How can anybody NOT support killing child rapist?
I believe they should be chemically castrated, yes. I also think they should have a tracking device implanted in them.
I think both of those fall under cruel and unusual punishment.
Then they should never be released from prison.
K. I'm sure life in prison can be argued. It's a valid punishment for heinous enough crimes.
Oh! I almost forgot. The tracking device for child rapists should have a cyanide capsule in it that can be remotely activated. That way they won't try to escape.
Let's kill them by boiling them in acid, then kill their families by burning them alive in their houses, scatter their ashes in a trash pit, and then blow up their home towns with small thermonuclear devices.
I don't care what method they'd prefer. What I care about is what is proper action of government against its people. Castration is cruel and unusual, and active monitoring I think needs to be banned. Infinite tracking and monitoring cannot be allowed in the least. It's not proper action by the government. And it doesn't matter how much we've dehumanized the criminal or demonized the crime; there are only certain actions the government may take and it is restricted on all other avenues.
Still not valid power of the government. So no.
Let's kill them by boiling them in acid, then kill their families by burning them alive in their houses, scatter their ashes in a trash pit, and then blow up their home towns with small thermonuclear devices.
Just because you say something is cruel and unusual does not make it cruel and unusual.
But I suppose we could let the pedophile decide: Life in prison or release from prison contingent upon chemical castration and implantation of a tracking device. I'm pretty sure I know which one they'd pick; most likely because it's not as cruel and unusual as you think...
According to who? Since when do you get to decide what is "cruel and unusual"?
It is both...
...and just because the criminal may want one punishment over the other doesn't mean that they get it.
The government is constrained. Just because you say something is not cruel and unusual does not make it not cruel and unusual.
According to that Constitution. I've heard you talk fondly of it in other threads, is that fondness merely dependent upon conditions of topic?
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." - 8th amendment.
You've highlighted some of the dangers of pure democracy. If the majority of the people want cruel or unusual punishment, they can't have it. It's expressly forbidden.
No, that's in fact not how it's interpreted.
The criminal doesn't get to choose punishment, that's handed down by the courts.
The courts are restricted in what they can hand down as punishment by the Constitution.
Just because you keep saying it's not cruel or unusual doesn't make it so.
We don't use these forms of punishment, so implementation of them can most certainly be argued to be in the very least unusual.
Maiming people can most certainly be argued to be cruel.
Thing is (and this argument has been used before on this thread), castration would not stop child molesters from molesting children.
Or rapists from raping.
It's a mind issue, not a genitalia issue.
Plus, not all child molesters/rapists are male.
And you overlook the possibility that they are innocent of the charge.
If you were falsely accused and convicted of child molestation (it happens), and upon being jailed you were castrated or killed (depending on who suggested what), would you be singing the same tune?
No.
I say just throw em all in a jail together.
Permanently (well, barring new evidence proving their innocence).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?