law and punishment, idea spin
don’t misunderstand, i am fine with chemical castration. i only said that about the other type bc, personally, i could care less about their comfort level, not that i am advocating that approach.
and again, i am only saying those that have shown a clear, black / white, continuation in the act that should deserve such a punishment, I AM NOT saying if they do, they get castrated, no, only repeat offenders, only those that have been given every possible bit of opportunity to change and said, ”fuck it, i like taking advantage of people,” by their actions
also, no need to get emotional, i am not, “here to tell us what the right interpretation is.’, this is only an opinion, just because my differs from yours does not mean i think i am superior.
@tine, but would you agree that (non-chemical) castration is unnecessary and even barbaric? Chemical castration gets the job you want done, and the (non-chemical) surgical procedure performed on males doesn’t really apply to females now, does it (ovaries, more invasive and results in many long-term health effects)?
I agree that we should wait to see if they can exhibit more willpower before more drastic measures are used, but are you so sure that many of them can control their urges?They should be kept from hurting even more people, but people often become so blinded by wanting revenge, which doesn’t solve the underlying problem or take back what was done to the victims.
Again, the assumption is also made that we have free will.
You said there was only one interpretation (here’s your quote: “no, there is only one”) to “the punishment should fit the crime.” Your interpretation is fine (and you have every right to hold that view), but a different interpretation held by another person would show that there is more than one possible interpreration to that quote.
for sure, i don’t think we should regress to brutality, o i see, sry, i guess i meant that, its the only interpretation that’s directly correlated to the act in the first place.
and i think we have free will, but it is not inherent, it is something realized, and means, ‘my mind is free’,
we should give them a chance (even though they do not deserve it after their act) and if repeated, consideration for castration should be presented to the judge, but a third act = three strikes rule, its mandatory at this point,
i feel it would only take a few examples of this to help deter the general mindset towards doing it
@tine, this won’t turn into a long debate over free will, but…
• It depends on how it’s defined. For example, compatibilists define free will so that it’s “compatible” with determinism, even though in the end they don’t think they have control over their actions.
• Many people point to the uncertainty principle or “uncaused causes” as though they debunk determinism. Not quite.
• Even with the previous point, it’s hard to argue that the universe is completely chaotic. Also, if determinism is not true that does not necessarily mean free will exists. So how exactly do we cause those events, especially considering that they’re not just present in organisms?
While you have every right to hold your view on free will, my point is that we can’t prove it right now, and there is much more weight to the idea that we don’t have it.
Either way, I think it would be more effective to solve the underlying problems rather than painting people as evil monsters who had the ability to choose otherwise. I don’t approve of their actions, but I think a change in humanity’s supposedly “special position” (having free will and being able to transcend the laws of nature) in the universe could have quite an impact, especially on our justice system.
i agree, it is a subjective term, but my mind is free, therefore there are unlimited paths ahead for me, this freedom effects how i can respond to reality and this is seen through my ability to supersede my circumstances and be whatever the situation needs, this being is incredible, it is flow, i understand that term now,
there’s a lotta thought behind my view on it, i just didnt want to make it a center point, my view on the term comes from personal revelations and my ability to understand reality
they are only monsters if they receive the consequences and learn nothing and continue, the label is not subjective, knowingly continuing, the action, defines who they are,
i fully understand that, in most cases, the rapist / molester was a victim once themselves, they have my empathy for this, this is why i am not saying, castrate them all,
only those that show through action an inability to be human
@tine, in the end I think we could both agree that humane (temporary) measures should be taken to prevent them from harming more people, but the root cause should eventually be addressed.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.