NationStates Jolt Archive

After deciding to read most posts on a thread after all, I found this one:

"The entire "they're asking for it" line of thinking is pathetic.

What they're "asking for" is for other people to behave as if they've completed kindergarten. You know, that place where you learnt to keep your hands to yourselves?

It doesn't matter what she's wearing, she's not "asking for" anybody to touch her, harass her, or abuse her.

If some other person happens to be a pathetic twit who can't master basic rules of human conduct that are easily understood by toddlers, that's not her fault. That's the twit's fault. And HE is asking to be treated like the infant he is. He should be put in Time Out until he learns to control himself."

So rather than JUST locking convicted rapists up, should they be made to act and be treated like babies? For example:

They have to wear a large nappy and are paraded around the street in it, plus a dummy [US: pacifier], and NO OTHER CLOTHES besides the nappy. EVERY DAY

They have a large-print advert in a major national newspaper, saying this or something similar: "[name of person] has not yet learned to keep his/her hands to his/herself, so he will be treated like a baby until he/she has learned to be a good boy/girl" accompanied by a picture of them before the conviction and after they have been made to wear baby stuff. Also a mention on the national TV news in the same way

They are locked up in a special baby-style place where there are giant baby gates

They have to eat vile-tasting baby food (like the mashed up carrots stuff - none of that delicious blueberries and other fruit stuff)

They have large pictures of them posted around their local area

[no internet blog/pics due to possibility of supportive comments from friends etc.]

They are treated like a baby each day by some sort of "Educational Supervisor" who is basically teaching them, in the same way they would talk to a baby (very patronisingly if done to an adult) that they should keep their hands to theirself.

And whatever else you can think of

actually I am pretty nice to babies, can't say I am going to extend that niceness to rapists.

however, if they can't keep their hands to themselves, as a preschool teacher I have to tell you the solution to that is to seperate them from the group.

Interesting, but I think just throwing them in jail is punishment enough. Especially once some very large guy who has no prospect of parole chooses the rapist as his bitch.

actually I am pretty nice to babies, can't say I am going to extend that niceness to rapists.

however, if they can't keep their hands to themselves, as a preschool teacher I have to tell you the solution to that is to seperate them from the group.

Wouldn't it be humiliating for the adult though, to be treated in such a way as I suggested above?

Interesting, but I think just throwing them in jail is punishment enough. Especially once some very large guy who has no prospect of parole chooses the rapist as his bitch.
Heh. Aah, the irony makes me chuckle.

actually I am pretty nice to babies, can't say I am going to extend that niceness to rapists.
QFT

Wouldn't it be humiliating for the adult though, to be treated in such a way as I suggested above?

I don't treat babies the way to posted above, so I don't know, I would assume that it would piss anyone off.

Wouldn't it be humiliating for the adult though, to be treated in such a way as I suggested above?

well, it does seem pretty cruel and unusual to me.

Interesting, but I think just throwing them in jail is punishment enough. Especially once some very large guy who has no prospect of parole chooses the rapist as his bitch.

If I was to agree with the end of that comment, I might as well be condoning any rape. Two wrongs don't make a right, plus prison rapists don't choose their victims based on what they have been convicted of.

well, it does seem pretty cruel and unusual to me.

So is rape. A lot crueler anyway.

Mr.Multiland; everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read that. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Mr.Multiland; everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read that. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Why do you say that? I'm just suggesting what I feel is a fair punishment (along with prison) (humiliation) for a crime that humiliates, violates, and destroys lives.

well, it does seem pretty cruel and unusual to me.

My God, it would be Abu Ghraib all over again! :eek:

If I was to agree with the end of that comment, I might as well be condoning any rape. Two wrongs don't make a right, plus prison rapists don't choose their victims based on what they have been convicted of.

True, true, two wrongs don't make a right, but you must acknowledge that there is a quite high incidence of rape in prison, so the chances of the Rapist ending up on the receiving end are decent. Besides, your proposal smacks of the cruel and unusual, as Arthais says. I was merely pointing out the more or less inevitable consequences of being sent to prison. And I have heard that the word does get around about child molesters in prison and that drastically reduces their survival rate. Could be some sort of the same thing in play with Rapists, too.

I guess the point is that they should be punished to the full extent of the law, but there isn't a need to inject the level of humiliation you suggest into the process, as gratifying as that might be. A Rapist qualifies as a sex offender, and there already are, in the US, local measures which notify the public when one such person moves into the area. Finally, many of these people are probably mentally ill, and so would not appreciate the humiliation you wish to bestow on them.

Why do you say that? I'm just suggesting what I feel is a fair punishment (along with prison) (humiliation) for a crime that humiliates, violates, and destroys lives.

Because I wanted to quote Billy Madison. :(

Why do you say that? I'm just suggesting what I feel is a fair punishment (along with prison) (humiliation) for a crime that humiliates, violates, and destroys lives.

public humiliation went out with tar and feathering. Cruel and unusual, unconstitutional.

I think if a rapist tries to make the claim that they are unable to control themselves when they see a woman wearing a short skirt and simple HAVE t give in to the animal desire to have sex (dispite the fact they manage to control the urge while in public...) then they should by their own admission be treated as wild animals and be neutered.

So...we should let them be breastfed? ;)

Interesting, but I think just throwing them in jail is punishment enough. Especially once some very large guy who has no prospect of parole chooses the rapist as his bitch.

So, you want a never ending cycle of rape?

Because, after the prison rapist is done, he's a rapist and thus needs raped...
I know you've already said no to it, just work with me. ^^

So, you want a never ending cycle of rape?

Because, after the prison rapist is done, he's a rapist and thus needs raped...
I know you've already said no to it, just work with me. ^^

Well ... it wouldn't be legally mandated but that does appear to be what happens. The image of an endless cycle of rapists being raped is not particularly savory at 9:30 in the morning, though.

My God, it would be Abu Ghraib all over again! :eek:

The differences being:

1. Person ACTUALLY CONVICTED under law of committing crime that he/she is accused of, and

2. The level of punishment being nowhere near the level of cruelty thet the rapist's victim had been subjected to

True, true, two wrongs don't make a right, but you must acknowledge that there is a quite high incidence of rape in prison, so the chances of the Rapist ending up on the receiving end are decent. Besides, your proposal smacks of the cruel and unusual, as Arthais says. I was merely pointing out the more or less inevitable consequences of being sent to prison. And I have heard that the word does get around about child molesters in prison and that drastically reduces their survival rate. Could be some sort of the same thing in play with Rapists, too.

I guess the point is that they should be punished to the full extent of the law, but there isn't a need to inject the level of humiliation you suggest into the process, as gratifying as that might be. A Rapist qualifies as a sex offender, and there already are, in the US, local measures which notify the public when one such person moves into the area. Finally, many of these people are probably mentally ill, and so would not appreciate the humiliation you wish to bestow on them.

But with your last paragraph, about public being notified, you are either:

suggesting that the public treat them in a cruel way OR

that the notification doesn't affect them adversely in any way at all, except to the point of making it more difficult for them to commit the crime again

AND the "mental illness" argument is a pile of crap. See http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/myths.html and do a CRTL and F search for "sick". A person who is able to carefully plan such an attack to the extent that they have a proposed time when hardly anyone will be around, a suitable place, and a way of stopping the victim crying out AND covering up the crime afterwards, a person who has planned all these things (most rapes are pre-planned) before committing the actual crime, knows exactly what they are doing.

And I don't think it's a particularly cruel punishment either. If a person acts like a child, surely they should be treated like one until they are able to act like an adult?

An example would be with a mentally ill person who has the age of 7, but is physically 20 years old. You wouldn't let him work alone with dangerous machinery now would you? For all intents and purposes, you would treate him as though he is a 7-year-old, wouldn't you?

Like a baby? No. Like someone about to be dropped into a large container of acid? Yes.

No.

Very interesting idea. Maybe those people should be treated as such in prison, where they belong doing hard labor. Or even better - rapists get thrown in with the general population. However, child molestors and child killers get the baby treatment. And by that, I mean they have to eat baby food and wear diapers. They still have to work long and hard like everyone else, but they would be segregated from the general prison population by cellblock but forced to work alongside other prisoners.

That or they should be grouped with other prisoners. If a new inmate shows up in nothing but a diaper, he's a dead man there, and I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over it. That or those diaper-wearing fucks should be used for experimental science the way we use animals now. People ask, "What did those innocent animals ever do to deserve to be tested on?" Well, this solves two problems. It eliminates the "innocent" factor and it enables testing on humans, which should be an exact match.

All right, it's a little too cruel to force them to wear diapers and wat baby food in front of the rest of the population, but it's a far cry less cruel than torturing them to death. Or maybe it isn't, and the bastards deserve it.

wtf....Rapists should just be raped back. Its that simple. Rape is about control, so in being raped they feel they've lost all control. Male rapists should be raped by other, males. And raped brutally. Then whipped, to death. about 1,000 lashings I'd say. Its that simple. They deserve it, they asked for it.

Do we really need to start equating rapists and babies?

Seriously?

And whatever else you can think ofSounds like cruel and unusual punishment.

Do they deserve it? Perhaps.
Does that mean we may treat them in such a manner? No.

public humiliation went out with tar and feathering. Cruel and unusual, unconstitutional.

Once you've commited certain crimes you have lost your constitutional rights.

Repeated electric shocks should be applied to the rapists' genitals until they are made infertile and impotent.

Repeated electric shocks should be applied to the rapists' genitals until they are made infertile and impotent.

Cruel and unusual. Appropriate, perhaps, but unconstitutional. I say lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Once you've commited certain crimes you have lost your constitutional rights.

No you haven't, but maybe you ought to. I don't know that the Constitution ever lays out any scenario where one can lose Constitutional rights except by renouncing one's citizenship, and even that's iffy, but if we follow this idea, or even my idea of treating child molestors in this fashion and using them as human guinea pigs, then they ought to lose their rights.

Should rapists be treated like babies?
Sort of. Rapists should be treated like dead babies and thrown into blenders.

Once you've commited certain crimes you have lost your constitutional rights.

To say that once you have committed a crime you lose your constitutional right that dictates how a criminal should be treated is beyond ludicrus.

By definition the 8th amendment deals with the treatment of criminals, to say that by becoming a criminal you lose your rights as a criminal is to render the 8th amendment meaningless.

really,the world will be better .
nobody is fucked nowadays,we all love each others

Once you've commited certain crimes you have lost your constitutional rights.Such as parading someone around like a baby or applying electrical shocks to their genitals?

then they ought to lose their rights.

The 8th amendment deals with the treatment of criminals. You can not say a criminal loses his rights as a criminal, that is oxymoronical.

The 8th amendment deals with the treatment of criminals. You can not say a criminal loses his rights as a criminal, that is oxymoronical.

Sure you can. Just declare them an "enemy combatant." Although there are rules about those, too, I'm sure...I know! Make up a word and declare them that! That's foolproof!

Cruel and unusual. Appropriate, perhaps, but unconstitutional. I say lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Cruel, yes, but I'm not going to lie to you. When it comes to punishing criminals, I am truly sadistic. :D

To say that once you have committed a crime you lose your constitutional right that dictates how a criminal should be treated is beyond ludicrus.

By definition the 8th amendment deals with the treatment of criminals, to say that by becoming a criminal you lose your rights as a criminal is to render the 8th amendment meaningless.

Ok, but, by having being locked up in a prison for the rest of your life, you have obviously lost rights. what your saying means Prisons themselves are unconstitutional. When you go to prison you are forced to give up pretty much all of them. You can't vote, you can't own a firearm, You don't have property, You no longer have your natural rights (life, liberty, and persuit of happyness).

Ok, but, by having being locked up in a prison for the rest of your life, you have obviously lost rights. what your saying means Prisons themselves are unconstitutional. When you go to prison you are forced to give up pretty much all of them. You can't vote, you can't own a firearm, You don't have property, You no longer have your natural rights (life, liberty, and persuit of happyness).

I have never said that at all. Prisons are perfectly constitutional. Obviously criminals lose SOME rights upon conviction.

However it is idiocy at the extreme to say that constitutional rights applying SPECIFICALLY TO PRISONERS should not apply to prisoners. To say that renders the entire 8th amendment meaningless.

Sure you can. Just declare them an "enemy combatant." Although there are rules about those, too, I'm sure...I know! Make up a word and declare them that! That's foolproof!

hehe, you have a point there. Any American citizen can be locked up with out due process, AND tourtered at the presidents and or executive branch's whim. Now that is scary. That goes beyond unconstitutional. Its damn evil, and this administration needs to be ousted from power.

I have never said that at all. Prisons are perfectly constitutional. Obviously criminals lose SOME rights upon conviction.

However it is idiocy at the extreme to say that constitutional rights applying SPECIFICALLY TO PRISONERS should not apply to prisoners. To say that renders the entire 8th amendment meaningless.

oh, I see what you mean.

hehe, you have a point there. Any American citizen can be locked up with out due process, AND tourtered at the presidents and or executive branch's whim. Now that is scary. That goes beyond unconstitutional. Its damn evil, and this administration needs to be ousted from power.

The problem wouldn't just be with "this administration." Instead of labeling people as "criminals" or what-not, Congress could pass a law that labels people who break the law as, say, just to make up a word..."vergonauts." I assume that isn't a word. There's no statute anywhere that says what we do with "vergonauts." The Supreme Court can't declare that the torture, killing, or what-not of vergonauts is unconstitutional since the Constitution makes no mention of vergonauts. Thus, anyone can be declared a vergonaut. For this exercise, though, we'll assume that only law-breakers can be declared vergonauts. You speed in you car? Off to Gitmo. You jaywalk? Lethal injection. Shoplift? We shove a living snake up your ass. Drink and drive? We make you walk from Maine to Baja California wearing nothing but a jockstrap while men in Jeeps throw apple cores at you. The possibilities are endless!

The problem wouldn't just be with "this administration." Instead of labeling people as "criminals" or what-not, Congress could pass a law that labels people who break the law as, say, just to make up a word..."vergonauts." I assume that isn't a word. There's no statute anywhere that says what we do with "vergonauts." The Supreme Court can't declare that the torture, killing, or what-not of vergonauts is unconstitutional since the Constitution makes no mention of vergonauts. Thus, anyone can be declared a vergonaut. For this exercise, though, we'll assume that only law-breakers can be declared vergonauts. You speed in you car? Off to Gitmo. You jaywalk? Lethal injection. Shoplift? We shove a living snake up your ass. Drink and drive? We make you walk from Maine to Baja California wearing nothing but a jockstrap while men in Jeeps throw apple cores at you. The possibilities are endless!

The song Poison by Alice Cooper poped into my head as I read that, you are very right.

I think that we should start treating babies like rapists. What, you don't agree with me? Consider the following:
Does a baby ask permission to pass through a woman's reproductive system? No, it just moves in without permission, takes up residence, and then makes a mess of things on the way out. In fact, I am probably being merciful as that's not just rape, that's also trespassing, loitering and assault.
But, Fiddles, you say, surely babies can be forgiven for actions performed before and while they leave the womb? Well let my remind you that criminal justice isn't about doing whats "Right" or "Just" or "Sane", its about allowing me to have a publicly approved outlet for my personal bloodlusts and sadistic fantasies.

Should rapists be treated like babies?Sort of. Rapists should be treated like dead babies and thrown into blenders.

I say again. :D

They should be treated like unwanted fetuses and be aborted. ;)

Some of the posts on here are illogical, and some are just daft.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and a serious crime is a serious crime, whoever you are doing it to (raping a rapist is a serious crime).

Anyway I just remembered why prison doesn't work (in UK anyway) as well as it should. No hard labour. Seems like it's about time hard labour EVERY DAY was re-introduced, with exceptions only for religious reasons where a respected person from that religion (Priest, Imam, etc) can confirm they are part of that religion. Then for less serious crimes than rape (such as armed robbery) we could have shorter sentences (thus freeing up prison space) cus no fucker would wanna go back in. Sky TV and Pool along with a load of "prison mates" is enticing. Digging holes in the ground for several hours a day isn't.

Oh yeh and testing drugs on prisoners (not voluntarily of course, but not ones that are known to be dangerous either, nor ones meant for a specific condition being tested on people who don't have that condition), plus forced blood donation seem to be good ideas. This from the Law of the People of Multiland:

5. Prisoner Blood Donation Act

All healthy prisoners serving a sentence of 3 months or more must donate one litre of blood to the Multiland Health Service, unless they have already donated blood.

JUSTIFICATION:
This Act has been implemented to try to put persons off committing a crime that merits a sentence of 3 months or more. It has been implemented because the procedure would not harm a healthy prisoner and they would be contributing to society. It also helps in keeping a reasonable level of blood stocks.

No. They should be treated like unworthy corpses, and burnt. Subsequent to their execution of course....

No. They should be treated like unworthy corpses, and burnt. Subsequent to their execution of course....

Or concurrent with... :D