Poland wants to impose chemical castration on convicted paedophiles

[Amaryl]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4825252.ece

I like it!


Poland, which has been enraged by a shocking case of incest, is likely to become the first EU country to give judges the right to impose chemical castration on convicted paedophiles.

Although the plan has drawn overwhelming public support — 84 per cent of Poles approve — liberal politicians and doctors say that forced castration violates human rights and debases the medical profession.

But Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister, has responded: “I don’t think you can call such individuals — such creatures — human beings. I don’t think you can talk about human rights in such a case.”

A 45-year-old man was arrested in Poland a fortnight ago accused of fathering two children by his young daughter. The press compared it to the case of Josef Fritzl, the Austrian who kept his daughter prisoner in a cellar for two decades, sexually abusing her and creating a secret family.

The fury of the Polish Prime Minister is now being translated into law. The Health and Justice ministries are working on a draft that is likely to be presented to Cabinet next month. All the indications are that the law will be passed by parliament, where there is a majority backing punitive castration.

Britain, encouraged by promising results in Scandinavia, is to offer testosterone-reducing medication to sexual offenders before they are freed from jail. Germany has a similar scheme and connects the medication to therapy: the offender has to volunteer for both courses of treatment.

The Government of Mr Tusk — until now viewed as much more socially liberal than his predecessor, Jaroslaw Kaczynski — is determined to make the administration of libido-lowering drugs compulsory if there is a risk of repeat sexual offences.

Judges, after consulting doctors, will make it part of their sentencing.

“I want Poland to have the strictest possible legislation against criminals who rape children. It is as simple as that,” said Mr Tusk. Zbigniew Cwiakalski, the Justice Minister and main architect of the new law, argues that priorities have to be changed in dealing with crimes against children.

“Everyone talks about the rights of criminals, but what about the rights of the victims?” he asked the daily Gazeta Wyborcza, “We have the right to use measures that will protect the public.” Critics complain that such a law would violate the Constitution, which forbids cruel punishment. Others doubt that administering castration drugs will solve the problem.

“Medical treatment must serve the patient rather than the public,” said Marek Safjan, a Polish expert on medical ethics. “If not, we risk a return to the compulsory sterilisation of mentally ill patients that was carried out in Sweden as recently as the 1970s.”

[heroshade]

Oh FUCK YEAH!

[Sbrafk]

It's not even permanent chemical castration and everyone's bitching about it. If it was up to me I'd shove the shit used to neuter dogs down his throat.

[Xtra-Medium]

testosterone reducing meds lmao they will be some lame ass bitche. wouldn't it be funny to sneak some of that into the quarterbacks protein?

[Daccus]

But Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister, has responded: “I don’t think you can call such individuals — such creatures — human beings. I don’t think you can talk about human rights in such a case.”
This is how I see it, once you rape a child(anyone for that matter) you have no rights. Although, I think execution is a better punishment, this is a step in the right direction.

[heroshade]

It's not even permanent chemical castration and everyone's bitching about it. If it was up to me I'd shove the shit used to neuter dogs down his throat.

I'de just let the dog do the work.

[Daccus]

Wait, it's not permanent? How are they going to make sure they're taking their pill? Bull shit, just do surgery then.

[DeathByCactus]

What happens to people falsely convicted of rape? Just out of curiousity... I mean, if someone was, then imagine the immense amount of money they would recieve in court... >:)

nm if its not permanent.

[Amaryl]

What happens to people falsely convicted of rape? Just out of curiousity... I mean, if someone was, then imagine the immense amount of money they would recieve in court... >:)

basing your legal system on the chance of screwing up is screwing up.

[heroshade]

What happens to people falsely convicted of rape? Just out of curiousity... I mean, if someone was, then imagine the immense amount of money they would recieve in court... >:)

Meh, shit happens. Sometimes you pop a tire on your car, sometimes your balls become chemicly sterilized.

[Delthayre]

For some reason, I used to think that, "chemical castration," meant that the testicles were burned off with acid. The truth is more rational, but less exciting.

Am I wrong to feel as though there has been far more interest in and outrage about pædophiles in recent years than in the past? I'm not in favor of them, but it seems that there is now nearly an inordinant fixation upon them.

[Sokkwi]

basing your legal system on the chance of screwing up is screwing up.

Haha I would say the same thing if I didnt live in Cali. Hell most of the people who live here thinks that a jury's job is to convict lol.

[AmonDominus]

“Everyone talks about the rights of criminals, but what about the rights of the victims?” he asked the daily Gazeta Wyborcza, “We have the right to use measures that will protect the public.” Critics complain that such a law would violate the Constitution, which forbids cruel punishment. Others doubt that administering castration drugs will solve the problem.

Go Poland!

And to hell with the sissyass critics and whiners. I wish they'd all burn.

[heroshade]

For some reason, I used to think that, "chemical castration," meant that the testicles were burned off with acid. The truth is more rational, but less exciting.

Am I wrong to feel as though there has been far more interest in and outrage about pædophiles in recent years than in the past? I'm not in favor of them, but it seems that there is now nearly an inordinant fixation upon them.

It's time for opinion hour!


I don't have a problem with say.... a sixteen year old banging a twenty-two year old.

I DO however have a problem with a sixteen year old being RAPED by a twenty-two year old.

[Amaryl]

Am I wrong to feel as though there has been far more interest in and outrage about pædophiles in recent years than in the past? I'm not in favor of them, but it seems that there is now nearly an inordinant fixation upon them.

I'd say it's partly caused by an influx of internet popularity, childpron available to anyone, makes it more a fixation then the possible scary fellow around the corner offering sweets. And talks about castration are age-old, the discussions just spikes up when there are huge cases.

[DeathByCactus]

It's time for opinion hour!


I don't have a problem with say.... a sixteen year old banging a twenty-two year old.

I DO however have a problem with a sixteen year old being RAPED by a twenty-two year old.

Agree, unless it is my sister. At which point I will shoot the mother fucker.

[heroshade]

Agree, unless it is my sister. At which point I will shoot the mother fucker.

Why do you care about your sister? I'de rather stay out of my sisters sexual relationships all together. Although, knowing the type of guys my sister dates, I would probably end up being obligated to shoot the guy anyway.

[WhySoSerious]

Justice Is Served

[Weeking]

Incest isn't wrong, abstinence/birth control is.

Also who said the castration was not permanent? If they keep you on it for a lifetime instead of just the length of a prison term, it is.

Castration is death! Life term prison sentences, at least in USA, are not as they allow conjugal visits so you can have kids.

[WhySoSerious]

Incest isn't wrong, abstinence/birth control is.

Also who said the castration was not permanent? If they keep you on it for a lifetime instead of just the length of a prison term, it is.

Castration is death! Life term prison sentences, at least in USA, are not as they allow conjugal visits so you can have kids.

I have no idea what the fuck you just said...



But you're wrong.

[losinglife]

hey i got an idea, lets just keep de-evolving till we get to the medieval/inquisition days were we just torture the shit out of all prisoners!

[Shane]

This is how I see it, once you rape a child(anyone for that matter) you have no rights. Although, I think execution is a better punishment, this is a step in the right direction.

Then what stops the person raping the individual from killing said individual?

"Die if I do, die if I don't. Might as well have some extra fun while I'm at it. Hell, I might just get away with it, too!"

[LordTenacious]

hey i got an idea, lets just keep de-evolving till we get to the medieval/inquisition days were we just torture the shit out of all prisoners!

God I hope so.

Also, sterilization (http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo25/ShaunDreclin/crotch-stomp.gif).

[Mr.Duck]

Just cut it all off, cock...balls, then lets see them rape.

[Iloplex]

This is probably the most EPIC solution ive ever heard about solving this type of problem :D:D:D Poland FTFW!!!!!!

And i honestly dont see y doing to a convitced child rapist is a bad thing

[Krylas]

Why hasn't everyone realized that Poland is just fucked up in general?

[WhySoSerious]

hey i got an idea, lets just keep de-evolving till we get to the medieval/inquisition days were we just torture the shit out of all prisoners!

Sorry but violence WORKS



See all these retarded kids running around doing drugs and stupid crap these days? It's cause their parents don't beam em like they used to.

Same with criminals.

[losinglife]

God I hope so.

Also, sterilization (http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo25/ShaunDreclin/crotch-stomp.gif).

hahahahahahahhahaahahaahah that was awesome

[Amaryl]

Then what stops the person raping the individual from killing said individual?

"Die if I do, die if I don't. Might as well have some extra fun while I'm at it. Hell, I might just get away with it, too!"

what prevents them now from actually raping? Oh it's just rape, no need to try and prevent them from doing it again. if they want to kill they will, if they want to rape they will. your logic is flawed.

if you castrate them, they can't rape any more since they have no sexdrive. sure the pure dominators will find other means to torture their victims, but then again you solve one part of repeat offenders, while the other still gets a harsher punishment then they do now.

[Krylas]

Just making sure I can still post.
99% of us being males, can any of us really support castration?
I mean, by this logic, R-Kelly would be even more feminine. Does anyone really want that?

[Layedballer]

Sucks to be one of the people who were wrongly persecuted. And what about the women pedo's? Do they glue her snatch shut or something? remove her ovaries?

[WhySoSerious]

Sucks to be one of the people who were wrongly persecuted. And what about the women pedo's? Do they glue her snatch shut or something? remove her ovaries?

Oh you mean the teacher-student thing?

It wasn't wrong. What WAS wrong was the kid reported her and ruined it for everyone else.

EDIT: Never heard of a woman pedo before. But society has a double standard for that. =]

[Weeking]

I have no idea what the fuck you just said...



But you're wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:...
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth."

If you castrate somebody, they can't reproduce, therefore they aren't alive.

[WhySoSerious]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:...
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth."

If you castrate somebody, they can't reproduce, therefore they aren't alive.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you are a closet pedophile.

If they breathe, they are alive.

If they need to eat, they are alive.

There are plenty of basement virgins out there that will probably never get any in their life. Does that make them zombies?

[Weeking]

There are plenty of basement virgins out there that will probably never get any in their life. Does that make them zombies?

I use the zombie analogy on old people. Undead on sterile. Skinny women who therefore can't have kids, skeletons.

"Probably" is the whole difference. If they just wanted it enough, they could father kids.

Don't fool yourself into thinking they will only use it on "pedophiles". It'll grow to include rapists, and all sex offenders, people who expose themselves, frequenters of hookers and so on until the entire population is castrated and reproduction completely regulated.

[WhySoSerious]

I use the zombie analogy on old people. Undead on sterile. Skinny women who therefore can't have kids, skeletons.

"Probably" is the whole difference. If they just wanted it enough, they could father kids.



Okay, so are you pro-castration or not?

[Xelos]

I was quite surprised when our "liberal" PM said this. He shouldn't have gone with this silly half-measure and just reintroduce death sentence, FFS the majority of population here as well as the President want it.

BTW age of consent in Poland is 15, pr0n included.

[WhySoSerious]

I was quite surprised when our "liberal" PM said this. He shouldn't have gone with this silly half-measure and just reintroduce death sentence, FFS the majority of population here as well as the President want it.

BTW age of consent in Poland is 15, pr0n included.

Well now.......

*links to said pr0nz plz cough cough*

[Weeking]

Okay, so are you pro-castration or not?

I think it is death-penalty and the government can't be trusted with power to give out death penalties willy nilly, especially a kind that is socially acceptable. They did use to sterilize thousands if not millions of people, you know only a few decades ago.

[Commuted]

I use the zombie analogy on old people. Undead on sterile. Skinny women who therefore can't have kids, skeletons.

"Probably" is the whole difference. If they just wanted it enough, they could father kids.

Don't fool yourself into thinking they will only use it on "pedophiles". It'll grow to include rapists, and all sex offenders, people who expose themselves, frequenters of hookers and so on until the entire population is castrated and reproduction completely regulated.

I think you too that a bit too far
But rapists?
That doesn't sound too bad either

[Amaryl]

I'm sure there is a female equivalent to killing a women's sexdrive, and it should be also be part of the law.

sure it doesn't remove the dominating part, of women sexually abusing children (which is more common then you think or wish to believe) but you don't stop the men that don't care for the sexual part either.

you do however prevent them from ever enjoying the thing they subjected their victims to. which is good enough for me.

[Layedballer]

Oh you mean the teacher-student thing?

It wasn't wrong. What WAS wrong was the kid reported her and ruined it for everyone else.

EDIT: Never heard of a woman pedo before. But society has a double standard for that. =]

Not so much that(a boy at 13 getting "raped" by a hot 30-somethin teacher is what I call a lucky bastard) I mean the fat ole dykes who touch 5/6 year old girls/boys

[Titus Ultor]

What happens to people falsely convicted of rape? Just out of curiousity... I mean, if someone was, then imagine the immense amount of money they would recieve in court... >:)

nm if its not permanent.

This is the major problem with severe punishment for child molesters/rapists. A good deal of the cases revolve around "he said-she said" arguments, where a child and her mother say things happened without any physical evidence, while the man categorically denies the claims.

If any punishment along the lines of castration is to be administered, there better be solid physical evidence.

[DeathByCactus]

Oh you mean the teacher-student thing?

It wasn't wrong. What WAS wrong was the kid reported her and ruined it for everyone else.

EDIT: Never heard of a woman pedo before. But society has a double standard for that. =]

You wouldn't be saying that if your babysitter as a kid tied you to the bed and skull fucked herself on your cock while shoving a dildo in your ass.

It's just the likely hood of that is....lol.

[LordTenacious]

In related news, I lost my virginity when I was six.

[Amaryl]

This is the major problem with severe punishment for child molesters/rapists. A good deal of the cases revolve around "he said-she said" arguments, where a child and her mother say things happened without any physical evidence, while the man categorically denies the claims.

If any punishment along the lines of castration is to be administered, there better be solid physical evidence.

why base your sentencing structure around; "the law is fallible and there for our sentencing structure should be lenient to every fucking monster, just in case an innocent comes along that we missed."

you make a mockery of justice and law right there.(not that a Jury isn't making justice a mockery by turning it into a popularity contest)

if you can prove someone is guilty of child molestation you can cut of his balls.
if you can't prove someone is guilty of child molestation you can't cut of his balls(cutting off= administering drugs though cutting would be better)

if a girl and her mother claiming that the father raped the girl, is enough for a conviction, then it should be enough to fulfil the sentencing.(I'm not claiming it's enough, but if the law ends up saying it's enough to declare the man guilty)

[Suitepee]

This is how I see it, once you rape a child(anyone for that matter) you have no rights. Although, I think execution is a better punishment, this is a step in the right direction.

I concur. Now if only our country would stop wimping out and doing things like giving police protection to ex paedophiles and stuff.

[Amaryl]

hehe, a month back in holland a peadophile got released and moved back in to his old appartment, i think he was out after 5 years or so. the little girl he molested was his neighbour then, and is now so again. >.>

at least that incident made people busy to pass a law to prevent that.

[Atnas]

That's horrible, seriously!

But Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister, has responded: “I don’t think you can call such individuals — such creatures — human beings. I don’t think you can talk about human rights in such a case.”

Oh god the irony! Seems like he needs another holocaust to think over again.

[Lictor]

What happens to people falsely convicted of rape? Just out of curiousity... I mean, if someone was, then imagine the immense amount of money they would recieve in court... >:)

It works that way only in USA. Our law system (fortunately/unfortunately) does not support pulling that kind of stunts.

Meh, shit happens. Sometimes you pop a tire on your car, sometimes your balls become chemicly sterilized.

sigged.

hey i got an idea, lets just keep de-evolving till we get to the medieval/inquisition days were we just torture the shit out of all prisoners!

Idiotic idea yet a good piece of sarcasm.

Why hasn't everyone realized that Poland is just fucked up in general?

Care to elaborate?

[Lictor]

That's horrible, seriously!



Oh god the irony! Seems like he needs another holocaust to think over again.

Well, don't blame him. He's just a populistic pussy set on winning the next elections in Poland. It's not his fault.

[Amaryl]

Oh god the irony! Seems like he needs another holocaust to think over again.

There's a difference in claiming; if you violate the rights of another human being you give up those rights yourself.

and targeting a specific group just for being born.

[Teth]

Clearly, they need to stop fucking around with halfway measures and drive straight for eunuchdom.

[Amaryl]

Clearly, they need to stop fucking around with halfway measures and drive straight for eunuchdom.

but a eunuch doesn't grow boobs.

[Teth]

but a eunuch doesn't grow boobs.
A plastic surgeon can fix that.

[andy9306]

It is an interesting balance of rights.

Some would argue that chemical castration is in no more violation of a person's rights than jail time, and no less necessary.

Others would argue that to force change upon a person's body against their will is so fundamental a violation of their rights that it undermines, and overrules, the very justice system enforcing said change.

It is a matter of opinion really.

Personally, I favor compulsory chemical castration for parole and life sentences for repeat offenders. That way, the ones who need the drugs can't get out of prison without them, but they still have the choice of whether or not they take them. The other option is just incarceration. Either way they are no longer a threat to society.

Problem solved in an ethical manner.

Edit: For the purposes of this law, serial rape of one individual would categorize a person as a "repeat offender".

[Blixa]

There's a difference in claiming; if you violate the rights of another human being you give up those rights yourself.

No, you don't. You will be punished based on your rights. If you violate someones rights, you deserve at least a fair process and a fair punishment.

At least in Germany we the state punishes to reeducate and not to take revenge.


One Question to you: If someone kils a pedophile, do you think he should be punished?

If you asnwered this question with no: If someone kills a pedophile not knowing that the guy was a pedophile, do you think he should be punished? If you say yes, you obviously believe this pedophile has still "rights" and that's how it should be.

[Shadowoak]

why base your sentencing structure around; "the law is fallible and there for our sentencing structure should be lenient to every fucking monster, just in case an innocent comes along that we missed."

you make a mockery of justice and law right there.(not that a Jury isn't making justice a mockery by turning it into a popularity contest)

if you can prove someone is guilty of child molestation you can cut of his balls.
if you can't prove someone is guilty of child molestation you can't cut of his balls(cutting off= administering drugs though cutting would be better)

if a girl and her mother claiming that the father raped the girl, is enough for a conviction, then it should be enough to fulfil the sentencing.(I'm not claiming it's enough, but if the law ends up saying it's enough to declare the man guilty)

The Law is infallible, The State is always right. Yup. That's what we need, a more totalitarian society.

First of all, even if you believe that the law is infallible, the people who impose it never are. Second, the people that make the law aren't perfect, therefore, the law is never perfect.

On the topic. You can't believe how many girls falsely accuse teachers or other older men for rape, either out of spite, or because they seek attention. There were a few cases in Sweden and Germany, at least back in the '70s.

[Amaryl]

The Law is infallible, The State is always right. Yup. That's what we need, a more totalitarian society.

First of all, even if you believe that the law is infallible, the people who impose it never are. Second, the people that make the law aren't perfect, therefore, the law is never perfect.

I'm not saying the law is infallible, i'm saying that if you approach the law as fallible, and adjust your sentencing so the 1%(random number) of innocents are spared, you're cuddling 99%, the real criminals, because you're afraid of making a mistake. which basically makes your judicial system a farce.

if you give a convicted serial killer a 5 year jail sentence, because there is a 1% chance that someone in the judicial system made a mistake instead of life/death penalty. you're making the law a big joke.


On the topic. You can't believe how many girls falsely accuse teachers or other older men for rape, either out of spite, or because they seek attention. There were a few cases in Sweden and Germany, at least back in the '70s.

Again as I stated in my post, I'm not saying that simply saying that someone raped you is enough for a conviction. I disagree with that, there should be sufficient proof.
I'm saying that if a judge/jury convicts a person guilty of a certain crime, the real non sugar-coated punishment should be given and not be lenient in case he might possibly be innocent due to a mistake, while the judge/jury himself declared the guy guilty by the evidence brought before him

falsly accusing people is off all times, and most of them get debunked or just dismissed due to lack of evidence/proof or simply because it's a silly case of she said he said.

[Vanno]

From a forum that went on and on about Vikings, this thread sure brought out a lot of aversion to rape.

[andy9306]

I agree that the sentencing stage is where you should separate the guilty from the not guilty. All who are found guilty should be treated as though they are guilty and should have the safeguards applied to them that protect society from one guilty of their actions.

I do not think that just because a person has raped a child you can do whatever you want to them. Despite their infringement of a child's rights at a frighteningly fundamental level they are still deserving of their rights as living, intelligent beings. I am not suggesting that criminals should not be punished. I am suggesting that punishment should not be primarily proportional to the the crime, but to the prevention of recurrence.

Don't kill a murderer, don't rape a rapist. Lock them both up and if you really need them to suffer just think about the incidental rape that most of them will experience while in prison.

[Amaryl]

I am suggesting that punishment should not be primarily proportional to the the crime, but to the prevention of recurrence.


castrating a paedophile means he can't get it up anymore, means he will never be able to rape a child again. which would fit clearly within those criteria.

[Arkh]

Isn't being buttraped in prison enough a punishment ?
After being in prison, you have payed your debt to society, this kind of thing is just punishment for maybe future crime. So not justice.
If you want less rape victims, just authorize them to protect themselves.

[Vanno]

castrating a paedophile means he can't get it up anymore, means he will never be able to rape a child again. which would fit clearly within those criteria.

Not with his own genitalia.

Now, how would they extend an equivalent punishment to females?

[Desperado[1G]]

When you are first convicted of paedophilia, you should serve the jail term and be permanently castrated.

There is no second chance. If you are convicted again of molesting a child, you are then taken out behind the courthouse and hanged.

Sorry folks, there is no rehabilitating this kind of evil.

[Amaryl]

Now, how would they extend an equivalent punishment to females?

Circumcision? I don't know how you'd remove a womans sex drive in the manner you can do with men.

[Arkh]

;1759538']When you are first convicted of paedophilia, you should serve the jail term and be permanently castrated.

There is no second chance. If you are convicted again of molesting a child, you are then taken out behind the courthouse and hanged.

Sorry folks, there is no rehabilitating this kind of evil.
Why a special treatment for children ?
What's the age limit for it being paedophilia ?
Why not extend it to all rape ? And same thing with thieves : cut their fucking hands. Execute murderers, whatever they murder. Use car accident conductors as crash test dummies.
I mean, why stop a good idea hey ?

[Lictor]

Circumcision? I don't know how you'd remove a womans sex drive in the manner you can do with men.

You've just mentioned it on the beginning of your sentence...

[Vanno]

;1759538']When you are first convicted of paedophilia, you should serve the jail term and be permanently castrated.

There is no second chance. If you are convicted again of molesting a child, you are then taken out behind the courthouse and hanged.

Sorry folks, there is no rehabilitating this kind of evil.

Depends where we draw the line for pedos. I don't think lusting over a 16 year old is Jeffery Damer weird, and pretty common. Having sexual urges over prepubescents is.

[Whisky Bob]

Why hasn't everyone realized that Poland is just fucked up in general?

Hello.
Fuck You.
Bye.


As far as the chemical castration is concerned. This is good idea but I am affraid that was just a Public Relations trick of our prime minister. He presented this project after police discovered some guy been imprisoning his daughter and raping her since she was 10 or so. The same day some guy caught on raping 5 year old girl.

I think castrating criminals is not going back to medieval times, in fact i believe that modern societies are already back to pre-medieval period.

I piss on human rights, guy raping 5 year old is not a human, he should be castrated as animal.
So far statistics show that any "psychological" treatment bla bla bla bla fails big time. Besides psychiatrist treatment is WAY more expensive than pair of scissors.

Imagine someone rapes your 5 year all daughter? Would you say "castrating him would be medieval" "he is just a victim of the wrong system" "he didnt mean to rape her, he is just misunderstood"? No, I guess you would cut his balls off yourself with blunt rusty knife and make him eat them with whipped cream (I would).

Why a special treatment for children ?
What's the age limit for it being paedophilia ?
Why not extend it to all rape ? And same thing with thieves : cut their fucking hands. Execute murderers, whatever they murder. Use car accident conductors as crash test dummies.
I mean, why stop a good idea hey ?

If you are trying to compare a rape on 5year old to thievery you are fucking stupid.

[Unahim]

If you think you can just apply human rights in some cases, and ignore them in others, you are just fucking stupid.

It's an all or nothing kind of deal.

[Whisky Bob]

Castrating a guy who raped 5yo is violating his law. But why he should have any, for me, as mentioned before, he is not a human.

Why we use human rights to protect criminals instead of protecting victims?

[DR.NUMBERS]

How can you say "no" when 84% of the people in your country want it. Is it not a government of the people?

[Arkh]

Why we use human rights to protect criminals instead of protecting victims?
Ask yourself this question again before defending gun laws.

I'm not comparing rape with theft. I'm comparing the treatment proposed. If some people think it's ok to castrate children rapist, why not castrate other rapist ? If we start cutting the tool of the crime, why not the hands of thieves ?

[Scully]

“I don’t think you can call such individuals — such creatures — human beings. I don’t think you can talk about human rights in such a case.”

What a load of fucking bullshit. Sure, maybe 90% of them deserves it, but there'll always be the ones who don't.

"As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children."

[cute naster]

An excellent idea.

[Spinewire]

Forced castration violates human rights and debases the medical profession.

This idea is the worst think have ever heard.


I'm comparing the treatment proposed. If some people think it's ok to castrate children rapist, why not castrate other rapist ? If we start cutting the tool of the crime, why not the hands of thieves ?

If you think you can just apply human rights in some cases, and ignore them in others, you are just fucking stupid.

At least everyone is not totaly retarded in this place.

You need a biology lesson...

[Ultimo]

Forced castration violates human rights and debases the medical profession.

This idea is the worst think have ever heard.






At least everyone is not totaly retarded in this place.

You need a biology lesson...

Haha, just goes to show you that avoiding that stuff in school or making it into a huge spectacle doesn't help.

[Lictor]

cut off her clit, sew up her hole, and give a cather(sp?) for urinating.


Practice this on your mum first.

[Spinewire]

Haha, just goes to show you that avoiding that stuff in school or making it into a huge spectacle doesn't help.
i don't follow?

[Ultimo]

i don't follow?

Your last comment. The way schools teach biology these days is pathetic. They either avoid genetalia, or they treat it as a huge ordeal.

[Spinewire]

Your last comment. The way schools teach biology these days is pathetic. They either avoid genetalia, or they treat it as a huge ordeal.
Ah right i got ya...


I really hope he was joking, but it's almost too retarded to be funny.

[Toilet]

I believe this to be perfectly justified if ANY rapist either has raped someone more than two times, or has raped two persons one time each.

As for the women, you could overfeed them with preventation pills (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2006/01/03/taking-oral-pill-may-kill-your-sex-drive-for-ever-115875-16541116/)

I also believe serial killers should be killed.

[Ziegler]

You need a biology lesson...
so I forgot a full hysterectomy. any other reason why this wouldnt work?

Practice this on your mum first.

If she happens to rape a child, I'll be sure and do that.

[Desperado[1G]]

Forced castration violates human rights and debases the medical profession.

This idea is the worst think have ever heard.

LOL, weren't you pro-abortion?

The hypocrisy is incredible

[jonyak]

;1759985']LOL, weren't you pro-abortion?

The hypocrisy is incredible

how is it hypocrtical to be pro choice, yet against castrating someone agaisnt there will?

[Desperado[1G]]

You're FOR taking the life of a child in the womb, and AGAINST sentencing a violent criminal to be castrated (or even, put to death)?

Don't you think that's a little backwards?

[Ziegler]

;1760014']You're FOR taking the life of a child in the womb, and AGAINST sentencing a violent criminal to be castrated (or even, put to death)?

Don't you think that's a little backwards?

no...liberal mantra.

kill the babies...protect the criminals.

[jonyak]

;1760014']You're FOR taking the life of a child in the womb, and AGAINST sentencing a violent criminal to be castrated (or even, put to death)?

Don't you think that's a little backwards?

I never said I was for either of these. but I will.

I am for the right of a mother to choose what happens to her own body, as much as I am for the right of a criminal to choose what happens to his body as well.

[Desperado[1G]]

And what of the child who was raped? Did she get to choose what happened to her body?

[hardboiled]

Pedophiles are subject to the witch hunt of this century.
Rule of law FTW.

[jonyak]

;1760031']And what of the child who was raped? Did she get to choose what happened to her body?

no...

but by taking away the criminals right to choose whether he gets his balls destroyed don't we become as bad as he is?

[Ziegler]

no...

but by taking away the criminals right to choose whether he gets his balls destroyed don't we become as bad as he is?

No we dont...we let others who would consider this action that there are dire consequences for such. :bang:

[Spk]

Nothing to complain about here, people who fuck little children don't deserve any respect or consideration. If it was up to me, I'd cut their dicks and stuff it in their mouth, and have them swallow it.

[Despise me]

If it was up to me, id just cut the damn thing off all pedos lol, if they find a way to continue to molest people after that then they need a noble prize.

[jonyak]

another problem I see with this is what about the 19 year old guy who has sex with a 16 year old consensualy. in some places that would be pedophilia under law.

so all of a sudden this guy who really did nothign wrong is a pedophile and get castrated.

[hardboiled]

another problem I see with this is what about the 19 year old guy who has sex with a 16 year old consensualy. in some places that would be pedophilia under law.

so all of a sudden this guy who really did nothign wrong is a pedophile and get castrated.

And in general consensual relationships are not distinguished from actual assaults.

[Ultimo]

so I forgot a full hysterectomy. any other reason why this wouldnt work?


Ummm he was referring to you view on the woman anatomy and its flaws...which I guess you really ARE oblivious to...oh nevermind, I will let you continue as you were, it's not my job to give lessons here.

Ask a trusted female what was wrong with your solution sometime.

[Desperado[1G]]

another problem I see with this is what about the 19 year old guy who has sex with a 16 year old consensualy. in some places that would be pedophilia under law.

so all of a sudden this guy who really did nothign wrong is a pedophile and get castrated.

That's statutory rape.

Pedophilia (as I understand it) is the attraction to prepubescent children

[Ziegler]

Ummm he was referring to you view on the woman anatomy and its flaws...which I guess you really ARE oblivious to...oh nevermind, I will let you continue as you were, it's not my job to give lessons here.

Ask a trusted female what was wrong with your solution sometime.

Let's see....they have been castrating women in india for years by scarring or removing...sheesh dont want another warning for being to blunt....scarring or removing her...sensitive parts or flower or whatever else is acceptable to say that isnt accurate but unoffensive. *rollseyes* along with a full removal of her reproductive organs...which is what castration does to a male...is some how unacceptable or not possible?

Ok, so yeah, the sewing up part was just to be over the top, but the other two are quite feasible and actually done.


How about grarfting a chastity belt permanently to thier hip bones with surgical screws?

[Ultimo]

Let's see....they have been castrating women in india for years by scarring or removing...sheesh dont want another warning for being to blunt....scarring or removing her...sensitive parts or flower or whatever else is acceptable to say that isnt accurate but unoffensive. *rollseyes* along with a full removal of her reproductive organs...which is what castration does to a male...is some how unacceptable or not possible?

Ok, so yeah, the sewing up part was just to be over the top, but the other two are quite feasible and actually done.


How about grarfting a chastity belt permanently to thier hip bones with surgical screws?

You still aren't getting what was wrong with your original statement. I would just let it go man.

[Maas]

Let's see....they have been castrating women in india for years by scarring or removing...sheesh dont want another warning for being to blunt....scarring or removing her...sensitive parts or flower or whatever else is acceptable to say that isnt accurate but unoffensive. *rollseyes* along with a full removal of her reproductive organs...which is what castration does to a male...is some how unacceptable or not possible?

Ok, so yeah, the sewing up part was just to be over the top, but the other two are quite feasible and actually done.


How about grarfting a chastity belt permanently to thier hip bones with surgical screws?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oophorectomy



Ok.

So female circumcision is not the equivalent of castration.

The purpose of castration is to remove the testicles, which produce sperm and testosterone. The female equivalent is the Oophorectomy, which will also neutralize reproductive capabilities, testosterone and estrogen production.

In this thread, the chemical castration mentioned is used to eliminate testosterone production. So again, the equivalent for a female would NOT be female circumcision, which does nothing to that extent.



Got it?

[Jackhowitzer]

I agree raping children is sick, but what sickens me more is forced medical procedures/enraged idiots sensationalizing shit to further their cause of "justice". You must draw the line somewhere, justice at any cost isn't justice at all. Quit with the mob mentality and think for yourself.

[Ziegler]

Ok.

So female circumcision is not the equivalent of castration.

The purpose of castration is to remove the testicles, which produce sperm and testosterone. The female equivalent is the Oophorectomy, which will also neutralize reproductive capabilities, testosterone and estrogen production.

In this thread, the chemical castration mentioned is used to eliminate testosterone production. So again, the equivalent for a female would NOT be female circumcision, which does nothing to that extent.



Got it?

ok...we're being obtuse...sometimes I dont catch that. My bad. I wasnt giving an equivalent of a male chemical castration. But I see where you people were getting at. I was thinking more complete removal of the reproductive organs and prevention of intercourse. Cutting off a mans testicles and penis would equate to what I was getting at...and what should be done with pedophiles IMHO...

But I do thank you for the clarification.

[Amaryl]

everybody claiming that you can't violate another humans right against their will even if they're convicted criminals should get their heads out of their asses and smell the hypocrisy.

How is forced incarceration into a little jail cel with 1 hour of mandatory exercise not an infringement of human rights?

[Helgeran]

Pedophiles are subject to the witch hunt of this century.
Rule of law FTW.
Yeah I've noticed that too. It's kind of funny to see people who can't grasp homosexuals were seen as warped evil retards are all "kill em". The current pedophilia laws are a prime example of pragmatic, probably nesseccary, but imoral laws. There should be no such thing as a thought crime.

[Exidium]

I think this is a situation where I am not a fan until someone I know is abused, but I am not sure...

I think this seems a bit nazi-ish to me, but then we have many millions of people just sitting in jail cells for a bulk of their lives and the repeat offender rate for crimes in general seems fairly high.

If prisons were my responsibility, everyone would work 8-5 on a chain gang with revenue generated going to support the prison, so taxpayers wouldn't have to. Remaining money would go to the victims/families.

They would work Saturdays. Sundays would be for intense reflection and rehab.

When a prisoner is too old to work in the chain gang, they can be given different work detail.

[jonyak]

I think this is a situation where I am not a fan until someone I know is abused, but I am not sure...

I think this seems a bit nazi-ish to me, but then we have many millions of people just sitting in jail cells for a bulk of their lives and the repeat offender rate for crimes in general seems fairly high.

If prisons were my responsibility, everyone would work 8-5 on a chain gang with revenue generated going to support the prison, so taxpayers wouldn't have to. Remaining money would go to the victims/families.

They would work Saturdays. Sundays would be for intense reflection and rehab.

When a prisoner is too old to work in the chain gang, they can be given different work detail.

I think thats a great idea.

[Forgivance]

I agree. Pedophilles are people just out for a thrill, they gain sexual gratification near exclusively through a young person (age and sex varies).

They do this just like a homosexual finds gratification in a same sex or a heterosexual finds it in oppositie sex...in other words, it's their way and they won't change.

Kill them all is better than nueter imo.

[Mr.LichTwitch]

Ok, This is the DUMBEST FUCKING IDEA I'VE EVER HEARD. Here's a better idea: PUT PEDOPHILES IN THE PRISON'S GENERAL POPULATION, AND LEAVE THEM THERE. Last time I checked, there aren't any children in prison so that leaves a 0% chance of them fucking children ever again.

[Amaryl]

I agree. Pedophilles are people just out for a thrill, they gain sexual gratification near exclusively through a young person (age and sex varies).

They do this just like a homosexual finds gratification in a same sex or a heterosexual finds it in oppositie sex...in other words, it's their way and they won't change.

Kill them all is better than nueter imo.

Neutering will stop them from having a sexdrive meaning they don't need the sexual gradification they get from children, so there is no need to kill them.

there are people with a sexual desire for prepubescent children, and there are people that actually have sex with prepubescent children, without their consent or full knowledge what is done to them. the psychological effects of molestated children is widely documented and none of the children grows up without scars from those events.

that is something entirely different from consensual sex between 2 men/women that both know exactly what's going on and what's happening.

there's a fucking difference in thinking your 6 year old girl is a beautiful little princes, and actually sticking your dick into her and destroying her fragile state of mind, just for your sexual gratification.

[Mr.LichTwitch]

there's a fucking difference in thinking your 6 year old girl is a beautiful little princes, and actually sticking your dick into her and destroying her fragile state of mind, just for your sexual gratification.

Which is why pedos deserve life in prison(a short life since the inmates will likely shank them), and not a prescription + parole.

[RootBeerFloat]

Props for Poland.

[WhySoSerious]

Props for Poland.

I hope everyone follows polands example.


+1 for poland

[Metal Wolf]

I read the title as "Pedoland" for a second. Everything else about an arguably great thread has been a disappointment compared to that initial elation of a wonderful troll opportunity.

[Arkh]

I think thats a great idea.
That's slavery.

[Teutates]

Cut off their penis I say!

[Rhailith]

Fuck this temporary shit. They just need to grab them by the testicles and hack those babies off with a knife.

[Vehementi]

Feelings of attraction toward girls below a magical arbitrary threshold age aren't unnatural or even uncommon, last I heard.

[jonyak]

Feelings of attraction toward girls below a magical arbitrary threshold age aren't unnatural or even uncommon, last I heard.

how dare you appeal to human nature!

[Forgivance]

Neutering will stop them from having a sexdrive meaning they don't need the sexual gradification they get from children, so there is no need to kill them.

there are people with a sexual desire for prepubescent children, and there are people that actually have sex with prepubescent children, without their consent or full knowledge what is done to them. the psychological effects of molestated children is widely documented and none of the children grows up without scars from those events.

that is something entirely different from consensual sex between 2 men/women that both know exactly what's going on and what's happening.

there's a fucking difference in thinking your 6 year old girl is a beautiful little princes, and actually sticking your dick into her and destroying her fragile state of mind, just for your sexual gratification.

All very true - but you saying that cutting their junk off is enough is completely wrong. Rape isn't about an orgasm, it's about the power. Now, these sick fucks actually think they love a kid, but that's not the case. Just because they don't have the sex drive to destroy an innocent, doesn't mean they will stop. They should all die.

(for purposes of this forum - I of course mean, in the legal since - they should have a fair trial and all that...in TX, with a jury of mothers and fathers.)

[Vehementi]

Edit: ^^ Rape's about a lot of things and it differs.

how dare you appeal to human nature!

"Don't hate him, pity him - he was brought up in a country where the legal age was sixteen, not the obvious seventeen. He can't help it."

[Rhailith]

how dare you appeal to human nature!

Sigged.

[Desperado[1G]]

AoC is personally the best game i have ever played

be wary of whom you quote

[Amaryl]

All very true - but you saying that cutting their junk off is enough is completely wrong. Rape isn't about an orgasm, it's about the power. Now, these sick fucks actually think they love a kid, but that's not the case. Just because they don't have the sex drive to destroy an innocent, doesn't mean they will stop. They should all die.

(for purposes of this forum - I of course mean, in the legal since - they should have a fair trial and all that...in TX, with a jury of mothers and fathers.)

I'm not saying it's enough, as I already stated you still have the part of the pure dominators that use raping as a tool, but you will keep them eitherway with the sentencing structure.

but I do believe that every right you violate in your victim, you give up yourself.(still needs to be proven that you are guilty though) and as such (next to the attempt of rehabilitation in prison) you violate the bodies of those children/woman. you voluntarily remove the protection the state grants you over your own body, and thus we remove your junk.
if you kill a person, you should be killed in turn.
If you steal from people, your house and car and boat and company should be impounded by the government.

you have no respect for your victims rights, we have none for yours.

[Vehementi]

I'm not saying it's enough, as I already stated you still have the part of the pure dominators that use raping as a tool, but you will keep them eitherway with the sentencing structure.

but I do believe that every right you violate in your victim, you give up yourself.(still needs to be proven that you are guilty though) and as such (next to the attempt of rehabilitation in prison) you violate the bodies of those children/woman. you voluntarily remove the protection the state grants you over your own body, and thus we remove your junk.
if you kill a person, you should be killed in turn.
If you steal from people, your house and car and boat and company should be impounded by the government.

you have no respect for your victims rights, we have none for yours.

You're inconsistent. By your logic, the punishment for rape is rape, not removal of your junk.

[Staatsschutz]

convicted child-rapers should have their cock amputated. that would be a fair punishment and would prevent them from doing that in the future.

[Jackhowitzer]

everybody claiming that you can't violate another humans right against their will even if they're convicted criminals should get their heads out of their asses and smell the hypocrisy.

How is forced incarceration into a little jail cel with 1 hour of mandatory exercise not an infringement of human rights?

Well, for one, we're not like China taking organs from death row prisoners, or the Nazi's, experimenting on prisoners, and you just don't plain do it because it's just not right. You shouldn't be able to force a person to do what they wouldn't or shouldn't do with there body unless they agree to it. It's there body, they can do what they want with it, and no one else should have a say so about it. Besides you'd be violating their rights if you forced them to undergo a medical procedure against their will. It's called informed CONSENT for a reason, not to mention it's just plain wrong.

My head is out of my ass, it's yours that's buried in to far to notice.

[Jackhowitzer]

To all the idiots that are saying AMPUTATE DER CAWKS!! CUT EM OFF!! They can also do sodomy. You can cut their cocks off, but you can't break their broomsticks.

[Staatsschutz]

To all the idiots that are saying AMPUTATE DER CAWKS!! CUT EM OFF!! They can also do sodomy. You can cut their cocks off, but you can't break their broomsticks.

ok then they need to cut off their hands too

[Dreadknought]

Fuck, good thing I don't live in Poland.

[Desperado[1G]]

I like pierogies therefore I like poland

[Drunkenork]

Why use chemicals? Use a knife.

[hardboiled]

Civilized westerns surely wouldn't do such uncivilized things, right?

[Elicas]

I don't see this coming to the United States. The Eigth Amendment to the Constitution protects the accused, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

I know of several cases where people have gone to jail unrightfully. In Georgia, a 17-year old male received 10 years in prison for engaging in oral sex with his 15-year old girlfriend. He was accused of "aggravated child molestation". Should he be castrated? Should he have his "cock amuputated"? Recently, the Georgia Supreme Court let him off after spending 2 years in prison.

[akrippler]

They say it violates your rights, I say pedo's (or anyone else who imposes on someone elses rights) has no rights....

[Vehementi]

They say it violates your rights, I say pedo's (or anyone else who imposes on someone elses rights) has no rights....

So it's cool if I torture you to death once you murder someone yeah?

[Amaryl]

Well, for one, we're not like China taking organs from death row prisoners, or the Nazi's, experimenting on prisoners, and you just don't plain do it because it's just not right. You shouldn't be able to force a person to do what they wouldn't or shouldn't do with there body unless they agree to it. It's there body, they can do what they want with it, and no one else should have a say so about it. Besides you'd be violating their rights if you forced them to undergo a medical procedure against their will. It's called informed CONSENT for a reason, not to mention it's just plain wrong.

My head is out of my ass, it's yours that's buried in to far to notice.

shame they didn't give that right to their victims? why should we grant it to them?

If a prisoner is executed, why not reap his organs? the sick fuck might end up saving some lives after all. if you need test say a new drug against cancer that has a high risk of mortality in the early stages for medical-trials, why not use death row inmates?

but isn't locking them up in prison a violation of convicts right of liberty? just for an example. isn't that preventing his right to leave a country? as another example.

why don't you feel bad about those violations? or do you really believe that you're not going to violate anyone's rights, but let those who to without regard just do as they please without stopping them? unless you believe in that. you're a fucking hypocrite, hiding behind a shroud of civility.

[Caid]

Stupid idea, shoot them in the face instead.

[Thrill_KIll]

I don't see this coming to the United States. The Eigth Amendment to the Constitution protects the accused, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

I know of several cases where people have gone to jail unrightfully. In Georgia, a 17-year old male received 10 years in prison for engaging in oral sex with his 15-year old girlfriend. He was accused of "aggravated child molestation". Should he be castrated? Should he have his "cock amuputated"? Recently, the Georgia Supreme Court let him off after spending 2 years in prison.


A 17 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is not the same as some adult raping a child. Also, as flimsy a case as that sounds, I would think he had a piss poor lawyer. Also, you can be charged with underage sex at 17 in Georgia?????

Last time I checked, you had to be 18.

Where did this happen? Link us to a newspaper article, as something like that would have made statewide news.

[Jackhowitzer]

shame they didn't give that right to their victims? why should we grant it to them?

If a prisoner is executed, why not reap his organs? the sick fuck might end up saving some lives after all. if you need test say a new drug against cancer that has a high risk of mortality in the early stages for medical-trials, why not use death row inmates?

but isn't locking them up in prison a violation of convicts right of liberty? just for an example. isn't that preventing his right to leave a country? as another example.

why don't you feel bad about those violations? or do you really believe that you're not going to violate anyone's rights, but let those who to without regard just do as they please without stopping them? unless you believe in that. you're a fucking hypocrite, hiding behind a shroud of civility.

It makes us as sick as them, and I'm not so stupid as to participate in the "mob mentality" that you use. How about we start testing how much lead content your children can handle before they show signs of deterioration? They're going to die sooner or later, might as well? You're going to die sooner or later, how about we see how long you can survive while bleeding to death? You're so close minded. I'm no hypocrite. I guess what I've presented in this post means you have a double standard. Why not use your family for medical experiments? They're going to die anyways, right? Heart attack, cancer, natural, etc.. See what I'm doing? No, locking up convicts does not violate liberty, it's preserving peace and order. You can't have liberty without justice. There's a point where the government is overstepping your boundaries. Deciding a life changing medical procedure for someone else is one of them. Also, wrong convictions. So next time you think hmm that guy should die because he commited a crime, it's called jail, not KILL HIM MURDER HIM BECAUSE HE STOLEZ OURZ BREADZ!


Fucking tool.

[Amaryl]

It makes us as sick as them, and I'm not so stupid as to participate in the "mob mentality" that you use. How about we start testing how much lead content your children can handle before they show signs of deterioration? They're going to die sooner or later, might as well? You're going to die sooner or later, how about we see how long you can survive while bleeding to death? You're so close minded. I'm no hypocrite. I guess what I've presented in this post means you have a double standard. Why not use your family for medical experiments? They're going to die anyways, right? Heart attack, cancer, natural, etc.. See what I'm doing? No, locking up convicts does not violate liberty, it's preserving peace and order. You can't have liberty without justice. There's a point where the government is overstepping your boundaries. Deciding a life changing medical procedure for someone else is one of them. Also, wrong convictions. So next time you think hmm that guy should die because he commited a crime, it's called jail, not KILL HIM MURDER HIM BECAUSE HE STOLEZ OURZ BREADZ!


Fucking tool.

deciding which human right is alright to break and which is not, when someone does something criminal is fine by me. claiming that it's wrong to violate the rights decided you shouldn't break on the basis of "you're not allowed to infringe on human rights even if he's a criminal" is being a hypocrite. doesn't matter how you want to cut it.

you're saying that limiting certain human/civil rights of criminals is preserving peace and justice, I'm fine with that. but it's still a violation of his civil/human rights which you so strongly defend when suggesting to cut of his balls. that's being a hypocrit.

Again what I'm saying; if someone violates certain civil/human rights of a person, he gives them up himself. My family, my children, respect the rights of others, so theirs should be respected. a rapist doesn't respect the rights of the child, so why should we respect theirs? Respect always, always goes both ways. and if it doesn't it isn't worth respecting.

you can hide behind the "I'm better then him so he can do whatever the fuck he wants with just a simple lenient sentence" That's your prerogative. But the fact is, I live in the real world and I see the hardships and repercussions on the victims, both the mental and physical hardship, and nothing that will ever happens will make them forget or get-over it. and a fucking 5 year jail sentence before they move back in, in the same fucking apartment where they raped the little girl next door in sickens me.

[WhySoSerious]

If you do not support the castration bill, you are a pedophile in hiding.



END OF THREAD

[Drunkenork]

.... HIM BECAUSE HE STOLEZ OURZ BREADZ!

Which part of a child's body is considered bread? :eek:

[Lictor]

;1761245']I like pierogies therefore I like poland

Ok, then write Poland with capital P.

[Jackhowitzer]

Which part of a child's body is considered bread? :eek:

It's obviously the ass.

[andy9306]

deciding which human right is alright to break and which is not, when someone does something criminal is fine by me. claiming that it's wrong to violate the rights decided you shouldn't break on the basis of "you're not allowed to infringe on human rights even if he's a criminal" is being a hypocrite. doesn't matter how you want to cut it.

you're saying that limiting certain human/civil rights of criminals is preserving peace and justice, I'm fine with that. but it's still a violation of his civil/human rights which you so strongly defend when suggesting to cut of his balls. that's being a hypocrit.

Again what I'm saying; if someone violates certain civil/human rights of a person, he gives them up himself. My family, my children, respect the rights of others, so theirs should be respected. a rapist doesn't respect the rights of the child, so why should we respect theirs? Respect always, always goes both ways. and if it doesn't it isn't worth respecting.

you can hide behind the "I'm better then him so he can do whatever the fuck he wants with just a simple lenient sentence" That's your prerogative. But the fact is, I live in the real world and I see the hardships and repercussions on the victims, both the mental and physical hardship, and nothing that will ever happens will make them forget or get-over it. and a fucking 5 year jail sentence before they move back in, in the same fucking apartment where they raped the little girl next door in sickens me.

Actually, it is not being hypocritical in the least.

The rights of all humans are equally important. However, the individual rights of a person are not equally important. As such, some rights of one person are more important than some other rights of another person. Person A's right to personal safety is more important than person B's right to freedom, if person B is a direct threat to person A's right to personal safety. If person A's right to personal safety can be protected by depriving person B of their freedom you are protecting as many rights as possible. If person B is a murderer or a rapist then person A is the whole of society. This is why we imprison serial murders for their entire life. They are a threat to all persons of society for their entire life. We do not trade his right to person safety for everyone else's because we do not have to. He has a lesser right that we can trade for it.

This is why we do not force medical procedures on pedophiles. Society is equally safe as long as they are in prison. The proposed castration is prescription based. Once they stop taking the pills they are a threat again. It is exactly the same as a jail sentence, only less secure, and a greater infringement upon their rights.

As I said earlier, I propose that serial rapists of all kinds, but especially pedophilic ones, be sentenced to life in prison with the chance for parole. They can only get parole if they submit themselves to this chemical castration process. If it does not work they are obviously no longer allowed parole. If it does work, as is often the case with pedophilic rapists, who lose the urge while on these drugs, there is another productive human being in society, if with a sordid past.

The least rights are violated with no added risk. Violating as many rights as you want "just to make sure" is unjust.

[Kusghuul]

I'de just let the dog do the work.

Castration by Fido.

[Amaryl]

A lot of text.

The situation you picture is what most judicial system enforce yes. And as I said if you value certain human/civil rights above others, that's your choice. However if your argument is; I'm not castrating a paedophile because it is an infringement on his human/civil rights but putting him in prison is A-OK, then it's being a hypocrite.

and to add that, the human rights were drafted as something everyone is entitled to. So claiming that persons A right to personal security is more important then person's B right of liberty is a completely silly notion. Most peoples sense of justice says it is. But that is exactly the same as saying; Every house should be fitted with cameras everywhere to protect the person A from a possible person B, it doesn't make sense, claiming that one right is more important then the other right(And I haven't found documentation that says it is)

now the way the law works is as you said, if person B infringes upon a certain right of person A, this, this and that right of person B gets forfeited. and I find that the rights that are forfeited don't equal the rights infringed upon person A.

[Metal Wolf]

A 17 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is not the same as some adult raping a child. Also, as flimsy a case as that sounds, I would think he had a piss poor lawyer. Also, you can be charged with underage sex at 17 in Georgia?????

Last time I checked, you had to be 18.

Where did this happen? Link us to a newspaper article, as something like that would have made statewide news.

Its Georgia. Welcome to Bible Belt logic. The jury was probably throwing bibles at him then going home getting drunk and feeling up alter boys.

[Amaryl]

Its Georgia. Welcome to Bible Belt logic. The jury was probably throwing bibles at him then going home getting drunk and feeling up alter boys.

I don't understand those cases, why doesn't the girl simply says "no" to the question when asked if she had sex with the boy, when her parents drag her to the police station to file a rape report?

[Metal Wolf]

Simple "Women are stupid".

[Elicas]

A 17 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is not the same as some adult raping a child. Also, as flimsy a case as that sounds, I would think he had a piss poor lawyer. Also, you can be charged with underage sex at 17 in Georgia?????

Last time I checked, you had to be 18.

Where did this happen? Link us to a newspaper article, as something like that would have made statewide news.

The age of consent in Georgia is 16.

It is considered statutory rape of a minor. In the eyes of the law, it is the same as a 40 year old having sex with a 15 year old. So he would have to be castrated as well, since he is considered a child molestor. There are laws in some areas that help protect those who are within 3 years of those he or she had sex with. But all it does is make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The person would still have to register as a sex offender, and would still be considered a child rapist.

Sure, here are some links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=Wilson

[Jackhowitzer]

The situation you picture is what most judicial system enforce yes. And as I said if you value certain human/civil rights above others, that's your choice. However if your argument is; I'm not castrating a paedophile because it is an infringement on his human/civil rights but putting him in prison is A-OK, then it's being a hypocrite.

and to add that, the human rights were drafted as something everyone is entitled to. So claiming that persons A right to personal security is more important then person's B right of liberty is a completely silly notion. Most peoples sense of justice says it is. But that is exactly the same as saying; Every house should be fitted with cameras everywhere to protect the person A from a possible person B, it doesn't make sense, claiming that one right is more important then the other right(And I haven't found documentation that says it is)

now the way the law works is as you said, if person B infringes upon a certain right of person A, this, this and that right of person B gets forfeited. and I find that the rights that are forfeited don't equal the rights infringed upon person A.

So if everyones entitled to human rights, than you can't castrate the pedo. You jail him/her because he's a threat to society.

[TubeSock]

Fuck yeah Polish pride!

[Amaryl]

So if everyones entitled to human rights, than you can't castrate the pedo. You jail him/her because he's a threat to society.

but jailing is an infringement of human rights just as castration is.

[andy9306]

but jailing is an infringement of human rights just as castration is.

The purpose of the law is to protect as many people as possible. If it is impossible to protect the rights of the masses through any other means than restricting the rights of an individual, it must be done. The reason that castrating a rapist is an unacceptable infringement upon their rights is because it protects the public no better than imprisoning them. The right to freedom is generally considered to be a less important right than that over your own body, though the two do overlap. Because imprisoning them is a lesser infringement upon their rights it is more justifiable. The law can not step beyond what is necessary, you have failed to provide evidence that chemical castration is necessary to protect the public, or that it would even protect the public better than current methods. I am not being hypocritical. I am being realistic without being reactionary.

[Jackhowitzer]

but jailing is an infringement of human rights just as castration is.

K when a pedo rapes/kills your whole family, than I guess you wouldn't jail them, you'd just cut off their balls and let him go on his merry way. Andy, I couldn't have said it any better than myself.

[Lord Caim]

For some reason, I used to think that, "chemical castration," meant that the testicles were burned off with acid. The truth is more rational, but less exciting.
When I read the title I was kind of hoping for this. Some story of a pedophile being dipped balls-first into a vat of acid would be interesting, but that would be "inhumane" now wouldn't it?

[Nefastus]

I'm starting to like Tusk even more.

[Ammon777]

When I read "chemical castration" in the thread title, I was actually hoping that it was about very dangerous acid that melts flesh in like 5 seconds upon application. You cant imagine how disappointed I was when I read it was all about sex change pills.

[Weeking]

So if everyones entitled to human rights, than you can't castrate the pedo. You jail him/her because he's a threat to society.

But they aren't a threat to society. With rampant child abuse and killing of children, society would function just fine; children are very cheap to replace.

[Lictor]

that it was about very dangerous acid that melts flesh in like 5 seconds upon application.

I propose Formic acid. It dissolves all organic tissues (even bones).:sly:

[biggunsar]

Britain, encouraged by promising results in Scandinavia, is to offer testosterone-reducing medication to sexual offenders before they are freed from jail.


I can't agree with polands stance. But I do agree with the testosterone reducing method. You get out, your on parole. You have a sickness. If you dont' take your meds, you go back to jail. Simple as that.

[andy9306]

But they aren't a threat to society. With rampant child abuse and killing of children, society would function just fine; children are very cheap to replace.

Threat to members of society then? Besides, with your apparent view children can be considered chattel. Then rapists are a danger to parents' property.

[Signus]

testosterone reducing meds lmao they will be some lame ass bitche. wouldn't it be funny to sneak some of that into the quarterbacks protein?

Not really? Why, been beaten up by a quarterback before?

[Tiberias]

I think you should be chemically castrated if you are on government assistance.

[ExiliuM]

Cutting off their balls in public would be more effective and fair. And also more entertaining!

[Honest Bill]

I think you should be chemically castrated if you are on government assistance.

soft hearted tree hugging liberal!

[Weeking]

Threat to members of society then? Besides, with your apparent view children can be considered chattel. Then rapists are a danger to parents' property.

In the same way vandals are. The real threat is theft, and indiscriminate vandalism, not specific vandalism as that just leads to people protecting their property better (kids). F ex by not letting them out alone, educating them about the dangers, teaching them self-defense and giving them tracking devices, panic buttons etc.

Frankly, the government is destroying more of your property trying to catch them and punish them through taxation than they likely would do even if it increased ten or hundredfold by enforcement being nearly non-existent.

"Don't steal. The government doesn't like competition."

[Forgivance]

Just let the child decide. Comfort them into feeling 100% safe and that any choice that they make is ok...Should the person go away for awhile in a jail, go away forever in death, or walk free...

If the child isn't persuaded - than most the time, the offender will die I bet.

[Jackhowitzer]

I can't agree with polands stance. But I do agree with the testosterone reducing method. You get out, your on parole. You have a sickness. If you dont' take your meds, you go back to jail. Simple as that.

You got to remember it's a sexual attraction just like bondage, or bestiality. It's not really a sickness, it's just considered morally wrong by society today, and of that of yesteryear. IMO it's still bad to have sex with a kid.

[Schmaus]

drobze drobze

[Nefastus]

drobze drobze


It's Dobrze Dobrze, you poser.

[Amaryl]

The purpose of the law is to protect as many people as possible. If it is impossible to protect the rights of the masses through any other means than restricting the rights of an individual, it must be done. The reason that castrating a rapist is an unacceptable infringement upon their rights is because it protects the public no better than imprisoning them. The right to freedom is generally considered to be a less important right than that over your own body, though the two do overlap. Because imprisoning them is a lesser infringement upon their rights it is more justifiable. The law can not step beyond what is necessary, you have failed to provide evidence that chemical castration is necessary to protect the public, or that it would even protect the public better than current methods. I am not being hypocritical. I am being realistic without being reactionary.
that's what happens today, some rights are being claimed to be more important then others. I never denied that being the case. I simply said that it is hypocritical to claim that castration is an infringement of human rights and shouldn't happen, while Jailing is alright to do. it might be realistic without being reactionary as you put it, but it's still hypocritical.

your stance is; I think that if someone infringes on someone else' s human rights, the law has the right forfeit just as many of his rights as is enough to secure the rest of society, the rights forfeited being based on some decided table, of which right is more important then others.

what you find acceptable breaches and what I find is simply a difference of opinions. and discussing the difference of opinion is pointless beyond the understanding of what a person believes.

but that doesn't change the fact that how hard you shout foulplay, or how hard Jack denies that jailing is also an infringement of human rights(for some a lesser right then personal security, though I disagree and find every right as important as the rest. or it would have been divided into different levels of gravity), finding jailing acceptable, and castration an infringement of human rights, is being a hypocrite.

word your opinion and argument better, or it's just being a hypocrite. if you're fine with being a hypocrit and your opinions good for you, just have the balls to aknowledge that you are infact a hypocrit


p.s if my family was raped, i'd beat them up, cut of their junk, rape them with the barrel of a shotgun before shooting them up from the inside, but my vigilante sense of justice, and what I believe the law should do is something else.

[Lictor]

dobrze dobrze

fixed.

[Jackhowitzer]

I vote we chemically castrate the OP, now who's with me?!?!

[Jangang]

I go both ways on this one...

On the one hand it should only be used after appeals are exhausted. You don't want to castrate someone later found to be innocent.

On the other hand it should be surgical, or at least permanent castration. Fuck this temporary shit.

Really they should just be shot, but if they have to live, make life miserable.

[tehghost132]

Am I wrong to feel as though there has been far more interest in and outrage about pædophiles in recent years than in the past? I'm not in favor of them, but it seems that there is now nearly an inordinant fixation upon them.

Thats because Date Line is on now.