Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    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.
    You're absolutely right, and that's a point I should've made tbh. xD
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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 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.
    Hmmm.. Fair enough. I would have to do some more looking into the exact mathematics involved here but fine, I see where you are coming from. I still don't agree because clearly my view on justice and what's right and wrong is different from yours but if this guy actually did rape her he definatly deserved what he got.

    Tbh, considering how messed up the USA prison system is with prison rape happening all over the place and people being placed in solitary confinement for years and years on end I don't see how that is any different from violating their human rights. The ones doing these kind of things within the prison cells will be the unrepentant psychopaths I mentioned earlier and the ones being tortured by being raped, beaten up and isolated for years (which is a kind of torture) will probable be the less violent criminals who would now be given mental health problems that they didn't have prior to going into prison. I would think execution would be much more merciful than spending years going insane on your own. I don't see how this constitutes 'rehabilitation' at all, do you?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Except the guy in To Kill A Mockingbird did not rape.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This thread has demonstrated the middle class barbarity of tsr.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Hmmm.. Fair enough. I would have to do some more looking into the exact mathematics involved here but fine, I see where you are coming from. I still don't agree because clearly my view on justice and what's right and wrong is different from yours but if this guy actually did rape her he definatly deserved what he got.

    Tbh, considering how messed up the USA prison system is with prison rape happening all over the place and people being placed in solitary confinement for years and years on end I don't see how that is any different from violating their human rights. The ones doing these kind of things within the prison cells will be the unrepentant psychopaths I mentioned earlier and the ones being tortured by being raped, beaten up and isolated for years (which is a kind of torture) will probable be the less violent criminals who would now be given mental health problems that they didn't have prior to going into prison. I would think execution would be much more merciful than spending years going insane on your own. I don't see how this constitutes 'rehabilitation' at all, do you?
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    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.
    Thus is the beauty of free speech. Different opinions are allowed.

    I didn't ask you to try and patronise me, I asked for your opinion on it. I don't know, even getting raped all the time and solitary confinement seems a bit too harsh for me. Life should mean life I agree but how is solitary confinement, using your argument why we shouldn't have the death penalty for the purposes of rehabilitation, conducive to rehabilitation. All it does is give them mental disorders and alienate them further. Do you agree with that?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Thus is the beauty of free speech. Different opinions are allowed.

    I didn't ask you to try and patronise me, I asked for your opinion on it. I don't know, even getting raped all the time and solitary confinement seems a bit too harsh for me. Life should mean life I agree but how is solitary confinement, using your argument why we shouldn't have the death penalty for the purposes of rehabilitation, conducive to rehabilitation. All it does is give them mental disorders and alienate them further. Do you agree with that?
    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. :lol:

    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    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. :lol:

    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.
    Well, neither of us seem to want to give up our views so there is nowhere to go with this at all.

    Considering the vast majority of people our age are liberals it's not really an inaccurate thing to say, is it really? It's really more of an observation. You say it like I called you a heinous thing.

    How would you go about reforming unrepentant psychopaths, just out of curiousity? Enlighten me with your wisdom... O liberal one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Serves him right. XD
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Well, neither of us seem to want to give up our views so there is nowhere to go with this at all.

    Considering the vast majority of people our age are liberals it's not really an inaccurate thing to say, is it really? It's really more of an observation. You say it like I called you a heinous thing.

    How would you go about reforming unrepentant psychopaths, just out of curiousity? Enlighten me with your wisdom... O liberal one.
    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. :lol:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    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. :lol:
    What was that you were saying about liberals being too sensitive? It was a serious comment considering how I'm the 'dumb' and 'barbaric' and 'primitive' one who wants to turn society back to the 'dark ages?' Oh look, I can take offense at names called too!

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Damn. I guess it's a lesson to be learnt
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    What was that you were saying about liberals being too sensitive? It was a serious comment considering how I'm the 'dumb' and 'barbaric' and 'primitive' one who wants to turn society back to the 'dark ages?' Oh look, I can take offense at names called too!

    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    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.
    I apologise for implying that all liberals are extremely sensitive, it would seem only some of them are.

    Kudos to you however you were great to debate but I'm sticking by my views that unrepentant psychopaths should get the chop for money saving purposes, not use valuable earth resources in a prison cell somewhere getting more and more mentally damaged.

    Whatever, you win.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I apologise for implying that all liberals are extremely sensitive, it would seem only some of them are.

    Kudos to you however you were great to debate but I'm sticking by my views that unrepentant psychopaths should get the chop for money saving purposes, not use valuable earth resources in a prison cell somewhere getting more and more mentally damaged.

    Whatever, you win.
    Well thank you for apologising, at least you're gracious enough to do so. Apology accepted.

    Right, well I addressed those points, but of course it's you're right to believe that if you want to.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Brings new meaning to the phrase 'have it off' :afraid:

    (Original post by z33)
    good, this should be done to every rapist - man or woman
    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' :beard:

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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    P.S. Females cannot commit rape, and my understanding is that when they commit 'statutory rape' the sentencing is typically very lenient :rolleyes:
    1) If a woman had sex with you whilst you were under the influence or either alcohol or drug.
    2) Rape by deception.
    3) if you were incapacitated and the woman took advantage of your circumstances by inserting foreign objects into you (e.g. Dildos)

    Rape is unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    good, this should be done to every rapist - man or woman
    but breh, women dont have penises
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Brings new meaning to the phrase 'have it off' :afraid:

    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' :beard:

    P.S. Females cannot commit rape, and my understanding is that when they commit 'statutory rape' the sentencing is typically very lenient :rolleyes:
    but replace rape with murder... would your opinion remain the same? that cold blooded murderers shouldn't be punished extremely just because they've only committed - or rather- gotten away with more than one murder? see this is why rape is complicated, because you're more likely to get away with it than murder - even if the victim speaks out.

    and if that's true then that's bull****... ofcourse females can rape and they should be punished just as extremely as male rapists... equality goes both ways
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.