And it's still more choice than the children had.It's a choice under duress, that's not a valid choice. It's coerced. It's also barbaric.
Immaterial, we have a legal system not a torture system.And it's still more choice than the children had.
Then why bother? Just hang them.And it's still more choice than the children had.
I didn't realize that fucking a child and getting mugged had any correlation at all.Greenman, probably: "No one is forcing you to hand over your money to the mugger. You could just choose to get shot."
I'm not a fan of the death penalty, though I would support that as an option the perpetrator could choose.Then why bother? Just hang them.
The perp is already in prison so this isn't about the child, is it?I'm not a fan of the death penalty, though I would support that as an option the perpetrator could choose.
It's to illustrate the "freedom of choice" - a concept you seem to be unable to grasp, seeing as how you seem to believe it exists when someone either chooses a medical procedure or gets 3-5 extra years in prison. A choice made under duress is not a free choice. You cannot ethically perform medical procedures on people without informed consent. It has nothing to do with what they might have done or might do in the future.I didn't realize that fucking a child and getting mugged had any correlation at all.
You fellows are welcome to bemoan the terrible consequences of child abuse, I'll continue to support the harsh penalties for the perps.
Wish you were this well-informed on more important topics.The law, as written, targets offenders found guilty of aggravated sex crimes, including rape, incest or molestation against a child under 13. The punishment would be brought in certain cases and at a judge’s discretion and the surgery would be completed by a physician. It will also require a court-appointed medical expert to determine whether the offender is the right candidate for the surgery.
An offender could refuse to get the surgery, but would then be sentenced to three to five years of an additional prison sentence without the possibility of getting out early.
The law doesn’t allow anyone under 17 found guilty of certain aggravated sex crimes to receive the punishment.
I don't think I have any problem at all with this. Fuck a child under 13, lose your nuts, or do an extra 3 to 5 years.
fuck this timeline. this universe better be a goddamn simulation at this point. small government at it again, apparently. your body isn't yours anymore, period. you're just a vessel of the state.
I didn't realize that fucking a child and getting mugged had any correlation at all.
You fellows are welcome to bemoan the terrible consequences of child abuse, I'll continue to support the harsh penalties for the perps.
Works for me. Lets make the minimum sentence for a conviction 25 years with no possibility of parole. I'd be good with that.You can continue to "support harsh penalties" while still operating within the confines of our laws and code of conduct/ethics.
"Your morals, your code are a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble."
Basket of deplorables indeedIsn't it so weird how the same guy that is very firm on the whole "shall not be abridged" part of the 2A is more flexible on the "cruel and unusual punishment" part of the 8A?
Better yet exile them to Mississippi a state even worse than Louisiana.Works for me. Lets make the minimum sentence for a conviction 25 years with no possibility of parole. I'd be good with that.
Works for me. Lets make the minimum sentence for a conviction 25 years with no possibility of parole. I'd be good with that.
Thats a weird line to have... public slow execution would serve as a warning too.I'm not a fan of the death penalty, though I would support that as an option the perpetrator could choose.
Greenman, probably: "No one is forcing you to hand over your money to the mugger. You could just choose to get shot."
Better yet exile them to Mississippi a state even worse than Louisiana.
Torture is never the answer, even for a predator that targets children. There are people that should be put down, but since it's a certainty that mistakes will be made, or evidence fabricated because of anger and hate, we can't take that chance. Incarceration is the only semi reversible punishment.Thats a weird line to have... public slow execution would serve as a warning too.
What would the Taliban or ISIS do?Vesting power in the state to coerce people into being mutilated doesn't sound like an inherently conservative position but the same people love the death penalty so we're really just talking about a revenge fetish here not justice.