Are we causing most of our problems?

[LadyMilla]

As for punishment for rape... First offense should be physical castration (all bits, mechanically removed), second should be death as long as there is substantial evidence.

 

Welcome back to the middle ages. Honestly, as a female I hate rapists as much as anyone else but I'm glad that the world is leaving this kind of mentality behind. Unless it is a joke: after the punishment for the first offense, I think the perpetrator's ability to commit rape is physically removed (as are the required organs). http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/tongue.gif

 

2. initially, yes, but any benefit would undoubtedly be short lived as many of these drugs cause permanent damage to the user. The sudden influx of new addicts who are trying it because it's no longer illegal would be a net loss overall. But, this is a dead horse and there are about a dozen topics about this to one degree or another.

 

Proof? I can dig up lots of resources contradicting the underlined part:

 

"By any of the major criteria of harm - mortality, morbidity, toxicity, addictiveness and relationship with crime - cannabis [marijuana] is less harmful than any of the other major illicit drugs, or than alcohol or tobacco."

 

-- Police Foundation [uK] report to the British government, March, 2000

 

"Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol." -- Canadian Senate's Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, September 2002

 

As for real life example, it is well known that the Netherlands is fairly tolerant when it comes to the use of cannabis (famous coffee shops). Event though their stance became a bit more conservative lately, it is NOT because the country turned into a disaster area, full of brain damaged people.

 

Something else:

 

For people who would like to save costs (a previous poster mentioned that his intention to castrate rapists is a 'cost-saving measure') by sending people to death row, well, they are in for a surprise: death sentences cost more for the taxpayer than a lifer.

 

Sources (I've intentionally tried to avoid sites that are clearly against death penalty):

 

http://www.balancedp...ath_penalty.htm

 

http://www.citizenec...omic-viewpoint/

 

Why? Because, as a civilized country, the USA introduced a due process to minimize the risk of unfounded/unjust death penalties. The only way to save money through death penalty is to castrate the due process (deny appeals, etc.) but ask yourself the question: would you really want that?

[Sepherose]

@marharth

 

I must point out the flaw in your logic. Locking someone up IS a form of punishment, yet, you stand on the side "Why even bother punishing them?" leading me to believe that you would simply rather do away with punishment, meaning that crime rates would never drop as there would not be any locking them up, are you seeing the flaw here? If I have misinterpreted what you mean, please clarify, as that seems to be your stance.

I do not think locking someone up in itself is a form of punishment, I think the way prison is now is a form of punishment.

 

I think criminals should simply be separated into a different society that is similar to ours. Of course not the same, just similar.

 

Some people may be able to be "fixed" other will need to be permanently separated.

 

That is essentially exile, and it is absolutely a form of punishment. That seem more like "punish them but not where I have to see it." A society like that would be so brutal as to be more inhumane than what I suggest, IMO. Look at Cambodia, for instance. Crime is rampant there, and children are born into that, breeding more criminals because that is how they have to be to survive. That would be absolutely abhorrent.

Exile? No.

 

Exile is done to be negative to the person, it is not the same as separating someone from society.

 

I only consider something punishment if it is done by a authoritative power and purposely negative.

 

Punishment is done so people "learn a lesson." That is not why people need to be separated from society, it is just so they do not commit crimes, and they can be rehabilitated.

 

Exile is forcing one out of their current society, which is EXACTLY what you are describing. Separating one from their native society IS a negative action. And no, not all punishment is so one can "learn a lesson", the death penalty is a perfect example.

[marharth]

@marharth

 

I must point out the flaw in your logic. Locking someone up IS a form of punishment, yet, you stand on the side "Why even bother punishing them?" leading me to believe that you would simply rather do away with punishment, meaning that crime rates would never drop as there would not be any locking them up, are you seeing the flaw here? If I have misinterpreted what you mean, please clarify, as that seems to be your stance.

I do not think locking someone up in itself is a form of punishment, I think the way prison is now is a form of punishment.

 

I think criminals should simply be separated into a different society that is similar to ours. Of course not the same, just similar.

 

Some people may be able to be "fixed" other will need to be permanently separated.

 

That is essentially exile, and it is absolutely a form of punishment. That seem more like "punish them but not where I have to see it." A society like that would be so brutal as to be more inhumane than what I suggest, IMO. Look at Cambodia, for instance. Crime is rampant there, and children are born into that, breeding more criminals because that is how they have to be to survive. That would be absolutely abhorrent.

Exile? No.

 

Exile is done to be negative to the person, it is not the same as separating someone from society.

 

I only consider something punishment if it is done by a authoritative power and purposely negative.

 

Punishment is done so people "learn a lesson." That is not why people need to be separated from society, it is just so they do not commit crimes, and they can be rehabilitated.

 

Exile is forcing one out of their current society, which is EXACTLY what you are describing. Separating one from their native society IS a negative action. And no, not all punishment is so one can "learn a lesson", the death penalty is a perfect example.

So currently you would consider sending someone to prison exile?

 

That seems a bit weird to me considering it is the same country and land, and visiting times are possible.

 

Also there would be other people around, your not really exiling anyone, your just moving them.

 

Prison in itself is always a separate society. Would you consider sending someone to prison exiling them?

[kvnchrist]

 

 

Prison in itself is always a separate society. Would you consider sending someone to prison exiling them?

 

 

Isn't that the same thing? Getting the malefactor out of society.

[marharth]

 

 

Prison in itself is always a separate society. Would you consider sending someone to prison exiling them?

 

 

Isn't that the same thing? Getting the malefactor out of society.

I suppose it is the same thing, the purposes are different though.

 

I just don't see sending someone to a different society as punishment if it is just to separate them.

[Vagrant0]

For people who would like to save costs (a previous poster mentioned that his intention to castrate rapists is a 'cost-saving measure') by sending people to death row, well, they are in for a surprise: death sentences cost more for the taxpayer than a lifer.

Only because of red tape, burial costs, and those pesky moral issues where people would have a problem killing a convicted criminal. The process could be streamlined if it had to be. Doesn't cost much to shoot someone, cremate the remains and scatter the ashes into a deep pit out back. People who have no redeeming value to the world should be removed so that they don't keep those who do from achieving it. Prisons these days are a cesspool of corruption and initiation where people who go in for minor crimes are bunking with hardened criminals. Sorry, but yes, I'm in favor of killing unrepentant murderers instead of giving them warm food, shelter, and trying to keep them occupied for 40-50 years so they don't riot.

 

Why? Because, as a civilized country, the USA introduced a due process to minimize the risk of unfounded/unjust death penalties. The only way to save money through death penalty is to castrate the due process (deny appeals, etc.) but ask yourself the question: would you really want that?

Actually, I would, which is why I suggested it. I wouldn't rape anyone even if asked, it's not in my nature. I don't have sex with people I just met either, call me old fashioned. Yes, I acknowledge that there are some women who use rape allegations to get back at an ex, but I suspect most of these would vanish when the punishment isn't just some slap on the wrist like it is now. But fair enough. Perhaps the better solution is to bring back the practice of branding for a first offense. It's still painful and it follows a person for life, but is not as final as castration.

[LadyMilla]

For people who would like to save costs (a previous poster mentioned that his intention to castrate rapists is a 'cost-saving measure') by sending people to death row, well, they are in for a surprise: death sentences cost more for the taxpayer than a lifer.

Only because of red tape, burial costs, and those pesky moral issues where people would have a problem killing a convicted criminal. The process could be streamlined if it had to be.

 

So due process is red tape? Also, burial costs are dwarfed by other expenses related to death sentences. Some

 

Why? Because, as a civilized country, the USA introduced a due process to minimize the risk of unfounded/unjust death penalties. The only way to save money through death penalty is to castrate the due process (deny appeals, etc.) but ask yourself the question: would you really want that?

Actually, I would, which is why I suggested it. I wouldn't rape anyone even if asked, it's not in my nature. I don't have sex with people I just met either, call me old fashioned. Yes, I acknowledge that there are some women who use rape allegations to get back at an ex, but I suspect most of these would vanish when the punishment isn't just some slap on the wrist like it is now. But fair enough. Perhaps the better solution is to bring back the practice of branding for a first offense. It's still painful and it follows a person for life, but is not as final as castration.

 

Your entire reasoning is based on the assumption that harsher punishments are a better deterrent. To date no proof has been provided to support that assumption. On the contrary. Studies indicate (Deterrence in Criminal Justice,Punishment, Deterrence and Social Control and many others) that harsher punishments do not produce noticeable effects. Apparently, it is time to dispose of another die-hard urban legend? But then how would wanna-be-elected politicians convince the good citizens who still believe in persistent fairly tales like 'everybody is equal before the law' or 'the purpose of criminal law is to deliver justice' and also "punish them harder and they will think twice before they commit crimes"?

[Vagrant0]

Your entire reasoning is based on the assumption that harsher punishments are a better deterrent. To date no proof has been provided to support that assumption. On the contrary. Studies indicate (Deterrence in Criminal Justice,Punishment, Deterrence and Social Control and many others) that harsher punishments do not produce noticeable effects. Apparently, it is time to dispose of another die-hard urban legend? But then how would wanna-be-elected politicians convince the good citizens who still believe in persistent fairly tales like 'everybody is equal before the law' or 'the purpose of criminal law is to deliver justice' and also "punish them harder and they will think twice before they commit crimes"?

Not talking about deterrence in the short term, but the long term, over generations. Something like a tendency towards rape or violent aggression is a problem that is both cultural and genetic. Now, I KNOW that where I am leading this will leave a bad taste for many, but we are talking about a complex human activity which has been allowed to continue virtually unpunished for generations, and has been regarded by some cultures as even being a Man's privillage. This it not some minor issue here, so naturally, any solution would fall outside the normal notion of justice.

 

You're right, it cannot be solved entirely with a social control, but by having a strict punishment over generations, where the sheer notion of the act comes with grim consequences, people are brought up pushing away any idea of it. Take, say, divorce in some middle eastern countries. It is rare when it happens because it is a virtual death sentence for any woman. Not a pleasant example, but one of the few ones that has been consistent for long enough. Unlike say, theft or murder which sometimes has to be done by people in equally dire situations, rape is a choice and a deliberate, planned act. If you have a culture of condemnation, most would forcibly push the idea out of their heads than give into it. One example of this is has already come to light in China. For generations any action which was seen as revolutionary and against the government was stamped out with brutality and relocation. Although harsh and generally bad, the result was several generations which could not even entertain the thought of speaking out against the party.

 

But there is a genetic factor. If you prevent those who are predisposed to this behavior from breeding, the predisposition will be less common overall, like most other genetic disorders. Now, I know this harkens back to the concept of eugenics, where mentally feeble, or exceptionally ugly persons were sterilized. But, we currently live in a world which has seen the benefits of this. The average person is smarter and better looking than they were two generations ago, and not only because of improvements in health and education. People are getting smarter and better looking because those with genetic dispositions towards these traits have been breeding while those who don't are less likely to have that chance.

 

Yes, both notions are very distasteful, and rightly so, but that is because they have power to bring about lasting change is used responsibly and in a controlled manner. As we are talking about one aspect which does not benefit anyone and ruins lives, what is wrong with trying to weed it out of the population, if even to a minor degree?

[LadyMilla]

Your entire reasoning is based on the assumption that harsher punishments are a better deterrent. To date no proof has been provided to support that assumption. On the contrary. Studies indicate (Deterrence in Criminal Justice,Punishment, Deterrence and Social Control and many others) that harsher punishments do not produce noticeable effects. Apparently, it is time to dispose of another die-hard urban legend? But then how would wanna-be-elected politicians convince the good citizens who still believe in persistent fairly tales like 'everybody is equal before the law' or 'the purpose of criminal law is to deliver justice' and also "punish them harder and they will think twice before they commit crimes"?

Not talking about deterrence in the short term, but the long term, over generations. Something like a tendency towards rape or violent aggression is a problem that is both cultural and genetic. Now, I KNOW that where I am leading this will leave a bad taste for many, but we are talking about a complex human activity which has been allowed to continue virtually unpunished for generations, and has been regarded by some cultures as even being a Man's privillage. This it not some minor issue here, so naturally, any solution would fall outside the normal notion of justice.

 

You're right, it cannot be solved entirely with a social control, but by having a strict punishment over generations, where the sheer notion of the act comes with grim consequences, people are brought up pushing away any idea of it. Take, say, divorce in some middle eastern countries. It is rare when it happens because it is a virtual death sentence for any woman. Not a pleasant example, but one of the few ones that has been consistent for long enough. Unlike say, theft or murder which sometimes has to be done by people in equally dire situations, rape is a choice and a deliberate, planned act. If you have a culture of condemnation, most would forcibly push the idea out of their heads than give into it. One example of this is has already come to light in China. For generations any action which was seen as revolutionary and against the government was stamped out with brutality and relocation. Although harsh and generally bad, the result was several generations which could not even entertain the thought of speaking out against the party.

 

But there is a genetic factor. If you prevent those who are predisposed to this behavior from breeding, the predisposition will be less common overall, like most other genetic disorders. Now, I know this harkens back to the concept of eugenics, where mentally feeble, or exceptionally ugly persons were sterilized. But, we currently live in a world which has seen the benefits of this. The average person is smarter and better looking than they were two generations ago, and not only because of improvements in health and education. People are getting smarter and better looking because those with genetic dispositions towards these traits have been breeding while those who don't are less likely to have that chance.

 

Yes, both notions are very distasteful, and rightly so, but that is because they have power to bring about lasting change is used responsibly and in a controlled manner. As we are talking about one aspect which does not benefit anyone and ruins lives, what is wrong with trying to weed it out of the population, if even to a minor degree?

 

Now that you have elaborated on your ideas, there are many things I can agree with. However, before thinking about harsher punishment, there are a few problems that should be overcome: essentially, no matter how severe the punishment is that you hand out to rapists (or other violent criminals) if certain groups of people are ready to side with the offender as a gut reaction ("I'm sure that flirt was asking for it, she should have dressed decently" (as if the owner's forgetting to lock the front door exonerates the burglar because 'the owner was asking for it'), "No, he can't be a rapist, he is such a nice guy, that girl surely wants to smear him.") the punishment will be regarded as "unjust" and harsher punishments may even trigger a backlash against women. Unfortunately, in the light of recent events, I'd say the public perception of rape should be reformed first, before harsher punishments are not only accepted but predominantly welcomed. (Just a few examples: Texas Cheerleader Who Was Assaulted Never Had a Chance, Swedish Town Mobs Supported Rapist).

 

Instead of threatening rapists with extreme punishments, the first step should be to ensure that a) they are convicted instead of getting excused, b) the society accepts the punishment as well-deserved. There is still a 'culture of rape' that should be purged from the society first.

 

 

 

[Sync182]

Your entire reasoning is based on the assumption that harsher punishments are a better deterrent.

 

Selective quoting...I know. :thumbsup: However...

 

Better policing, a judiciary willing to actually enforce the penalties proscribed in law, and a much smaller number of scumbag lawyers who defend and appeal simply because they get paid to (finding a lawyer who does the Right Thing and not the Legal Thing...it's a pipedream of mine :rolleyes: )...all of these would make for a significant reduction in the rate of crime.