Human rights for all?

Kold · 09-02-2008 02:46AM #1

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 · 09-02-2008 02:49AM

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 · 09-02-2008 02:52AM

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 · 09-02-2008 03:10AM

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 · 09-02-2008 03:24AM

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 · 09-02-2008 03:29AM

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 · 09-02-2008 03:30AM

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 · 09-02-2008 04:48AM

Human rights for some, miniature american flags for others.

*everyone cheers whilst waving a miniature american flag*

randylonghorn · 09-02-2008 05:26AM

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 · 09-02-2008 05:34AM

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 · 09-02-2008 05:47AM

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

SimpleSam06 · 09-02-2008 09:11AM

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 · 09-02-2008 10:38AM

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 · 09-02-2008 11:08AM

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 · 09-02-2008 11:36AM

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 · 09-02-2008 11:46AM

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 · 09-02-2008 01:16PM

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 · 09-02-2008 04:51PM

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 · 09-02-2008 04:54PM

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 · 09-02-2008 05:03PM

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 · 09-02-2008 05:05PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

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

castrating em with a frag grenade will

Quality · 09-02-2008 05:13PM

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 · 09-02-2008 05:15PM

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 · 09-02-2008 05:18PM

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 · 09-02-2008 05:18PM

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 · 09-02-2008 05:21PM

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 · 09-02-2008 05:29PM

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 · 09-02-2008 05:40PM

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 · 09-02-2008 07:12PM

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 · 09-02-2008 07:12PM

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 · 09-02-2008 07:25PM

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..

Human rights for all?

Comments