RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


JessFranco -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (3/10/2009 8:18:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

But then you have to clean the blade which involves an awful lot of work. A woodchipper is a very labour intensive method of disposing of a body.

Take it from someone who knows.....


It's much easier if the body is thoroughly frozen before hand.

Or so i hear.....




sanchia -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (3/10/2009 8:24:54 PM)

If only I knew that two years ago [sm=33.gif]




rawlinson -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 1:13:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: JoeyPottr

I hope my woodchipper comment was not taken for comic effect, it wasn't meant to be. I am serious here.



Good for you.



[sm=happy07.gif]

See, now I feel guilty for laughing on this thread.




Deviation -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 1:16:06 AM)

We should start a bew thread. Who would you like to put in a woodchipper?




ilovebeerme -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 1:43:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JoeyPottr

I hope my woodchipper comment was not taken for comic effect, it wasn't meant to be. I am serious here. Some countries just shoot child molesters and dump them in a ditch, not the US we give let them out so they can do it again. Prison isn't always a cake walk either, child molesters don't fare too well in prison because they are absolutely hated by everyone in there. It depends, at least in the US a federal prison is different than a state prison and a military prison is different from a federal prison and a state prison.


I think people realised that you're serious, some just happen to think that makes you a fucking psycho. Some countries just shoot child molesters and dump them in a ditch? Countries like North Korea? Saudi (where they don't do that actually). Iran (nope). Maybe in tribal courts in the DRC? Or in Afghanistan perhaps? All bastions of democracy and judicial integrity. Having said that I suppose you still execute minors so why not.

Your post is all over the place. First you imply that the US lets convicted child molesters out of prison specifically to offend again when that isn't even close to being true. Sometimes mistakes are made by parole boards yes, but it's hardly a conspiracy to get them back out on the streets asap. You don't think prison is enough of a punishment, but then you say it's horrible for child molesters. Then there is some stunningly obvious drivel about state, federal and military prisons being different.

So, yes Joey, I for one understood you were serious. It's just that if you actually did what it is you're serious about I would think you just as bad as a child molester. Get it?





Deviation -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 1:45:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovebeerme


quote:

ORIGINAL: JoeyPottr

I hope my woodchipper comment was not taken for comic effect, it wasn't meant to be. I am serious here. Some countries just shoot child molesters and dump them in a ditch, not the US we give let them out so they can do it again. Prison isn't always a cake walk either, child molesters don't fare too well in prison because they are absolutely hated by everyone in there. It depends, at least in the US a federal prison is different than a state prison and a military prison is different from a federal prison and a state prison.


I think people realised that you're serious, some just happen to think that makes you a fucking psycho. Some countries just shoot child molesters and dump them in a ditch? Countries like North Korea? Saudi (where they don't do that actually). Iran (nope). Maybe in tribal courts in the DRC? Or in Afghanistan perhaps? All bastions of democracy and judicial integrity. Having said that I suppose you still execute minors so why not.

Your post is all over the place. First you imply that the US lets convicted child molesters out of prison specifically to offend again when that isn't even close to being true. Sometimes mistakes are made by parole boards yes, but it's hardly a conspiracy to get them back out on the streets asap. You don't think prison is enough of a punishment, but then you say it's horrible for child molesters. Then there is some stunningly obvious drivel about state, federal and military prisons being different.

So, yes Joey, I for one understood you were serious. It's just that if you actually did what it is you're serious about I would think you just as bad as a child molester. Get it?




Not in Siddiq Barmak's Osama.[:(]




JessFranco -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 8:36:41 AM)

Although this will take three minutes of my life i'm not going to get back.....five reasons why feeding sex offenders into woodchippers is not a good idea:

1. If the penalty for rape is the same as / worse than murder, what would be the point in not murdering the victims and leaving no witnesses?

2. Nobody would ever plead guilty - putting all victims through the pain of a trial.

3. Nobody would ever get reported. Most child abuse happens within the family or with people there is some kind of emotional bond with that has been betrayed. A child may want their parents to stop abusing them but wouldn't necessarily want them fed into a wood-chipper.

4. Nobody would ever get convicted. In cases where  jury has to decide between the word of a child and the word of an adult, with limited supporting evidence either way, they're probably going to err on the side of not feeding people into woodchippers.

5. As repulsive as their crimes may be, sex offenders are human and most have been failed by the system of abuse-prevention when they, themselves, were children,

Actually only took two minutes.




Pigeon Army -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 11:02:48 AM)

You forgot just how damn hard it is to get good woodchippers these days. They fall apart after three or four dead bodies, and continuously acquiring them is expensive and a logistical nightmare. I should know, I neI mean nothing to see here folks, move along, move along.




Incanus -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 11:35:26 AM)

I think the point Squidward is trying to make in his usual alleged-Asperger's-expressive-impairment way -- apart from his well-known objection to prisons, but that's a whole other discussion -- is that the nature of the crime (heinous, repulsive, etc.) should not prompt a normally impartial justice system, as we experience it in Western Democracies, to forget about its fundamental humanistic values and instead of sentencing this type of offenders to longer (and hopefully not likely to be cut in half) prison terms simply resort to treating them in some form of physical punishment.

A prison term is not about vengeance, although sentiments of vengeance are bound to arise in the victim and the victims' relatives, etc., and I would be the last person to deny them the right to feel some sense of psychological fullfilment of their desire to see the offender suffer. This is only natural. However, the state cannot seek to make people suffer in any way, even those people who have exhibited the highest disregard for Law and human life and through their actions have foolishly done their worst to forfeit the protection and privileges that the Law accords to all members of society. Their criminal actions and irrationally antisocial intentions notwithstanding, offenders still remain in the eyes of Law members of society who have fallen from grace, so to speak, and need to reform and be re-integrated, re-introduced back to society once they've paid their dues via a prison term. Unlike criminals, Law regards human life as the greatest gift and applies all its force and all the means within its power for life's protection, even if this life belongs to a person who's committed the most heinous of crimes. Back to the question of suffering. Like PA rightly pointed out, if incidents of physical suffering occur in prison, it's not the state's intention, it happens sort of like a side-effect, and the rule of law applies to such events as well.

The justice system is not about sentiments of vengeance or sentiments of any other type, but about a cool-headed perception of its legitimate task to uphold the rule of law in a society, again as it's been argued before me by a number of posters here. It's also about reforming a criminal, if this is a feasible option. Experience tells us that this is indeed not a valid option in many cases of criminals, but then again the state has to keep the hope alive that any person stands half a chance to reform.

So, back to our topic, a justice system should weigh the benefits of imposing chemical castration to sex offenders of any type vs. the harm done through this procedure not only to them, if any, but primarily to the fundamental values that govern the institution of the order of law as manifested in that particular society. One example of a different nature obviously, but I believe pertinent in essence (though not in its details), is how the Bush administration treated many cases of alleged terrorists by initially twisting the principles of US law and later outright negating what the US constitution and legislation foresee about treatment of suspects, denying them habeas corpus etc. In this case, we witnessed a law system disfunctioning for a while, due to a pervasive belief that the extreme nature of the crime (terrorism) should allow for laws to be broken and rules to be bent at will, if the government so desires or sees fit. However, an impartial justice system should have reacted with caution and treat them with an even hand and a cool judgement.




themightyhutch -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 2:04:14 PM)

I don't get it, why are people saying paedophiles shouldn't be punished for their crimes? If you break a law you should be punished in some way or another, and if chemical castration works to prevent further crime then I think it should be done.




Olaf -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 2:04:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: themightyhutch

I don't get it, why are people saying paedophiles shouldn't be punished for their crimes?



???




themightyhutch -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 2:07:34 PM)

Well as far as I see it Squidward is saying that they shouldn't be punished because it's an act of revenge against them.




sanchia -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 2:09:29 PM)

That would be person [;)]




Olaf -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 2:10:43 PM)

I don't think he was suggesting that pedophiles go unpunished though. Buried in with all the talk of Nazis and woodchippers I believe the point was that while sex offenders obviously should be punished, the particular form of punishment was what he objected to. I didn't see anyone suggest that paedophiles shouldn't be punished for their crimes though.




themightyhutch -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 2:10:44 PM)

[:)]




Shifty Bench -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 2:44:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I don't think he was suggesting that pedophiles go unpunished though. Buried in with all the talk of Nazis and woodchippers I believe the point was that while sex offenders obviously should be punished, the particular form of punishment was what he objected to. I didn't see anyone suggest that paedophiles shouldn't be punished for their crimes though.


Squid sees punishment as revenge. He suggested that paedophiles should be locked up, not in prison, but in psychiatric hospitals so they can be rehabilitated. To help them. This is where people are seeing it as not punishing them, I think.




Incanus -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 3:16:34 PM)

Just to make this clear, I wasn't suggesting that convicted paedophiles should go unpunished or anything remotely of the sort, Hutch. Each justice system has a range of means at its disposal as foreseen in its specific legislation to use in order to enforce the rule of law and bring any criminals to justice. The point of discussion here is not whether punishment is due in what regards sex offenders, be they rapists, paedophiles, and so on, but whether the particular way to deal with them is preferable / fitting / effective, etc. compared to other, more conventional ways, say longer prison terms and the like.

No-one in one's right mind would suggest that they go unpunished, so it would be redundant to begin each post by repeating how repulsive this sort of felony is, and I feel we can move past this point, so as to examine how to deal with it. I think we should all bear in mind also that this forum-discussion is still in progress, and it would be better if things would not get heated over something over which the general concensus is undeniably repudiating and condemning this type of offences.

PA made a valid point earlier, when he argued that the nature of the crime is of absolute importance, when it comes to determining what the befitting punishment should be. This is the question then, is this form of corporal punishment (one can't deny that it's punishment and that it affects the human body) appropriate? Some argue for, some argue against, others go beyond that and ask for harsher punishment still.

There are lines drawn regarding punishment. Where is the line drawn regarding corporal punishment in western societies? We've all witnessed the heated, domestic dialogue in the U.S. with respect to the ''enhanced interrogation'' scandal, which was basically a fancy way to describe practises of torture that targeted the body and/ or the mind of the suspected terrorists. President Obama openly declared that such practises had caused the U.S. to forfeit its moral highground in the international millieu, so even if this had been the only declaration of the kind -- which it hadn't --  this would be reason enough to question the legitimacy of corporal punishment or practises in general that target or affect the body of prisoners and by extension of convicts.

It's a matter of a different category, arguably, but in essence one should ask themselves, whether treating a detained individual (suspect, convict, whatever) in a manner that targets and affects their body is not in any way negating some fundamental principle of western legal tradition, with respect to the protection of human life (any human life) and dignity, etc., even of people who have been convicted of such crimes.

The implication would be whether as a society we are ready to accept some principles to be temporarily disregarded or permanently abolished for the sake of punishing such criminals in a seemingly harsher way (like the U.S. government had purposefully denied habeas corpus to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisoners); but then the ensuing quandary would be what principle would follow next with regard to what new perception of what constitutes a more ''appropriate'' punishment. For that matter, another pertinent question would be, whether modern justice systems do not already possess effective means to deal with crimes.




Squidward Hark Bugle -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 3:58:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I don't think he was suggesting that pedophiles go unpunished though. Buried in with all the talk of Nazis and woodchippers I believe the point was that while sex offenders obviously should be punished, the particular form of punishment was what he objected to. I didn't see anyone suggest that paedophiles shouldn't be punished for their crimes though.


Squid sees punishment as revenge. He suggested that paedophiles should be locked up, not in prison, but in psychiatric hospitals so they can be rehabilitated. To help them. This is where people are seeing it as not punishing them, I think.


Is the purpose of punishment not to reform the wrongdoer? Isn't it meant to rehabilitate these people and ensure they're ready to re-enter society? I'd call that helping them.

The problem is that what the government calls "punishment" is, in my eyes, really just legalized abuse. By suggesting that paedophiles should be sent to a mental insitution, rather than a prison, I mean to reaffirm punishment as reforming, and thus helping, a wrongdoer, rather than all the monstrous acts currently taking place under there mere guise of "punishment". The word which describes what I think should be done to wrongdoers is still "punishment", but my idea of punishment is so far removed from what currently exists that I try to avoid using it. "Help" is synonymous with "punishment", so I use that instead.




Shifty Bench -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 4:39:06 PM)

Yeah, wasn't attacking you or anything Squid, was just re-capping. Thanks for the clarification though. I don't undertsand what you have against prisons, I missed that thread, but it doesn't matter.

Oh, and reforming paedophiles doesn't always work but I'm sure you're sick of reading that.




Squidward Hark Bugle -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 4:55:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

Yeah, wasn't attacking you or anything Squid, was just re-capping. Thanks for the clarification though. I don't undertsand what you have against prisons, I missed that thread, but it doesn't matter.


I just quoted your post because you mentioned my view on punishment. [;)]

quote:

Oh, and reforming paedophiles doesn't always work but I'm sure you're sick of reading that.



I believe that in the cases where "punishment" doesn't reform (individual cases, that is), the wrongdoer should be offered a choice. They should be able to choose whether they would prefer to have mind- and body-altering drugs to physically and psychologically prevent him, forcibly (after being administered, biologically, which is the point), from committing the actions that were deemed wrong, or if they would rather not have their body tainted and to continue with other therapeutic means.

The reason I started this thread and posted my angry reaction to the news is that Tusk wants a very specific punishment for a very specific offense, and for it to be mandatory. Tusk's attitude towards paedophiles indicates that in his ideal world they be treated as less than human, literally. This kind of attitude should not be allowed to dictate a nation's laws as it is horribly skewed and misguided.

Not only this, but he is also generalizing to a dangerous degree. There are in fact people who have raped or had sex with children who aren't paedophiles, and who aren't sexually attracted to children. Tusk's law would have chemical castration deemed necessary based only on the actions, and not the mental state, of the offender, and so in some cases there would be no urge to have sex with children to quash, and the treatment itself would be exposed as inhumane, and the law as nonsensical.




Rebenectomy -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 6:51:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle


The problem is that what the government calls "punishment" is, in my eyes, really just legalized abuse. By suggesting that paedophiles should be sent to a mental insitution, rather than a prison, I mean to reaffirm punishment as reforming, and thus helping, a wrongdoer, rather than all the monstrous acts currently taking place under there mere guise of "punishment". The word which describes what I think should be done to wrongdoers is still "punishment", but my idea of punishment is so far removed from what currently exists that I try to avoid using it. "Help" is synonymous with "punishment", so I use that instead.



You did say earlier though that you would see a person spend their life in a mental institution as opposed to chemical castration. Are you not being a little naive as to the realities of lifetime in these conditions? There would still be a hell of a lot of drugs involved, from sleeping aids and anti-depressants, to other behaviour monitoring drugs. A lifetime of such treatment would result in some serious physical consequences to those who have even the strongest of constitutions (stomach ulcers, high/low blood pressure, heart problems to name but a few). At times if the patient displayed signs of mania or violence these drugs would probably be enforced for the safety of the patient and carers. In terms of the human rights to 'self' this is up there with chemical castration is it not?





Squidward Hark Bugle -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 7:00:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebenectomy

You did say earlier though that you would see a person spend their life in a mental institution as opposed to chemical castration. Are you not being a little naive as to the realities of lifetime in these conditions? There would still be a hell of a lot of drugs involved, from sleeping aids and anti-depressants, to other behaviour monitoring drugs.


Just as with any other mental patient, and I'm sure they're used only when necessary or desired or whatever?

quote:

A lifetime of such treatment would result in some serious physical consequences to those who have even the strongest of constitutions (stomach ulcers, high/low blood pressure, heart problems to name but a few).


This is why I think the option of chemical castration should be left open. The wrongdoer himself may opt for reduced libido and sex drive in exchange for his freedom.

quote:

At times if the patient displayed signs of mania or violence these drugs would probably be enforced for the safety of the patient and carers.


If the patient displays signs of mania then they should be treated just like any other manic patient. If the patient is there because he is a paedophile, he won't necessarily be manic, and so those drugs won't be needed.





Rebenectomy -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (4/10/2009 8:02:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle

Just as with any other mental patient, and I'm sure they're used only when necessary or desired or whatever?


Desired? When it gets to the point that someone has been deemed incurable, to the extent that they will never be allowed out of hospital, I would be interested to see just how much power they have over their own medication. Especially when they have been convicted of such vicious crimes. Surely a certain amount of power is afforded to the judgment of doctors and mental health professionals, otherwise they might as well be in prison. If doctors are able to prescribe drugs when they deem necessary, why not chemical castration?

And we could be talking a period of say 30-50 years, I sincerely doubt that anyone could be incarcerated in any facility for that amount of time without experiencing a whole range of mental health problems, manic depression included.






JoeyPottr -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (5/10/2009 3:58:29 AM)

Some of you people are unbelievable. Bluntness is apparently too much for some of you sensitive types on here. I don't do it to shock people, I am just being honest. Oh, and I not a psycho either just to clarify that Ilovebeerme, I am was saying that prison is not enough punishment for these people, generally speaking they are the bottom of the barrel in prison, I don't care what happens to them in prison either. They only spend a certain amount of time there though and then they are let out again. It's not a conspiracy, it's the way the US prison system works. So if it's not even close to being true, llovebeerme by all means enlighten this savage with your knowledge of the US judicial and prison system.




Felix -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (5/10/2009 7:33:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JoeyPottr

I hope my woodchipper comment was not taken for comic effect, it wasn't meant to be. I am serious here. Some countries just shoot child molesters and dump them in a ditch, not the US we give let them out so they can do it again. Prison isn't always a cake walk either, child molesters don't fare too well in prison because they are absolutely hated by everyone in there. It depends, at least in the US a federal prison is different than a state prison and a military prison is different from a federal prison and a state prison.


Which countries do this?




Squidward Hark Bugle -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (5/10/2009 8:43:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebenectomy

Desired? When it gets to the point that someone has been deemed incurable, to the extent that they will never be allowed out of hospital, I would be interested to see just how much power they have over their own medication. Especially when they have been convicted of such vicious crimes. Surely a certain amount of power is afforded to the judgment of doctors and mental health professionals, otherwise they might as well be in prison. If doctors are able to prescribe drugs when they deem necessary, why not chemical castration?


Forget I said "desired". I rushed that. If it gets to the point where the paedophilia is deemed incurable, the patient should be offered the choice of chemical castration, which would allow him or her to leave the hospital much faster, and indeed to be enabled to leave at all. Paedophilia is not an illness which causes the patient to become catatonic, or unresponsive in any way. There are patients with other kinds of mental illness where these decisions would have to be made by someone other than the patient themselves, most likely the patient's immediate family.

quote:

And we could be talking a period of say 30-50 years, I sincerely doubt that anyone could be incarcerated in any facility for that amount of time without experiencing a whole range of mental health problems, manic depression included.


If after being in the hospital for long enough, before being deemed incurable, they have developed a kind of mania, or any other condition from being locked up, then that is a separate issue to the paedophilia, and should be treated accordingly.

quote:

Especially when they have been convicted of such vicious crimes.


This is the mentality of which I have tried to divorce myself. Except in my post regarding the harm that occurs in prisons, I usually don't use the word "crime" or "justice", or any variants thereof. I feel that they are both invented concepts to allow for punishment to become what it now has become, which is really just further "crime", but in the opposite direction, under the blanket term of "justice".

It would appear that "crime" is only "crime" when perpetrated by someone other than the State, and "justice" is legalised "crime", and is only perpetrated by the State itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8




elab49 -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (5/10/2009 9:30:52 AM)

And how do you define one person murdering another, Squidward? An inadvertent blip in their day?

I realise that sounds flip - but I do wonder what words you use when describing the action if 'crime' doesn't come into it. Nor the obvious point that the state should act to protect society when it occurs.




ilovebeerme -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (5/10/2009 9:37:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JoeyPottr

Some of you people are unbelievable. Bluntness is apparently too much for some of you sensitive types on here. I don't do it to shock people, I am just being honest. Oh, and I not a psycho either just to clarify that Ilovebeerme, I am was saying that prison is not enough punishment for these people, generally speaking they are the bottom of the barrel in prison, I don't care what happens to them in prison either. They only spend a certain amount of time there though and then they are let out again. It's not a conspiracy, it's the way the US prison system works. So if it's not even close to being true, llovebeerme by all means enlighten this savage with your knowledge of the US judicial and prison system.


Clarify away, I still think you're a nutter. You weren't being blunt; you were being a moron. People aren't shocked or offended by your opinion they just think it's childish and idiotic. It's the sort of answer you get from a 10 year old - What shall we do with sex offenders class? Put them in a wood chipper!! Woo. Grow up.

You swirl about issues with random sound bites, making obvious statements as if they are only relevant to people who live in the US. Every prison works that way you freak. People have a trial and are sentenced according to the severity of their crime. During their time in prison they are supposed to be rehabilitated. If their crime is so severe that rehabilitation is deemed impossible then they may never get out. If they are deemed insane then they go into appropriate care. If they show progress they get parole, if they don't then they serve their sentence. It's the evolution of hundreds of years of jurisprudence, so forgive me if I place my trust in that a little more than your insane ramblings.

What isn't even close to being true is the fabrication you implied about a revolving door prison system that sets out to release paedophiles into society as soon as possible. It's nonsense. You made it up. It's a fantasy.




Squidward Hark Bugle -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (5/10/2009 10:01:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

And how do you define one person murdering another, Squidward? An inadvertent blip in their day? I realise that sounds flip - but I do wonder what words you use when describing the action if 'crime' doesn't come into it. Nor the obvious point that the state should act to protect society when it occurs.


Murder is a malicious act, as are most actions that are considered "crimes". There are other actions that are also malicious, but which go unpunished by the State, such as verbal abuse. I consider premeditated murder and verbally abusing someone to the point where they try to kill themselves as bad as each other. I consider murder when provoked a less malicious act than causing suicide by verbal abuse, because causing suicide by verbal abuse is not that far away from causing murder by verbal abuse.

On the other hand, there are actions that are currently considered "crimes" which have no hint of malice in them, such as "causing death by dangerous driving". Only when the "actus reus" can be clearly observed is a "crime" declared as having taken place, even if the "mens rea" is of a decidedly non-malicious nature.

Rehabilitating people before they re-enter society is to protect society, and to protect those in need of rehabilitation.




elab49 -> RE: Poland okays forcible castration for pedophiles (5/10/2009 10:24:33 AM)

But that doesn't explain why you have an issue with the word crime.

Quite apart from that I simply don't agree with you on the driving issue - operating a deadly weapon and killing someone is clearly a punishable act. Fortunately the justice system agrees with that - given it isn't the driving that is the issue, but the mentality of the person behind the wheel. The law assumes intent when driving that dangerously, and I don't disagree - so unless they also wish to plead they were mentally incapable?




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.28125