Yet another reason why people ridicule and laugh at this backwards state...

[Anakha1]

Considering that around, I dunnot, 10%? of all sexual assault is carried out by females, your plan would have a few slight problems, wouldn't it...

So does the current system.

If people can't tell, I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I truely believe that the punishment for rapists is far too lenient. Prison doesn't work, therapy doesn't work, education doesn't work. So what are we to do? Personally I despise rapists, so if they're removed from the planet I won't shed a single tear.

 

[My_Immortal6]

Exactly. Rapists don't get satiated. Like serial killers, they want to do it again and again because they derive power from it. Prison won't stop them from repeating when they get out.

These individuals are often victims of severe mental disability themselves. The same as serial killers. Often abused themselves. Sure, a severe punishment is in order, but I have a problem with the hatred and revenge that people want to dish out to these people. Because they are still people.

Over 1/2 of **** victims are either married or related to the perpatrator. These people need help. It's a two way street.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

would it stop every day people like you and me who might theoretically be tempted at some point to take advantage of a situation? You betcha.

Would innocent people who get castrated get a "Sorry the state cut your balls off." letter when new evidence surfaces?

Considering that around, I dunnot, 10%? of all sexual assault is carried out by females, your plan would have a few slight problems, wouldn't it...

Darnit, Anyee beat me to it.

 

[Kore]

Would innocent people who get castrated get a "Sorry the state cut your balls off." letter when new evidence surfaces?

We could just grow them a new pair and... wait, cloning research is illegal. Dammit.

 

[Yaboosh]

Here I come to instill some actual facts into this thread. Hoooahhh.

Ok, in 1927 there was a feeble minded woman named Carrie Buck. She was the daughter of another feeble minded woman, and had a feeble minded daughter. So what do they do? They sterilize her. Naturally this went to the Supreme Court. Of course, what did they do? They upheld the sterilization laws.

What what what????? Upheld?

The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=200

This was never turned down. Technically, using stare decisis, you could, under the same circumstances implement a similar program for similar purposes today.

However, the question is about **** and habitual criminals. For that you could look at the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) (Oklahoma loves to sterilize dont they).

However, Skinner's constitutional problem was not so much substantive as it was procedural. The Supreme Court had less of a problem with the fact that they were sterilizing.

Undoubtedly a state may, after appropriate inquiry, constitutionally interfere with the personal liberty of the individual to prevent the transmission by inheritance of his socially injurious tendencies.

Their problem was with an equal protection problem with the statute. The statue was being applied to crimes involving "moral turpitude" but not to crimes such as embezzlement, when essentially the same thing is occurring. Also, the aim in the Habitual Offender Sterilization Act was to prevent procreation, not to prevent the ability to ****.

Conclusion? I do not think, unfortunately, that an 8th Amendment case is as clear cut as you think Plum. Sterilization of females who are feeble minded has been upheld. Albeit it 80 years ago, but we still have the same Constitution.

(and yes, I was jumping to conclusions using Skinner v Oklahoma in the other thread concerning breeding licenses)

 

[dodomac]

It's not general nor pointless. That is the definition, legally, literally and medically, of castration. It does not touch the penis at all. You were wrong when you said it removes the penis.
You weren't obvious about referring to the genitals. If you meant genitals you would have said genitals, but you specifically said penis. By removing the hormones secreted by the testies it has been proven to reduce sexual aggression in men. Men don't **** because of their penises, but it has been proven that the chemicals produced in the testies contribute significantly to the aggression that causes men to have the violent aggression that promotes ****. Again, you were wrong. Have the maturity to own up to it. At the very least you were unclear in your meaning. It's not up to me to decipher your arguments. Be clear in your statements.
An ignorant and clueless statement, which I might point out had no indicators of you joking whatsoever since text based messages don't exactly leave a lot of room for clarity of sarcasm, is still silly whether you were joking or not. And if you think I have no conception of exaggeration or humour you've obviously not spent much time around the forums. I don't think anyone here can say that I don't have a sense of humour. You were just vague about your seriousness or lack thereof.

Please quote the passage in which I said that castration is the removal of the penis and I will leave this subject alone. You say it is not up to you to decipher the meaning of my posts, yet you take one sentence and convert it into something which I never indicated or made a point of. You are such a complete knucklehead. For lack of any good argument, you pick apart one little detail and try to make an argument which is simply put, stupid. Who gives a damn if you think I said penises are removed in castration (which I clearly did not), it is such an insignificant point that it is not worth arguing over, yet you bring it up repeatedly. Next thing I know you are probably going to pick apart some of my grammar or other unimportant garbage.

And in reference to your other post, you mentioned how both rapists and serial killers are never satiated once they commit a crime. My point is that serial killers and rapists commit offending crimes because of a psychological mindset that makes them inclined to. Would you be willing to defend the argument that if killers were castrated they would stop murdering because of lack of aggression? (I'm asking you instead of actually putting words in your mouth as you have done to me).

 

[Freet]

dodomac,
Calling people "idiot" is not a good way to continue posting on these forums.

Keep it civil.

 

[dodomac]

dodomac,
Calling people "idiot" is not a good way to continue posting on these forums.

Keep it civil.

Your up and at it early, sorry about that.

 

[Anakha1]

Please quote the passage in which I said that castration is the removal of the penis and I will leave this subject alone.

Done.

"Castration was probably instituted in America by some lesbian feminists with penis envy. Men don't **** because they have penises, they do it because they are criminal minds."

You linked castration with men raping because they have penises. You made a series of sentences that appears by any logical means to be on the same subject and by action thereof defined it incorrectly. By simple connection, you infered that one involves the other. You broached the subject of castration and then argued against it by stating that men don't **** because they have penises. Either that or you don't know how to make a change of subject with the use of paragraph structure.

So far you've denied that the definition of castration matters, which it clearly does since the medical and legal points are being argued, then you deny that you made any such statement, which you clearly did. Anything else you'd like to make up? Simply put, the definition of castration is very important in this context, when we're talking about the specific act of castration it's rather important to know what that entails so I'd hardly say it's an "insignificant point", especially when you don't understand what it is, which you apparently didn't. You made an error, or at least made a statement that was phrased enough to infer that you were making an error, and I corrected you. It's you who seem to lack the maturity to deal with that.

Who gives a damn what I think you said? Well, obviously you do. And since being clear in your arguments is the necessity of any debate, I'd say it's fairly important to have other people know what the **** you're talking about. But since you apparently don't, I suppose it's not worth it. Oh, and I'd like to point out that you keep bringing that point up as often as I do. But hey, calling people complete idiots is such a wonderful way to make a point. I can't tell at all that you're 16.

Would you be willing to defend the argument that if killers were castrated they would stop murdering because of lack of aggression? (I'm asking you instead of actually putting words in your mouth as you have done to me).

Removal of the testies has in fact shown to remove severe aggresion in males both sexual and not, so yes, I would.

 

[dodomac]

Done.

"Castration was probably instituted in America by some lesbian feminists with penis envy. Men don't **** because they have penises, they do it because they are criminal minds."

You linked castration with men raping because they have penises. By simple connection, you infered that one involves the other. You broached the subject of castration and then argued against it by stating that men don't **** because they have penises. Either that or you don't know how to make a change of subject with the use of paragraph structure.

So far you've denied that the definition of castration matters, which it clearly does since the medical and legal points are being argued, then you deny that you made any such statement, which you clearly did. Anything else you'd like to make up? Simply put, the definition of castration is very important in this context, when we're talking about the specific act of castration it's rather important to know what that entails so I'd hardly say it's an "insignificant point", especially when you don't understand what it is, which you apparently didn't. You made an error, or at least made a statement that was phrased enough to infer that you were making an error, and I corrected you. It's you who seem to lack the maturity to deal with that.

Who gives a damn what I think you said? Well, obviously you do. And since being clear in your arguments is the necessity of any debate, I'd say it's fairly important to have other people know what the **** you're talking about. But since you apparently don't, I suppose it's not worth it. Oh, and I'd like to point out that you keep bringing that point up as often as I do. But hey, calling people complete idiots is such a wonderful way to make a point. I can't tell at all that you're 16.



Removal of the testies has in fact shown to remove severe aggresion in males both sexual and not, so yes, I would.

Ahhh yes thank you, you can't (I dont see any quotes of me saying that aside from your inference nonsense). And one fact, men can't **** with their testicles (last I heard), so you are the one taking it out of context.

It's funny how the majority of your argument comes from little gripes on what I typed, yet you only typed one sentence that was on-topic. And talk about maturity... you are the one bashing the person instead of his argument, and you have failed to bring up any valid points so far. I'm sureeeee you believed I didn't know what castration was and posted to correct me, not to attempt to make me look uneducated to bolster your views over mine. Can't you get over yourself and stick to the topic at hand?

 

[Anakha1]

As much as I'll probably kick myself to bother replying to your ramblings, I'll point out that all my points were on topic, since you asked me to explain how I got what I got from your statement. You're just talking out of your *** now. You can't ask me to reply to an OT statement and then attack me for going OT. Grow up.

**** someone with their testicles? What the hell are you talking about? I never once implied that one could do such a thing. You implied that a penis does not cause one to ****, whereas I stated that the chemicals contained in the testis do in fact contribute to the cause.

I'm the one bashing the person? Where exactly did I do that? I never insulted you as far as I remember, whereas you were the one who specifically called me "such an idiot".

Inference nothing. If you can't understand how basic paragraph structure is meant to seperate subject topics and therefore can't see how one could take your two sentences and link them, then there's just no helping you until you take some more advanced english courses. Talking about castration in regards to preventing **** and then saying that people don't **** because they have penises implies that you're talking about the same context with both. If you didn't mean to say that then perhaps you should make it more clear when you change topics.

 

[Deathwing]

Would you two mind shutting the hell up now? While it is wonderful you think we need to see the pair of you bitching at each other, it makes me feel sick so could you try to talk about the topic instead of getting bogged down in some mistake or unclear meaning?

"And one fact, men can't **** with their testicles" No, they can in the strict dictionary definition "The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts".

Revenge, I would have thought, is not greatly compatible with such ideals as a fair and impartial justice system. Mutilating anyone for any reason is utterly horrific and it scares me that people like that have positions of power. Chemical castration might be a useful tool when the offenders have finished their sentances and there is still a risk of them re-offending, but what about wrongly convicted people? Would you force castration if they refused?

"the way a society treats its vulnerable members is a reflection of its social health and conscience." .

It would take a truly demented person to suggest that rapists are not "sick", what would it say about society if, instead of trying to help these people to exist after they have served their debt to society, they had cut parts off them or were pumped full of chemicals?

 

[Anakha1]

Well that's a matter of opinion. In mine, it doesn't matter if he's paid his debt to society because his debt really is towards the victim and there is nothiing he can do to give back what he took. There is no reparation that can be made to make a rapist a-ok in my books. Not every rapist is "sick". A good many of them are just purely disgusting human beings and cannot be cured because they don't want to be.

 

[faultless wonderboy]

Well that's a matter of opinion. In mine, it doesn't matter if he's paid his debt to society because his debt really is towards the victim and there is nothiing he can do to give back what he took. There is no reparation that can be made to make a rapist a-ok in my books. Not every rapist is "sick". A good many of them are just purely disgusting human beings and cannot be cured because they don't want to be.

So if they can't be cured, why are people trying to take away their testicles?

 

[Plum]

Yaboosh-

I don't think that how this issue pertains to the 8th Amendment is at all obvious. I think I mentioned in my first post that I have no idea how the court would rule on this issue if it's constitutionality in regard to that Amendment is questioned.

I mentioned the 8th Amendment issue afterwards because I felt that if castration begins in that system, it has the potential to open the door to a number of other procedures, some of which may eventually be considered cruel or unusual.

I'm not sure how influential either case is in regard to this issue. Both were in place to, as you mentioned for Skinner v Oklahoma, prevent procreation. Buck's dilemma was straight out eugenics, and the punishment that Skinner protested didn't involve castration, because that was not its goal.