Yup - execution. Is that your suggestion?

Seems counter to Conservative Man's "Christian" approach and "'Vengence is mine,' sayeth the Lord, 'I will repay.'"

As I said before, cut off a third of the genitalia for each convicted capital offence and recidivism among rapists will approach the same rate as incarcerated rapists... without the associated economic and social costs involved with keeping them locked up.

:)

Seriously.

execution, exile, corporal punshment have been the means of dealing with rapists and murderers in times gone by. Jail as anything other than a holding mechanism was pioneered in Victorian times.

So getting rid of Jails and going back to pre-Victorian times is a solution? Let just execture them or send them to Australia!

What if they are already in Australia?

Then they have no choice but execution?

Send them to the suburbs of Detroit, and wall them in.

Nobody else is there. They might be able to build a sustainable society there. Where's the risk?

I thought was New York and LA that we wall into ultra max death zones in the future. I don't remember Snake visiting Detroit.

@Spyman: "Well then, Conservative Man, what should done with rapist?" Nothing. God will punish him. (Unless he repents and accepts Jesus)

"@Spyman: "Well then, Conservative Man, what should done with rapist?" Nothing. God will punish him. (Unless he repents and accepts Jesus)"

If you caught a rapist in the act, what would you do?

@Ghost: Try to rescue the girl without seriously hurting anyone. (And if the rapist attacked me for it, then I would seriously hurt him in self-defense.)

And if you caught the rapist, who had previously raped, chasing a woman down an alleyway, what would you do?

@Ghost: The same

So we accept the principle of preventing rape, we even accept the principle of preempting an attack by a rapist, so do we accept preventing rapes from occurring by use of jail, both as a direct barrier, for rehabilitation and for deterrence?

@Ghost: Of course not. Jail is a violent means of preventing rape. I would not use violence on the rapist unless he attacked me, which would make the violence self-defense.

"@Ghost: Of course not. Jail is a violent means of preventing rape. I would not use violence on the rapist unless he attacked me, which would make the violence self-defense."

But you were going to rescue the girl- how would you achieve that without using violence?

I would try to grab the girl and bring her to safety. If the rapist tried to stop me, I would defend myself. (Which would be violent, but it's in self-defense)

So you'd wait for the rapist to knock you unconscious before you fought him?

I'd wait for him to try to knock me unconscious.

Okay. I don't see the need to press this issue further.

(needless to say, the idea that you would let a woman be raped because you don't want to be violent towards the rapist makes me feel nothing short of disgust.)

@Ghost: No, I do want to be violent toward the rapist, that is why I'd try to make it self-defense, so it is not a sin.

But defense of others apparently is a sin.

No, it just has to be non-violent defense of others unless you are defending yourself to. (Which is what I would aim to do; make the rapist attack me.)

Why is it immoral to use force to defend someone else?

"Love your neighbor as yourself". Non-violent defense is the only way you could love both of them.

I think what conservative man is getting at is that jail is violent, And to prevent violence by committing violence is silly. like fucking for virginity or bombing for peace.

edit :to prevent violence by committing SYSTEMIC violence is silly.

I should point out that forbiding something we know humans will do (murder assault rape) is profoundly stupid. Don't do this thing we know some of you will do or we will punish you.
Before people would focus on how to miniize the damage from these acts while not living in the la-la land of thinking forbiding them is realistic.

Sicarius +1