing their own children. The doctor who was the star prosecution witness has been proved to have produced seriously flawed evidence. If the UK had the death penalty there would have been no bringing them back. Need I mention the Carl bridgewater case, the guilford 4, the birmingham6.

JTPB

Silent Grape wrote:

i wouldnt wish rape on my worst enemy. that wouldnt solve anything. ...(snip).

Yes, I know you wouldn't, and there are other people here that wouldn't, but where you have people like Lisa C. who want barbaric butchery as a punishment; two questions really have to be asked of them, so this is what I am doing:

1)Why will you not be satisfied with the doctrine of "an eye for an eye", if retribution is all you want?

and 2) Based on the "eye for an eye" doctrine, why would you not leave the skinning alive and dipping in vinegar for thugs who had actually committed that particular crime?

pretty-in-pink

try catch em before they fall, show the long term effects of crime to people while they are in school, prevention is better then cure.

i reckon if we made rapists stick around, see the true cost of their actions, face up to what they are, and what they will become, then they would be less likely to attack. I think rape is essentially a crime of passion. before i get told its about power not sex, hear(read) me out.

1) crime of passion.....does not have to equate loving feelings, or sex. its simply a strong emotion. lust, rage, rejection, embarassment, anger, bizarely love...... can make someone hurt someone else. coupled with the feeling of being in control of something and someone. how screwed up do ya have to be to put another person so far down that it makes you feel good?

its all over in mere minutes, the attacker walks away, unscarred, sated and probably unaware that the battle has only just begun. it ends when they finish for them, so why not the perpee? from what ive seen thats the logic behind how they can be so adjusted to it. Its also used as a means to keep someone "in their place", like a beating would, but with a sexual motive. if it was only about power, then why have sex? why not beat someone, or tie them up? rapists get a sexual high from being in power, which is all well and good when its a bit of bondage with a willing partner, but when they cant get someone to sleep with them, to satisfy their personal need or desire, it seems to become a "goal" to get that person, and to make them sorry for rejecting them. its the mentality of a small child, with the aggression and desires of an adult. scary thought eh?

Zulu

naughty_girl wrote:

try catch em before they fall, show the long term effects of crime to people while they are in school, prevention is better then cure.

good point.

naughty_girl wrote:

i reckon if we made rapists stick around, see the true cost of their actions, face up to what they are, and what they will become, then they would be less likely to attack.

ahh, now, what exactly do you mean? Have the rapist stick around the victim to see the aftermath? Isn't that a bit hard on the victim? Surly the victim would want to put as much distance between them an the attacker?

naughty_girl wrote:

I think rape is essentially a crime of passion. before i get told its about power not sex, hear(read) me out.
1) crime of passion.....does not have to equate loving feelings, or sex. its simply a strong emotion. lust, rage, rejection, embarassment, anger, bizarely love...... can make someone hurt someone else. coupled with the feeling of being in control of something and someone. how screwed up do ya have to be to put another person so far down that it makes you feel good?

Not all rapes are. Your assuming that. Some rapes are cold and calculated.

naughty_girl wrote:

its all over in mere minutes, the attacker walks away, unscarred, sated and probably unaware that the battle has only just begun.

I'd say alot of rapist know this fact well actually.

naughty_girl wrote:

from what ive seen thats the logic behind how they can be so adjusted to it. Its also used as a means to keep someone "in their place", like a beating would, but with a sexual motive. if it was only about power, then why have sex?

What exactly have you seen? Where are you getting this "keep in your place" motive? While that may be the cause of some rapes, not all.

naughty_girl wrote:

why not beat someone, or tie them up? rapists get a sexual high from being in power, which is all well and good when its a bit of bondage with a willing partner

It's not about bondage. It's not (always) about a sexual high.

naughty_girl wrote:

but when they cant get someone to sleep with them, to satisfy their personal need or desire, it seems to become a "goal" to get that person, and to make them sorry for rejecting them. its the mentality of a small child, with the aggression and desires of an adult. scary thought eh?

hummm ok, you've listed a few possiable motives for an attack here - but I'm not sure of the point your trying to make. Suffice to say - not all victims turn down the advances of the attacker first. As in the case we previously were talking about - the children hardly attempted to chat up the woman first, they attacked them randomally. It wasn't bondage; it wasn't wounded pride; it wasn't "keeping her in her place". It was about power. That's why they shouted "we're raping your bird" to the boyfriend in the boot. (Just thinking about it again angers me deep inside)

Sleepy

Zulu wrote:

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.

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...

And surely anyone that can be "trained" will not land themselves in court a third, fourth or even fortieth(sp) time. In fairness there's a difference between a kleptomaniac, a serial rapist and a mass murderer, Zulu. If someone is going to continually re-offend and damage more people, surely society is better off without them. Keeping convicts in jail for long periods is something I can only condone if they pay for it themselves, why should we suffer for their misdeeds?

How am I better if I advocate killing these scumbags? Well let me see, what I call for is good for society (it protects our communities and frees up tax revenues to invest in our children and the victims of scumbag's crimes), what they do is bad for society (it damages our communities and ties up state revenue that could be better spent). Simple maths.

JTPB

dubhthach wrote:

No doubt then again the sentence was only brought in with the end of death penalty in 1984 so it will be a while before we can give a proper average on wether people served the full term or not

While the death penalty was outlawed here a good while back, I think it had not been actually been used since the 1960's' the Cabinet used to meet, and invariably decide not to proceed with the execution.

dubhthach

JTPB wrote:

While the death penalty was outlawed here a good while back, I think it had not been actually been used since the 1960's' the Cabinet used to meet, and invariably decide not to proceed with the execution.

correct the last execution in Mountjoy was in the 1950's the execution chamber still exists to this day though. What happened up until formal abolishment of death penalty was that the sentence was commuted to life in prisonment

JTPB

Sleepy wrote:

And surely anyone that can be "trained" will not land themselves in court a third, fourth or even fortieth(sp) time. In fairness there's a difference between a kleptomaniac, a serial rapist and a mass murderer, Zulu.

There is a difference in the seriousness of these offences, that is true.

Sleepy wrote:

If someone is going to continually re-offend and damage more people, surely society is better off without them. Keeping convicts in jail for long periods is something I can only condone if they pay for it themselves, why should we suffer for their misdeeds?

Excuse me??? :eek: While I understand the general point you are making, that their imprisonment is costing the rest of us money - which is undesireable - I think you are oversimplifying things when you make out that we are the only ones who are suffering for their misdeeds. What you wrote completely ignores the fact that imprisonment is indeed a form of punishment - so they are suffering for their misdeeds as well - which is a rather critical point.

Now, having brought some balance back into the equation, as you said above, some crimes are more serious than others, there are differences between them. Hence the need for differing length of sentences for differing seriousnesses of criminal acts.

Now, if after that, you want to talk about making the prisoner contribute largely to his upkeep, that would be a different matter.

Sleepy wrote:

How am I better if I advocate killing these scumbags? Well let me see, what I call for is good for society (it protects our communities and frees up tax revenues to invest in our children and the victims of scumbag's crimes), what they do is bad for society (it damages our communities and ties up state revenue that could be better spent). Simple maths.

Well, your concerns here are obviously exclusively for us non-scumbags, our children, and our society, no matter what the cost to them.

Their concerns are obviously exclusively for themselves (scumbags), their friends, and their society, no matter what the cost to us.

There doesn't seem to be much of a difference.

However, I can tell you mean well, nevertheless, and I'm pleased to see you taking it so seriously.

Georgiana

I'm very curious to know why you came up with this thought in the first place or have such a level of engagement with the subject as to post the question.

Sleepy

Well, JTPB, my point is that under our system, imprisonment isn't much of a punishment. Inmates get their own TV's, menus and a readily available source of drugs. They aren't suffering nearly enough for their misdeeds. With the expense of keeping criminals in jail being higher than putting them up in a 5 star hotel, it's no wonder the prison system (albeit admittedly through some gross mismanagement) can't afford to keep scum locked up. Society suffers because this money could have been better spent in taking care of law abiding citizens and helping to prevent crime from taking place in the first place. To my mind, society shouldn't suffer for the acts of a criminal. How can you argue it's okay that we do because the criminal also "suffers"?

Yes, my concerns are for the non-scumbags, for the law-abiding decent people of Ireland. Criminals don't deserve to be looked after, society at large does. By looking after society at large, you'll find less people turning to crime, add harsh punishments (or even proper jail sentances in jails as opposed to health spas) to this system and you'll find that all of society will benefit.

I've never once advocated a "one strike and you get the bullet" policy. I'd advocate it for the likes of these scum that have rapsheets longer than methuzalah's beard.

However, I can tell you mean well, nevertheless, and I'm pleased to see you taking it so seriously.

I don't know whether to take that as condecension, naieveté or just the words of a sanctimonious prick.

Georgiana

Criminals must be accountable for their actions and society must be protected. However I would urge everyone to recognise that people (and that means you and me as well as well as those deemed scumbags) are complex. If you study human behaviour across different places and times, there is masses of evidence that every person, in certain circumstances is capable of horrendous actions against other people. This is shown time and time again in such situations as war and ethinc conflict and where in cases where the abused becomes the abuser. The arguments put here are put in very simplistic terms, where "we" are the good guys and "they" are the "scum". Society must have order and rules, the first of which is respect for others and for property. Those who break the rules must be held accountable. But in doing so, the mistake is to fail to differentiate between the person and their crime. If we want to mistreat someone, the first step to doing so is to dehumanise the person,as opposed to requiring the person to be accountable for their criminal action. To dehumanise a person the first step is to find a dehumanising label which distances the person from ourselves. Examples are "scum", "animal" "sex-beast" "fenian bastard" "black prod" "knacker" and in other times "jew". Labels are extremely dangerous in making it "ok" to hate and abuse . Tabloid newspapers fuel this type of immature simplistic dangerous thinking. The reality is that each of us, and I include myself in this, could be Lyndie England abusing Iraqui prisoners or an IRA man with a weapon or a rapist in a wood if certain circumatances prevailed and we weakened under those circumstances. You and I are lucky enough to have cerain strengths in place and certain supports in our environment to keep us on the straignt and narrow. In places like Yugoslavia and Kosovo, upstanding respectable citizens turned on their neighbours and savagely brutalised, raped and murdered them. These people cannot now explain how it happened. The same happened during the second world war when respectable men went out and shot Jewish children into their graves for the establishment. Seeing these people interviewed today they look like our grandfathers and very normal. They cannot explain why they did it. The reason in all cases is because the label on the victim was a dehumanising one (Jewish bastard/ Albanian bastard etc) and an atmosphere of adrenelin fuelled hatred was all around.

Finally I would suggest reading the Deirdre Purcell novel "LOVE LIKE HATE ADORE" which is a very interesting take on the subject of rape. It deals with the situation from the viewpoint of the perpetrators family. I would be interested in the comments of those who think rapists should be castrated after reading this novel.

I am not a bleeding heart liberal. But I refuse to support actions which are based a false simplification or distortion of reality, in other words, ignorance.

Zulu

Sleepy wrote:

And surely anyone that can be "trained" will not land themselves in court a third, fourth or even fortieth(sp) time. In fairness there's a difference between a kleptomaniac, a serial rapist and a mass murderer, Zulu. If someone is going to continually re-offend and damage more people, surely society is better off without them.

Come on Sleepy, I know there a difference, the point I'm making is, that some people commit crimes because they simply can't help it. Pyromaniacs, kleptomaniacs etc.. The problem with the system you suggest, is that these people (after there 3/5/10 conviction) will be given a "bullet to the head". This isn't right. These people have a mental illness; they need treatment.

Sleepy wrote:

Keeping convicts in jail for long periods is something I can only condone if they pay for it themselves, why should we suffer for their misdeeds?

Because, we, and them, are society, like it or not. We have an obligation of care, to our society. To the sick; to the poor; and unfortunatly, to the "scum".

Sleepy wrote:

How am I better if I advocate killing these scumbags? Well let me see, what I call for is good for society (it protects our communities and frees up tax revenues to invest in our children and the victims of scumbag's crimes), what they do is bad for society (it damages our communities and ties up state revenue that could be better spent). Simple maths.

Well, simple maths isn't always good for society. I would disagree with you completely on the above point. I feel life and money don't belong in the same sentance - but on this point (the economics) we are chasing our tails. Pray continue with the rest of the debate.

Iago

Georgina wrote:

Criminals must be accountable for their actions and society must be protected.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, so far we're on the same track.

To dehumanise a person the first step is to find a dehumanising label which distances the person from ourselves. Examples are "scum", "animal" "sex-beast" "fenian bastard" "black prod" "knacker" and in other times "jew".

Granted, however I would argue that these is a vast difference between labelling someone on account of their heritage or colour, and labelling them on account of their actions, which in some of the cases above have had a detrimental effect on particluar persons as well as society as a whole.

Labels are extremely dangerous in making it "ok" to hate and abuse . Tabloid newspapers fuel this type of immature simplistic dangerous thinking.

Again granted, but if someone is found guilty of a sexual attack then it is not a label to call them a sex offender, but a fact as proven by a court of law.

The reality is that each of us, and I include myself in this, could be Lyndie England abusing Iraqui prisoners or an IRA man with a weapon or a rapist in a wood if certain circumatances prevailed and we weakened under those circumstances.

I disagree with this statement, the fact is that we are not all predisposed to act this way and not everyone would rape another person. In the case of Lyndie England, to a great extent she was following orders, not that I excuse her behaviour for that, but she has been trained and conditioned to obey orders without question. As a human she shouldn't have, but these circumstances are pretty unique. The guys who gang-raped that woman had no such circumstances, just an evil inclination and a desire to cause harm to somebody else

The same happened during the second world war when respectable men went out and shot Jewish children into their graves for the establishment. Seeing these people interviewed today they look like our grandfathers and very normal.

There is nothing nomal with these people, the average soldier who fought for his country and obeyed orders was only doing what he/she had to do. The guys who exterminated children and people on the basis of their religon did so out of sadistic pleasure. When they were kids they probably pulled the legs and wings of insects to see them squirm, and I think any comparison with normal is out of the question.

The reason in all cases is because the label on the victim was a dehumanising one (Jewish bastard/ Albanian bastard etc) and an atmosphere of adrenelin fuelled hatred was all around.

So your basic premise is that if we don't know the individual but have a reason for hatred of a group then we are more likely to form illogical opinons and act outside of our nature. Again I grant you this point and it is well made, but doesn't really bear much relevance to the question at hand. Rapists and sexual offenders and child molesters are already dehumanised, if they weren't then they wouldn't commit these kind of crimes, there is a vast difference again between them and people who are discriminated against on the basis of culture or colour.

Finally I would suggest reading the Deirdre Purcell novel "LOVE LIKE HATE ADORE" which is a very interesting take on the subject of rape. It deals with the situation from the viewpoint of the perpetrators family. I would be interested in the comments of those who think rapists should be castrated after reading this novel.

There is no disputing that the perpetrators family suffer severe pyschological trauma as a result of finding out that their son/daughter is capable of doing this, and while we should feel sorry for them, the suffering of the victim and the victims family is on a different scale to theirs. This on it's own wouldn't make me reconsider my attitude towards castration (although I'm sure it's a good book) in fact if it was one of my family members I'd do it myself!

I am not a bleeding heart liberal. But I refuse to support actions which are based a false simplification or distortion of reality, in other words, ignorance.

I think it's a bit rash to describe peoples opinions as ignorant, I don't personally agree with your argument or opinion but I respect your right to have it and state i. Maybe some of the repsondents are being driven from an emotional rather than logical perspective but that's not always a bad thing,and it doesn't negate their argument.

Personnally I'm in favour of castration for rapists, would it stamp out rape altogether? Probably not, but what we're doing at the moment isn't helping, rape is a crime that's on the increase and the physical and pyschocological scares it leaves behind take a lifetime to get over (if the victim ever does) it seems to me that a few years in prison is a very small price to pay for ruining someones life.

Sleepy

Georgiana, you couldn't get me to read Deirdre Purcell or any of the chick lit crap if you paid me. However, you do raise a few good points.

As a child if I was bored I invented a new game or got some friends together to play an old one. I didn't take part in a gang rape. Ask these kids (I'll conceed your point on the use of the word scum, while I deem these sort of people to be unworthy of life, I can't deny that they presently have it) why they did it? and the answer will be the same "because I was bored". These aren't good people in extreme circumstances such as you describe (war, locked in a blood feud in the north, etc).

Zulu, we reach the point on which there will never be an agreement between us and imho, the kernel of this argument. I don't see how one can argue that society has an obligation to any person who continually has no regard for it's laws and grossly mistreats it's members.

Sometimes in nature the few must suffer for the greater good of the many. If someone intends to continually rape, murder or harm others, to my mind the lives of the many (their future victims and their families) outweighs the right of that individual to life. Try explain to the mother of a murdered child why their child had to give their life so as to ensure that this individual could be "helped". I'm sure you won't get too far, the question is: would you really want to?

Zulu

Iago wrote:

Again granted, but if someone is found guilty of a sexual attack then it is not a label to call them a sex offender, but a fact as proven by a court of law.

I think the "scum" was the label in question.

Iago wrote:

I disagree with this statement, the fact is that we are not all predisposed to act this way and not everyone would rape another person. In the case of Lyndie England, to a great extent she was following orders, not that I excuse her behaviour for that, but she has been trained and conditioned to obey orders without question.

Well, you might disagree with this statment, but it has in fact been proven true in many, many socilogical experments in recient history. (it's a bit OT, but if you want to find out more PM me, or start another thread)

Iago wrote:

As a human she shouldn't have, but these circumstances are pretty unique. The guys who gang-raped that woman had no such circumstances, just an evil inclination and a desire to cause harm to somebody else

Well, I'm not going to comment on them guys as I don't know their case - but, it's often been argued that victims of abuse are ver likly to go on and abuse. Perhaps this guys are victims of unfortunate circumstances. I am not defending their actions. What they did appals me.

Iago wrote:

There is nothing nomal with these people, the average soldier who fought for his country and obeyed orders was only doing what he/she had to do. The guys who exterminated children and people on the basis of their religon did so out of sadistic pleasure. When they were kids they probably pulled the legs and wings of insects to see them squirm, and I think any comparison with normal is out of the question.

Actually, you are very wrong here. They were normal people. We aren't just talking of the SS here. The Weirmarct are guilty. The public were guilty. It wasn't just religion either. The comparison is both valid and apt.

Iago wrote:

Rapists and sexual offenders and child molesters are already dehumanised, if they weren't then they wouldn't commit these kind of crimes, there is a vast difference again between them and people who are discriminated against on the basis of culture or colour.

Emmm, a rapist could be discriminated because of colour, where are you going with this? I don't follow your point! A rapist isn't dehumanised until (s)he's caught, likewise with child molesters. The effect of being dehumanised, has nothing what-so-ever to do with the cause of the crime, it's an effect.

Iago wrote:

Personnally I'm in favour of castration for rapists, would it stamp out rape altogether? Probably not, but what we're doing at the moment isn't helping, rape is a crime that's on the increase and the physical and pyschocological scares it leaves behind take a lifetime to get over (if the victim ever does) it seems to me that a few years in prison is a very small price to pay for ruining someones life.

Again I make the point: What if someone (you) is found guilty when they are infact innocent? You're happy to run that risk, for a punishment that is proven NOT to work?

Zulu

Sleepy wrote:

Zulu, we reach the point on which there will never be an agreement between us and imho, the kernel of this argument. I don't see how one can argue that society has an obligation to any person who continually has no regard for it's laws and grossly mistreats it's members.

Fair enough - we won't be able to convince each other. But as a member of society, I feel responsible for it, and what it does to people. Some people grow up in terrible circumstances and the effect of such is to really screw them up. The duty of care I feel is to sort these people out, and try to prevent others from the same problems. (Thats fundamentally my point/argument)

Sleepy wrote:

Sometimes in nature the few must suffer for the greater good of the many. If someone intends to continually rape, murder or harm others, to my mind the lives of the many (their future victims and their families) outweighs the right of that individual to life. Try explain to the mother of a murdered child why their child had to give their life so as to ensure that this individual could be "helped". I'm sure you won't get too far, the question is: would you really want to?

If someone intends to continually rape/murder, they are quite sick and need help. These people shouldn't be allowed out with the general public. They should be locked up. While they are locked up, they should be treated. If they get better they should then be released. I don't think these people should be harmed. I personally feel that if we rehabilitate them correctly, the guilt they (should) feel is a decent punishment (coupled with a spell in prison).

lisa.c

ok so if someone rapes once lock him up teach him it was wrong if some one has repeatedly raped then rehab dont work.... cut it off its the only way to stop them... and what if the rapist is a women what should we do then as casteration wouldnt work...

lisa.c

If someone intends to continually rape/murder, they are quite sick and need help. These people shouldn't be allowed out with the general public. They should be locked up. While they are locked up, they should be treated. If they get better they should then be released. I don't think these people should be harmed. I personally feel that if we rehabilitate them correctly, the guilt they (should) feel is a decent punishment (coupled with a spell in prison).[/QUOTE]


why waste money and time on them we wont know there cured til after they are released.

Sleepy

Lots of people have messed up childhoods, myself included. That doesn't excuse rape murder or wanton disregard for others. I agree that we owe society a duty of care to try and prevent more people from being sick twisted and disgusting but some people are just that way inclined regardless of background or upbringing. While treatment might work for someone with a single offence, it's quite obvious that it doesn't on our repeat offenders. If they can't be treated, they are an unnecessary drain on society's resources (whether they're in prison or not) and as such shouldn't be tolerated. If we could lock these people up for eternity with no cost to society, fine I'd go along with that, unfortunately we live in the real world where this doesn't happen.

Zulu

lisa.c wrote:

ok so if someone rapes once lock him up teach him it was wrong if some one has repeatedly raped then rehab dont work.... cut it off its the only way to stop them...

If rehab don't work - we need to find out why. "Cut it off" won't help. People get raped by objects also.

lisa.c wrote:

and what if the rapist is a women what should we do then as casteration wouldnt work...

indeed - stitch them up? It appears to be in line with your philosophy.

lisa.c wrote:

why waste money and time on them we wont know there cured til after they are released.

Well if we actually invested a percentage of what we spend on defence (gobal economics now) we would probably be well able to rehabilitate correctly. We probably would be able to define accurate tests to determine the liklyhood of reoffenders.
This is what we should strive towards, not revenge, not barbarism.

dubhthach

Slightly offtopic

i don't think cutting off stuff will have any effect tbh,
look at transexuals they hardly loose their sex drive after having a "gender reassignment surgery" do they? as i said in a previous post testosterone and other androgrens as well as female hormones such as estrogen are produced in the adrenal glands of both sexes. Though no doubt the sex drive would be reduced by the removal of the testes i assume transexuals take some form of testosterone replacement threaphy for any such loss.

Kell

Zulu wrote:

Well if we actually invested a percentage of what we spend on defence (gobal economics now) we would probably be well able to rehabilitate correctly.

I think I am correct in thinking that you pointed out earlier that rehab/execution/imprionment etc werent an economics issue?

Lets look at how things are panning out globally, and even look close to home for examples. Certain groups within socitey have learnt that it is OK to scrounge off the system for the duration of their life and earn a bit of cash on the side through crime. That group, through ignorance and a "I dont give a fúck" attitude, produces an excess number of children in relation to what the welfare state can sustain and that group of children learn the same principles of their miguided parents.

Slowly but surely, supporting this growing group of wasters and scroungers eats into economic budgets and drains resources from elsewhere, while the scrounging group, whom some have classified as "scumbags" increasingly run "out of things to do" and joy ride, rape, mug etc to get their kicks.

Over more time, the welfare state starts to eat so much into economic budgets that the nice law abiding people who think lofty thoughts of world peace and a society rid of crime, get repeatedly fúcked over and the tide of scumbags continues to rise.

Re-habilitate all of them? Charge you, me, and all the nice people for their re-integration into normal society? Fúck them. Fúck all of them. In fact, I am being honest in stating "shoot the fúckers".

Time we had a turn in the tide.

K-

Syth

dubhthach wrote:

Slightly offtopic

i don't think cutting off stuff will have any effect tbh,
look at transexuals they hardly loose their sex drive after having a "gender reassignment surgery" do they? as i said in a previous post testosterone and other androgrens as well as female hormones such as estrogen are produced in the adrenal glands of both sexes. Though no doubt the sex drive would be reduced by the removal of the testes i assume transexuals take some form of testosterone replacement threaphy for any such loss.

Actually I think transexuals do experience a sexual change. Male to female transexuals become impotent. I saw a programme on female to male transexuals and the subject of the programme says he started noticing boobies a lot more when he took the testosterone.

I don't speak from experience here, this is just what I've read.

lisa.c

quote KELL
Slowly but surely, supporting this growing group of wasters and scroungers eats into economic budgets and drains resources from elsewhere, while the scrounging group, whom some have classified as "scumbags" increasingly run "out of things to do" and joy ride, rape, mug etc to get their kicks.

how can you say that not every waster who rapes is on the dole. rape is about power. people who rape do it for the power they feel not because they have no money to.people who have money and live in good homes and have good jobs rape to. that has to be the daftest statement i have ever heard