My Idea = Add 'banishment' to prison sentences.

Yes. Leeches and Maggots are useful in wilderness settings. If I had a snake bite, and couldn't reach the wound myself, but there were leaches nearbye, they could easily save my life by sucking out the poison.

There's also wetware computers being researched using leach neurons. They could eventually lead to wetware replacement for people with brain damage.

They just aren't used to bring 'the bodily humors' back in line with one another any more.

For the same reason, cutting out a part of a person's brain isn't done all that often any more.

And yes. Persecuting. There is a difference between violating a person's basic human rights, and suppressing some of them for the necessary purpose of protecting the public.

I am all for the rights of the victim, however the moment we start stepping on the rights of the accused, we are stepping on our own rights. Who here would like to have part of their brain cut out because we tried to defend ourself or another person, and the original assailant simply had a better lawyer?

In the past, people who had views I found distasteful (some Christian fundamentalists who had some really twisted views of the bible, in my opinion) came to my campus. They were being shouted down, decried, and the crowd was getting rowdy. I did what I could to show them respect, and try to keep things from getting ugly, because even if I didn't like what they were saying, they had a right to say it.

I would have done the same thing if a white supremacists group, or a white abusing black pride group, or a group of extreme feminists, etc, came to talk at the campus.

If a person "exposes" themselves to children, they are on the sex affenders list. That includes people who pass out from being drunk while taking a piss, not realizing they're in a public place. Is that a sexually based crime? Heck no. And they certainly shouldn't have their parts cut off because of it.

Do you advocate cutting off the genitalia of children who have been molested "Because they might do it to others when they grow up" to "break the cycle"?


To give a bit of reference here, I am all for making our jails tougher. I think that forced labor, 3 square meals, a jail cell wall, a hard cot, and a toilet are all people going to jail should ever expect to see. I think that the 'rewards' system so many prisons are going to should be used to give access to reading material, education, and vocational training, not chunky peanutbutter and playstation 3s.

I'm all for making prison a place to fear going to again for the average man, woman, or child. A way of protecting the public AND a deterrent against crime at once.

What I am not for is forcibly altering a person's physiology, or brain chemistry as a part of their sentence.

 

We're talking about violent criminal psychopaths, not someone who is defending themselves.

Why are you putting the rights of the criminal psychopath above that of the victims of that tiny minority of the population? What about an average person's rights not to be assaulted or murdered? Or their families to have to deal with such an event?

You didn't answer the question I posed about whether you would seek the death penalty should a member of your family be unfortunate enough to fall victim to a violent criminal psychopath?

We're not talking about people who espouse a viewpoint - we're talking about a minority of the general population who actually commit more than 50% of ALL violent crime.

Again, we're talking about aggressive, predatory paedophiles who systematically target children, not some drunk passing out in the street.

Why are you coming up with all these obscure and inane examples?

That has got to be one of the sickest things I have ever read!

What do you think jail is - a holiday camp?

An estimated 20% - 25% of the prison population is psychopathic - for these people, jail is never, ever going to be a deterrent - their psychopathic physiology prevents it.

So, are you in favour of the death penalty?

 

Oh, but if I violently defend myself, or a family member there's absolutely no chance that I can be convicted of assault in our legal system. Right?

I'm not. Society has no right to scoop out a man's brains. One purpose of the government is to protect people. Fine. Let them do so. But they cannot do so where it infringes upon the basic humanity of another. So I am defending what rights exist. Do I want people to be murdered? Assaulted? No. But I don't want to live in a culture where basic human rights are taken away.

Fine. I'll answer it now. I don't know. My family has not been murdered, or brutalized, so saying yes I would, or no I would not is trite, and cheapens the horrible experience of those who have to make that choice by implying it's an easy decision that can be known ahead of time. That's why I didn't answer it before.

A right is a right is a right. All of them must be protected. That's why I am so adamantly against your proposal. I agree that criminals do indeed need to have some of their rights restricted as a penalty for violating the rights of others. However certain rights are specifically protected by the US constitution, even for those convicted or accused of a crime.

You have espoused having the law take away a person's basic rights, and forcibly removing parts of human beings who have committed certain classes of crimes. Such as removing the genitalia of those who have been convicted of child molestation. That was an example of someone who could easily find themselves on the wrong side of that law.

Just taking what you espouse one more logical step forwards. What you posted sickened me, and I wanted to show just how close you were to advocating very VERY sick future.

I am personally terrified of the idea of my freedom being stripped away from me the way it would be if I were put in jail... however that's not the common man of today. Most people do not fear jail, because there is no longer any forced labor, you can eat just about anything you want, make endless lawsuits at the tax payer's expense, and earn a free education from within those walls.

psy·cho·path·ic (sī'kə-pāth'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characterized by psychopathy.
2. Relating to or affected with an antisocial personality disorder.

psychopathic
adjective
suffering from an undiagnosed mental disorder

psy·cho·path·ic (sk-pthk)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characterized by psychopathy.
2. Relating to or affected with an antisocial personality disorder that is usually characterized by aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior.


So a specific course of antiquated, no longer medically respected treatment involving removing part of someone's brain will reliably treat an undiagnosed mental disorder or, at best, a wide class of disorders with widely varying causes?

I don't see how that's relevant, as I have already said I view your proposed punishment to be worse, and to be against the constitution.

 

Bah.. opinions sucks.. mfox, come back to the 9/11 thread so we can discuss truther-theories instead.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of fizzing rather than scooping but lets not get bogged down in the detail.

The purpose of the govt is to protect people - so why not protect people properly by lobotomizing criminal psychopaths? It makes perfect sense, especially when they are at the end of a sentence for one crime and everyone knows they will go on to commit further crimes. The way things are now, they get released from jail because their sentence is up, only to wreak havoc and victimise more people. Save the innocent from the psychopath!

But rights are taken away every day by the criminal psychopaths inflicting their destruction on the innocent. It is surely the right of 99.5% of the population to be protected from that 0.5% minority, is it not?

I hope it never happens - sincerely.

But every day, thousands of people do have to deal with unparalleled viciousness, assaults, battery, beatings, rapes, brutalities and murders at the hands of this tiny minority of people - the rights of the peaceful people are stripped from them like leaves in a storm. It doesn't make sense.

Exactly! The right of the many to be safe from the few!

Why not take the necessary steps to protect the innocent? The victims? Why does the sexual abuser have the right to remain unmolested at the expense of the children who are sexually abused? It makes no sense.

Nothing logical about that step.

I am aware of what a psychopath is.

So you are in favour of killing someone via the death penalty but are not in favour of taking any proactive measures to prevent the murder(s) that would lead to someone being executed?

 

Nice Idea. But main purpose of a society is to stop 'crime' not 'criminals'. If main purpose is to finish or banish criminals .. why not have death penalty on every crime? This could be the best way to stop criminals.

So, put forward something which is reasonably applicable and help society to stop crime.

 

Rights are not taken away. That isn't possible. That would imply that someone here on earth granted the rights to that individual, and thus has the authority to take them away. No matter what someone, or some government does, a person still has their rights. It just might be that they are being violated.

And no, the 'rights of the many' do not automatically trump the rights of the few because, quite simply, the rights of the many are based on the rights of the individuals that make up that many. Each person has a set of rights.

A government is formed, in part, to help protect people's rights. In order to secure protection for some rights (not having our face bashed in) we give up certain other rights (the ability to flail our fists around as we please without punishment).

Yet in order for the rights of any individual to be protected, there must be a limitation placed upon the government to prevent them from restricting rights that were not granted to them to restrict. One major part of this, in the American system of government, is the constitution, which clearly spells out certain limitations on the government by detailing rights that have been explicitly reserved by the individuals, and the states that make up our nation.

In a true democracy, no one has any protection from rights. If 10 people form a purely democratic and binding group, and then 9 of them vote to equally distribute the lands of the 10th, they can legally do so. There is no protection for that 10th person's rights. That's why the founding fathers insisted upon America being a Republic, where the rights of the few are protected against the predations and demands of the majority. There are certain things that the government simply is not allowed to make law. If the minority has no protection of their rights from the government or from the majority then no one does, because at some point all of us will be the minority.

One of the rights reserved by individuals in the constitution, even if they have committed a crime, and other rights may be restricted as punishment, is protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Even if the government decided to pass a law saying "Anyone who commits rape will be raped 10 times before released from prison" this would not be a law, because it would be unconstitutional, thus not a law, and thus void, because as satisfying as it may be to the victims of the rape, it is cruel and unusual punishment.

The purpose of the prison system is to prevent criminals from continuing their actions. It also serves a secondary function as a deterrent against crime, however that is a secondary effect.

I have not taken a stance on the death penalty in this thread either for, or against, and resist any claims that I have done so. My only stance is that changing who a person is by removing a part of their brain is a cruel and unusual punishment worse than the death sentence.

 

My post above is relevant to the majority of your post, but there are a few things here I thought I should address.

If it is acceptable to remove a person's body part because they have a high probability of sexually assaulting a child, then yes, that is the next logical step. You yourself said that any child who has been sexually molested has a high chance of sexually molesting a child themselves when they become an adult.

Well when the definition of a psychopath is someone with an 'undiagnosed' disorder characterized by certain broad and general symptoms, it seems that the psychologists don't know what a psychopath is yet if they give him that label. How is it you know more than the medical community?

 

Hare describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret." "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony."

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192300193

This chilling image is of a nine-year-old boy sitting beside his murderer on a tram in Germany - Uwe Kolbig, 43, a man known to police after serving two years in prison for sexually abusing children in 1998.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/27/wpaedo27.xml

The boy is dead, found strangled after being savagely sexually assaulted and let's not mess around here - sexually assaulted means the man you see pictured, raped the little boy.

What 'rights' does that scum have to actually have any rights? None in my book! He should have had his bits chopped off the first time around or if that's unpalatable to you - been chemically neutered - or had some of his brain fried by a radiological therapy machine - however you want to consider castration.

 

*RaE* Only two years.

I am personally of the opinion that part of the problem with the laws on sexual assault is that they deal with the criminals to lightly. But jumping from a two year sentence to mutilating a man is a huge jump. Have you even considered the idea of 'longer prison terms'?

And I'm sorry that you don't want certain people to have any rights, but they do.

 

The only longer prison term that would stop a monster like that would be a life term without parole. I would be all for it if that's what happened but it doesn't.

And if you had to face the parents of that child and argue that the offender has rights that should be defended, what would you say?

 

How can you be so sure that locking him up for two decades rather than 2 years wouldn't have been of greater help to society?

Well, after I expressed my condolences for their loss, I'd argue mostly the same points that I have to you. That man is likely a monster. But everyone has rights, and we cannot ignore them.

 

I said life - with no parole - never released, ever. If he had been locked away forever the first time the little boy would still be alive. If that isn't an option, castration. If the guy is a violent psychopath then zapping the area of his brain would have done the job.

So you are saying that his rights were paramount and he had the right to snatch the life of their little boy after he had finished inflicting his grotesque desires upon him? Didn't their little boy have a right to live? Didn't they have the right to have their son with them today? Where are their rights in all this?

 

some people have opted to give up their rights by taking the rights of others.

 

Exactly!

.

 

I know that's what you're saying. Life in prison. I'm asking why you think that additional time more than 10 years but less than a life sentence could not be tried -before- we would move to a life sentence.

No. I'm not saying that. The child did have a right to his life. That right was violated. Because of that the man who violated that right should be punished, if we can indeed prove he was the man who committed that horrible crime.

But for the protection of -all- citizens, the rights of those who are accused of crimes must be guarded jealously. Otherwise, if any of us were to find us in the position of being accused of a crime, we will be in dire straits. And if we are innocent, we may find ourselves with no recourse. America was founded very strongly on the idea that those accused, or even convicted of a crime still have rights. And I, for one, would not see these principles fall by the wayside.

Yes. However even for criminals, certain rights are protected by the constitution. So by committing a crime and violating the rights of another, one does not give up -all- of their rights.

The only rights a prisoner gives up by comiting a crime are protection from the seizure of life, liberty, and property, and even then it can only be taken with the due process of law. This means that it is constitutional for the government to incarcerate someone, sentence them to death, or take their property as a punishment once a person has been convicted of a crime.

I used to think that before I actually started studying the constitution as deeply as I have over the past several months. In actuality, by being a member of our society, the criminal has already given up the right to life, liberty, or property UNDER THE CONDITION that he is shown, through due process of law, to have committed a crime. In exchange he receives the protection of that due process, and the understanding that even were he convicted of a crime, he does not give up any right that the government is not expressly permitted to deprive him of by the constitution, which is both the highest law of the land, and a trust of power invested in it by We, the People of these United States of America.

 

I am not arguing so much about specific rights in the constitution as I am talking about my opinion on his rights as a human. This goes beyond any government. I am glad I have the protection of the constitution, but when certain people feel they can just take rights from others they themselves have given up their rights - if you don't believe me, come over and try to hurt one of my kids and I can give you an example.

Why are you studying the constitution in this matter? Do you know someone or is it you yourself, that is in a position of trying to defend his rights? I hope the prisons don't allow internet for prisoners.

 

What about... "Survivor: Death Row" basically.. you take all the death row inmates that have exhausted appeals and you put them inside a warehouse complex (heavily secured) The last man alive wins a commuted sentence and a carton of cigarettes.

 

Oh, yes. A government does not grant rights. That's a contradiction in terms. Rather it comes into existence as a kind of social contract of the people, and is granted permission to use certain areas of power by the people. However the social contract that is the constitution specifically lists the rights which can be restricted or violated by the government in punishment for someone breaking the laws of the land (including by violating the rights of another).

As for why I am studying the constitution... it is because I am an American citizen, and I feel that government corruption usually exists as a direct result of the apathy and ignorance of the masses (two evils which feed each-other). And in order to protect my rights, if I have a need to in the future, I must know about the protections in place to guard them directly from the government.

The highest law of the land, and thus the supreme -legal- authority on which of my rights are protected by law is the Constitution of the United States. It is also the document which limits the powers of the government by Enumerating what powers the government does have, and listing some rights we have reserved. It is one of the smallest legal documents we have, and is also the most potent, so I figured it was the best place to start my study.

Next on the list is the state constitution of whatever state I happen to be living in at the time that I finish the national constitution.

As for Internet in prison, knowledge on -that- little bit of trivia (the internet thing) comes from TV shows, so I don't trust it one bit as being true in the real world.

 

I like your reasoning Josh, it is good to know it for those reasons. Most people I hear screaming about their rights are all confused. They usually spout off "separation of church and state" which isn't even in the bill of rights.