Is Castration of Criminals Morally Justified?

Is Castration Morally Justified?

  • YES

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • NO

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Total voters
    6
IBDaMann said:
Mantras 15, 24 & 26

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/59/nights-numbered-mantra-list
Click to expand...

Mantra 40 Sock Puppet fallacy

4cs3kc.jpg
 
Last edited:
Celticguy said:
No.
Cruel and unusual.
Just kill them.
Click to expand...

Most prosecutors oppose the death penalty (for child molestation). If a person gets the death penalty for committing the crime, they are more likely to kill the victim. They can't get any additional punishment and they have eliminated the only witness.

And, it is probably unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
IBDaMann said:
The OP is focused on the pedophile and the morality of hs punishment. The pedophile's victims never enter the picture.
Click to expand...
Victims, including future risk of victims, should be taken into account. That's why victims are allowed to speak at sentencing hearings.

BTW, why did you alter your personality from the initial one you used for this "account". Was it too hard to keep track or is it medicinally related?
 
AProudLefty said:
Dutch Uncle was talking about recidivism. It is related to morality of castration.
Click to expand...
"Recidivism" pertains to the pedophile, not to the victuims, i.e. you can thoroughly examine a pedophile's recidivism without ever mentioning anything about any of his victims.

Also, I don't think anyone has touched on this darker aspect surrounding the morality of castration ... what if a pedophile expresses desires to have sex with children but thus far has never acted on those impulses. What about a State that takes preemptive measures (e.g. castration) to protect the public from what has been determined to be an unacceptable risk? In other words, there aren't any victims in the picture. There is simply society's view of pedophiles. Even the best behaved dog must remain on a leash outdoors. Governments at all levels have shown their willingness to dispense with our civil liberties over facemasks so what's to stop a government from enforcing measures dealing with known or suspected pedophiles?
 
IBDaMann said:
"Recidivism" pertains to the pedophile, not to the victuims, i.e. you can thoroughly examine a pedophile's recidivism without ever mentioning anything about any of his victims.

Also, I don't think anyone has touched on this darker aspect surrounding the morality of castration ... what if a pedophile expresses desires to have sex with children but thus far has never acted on those impulses. What about a State that takes preemptive measures (e.g. castration) to protect the public from what has been determined to be an unacceptable risk? In other words, there aren't any victims in the picture. There is simply society's view of pedophiles. Even the best behaved dog must remain on a leash outdoors. Governments at all levels have shown their willingness to dispense with our civil liberties over facemasks so what's to stop a government from enforcing measures dealing with known or suspected pedophiles?
Click to expand...

That's another topic. Pedophiles have the First Amendment right to express their views, but the "State" has no right to do anything to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top