• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should all child molesters be castrated before leaving prison?

Good idea?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 40.3%
  • No

    Votes: 40 59.7%

  • Total voters
    67
How can anybody NOT support killing child rapist?

Well anyone who is against the death penalty wouldn't support killing a child rapist.
 
I believe they should be chemically castrated, yes. I also think they should have a tracking device implanted in them.
 
I believe they should be chemically castrated, yes. I also think they should have a tracking device implanted in them.

I think both of those fall under cruel and unusual punishment.
 
Then they should never be released from prison.

K. I'm sure life in prison can be argued. It's a valid punishment for heinous enough crimes.
 
K. I'm sure life in prison can be argued. It's a valid punishment for heinous enough crimes.

And which punishment do you think the child molester would prefer?

Life in prison or a release contingent upon chemical castration and a tracking device?

By the way, I totally disagree that chemically castrating and implanting a tracking device in a child molester is cruel or unusual punishment. I would call it, "merciful and totally appropriate".
 
I don't care what method they'd prefer. What I care about is what is proper action of government against its people. Castration is cruel and unusual, and active monitoring I think needs to be banned. Infinite tracking and monitoring cannot be allowed in the least. It's not proper action by the government. And it doesn't matter how much we've dehumanized the criminal or demonized the crime; there are only certain actions the government may take and it is restricted on all other avenues.
 
Castrate an 18 year old who has sex with his 17 year old girl friend, no.

Using chemical castration on a child rapist (what everyone was probably talking about) yes.
 
Oh! I almost forgot. The tracking device for child rapists should have a cyanide capsule in it that can be remotely activated. That way they won't try to escape.
 
Oh! I almost forgot. The tracking device for child rapists should have a cyanide capsule in it that can be remotely activated. That way they won't try to escape.

Still not valid power of the government. So no.
 
Let's kill them by boiling them in acid, then kill their families by burning them alive in their houses, scatter their ashes in a trash pit, and then blow up their home towns with small thermonuclear devices. :rolleyes:
 
Let's kill them by boiling them in acid, then kill their families by burning them alive in their houses, scatter their ashes in a trash pit, and then blow up their home towns with small thermonuclear devices. :rolleyes:

Sure, I mean if you're ok half-assing it. :2razz:
 
I don't care what method they'd prefer. What I care about is what is proper action of government against its people. Castration is cruel and unusual, and active monitoring I think needs to be banned. Infinite tracking and monitoring cannot be allowed in the least. It's not proper action by the government. And it doesn't matter how much we've dehumanized the criminal or demonized the crime; there are only certain actions the government may take and it is restricted on all other avenues.

Just because you say something is cruel and unusual does not make it cruel and unusual.

But I suppose we could let the pedophile decide: Life in prison or release from prison contingent upon chemical castration and implantation of a tracking device. I'm pretty sure I know which one they'd pick; most likely because it's not as cruel and unusual as you think...
 
Let's kill them by boiling them in acid, then kill their families by burning them alive in their houses, scatter their ashes in a trash pit, and then blow up their home towns with small thermonuclear devices. :rolleyes:

Let's refrain from creating hyperbolic strawmen that don't actually address the issue.

Child molesters are a danger to society. Their recidivism rates are evidence of this. Instead of pissing and moaning about the poor little pedophiles, why don't you think of some proactive solutions that protect children and decrease our prison populations?

The status quo of, "just release them and hope they don't rape innocent children" is not acceptable.
 
Just because you say something is cruel and unusual does not make it cruel and unusual.

But I suppose we could let the pedophile decide: Life in prison or release from prison contingent upon chemical castration and implantation of a tracking device. I'm pretty sure I know which one they'd pick; most likely because it's not as cruel and unusual as you think...

It is both, and just because the criminal may want one punishment over the other doesn't mean that they get it. The government is constrained. Just because you say something is not cruel and unusual does not make it not cruel and unusual.
 
According to who? Since when do you get to decide what is "cruel and unusual"?

According to that Constitution. I've heard you talk fondly of it in other threads, is that fondness merely dependent upon conditions of topic?
 
It is both...

Once again, just because you say so does not make it so.

...and just because the criminal may want one punishment over the other doesn't mean that they get it.

You're missing the point. I'm highlighting their preference because it undercuts your assertion that said punishment is cruel or unusual. If 99% of people would rather endure chemical castration and implantation as opposed to an accepted method of punishment, it doesn't really support the idea that it's cruel or unusual.

The government is constrained. Just because you say something is not cruel and unusual does not make it not cruel and unusual.

Except that's not my position. I'm basing it on the psychological aspect of the punishment. It isn't cruel because I'd let the person choose, and it isn't unusual because it fits the crime.

You just hear the words "castration" and "tracking device" and reflexively label them as cruel and unusual without actually addressing the context of the crime.
 
According to that Constitution. I've heard you talk fondly of it in other threads, is that fondness merely dependent upon conditions of topic?

Cite the clause which prohibits the government from implanting cyanide tracking devices in child rapists.
 
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." - 8th amendment.

You've highlighted some of the dangers of pure democracy. If the majority of the people want cruel or unusual punishment, they can't have it. It's expressly forbidden.
 
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." - 8th amendment.

You've highlighted some of the dangers of pure democracy. If the majority of the people want cruel or unusual punishment, they can't have it. It's expressly forbidden.

Except the words "cruel and unusual" are purely subjective. Just because you think something is "cruel and unusual" does not make it so. In order to determine whether or not something is "cruel and unusual" we must subjectively interpret it. One logical way of doing this is asking whether or not the majority of people would be willing to undergo such a punishment in lieu of an accepted method of punishment; if they are, then we can reasonably infer that said alternative is not "cruel and unusual".
 
No, that's in fact not how it's interpreted. The criminal doesn't get to choose punishment, that's handed down by the courts. The courts are restricted in what they can hand down as punishment by the Constitution. Just because you keep saying it's not cruel or unusual doesn't make it so. We don't use these forms of punishment, so implementation of them can most certainly be argued to be in the very least unusual. Maiming people can most certainly be argued to be cruel.
 
No, that's in fact not how it's interpreted.

The terms "cruel and unusual" are subjective. Do you agree or disagree?

The criminal doesn't get to choose punishment, that's handed down by the courts.

I never said the criminal gets to choose their punishment. Under my system, child molesters would be given a mandatory minimum sentence; at the expiration of their sentence they would be given a choice between remaining in prison for life or being released and chemically castrated and implanted with a tracking device; the more serious offenders (child rapists) would have a cyanide capsule in their tracking device in case they tried to escape.

The courts are restricted in what they can hand down as punishment by the Constitution.

Yes, I know. The only problem with that is that the terms "cruel and unusual" do not have an objective meaning, which means a measure of subjective interpretation is required.

Just because you keep saying it's not cruel or unusual doesn't make it so.

Again, this is not my argument, indeed, the only one who is making such an argument is you.

We don't use these forms of punishment, so implementation of them can most certainly be argued to be in the very least unusual.

Ah, so any new form of punishment is immediately disqualified because it is unusual?

Maiming people can most certainly be argued to be cruel.

It could be argued, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. I don't think there is anything cruel about giving a child molester a choice between life in prison and chemical castration. No one is forcing them to do anything, except make a choice.
 
Thing is (and this argument has been used before on this thread), castration would not stop child molesters from molesting children.

Or rapists from raping.

It's a mind issue, not a genitalia issue.

Plus, not all child molesters/rapists are male.

And you overlook the possibility that they are innocent of the charge.

If you were falsely accused and convicted of child molestation (it happens), and upon being jailed you were castrated or killed (depending on who suggested what), would you be singing the same tune?

No.

I say just throw em all in a jail together.

Permanently (well, barring new evidence proving their innocence).
 
Thing is (and this argument has been used before on this thread), castration would not stop child molesters from molesting children.

Or rapists from raping.

It's a mind issue, not a genitalia issue.

Of course it's not 100% effective but that's not a good argument against it.

Furthermore, a male's sex drive is determined in large part by their testosterone levels. Suggesting that chemical castration will have no effect on their sex drive is a little silly.

Plus, not all child molesters/rapists are male.

And you overlook the possibility that they are innocent of the charge.

If you were falsely accused and convicted of child molestation (it happens), and upon being jailed you were castrated or killed (depending on who suggested what), would you be singing the same tune?

No.

I say just throw em all in a jail together.

Permanently (well, barring new evidence proving their innocence).

The vast majority of them are male. Exceptions to the rule need not muddy the waters, nor should the prospect of innocent people being falsely punished, since that is inherent to a human justice system.
 
Back
Top Bottom