Human rights for all?

Kold

Ok, after reading a few threads here, it seems that some of you would gladly welcome back capital punishment for certain crimes. Now I find this quite alarming. Although I agree that a lot of cases are really quite dispicable, I like to think that society rises above the vicious spite of the individual. I would not condone the death penalty, degradation or torture simply because I don't trust society with these powers.
Law enforcement is a must as is punishing crime but when I hear people crying out for castration or torturous death penalties I cannot agree with empowering government to do these things. By giving it the power once, you encourage the pushing of boundaries and in a world of media speculation it really lends itself to abuse.

I think if we're going to have human rights then human rights should be for all regardless of what a person has done. Lock them up, don't douse them with tax money but at the same time, protect prisoners from bullying and rape. An extra right I would add is the right to suicide. I don't see why my taxes should pay for someone who doesn't want to live and in all likeliness, I don't want to live just because some people feel that through their suffering the state is somehow being repaid.

Where do you people stand?

Kold

I see how humanities might be the right place for this but it was reactionary on the pregnant 10 yr old thread (news forum?).

Dennis the Stone

agree with you on the suicide bit.. some lives just aren't worth living and nobody can be the judge of whether or not a life is worth living apart from the person him or herself

orestes

I don't believe that rapists and child abusers should be protected under the banner of human rights as I simply feel that the nature of their crimes disqualifies them from humanity. I personally think they should be castrated, for two reasons. 1. as punishment for their utterly horrific crimes, and 2. so that they can never repeat their offences.

I doubt it's gonna be the most popular response on this thread, but that's where I stand on it

Jesus Wept

orestes wrote: »

2. so that they can never repeat their offences.

I doubt it's gonna be the most popular response on this thread, but that's where I stand on it

Regardless of whether or not I agree with your proposal...
I fail to see how castration prevents them from abusing a child?

Kold

The-Rigger wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not I agree with your proposal...
I fail to see how castration prevents them from abusing a child?

If anything I think spaying would be more useful and perhaps more humane.

orestes

I was referring to child molesters, sorry for not being clearer, my bad

If there is a way to kill their sex-drive without removing their testicles, I'm all for that instead, but if not I stand by the snipping option

AlmightyCushion

Human rights for some, miniature american flags for others.

*everyone cheers whilst waving a miniature american flag*

randylonghorn

orestes wrote: »

I was referring to child molesters, sorry for not being clearer, my bad

If there is a way to kill their sex-drive without removing their testicles, I'm all for that instead, but if not I stand by the snipping option

So getting the snip kills someone's sex drive?

Tell that to all the men out there who get it done so that they can have more sex without having to worry about fathering (additional) children.

Kazobel

The-Rigger wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not I agree with your proposal...
I fail to see how castration prevents them from abusing a child?

I don't really post anymore (well to be honest I haven't post at all in a long time) but I can answer this from my experience and maybe give you all some perspective. I take an injection that supress testerone, parts down there don't work anymore and that makes me happy but I still had to replace those hormones with female hormones because hormones aren't just what makes you horney etc they regulate your body too. Before starting on the female hormones I had to (and still do) inject an implant into my stomach every month and that supressive all the testerone but I had to live for 8 weeks without any hormones because it all had to be out of my system before I could start the eastrogen but in that 8 weeks, as I was losing hormones I became very dispondant, I got very depressed, my kidneys stopped working, I couldn't think, I couldn't eat, I went from cold to hot flashes constantly my liver just quit and I was in hospital for a few weeks because of it all because I had no hormones and felt like days and nights didn't exist, I hardly slept because my body didn't know when to. You can't just take them away, if they did he'd die, hormones do more than just give you a boner, they help you're body regulate heat, they keep your organs in sync, you need them to sleep. He need his nuts because they make testesterone and that help his heart beat. Even with a chemical castration he'd still need to then be put on hormones because he'd need them to live. Sorry just my 2 cents on a subject that I know something about.

DonalN

anyone who abuses a child deserves the death penalty. that is just my opinion.

SimpleSam06

Kazobel wrote: »

He need his nuts because they make testesterone and that help his heart beat.

I'm afraid this is in defiance of thousands of years of eunuch production. It was actually considered quite the good career move in many cultures.

orestes wrote: »

1. as punishment for their utterly horrific crimes, and 2. so that they can never repeat their offences.

Soo, all those female teachers in the US who "abuse" boys as young as 13 should have their vaginas cemented over? And what happens in cases where the boyfriend is 17 and the girlfriend is 15, should he have his lad sawn off for being a horny teenager? Modern society is still clambering out of the victorian era, and catching up to the actual nature of human beings.

That said, yes there are creepy, nasty people who should be put on a permanent course of suppressants to make them viable members of society again. If their problems extend beyond the realm of sex, lock em up and throw away the key. Its the price we pay as a civilised society for not exectuing people, and I'm not unhappy with that as opposed to the alternatives.

Zee Deveel

orestes wrote: »

I don't believe that rapists and child abusers should be protected under the banner of human rights as I simply feel that the nature of their crimes disqualifies them from humanity. I personally think they should be castrated, for two reasons. 1. as punishment for their utterly horrific crimes, and 2. so that they can never repeat their offences.

I doubt it's gonna be the most popular response on this thread, but that's where I stand on it

What about the people sentenced and marked as rapists after consentingly having sex with their 15/16 year old girl friends? Do they deserve castration, or some sort of death penalty? If not, what could be done to ensure that they weren't wrongly sentenced?

Personally, I believe in human rights for all. Tempting as some stories and reports may make it for me to change my mind about this, I think it is ultimately for the betterment of our society that capital punishment is illegal. I suppose the slippery slope argument has been done (I only read as far as the post I'm quoting now), but power is corrupting, and I would genuinely worry for the wellbeing of many people, who may just have bad attitudes, bad reputations, or just no alibi.

Quality

I believe if you do the crime you should do the time. But sitting in prison all day while we pay for it is a bit of a joke, These prisoners should be made do hard labour and work for their keep.

I dont think that castration, the death penalty or torture is neccessary, unless it is voluntary castration for paedophiles. The reason I dont believe in the death penalty is that these people should have to live with their guilty conscience for the rest of their lives.

I think that the sentencing in this country is a joke. Life should mean life. Rapists and Paedophiles should have much longer sentences also. I dont believe that murderers or rapists should be allowed a second chance to reoffend either,.

Zee Deveel

I'd agree with a lot of that, but would contest the 'hard labour' bit. Surely it would be better for many prisoners, particularly those with a prospect of getting out one day, that they participate in compulsary education, from everything from sex and protection education, to trades, to chances to do the leaving certificate or other qualification that will be of benefit to them when they get outside again. A benefit to the individual, enhancing their chance of a better life afterwards, and of more benefit to society than coming out knowing how to move heavy objects or dig deep holes.

SimpleSam06

Zee Deveel wrote: »

they participate in compulsary education, from everything from sex and protection education, to trades, to chances to do the leaving certificate or other qualification that will be of benefit to them when they get outside again.

Except that normally prison education programs don't have a huge role in preventing recidivism. Many of the people in prisons are there because of a severely distorted outlook on the world, education isn't especially beneficial in aligning that outlook with the rest of society.

What might work would be a "re-education" program, brainwash them so they aren't a danger to themselves and others any more, using proven and effective methods perfected by cults. I'm only half kidding.

dsmythy

If you fail to act like a human being you should be therefore classified as a non-human. Committing murder is the most anti-humane thing around so why should the perpetrator be treated otherwise? My first thought is always the death penalty for these fruckers but when i think about it i rather they rot slowly in jail for the rest of their lives on basic supplies. Death is too quick and easy for them.

Kold

What murder constitutes the death penalty? Bush going into Iraq has caused far more innocent deaths than Dahmer could've dreamed of causing.

I know of a lad who was in a nightclub and ended up getting with a girl who turned out to be 15, the parents got involved and he ended up doing time. He got an awful hard time because all they knew of him was that he was a sex offender. If you go to a club, you assume that the girl is of age. If we can't trust the state to handle this sort of case then f*ck capital punishment.

Kold

dsmythy wrote: »

If you fail to act like a human being you should be therefore classified as a non-human. Committing murder is the most anti-humane thing around so why should the perpetrator be treated otherwise? My first thought is always the death penalty for these fruckers but when i think about it i rather they rot slowly in jail for the rest of their lives on basic supplies. Death is too quick and easy for them.

That sounds malicious to me. Surely if you are above them you shouldn't give a **** as long as they can't do it to anyone else?

iFight

Quality wrote: »

The reason I dont believe in the death penalty is that these people should have to live with their guilty conscience for the rest of their lives.

What good is that? So, as punishment you make a person live out the rest of their life in shame? Then they die and we are all happy because they suffered? You said you don't believe in torture.

Dyr

The-Rigger wrote: »

I fail to see how castration prevents them from abusing a child?

castrating em with a frag grenade will

Quality

iFight wrote: »

What good is that? So, as punishment you make a person live out the rest of their life in shame? Then they die and we are all happy because they suffered? You said you don't believe in torture.

I dont believe in physical torture,

If you do the crime you do the time. They chose to murder, rape, abuse someone... NObody forced them to do it..It is their own conscience they are living with, Meaning they will be torturing themselves..

Why should they have the death penalty and be given the easy way out?
I say hard labour and Life sentences meaning life for people who take a life.

iFight

Quality wrote: »

I dont believe in physical torture,

If you do the crime you do the time. They chose to murder, rape, abuse someone... NObody forced them to do it..It is their own conscience they are living with, Meaning they will be torturing themselves..

Why should they have the death penalty and be given the easy way out?
I say hard labour and Life sentences meaning life for people who take a life.

So you want to mentally torture people as opposed to physically?

I am completely against the Death Penalty by the way.

And no, they won't be torturing themselves; you will be torturing them by forcing them to do 'hard labour' for the rest of their life.

AckwelFoley

Death Penelty ftw.

Sure what the hell, if they make a few mistakes and fry a few innocent people. :rolleyes:

Dont get me wrong, i no fcuking bleeding heart, but 1 person that gets convicted for somthing they havnt done and get the death sentence is enough to not have a death penelty.

I was very pro death penelty up to about 3 years ago but my mind was changed for a number of reasons, the above being one of them.

Quality

So you want to mentally torture people as opposed to physically?

They will be mentally torturing themselves from their own actions

I am completely against the Death Penalty by the way.

ditto

And no, they won't be torturing themselves; you will be torturing them by forcing them to do 'hard labour' for the rest of their life.

Good enough for them...

iFight

Quality wrote:

Good enough for them...

In that case why not just shoot the poor fecker instead of wasting food feeding him only to give him enough energy to hate himself?

Quality

iFight wrote: »

In that case why not just shoot the poor fecker instead of wasting food feeding him only to give him enough energy to hate himself?

If they introduced labour into the prison service the inmates could earn their keep so to speak..

If the prison service was less cushy their would be less crime.

I am sick of the human rights activists giving out about certain parts of Mountjoy in which the inmates have to slop out... So ****ing what??.. they are in their because they are criminals, They are not on a holiday!!

Kazobel

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I'm afraid this is in defiance of thousands of years of eunuch production. It was actually considered quite the good career move in many cultures.

Most eunuchs died young and beforehand suffered from gigantisim, eventual insanity, massive organ failure because their testicles were removed before puberty so they never even started testerone. Hormones also tell your bones when to stop growing, they regulate your seratonin levels, regulate your temprature so either way castrating them wouldn't make a difference because they'd still need to be given HRT just to live. And BTW being 14 years old and having your testicles removed (usually by force) so your voice doesn't break and you can sing falsetto isn't a career move.

Lockstep

Kold wrote: »

Ok, after reading a few threads here, it seems that some of you would gladly welcome back capital punishment for certain crimes. Now I find this quite alarming. Although I agree that a lot of cases are really quite dispicable, I like to think that society rises above the vicious spite of the individual. I would not condone the death penalty, degradation or torture simply because I don't trust society with these powers.
Law enforcement is a must as is punishing crime but when I hear people crying out for castration or torturous death penalties I cannot agree with empowering government to do these things. By giving it the power once, you encourage the pushing of boundaries and in a world of media speculation it really lends itself to abuse.

I think if we're going to have human rights then human rights should be for all regardless of what a person has done. Lock them up, don't douse them with tax money but at the same time, protect prisoners from bullying and rape. An extra right I would add is the right to suicide. I don't see why my taxes should pay for someone who doesn't want to live and in all likeliness, I don't want to live just because some people feel that through their suffering the state is somehow being repaid.

Where do you people stand?

+1

I am repeatedly shocked by the way many people I know want to treat certain people.


IMHO we need to uphold our standards on human rights.

It's what separates us from them.

Quality wrote: »

I believe if you do the crime you should do the time. But sitting in prison all day while we pay for it is a bit of a joke, These prisoners should be made do hard labour and work for their keep.

Quality, your a sound woman and I respect you a lot, and while I agree prisoners should have to do some form of work, great care must be done to ensure the prisoners aren't being used to perform a service as an undercut to professionals. Many prisons in America have their convicts doing the same jobs they used to do at a fraction of the wage.
That takes away from honest joes who work to support a family.



As for capital punishment for murderers:
We're gonna kill people who kill people to teach people it's wrong to kill people?



I honestly do think that a prisoner should be educated. I think Oz mentioned that if a prisoner got his GED he was far less likely to return to prison, if he got a college degree while inside he would most likely never see the inside of a prison again.

I have some facts buried somewhere, I'll try and dig em out later

SimpleSam06

Kazobel wrote: »

And BTW being 14 years old and having your testicles removed (usually by force) so your voice doesn't break and you can sing falsetto isn't a career move.

Sigh. I'll go eat my tea since you're occupied up there on that cross.

Servants or slaves were usually castrated in order to make them safer servants of a royal court where physical access to the ruler could wield great influence. Seemingly lowly domestic functions such as making the ruler's bed, bathing him, cutting his hair, carrying him in his litter or even relaying messages could in theory give a eunuch "the ruler's ear" and impart de facto power on the formally humble but trusted servant.

In ancient China castration was both a traditional punishment (until the Sui Dynasty) and a means of gaining employment in the Imperial service.

Among the earliest records of human religion are accounts of castration as an act of devotion, and sacred eunuchs are found in spiritual roles. Archaeological finds at Çatalhöyük, a large Neolithic town of southern Anatolia, suggest that such practises were common in the worship as far back as 7500 BCE of a goddess similar perhaps to the Cybele of historical records. The Galli, later Roman followers of Cybele, also practiced ritual self-castration, known as sanguinaria. The practice is said to have continued throughout Christian times, with many of the early church castrating themselves as an act of devotion, although the extent and even the existence of this practice among Christians is controversial.

Quality

kickoutthejams wrote: »

+1
while I agree prisoners should have to do some form of work, great care must be done to ensure the prisoners aren't being used to perform a service as an undercut to professionals. Many prisons in America have their convicts doing the same jobs they used to do at a fraction of the wage.
That takes away from honest joes who work to support a family.

Excellent point, cant argue with that..

Lockstep

Quality wrote: »

Excellent point, cant argue with that..

I still agree with what you say, prisoners should work, a lot of them have had ****ty deals growing up in life and work can give you a sense of self esteem, plus it would train them for life outside.


I just think that great care needs to be made to ensure that they aren't being used by companies to make a profit/take jobs away from workers.

jill_valentine

To me, a lot of the "Blah, Paedos should be tortured!" posts are indicative of a certain flavour of morally righteous sadism. There's no reasonable arguing with the mindset, so it's hard to bother. So it doesn't necessarily mean that everybody, or even most people here, consider human rights to be conditional, just they tend to be the most vocal.

In a full tilt pitchfork-and-torches thread, who wants to be the poster going "Jesus Christ, have you people lost your minds??!!?"

pirelli

dsmythy wrote: »

If you fail to act like a human being you should be therefore classified as a non-human. Committing murder is the most anti-humane thing around so why should the perpetrator be treated otherwise? My first thought is always the death penalty for these fruckers but when i think about it i rather they rot slowly in jail for the rest of their lives on basic supplies. Death is too quick and easy for them.

Kold wrote: »

That sounds malicious to me. Surely if you are above them you shouldn't give a **** as long as they can't do it to anyone else?

It's not all black and white that you throw them in the gutter maliciously. I believe corrupt officials are the true scourge of civilisation , That is people entrusted with gathering evidence and compiling prosecution case's i.e false confession's and tampered evidence and planting evidence and jail house snitchs and generally lying and of course the incompetent lawyer. If there wasnt such a business of people abusing justice then people wouldnt be so vicious. Admittedly in reality it is more convienent to hurt the person you despise off record and then to lie about it, bigoted as that seems. I wouldnt like to have to go through the embarrassment of trying to get the police to prosecute a paedophile who really I can only call a hebephile for a crime that would humilate the victim in explaining. It's laughable that people have such strong feelings about the end of the process i.e the penalty. The injustice always starts at the beginning of the process. Sexual offenders rarely see the penalty stage. Alot of sexuable abuse in the last decade could have been prevented but because of this start of the process problem i.e hebephile homosexuals that procure children for sex. There is a group called man boy that actually believes this behaviour is acceptable. The gardai only involvement in catching a sex ring was when a garda was a member of that sex ring.The childs mother caught him. Human rights are paramount expecially in this age of technology. In ancient time's toungues were softer and language more intelligent and traditions and customs had more importance. Our wings are growing smaller and our criminal records bigger and longer.In reality this thread should be about building a bigger prison to house all the indictable felons.Sexual assualt of a child is only a misdeameanour while rape is a felony.Is this the issue.

the_syco

Quality wrote: »

They chose to murder, rape, abuse someone...

If think they did it cos they liked doing it? That some of them would have a **** thinking about when they killed someone? Some of these people don't think like everyone else.

Quality wrote: »

It is their own conscience they are living with, Meaning they will be torturing themselves..

"torturing themselves"? How? Reread the bit above about some getting off on the abuse.

Quality wrote: »

Why should they have the death penalty and be given the easy way out?
I say hard labour and Life sentences meaning life for people who take a life.

Easy way out? Nay: everyone wants to live. Killing them prevents them from doing so, and it also is a sure way of preventing them of reoffending.

=-=

I'm for the death penalty, but it's a pity the evidence causing it can be tampered with, or can be just wrong.

=-=

The Nazi's had human rights for all, except for the Jews, gypsies, etc... much like the people in this thread want human rights for all, except for the peados, killers...

It's not whether or not they've done something to deserve it, it's whether or not the majority thinks what they did was wrong.

Stercus Accidit

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sigh. I'll go eat my tea since you're occupied up there on that cross.

In fairness, modern science and dedicated research into a life changing decision,
ie, kazobels

Versus,

Lazily googling a wikipedia article.

EamonnKeane

snyper wrote: »

Dont get me wrong, i no fcuking bleeding heart, but 1 person that gets convicted for somthing they havnt done and get the death sentence is enough to not have a death penelty.

One could say the same about any penalty of any kind. Justice can't be perfect. The death penalty would send a message as to the gravity of murder

Black Swan

There is a problem with the administration of capital punishment that everyone seems to forget or ignore? The criminal is sentenced to death, and the State kills him? Well, it's not the abstract "State" that kills him, but a real, living person that must kill another person.

Kazobel

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sigh. I'll go eat my tea since you're occupied up there on that cross.

What cross are you on about you twat? you're name suits you and by the way we can a quote wikipedia :rolleyes:

Castrato

Castration before puberty (or in its early stages) prevents a boy's larynx from being transformed by the normal physiological events of puberty. As a result, the vocal range of prepubescence (shared by both sexes) is largely retained, and the voice develops into adulthood in a unique way. As the castrato's body grew, his lack of testosterone meant that his epiphyses (bone-joints) did not harden in the normal manner. Thus the limbs of the castrati often grew unusually long, as did the bones of their ribs. This, combined with intensive training, gave them unrivalled lung-power and breath capacity. Operating through small, child-sized vocal cords, their voices were also extraordinarily flexible, and quite different from the equivalent adult female voice, as well as higher vocal ranges of the uncastrated adult male (see soprano, mezzo-soprano, alto, sopranist, countertenor and contralto). Listening to the only surviving recordings of a castrato (see below), one can hear that the lower part of the voice sounds like a "super-high" tenor, with a more falsetto-like upper register above that.

I stand by what I said, a pre-pubesent boy doesn't choose to be castrated

Lockstep

EamonnKeane wrote: »

One could say the same about any penalty of any kind. Justice can't be perfect.

Hardly a fair example.

Paying a e200 fine or spending a few years in jail is vastly different being killed. Any non-lethal penalty can at least be compensated to some degree. Being executed can never be compensated.

EamonnKeane wrote: »

The death penalty would send a message as to the gravity of murder

As I said before:
We're gonna kill people who kill people to teach people it's wrong to kill people?

Gordon

Kazobel wrote: »

What cross are you on about you twat? you're name suits you and by the way we can a quote wikipedia :rolleyes:

Castrato



I stand by what I said, a pre-pubesent boy doesn't choose to be castrated

No need for sweary marys there Kazobel.

Being a eunuch at some points in history has been very advantageous. They could get to be the right hand man of leaders and royalty. There was even a case of a eunuch gaining power over a country due to his king dying and leaving him in charge. Unfortunately I don't have my book that I read that in here so I can't give you any references wrt this, sorry.

Incidentally, just because you have your balls chopped off doesn't mean you don't get erections and have sexual drive. Castrated men can even ejaculate a small amount of fluid.

Quality

the_syco wrote: »

If think they did it cos they liked doing it? That some of them would have a **** thinking about when they killed someone? Some of these people don't think like everyone else.


"torturing themselves"? How? Reread the bit above about some getting off on the abuse.

Allow them to live in frustration then for the rest of their miserable lives..

Easy way out? Nay: everyone wants to live. Killing them prevents them from doing so, and it also is a sure way of preventing them of reoffending

Being locked up prevents them from reoffending..

But the sentencing laws in this country are a joke..

Kazobel

Gordon wrote: »

No need for sweary marys there Kazobel.

I didn't curse, I wanted to considering what he was implying but I chose not to.

Gordon wrote: »

Being a eunuch at some points in history has been very advantageous. They could get to be the right hand man of leaders and royalty. There was even a case of a eunuch gaining power over a country due to his king dying and leaving him in charge. Unfortunately I don't have my book that I read that in here so I can't give you any references wrt this, sorry.

I know at times there have been eunuchs who chose it soley for the status it brought but there's a difference between choice and forced, 14 year old boys didn't choose and no one no matter how bad their crime should have it done to them either because it wouldn't be an affective punishment, you'd be condemning them to a slow death. Don't worry about the books, I hate all that "Where's your source?" crap, I believe you in what you're saying.

Gordon wrote: »

Incidentally, just because you have your balls chopped off doesn't mean you don't get erections and have sexual drive. Castrated men can even ejaculate a small amount of fluid.

I have to disagree here, I know from the experience of a chemical castration that erections stop, sex drive becomes more affection based because you become assexual where sex doesn't really matter anymore. I'm only saying this from the point of view of being a pre-op TS and only how it's affected me, others might be different but I doubt it, none of my other TS friends have functionallity either.

SimpleSam06

Motosam wrote: »

In fairness, modern science and dedicated research into a life changing decision,
ie, kazobels

Versus,

Lazily googling a wikipedia article.

Lets try,

A supported point of view from a semi respectable source

Versus,

Some random claiming they are a post op.

Kazobel wrote: »

What cross are you on about you twat?

Kazobel wrote: »

I didn't curse

Wow. Yes, you are a stable and good source of information.

Kazobel wrote: »

I know at times there have been eunuchs who chose it soley for the status it brought but there's a difference between choice and forced, 14 year old boys didn't choose and no one no matter how bad their crime should have it done to them

Sooo, which one do you think I was referring to?

Kazobel wrote: »

Don't worry about the books, I hate all that "Where's your source?" crap, I believe you in what you're saying.

Ah my faith in the value of your contributions is fully restored.

Kazobel

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Lets try,

A supported point of view from a semi respectable source

Versus,

Some random claiming they are a post op.

Semi respectable? oh yeah wikipedia, because some guy on the internet told me so it must be true.

I'm neither random nor claimed to be "Post-op", as a matter of fact anyone here will tell you I've only ever said I was pre-op

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Wow. Yes, you are a stable and good source of information.

All my information is based on experience, all your information is based on hear-say

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sooo, which one do you think I was referring to?.

It doesn't matter which one you were talking about, a eunuch is a eunuch and subject to the same medical problems.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Ah my faith in the value of your contributions is fully restored.

Ask me do I give a rats arse? the fact remains that I'm the only person posting on this thread to my knowledge that has any kind of real life insight into the effects of castration of any kind, I don't need wikipedia.

Gordon

This is an interesting piece seemingly written by a castrated man. Of course, it's just a random web page so may not have much merit, but maybe it is true. Maybe chemical castrations render a person with no sex drive but judging by Sherry Lanina there this isn't the case. So maybe a chemical castration causes different effects to actual castrations?

I find it hard to believe that having your testicles severed from your body will cause you to die a slow death by heart stoppage. But it's an interesting discussion probably more suited to the Biology forum.

Maybe a better method for stopping sex offenders to re-offend would actually be better chopping their penis off, that's probably what this particular argument is doing to the greater argument.

Terry

Kazobel wrote: »

What cross are you on about you twat? you're name suits you and by the way we can a quote wikipedia :rolleyes:

Castrato



I stand by what I said, a pre-pubesent boy doesn't choose to be castrated

Banned for personal abuse.
SimpleSam06, stop screwing around.

the_syco

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

There is a problem with the administration of capital punishment that everyone seems to forget or ignore? The criminal is sentenced to death, and the State kills him? Well, it's not the abstract "State" that kills him, but a real, living person that must kill another person.

In the US, there's a line of people that want to flick the switch for the electric chair. Seemingly, some get a buzz from legally killing someone.

Gordon wrote: »

Maybe a better method for stopping sex offenders to re-offend would actually be better chopping their penis off, that's probably what this particular argument is doing to the greater argument.

As rape is often seen as a way to show off one's power, f**king the woman with a brush will also work. Also, some men who have had the snip just becomes more spiteful of women, and think of other ways to rape them.

SimpleSam06

Gordon wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that having your testicles severed from your body will cause you to die a slow death by heart stoppage. But it's an interesting discussion probably more suited to the Biology forum.

Well the average age of the last eunuchs found in the Chinese courts was 74, if thats any good.

Kold

I don't understand how the death penalty or allowing suicide is allowing the person the 'easy way out'? What exactly does watching someone stripped of all dignity and tortured achieve? Don't say it serves as a warning because that's bullsh*t. People don't reason that way "Sh*t I reeeeally want to sodomise that kid, well I suppose it's only a couple of consecutive sentences".

Another part of this is that yes, in a lot of these cases society has failed the individual. It's not that these people were born inherently evil. Yes they need to be removed from society but I would almost say that some of the blood baying is quite perverse. Either that or simplistic.

Terry

Kold, I wouldn't worry about the comments here.
Most of it is just internet hardmen talking crap.

Put the same questions to them in real life and you would get a completely different response.