[calumsteele1]

as the title says really, ive seen several people on this site arguing sex offenders should be forcibly castrated to 'cure' or at least inhibit their deviance, whats everyone elses opinion on this? is it against their human rights or do they, to quote a someone 'have it coming'?

[yothi5]

No, I don't think that would cure their problem/ this problem in society in aggregate.

[MrJon]

just lock them up. stop defending criminals, stop drawing the line then moving it to suit yourself, stop provoking double standards, stop appeasing terrorists and get a back bone.

Liberals dese dayzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[JollyGreenAtheist]

The day the state has the legal authority to chop bits of you off is the day that I leave for the moon.

[calumsteele1]

(Original post by MrJon)
just lock them up. stop defending criminals, stop drawing the line then moving it to suit yourself, stop provoking double standards, stop appeasing terrorists and get a back bone.

Liberals dese dayzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

what?

[calumsteele1]

(Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
The day the state has the legal authority to chop bits of you off is the day that I leave for the moon.

i think i should point out quite a few states in recent times have done this; america, switzerland, sweden, canada and nearly the UK

[Waitingname]

I think certain rights are forfeited once you decide to break the law, but this is incredibly invasive and possibly irreversible. I would be opposed to it due to the possibility of false convictions.

[Converse Rocker]

Just kidding. I doubt sterilising sex offenders could ever get past Human Rights.

[anonymouspie227]

(Original post by calumsteele1)
i think i should reiterate the point that 'I' dont want to do anything, this isnt my view. i've just seen it tossed around a bit on TSR and other sites and was curious what the bulk of people thought.

Oh, no i misunderstood the meaning of castration, so you wouldn't actually cut of their penis, just the testes and ovaries. My bad lol, erm then, I guess- it's not that bad. It's cruel, but they may be slightly deserving.
And I know it's not your opinion, you just started the thread.

[Ryejd]

What if people are wrongly accused? That just turns up more problems :/

[Scarface-Don]

Just castrate one rapist and you will see how dramatically the number of rapes will go down.

[JollyGreenAtheist]

(Original post by calumsteele1)
i think i should point out quite a few states in recent times have done this; america, switzerland, sweden, canada and nearly the UK

Argumentum ad populum.

[swbp]

Good lord no. I believe in redemption, if they've made a mistake at least offer them the oppurtunity to change themselves. Sterilising seems such a brutal and savage way to punish someone.

[sconter]

sex offender is a loose term. so no.

plus the fact people lie about being raped (recent story of a guy going to prison for 9 years after his daughter claimed he raped her. a better topic would be 'should lying about a crime carry the same punishment as the crime itself, ie if you lie about being raped (happens quite a lot) should you go down, as the only reason for lying is to ruin someones life' if you are wondering, the girl didnt get any charge as the judge thought it might 'stop girls from reporting real cases' ... there aren't enough expletives in the english language to allow me to verbalise my anger.

[calumsteele1]

(Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
Argumentum ad populum.

my latin isnt what it used to be, care to translate ?

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by calumsteele1)
my latin isnt what it used to be, care to translate ?

it's an argument from popularity. Just because a lot of people believe it to be true doesn't mean it is true. Or the good thing to do, in this case.

[JollyGreenAtheist]

(Original post by calumsteele1)
my latin isnt what it used to be, care to translate ?

The logical fallacy wherein an argument is invalidated if it uses mass conformity to justify an action.

You mentioned that several countries currently practice this form of justice. Argumentum ad populum suggests that their practice of this is immaterial; the majority of people believed the Earth was flat some years ago, that does not mean that it was a sound judgement, it just meant that a lot of people believed it. The same can be applied to the sterilisation of sex offenders.

[calumsteele1]

(Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
The logical fallacy wherein an argument is invalidated if it uses mass conformity to justify an action.

You mentioned that several countries currently practice this form of justice. Argumentum ad populum suggests that their practice of this is immaterial; the majority of people believed the Earth was flat some years ago, that does not mean that it was a sound judgement, it just meant that a lot of people believed it. The same can be applied to the sterilisation of sex offenders.

oh no you misunderstand me then i wasnt justifying or arguing a point there, i was simply pointing out that numerous countries have practised this in the past.

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
it's an argument from popularity. Just because a lot of people believe it to be true doesn't mean it is true. Or the good thing to do, in this case.

ah thank you

[JollyGreenAtheist]

(Original post by calumsteele1)
oh no you misunderstand me then i wasnt justifying or arguing a point there, i was simply pointing out that numerous countries have practised this in the past.

Ah, my apologies then .

[Clip]

This one is never going to get past the ECHR.