No I didn't make it, but I remember we were debating about death penalty in a thread which asked about death penalty in general, you probably are talking about it.
Unless this was just a bait to convince me to join the debate
[Discussion] Do You Support The Death Penalty For Rape?
- Thread starter Luther
- Start date
Unless this was just a bait to convince me to join the debate
Nah. I really thought you made it. I am not arguing with you again. We both know what other person is going to say and it's boring that way.No I didn't make it, but I remember we were debating about death penalty in a thread which asked about death penalty in general, you probably are talking about it.
Unless this was just a bait to convince me to join the debate
I shouldn't even be posting on it- loosing too much sleep over this stupid topic.
In the meanwhile another
You must be registered for see links
. We should start throwing them out of country. Maybe put them in a boat made of logs as an annual ritual + drop them near Italian ships passing by. ( Just kidding.. )The other guy who so authoritatively( self assumed of course) described rape as a mere sexual encounter and claimed that most cases are just girls lying about it belongs
You must be registered for see links
. ..People are extremely insensitive to the problem.
Last edited:
TheNormanConquest
Member
Your right but I've never raped someone. Now what does that have to do with the death penalty for a rapist? You sound like a rapist sympathizer for even saying said comment.
"It's ok guys, he regrets it"-but only because he was caught and may receive the death penalty.
"It's ok guys, he regrets it"-but only because he was caught and may receive the death penalty.
HashiraMadara
Active member
The fact above gives enough knowledge in the topic to know when you are being immature :sdo: Since here in South Africa many girls lie about rape(it's sentence is = life sentence) 25 years in prison awaits the "supposedly" offender. Judges have your sort of mentality and are often females who vengeful towards the "accused"...
Anyways since you indirectly shoved your point across, I need not to continue with this little skirmish...
Its a bit hard to gauge and opinionate into such matters when everyone lives in countries who's reality is so different. Culture, quality of life, etc all shape how we see such questions.
Living in a calm, civil and small country, which, if you exclude minor civil revolutions with little to no violence, hasn't had a war within its territory since 1807 when napoleon invaded us, has a way of skewing your mind into believing perhaps that most countries are like that.
Perhaps that innocence leads me to feel the Death Penalty as something so...extreme. I mean, solitary confinment and life imprisonment is for me a worse punishment than death. As such, I don't think it should exist. But I come from one reality and its that reality that shaped my own perception of this issue thus why I feel like that.
Yea right... What about guys? The male rape victim rate seems quite high too. The general stats I read put around 10 % males being victims. In SA it put some 19% of males in the list of victims.
Along with rapes that are done with the belief that it will cure aids. ( WTH???)
Last edited:
HashiraMadara
Active member
Do you believe corporal punishment should be reinstated in high schools?
Quality of life- living standards and education level make a lot of difference. Smaller relatively homogeneous population helps too.
We have patriarchy so much embedded in the psyche in name of personal customs that it will be a long time before many of the cultural dinosaurs get extinct. Conviction rate is too low and nobody gets death penalty for rape accept the victim who may end up a victim to honour killing or commit suicide under depression or under threats by rapists( to personal self or her family). More common in certain communities but still not limited to them.
Last edited:
HashiraMadara
Active member
I am rape victim my self :|. More correctly "molestation victim". My guardian was an old girl(next door) who used to experiment on me, at the time I found it normal and enjoyable. Imagine if now I would file in a rape against her :|. It's very easy to accuse someone.
My friend is a lawyer in one of the magistrates, we were chatting about this topic, most often than not: Parents file in statutory rape(kid younger than *** allowed age) reports while their kids simply dismiss it as "love". Many guys go to prison for that :sdo:. I will upload you a whatsapp screen shot...
I would ask it again what gives a state a "right", define "rarest of the rarest" in quantised form lastly would do it if given the honour
HashiraMadara
Active member
You must be registered for see images
What in the world??????? Tell me how is such attitude not racism :sdo: So you against the idea of cosmopolitan, diversity? homogeneous populations = no change, what so ever. Punctual equilibrium is helped by "change/difference", such would never be achieved living homogenously :sdo:
Ask him actual stats if he can provide i.e. how many of the case fall in this category and what's actual conviction rate for this category in particular and average conviction rate apart from it- lawyers talk a lot of generalized claims and general trends but these aren't the rapes that get serious consideration in court or maximum sentences.
Constitution. State has that right invested in it from get to go. Rarest of the rare is up for the court to decide based on the details of the case. But seeing only 3-5 people actually got the penalty in over a decade and others get their sentence reduced to jail time, it's not that common. More like keeping the option open and legitimate rather than going around inflicting it on daily basis.
Last edited:
What are you even talking about now? You are starting to confuse your terms.
"Deterrence is the use of punishment as a threat to deter people from offending."
That's how capital punishment is and was used. It does not work.
You must be registered for see links
You euthanize these people, believing that it will deter others from doing what they have done, but it won't.
But ah, what you really thought was that capital punishment is preventative? Crime prevention does not involve punishment. Capital punishment cannot be described as a preventative measure.
You must be registered for see links
These are the UN's basic guidelines for the prevention of crime:
1) Government leadership at all levels is required to create and maintain an institutional framework for effective crime prevention.
2) Socio-economic development and inclusion refer to the need to integrate crime prevention into relevant social and economic policies, and to focus on the social integration of at-risk communities, children, families, and youth.
3) Cooperation and partnerships between government ministries and authorities, civil society organizations, the business sector, and private citizens are required given the wide-ranging nature of the causes of crime and the skills and responsibilities required to address them.
4) Sustainability and accountability can only be achieved if adequate resources to establish and sustain programmes and evaluation are made available, and clear accountability for funding, implementation, evaluation and achievement of planned results is established.
5) Knowledge base strategies, policies and programmes need to be based on a broad multidisciplinary foundation of knowledge, together with evidence regarding specific crime problems, their causes, and proven practices.
6) Human rights/rule of law/culture of lawfulness the rule of law and those human rights which are recognized in international instruments to which Member States are parties must be respected in all aspects of crime prevention, and a culture of lawfulness actively promoted.
7) Interdependency refers to the need for national crime prevention diagnoses and strategies to take into account, where appropriate, the links between local criminal problems and international organized crime.
8) The principle of differentiation calls for crime prevention strategies to pay due regard to the different needs of men and women and consider the special needs of vulnerable members of society.
They deal with improving the socio-economic conditions. Capital punishment is not preventative; it is either a deterrent or what is called 'retributive justice,' which I think it is for you.
What? This is something the Americans say when they want to avoid building up their welfare state. Could you provide us with some evidence to support this claim?
You have patriarchy embedded in the psyche, huh? In 1915 my country reformed the constitution to give the vote to women, poor people, people without property of their own, and convicted criminals. This was also when we finally removed our monarch's ability to appoint a third of our then upper house in parliament. It has taken a hundred years to get to where we are today, and we were a relatively 'advanced' nation technologically even back then.
We had a feminist movement in the 1970s and 80s that gave women the right to free abortion, equal pay and more. That is not so long ago, and we could still do better, even today.
Patriarchy is not embedded in your psyche; you simply need to push socio-economic development and keep pushing. These things are frustrating, and they take decades, but they do work. Especially if you have nations and organizations around the world pushing you towards these goals, which you do.
We, in India, have been living in a diverse society for more than 2000 years.
Diversity is all fine and dandy but not without it's own challenges. When you have different groups with different philosophies then finding a common ground is that much of a work and number of compromises increase.
I am talking about legal theory. UN guideline is mostly made by Europeans so they obviously ignore what doesn't suit their latest philosophy.
And I don't remember asking advice on how to fight patriarchy. I simply said that it will take time.
?? I didn't get what you referred to here.
Last edited:
ZK, you're european. You're gonna deny that the countries with most issues atm happen to be the countries that have a big social and cultural gap between most of its individuals? Where because of their size and of those gaps, individuals group up within the country forming groups with an identity that collides with that of the country and thus lead to creating a disruptive presence within it?
Homogeneous doesn't mean all white catholics. >_> Means people with more or less the same education, money, living quality, etc. Has nothing to do with Race. Has to do with social integration. With people despite being different still living and integrating themselves within a large group, rettaining their individuality but not disrupting the group's identity.
My country has 10 million people. Most are catholic but about like 25% or so are protestant (or various religions), jews, jeovah witnesses and mormons. There are rich people and poor poeple but for the most part, the majority (around 85%) live more or less on the same level. We have tons of emigrants from Ukraine, Russian, Romain, Angola, Mocambique, Cabo Verde, Guine Bissau, perhaps comprising around 10 or so % of our active population at the moment. We are a poor indebted country, like everyone knows. With a background of slavery, religious extremism, extreme right wing dictatorships (like all mediterranean countries have). Etc etc. Despite all those backgrounds and religions, customs, past, etc people accept and adhere to the normal social conventions like "not killing your neighbour" >_> and why? Because being a smaller country helps in building that as it doesn't allow those that have either a different religion, a different education, a different social upbringing, living quality or wtv to form a group within the country that then identifies itself in such a different way that it collides with the freedom, liberty and well being of others. It creates more easily a homogeneous population.
Its not racist. Race has nothing to do with a homogeneous population. A homogeneous population refers to various individuals managing to form a homogeneous society when it comes to all the basic stuff. Law. Access to education, health, employment. Living quality. Money. It has to do with that. Not with everyone being of the same skin, eye and hair color, same religion and being drones.
In legal theory capita punishment is still not crime prevention.
And what kind of half-assed argument is that? "The Europeans made this, so meh." First of all, you present no evidence to support that claim, you're just making a grandiose statement with no basis. Second of all, saying that the UN Guidelines are mostly made by Europeans is simply factually incorrect. One of the reasons why the UN isn't harsher on many things is exactly because a ton of Conservative countries pull out its teeth on these kinds of guidelines.
You're being extremely defensive about this. The next time I disagree with something you have written, should I simply say "oh but you are Indian, your philosophy on this issue is just too backwards to have merit"?
That it takes time is my point exactly. Patriarchy is not embedded in your nation's psyche; you simply have a way to go yet. It is not so different form other countries who have had to undergo the same transformation.
To your first paragraph; no, I am not going to deny that. Admittedly when the word 'homogeneous' was used I assumed an ethnic focus. That is the way the term is used in popular media and in the political debate in my country.
But no, homogeneity does not mean white Catholics. My country is, for example, overwhelmingly Protestant.
By the way, a 10% population of immigrants and descendants of immigrants is not 'huge.' In my own country that number is 13% and we are still very ethnically homogeneous by our neighbors' standards.
But yes, homogeneity can certainly also be on a socio-economic level. But by that argument a ton of developing countries would be extremely heterogeneous simply because they have, for example, large levels of income inequality (high GINI coefficients) and similar, which has become the norm in such countries.
Last edited:
"3. Preventive Theory
The idea behind this theory is to keep the offender away from the society. The offenders are punished with death, imprisonment of life, transportation of life etc. Some Jurists criticize this theory as it may be done by reforming the behavior of criminals."
You must be registered for see links
You of course belong to reformist group. I believe in case by case issue and a combination of systems- if it feels like reform will work go for it. But there are cases we don't find it fits then go for prevention. ( result of living in a diverse society- we mix everything in our approach and often known for paradoxes)
Find a book on jurisprudence for more.
Last edited:
We obviously hae different views on what constitutes a preventative framework. Find a book on human rights for more.
But yes, by the definitions of that website I would be a reformist, as would the legal system of my country.
I would, however, like to quote the second sentence in that definition of preventive theory: "Some Jurists criticize this theory as it may be done by reforming the behavior of criminals."
So it was not as if, even by this standard, there was no merit to my argument.
And? You question the term I used. And I told you what it was. along witht he fact that it contrast with reformist theory.
I don't think reform work for everyone all the time and I would rather have my country have both of those option. We obviously have a disagreement over the issue but only you are getting so worked up trying to impose your belief or persuade me somehow. I didn't tell you to change your system, you are. That means:
I'm not selling anything to you - But you are trying to sell your pov. Try harder and more politely. ^^
As for human rights- All the rights come with riders. + Victims are humans too and state need to show it cares when they are taken away by a criminal for personal greed. Criminals cannot be the only one with human rights. I believe they forfeit it in proportion to their aggression.
Last edited:
But aren't those countries exactly the countries in which more issues happen when it comes to crime?
USA, Germany, France, UK, etc are all countries in which the richer are very very very much more richer (pardon the english) than the poorer and the average joes. Countries like Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, etc in which in average, people have a more balanced access to life quality, etc have lower crime rates.
Being Developed and being Homogeneous isn't exactly the same. It means that the biggest slice of the community (by overwhelming levels) has more or less the same social status (money, living quality, access to societal amenities, etc), regardless of personal, cultural or religious beliefs. Being Developed only means that your economy is stronger and more evolved and you have industry and what not.
Take Portugal. By those standards we are considered a pre-developed country. Yet, in terms of life quality, we top the charts in most areas. We have far less social issues than...idk...the USA for example.
10% of a population originating from another country is a big slice when you consider we are a tradicional, mediterranean, latin, supposedly undeveloped country with a 12,2% unemployment rate. It means 1 in 10 people are emigrants. Means that in a population of 10 million, 1 million aren't born here. Its a lot in social terms. Specially if you consider that we have around 5 million active citizens (basically, working ages), that figure becomes even bigger as most of those around 1 million are within the active citizen portion. With an expected life span or around 78, you see that a big portion of our active population isn't exactly "national".
Yet, we manage. Because we are talking about a smaller population which in turn facilitates that homogenity that is crucial to living in "peace" and without crime. Perhaps thats why for me personally, death penalty is something so...mind blowing. We rarely face that issue here. We don't have situations where that applies. In a way, my opinion might not even be qualifiable due to that.
Depends on the context in which it is used. I direct your attention, again, to the second sentence... plus the UN's guidelines on crime prevention. Again, you're not talking about the issue, just semantics and even that is a stretch.
Hah! Politely? Pot calling the kettle black. You should take a look at your own language before you start throwing that around. Maybe you should try harder not sling accusations and baseless statements around. You're supposed to be an example to other members as a member of the staff, are you not?
Seriously, you did not go into this discussion because I was trying to impose something on your country. We were discussing whether rapists deserve capital punishment, we disagreed, and you have gone from "it works" to "well, it works in my country."
It doesn't. It does not deter, it does not prevent. What it does is kill, and that is all.
They forfeit their human rights by their aggression? Then what is the point of human rights? It is the same argument Erdogan just used to suspend human rights in Turkey. It was not right then, and it is not right now.
You are comparing countries that should not be compared as thus. Inequality in the US is very, very different from inequality in Germany, the UK and France, foremost because their GINI coefficients are very different and also because France and Germany at least have well-developed welfare states. Switzerland is another story entirely.
You also have to be careful with comparing countries like this. Income inequality can be nominal or net, and it does not necessarily take income transfers into account.
But there is a definitive correlation between being developed and being homogeneous. You are right that a growing middle class contributes to homogeneity, but it is not so easy.
And in a universal welfare state everyone has access to those things, despite religion, ethnicity, etc. That has nothing to do with being homogeneous.
What? Why would you be pre-developed? Maybe I am not following your argument. And you are not at the top of the charts in quality of life. And that depends on how you look at social issues. I do not know the percentages of poverty in Portugal for example, and even if I did to compare them to the US would require us to account for differences in living standards, costs of living, how the country defines poverty, etc. It is not so easy.
In my country we are 5.5 million and those 13% fill just as much. But wait, you mean to say that 10% are people who immigrated to Portugal within this generation? You are not including descendants?
I think you are overestimating the effect of 'homogeneity.' Even if the population was very different in terms of political affiliation and income we do live in democracies, both of us. Compromise is a part of that.