I work in an area where I come into contact with the dregs society has to offer frequently. I have become increasingly frustrated with our politically correct, human rights orientated, mamsy pamsy approach to dealing with our social problems. I am not a facist and consider my ideals more in line with socialisim but for crying out loud we cant go on dealing with these people like they have the same values and respect for others that we do.

Criminals - They constantly abuse our human rights and invade our privacy but they are still allowed to be protected by those same laws they constantly ignore. Surely once you have been convicted of a criminal offence then you are no longer protected by those laws for the next 5 years and only when you have stayed out of trouble for 5 years can you then rejoin the protection of human rights. Police should be allowed to search a convicted criminal (during the 5 years following their conviction or end of there sentence) you whenever they want and should be allowed to search your house whenever they want until you have kept your nose clean for the required period. If you dont like it then fall in line with the rest of society and stop commiting crime!!!

Criminals tend to be produced by parents with a criminal history of their own - No statistic to quote - only an opinion developed through experience. Trusting criminals to raise children with strong morals is like trusting a politician to enter politics for the greater good and not for personal gain. What would be wrong with sterilizing those career criminals permanently to end the cycle?

I dont have children that I can't afford to look after properly - Why can't people on the dole only get their giros after taking a form of contraception pill (male or female) which will last until their next payment is due. Surely prevention is better than cure. Stopping children being born into poverty has to be a positive step.

I am no expert and know that there is always adverse effects to apparently simple solutions - I am open to suggestions and criticism - I just want to live in a society where people have respect for everyone and dont expect society to pay for their own existance like it is some god given right. If you want a comfortable ife go out and work for it like everyone else.

Sterilize the unemployed? I find that idea rather insulting to be honest. In some places there are just arent enough jobs to go round and some people, through no fault of their own find themselves without employment, so you would punish them for that?

"Sterilise the criminals"? Does that mean bankers and politicians, war-mongers and multi-national CEO's, cos they're the biggest criminals around?

"Criminals tend to be produced by parents with a criminal history of their own". BS. My experience of life proves otherwise.


The only time I would advocate sterilisation for anybody would be for paedophiles, and even then only after very careful consideration

In my opinion, that is an extremely right wing argument above and far removed from the premise of any kind of socialist way of thinking.

Crime or unemployement are NOT geneticly planted in a person lol. Who ever came up with that idea? I feel we're all a prduct of our surroundings, meaning that if you're unlucky enough to be born in the wrong place, crime is almost predestined. Take the slums of San Salvador and MS13 as example. There is nothing wrong with those people geneticly, and yet, MS13 or 18th street is a certainty there at a certain age with all the shite things that come with it. Same for unemployement. In many cases unemployement and the neighbourhoods with high crime go hand in hand. You might almost say that for those people without jobs in ghetto-like neighbourhoods, crime is the only alternative. Solving that problem to revive certain neighbourhoods do exist, but in too many cases are scratched because of budget cuts everywhere. Its a circle tho, politicians dont really care to solve it because "they're only criminals and drug addicts" and the people living there can only dream of getting help, and as long as nobody does something about it, crime stays where it is, and the politicians keep their argument of 'only criminals'. And the status quo remains in place.
If im not mistaken, in the late 1920's the US (some states at least) and many other countried had a policy of eugenics if i remember correct that implied forced sterilisation. My question in this all is this : if you start with forced sterilisation, where does it end? If you do that you directly imply that children automaticly end up as their parents. So, why keep their parents around then? i mean, the step from sterilisation to killing the lot is a very small one once you take the first big leap of forced sterilisation. And since kids automaticly end up as their parents then, should we not take everyone out of society now that has criminals in their family? Whats gonne be left? Remember the nazi's? They're the ones that drove eugenics to the top. They started with criminals and jews, then the political opponents, next were gipsies and in the end even their own intellectual elite for the simple reason they were ones that had sane arguments to oppose them. And before you start off with saying hitler was a monster, wich is well true, i ask you this : what is it exactly what made him a monster? The practice that started with the same idea as the one asked here. Is it ok to remove the ones that you feel are geneticly 'less' worthy.
And a last word about unemployement. Since it will be the more fortunate ones that can descide who gets sterilised, dont you even find it a bit twisted to have a system of forced sterilisation that is enforced by the so called lucky few, while it is just those lucky few that set the stage for an economic disaster like the last recession. Talking about Nazi's revisited.

how long after being unemployed should we temporarily sterilize the unemployed ? I will be unemployed next tuesday i get made redundant so i will be unemployed .Where are all these jobs that everyone thinks there is ? a dislike how unemployed with loads of children end up having more when unemployed but thats another debate

Are you serious? That's the stuff of nightmares......Beyond 1984

I haven't bothered with the poll. The whole concept of social engineering on any scale, let alone to those extremes is totally repugnant to me.

you sound like you want everyone to conform to your Idea's of the world !!!
I'm a criminal..................I smoke pot................I'll never conform , to that and many other personal freedom laws

so you gonna sterilize me and the millions of others that do it?

good luck ....................this idea is gonna need it


now a better Idea would be to roll law back about 100 years
let even the law abiding have guns and allow them to shoot the ....... guy who breaks into your house [if you catch them in the act of course]
or the guy who molest you child , and ect..................

you don't stop lawlessness by giving the lawless more laws they will no doubt break
you fix it by enpowering the lawfull , with rules that don't make criminals out of them for defending themselves or family

as said I'm a criminal I smoke pot
but I've never stole [well as a child maybe some candy...........didn't we all ] or hurt anyone in anyway

I agree we need to do something................why do most committe crimes..............for money...........because they are poor

or because they where brain dead and joined a gang [in which case go for it...I'll bring the salt the put on the sore spot after you cut of their nut's ]
but the poor issue..................well every one being equal would solve it
as a socioty we not only put those rich out as special.............but we also make tv shows about how they live , with all the over the top shit they do and can afford..............then we wonder why Johnny robbed a bank.................well even johnny was smart enough to know he'd never live like Donald Trump................while cleaning his toilet , or serving his fries

just a thought

Considering what you define as a criminal sounds an awful lot like the government and its workers. I would suggest if you want such a change, you should initiate it yourself by becoming the first volunteer. Sterilization will not solve the unemployment problem nor will it help people with children from losing their jobs.

The same logic could be applied to saying you don't like stupid people and to solve the problem you would give them all lobotomies.

There is a serious lack of forethought here.

Do you really want this Utopia where unemployed will get sterilized, i don´t think it will fly with the people in general? As for criminals and poverty, they will always be around. Would this idea work? No.


I could agree to this opinion, for just paedophiles and repeated sexual offenders.

Is it just me or does the OP smack of some aspects of nazism? The nazis sterilized the unemployed masses (gypsies, mentally handicapped), and the sexually deviant to them (homosexuals). This isn't an attack on the poster, I just noticed the similarities.

you know what, i find this damn offensive and arrogant, i have stepkids and i am unemployed by no fault of my own and yes at the moment in my area there is a limited amount of work what about those with disabilities that can't work should they be sterilised too

also first rule on this site has the words no discrimination of any type...and to me this seems to fit the catagory of labeling theory discrimination and basically you just catagorised all us unemployed and people who have made mistakes in the past from the way i read it as wasters and no hopers

This is pretty much the most retarded thing I have ever read

i voted wrong to one of those questions silly me didn't read it properly i answered yes to revoking human rights for criminal i actually meant to tick no lol and i'm not going to get started on why

After letting my initial reaction to the idea settle, ugh. I find this morally disgusting. I have decided not to comment on the idea directly but use it as an example for a word of caution on all new forms of law.

When the main Bill passes into law it has set definitions and parameters of what and who it effects/covers. No doubt the Bill itself will attract huge media coverage and have serious debate. After that point Congress can tweak the definitions and parameters of this law in several ways, none of which usually get big media coverage if any at all. Meaning in the case of this idea they would be able to "discretely" add new groups of people to the list of those to be sterilized. So, sooner probably, than later you may find yourself smacked by the same law you voted for.

mmmm.....would the disabled be sterilized

Keep in mind that the BR is here to vent an opinion to test it against that of others, perhaps changing your opinion as you see certain arguments brought forward.

---

Acting irresponsibly happens across all social classes and across all income levels. Balancing a budget on their own is just hard for some people, as well as adapting to a lower income when you've been used to a certain lifestyle. The foreclosure crisis in the US is an example of that, or the draining of Dubai where airport parkinglots were filled with abandoned Ferraris as people flee the tough laws concerning late loan payments.

If we're gonna engineer humanity, give us a longer lifecycle so that we may learn wisdom instead of churning out unprepared baby-bonuses into this sick sad world.
Criminality is a result of perception.
Humans are emotional and act according to their own whims.
Criminals are often just kids who've been rorted by family and society, but have retained the knowledge and cunning to get by in this world.
If I could steal billions from multinational conglomerates and redistribute it to the poor, I would - criminal or noble?
Also, the sharing that goes on thru this forum is an ideal highlighting of the perception of what is criminal and what is just.
Inequality and isolation is the cause for most 'criminality' - a lash out against the society that promised to nurture and help you, but ends up only urinating on you.

A wholistic, connected, supportive society/community/planet might be incapable of producing unethical behaviour.
I think all anyone really wants is a drink, smoke, couch and to be free from judgement or interaction should they wish.
And that's not much of a bottom-line for any welfare system (national or communal) to unconditionally cater for.

I think you have that backwards my friend.

Define: Sterilization

Off the top of my head it would be performing a procedure that will remove someones ability to make children (reproduce). Google.

I believe my statement to be correct but I would be interested to learn why you reach your conclusion

The OP relies on his own opinion... unfortunately he makes a judgement that he is not ably equipped to do... every person has their own underlying issues - whether disabled, unemployed etc... Is it because he believes he is 'perfect' and that he would never come under the guises of 'not being normal'...??

I take my hat off to you...

I work with the majority that you have mentioned - it takes one small mistake to gain a world of hurt.. to lose everything and to end up on the wrong path in life..

I seriously hope it doesn't happen to you.. Have another look at what you've posted and then lay those rules on yourself...

Just to p*ss people off, and to explain why, I voted to temporarily sterilise the unemployed, as to be honest I'm sick of working like a dog to pay taxes to pay for them to pop out more and more kids they can't afford to support...

Revoking human rights for criminals? No problem with that, but it would depend on the crime, if they can't live by the law, why should they enjoy the protection of it?

Sterilising career criminals? Yep, but for certain offences, sterilising a burglar won't stop him doing it, but castrating a rapist will at least stop him performing again... then again, if you chop his head off full stop, he'll never hurt anyone again either....

And yes, I would wield the axe.

This is exactly why the masses, let alone the idiotic elite, should not be able to rule or create, pass, or approve laws. They think they know things.

Firstly, people probably have no idea what "temporary sterilization" is. For women, you can get away with and IUD or something, but for men, you pretty well have to use chemical castration, which would be androgen blockers and the like. The results of which include some characteristics of feminization including, lethargy, hot flashes, changes in mental patterning, gynecomastia, etc and if antiandrogens are used for more than six months, permanent sterilization is imminent. But then again, people who advocate it would say they just have six months to get a job. How are they supposed to get a job when their brains are being rewired and they are having mood swings?

Your taxes are based on how much you make, not on how many children someone has. That argument is highly flawed.

Well, considering you have no rights because a right is a legal claim to something and they can be revoked at anytime depending on the mood of the idiots in power. A crime also requires loss, injury, or harm to the complaining party so anything charged to you by the government is not technically a crime. That includes drug charges, traffic violations, etc. The law also does not provide protection, nor is the government or any derivative thereof required or obligated to protect you. There are statutes against almost everything you can think of, but that doesn't mean people don't break them. I would also consider many statutes to be extremely hindering and most of them are actually cash cows. And I would chalk up many of them to coercion and duress.

As for sterilizing career criminals, no. Firstly, sex crimes are not about sex, they are about power. They are not about an excess of testosterone. Considering that eunuchs are still capable of achieving erections. And even if he can't get it up, what is to stop him from using a baseball bat or a wine bottle?

As for just beheading those whose behavior you do not agree with, I would liken that to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong. Now, even if you did have the power, what makes your opinion any more valid than John Doe's down the street? None whatsoever.

You don't piss me off at all... I just think that you haven't been released into the real world yet...

People are defined by their traits... and sometimes they can get an awful battering by circumstances that they can no longer control - panic sets in and the first instinct is to survive... all decisions have repercussions... Don't think for one minute I condone any offence or crime - because I don't...

What I do believe are that people can go through different challenges in their life and will change.. although some won't.. but that's life..

Be employed - then .. oh no..!! I'm unemployed..!! I must be useless now..!! Grow up..!!

Nelson Mandela was a 'Criminal' - except he wasn't ... only within the eyes of those who wished him to be...

Oh deary, deary me....

By all means, pander to the useless, feckless and professional 'victim'.

To shatter the first illusion, I don't read the Daily Mail.

To shatter the second, I'm not some immigrant hating Sun reader.

I'm a 'normal' working man, sick of trying to to keep everything going (mortgage, bills etc) when there are 'professional' benefit claimants out there and those that are willing to protect them. Without trying to bang the drum, try reading a little, then try to understand without jumping on the soapbox.

Castrating rapists? A full, real castration (not chemical) should remove the drive to commit these crimes, they are not just about power, they are about sexual dominance. Remove the drive for sexual dominance and you should remove the desire to excercise that power over others. Failing that, as I said, take the large head off, not the little one. Barbarian I may be, but if one of your relatives had suffered something as horrific as this, you may modify your view slightly.

I did wonder how long it would take for someone to play the 'Hitler' card. You were faster than I thought. Did I advocate beheading those who don't agree with me?? At any point??

Errr, no. I advocated taking the head off rapists who can't be controlled. Yes, I did use the word control. Some people can't control themselves, so for the good of the public, they should be controlled. Human rights violation? What about the right of the 'man/woman on the street' to live their lives not in fear?

Get a grip.

If the masses can't try to protect themselves, who do you think should do it?

Tank-top wearing, bearded Grauniad readers with a degree in sociology??

They've done a fantastic job so far haven't they??

Grow up?? I did, I took the blinkers from my eyes and saw the full horror of todays society, saw first hand those that won't/can't live in a civilised society, and those willing to cry 'human rights violation' to protect them.

would be a start
by the way could it be greed and corruption that breeds so much criminal bahavior

uh do you mean the financiers and bankers seem all our taxes went to them (U.S.A ,Europe,parts of asia)wall street,frankfurt,london,tokio,


sounds like fascism to me

While bankers are guilty of much, it's the greed of the people unwilling to work that is crippling the country. We now spend more in welfare than we take in in tax.....



I suppose, sadly, it does sound like that.

To clarify, as I suppose I should, seeing as there are so many who are willing to interpret things to suit their own ends, instead of how they are intended.

I am a firm believer in the welfare state, where it acts as a safety net for those that need help.

I'm not a believer in helping those that seem to think that the country owes them a living, those that think they have a right to have children that the rest of us must pay to support, or those that, because they refuse to even entertain a job. continue to make massive demands on the welfare state to support them.

I do not believe that, if individual is willing to commit crime and therefore violate the human rights of others, said individual should then hide behind the human rights banner to protect them when they are caught.

Feel free to poke holes in these comments, but as you are doing so, think on this.

Those that some posters are arguing to protect; the feckless, lazy, arrogant spongers, the 'professional' benefit claimants or the career criminals who are only interested in themselves. These are the people that will take all the help you're willing to provide, and more, whether they need it or not, and then happily stab you in the back as soon as you are of no more use to them.

Blinkers and rose coloured glasses are fine things, but there is a place and time for everything.

Okay, lets get back to the topic at hand. Will sterilization make our society a better and safer place?
Easy enough answer, no. There is nothing genetic about crime. People commit crimes for different reason but none of those reasons are genetic.

Yes, it is true that a family with criminal parents has more chance to have criminal children. But that's the environment where those children grew up in. In order to help them, we shouldn't fix their parents. We should fix their surroundings. There is something as the "Broken window Theory". This theory states that when a neighbour falls in ruins, everything around in will follow suit. Meaning, a rise in crime, disease, ...
Sterilization is the aftermath of an idea that should have died with Criminologist Lombroso. He declared that people with a slender frame and low muscle amount will commit white collar crime. And that short more heavy bodied people will become charismatic leaders of criminal gangs. He also advocated the idea to sterilize criminals. According to him, it would end the cycle. Same thing for the death penalty. Useless, but the hungry mass demands it.

So as you see, sterilization is something ineffective that the masses demands. Because the masses always demand revenge for any given act. That's why effective help for people within criminal environment is hard to achieve. It would never be accepted within our society.

At the risk of upsetting the more sensitive, I beg to differ but the death penalty does work. For the one that has been executed. They certainly won't be comitting crime again.

It does form a deterrent, to those that have a conscience anyway. There are always those that think they won't get caught, so don't feel it's a possible outcome for them, or those deranged enough not to care.

To be honest, I've never even heard of Lombroso. Sounds like the kind of cr*p that some gov't grant aided 'think tank' comes up with though.

What would you describe as effective help? So far, the transition from Victorian hell-hole to cushy number hasn't helped lessen the recidivism of the career criminal. Barbaric as they were, Strangeways, The Scrubs and Armley were the sort of places that people didn't WANT to go back to, it was just an unfortunate outcome of getting caught. It wasn't preferable to life at home. Still, I'd imagine most career criminals do have a nice 52" flat screen TV at home now, not just in the cell...... even if it used to belong to someone who actually bought it.

There are no clear cut answers, each side has it's merits and detractions. Those that have suffered the depradations of these animals (sorry if that upsets the Grauniad readers, but if they can't abide by the rules of 'normal' society, they don't deserve any other title) would cheerfully see them dangle from a rope.

I do believe people can change, I've seen it, but how many chances do you plan to give them??

One? Two?? Ten? Wait until it's YOUR house they defile.

I know it's sad. I know it's extreme. Society has rules. Most of us abide by them, why are there so many people willing to defend those that won't??

Strange, I've been mugged 3 times and I still think that criminals require help instead of the current "put them in jail and it will improve" idea. The fact is that prison doesn't help.
All criminals believe that they won't get caught, so yelling death penalty and jail time won't help. It doesn't frighten them.

I'm not against the death penalty, I believe that for some it is the only solution. But only in extreme cases. I'm talking serial killers, nothing else. A paedophile shouldn't be sentenced to death. There are solutions, even for those people. Altho none of those solutions are popular.

Now, before you start talking about how cushy a cell is. Try visiting one for a change. Before you denounce an argument, look it up. Lombroso was one of the first criminologist, who decided that criminal behaviour was genetic. During the course of his independent research (The government didn't fund research back then.), he created the foundation for several theory's today. Which you would have know, if you googled.

Society has rules, and downloading is against them. Shall we sterilize every darksider after his or her conviction of illegal downloading?

Or consider that the rules of society are flawed. That the poor fall into crime because they have to survive. A poor health care system, unemployment ... You don't breed criminals. It's society that creates the need for crime. The high prices for dvd's, music, software and games have created illegal downloading.

Effective help is decreasing those peoples need to commit crime and increase their chances in life.

I'm the sort of sad person that thinks a cure for a mugger is an iron bar, but that's just me.

You've been mugged 3 times? How would you help a mugger?? If he's doing it to feed his family, there are systems in place to help, if he's doing it to feed a drug habit, then put him on a free programme to clean him up, and if he's stupid enough to go back onto drugs, it's his own fault. Life is about free will, at one point they chose drugs, there was a time when they weren't addicted, whatever the reasoning, it was free will they took up the habit. I had an interesting discussion on another board about the Swiss drug experiment, give them free heroin and they won't rob.... A fair point, but why should the tax-payer be penalised to support the habit of a waste of skin? I advocated the free drug programme option. Give them chance to straighten themselves, if they refuse to take it, or fall back into the habit. Deal with them. Terminally. Why waste money/time on those that will eventually kill themselves anyway, and blight the lives of many before they do?? If they want to take drugs, give them enough to REALLY enjoy themselves. You may have noticed that drug addicts are not my favourite people.

I got called a nazi that time too. Nazi's/fascists believed that the aryan race was paramount and to be protected, all others were sub-human, and tried to exterminate them. I've never proposed killing anyone for their race/gender/sexuality. Just for their criminal habits.

I'd happily give anyone a chance. Whatever their crime.

I did wonder when someone would bring the downloading into the argument, it was only a matter of time. Downloading an album I wouldn't buy anyway isn't doing anyone out of a quid or two for the CD (although admittedly it is illegal.... oops, naughty boy, bang me up next to the serial killer and career burglar). If I want something, I buy it. I've got an unflashed Xbox, games are cheap enough if you don't buy them within the first week or five of release (I've only just got onto Dead Space for example). CD's aren't that expensive, the original CD and DVD collection in the cupboard far outweighs the DL'd stuff I've got in the case at the side of the sofa. That's not being holier than thou, it's just how it is. 3 for a tenner at HMV is hard to argue with. S1, 2 & 3 of the IT Crowd... £20, bargain. Remastered Muppet Show, £10..... Happy memories.


As for visiting a prison, why bother?? To make my blood boil even more when I see what facilities they have access to? Prison exists to punish, as well as rehabilitate, unfortunately, the rehabilitation seems to have gone to hell in a hand-basket as it's cheaper to let them have TV/games/DVD's to keep them quiet. Why not give them time to reflect on their crimes, a little 'me' time to wonder why they ended up inside, not just occupy their time with electronic opium. Oh dear, the poor little sensitive babes might get bored and fractious...... That's what tear-gas is for.

As for Lombroso, I didn't denounce him, I simply said that kind of thinking was the sort of cr*p that people who don't have a clue come up with. I didn't say that Lombroso was cr*p. Semantics I know, but you don't need to google something to see it's clap-trap. Nice to see you trying to defend him though.

By the time people are old enough to commit crime, they know right from wrong, despite the army of social workers and lawyers that will try to tell the judge that it's not their fault and they're victims of society. The rules of society aren't that flawed. Unfortunately people are. It's easier to go and nick something than get a job and buy it. It's easier to get off your face on whatever drug takes your fancy than do something useful, it might give you the self-respect not to need to get off your face in the first place. Or is that me being too simplistic?? The country doesn't owe anyone a living, the welfare state is a safety-net for those that need it, not those that can't be a*sed to get up in the morning and get a job. If they're better off on benefits, it tells you two things. Benefits pay too much, and some jobs pay too little. It seems odd to me that so many claimants can afford the big TV's, fags, booze and the latest iPhone.... Perhaps some that need the help aren't getting it, and those that don't need as much are in the money??

To forestall an aregument, my wife is an ex-post office clerk, who worked her way up to being a manager, she's now given that up go into palliative care for terminal cancer patients. While she was working at the PO, she saw day-in, day-out the amounts that some claimants were getting. £400+ per week wasn't unusual. I work full time and don't get that.

To give Lombroso a little creedence, you CAN breed criminals. People who have little or no respect for anyone else cannot instil said respect in their children. It's a vicious circle.

Show some people respect and yes, they will take the chance and change. All it takes is an act of will. Show most criminals respect and turn the other cheek and they'll slap that one too.

Or slice it and take your wallet, watch and mobile.

The key to all this is respect. Self-respect, and respect for others. I respect your opinions, even though I think you're wrong, as I'd hope you respect mine, though you think I'm wrong.

As someone who once had the choice to go one way or the other (many moons ago), I refuse to accept that people 'fall' into crime/drugs because they had no choice. They had a choice. They chose wrong.

I see that we have a different understanding of society and everything that follows from it. I understand your argument and I respect it for it is a valid argument. Yet, I do not agree with it. And I could continue giving argument and debate, but we'll get nowhere. Our definitions are too different.

I have enjoyed the discussion.

As have I. Just because people have differing views, doesn't mean that a discussion has to descend into vitriol and abuse. It's been interesting, thank you.

All the best.

Crime is not genetic. Thats a fact of the matter, however, as wolfman claimed, it is true you can breed criminals. And ofc those criminals are gonna put their set of morals on their kids, wich in turn creates the visciuos circle. That is all true, but its still not a genetic thing, its a social thing. You cant teach what you yourself dont know and understand. Its a bit like the hitlerjugend in the 1930's and 1940's, those kids were indoctrinated with the nazi belief system and became the monsters they were taught to be, taught by a social system. But, those same hitlerjugend kids did become succesfull after the war, and not even thriugh a life of crime in many cases, so not even the social tutoring system is fully to blame, its the way society handles it. How else can for example hitlerjugend kids function perfectly in a post war germany if all of em are monsters? And if you were to implement the question in this topic in lets say post war germany....you would have to sterilise 99.9% of the ppl left in germany. It simply doesnt work that way.

Unemployement is not something you choose. Take the recently unemployed ppl in the US due to the economic crisis for example, none of em choose to be fired, their boss fucked up his finances, went broke, fired all his personel, and there you are, being the simple workman that you are....a victim of louzy management. If you then look at who generally are politicians, you can see from a mile away they are in some form related to the ppl responsible for the economic crisis. And its those same ppl that give donations to politicians to get elected. And if you then apply the question of the topic in society, what do you get? Sterilisation of a lot of people that are victims of the people that now sterilise them... If there is one sort of ppl that need to be sterilised its the greedy twats on the top of so called social ladder that set this whole scheme in motion, not the victims.
And in another topic about the UK unemployment care system ect, its clearly said that in a lot of cases, being unemployed pays more the going to work, and you tell me honestly, if you were to get more money doing nothing and being able to raise you kids like that for example, who wouldnt do it? And i can understand that for a working person that inequality is painfull, but its not the fault of the unemployed person.

And in countries where is no social 'safety net' in the form of welfare or so, the unemployed are literally forced into crime. And i do agree there are other ways out of poverty than just crime, but everyone here knows that crawling up the social ladder if you come from the lowest of steps....is fkin hard. Society labels you a lot of things to start with and none of em are pretty. And if you're unfortunate enough to not be the bright light on the block so to speak, there is almost no chance of ever escaping the social hell you are born in except with crime.

Then there is the role society plays in rehabilitating criminals. For example in belgium where i live, and im sure MrSmiley will agree with me here, crime in a lot cases DOES pay. Not in a sense they get a lot of monetary gain from it, but the punishments handed out here in belgium are plain absurd. few months ago there was a case of a man that raped a 1 yr old baby, a friend of the family even, and he got 2 years probation with psych councilling....and on the same day a man was sentenced to 18 months in prison for.....stealing pigeons..... Can someone please explain to me how that pedophiles punsishment, if you can even call it that, is gonna rehabilitate him?
And then im not even mentioning the way in wich a lot of prisons work internally, like with gangs in US jails, in a system like that you can not rehabilitate ppl except the ones willing to do it.

Society is the biggest reason for crime and unemployment, there simply is no way around it, and once you start looking at society from the standpoint of the person in question instead of from your own cumpfy desk chair, most things start to make sense.

And ofc there are ppl with genetic defects that make them lack empathy and sorts, that i know very well, but not all of them end up as rapists, murderers or pedophiles. That in itself is proof that crime nor unemployement has a pure genetic basis. I see forced sterilisation as a tool of society to hide its problems and make sure the problem doesnt go from one person to another but it doesnt fix the problem that started it.

I agree with Wackenhut. Society creates more problems then it fixes. And most solutions that our politicians use now are idiotic and useless.
As an example, the zero tolerance policy used in problem area's. It means that nothing will be tolerated and every infraction will be punished. So the criminals move to the neighborhood next to that one and crime rises there while it lowers in the other area. That way, the media can proclaim that the zero tolerance policy is a succes. While in fact, it relocates the problem.

I wish that for once, our politicians would listen to people that studied the phenomena that they're trying to solve.
For example, the NVA (The biggest Flemish political party) has 2 advisors on the subject of crime. One master in law and one master in history. I understand the master in law but what is that history master doing there? Why not hire a criminologist? Someone that knows why someone commits a crime.

Now, considering the penalties. Belgium uses a system of treatment in combination with punishment. And we use it ineffectively. I've heard the Scandinavian countries are smarter. I haven't had the chance to study their law system but their healthcare system seems better then most.

And Wackenhut, we can't even help those that want help. 1 psychologist for 30 inmates? Our justice system is a laugh.

On the other hand, there is progress. We teach inmates jobs and provide rewards for companies that hire those inmates. So we can conclude that there is progress, whoever small, it remains a significant improvement.

You're all forgetting who makes these laws,the rich and they're the biggest criminals around.

Sterilization and imprisonment all happen after the crime has been committed. They both rely on being isolated from society or being punished. Sterilization as a cureall is out. By the time they get caught they have already bred as often as they could.

The cause of being a criinal lies in the upbringing. If you are taught at an early age that getting away with it is the goal then that sticks with you for your whole life. If they have a desire to stop breaking the law / victimizing others they can be guided into a better life. Most don't. They just learn in prison how to get away with it.

It's at birth that becoming a law abiding member of society begins. I don't think the government has the right to intervene in an infants life, even if we are pretty sure we can predict that he's on a wrong pathway.

I don't know how to change it. Upbringing by parents has been the rule for milenia. They are all stuck in a cycle of bad parents bring up bad kids. It's unpleasant to make the comparison but that is the pack mentality. In a coyote pack, stealing from another member is the norm. The biggest and baddest claims the most benefit. The bottom of the food chain gets the least. I think that is natural selection. You only get to breed if you are bigger and badder than the rest of the pack.

Why do cheerleaders choose the jocks? Because they are the biggest and baddest of the pack. Or in high school they have money or other symbols of wealth.

How to change their upbringing to make obeying the law and caring about the rights of others is a puzzle for me.

+1

Even if you classify Nazis as right wing (which wouldn't be at all accurate, since fascists are definitely interested in a large powerful state and public ownership of command heights of industry i.e. your typical command economy, not to mention that Nazi literally means 'National Socialist'), the Nazis still killed waaaaay less people than the Communists.

Between Russia and China alone, the Communists killed approximately 100 million of their own people. The Nazis were bastards, but they couldn't hold a flame to that.

See, Capitalists are ultimately interested in making money, and they can only do that if they have citizens who are still alive being productive.
Socialists on the other hand, are interested in questions of 'Greater Good', and ironically, that attitude lends easier to killing people than mere greed.

Evidence: The 20th century.

I really wish people would stop with all this "communism is evil" shit. It's not, we (people) are.
I think you'll find, if you look close enough, that it was greed that led to the killing more often than not. Socialism is, on paper at least, a fine idea. Unfortunately people are predisposed toward greed (Evidence: Capitalism). Communism boiled down dictates that everyone is equal, everyone contribute and everyone gets a fair, equal share of the fruits of their labours.

Now take a look at the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" cos they're communist, right?

Firstly, what is a democracy?
Wikipedia says this: And what is a republic?
Wikipedia again: And what's communism?
Wikipedia:

What's going on in North Korea is none of these things. Kim Jong Il inherited the leadership of the country from his father and now looks set to pass on the leadership to his son. Monarchy.

I don't necessarily disagree with all that even though I consider myself Capitalist. Bear in mind the central principal of Capitalism is that two people can mutually agreed to exchange capital goods without cohesion. It's a fundamentally a cooperative idea, if self interested. There is nothing wrong with self-interest in the economic sphere of human activity. It's as natural as loving your children in the Social sphere of human activity.

I think Capitalism funnels self-interest in a productive way. That Communism runs into problems because capitalism is part of human nature isn't the fault of capitalism, it's the fault of a utopian vision of the future that has no basis in reality.

Accumulation (capitalism) and Distribution (distribution) are both necessary to make the System work. Much like yin and yang.

However, that does not in any way imply that they work together, no, they compete directly against each other. They both work best in their pure forms, and indirectly wind up helping each other by their activity. i.e. government shouldn't 'play' capitalism, and corporations shouldn't 'play' government.

The minute you start mixing the two, you have serious problems. There is no middle way. There is just two forces battling it out for as long as humankind have existed and will exist.

Gee, people put to death have in some cases been EXONERATED by DNA later. Who committed the crime then?

And let me state for the record that I am a

I find the entire idea of involuntary sterilization AND the death penalty contemptible. I have been to prison, and let me tell you, "Life without Parole" is a far worse punishment than a quick death by injection, and allows for the correction of possible error down the road. Check out the statistics of wrongly convicted folks in Texas alone that have been exonerated by modern science after overzealous prosecutions, corrupt DA's, etc.........

Well said.

i think that sterilisation for the criminals that are really bad is acceptable and should be done... one criminal that comes to mind at this moment is the crossbow killer (those i britain will kow who he is and what he done) otherwise if the criminal has been convicted properly with vital evidence such as dna etc then he should also get it... especially if its a rape trial or worse as for the unemployed... i have bee unemployed and i was for some time and it was hell for me... i wanted to get back into work i wasn't bothered what it was... but then some people don't want to work but i don't thik sterilising them is gonna help or deter them

I'm still waiting for evidence about criminal behavior being hereditary.

You'll wait a long time too because it's not hereditary.

Exactly.

ok just playing devils advocate here but if momma is a thief and daddy is a thief and they teach their kids the "family business" isn't that the same thing? I understand its not in the childs DNA so maybe hereditary isn't the right word but at the very least the child would be a product of their environment right? I don't think that child is gonna turn out to be a very productive member of society. So maybe sterilization wouldn't be a horrible thing in that kind of situation. But in reality it is a terrible idea. Who would get to choose who gets clipped and who doesn't? My opinion child molesters and rapists should if they're repeat offenders. But even that is a slippery slope. What happens to someone who is wrongfully accused? I guess I need to think about this a bit more.

The "Justice" system is more flawed than many can imagine.

There's surely an argument that children raised in an environment where criminality is the norm are far more likely to become criminals themselves. So to all intents and purposes being a criminal is hereditary, just not genetic.

I'll go along with that, but the question, now, would be who gets to choose to whom it is done? Define "criminal" and why is someone's decision better than your own?