Yes, Cotty, but your argument against the death penalty was because it's
irreversible. So is physical castration. Neither is acceptable to
civilised people because of the high possibility of judicial error.
I read somewhere that since the introduction of DNA testing, it has been
found that 30% of convicted "rapists" who have been tested were in fact
shown to be innocent. This was in the US.
Even in the best countries the rate of wrongful convictions is
frighteningly high.
The US is the only western country that retains the death penalty. Guess
which western country has the highest murder rate. So much for
deterrence. The only successful deterrent is the certainty of getting
caught.
John
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:29:29 -0000, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I've got it right at last..hear, hear!
I thought of saying something here about the deterant effects of the
death penality, but decided not to.
Jack
--- Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/1/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:
>> Which is why we don't have the death penalty. Execution is too
drastic.
>> Chopping nuts off is fine.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Cotty
>
>
>As long as they're not yours, I imagine.
Thanks John, i've been waiting all night for this one:
'You'll have to sew 'em back on first' ;-)
If I was guilty, I would expect no mercy. If I lived in Iran and
shoplifted, I would have a hand removed. By living there, I would
understand the consequences of my actions. With castration as a
deterrence, sexual preversions against children would diminish.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com
_____________________________
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
