Forums » Off-Topic
Well, Tosh, I don't have anything against sheep, even if I don't exactly respect them. So, whatever works for you.
Good on ya, Lecter. Feeling's mutual.
mmmm lamb chops
Surb... what have I told you about saying things I agree with?
"you must reform the system that is supposed to rehabilitate the criminal or else you have a revolving door mechanism with permanent residents."
It actually causes me pain when you and I agree... so stop saying things I agree with.
How ever, I do have to point out that it is generally agreed that certain criminal behavior... (rape, child rape and other sexually based crimes)... are a perpetuating cycle of behavior which only escalates in violence and/or frequency, or both... as these criminals are typically what Dr. Hare would refer to as "type 2" sociopaths, the behavior is very unlikely to stop unless incarcerated for life... (or they are executed).
Where as I am generally against the death penalty, I have to say that in the case of sexually based crimes, execution does seem reasonable in so far as one life being ended can save countless other lives from being destroyed. Yes, a rapist could be incarcerated for life... (which in most states is a 25 year stretch)... it would not "cure" the criminal.
Also, for all the people who talk about "rapists and child molesters get what they deserve in prison."... yes that was true right up through the 1950s. Now sexual predators, are not housed in general population... they are housed in "protective custody" where they are safe from the retribution of other inmates.
Short of execution, I do like the punishment for rape in some nomadic Arabic cultures... removal of the genitalia by knife. Making the punishment so horrible that the crime is unthinkable.
"you must reform the system that is supposed to rehabilitate the criminal or else you have a revolving door mechanism with permanent residents."
It actually causes me pain when you and I agree... so stop saying things I agree with.
How ever, I do have to point out that it is generally agreed that certain criminal behavior... (rape, child rape and other sexually based crimes)... are a perpetuating cycle of behavior which only escalates in violence and/or frequency, or both... as these criminals are typically what Dr. Hare would refer to as "type 2" sociopaths, the behavior is very unlikely to stop unless incarcerated for life... (or they are executed).
Where as I am generally against the death penalty, I have to say that in the case of sexually based crimes, execution does seem reasonable in so far as one life being ended can save countless other lives from being destroyed. Yes, a rapist could be incarcerated for life... (which in most states is a 25 year stretch)... it would not "cure" the criminal.
Also, for all the people who talk about "rapists and child molesters get what they deserve in prison."... yes that was true right up through the 1950s. Now sexual predators, are not housed in general population... they are housed in "protective custody" where they are safe from the retribution of other inmates.
Short of execution, I do like the punishment for rape in some nomadic Arabic cultures... removal of the genitalia by knife. Making the punishment so horrible that the crime is unthinkable.
Burning them off is better, or hanging by the gentiles till dead.
in drawing and quartering, it was often the emasculate and disembowel the condemned and burn the entrails in front of them, while they were still alive, honestly this is too fast. Acute radiation poisoning sounds much better.
in drawing and quartering, it was often the emasculate and disembowel the condemned and burn the entrails in front of them, while they were still alive, honestly this is too fast. Acute radiation poisoning sounds much better.
I used to party with these people prior to them having kids, and this happened. Fuck child molesters, to hell and back.
http://www.angelfire.com/wi3/corajones/
http://www.angelfire.com/wi3/corajones/
Dr. Lecter: As you correctly note the medium of speech makes almost no difference, but there exists a huge difference between the two cases - in once case the person is unable to harm others even if they chose to, hence them being unsafe for the public does not endanger others. They can puff, huff, and gloat all they like, their life will have no longer have any impact on my life. In the other case they are able to harm others, and are a danger to those around them, and yet are allowed to to roam free within the society. It is that which I find to be an unacceptable insult.
On a side note (having just re-watched the 80s BBC play "Threads" last night), I don't think anyone who nukes a city (even with a sub-megaton bomb) is going to face any sort of court should they get caught. Even if there was a valid reason for nuking a city (e.g. deadly virus accidentally released that would otherwise kill all life on the planet). As a person I might consider the bomber to be a human. As a society I don't think we will consider the bomber as a human at all.
Ryan: Rapists... This goes well off topic again, but 98% of all rapes happen by people the victims know prior to the event. The vast majority of the rapists are husbands, boyfriends, ex-partners, or close personal friends of the victims. Because of such a personal nature of the crime many rapes go unreported.
E.g. I know a rape victim who just recently revealed that she has been raped a few years ago. She says it was a friend who raped her, still has not named him, and will never take legal action against him, as she does not wish to ruin the life of, as she describes an otherwise good person whom she still considers to be a friend.
The example I give above is far from being uncommon. A major newspaper conducted a survey in this country a few years ago, and although I think they must have done something really funny with their data, it showed that around a fifth (!!!) of women questioned have been raped at some point in their life, but most victims have done nothing about it.
*Assuming* (big assumption here) the data is in any way representative of the underlying situation (which I personally doubt despite assurances of statistical accuracy), and also *assuming* (an even bigger assumption) most rapists do not rape more than five victims *on average*, no victim ever gets raped twice, or by more than one rapist at the same time, it makes at least 5% (and theoretically up to 20%) of all males to be rapists.
That is a proportion that is comparable to the number of homosexuals in the society, and paints a picture of a significant proportion of males raping an even more significant proportion of females. A problem with which courts/jails are not demonstrating an ability to cope with. I am unsure trying to jail/execute up to 10% of the population that even the victims oppose the incarceration of is the right way to go about this particular problem, a problem that nevertheless must be dealt with somehow, if it indeed exists and is not just a warped statistical error.
On a side note (having just re-watched the 80s BBC play "Threads" last night), I don't think anyone who nukes a city (even with a sub-megaton bomb) is going to face any sort of court should they get caught. Even if there was a valid reason for nuking a city (e.g. deadly virus accidentally released that would otherwise kill all life on the planet). As a person I might consider the bomber to be a human. As a society I don't think we will consider the bomber as a human at all.
Ryan: Rapists... This goes well off topic again, but 98% of all rapes happen by people the victims know prior to the event. The vast majority of the rapists are husbands, boyfriends, ex-partners, or close personal friends of the victims. Because of such a personal nature of the crime many rapes go unreported.
E.g. I know a rape victim who just recently revealed that she has been raped a few years ago. She says it was a friend who raped her, still has not named him, and will never take legal action against him, as she does not wish to ruin the life of, as she describes an otherwise good person whom she still considers to be a friend.
The example I give above is far from being uncommon. A major newspaper conducted a survey in this country a few years ago, and although I think they must have done something really funny with their data, it showed that around a fifth (!!!) of women questioned have been raped at some point in their life, but most victims have done nothing about it.
*Assuming* (big assumption here) the data is in any way representative of the underlying situation (which I personally doubt despite assurances of statistical accuracy), and also *assuming* (an even bigger assumption) most rapists do not rape more than five victims *on average*, no victim ever gets raped twice, or by more than one rapist at the same time, it makes at least 5% (and theoretically up to 20%) of all males to be rapists.
That is a proportion that is comparable to the number of homosexuals in the society, and paints a picture of a significant proportion of males raping an even more significant proportion of females. A problem with which courts/jails are not demonstrating an ability to cope with. I am unsure trying to jail/execute up to 10% of the population that even the victims oppose the incarceration of is the right way to go about this particular problem, a problem that nevertheless must be dealt with somehow, if it indeed exists and is not just a warped statistical error.
Antz, I see LNH was not clear in his last post, but I think I was in my earlier posts: there is a difference between so called acquaintance rape and forcible rape (see Charlottesville, VA serial rapist). Nobody is proposing that we brutally punish the male side of a drunken night encounter involving two intoxicated idiots, or even in the ambiguous "we went home together and I was interested but then I wasnt..." context.
Like murder, "rape" has varying degrees of deliberate malice involved.
Like murder, "rape" has varying degrees of deliberate malice involved.