NationStates Jolt Archive

May sound cruel... but is there something to it?
I know for a fact castration would sure as hell deter crime.
Say on a 3 strikes your out deal.

Your opinion on these harsh, but argueably just sentences?

No, just no.

The harsher the punishment, the more effective the deterrent. I also propose we should chop the hands off a big-time thief (not people who swipe CDs from a store, but people who take TVs).

Eh for raptist, and child molesters, eh sure why not, and I am talking about castration.

The harsher the punishment, the more effective the deterrent. I also propose we should chop the hands off a big-time thief (not people who swipe CDs from a store, but people who take TVs).

Sarcasm or serious? im inclined to agree when it becomes apparent they are taking the piss of the system

Executions = efficient, the less money spent the better

Castration = only if we can enslave them afterwards, they must work for their meals and not be allowed to gain power for revenge.

Exile = too risky, might gain power and come back.

No, just no.

Backed up by?

Executions = efficient, the less money spent the better

Castration = only if we can enslave them afterwards, they must work for their meals and not be allowed to gain power for revenge.

Exile = too risky, might gain power and come back.

Because people will just flock to the aid of a rapist or tv thief.

Because people will just flock to the aid of a rapist or tv thief.

It's possible, and either way money is saved/earned, which is all that matters.

Backed up by?

I dont see how its really going to do anything to deter crime, especially with female criminals. Executions just seem so much easier to me.

How the hell would that work?

You cant do them all at once b/c once you exile them they aren't around to catrate and execute. And you can't do them on a three strikes bases b/c after the first strike they aren't in the country anymore.

Sarcasm or serious? im inclined to agree when it becomes apparent they are taking the piss of the system

unfortunately he's absolutely serious. if he didn't hate muslims you'd think he grew up in saudi arabia :rolleyes:

and to the OP. no those punishments are too severe. the death sentence doesn't deter murderers. emasculation won't deter rapists. opportunistic crimes will happen anyway and since a good proportion of crimes are oppotunistic such reactionary measures won't do anyone any good.

How the hell would that work?

You cant do them all at once b/c once you exile them they aren't around to catrate and execute. And you can't do them on a three strikes bases b/c after the first strike they aren't in the country anymore.

i understand your confusion but it was meant as a list of different kinds of punishments, not a checklist.

no

there is a reason why cruel and unusual punishment is disallowed in the bill of rights. we dont need to go down that road.

its not the severity of punishment that deters crime. if it did, then there would be no murder in the US eh?

crime is deterred by swift and sure justice. if you get the right man, give him a swift fair trial, then put him in prison for a moderate term, you will deter crime.

today its pretty rare for criminals to get caught. some crimes are so seldom punished that the criminal minded see no downside to them. change THAT and you will lower the crime rate.

a .01% chance of getting castrated just isnt going to do it.

I hear crucifiction is a great deterrent. Might as well do that too .

May sound cruel... but is there something to it?
I know for a fact castration would sure as hell deter crime.
Say on a 3 strikes your out deal.

Your opinion on these harsh, but argueably just sentences?
Is there something to it? How about you give it try and tell us how it went?

Castration and Execution - definite nos. Exile? Where to?!? No.
That's revenge, not justice you're talking about. Bad puppy, no biscuit!
The harsher the punishment, the more effective the deterrent. I also propose we should chop the hands off a big-time thief (not people who swipe CDs from a store, but people who take TVs).
:rolleyes:
The death penalty (which I strictly oppose) does not help deter people from murdering others. How do you think your stupid proposition would work in a civilised society?

My idea for sex offenders is to amputate both arms at the elbow and tattoo their faces with large letters "S O P" or "S O" (=Sex Offender Pedophile, or just plain Sex Offender). Since so many re-offend, this would not only make it obvious what they are, it would make it easier for potential victims to get away. Oh, and no public welfare. They have to work for a living. How (without forearms)? Don't know. Find a way.

The death penalty (which I strictly oppose) does not help deter people from murdering others. How do you think your stupid proposition would work in a civilised society?

At least there is no opportunity for them to re-offend. And, no tax money is spent on maintaining them.

At least there is no opportunity for them to re-offend. And, no tax money is spent on maintaining them.

:fluffle:

At least there is no opportunity for them to re-offend. And, no tax money is spent on maintaining them.
As far as I know executions cost the tax payer more money than a life sentence.
Besides, looking at the fallibility of the justice system, something as final as death should never be considered. To err is human. I don't even want to know how many innocents were executed.
No, there's no argument that could change my stance on that issue. Period.

Exile, Castration and Execution.

Three of my least favorite words. :(

How would castration work with females?

Or are we incapable of committing crime?

Exile is stupid, you're just giving someone else your problem. No need for castration, execution is plenty.

How would castration work with females?

Or are we incapable of committing crime?

Female criminals will get a pair of testicles surgically implanted. Then after they have adjusted, they will be castrated. :)

How would castration work with females?

Or are we incapable of committing crime?

Female genitle mutilation, look it up.

How do you think your stupid proposition would work in a civilised society?

Simple -- you steal something valuable, and you get your hands chopped off. Eventually, less people will steal, and there will be no repeat offenders. Crime is lowered and money is saved; it's a win-win.

Simple -- you steal something valuable, and you get your hands chopped off. Eventually, less people will steal, and there will be no repeat offenders. Crime is lowered and money is saved; it's a win-win.

And if anyone is wrongfully convicted and later found innocent, we can cut off the hands of the prosecuting attorney and replace the wrongfully accused's lost hands. :)

May sound cruel... but is there something to it?
I know for a fact castration would sure as hell deter crime.
Say on a 3 strikes your out deal.

Your opinion on these harsh, but argueably just sentences?

Even in the days when people were drawn and quartered for crimes, crime still occurred.

I think reducing crime has more to do with reducing the causes, and then, for the pathological freaks who remain, a more reliable means of identifying beforehand for treatment, or a more reliable means of catching them in the act.

You're always going to have some crime.

Deterrence has more to do with the certainty of being caught than the type of punishment.

Female criminals will get a pair of testicles surgically implanted. Then after they have adjusted, they will be castrated. :)

Seems fair enough.

And if anyone is wrongfully convicted and later found innocent, we can cut off the hands of the prosecuting attorney and replace the wrongfully accused's lost hands. :)

Nah, we'll apologize and give them some cash back. However, the chance of an innocent man being falsely convicted and later exonerated is quite slim, indeed. The basis of our legal system is based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt; as such, false positives are little more than a statistical anomaly.

Female genitle mutilation, look it up.

Not the same as castration :p

Nah, we'll apologize and give them some cash back. However, the chance of an innocent man being falsely convicted and later exonerated is quite slim, indeed. The basis of our legal system is based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt; as such, false positives are little more than a statistical anomaly.

Try explaining that to Stumpy. :)

Not the same as castration :p

But can be! Add in a Histerectomy, and be sure to leave some scarring!

May sound cruel... but is there something to it?
I know for a fact castration would sure as hell deter crime.
Know for a fact, huh?
Mind telling us which particular fact that is? The one you just pulled outta your butt, or a different place altogehter?

The harsher the punishment, the more effective the deterrent. I also propose we should chop the hands off a big-time thief (not people who swipe CDs from a store, but people who take TVs).
harsher the punishment - guess that's why USA has a much lower murder rate than, say, the UK. After all the UK moddle-coddles it's offenders with prison, whereas the USA kills them.

As to the CD/TV thing: What sort of TV do you have in mind?
Surely we can't pass the same sentence on two people, one of whom steals a 14" bw telly and the other who nicks a 42" Plasma screen TV? Where's the justice in that?
And what if the CD stealer nabs himself 100CDs? That's pretty much the same cost of a decent telly. Do we now give him the same sentence as the telly-stealer?
What if the CDs were all Michael Bolton? Do we still chop his hand off?
Surely he deserves praise, not punishment for ridding us of those.
What if the telly in question was on sale that week, 50% off: Do we only carry out 1/2 the sentence then?


Here's an idea: try to think through your knee-jerk ramblings before posting them.

At least there is no opportunity for them to re-offend. And, no tax money is spent on maintaining them.
Costs more to execute a person than it does to keep them in for life.
Also, murderers have the lowest reoffending rate (of any crime) than all other types of criminal.

I believe in rehabilitation myself exile is impossible and very expensive, forced labour isn’t profitable, castration just makes a person suicidal/out for revenge/once committed the crime have nothing to lose and execution gets rid of a person who could possibly be rehabilitated and thus in the working tax paying type of group

I think before people create an NS account they should at least do the history crime and punishment GCSE course and get over an F (I'm really tired of explaining why capital punishment and exile isn't used anymore)

Exile is fine. But castration? Execution is out of the question too.

Exile is fine. But castration? Execution is out of the question too.

transportation was used under the British empire but even we (who had plenty of places to send convicts) stopped using it because it become so expensive (66% of the budget if I remember right)

So no exile is not fine.

transportation was used under the British empire but even we (who had plenty of places to send convicts) stopped using it because it become so expensive (66% of the budget if I remember right)

So no exile is not fine.

Who says the government has to provide the funding? They commited the crime, they pay the price for their punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It may or may not be a good idea, but it is definitely unamerican and unpatriotic.

Who says the government has to provide the funding? They commited the crime, they pay the price for their punishment.

What would happen if they couldn't afford it?

Ab-so-ma-lute-ly not.

What would happen if they couldn't afford it?

They could work as slaves....like indentured labourers.

*shrugs*

What would happen if they couldn't afford it?

They they get as much money as they need, and only as much money as they need, from the government to get out of the country. Remeber that we are considering exile as punishment for serious crimes like murder. Surely you can't say there's anything wrong with making murderers pay for their own punishment?

They they get as much money as they need, and only as much money as they need, from the government to get out of the country. Remeber that we are considering exile as punishment for serious crimes like murder. Surely you can't say there's anything wrong with making murderers pay for their own punishment?

Can you tell me what exactly happens in exile? I have no idea...

Can you tell me what exactly happens in exile? I have no idea...

They get sent to a different country, probably on the edges of the world.

They get sent to a different country, probably on the edges of the world.

Who came up with that idea?

They get sent to a different country, probably on the edges of the world.

What country would voluntarily take another country's convicts?

Who came up with that idea?

It's existed forever. A particular favourite of medieval absolute monarchs.

What country would voluntarily take another country's convicts?

Australia was just a giant prison a while back...

It's existed forever. A particular favourite of medieval absolute monarchs.

Well, I'm all for exiling people to deep space, without benefit of a spacesuit.

It's existed forever. A particular favourite of medieval absolute monarchs.

I wouldn't think of exiling someone unless they're convicted of treason...

Australia was just a giant prison a while back...
Back before it was an organized state, Austrailia was a bit a dumping ground. There just aren't enough uninhabited islands on the other side of the world to use for exiles today. Asking another country to let in a convicted murderer/rapist/thief seems like it would be too difficult to be practical nowadays.

The best way to lower the amount of unwanted interference with people's genitals is to carry out unwanted interference with people's genitals.


Oh, hang on...

May sound cruel... but is there something to it?
I know for a fact castration would sure as hell deter crime.
Say on a 3 strikes your out deal.

Your opinion on these harsh, but argueably just sentences?

Or, if you're feeling really sadistic, do what was done to Pierre Mulele: pull their eyes from their sockets, rip their genitals off, and amputate their limbs one by one, all while they're alive, then dump their remains in the Congo River.

Question for them in favour of castrating rapists: what do you do if they continue to offend after castration?

Exile, Castration and Execution
Now, I admit that I am neither a Legalogist or Anatomizer and am only a attempting a poor impersonation of a genially hill-billy lawyer, but doesn't the third item on the agenda render the first two moot?

Australia was just a giant prison a while back...
was?

Who said that the host country would let us put our criminals there?

I'm actually quite a supporter of bringing Exile back onto the statutes. How it would work is that if someone is convicted off a very serious offence they would be taken by the Royal Navy and stealthily dropped off in a country with whom we are enemies. For example, Prisoner Transports could sail to the Sea of Japan and push the prisoners out on a Lander onto the North Korean shore... or Burma, or Zimbabwe, or any number of places where we have no longing to protect. What those countries do with the prisoners when they are there is their business, we have washed our hands of them. This of course, is only for the scummiest of the scum.

For lesser crimes I would support the founding of civilised prisons in Commonwealth nations, and sending our prisoners there for the duration of their sentence, in effect outsourcing the prison service and saving ourselves a bit of cash.

Simple -- you steal something valuable, and you get your hands chopped off. Eventually, less people will steal, and there will be no repeat offenders. Crime is lowered and money is saved; it's a win-win.
At this point I'm almost inclined to ask for posters' tongues to cut out and fingers chopped off whenever they say or post something really stupid.
Almost...
It's rather sad to see that you'd like to live in the medieval times or bring back the Dark Ages. Maybe someone should call an exorcist for you?
Nah, we'll apologize and give them some cash back. However, the chance of an innocent man being falsely convicted and later exonerated is quite slim, indeed. The basis of our legal system is based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt; as such, false positives are little more than a statistical anomaly.
Looking at how "flawless" your legal system works, that really isn't a valid option.

May sound cruel... but is there something to it?
I know for a fact castration would sure as hell deter crime.
Say on a 3 strikes your out deal.

Your opinion on these harsh, but argueably just sentences?

My opinion? Gogo civilized world!

The harsher the punishment, the more effective the deterrent. I also propose we should chop the hands off a big-time thief (not people who swipe CDs from a store, but people who take TVs).

That's so ... seventh century.

MeansToAnEnd is a douche. I'd make a no-precendent system; life imprisonment would be the usual maximum, but we reserve the death penalty for stuff that sickens me personally (such as that Austrian girl who got kidnapped. Pity they didn't catch the guy).

Read a book by Cesare Beccaria, "Dei delitti e delle pene" (About crimes and punishment, translation?).
Example. USA, Russia and China use death penalty, and execute a lot of people. Still, US, russian and chinese criminals always think they can outsmart police-and, in most cases, they're right.
Well-funded police, fair trials and prevention are a lot better when you're fighting crime. Brain not muscles!

MeansToAnEnd is a douche. I'd make a no-precendent system; life imprisonment would be the usual maximum, but we reserve the death penalty for stuff that sickens me personally (such as that Austrian girl who got kidnapped. Pity they didn't catch the guy).
Stuff that sickens YOU personally? http://www.sikkrikk.com/smileys/nono.gif

Stuff that sickens YOU personally? http://www.sikkrikk.com/smileys/nono.gif

Well, we're assuming I'm a dictator/monarch/autocrat. What's the point of this topic if we have no power to choose?

Hey I kind of like Exile. Thats cool. Habitual offenders can be sent to a prison colony on Antartcia. Once they are there, it's free. Just dump them there. They'll work it out. Eventually the adversity theory will kick in and they'll produce a flourishing ice-based economy. Seriously though, I like that. It is not cruel, or illogical. You can't live in this society responsibly? So don't. Live there. Bye. The moon would also be cool. Not only because it is cold and barren, but also because they would constantly be reminded of what they lost when the looked up into the sky. Just awesome.

If he didn't hate muslims you'd think he grew up in saudi arabia.

ZING! :D

As far as I know executions cost the tax payer more money than a life sentence.
Besides, looking at the fallibility of the justice system, something as final as death should never be considered. To err is human. I don't even want to know how many innocents were executed.
No, there's no argument that could change my stance on that issue. Period.

I'd be willing to bet that exponentially MORE "innocents" have been victims of murderers than have been executed as murderers.

No argument to change your mind; no argument to change my mind. Es macht nichts.

Regarding your first assertion addressing the cost comparison--Provide us with some figures so we can see that for ourselves. I think this argument is really only a fallacy.

I'd be willing to bet that exponentially MORE "innocents" have been victims of murderers than have been executed as murderers.

Well, no fucking shit. I could have figured that out in my sleep.

But does that really justify killing every person who is convicted of murder, even if they did not actually commit it? Does it justify killing people who are the victims of recieving horrible council, being framed, or perhaps even being at the wrong place at the wrong time? Does it justify people who are the victims of stereotyping, racism, a bad public image, or lying or mistaken witnesses?

Executing an innocent man convicted of murder not only leaves his blood on the hands of justice, it lets the true killer get away with it. That leaves two innocents dead and one guilty man free. Now, if the true killer strikes again before the convicted is executed and the police realize it's the same M.O., we still have two innocents dead. If they don't figure it out before the innocent is executed, the effect would be worse.

And don't do the whole "eye for an eye" thing. That saying is so horribly wrong, I don't even want to go into it. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."

Regarding your first assertion addressing the cost comparison--Provide us with some figures so we can see that for ourselves. I think this argument is really only a fallacy.

Gladly.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

It's not the cost execution itself that makes it more expensive, it's the cost of the excessive number of appeals that are normally taken by people who are sentenced to death.

I'd personally castrate a rapist but I wouldn't want the gov't in charge of that.

two words: Labor camps.

Now THOSE are a crime deterrent. :D

I'd be willing to bet that exponentially MORE "innocents" have been victims of murderers than have been executed as murderers.

No argument to change your mind; no argument to change my mind. Es macht nichts.

Regarding your first assertion addressing the cost comparison--Provide us with some figures so we can see that for ourselves. I think this argument is really only a fallacy.
Well, no shit, Sherlock. Problem is, if only one innocent person is executed - and it has happened more than once - that's the best reason not to have the death penalty. "Whoops, sorry!" doesn't cut it.
Well, no fucking shit. I could have figured that out in my sleep.

But does that really justify killing every person who is convicted of murder, even if they did not actually commit it? Does it justify killing people who are the victims of recieving horrible council, being framed, or perhaps even being at the wrong place at the wrong time? Does it justify people who are the victims of stereotyping, racism, a bad public image, or lying or mistaken witnesses?

Executing an innocent man convicted of murder not only leaves his blood on the hands of justice, it lets the true killer get away with it. That leaves two innocents dead and one guilty man free. Now, if the true killer strikes again before the convicted is executed and the police realize it's the same M.O., we still have two innocents dead. If they don't figure it out before the innocent is executed, the effect would be worse.

And don't do the whole "eye for an eye" thing. That saying is so horribly wrong, I don't even want to go into it. As Mahatma Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."



Gladly.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

It's not the cost execution itself that makes it more expensive, it's the cost of the excessive number of appeals that are normally taken by people who are sentenced to death.
Ah. I'd have quoted this http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf ;)

The harsher the punishment, the more effective the deterrent. I also propose we should chop the hands off a big-time thief (not people who swipe CDs from a store, but people who take TVs).
How is stealing a TV "big-time" for a theif. I would think maybe chopping off the hands of enron execs or something...