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

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.

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

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

Well I disagree with you on whether he 'deserved' that, but clearly no matter what I say you won't agree with me.

Right, well I didn't say there shouldn't be any reformation of the justice system or indeed more cracking down on what happens in prisons. We can focus on that, but what will NOT work is making the death penalty legal in the UK. That is what I'm arguing.

Also, if in your view death is more merciful than being in a US prison, why not go for the prison time? It seems even on the emotional, vengeful point you're being inconsistent. Surely those horrible people deserve the worst, and in your view the worst isn't death, but prison time... so going by retributive standards, prison time would be more fitting and the death penalty would be lacklustre, and the work of a 'bleeding heart liberal' as you so eloquently put it earlier.

I didn't say they weren't allowed, I was just stating we're getting nowhere with that so we'll agree to disagree.

Well you were being pretty patronising earlier when you constantly misrepresented my points, and even went so far as to ask me whether I thought rape was acceptable, if women were inferior to men etc. also calling all people who disagree with the death penalty and other barbaric acts 'bleeding heart liberals,' I could go on.

I was saying life without parole would be acceptable for those we cannot rehabilitate. Of course just giving life sentences willy nilly isn't the answer. But yes, rehabilitation should be one of the top priorities when it comes to the justice system.

No, there isn't.

I love how you missed out all the other stuff I quoted you saying, and you just focus on the 'bleeding heart liberal' part. No, it isn't a heinous name to call me, and I didn't call it that. However, the tone was pretty patronising, and it's usually said in a derisive manner by more conservative people who think liberals are too sensitive. It's an ad hominem more than anything else. An observation would be 'most people our age are liberal.' A derisive comment would be 'look at all you bleeding heart liberals who believe this etc' there's a difference.

*Big sigh*, you've missed the point yet again. I agreed that there may be people who can't be rehabilitated, and what have I said to do with those people several times now? I said to give them life without parole.

The bold: oh thank you for that totally nonpatronising comment.

I didn't say anything about liberals being sensitive, I said you imply that whenever you use the 'bleeding heart liberal' phrase.

I didn't really call you any of those names. Now, you could argue the 'barbaric' one, but if I did I apologise. I meant the practice was/is barbaric and have said so.

P.S. Females cannot commit rape, and my understanding is that when they commit 'statutory rape' the sentencing is typically very lenient

good, this should be done to every rapist - man or woman

Brings new meaning to the phrase 'have it off'

As much as I feel sympathy for rape victims, and that many (violent) crimes are under-punished in our CJS, something as extreme as this should not be done (by vigilantes or otherwise) to any rapist (even those who are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt)

I've more time for castrating serial offenders - which seems more civilised, if still a matter of impinging upon the 'human rights' of the perp'

P.S. Females cannot commit rape, and my understanding is that when they commit 'statutory rape' the sentencing is typically very lenient