GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by dragon wench


Consider this hypothetical situation for a moment

What if a law were brought into effect that condemned all rapists to castration? What if you were wrongly convicted of rape?

I don't intend this in way to be offensive, I'm just playing devil's advocate....

Yes, good point, but think of it this way. If you knew a that if you were to rape someone, and get caught, and be castrated, would you want to rape someone? Same goes for killing someone. Would you still murder someone, even though you knew that getting caught meant death?

I believe that corporal punishment is the way tog o for our justice systems. Not only would it encourage more thorough investigations (to make sure you got the right person), but it would more than likely decrease the amoun of crimes commited. Also, I don't think that it should be instigated for only the major crimes (rape, murder, etc.) but also for minor ones (theft, larson). For the minor ones, instigate a sort of public lashing.

The whole idea behind this is aversion therapy, much like Pavlov's dog training. Everytime the dog did something bad, it got a whap on the nose. In society, everytime someone does something wrong, they get lashed. eventually no one, or very few people, will be willing to break the the laws, because they would not wish to go through that sort of punishment.

IMHO, imprisonment is nothing. People serve x amount of years. The first few are usually tough, but they eventually adapt to it, and it becomes nothing more than an extended trip. Often, people in prison even live quite well. Does that sound very punishing to you? The fact is, people who are in prison long enough become whats called "Institutionalized", and almost dependant on the walls of prison, thus becoming comfortable in there. That, to me, doesn't sound like to bad of a punishment.

Originally posted by Xandax


Yeah - of course that is not a nice perspective (let me say *ouch*)

But there is always two sides to put something like this - and I'm sure I don't even has to write the other one

There will of course always be a dilemma as how to react towards certain crimes - but the crime stated in the beginning post still makes me react with the thought that they should die.

And no I'm not advocating sever punishments for all crimes - but violence and murder should imo get a sever notch up - well in Denmark anyway.
And there are cases where I would like to see a death penalty in Denmark also - we have recently had a case of a person that had been convicted before (can't remember if it was murder or just sever violence) that killed a mother and her two childen and choped them up and disposed of the remains. This guy still lives and imo should not do so.

LOL! but someone sitting in Ole Sparky won't get much of a chance to say anything

Yes, I agree. That is why 'punishment' should match the crime...but what if there was a mistake? a miscarriage of justice? There is no going back is there? Not when the punishment is so permanent...

Yes, the first post - and thousands of cases like it - bring that gut reaction from most people. I am not advocating that all criminals are suitable for rehabilitation, but I don't like the idea of the death penalty. It is permanent, and I don't think it would offer me, personally, any kind of satisfaction...what if we were wrong? but then 'life' should mean 'life'. As in Hindley and Brady...I could not say that I would rather see a death penalty to save on my taxes....As long as the judiciary do not forget the crimes of the perpertrator.

That said, something that shocked us into disbelief 30 years ago is sadly less of a surprise today. Why a child killer gets twenty five years (out after twelve on good behaviour) nowadays and why Hindley and Brady are still inside...what makes them any different to any other child killer out there today? Have we really made an example of Hindley and Brady? or is the judiciary too frightened of public outcry in this one particular case?

Originally posted by Yshania


LOL! but someone sitting in Ole Sparky won't get much of a chance to say anything
<snip>

Oohh - now I could be really dis-tastefull but as you all (or maybe not) know - I'm not like that.


But what if you have the right person - that person that killed the child, no doubt about it - why should he live?
Just as easy as saying "what if it is an innocent?"

Originally posted by Aegis

Yes, good point, but think of it this way. If you knew a that if you were to rape someone, and get caught, and be castrated, would you want to rape someone? Same goes for killing someone. Would you still murder someone, even though you knew that getting caught meant death?

I believe that corporal punishment is the way tog o for our justice systems. Not only would it encourage more thorough investigations (to make sure you got the right person), but it would more than likely decrease the amoun of crimes commited. Also, I don't think that it should be instigated for only the major crimes (rape, murder, etc.) but also for minor ones (theft, larson). For the minor ones, instigate a sort of public lashing.

If you were of that mindset then why not?? Are murderers and rapists generally conscientious and law fearing individuals? Do you believe that a rapist only rapes because he knows if caught he will be out after 4 years?? For the more controlled and saner among us, four years inside for 10 minutes of twisted pleasure might be enough to put them off. IMO if an individual is that way inclined, increasing the level of punishment is not always the answer...

Re encouraging more thorough investigations...this is worrying in itself. Shouldn't we feel confident that an individual is guilty beyond all doubt before we so much as label them and lock them up? Never mind flicking the switch...

It seems a universal opinion that no one country has the perfect judicial system, but to me there is still no one right answer.

Originally posted by Yshania


If you were of that mindset then why not?? Are murderers and rapists generally conscientious and law fearing individuals? Do you believe that a rapist only rapes because he knows if caught he will be out after 4 years?? For the more controlled and saner among us, four years inside for 10 minutes of twisted pleasure might be enough to put them off. IMO if an individual is that way inclined, increasing the level of punishment is not always the answer...

Re encouraging more thorough investigations...this is worrying in itself. Shouldn't we feel confident that an individual is guilty beyond all doubt before we so much as label them and lock them up? Never mind flicking the switch...

It seems a universal opinion that no one country has the perfect judicial system, but to me there is still no one right answer.

I'm not saying it would end those crimes, but it would act a deterent towards them. Most people who are convicted of crimes like that, often show remorse, or fear of the punishment. Thats not to say all do, but a fair portion do. If someone is truly that twisted to rape someone, and be aware of the punishment, then they are obviously deserving of it.

Originally posted by Yshania
If you were of that mindset then why not?? Are murderers and rapists generally conscientious and law fearing individuals? Do you believe that a rapist only rapes because he knows if caught he will be out after 4 years?? For the more controlled and saner among us, four years inside for 10 minutes of twisted pleasure might be enough to put them off. IMO if an individual is that way inclined, increasing the level of punishment is not always the answer...

This is a good point. No one who commits a crime actually expects to be caught. Rightly or wrongly, they think that they can somehow beat the system, just like I foolishly think that I can somehow win the Lottery despite the astronomical odds against me. All it take is the one person who wins the lottery out of the millions of tickets sold every week to convince me that I will be the next winner. Criminals are similarly convinced.

Therefore, it could be argued that no amount of punishment will ever serve as an adequate deterrent. They don’t expect to get caught, so they don’t expect to electrocuted, castrated, locked in solitary for 20 years, or whatever. It then follows that if punishment is not a deterrent, then what is it? What purpose can it serve? Rehabilitation? A form of banishment?

The only way for punishment to be a perfect deterrent is to make it so that the crime is 100% detectible and the criminals 100% catchable. If every jaywalker was always caught, who but the most delusional moron would think they could get away with it? Then the punishment serves as a deterrent. If the punishment for jaywalking were set at having to pay a $10.00 ticket, those that could afford it would go ahead and commit the crime. If the punishment were set at the amputation of one leg, no one would. But as soon as one person figures out how to beat the system, many more would think that they could beat the system as well.

Originally posted by Aegis

I'm not saying it would end those crimes, but it would act a deterent towards them. Most people who are convicted of crimes like that, often show remorse, or fear of the punishment. Thats not to say all do, but a fair portion do. If someone is truly that twisted to rape someone, and be aware of the punishment, then they are obviously deserving of it.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, I am thinking out loud...

Why daren't people drop litter or drink alcohol in the streets of Singapore? Because the consequences are severe.

However, these are menial crimes in comparison (in the 'western world'). As far as I am concerned, someone who has the inclination to hurt or kill a child, or to rape a woman, well there is something fundementally wrong. Where do we start to address this problem before it becomes a tragedy? Many such criminals have had similar experiences...many crimes perpetuate...where can we say that an issue is identifiable and treatable before it goes beyond the point of no return?

Is it genetics? Is it parenting? Is it society? Do we wait and threaten? or do we become more proactive? Who can take some responsibility? Parents, teachers, peer group, social workers, police. We pass the buck too often...

Originally posted by Aegis
I'm not saying it would end those crimes, but it would act a deterent towards them. Most people who are convicted of crimes like that, often show remorse, or fear of the punishment. Thats not to say all do, but a fair portion do. If someone is truly that twisted to rape someone, and be aware of the punishment, then they are obviously deserving of it.

Act as a deterrent? Really? It has been proven that such punishments do not achieve this. Indeed, some evidence suggests that dancing with death actually ups the thrill for these individuals. And to restate my first post in this thread, if you want an immediate example, just look southward.

Also......What if the wrong person is convicted!!!!!!! Sometimes arrests are made simply to sate the public desire for vengeance.....Sometimes trials are not fair. Sometimes people are arrested because of things like racism......

What if somebody you cared about,.....a parent, a sibling, a friend, a lover, was executed due to a miscarriage of justice? Think about the implications of what you are saying for a moment.

Originally posted by Gwalchmai

This is a good point. No one who commits a crime actually expects to be caught. Rightly or wrongly, they think that they can somehow beat the system, just like I foolishly think that I can somehow win the Lottery despite the astronomical odds against me. All it take is the one person who wins the lottery out of the millions of tickets sold every week to convince me that I will be the next winner. Criminals are similarly convinced.

Therefore, it could be argued that no amount of punishment will ever serve as an adequate deterrent. They don’t expect to get caught, so they don’t expect to electrocuted, castrated, locked in solitary for 20 years, or whatever. It then follows that if punishment is not a deterrent, then what is it? What purpose can it serve? Rehabilitation? A form of banishment?

The only way for punishment to be a perfect deterrent is to make it so that the crime is 100% detectible and the criminals 100% catchable. If every jaywalker was always caught, who but the most delusional moron would think they could get away with it? Then the punishment serves as a deterrent. If the punishment for jaywalking were set at having to pay a $10.00 ticket, those that could afford it would go ahead and commit the crime. If the punishment were set at the amputation of one leg, no one would. But as soon as one person figures out how to beat the system, many more would think that they could beat the system as well.

Thanks! LOL!

Exactly!...

Now that one has me thinking...the punishment is not the deterrant - it is the chance of being caught. Each criminal getting his thrill out of the perfect crime may think again if the likelihood is that he will not get away with it. I do not believe that the severity of the punishment is the only deterrant...also the thrill of the crime in many cases is the arrogance that comes with evading the law, Peter Sutcliffe is a prime example. He was twisted, he raped prostitutes...but then suddenly his drive is not his hatred of prostitutes, he rapes an innocent girl...and all the while communicates (alledgedly) with the police....

Originally posted by dragon wench


Also......What if the wrong person is convicted!!!!!!! Sometimes arrests are made simply to sate the public desire for vengeance.....Sometimes trials are not fair. Sometimes people are arrested because of things like racism......

Sadly we had a case recently, I unfortunately cannot remember the detail but a man was released from prison after 37 (IIRC) years after being found innocent of the crime he was convicted of. New DNA evidence apparently. Now - correct me if I am wrong - but DNA databases have not been around that long - they were new and not yet reliable at the time that Sutcliffe was convicted. What if this individuals case had not been reopened?

Yes....and the Donald Marshall case in Canada also comes to mind....a Native man who was wrongfully incarcerated for murder....... for something like 20 years. No amount of government compensation will ever return those lost years.....but imagine if he had been executed?

*Another memory block re names and detail!* A couple of years ago, after many years of campaigning by his sister, a 16 year old was pardoned of his crime (he alledgedly shot a police officer in the early sixties). It was a post humous pardon, he was hung for the crime. Sadly, his sister died before her efforts were realised....

Some of the stuff I'm going to say has already been said, but this is what I think:

FACT: Even though there is capital punishment, people still commit crimes that lead to consequences like those anyways.

OPINION: The death sentence may deter some, but not all people. No matter the consequence people are still going to commit crimes whether it's rape, murder, or any other offense. There's also nothing that can get rid of criminal activity. In my opinion, human nature has always been about defying laws for good or evil. We attempt to stand up against gravity by flying, which is a good thing. We stand defiant against threats. When we were in elementary school we didn't listen to the teacher, which is a bad thing. We also commit crimes because restraint isn't something all people are good at. True, being bad in school is nothing compared to a real-life action. But it just goes to prove that a law system is never going to be 100% effective. An old philosophy of something I can't remember was: "The more laws that are created, the more thieves that break them."

About the youth problems. I'm not quite sure whether youth crime has gone up or not in the last decade, but crimes commited by younger people can be much more easily prevented. Whether it's because the kid was too un-cool, or was neglected, we as a species have to strive to eliminate bad treatment to the children of the world. Unlike an older person, there's a guardian involved with the offender. Perhaps we should be investigating the environment of the suspect and punish the ones that turned on the 'criminal' switch in the kid's brain. Granted, it'd probably not work, but that way, the parents and peers would think twice about abusing 'that person'. However, that would lead to the arguement on punishment again, which I'll happily avoid.

CONCLUSION: Killing the criminal is not a solution. It's an easy way out to not dealing with problems of other people. Unless you can get rid of money, hunger, and abstract concepts like lust, and wrath, crimes are going to happen. In my mind the justice system will have to do, because I don't think anyone can think up of a viable, economiclly sound, foolproof system. I mean, if a 45 yr. old commits murder, and a 16 yr. old does the same crime, you can't exactly give them the same punishment. Hence the court of law and a judge. Maybe the judges aren't doing a good enough job. Whatever it is, the less resources that are available, the more crime that happens.

I'm not trying to be a pessimist. I'm just saying that we could argue for eternity about morals, and justice issues and not go anywhere. Like I said, nothing's 100% effective, and that includes our system. I mean, we have people to defend people. Yet the the defenders have their own opinion. No one in a court is ever unbiased. Once again, that's a human property. Like Ysh, I'm not trying to contradict anyone, I'm just thinking out loud.

Originally posted by mental_nomad

How can the society that kills, innocents included if it must be....that uses death as punishment, not determent....how can they be any better than the lowest murderer?
Because they hadgood intentions?

And if you personally...in your own mind accept that there are innocent people going to die by execution....but still you support it as a good idea, or even best we can do......then the blood of innocents is on your hands. Not some faceless state. [/b]

I saw your other post in another thread too I am sorry...

This is a good question, is it the best we can do - and to what end? The state is supposedly representative...

Originally posted by The Z


CONCLUSION: Killing the criminal is not a solution. It's an easy way out to not dealing with problems of other people. Unless you can get rid of money, hunger, and abstract concepts like lust, and wrath, crimes are going to happen. In my mind the justice system will have to do, because I don't think anyone can think up of a viable, economiclly sound, foolproof system.

Sad but true...

Originally posted by mental_nomad
And if you personally...in your own mind accept that there are innocent people going to die by execution....but still you support it as a good idea, or even best we can do......then the blood of innocents is on your hands. Not some faceless state.

To protect my family from the murderers of this world I will give up (If you believe in a heaven) the chance to go to heaven. I will live with the blood of innocent people on my hands willingly to make sure my kid is not forced to live in fear of some person who kills for a thrill.


Has it gotten to the point where poor old billy should be helped after raping and then killing my little girl? Is this what this world is going to become?

"Sorry Mr.Weasel billy was sick and didn't know he was raping and killing your kid. We will be sure to get him the best help avaible. Sadly your kid had to be the reason for this. Thanks for having your kid , now we can fix billys problem. He will one day be a fine citizen of this country, one you can look up to and say....My kid gave her life to make billy who he is now."

Originally posted by mental_nomad
And if you personally...in your own mind accept that there are innocent people going to die by execution....but still you support it as a good idea, or even best we can do......then the blood of innocents is on your hands. Not some faceless state.

...it is this I find most galling.....most chilling....about those that support capital punishment......
Nothing can ever give that life back....it is an irrevocable step....

I'm not saying my idea of a good legal system is perfect, but when you take into account the amount of people, who after having been convicted, and proven guiltym have shown remorse for what they've done, it shows that they still care about themselves, which is what I'm getting at.

If corporal punishment were to be brought back, then the self serving criminals (which the majority are) would begin to think twice about breaking the law. Does this mean it will stop? No, of course not. What it will do, though, is cause people who are thinking about a crime think twice, about themselves.

On top of that, to ensure not getting the wrong person, legal systems would begin to have more thorough investigations, otherwise they would incite public riot if they ever discovered a miscarrage in the legal system.

All I'm really getting at, is that a harsher set of punishments need to be instated. Commiting theft, and getting no more than aslap on the wrist is laughable! The same person is usually out on the streets, and theiving again. Now, if that person were to be lashed, say three times, and then serve some time, do you think he would be willing to commit the same crime?