(November 13, 2014 at 10:20 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 13, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Brakeman Wrote: It seems to me that a rapist has at least one distinguishing feature that can be psychologically tested, a lack of empathy. If you simply classify a lack of empathy a dangerous sociopathic mental illness that requires quarantine, then the rapist can be legally confined until he is not a risk to the public.

Lets classify being brakeman a dangerous sociopathic mental illness that requires quarantine.

How would you like that?

Oh Sonnyboy, just when I think you've hit a low in both stupidity and moral bankruptcy, just when I think you've utterly annihilated your own credibility, just when I think you couldn't be less respectable, you post a defense of rapists.

No words need be said.

(November 14, 2014 at 12:54 am)TRJF Wrote: protect people from serious ham

Like this?

(November 13, 2014 at 10:28 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 13, 2014 at 10:22 pm)Brakeman Wrote: I bet you had to use both of your brain cells working together to come up with that. Congratulations on the teamwork!

No...it only took one brain cell to come to the conclusion that you deserve to go to jail even though you have yet to commit a crime.

Here is a pro tip....I am being sarcastic if your too dumb to tell otherwise.

I understood what you meant the first time. You do know that every state in the United States commit people every day to mental institutions because they are considered a danger to themselves and others and not because the commit a crime.. I have a stepdaughter who's been through this procedure several times. She never committed or was charged with any crime.

I suggest you try it out, tell the next cop you see that you have a mental illness and you might hurt someone.. They are trained to ask you questions in order to evaluate your mental state. If they deem you a risk, they will arrest you without you committing any crime. They would then typically take you to a hospital and force you to submit to a mental examination by a doctor who would then recommend your incarceration. They would then call the judge on duty to take the doc's recommendation to commit you. Which he would..

(November 13, 2014 at 10:23 pm)Lao Shizi Wrote: In many states in the US, you can kill someone and be out in 7-10 years. I hardly think rape is more serious than actually killing someone.

I can think of some extreme cases when murder is morally justifiable. I can think of other more common cases where murder might not be morally justifiable but a crime done in the heat of the moment and therefore not by someone who's necessarily sociopathic.

I can't think of any condition where rape is either morally justifiable or considered a less severe crime because of a heat-of-the-moment circumstance. For this reason, I consider rapists inherently sociopathic and dangerous to society where a murderer might not be.

My recommendation for mandatory lengthy sentences (20+ years) is to protect society. Someone so sociopathic as to commit rape is a menace to that needs to be put away for at least the entirety of their youth. Someone so demented as to rape a child is so incurably sociopathic as to preclude any reasonable hope of rehabilitation and therefore that person needs to be locked away for the rest of their lives.

As for murder, it depends on the case, motive and the circumstances.

(November 14, 2014 at 8:02 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 12:54 am)TRJF Wrote: protect people from serious ham

Like this?

That's some seriously serious ham. I hope people have protection.

Once they have served their time, that should be it. If the punishment is insufficient, the court should have made it harsher in the first place.

(November 14, 2014 at 11:33 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Once they have served their time, that should be it. If the punishment is insufficient, the court should have made it harsher in the first place.

I was really looking forward to a ham joke. I am disappoint.

(November 14, 2014 at 11:33 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Once they have served their time, that should be it. If the punishment is insufficient, the court should have made it harsher in the first place.

Where I am from if you are not happy with the punishment, people complain to a paramilitary. The paramilitary would then carry out a punishment attack, usually in the form of kneecapping. During the troubles there was more of an effort by paramilitaries to catch local criminals than to do anything else. " More than 500 children, aged from 9-17 years, have been shot or beaten by paramilitary gangs in the past two decades. Even pensioners have been shot or beaten."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinio...34323.html

Do you think this is justified?

What on earth would make that justified?

I don't think it is right.