|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Oct 13, 2011 12:01:01 GMT -5
Because, let's face it, pederasts are famous for using cunning: I wouldn't see it beyond these people to attempt to leg it, or in the case of a country like Russia, use bribery to have someone say they've been getting the injections. Again, how is that any different from any other form of parole they can be put on? At all? A parolee can always try to R-U-N-N-O-F-T, the potential for bribery exists so long as they have to check in with a human being, etc. Kiddy fiddlers, at least in the states, already have parole conditions that restrict their contact with children (to my knowledge). If a parolee wants to leg it, they will. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 13, 2011 14:48:41 GMT -5
Because, let's face it, pederasts are famous for using cunning: I wouldn't see it beyond these people to attempt to leg it, or in the case of a country like Russia, use bribery to have someone say they've been getting the injections. Citation, motherfucker, do you have one? Back up your argument with facts. Citation of what you dumb cunt? That they're criminals? The fact that they've been convicted doesn't spell that out loud for you? WHAT I have been saying is that there is still a chance that, as criminals, there's a very good chance that, once out of jail, they will offend again. Funnily enough, criminals do that, or is that news to you? ETA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_ratesNow let's consider that Russia is larger than the United States (want a citation for that too?) and therefore, with more people there can be more crime, ergo, there can be more sex offenders being released. Are you seriously saying that they will all continue to take the injections voluntarily, or not leg it at the first opportunity? Or don't you think criminals do such things? |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 13, 2011 14:54:12 GMT -5
Because, let's face it, pederasts are famous for using cunning: I wouldn't see it beyond these people to attempt to leg it, or in the case of a country like Russia, use bribery to have someone say they've been getting the injections. Again, how is that any different from any other form of parole they can be put on? At all? A parolee can always try to R-U-N-N-O-F-T, the potential for bribery exists so long as they have to check in with a human being, etc. Kiddy fiddlers, at least in the states, already have parole conditions that restrict their contact with children (to my knowledge). If a parolee wants to leg it, they will. Yes, I know they will, that was my point in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 15:57:01 GMT -5
Citation, motherfucker, do you have one? Back up your argument with facts. Citation of what you dumb cunt? That they're criminals? The fact that they've been convicted doesn't spell that out loud for you? WHAT I have been saying is that there is still a chance that, as criminals, there's a very good chance that, once out of jail, they will offend again. Funnily enough, criminals do that, or is that news to you? ETA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_ratesNow let's consider that Russia is larger than the United States (want a citation for that too?) and therefore, with more people there can be more crime, ergo, there can be more sex offenders being released. Are you seriously saying that they will all continue to take the injections voluntarily, or not leg it at the first opportunity? Or don't you think criminals do such things? A citation that there is greater number of criminals who are sentenced to chemical castration fleeing then if they were not sentenced to chemical castration. The US is a great natural experiment because some states here perform it and other states don't perform it. This really is not a hard thing. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 13, 2011 18:21:28 GMT -5
Citation of what you dumb cunt? That they're criminals? The fact that they've been convicted doesn't spell that out loud for you? WHAT I have been saying is that there is still a chance that, as criminals, there's a very good chance that, once out of jail, they will offend again. Funnily enough, criminals do that, or is that news to you? ETA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_ratesNow let's consider that Russia is larger than the United States (want a citation for that too?) and therefore, with more people there can be more crime, ergo, there can be more sex offenders being released. Are you seriously saying that they will all continue to take the injections voluntarily, or not leg it at the first opportunity? Or don't you think criminals do such things? A citation that there is greater number of criminals who are sentenced to chemical castration fleeing then if they were not sentenced to chemical castration. The US is a great natural experiment because some states here perform it and other states don't perform it. This really is not a hard thing. Well, how can I tell you that if it's only just passed through the Duma? The process has only just started in Russia. My point is, and I still haven't heard you say anything to answer it, what is there to say this will work? What is there to say that pederasts, upon release, will not simply disappear again? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 20:59:41 GMT -5
You seem to think I'm arguing against your point rather than your argumentative technique. Silly little man. And you still don't get it, you can look at someplace where it has already taken effect. Kind of like how we in the States can say gay marriage won't ruin society because we can point to Canada. You can point to one of the many states in the US that have imposed chemical castration, such as Texas or Oregon or Georgia, and look at its effects. But, you have not taken advantage of this information for some reason. It would do a great job of backing up your point, or maybe it would refute you entirely and put your concern to rest. I don't know. I don't personally care about that, what I do personally care about is shit argumentation.
ETA: typo
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Oct 13, 2011 21:02:41 GMT -5
Yes, I know they will, that was my point in the first place. They why not do it? |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Oct 13, 2011 22:15:44 GMT -5
If it is offered as a voluntary option for parole, and it is shown to work, then I have no problem with it. However, I am not at all comfortable with the idea of the government forcibly requiring convicts to take any medication as a condition of punishment. As others have said: This. Setting aside the human rights issues involved with forced medication (not to diminish their importance), I'm concerned about the effectiveness of chemical castration. It's already been pointed out that sex crimes aren't simply a matter of attraction and arousal. Like I said earlier, I need to do more research before forming a concrete opinion, but for now, I can't help wondering if the psychological aspects of child molestation aren't going to manifest themselves through other antisocial behaviors, if not lead the individual to molest again despite being unable to maintain an erection/physical arousal. I'll do some googling, and see if I can dig up some more info on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 14, 2011 17:58:16 GMT -5
You seem to think I'm arguing against your point rather than your argumentative technique. Silly little man. And you still don't get it, you can look at someplace where it has already taken effect. Kind of like how we in the States can say gay marriage won't ruin society because we can point to Canada. You can point to one of the many states in the US that have imposed chemical castration, such as Texas or Oregon or Georgia, and look at its effects. But, you have not taken advantage of this information for some reason. It would do a great job of backing up your point, or maybe it would refute you entirely and put your concern to rest. I don't know. I don't personally care about that, what I do personally care about is shit argumentation. ETA: typo No you obtuse bastard, I'm saying that how can this be seen to be effective when, and I'm going to have probably use small words for your somewhat limited intelligence (those last two you can look up int he d-i-c-t-i-o-n-a-r-y) when there is a good chance that a criminal will simply run off and disappear when released. I release that an arrogance as great as your probably can't comprehend that Vene, but at least try: Prior to this I had respect for you, I now see it was misplaced. ETA: Now get your head out of your arse and answer me this: What's to say that they won't run off and reoffend, or are you too arrogant to think that will never happen? And do you really need a citation to tell you that *shock* bribery exists in Russia? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 14, 2011 18:24:09 GMT -5
You seem to think I'm arguing against your point rather than your argumentative technique. Silly little man. And you still don't get it, you can look at someplace where it has already taken effect. Kind of like how we in the States can say gay marriage won't ruin society because we can point to Canada. You can point to one of the many states in the US that have imposed chemical castration, such as Texas or Oregon or Georgia, and look at its effects. But, you have not taken advantage of this information for some reason. It would do a great job of backing up your point, or maybe it would refute you entirely and put your concern to rest. I don't know. I don't personally care about that, what I do personally care about is shit argumentation. ETA: typo No you obtuse bastard, I'm saying that how can this be seen to be effective when, and I'm going to have probably use small words for your somewhat limited intelligence (those last two you can look up int he d-i-c-t-i-o-n-a-r-y) when there is a good chance that a criminal will simply run off and disappear when released. I release that an arrogance as great as your probably can't comprehend that Vene, but at least try: Prior to this I had respect for you, I now see it was misplaced. ETA: Now get your head out of your arse and answer me this: What's to say that they won't run off and reoffend, or are you too arrogant to think that will never happen? And do you really need a citation to tell you that *shock* bribery exists in Russia? But will the rate change? You don't know if it will or will not. You have provided absolutely zero rationale not based on your own biases. I've given you something very easy to look up which can confirm whether or not your fear has any basis in reality, but you have not done so. Instead you apparently prefer to insult me. I know full well there will be people who try to flee or bribe others, which makes your statement that I don't think it will ever happen baffling. Anyways, let's make this a direct question, I'm even going to bold it. What evidence do you have that suggests chemical castration as a form of punishment will lead to those convicted of child molestation to flee when they wouldn't have if another form was used instead? I don't want anecdote, I want numbers, if you respond with anything other than numbers, you are not answering my question. I've already stated a way to find something that can back up your point, but you refuse to use it for some reason. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 15, 2011 4:49:02 GMT -5
No you obtuse bastard, I'm saying that how can this be seen to be effective when, and I'm going to have probably use small words for your somewhat limited intelligence (those last two you can look up int he d-i-c-t-i-o-n-a-r-y) when there is a good chance that a criminal will simply run off and disappear when released. I release that an arrogance as great as your probably can't comprehend that Vene, but at least try: Prior to this I had respect for you, I now see it was misplaced. ETA: Now get your head out of your arse and answer me this: What's to say that they won't run off and reoffend, or are you too arrogant to think that will never happen? And do you really need a citation to tell you that *shock* bribery exists in Russia? But will the rate change? You don't know if it will or will not. You have provided absolutely zero rationale not based on your own biases. I've given you something very easy to look up which can confirm whether or not your fear has any basis in reality, but you have not done so. Instead you apparently prefer to insult me. I know full well there will be people who try to flee or bribe others, which makes your statement that I don't think it will ever happen baffling. I never said once that I don't think it will ever happen: Please point out where, beyond your imagination, I did. And as to insults - you called me "Motherfucker". If you can't take it, don't start it. Why do I need a citation? How dim are you? I put forward that there is, I believe, a danger that they'll simply leg it once out: That's not unusual in criminals, or do you not read the news? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 15, 2011 5:17:48 GMT -5
To the person who asked me the question in confidence;
It seems to be yet ANOTHER example of someone who would rather argue about ephemeral minutiae and semantics rather than addressing the underlying point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Oct 15, 2011 10:49:37 GMT -5
Why do I need a citation? How dim are you? I put forward that there is, I believe, a danger that they'll simply leg it once out: That's not unusual in criminals, or do you not read the news? So are you arguing against parole in general? What are you getting at here? Yes, a percentage of criminals will, when let out, re-offend. And a percentage of parolees will flee or bribe their way out of having to follow their conditions. So? This risk exists with or without having chemical castration on the table. Now, if it were demonstrably more likely by a statistically significant figure that a parolee would flee if they had to get chemical castration injections as part of their check-ins, then yes it would be an important factor to consider. However, since the theory (hypothesis?) at work here is that chemically castrating them is a non-permanent way to remove their desire to re-offend, saying "it might make people run away more maybe possibly I think" isn't a great argument. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 15, 2011 18:16:06 GMT -5
Why do I need a citation? How dim are you? I put forward that there is, I believe, a danger that they'll simply leg it once out: That's not unusual in criminals, or do you not read the news? So are you arguing against parole in general? What are you getting at here? Yes, a percentage of criminals will, when let out, re-offend. And a percentage of parolees will flee or bribe their way out of having to follow their conditions. So? This risk exists with or without having chemical castration on the table. Now, if it were demonstrably more likely by a statistically significant figure that a parolee would flee if they had to get chemical castration injections as part of their check-ins, then yes it would be an important factor to consider. However, since the theory (hypothesis?) at work here is that chemically castrating them is a non-permanent way to remove their desire to re-offend, saying "it might make people run away more maybe possibly I think" isn't a great argument. Well you see, that's my problem: I want longer, tougher sentences for sex offenders. As I stated earlier, there seems to be (globally) this weird idea that sex offences aren't that serious (in the eyes of the law) and all too often pederasts and rapists serve sentences that are derisory: We have one here who is due for release nine months after sentence was given. Instead, I'd go for say a mandatory 10 years for each offence, but have the chemical castration started soon (within a year) of them starting their sentences, that way after (and I have no idea how long it can be performed for) after a certain number (at least 10) years, there's a greater chance they won't reoffend if the drugs have taken effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Oct 16, 2011 0:31:58 GMT -5
[Modhat == 1]
Scotsgit, you have failed to answer a direct question (with either what was asked for or with response saying (why) you won't) that not only has been asked multiple times, but that has been asked by multiple people. As such I have no real option other than to give you an Official Warning™ as per The Rules™.
[Modhat == 0]
|
|
