Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't get how castration would deter sex offenders. Arousal is mental for the most part. Thinking sexual thoughts will give a man a hard-on. Taking away his ability to get a hard-on, contrary to what women say, will not make a man have a lesser sexual appetite.

What if a man enjoys going down on a woman as much as he enjoys intercourse. Sure he'll get a hard-on from it as it's sexually arousing to him to be down there but in his case most of his arousal comes from performing orally. Taking away his ability to get a hard-on does not take away his desire to perform orally on a woman (or a man if he is gay).

Castration would prevent intercourse with children, at least in the traditional sense but the only way to prevent child molesters from repeating what they do is kill them or remove their inability emotionally to get off on performing sex acts on kids, and that will not be solved by castration.

I know how anatomy works to an extent and male arousal (or female I guess) always starts with the thought process.

Fateweaver wrote:I don't get how castration would deter sex offenders. Arousal is mental for the most part. Thinking sexual thoughts will give a man a hard-on. Taking away his ability to get a hard-on, contrary to what women say, will not make a man have a lesser sexual appetite.

Arousal is primarily hormonal. Castration greatly reduces the production of the hormones related to sex, and therefore greatly reduces sex drive.

True but doesn't stop it completely.

It might work on animals as for them their one thought for sexual arousal is to breed so I'm sure they are different in that way, ie don't want sex just for sex.

Humans with their freedom of thought obviously consider sex for just more than breeding so while the sex drive might be lessened it might not be enough to eliminate it altogether (and even if it does eliminate the physical arousal element a man/woman can still be mentally and emotionally aroused).

I'm with Fateweaver on this one. Castration is no sure fire way to stop pedophiles or other sex offenders.

1) It doesn't entirely stop thier sex drive.

2) They may not be doing this for the sex, but so that they can have power over another, vulnerable human being.

3) For sex but sex not involving male genitalia.

Having read through this thread with great interest, I'd like to propose a hypothetical situation here that's a bit more on topic than the child molestation scenario.

You are sitting in a jury in a court, and a nondescript man is lead out. He stands accused of something in the region of a hundred murders, from the rich and powerful to the poor and nondescript, all across the globe. He is an assassin, a hit man, people pay him large sums of money to take care of their 'problems'. He is proficient at what he does, and professional, always ensuing that his targets do not suffer needlessly.

Just before sentencing commences, he stands up and makes a speech. In it, he considers the nature of morality. He asks why paying a man to kill people in the army is socially acceptable, whilst paying what is effectively a freelancer is not. He raises the question as to why he is prosecuted, and dogs of war (mercenaries) are not treated so harshly. He underscores his professionalism, and says that like any soldier, he merely does what he is paid to do. He points out several cases of the Secret Service in your Government doing what he does.

So, as a member of the jury, what would your verdict be? Does this man deserve to hang? He's not motivated by hatred, or even greed particularly, this is simply his job, and he is good at it. He is no greedier than any soldier, and does not make an obscene amount of money. He has a wife, and two daughters he supports from the proceeds, who live a relatively well off middle class life. You know that if you do not kill him, he will simply return to his previous life off liquidating people for money. He is not the kind to be rehabilitated, as he feels his conscience is clear anyway.

Assuming you are the judge, jury, and executioner here, what is your ruling? On what grounds do you make them? Answer me well Dakkaites, as I await your judgments and reasoning with the greatest of curiosity.

Death or Life Imprisonment. And the same sentence should be passed on those who hired him. It is not thier realm to decide who lives and who dies. What kind of society would we live in if this was acceptable? Assasinations (or Murder under a different name) would be commonplace.

Piss poor assassin to get caught in the first place.

Ah,a thread in which to explore my inner-conservitive.
Basicly my views concerning "capital punishment" are simple.
Molest a child (this does not include cases of "he/she was 16 and having consensaul sex with some one over 18") you die.
Brutalize an elderly citizen (beat an old lady over the head for her purse) you die.
Invade anothers home with the intention to commit a crime...home owners descresion,if it's my home...you die.
Everything else taken in a case by case basis.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm with Fateweaver on this one. Castration is no sure fire way to stop pedophiles or other sex offenders.

1) It doesn't entirely stop thier sex drive.

2) They may not be doing this for the sex, but so that they can have power over another, vulnerable human being.

You are spot on with that statement. A lot of pedos get their kicks by fondling, sexual talk, etc., as I've found out.

Fortunately most states allow homeowner to decide if someone lives or dies if their home is broken into.

Ketara wrote:Having read through this thread with great interest, I'd like to propose a hypothetical situation here that's a bit more on topic than the child molestation scenario.

You are sitting in a jury in a court, and a nondescript man is lead out. He stands accused of something in the region of a hundred murders, from the rich and powerful to the poor and nondescript, all across the globe. He is an assassin, a hit man, people pay him large sums of money to take care of their 'problems'. He is proficient at what he does, and professional, always ensuing that his targets do not suffer needlessly.

Just before sentencing commences, he stands up and makes a speech. In it, he considers the nature of morality. He asks why paying a man to kill people in the army is socially acceptable, whilst paying what is effectively a freelancer is not. He raises the question as to why he is prosecuted, and dogs of war (mercenaries) are not treated so harshly. He underscores his professionalism, and says that like any soldier, he merely does what he is paid to do. He points out several cases of the Secret Service in your Government doing what he does.

So, as a member of the jury, what would your verdict be? Does this man deserve to hang? He's not motivated by hatred, or even greed particularly, this is simply his job, and he is good at it. He is no greedier than any soldier, and does not make an obscene amount of money. He has a wife, and two daughters he supports from the proceeds, who live a relatively well off middle class life. You know that if you do not kill him, he will simply return to his previous life off liquidating people for money. He is not the kind to be rehabilitated, as he feels his conscience is clear anyway.

Assuming you are the judge, jury, and executioner here, what is your ruling? On what grounds do you make them? Answer me well Dakkaites, as I await your judgments and reasoning with the greatest of curiosity.

The state needs to eliminate him to retain the monopoly on violence. I would support the state on this one, since I don't see how undermining it in favor of private assassins would be worthwhile.

If this was some sort of V for Vendetta situation I may think differently, but then again they probably wouldn't let the jury be so influential.

Fateweaver wrote:Fortunately most states allow homeowner to decide if someone lives or dies if their home is broken into.

Now that is a little dangerous, I understand the need to protect yourself andf your homes but I think that beyond that you should not have the power of life or death over them. If it's you or them, or you're at risk of bodily harm or something else, go for it. Don't hold back if they're coming at you. But there are limitations to this.

If you have already incapacitated them (knocked out or they surrender), or if they pose no threat (little kid stealing silverware or somesuch) then you should not be permitted to kill or harm them further. Keep them under watch, call the cops, and let them handle it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Now that is a little dangerous, I understand the need to protect yourself andf your homes but I think that beyond that you should not have the power of life or death over them. If it's you or them, or you're at risk of bodily harm or something else, go for it. Don't hold back if they're coming at you. But there are limitations to this.

If you have already incapacitated them (knocked out or they surrender), or if they pose no threat (little kid stealing silverware or somesuch) then you should not be permitted to kill or harm them further. Keep them under watch, call the cops, and let them handle it.

Now that is what you should do, but the prevailing opinion in the US is this, "If you are willing to break in to someone's house, then you get what you deserve." I generally am comfortable with this mentality because if someone broke into my house, I would happily give them their just desserts instead of them potentially harming my family. You should never have to retreat within your own place of residence.

I'm not saying that. But there are obvious exceptions. If a burglar has been caught by you and you've got a gun to his head and he's pleading with you not to kill him, then shooting him there and then is cold-blooded murder. Pure and simple.

Obviously the homeowner shouldn't shoot a person they know to be of no threat. The problem is that it can be pretty difficult to tell whether the home owner knew the burglar was of no threat, as it's usually a pretty subjective matter.

Given a choice between the chance of putting a man in prison for defending himself and the chance of a burglar being murdered while committing his crime, people are generally more inclined to accept the later. After all, this lose/lose situation was a creation of the burglar's.

True. And that's perfectly alright. However, Fateweaver and FITZZ seemed to be advocating actions slightly more 'radical' than that.

JEB seemed to advocate it as an alternative to the potential harm of his family; not necessarily as an alternative to just, well, not killing him.

I agree on the point of not being forced into retreat; of course, being forced into retreat is not the same as being forced to advance without lethal force, which I do think would be morally required in some situations, even if I don't think it should be legally required.

If I could have a man on his knees pleading not to shoot him I'd taser his balls. Failing that, if he wasn't a thread I'd blow out his kneecaps. Hard to burglarize when you will limp the rest of your life.

If I had a man on his knees pleading I wouldn't shoot him in cold blood but most times it's not that simple. Not to mention without witnesses the man can be pleading for his life and you can kill him without cause of recourse. Castle law protects homeowners in most states and gives them the benefit of the doubt.

See, and THAT is worrisome. The guy is on his knees. You can (or already have) called the cops. He's no longer a real threat. And THEN you blow his kneecaps off?

Also, if he's on his knees then they're against the floor, so you would need to shoot from underneath him or something.

Yeah. That too.

Emperors Faithful wrote:See, and THAT is worrisome. The guy is on his knees. You can (or already have) called the cops. He's no longer a real threat. And THEN you blow his kneecaps off?

It'd be amusing to hear Fateweaver's evaluation of the criminal justice system once he got done getting a good view of it from the inside of a cell.

Won't ever be stupid enough to end up in a cell so that's likely not going to happen.

Would be amusing to hear your evaluation of what you did if someone broke into your house and threatened you or your family.

Used the appropriate level of force in response. Which would not involve blowing off someone's knees when I had them on the ground, which is why you'd be in prison, and I, not.

Not very likely. I'd just tell the courts I didn't want to kill him so when he came after me I shot his knees out.

Who is believed and who isn't?

I love me my Mn castle laws and my gun laws. Now I hope that someone tries to break in tonight on this the first day of 2k10. Good way to start the year off methinks.

And that makes you a very disturbing powrfreak who would jump at the opportunity to kill/maim someone at the nearest legal opportunity. Join the army why doncha? ^_-

Fateweaver wrote:Not very likely. I'd just tell the courts I didn't want to kill him so when he came after me I shot his knees out.

Who is believed and who isn't?

You're right, they'll obviously believe the guy with the level three ninja shootist license. What's that, you forgot to bring that with you? Aww, too bad for you.

Emperors Faithful wrote:True. And that's perfectly alright. However, Fateweaver and FITZZ seemed to be advocating actions slightly more 'radical' than that.

Wow,Fateweaver and I on the same side of the fence,strange considering our vastly different political views .
However,I stand by my previous statement,with some clarification,I live in an area where burglary/home invasions do on occasion happen,families have had their doors kicked open and been held hostage/victiamized/injured and even killed.
Now taking this into account,should an individule or individules enter my home with the intent of commiting a crime,I have no intention of assesing why they are there,or attempt to asscertain if they only intend to grab the playstation and run away,I will use deadly force to protect my family from any possibility of harm.

You are right Bookwrack. I'd just hit him with 2 or 3 .45 hollow points in the chest. Will make a mess of him and my house but at least they won't penetrate through his body and risk hurting someone.

Apparently people think I'm serious even when I use orkmoticons.

I live in a neighborhood where 9 out of 10 of my neighbors are drug dealers and we've had our garage broken into a few times. It's okay though, lucky for them I wasn't home at the time.