Originally posted by red g jacks
it's not that the crime is necessarily deserving of death imoit's more that if they are actual pedos they are sort of an inherent threat... so it's irresponsible to let them free again imo. maybe the age in question should be lowered to a prepubescent age... when you get into that age range the person in question is more or less guaranteed to be ****ed in the head.
so i guess you could just lock them up for life if that suits you better. personally i think killing them is a little less cruel and more straightforward solution but hey what do i know i'm just a crazy guy on the internet
You can always provide compensation, when you get things wrong to the living. Its never enough but, it gives a life.
Re: Re: Forced Chemical Castration
Originally posted by Knife
Of course, it's a full thought. It's the problem most civilized countries that don't have capital punishment have with capital punishment. The US has often killed the innocent by mistake.
Originally posted by Knife
And when people are wrongly convicted.
Having said that, agree to disagree.
Thinking like yours has never made sense to me. Its like you want life to be gift wrapped for you.
Its not a perfect world. If it were we wouldnt have people on death row to begin with because we wouldnt have murders.
Not trying to derail the topic. Done here.
Re: Re: Re: Forced Chemical Castration
Originally posted by riv6672
^^^Thats a full thought.^^^That is not.
Having said that, agree to disagree.
Thinking like yours has never made sense to me. Its like you want life to be gift wrapped for you.
Its not a perfect world. If it were we wouldnt have people on death row to begin with because we wouldnt have murders.Not trying to derail the topic. Done here.
No it was initially an inference as I expect a degree of intelligence for anyone involved in a discussion.
You don't get my way of thinking because you believe you don't believe a mistake could happen to you and others are less important to you than vengence.
you really can, man. you got me. your single comment really shook me to my core. it's like who's this internet smart guy over here telling me i can't read? just cause i made fun of his shitty eye for and eye version of justice? i had to be able to read his post to make fun of it like that. i don't think this guy is giving me enough credit, man. i've read several books. including but not limited to the art of the deal by donald trump. so don't come over here telling me i can't read, pal. i didn't serve my country in vietnam so some punk on the internet could question my ability to read.
Originally posted by Knife
No it was initially an inference as I expect a degree of intelligence for anyone involved in a discussion.You don't get my way of thinking because you believe you don't believe a mistake could happen to you and others are less important to you than vengence.
Notice i'm phrasing all the above as questions. I wouldnt presume to put words in your mouth.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And let it be voluntary AND with an informed decision. Have a third party who represents the interests of the offender/prisoner (like a lawyer) verify that their client is consenting.Then let them accept the risks/side-effects and continue on.
I believe this would be a good method,
would this be directed at first time offenders or serial offenders?
Originally posted by riv6672
Huh.
Guess i WASNT done.
First: Do you make a habit of putting words in other people's mouths and pretending you're stating facts?
That was rhetorical; you do.
Second: do you drive a car?
Because car accidents kill a LOT of people every year. Your argument against chemical castration is that innocent people get convicted.
Innocent people die in car crashes. To include pedestrians. Are these losses more acceptable to you because you like to drive?
Well, people like to not get raped or molested/murdered.
Are you saying some losses are more acceptable than others based on convenience?
Again, rhetorical.Notice i'm phrasing all the above as questions. I wouldnt presume to put words in your mouth.
Umm, n-no but you clearly do.
Terrible analogy,
You just did, by inference. Clearly comprehension isn't your thing but being passive aggressive is, that and having no argument and poor grammar.
Originally posted by Knife
Umm, n-no but you clearly do.Terrible analogy,
You just did, by inference. Clearly comprehension isn't your thing but being passive aggressive is, that and having no argument and poor grammar.
Speaking of passive aggressive, i'm not the one that immediately started a thread about this very subject to whine and moan because you got under my skin. Talk about about a car wreck.
Originally posted by Trocity
It was, wasn't it
Originally posted by Genesis-Soldier
I believe this would be a good method,would this be directed at first time offenders or serial offenders?
Originally posted by riv6672You're simply not very bright. 😬
Ah!
So doing things your way (directly putting words in people's mouths) is the correct way to do things. Got it!Speaking of passive aggressive, i'm not the one that immediately started a thread about this very subject to whine and moan because you got under my skin. Talk about about a car wreck.
You forgot the period.
Yeah, dadudemon's idea seems workable.
As to who would be eligible? That itself is an interesting question.