Name some.

__________________
Dr. MacDonald has answers.

www.kevinmacdonald.net

Well, probably the biggest factor is slavery.


I'm sure that you think that you have a point, but we're getting too far off topic. If you want to discuss whatever point you think you may have, please start another thread.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

How were Blacks enslaved in the first place?

__________________
Dr. MacDonald has answers.

www.kevinmacdonald.net

1a. Take away a mans balls/penis and he loses his sex drive.

1b. Women should have their clitoris removed. Same effect on a woman. I saw a documentary on Discovery about tribal life in Africa. One tribe had a ritual of cutting off the clitorises of their women before they reach sexual maturity to make sex painful for them guaranteeing that they would only have sex when they are married and then only for procreation.

2a. We can give them a 2 strike penalty. Do it once....you get benefit of the doubt. Do it again and its snip, snip baby.

2b. Once a child predator always a child predator. Most if not all child predators repeat their crimes and escalate in the gravity of the crime which inevitably leads to the murder of a child. A sex crime against a child by an adult needs to be dealt with harshly. VERY HARSHLY.

3. I cant answer that but I know that once you chop off their cocks they have no incentive to do it again. No boner, no lust, safer kids.

__________________
There is no god. Get over it already.

castration does not typically involve emoving the "bone".
removing the nads does not necessarily prevent "uges" or physiology.

__________________
Hope is the opposite of audacity. It's passive, an excuse for inaction.

Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

“What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”

“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.

“The other kills her own food.”

Greetings and Felicitations,

All of your arguments assume that pedophilia is always sexually motivated. It is not. In some cases it is but in the majority of cases it involves power dynamics. Removing the penis and/or testes does not negate the impact on the brain because it doesn't effect the cause of the problem which, in many cases, is a brain/mind problem. At some time the sexual urge gets connected with children instead of adults. This can occur because of child-abuse or some other power dynamic (a male developing an inability to connect with people of an appropriate age. You can even become a pedophile by developing a brain tumor (this specifically addresses point 2.b). I would also like to point out that a significant number of cases involve body parts other thant the penis or with objects.

Does this exonerate pedophiles? No. However, it does show that no matter of punishment is going to cure a pedophile. Until we reach an understanding, and ability to treat the underlying cause, the only possible solution is imprisonment in order to remove opportunity.

In addition, what we consider pedophilia is often not seen that way in other cultures. For example, the age of sexual consent in Japan is 13.
Sexual Offences Laws - Japan

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

[quote=California Girl;1291430]I also think we should take into account the capacity of the individual to understand their actions and the consequences thereof. There are quite a few cases where the mental competency of those convicted means that they may not have been capable of assisting in their defence, etc. so I have concerns about that.
QUOTE]

In reality there's a reason that the insanity defense only works in movies. Not many people who are that far gone that they could manage to kill someone would be in the outside world anyway. And they ones who are have trouble tying their shoes. Anyone can say they were temporarily insane, but the equivalent of road rage doesn't mean it's ok to lose control and kill someone, even though I know we've all been there before. How many of us has actually killed someone on the road for cutting them off for example?

But if you ask me, I am for the DP especially in the cases of pedophiles and sexual predators. I see no problem in trying to study them while they await their sentence so as to gain some insight on what they have in common so we could work to avoid it happening as often in the future. I think Singapore has the right idea. They still have canings, which we would consider cruel and unusual punishment, but look at that place. No grafitti, no litter, not even gum on the street to step in. It's because the punishment does what it's supposed to and acts like a deterent. When someone gets the DP here, they have months, if not years before they will carry it out. They have multiple appeals in multiple courts and a lot of them eventually get their sentence revoked or lessened. It's not as scary as if you get caught stealing or shoplifting and they chop off your hand. In Germany, if you get a DWI you never even have a chance to get a license again...ever. So go check out how many DWIs Germany has. The death penalty, while not pretty, is not the worst we could do to [b]deserving[b] criminals.

[quote=inspirator76;1343152]Fascinating.

You claim to be from "the home of the free," yet look at what you admire.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

[quote=pramjockey;1343172]I saw no "admiration"...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I am opposed to the death penalty because human beings have absolutely no right to take the life of another human being except in self defense, and killing someone how is in a jail cell no matter how horrible the crime they have committed is state sanctioned murder, not self defense. This is justified as a form of deterance, but there is no proof that the death penalty accomplishes anything other then perpetuate a culture where violence is viewed as a legitimate solution to every problem.

America is one of the few industrialized nations where the death penalty is still legal, yet it also has the highest homicide rate of the industrialized nations, if it is a true deterant then why isn't there fewer murders? If someone is convicted of murder we should imprison them for life without the possibility of parole instead of bringing ourselves down to the level of the murderer by murdering him.

Well, if the purpose of the death penalty actually was to be a deterrent, your post would be meaningful.

The only people who claim its intent is to be a deterrent are those who are against it, so they can point to the homicide rate as proof of it's falure.

It's not a deterrent, it's a punishment, and there are, whether you like it or not, crimes for which the use of it is warranted...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Assuming the convicted are guilty...

The question for me is not whether a truly guilty person "deserves" the death penalty, but is whatever "benefit" is gained by the death penalty is worth the risk of executing an innocent person. For me, the justice system is all too human in that it sometimes makes grave mistakes. I'd rather see the few innocent people wrongly convicted have a chance at an overturned ruling than all the guilty people put to death.

__________________
"Some years ago I had a sobering realization about women, which was that there are just too many nice ones. One simply can't fall in love with, sleep with, or marry all the nice women...One of the saddening facts of life is that there is always going to be a delightful woman somewhere who, for whatever accident of timing or attraction, simply slips by and recedes to return only in a dream."
-Larry McMurtry in Roads

Thank you Steve. What I'm saying is that even though it's not rosy, there are definitely times when the death penalty is called for. As far as killing innocent people by mistake when their trials are botched, that happens less and less as our technology advances. Most of the times we've gone back and looked at why we put an innocent man to death, it's because we are able to exame DNA evidence that we couldn't do at the time of the trial. I know it's not perfect, but it can only improve as technology advances. I think the degree of certainty the evidence carries in a trial should have a direct effect on whether or not the DP is sought.

I don't have much against keeping people in prison for life. It seems to me like I would prefer being put to death than in prison without parole for the rest of my life. However sometimes it's not enough. There are some people out there who are so depraved that when they are convicted by a jury of their peers with indisputable evidence of some God-awful crime I think it would be best to have that person off the Earth where there is no chance of them hurting anyone else ever.

Please don't think I'm inhuan or cruel. I remember when they carried out the Death Penalty with that woman who axed up her family 20 years ago. In her 20 years in jail, she was sorry, she repented of her sins, and she found God. I'm glad for her and I was sad when she was put to death. But that doesn't mean I'm against it. She was punished for a crime she committed. People know what the punishment for murder usually is, but the REASON it remains to be a deterrent is that so many go without being caugt.

That is not true, while it is not the only argument used to justify it is made so often that it is one of the most common cliches in modern political debate. Opponents of the death penalty like myself are pointing this out because the evidence does not support the conclusion that many are making about the death penalty being a deterant. I once used to support the death penalty in part because I believed that it actually was a deterant and would thus save lives, but deterant I now know that deterant or not revenge is never justified.



But what does this "punishment" accomplish other the make ourselves no better then the murderer?