Man got his penis cut off for raping female student in China
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Fair enough Dan. I get your point. But you say getting his penis cut off is a barbaric act, as is rape but what most people seem to forget is rape doesn't just mean you suffer mental truma but there is physical truama to the genitals, it's physically damanging and obviously increases as brutality of the rape increases...in this case, as barbaric as it may seem, you can understand our "well good" opinion on this. Why should the rapist not suffer trauma to his/her genitals as the victim has done?
Mav, while if I wanted to I can see it from the perspective of anger and a need for revenge, I'm arguing such a perspective is highly flawed and NOT justice. There is a massive gulf between revenge and justice. It isn't to do with rehabilitation, or even wanting to better our society, but a focus on hurting that person like he hurt you. A guy getting his penis chopped off would also be mentally and physically traumatic, just like rape is, but this 'eye for an eye' mentality just belongs in the dark ages to me really. We've moved past it as a society.
Cherry picking. The case you're referring to - by linking a Daily Mail article nonetheless - is an extremely rare (and awful) exception. Of course the crime warrants far more years than that. But, you know, I think I'm gonna draw the line at genital mutilation.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_mandatory_life_sentences_in_murder_cases/#an06 - recommended sentences for offenders.
You're not going to discuss the hundreds of other cases where the murderer received the appropriate sentence?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_mandatory_life_sentences_in_murder_cases/#an06 - recommended sentences for offenders.
You're not going to discuss the hundreds of other cases where the murderer received the appropriate sentence?
(edited 8 years ago)
You've lost your credibility. We've already seen how your emotional mindset has blinded you enough to misread an article, and that you've effectively been supporting mob justice in this thread. Your current views aren't compatible with civilised society.
Original post by Zargabaath
Don't get me wrong, I do. But I was trying to say that him being a rapist doesn't justify someone else mutilating him. It seems to me that a lot of people think that he was "asking for it" and that he deserves it. I disagree with the idea of someone "asking for it" or being deserving of a crime happening to them in most cases, regardless of who they are.
Good.
Original post by ChickenMadness
That'l teach him not to mistake China for India
I dont think china is that much better than india on this matter, UN did a study there once and claimed roughly 1 in 4 of the men asked (22%), admitted to forcing a woman to having sex with them. Also their laws allow marital and same sex rape.
You mentioned an 'eye for an eye' type of justice system, and the death penalty would be the lynch pin of such a system, as it was in the old days.
There's actually a surprisingly high number of innocents on death row in America. Indeed, 4% of them are actually innocent. So would you just shorten the procedure and have more innocents die then? Is that what you're saying? Because that would happen.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent
You're taking one example here as the only evidence to consider when we compare the justice system of old to the one we have today. If you think innocents weren't dying, people weren't punished severely for lesser crimes, or indeed that many got off for serious crimes, then you are sadly mistaken. It happened all too often back then, much more than now, even though it happens now of course.
There's actually a surprisingly high number of innocents on death row in America. Indeed, 4% of them are actually innocent. So would you just shorten the procedure and have more innocents die then? Is that what you're saying? Because that would happen.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent
You're taking one example here as the only evidence to consider when we compare the justice system of old to the one we have today. If you think innocents weren't dying, people weren't punished severely for lesser crimes, or indeed that many got off for serious crimes, then you are sadly mistaken. It happened all too often back then, much more than now, even though it happens now of course.
Original post by Unkempt_One
You've lost your credibility. We've already seen how your emotional mindset has blinded you enough to misread an article, and that you've effectively been supporting mob justice in this thread. Your current views aren't compatible with civilised society.
The original article I posted mentioned that she would be jailed for seven but then goes on to say she would be released in less than three. Either way, three or seven years is still not enough for a life being taken, imo.
Original post by PrincessZara
Why did you state he was Black, Why bring race in to things.
I found myself wondering the same thing. What does his race have to do with it?
Original post by PrincessZara
Why did you state he was Black, Why bring race in to things.
Original post by PrincessZara
Why did you state he was Black, Why bring race in to things.
stating he is black would get more viewers as naturally everyone wants to know how big his custard launcher is....
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Danz123
You mentioned an 'eye for an eye' type of justice system, and the death penalty would be the lynch pin of such a system, as it was in the old days.
There's actually a surprisingly high number of innocents on death row in America. Indeed, 4% of them are actually innocent. So would you just shorten the procedure and have more innocents die then? Is that what you're saying? Because that would happen.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent
You're taking one example here as the only evidence to consider when we compare the justice system of old to the one we have today. If you think innocents weren't dying, people weren't punished severely for lesser crimes, or indeed that many got off for serious crimes, then you are sadly mistaken. It happened all too often back then, much more than now, even though it happens now of course.
There's actually a surprisingly high number of innocents on death row in America. Indeed, 4% of them are actually innocent. So would you just shorten the procedure and have more innocents die then? Is that what you're saying? Because that would happen.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent
You're taking one example here as the only evidence to consider when we compare the justice system of old to the one we have today. If you think innocents weren't dying, people weren't punished severely for lesser crimes, or indeed that many got off for serious crimes, then you are sadly mistaken. It happened all too often back then, much more than now, even though it happens now of course.
There are plenty of studies which would seem to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent of sorts:
Studies of the death penalty have reached various conclusions about its effectiveness in deterring crime. But a 2008 comprehensive review of capital punishment research since 1975 by Drexel University economist Bijou Yang and psychologist David Lester of Richard Stockton College of New Jersey concluded that the majority of studies that track effects over many years and across states or counties find a deterrent effect.Indeed, other recent investigations, using a variety of samples and statistical methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder rates. For instance, a 2003 study by Emory University researchers of data from more than 3,000 counties from 1977 through 1996 found that each execution, on average, resulted in 18 fewer murders per county. In another examination, based on data from all 50 states from 1978 to 1997, Federal Communications Commission economist Paul Zimmerman demonstrated that each state execution deters an average of 14 murders annually.
A more recent study by Kenneth Land of Duke University and others concluded that, from 1994 through 2005, each execution in Texas was associated with “modest, short-term reductions” in homicides, a decrease of up to 2.5 murders. And in 2009, researchers found that adopting state laws allowing defendants in child murder cases to be eligible for the death penalty was associated with an almost 20 percent reduction in rates of these crimes.
Obviously if we re-instated the death penalty then extra caution should be put in place by the legal system that an innocent man isn't executed. Really I'm talking about cases where guilt is 100% certain or is admitted in the case of terrorists, serial killers, serial rapists and repeatingly offending paedophiles. Where there has been a long line of evidence of crimes committed by this particular individual and they are unrepentant in their crimes despite all evidence to the contrary and they have gone through the prison justice system; in cases such as that of Michael Pleasted.
Original post by pbw
stating he is black would get more viewers as naturally everyone wants to know how big is custard launcher is....
i am so happy my news thread got so many replies lol
Original post by PrincessZara
Why did you state he was Black, Why bring race in to things.
Who wants to look at penises from other races?
Hmm, and I would say there are plenty more studies which say the opposite. Indeed "A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.
Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.” So, while taking away the death penalty wouldn't decrease murder rates per say, having it certainly does more harm than good when we consider innocents etc.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty ^
For those cases, life without parole seems a fitting punishment to me, if we have tried and failed to rehabilitate them. Regardless, however much 'extra caution' one takes, there will still be human error, and innocents will still die. "Gross and his co-authors estimate that 36% of all those sentenced to death between 1973 and 2004 – some 2,675 people – were taken off death row after doubts about their convictions were raised. But they were then put on new sentences, usually life without parole, that mean they will almost certainly die in prison." After they're given life without parole they're just forgotten about. Why have the death penalty, which would result in such chilling practices, when life without parole is better and one is not prone to making an irreversible mistake by killing an innocent?
Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.” So, while taking away the death penalty wouldn't decrease murder rates per say, having it certainly does more harm than good when we consider innocents etc.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty ^
For those cases, life without parole seems a fitting punishment to me, if we have tried and failed to rehabilitate them. Regardless, however much 'extra caution' one takes, there will still be human error, and innocents will still die. "Gross and his co-authors estimate that 36% of all those sentenced to death between 1973 and 2004 – some 2,675 people – were taken off death row after doubts about their convictions were raised. But they were then put on new sentences, usually life without parole, that mean they will almost certainly die in prison." After they're given life without parole they're just forgotten about. Why have the death penalty, which would result in such chilling practices, when life without parole is better and one is not prone to making an irreversible mistake by killing an innocent?
Original post by Danz123
Hmm, and I would say there are plenty more studies which say the opposite. Indeed "A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.
Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.” So, while taking away the death penalty wouldn't decrease murder rates per say, having it certainly does more harm than good when we consider innocents etc.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty ^
For those cases, life without parole seems a fitting punishment to me, if we have tried and failed to rehabilitate them. Regardless, however much 'extra caution' one takes, there will still be human error, and innocents will still die. "Gross and his co-authors estimate that 36% of all those sentenced to death between 1973 and 2004 – some 2,675 people – were taken off death row after doubts about their convictions were raised. But they were then put on new sentences, usually life without parole, that mean they will almost certainly die in prison." After they're given life without parole they're just forgotten about. Why have the death penalty, which would result in such chilling practices, when life without parole is better and one is not prone to making an irreversible mistake by killing an innocent?
Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.” So, while taking away the death penalty wouldn't decrease murder rates per say, having it certainly does more harm than good when we consider innocents etc.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty ^
For those cases, life without parole seems a fitting punishment to me, if we have tried and failed to rehabilitate them. Regardless, however much 'extra caution' one takes, there will still be human error, and innocents will still die. "Gross and his co-authors estimate that 36% of all those sentenced to death between 1973 and 2004 – some 2,675 people – were taken off death row after doubts about their convictions were raised. But they were then put on new sentences, usually life without parole, that mean they will almost certainly die in prison." After they're given life without parole they're just forgotten about. Why have the death penalty, which would result in such chilling practices, when life without parole is better and one is not prone to making an irreversible mistake by killing an innocent?
So we can just say that the evidence surrounding the death penalty is somewhat contradictory? It seems to me there is conflicting opposite evidence on either side and more research needs to be done. I would still maintain that removing these individuals from the earth 100% guarantees they will never commit a crime again and since they will die anyway why should we waste valuable resources on prolonging their pathetic unworthy lives? The money spent maintaining a convicted murderer in prison could better be spent on education/ healthcare or any number of other useful things which would benefit society much more.
Our forensic technology is considerably more advanced than it was in 1973 however, these days we have techniques which guarantee 100% accuracy such as gel electrophoresis. Our advanced technology makes it difficult these days to wrongfully convict a person on basis of genetic evidence alone.
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.
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.
Original post by Danz123
Mav, while if I wanted to I can see it from the perspective of anger and a need for revenge, I'm arguing such a perspective is highly flawed and NOT justice. There is a massive gulf between revenge and justice. It isn't to do with rehabilitation, or even wanting to better our society, but a focus on hurting that person like he hurt you. A guy getting his penis chopped off would also be mentally and physically traumatic, just like rape is, but this 'eye for an eye' mentality just belongs in the dark ages to me really. We've moved past it as a society.
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.
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.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- Penis size
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Is it alright if my boyfriend slaps me?
- Too much girth, not enough length
- Glans/Foreskin issues
- Does Warwick still have a rape culture?
- Is it really possible for two persons of opposite sex to be best friends only?
- Roedean vs. Benenden
- guy I'm talking to keeps asking for nudes
- Marriage, sex and cheating
- an inspector calls seven deadly sins
- Question about Frenuloplasty
- A question for straight men
- Condom won't ever roll down on penis
- I'm 7.3 Inches is this good?
- Stuck in a toxic situationship
- Year 13, Dentistry
- Is sex supposed to hurt your first time?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
