Man got his penis cut off for raping female student in China

Scroll to see replies

No, since the majority of evidence seems to be in favour of my position. But you're right, more research doesn't hurt.

Look at the rhetoric you're using. It's just full of hatred and anger, I can almost hear you saying 'I want them dead.' It's just coming from a place of revenge, not justice. I maintain the gulf between those terms is very wide.

Again, I told you the death penalty costs much more to implement, and argued if you tried to speed it up, more innocents would die.

It said between 1973 - 2004, so why are you only picking up on the date at the start? It's not like we're that much more advanced than we were in '04, and human error in using such instruments and methods is still the same as it always was. Innocents will still die. I will never be OK with that.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. There is still valid evidence on both sides and in any case GEP is a fairly recent application in forensic science.

Rhetoric would seem to imply that is my side that is purely emotional when you are discounting the fact that your side of the argument contains emotion aswell. Empathy is nothing if not an emotion aswell. I guess until more research is done and all research points towards either one or the other side there will be no clear cut answer. In any case it is not about quantity but quality of research. Were the sample sizes accurate? Was there any funding bias? Ect ect.

Reply 121

TorpidPhil

Original post by liquidconfidence

Why is everyone saying good? Yes he should not have raped her. Yes he should be punished. Yes he is a horrible, pathetic excuse for a human being. However, what they did was extreme and barbaric, they also deserve to be severely punished.

Someone sensible. Yay.

Reply 122

Danz123

Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes

Justice is a matter of prespective, whether that's my perspective, your perspective or the Jury's. The 'eye for an eye' mentality isn't your perspective of justice and fair enough, but I feel a lengthy prison sentence only really punishes the rapist mentally, the physical suffering he/she caused is not really being addressed. I don't think it's revenge, because you could call a prison sentence 'revenge'.

Yes we have moved past it as a society, but things have not gotten better. It's seems they never will, but atleast with an 'eye for an eye' system there will be short term results of 'justice' giving the illusion we are moving forward, this isn't the case with lengthy prison sentences.

True enough on the first point, though I can still criticise such a perspective and it's practicality. You couldn't call a prison sentence revenge as it serves multiple purposes. Chiefly, it keeps the public safe from the rapist, and one can monitor such an individual, try for rehabilitation etc. Killing someone, or just torturing them is pure revenge and leaves no room for anything else.

Things HAVE gotten better. Yes, the justice system has many flaws but come on, things were much worse in the old days. And do you really want an illusion Mav? I would rather work on reformation, than cater to an illusion.

Reply 123

StrawbAri

But in my thread most said seeking revenge like that (against a rapist) isn't justifiable?

Well, there's a difference between revenge murdering and chopping of a penis but...
I am confused.

Reply 124

digitalangel18

a punishment to fit the crime...

Reply 125

simbasdragon

Original post by ChickenMadness

Wow. So women get 2.5 years for murder now?

Good job feminism.

Nice try. One woman got 2.5 years for murder, not 'women' in general. There are also instances of some male murderers receiving similar sentences. Want another go?

Reply 126

jarlborg27

He never raped any girl. Stop spreading lies. The girl was his girlfriend and he left her for another girl and she got mad and hired a group of thugs to deal with him.

Reply 127

Chicken.M.

Original post by simbasdragon

Nice try. One woman got 2.5 years for murder, not 'women' in general. There are also instances of some male murderers receiving similar sentences. Want another go?

lol m8 these articles get posted constantly. It's fact that women get lesser sentences than men for the same crime.

try again.

Reply 128

jarlborg27

He didnt rape that girl. The girl was his girlfriend and she got made because he left her, so she hired a group of thugs to go deal with him.

Reply 129

Danz123

GEP came about in 1975, invented by Fred Sanger. While it has become more efficient and cheaper, since we were talking about 31 years of data (1973-2004) you'd think things would've gotten better. But no. 36% of cases when it came to death row inmates were still doubt-filled. 36%!!! That's no small number. You referenced one case earlier to illustrate your disdain for the justice system, well this is a much worse statistic, and would amount to HUNDREDS of cases. Hundreds of inmates who were forgotten, despite gel electrophoresis being used.

http://robotics.stanford.edu/~serafim/CS262_2007/notes/lecture10.pdf

Sure. But unlike your side, which is fuelled by and is nothing without the anger and thirst for revenge toward these criminals, my side is about NOT ****ing up and killing innocents. It's about trying for rehabilitation. It's about more than just this need for retribution. It's about making that person better if we're able, and making society better as a result. Though yes, we'll agree to disagree.

Reply 130

jarlborg27

He didnt rape anyone. False reporting. She was his girlfriend and he left her for another Chinese girl and she got mad and hired thugs to go deal with him, the guy is from africa.

Reply 131

jarlborg27

He didnt rape anyone. False reporting. She was his girlfriend and he left her for another Chinese girl and she got mad and hired thugs to go deal with him, the guy is from africa.

Reply 132

saeed97

Look at all these barbarians on here applauding the fact that they cut off his penis. Hanging him would have been the best option.

Reply 133

username1539513

Original post by Danz123

False. A quick Wikipedia search on the history of GEP will confirm to you that it actually wasn't until 2004 that clean separation of protein molecules occurred in acrylamide gels. One other thing that I forgot to point out in earlier replies is that the 'evidence' you quoted as capital punishment being non effective is merely the subjective opinions of some big wigs. At least the evidence I quoted was quantitive and dealt with numbers and statistics instead of subjective opinions. If you had quoted me why these top people felt how they did other than empathy, i.e; if there was any numerical evidence for it, it would be more reliable.

Some people, no matter how hard you try, just will not be rehabilitated. The world is not Equestria, you've heard of psychopaths, havn't you? These people are dangerous and are wired wrong and if they continuously commit crime unrepentantly and it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt there is no need to keep them alive for them to continue hurting innocent people is there?

You keep going on at me about innocent people on death row but if you had actually read anything I said in my previous replies to you you would see I'm only advocating death penalty for those whose crimes are of a serial nature and only after a stint in prison has been done and the person in question is still unrepentant and commiting crimes. That would ensure the person has had adequate time to realise the error of their ways and an opportunity to be rehabilitated. Like in the case of Michael Pleasted who I mentioned earlier

Reply 134

Danz123

Well when we're talking about polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis yes, but it's been a gradual process to efficiency.

OK, well how about this then, on the same website, just look at the facts on the website: "A report released on April 18, 2012, by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies based on a review of more than three decades of research concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report concluded: “The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates." Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies

Then put those people away in prison for life. Taking all factors into account, and not just wanting to kill specific people, the death penalty is just a flawed practice.

Right, and I'm telling you to look at it holistically. Don't think you won't have human error when it comes to implementing the death penalty, as we can see, in other countries where it's legal things haven't exactly gone well... Again, those people deserve prison for life. You think innocents won't die as we can just separate out these cases, but they will, as they have done.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 135

username1539513

Original post by Danz123

“The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates." Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies

Then put those people away in prison for life. Taking all factors into account, and not just wanting to kill specific people, the death penalty is just a flawed practice.

Right, and I'm telling you to look at it holistically. Don't think you won't have human error when it comes to implementing the death penalty, as we can see, in other countries where it's legal things haven't exactly gone well... Again, those people deserve prison for life. You think innocents won't die as we can just separate out these cases, but they will, as they have done.

This report is from a charity, and a highly biased one at that. DPIC has come under criticism from numerous sources for being ''one-sided, spreading rhetoric, spreading lies about execution methods and misrepresenting exonerated inmates.'' The charity was founded by anti-death penalty lawyers (because lawyers are to be trusted over scientists, right?) Thus the organisation is biased and should not be considered a reliable source for information.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dpic.htm

People could lose their jobs over human error, there is really no incentive for them to make mistakes in proceedings like this where someone's life or death is at stake. I think you are putting too much emphasis on the human side of it and not enough emphasis on what the evidence and science actually says here. People will not mess about with this sort of things or make mistakes with issues these serious because their livelihoods will be at stake.

Reply 136

TheCitizenAct

Ah, mob rule. Great.

How progressive of you all. I presume all who agreed with the 'punishment' are in favour of capital punishment being introduced in The UK? I doubt they have a perspective. I doubt they've even given this topic anything resembling rational analysis. This is why democracy sucks. The crowd is moronic and blood thirsty.

Eye for an eye: the new policy of the masses. I wonder how it will work out? Anyone?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 137

L i b

Original post by Danz123

It's horrible she got such a light sentence yes, however this is just one example, and not even of rape, but murder.

The facts of the case are rather less obvious. She got into a scuffle with the man, her friend punched him, he fell and cracked his head. She was convicted of manslaughter not for killing the man, but under joint enterprise. Some of the media coverage of this was extremely dodgy.

The point is that it is ridiculous when individuals - relying on media reports - start second-guessing judges who are in possession of all of the evidence presented.

Reply 138

TheGuyReturns

Original post by wiseLAD

You guys that are applauding this are just sick tbh. This was almost certainly a race thing, in my opinion. If he did rape her punish him legally, you can't start unleashing vigilante justice. Reminds me of to kill a mockingbird...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Some sick, sad, keyboard warriors on this thread.

Reply 139

Danz123

Wait... so you're criticising my source for it's unreliability, and you're using a website called 'prodeathpenalty' to do that?! :rofl:

What irony!

Anyway, even if that's true, I can just give you several more studies using much more reliable sources. Besides, within the website I quoted, it leads you to other sources where the original information was posted:

"A study conducted by Professor Richard Berk of the UCLA Department of Statistics has identified significant statistical problems with the data analysis used to support recent studies claiming to show that executions deter crime in the United States."

"In testimony before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary regarding proposed legislation to initiate a "foolproof" death penalty, Columbia Law School Professor Jeffrey Fagan analyzed recent studies that claimed that capital punishment deters murders. He stated that the studies "fall apart under close scrutiny."

"Deterrence and Jury Behavior Under New Scrutiny: Robert Weisberg, a professor at Stanford University's School of Law, examines recent studies on deterrence and the death penalty, as well as other social science research ragarding capital punishment in the U.S. In The Death Penalty Meets Social Science: Deterrence and Jury Behavior Under New Scrutiny, Weisberg notes that many of the new studies claiming to find that the death penalty deters murder have been legitimately criticized for omitting key variables and for not addressing the potential distorting effect of one high-executing state, Texas"

"In an article entitled The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence, John Donnohue and Justin Wolfers examined recent statistical studies that claimed to show a deterrent effect from the death penalty. The authors conclude that the estimates claiming that the death penalty saves numerous lives "are simply not credible." In fact, the authors state that using the same data and proper methodology could lead to the exact opposite conclusion: that is, that the death penalty actually increases the number of murders. (The Economists' Voice, April 2006)"

Are you going to say all of the above is unreliable, or comes from unreliable sources? Check them for yourself in the various places they reside.

What you seem to keep missing is that the death penalty isn't some hypothetical law that's never been used or had a history, it's very real. The reality is human error, no matter the incentive not to **** up, is rife when it comes to this law. Do you not think the incentive to keep one's job should've stopped hundreds of innocents being on death row? It didn't, and considering how people act regardless of technological advances, it never will.