Best way to punish sex traffickers?

Post Reply New Topic

OK, tell me how that'll help?

How will torturing these people, these offenders, how will that do anything, out of curiousity. We've executed criminals for thousands of years and continue to do it, I'm just stuck on the logic behind this since there are countless numbers of examples in history where the punishment does nothing. It seems people want to 'punish' out of their own sick desires, OR, out of their illogical emotional states during the decision to 'deal with them.' You dont want anyone to be raped but as soon as someone does, the gates open and everyone can rape THAT person. Is this what we're suggesting?

IF so, karma will catch up to them. It might not be exactly 'rape' for them but they will get something.

Yes, that's what I'd suggest, it's an eye for an eye. If he doesn't wanna get raped, then he should bear that in mind when he's thinking about raping a woman or molesting some kid. Bleeding heart passiveness never helped get the point across to these types of people either, the only way to get through is to reach them on their level. Punishment for crimes is neccessary for a disciplined society. And the punishment needs to be equal to the crime committed.

Lets suppose (make believe here) they managed to catch Hitler before he either died or ran away, would you be opposed to them killing him? Killing him wouldn't even be an eye for an eye, Hitler killed millions of people. Hitler was only 1 person, his 1 life doesn't equal the lives of the millions he killed. The only way to even out the situation and give him a punishment equal to the damage he caused, is to slowly torture him until he died from the pain.
You could cry a river for him saying how "inhumane" it is to do this to him, but, how humane was the deaths of all those millions of innocent people he gassed and shoved in ovens? See? Therefore it is my opinion that he deserves what he gets.

Can I ask, in regards to the raping, what about the person who actually DOES the torturing? Are they supposed to enjoy it because he is getting "revenge" or is he supposed to ignore it because you're not supposed to morally 'do' that?

In regards to hitler,
1) thats a big difference between a rapist and a dictator causing a war, slaughtering millions of jews, etc.
2) to be honest, I cannot answer right now, give me some pondering time as this is a good question

They should be sent to prison and placed in a recovery program. If possible, the value of their assets should be used to finance the recovery of their victims too.

Kevin.

Nothing else seems to work, and it is just.

I, personally, think the problem is mentally and that should be the punishment, remove his brain (no, just make him stop being a douche)

Then he'd just be dead. I think that some of these rapes that a**holes engage in are worse than murder.

An "eye for an eye" rarely works as a deterent. The Roman policy of 10 eyes for an eye however gets the point across.

those who like the 'eye for an eye' punishment, outside of material possessions (so reclaiming 500 that was stolen from you), I get this impression that, while this criminal was being punished, you're standing there, on the sidelines, cheering it on. Are you against it or for it?

Against his punishment or his crime?

Both. If you're against his crime then surely you're against using his crime as punishment. You're telling society that 'rape is bad' but we're going to 'rape you' should you do it, despite the fact we think its bad.

My point is that while he is being punished, the reality of 'now' is that those who are doing the punishing are essentially turning their back on their views just to make someone feel pain.

I'm thinking that yourself, and others who support this, are simply thinking that everything is in a neat little package providing this person feels pain when, in essence, nothing has changed. Whoever was raped is still raped and dealing with it.

No, because it's ok if your doing back to them what they did to someone else first. Murder is wrong, but murdering a murderer who is known, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to be a murderer, isn't wrong, it's justice.
Yeah, the rape victim does still have to live with the rape, but, atleast they get the satisfaction of seeing justice served. And, it would send a powerful message to others who might would think about raping women/children.

I think this sounds more like an assumption.

Who said its "ok" to do it back to them? Most beliefs consider murder to be 'wrong' and do not make exceptions. Most countries in the world do not use a death penalty which is only consistent with history - the death penalty is declining, not increasing, in use.

I find this 'satisfaction' one would achieve to be a bit 'uneasy.' I think 'you' (generally speaking) are enjoying the torture of someone, it doesnt matter what they DID. It, at this point of discussion, is ALL about what is happening NOW. Thats not justice, thats revenge. You're enjoying someone being killed or raped, whether they did it or not. I'm thinking its almost like "yes, we get to do it because someone broke the law which makes it 'ok' for us to rise above the law and do it." (yes, I know thats not true, but raising above the law is - I think you cant 'break the law' to 'serve the law' (self defence is covered here))

As well, you can see by looking at America that states with a death penalty enjoy higher homicide rates so it isnt a deterent. In some asian countries, drug trafficking results in the death penalty yet people still do it. Deterent? That last example has the punishment far outweighing the crime yet, people still do it (the punishment/crime, in this case, is actually CAUSING the crime to happen - its happening here right now with the drug laws and was most noticable during prohibition).

I'm seeing a lot of 'revenge' type responses. If someone were to steal 500 dollars from someone else and is caught, we dont "steal" 500 back, we make them pay it either through earnings or work. I imagine we dont break into their house and retake 500 dollars back while 'returning a favour' to them, teaching them a lesson which will most likely have the opposite effect.

I'd like to think 'revenge' works but I find that, in my personal experience, that after someone hits me and I hit them back, they hit me a second time. Am I to hit them a second time? And if so, that may result in an illogical '3rd' hit. The only reason the 'death penalty' would be effective is because the person is dead.

What do I PROPOSE? tough question and one that ties into a lot of 'mental theories' and current 'theories.' One clear example of ridding of a lot of street crime is poverty - its quite clear a lot of crime is resulting from the bottom of the ladder. Deal with that then we can we hit the drawing table with the crime thats left. It would provide people fewer reasons to commit such acts

I want weregeld, or blood of the family.

Seriously, I just don't actually believe in either punishment or revenge. Yeah, when you're wronged you want revenge. And yes, it's natural to want to punish criminals. All the same, it doesn't seem any more 'sane' then going to war does; or starting bar fights. The only arguments that can sway me are the protection afforded to society, the effect on the people as a whole, and the issue of recidivism. The second issue includes the cost of whatever sentance is applied, as well as the moral effects. Note that societies which condone the death penalty are generally more violent, so by imposing it, it is possible that you are only making the situation worse.

punishment does not "even things out". 1+1=2, not 0.