Who's the worse abusive father?

[Darth Wong]

Father #1: once every few months, he sexually abuses his daughter. He has been doing this since she was 8 years old. She has severe psychological problems as a result. He does not beat her.

Father #2: he regularly beats his daughter, and often burns her with cigarettes in order to teach her a lesson. He has been doing this since she was 8 years old. She has scars all over her body and severe psychological problems as a result. He does not sexually abuse her.

Which guy is worse? Or do they both equally deserve to be tortured to death?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

The method of torture should not determine the justice to be applied to the torturer, only the result.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I.E. I voted 'kill both'.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

EDIT: This looks like a SLAM topic. *moves threa--*


oh.

[General Zod]

I'd vote kill both, as both are equally heinous. I'm inclined to say sexual abuse is worse, but lack the proper words to explain why.

[El Moose Monstero]

Father #1: once every few months, he sexually abuses his daughter. He has been doing this since she was 8 years old. She has severe psychological problems as a result. He does not beat her.

Father #2: he regularly beats his daughter, and often burns her with cigarettes in order to teach her a lesson. He has been doing this since she was 8 years old. She has scars all over her body and severe psychological problems as a result. He does not sexually abuse her.

Which guy is worse? Or do they both equally deserve to be tortured to death?

Christ, this is difficult: gut instinct says the sexual abuser as you could sort of see that a father that beats and burns is someone who has no idea how to relate with kids and should never have them, but a father who sexually abuses his kids should never be allowed to roam free in society.

On the other hand, the daughter of father 2 will have to carry both mental and physical scarring for her whole life whilst the daughter of father 1 'simply' has the mental problems. Both problems may eventually be resolved by psychotherapy, but one of these people will still have to endure a lifetime of people staring at scars and having a perpetual reminder of what happened even after the issues are resolved.

Obviously I'd be quite happy to watch both fathers rot in jail for a long time, but if you gave me a gun or a prison term and told me one would walk free and the other wouldn't, then I suspect I would slap the sexual abuser in jail simply because of the abhorrence of sexual abuse in society.

[Kuja]

I think anyone who deliberately fucks up their kid needs lead re-education.

[Civil War Man]

I find both equally heinous in slightly different ways. Kill 'em both, nice and slowly.

[fgalkin]

The first one should be hung from a tree by a rope attached to his legs. His head shouild be between his legs in his groin, with his cut-off genitalia stuffed in his mouth. To make this possible, his spine shouild be broken,

The second one should be beaten, his eyes out out with a hot stick,and the same white-hot stick then should be applied to various areas of his body, and then be driven up his anus. Then, he should be hung from that very tree by his own intestines.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[wilfulton]

A father is typically expected to protect his children from harm, not harm them for his own sick, perverted pleasure. While some may advocate death by slow torture, I feel the need to not waste time on these slimebags by "punishing" them. In my mind, the purpose of the justice system should be to "correct" wrongdoers, as opposed to simply "punishing" them. In this case, "correction" should involve simply getting rid of them.

Thus:
Hang 'em both from the same tree and bury the corpses in the same grave, marked only by dog urine.

[Aaron]

As a father I find both scienaro's equally disgusting. Execute them both.

[Nova Andromeda]

--This one is easy; the physical abuse is much worse. I come to this conclusion by knowing without any doubt I'd choose option #1 instead of option #2 if I was forced to choose one for myself. That being said, both are horrible. Father #1 can probably be made much less of a threat by castration and I would force him to work for the rest of his life and give all the money to his daughter (perhaps without his daughters knowledge, don't want to cause more trama). One should note that confinement is not the only form of punishment in the world and there are other forms compatible with an 80 hour forced work week. Father #2 is harder to deal with and should perhaps be put out of everyones misery straight away unless there is a Chinese hard labor camp for him to attend (all proceeds from any work go to the daughter of course).
-To the previous posters who say the actions are equally bad: Grow a Fucking Spine and stop playing to the audience!!! It's people like you give polititians justifications for their fucked up sentencing rules where doing drugs or stealing a car can get you as much time as killing a man.

[Darth Servo]

I voted "kill both" but upon greater reflection, the physical abuser does have the potential to eventually KILL his daughter if he gets angry enough and does do real physical damage to her body. I think that tips the scales against physical abuse.

[General Zod]

--This one is easy; the physical abuse is much worse. I come to this conclusion by knowing without any doubt I'd choose option #1 instead of option #2 if I was forced to choose one for myself. That being said, both are horrible. Father #1 can probably be made much less of a threat by castration and I would force him to work for the rest of his life and give all the money to his daughter (perhaps without his daughters knowledge, don't want to cause more trama). One should note that confinement is not the only form of punishment in the world and there are other forms compatible with an 80 hour forced work week. Father #2 is harder to deal with and should perhaps be put out of everyones misery straight away unless there is a Chinese hard labor camp for him to attend (all proceeds from any work go to the daughter of course).
-To the previous posters who say the actions are equally bad: Grow a Fucking Spine and stop playing to the audience!!! It's people like you give polititians justifications for their fucked up sentencing rules where doing drugs or stealing a car can get you as much time as killing a man.

Simply removing a sex offender's organs isn't really enough to stop them from committing sex crimes. If anything it would add to their frustration and give them new excuses to commit said crimes, except in possibly much more bizarre and unusual fashions.

[Pick]

Kil both, but I think sexual abuse is worse. Again, can't quite explain.

[Nova Andromeda]

--This one is easy; the physical abuse is much worse. I come to this conclusion by knowing without any doubt I'd choose option #1 instead of option #2 if I was forced to choose one for myself. That being said, both are horrible. Father #1 can probably be made much less of a threat by castration and I would force him to work for the rest of his life and give all the money to his daughter (perhaps without his daughters knowledge, don't want to cause more trama). One should note that confinement is not the only form of punishment in the world and there are other forms compatible with an 80 hour forced work week. Father #2 is harder to deal with and should perhaps be put out of everyones misery straight away unless there is a Chinese hard labor camp for him to attend (all proceeds from any work go to the daughter of course).
-To the previous posters who say the actions are equally bad: Grow a Fucking Spine and stop playing to the audience!!! It's people like you give polititians justifications for their fucked up sentencing rules where doing drugs or stealing a car can get you as much time as killing a man.

Simply removing a sex offender's organs isn't really enough to stop them from committing sex crimes. If anything it would add to their frustration and give them new excuses to commit said crimes, except in possibly much more bizarre and unusual fashions.

--Actually, it goes a long way toward stopping them from committing sex crimes by largely removing their desire for sex. That is what the doctors say when one is castrated due to prostate cancer at least (the lack of desire part). However, one need not rely upon it when punishing the offender. The point is Father #1 doesn't seem like a violent criminal in manner that Father #2 is since he never beat his daughter. This makes him much less of a general threat.
-BTW, you might want to support your claim with some evidence next time....

[Glocksman]

Father #2: he regularly beats his daughter, and often burns her with cigarettes in order to teach her a lesson. He has been doing this since she was 8 years old. She has scars all over her body and severe psychological problems as a result. He does not sexually abuse her.

This is the toughie.

If the SOB isn't doing all of this out of some kind of sick gratification and genuinely thinks that he's 'teaching her a lesson', then he might not be beyond rehabilitation.
Perhaps a long prison sentence coupled with mandatory psych therapy may be appropriate. Or death, if the prospect of rehab is nil.

Father #1: once every few months, he sexually abuses his daughter. He has been doing this since she was 8 years old. She has severe psychological problems as a result. He does not beat her.

Death, preferably a slow and drawn out one.

[General Zod]

--Actually, it goes a long way toward stopping them from committing sex crimes by largely removing their desire for sex. That is what the doctors say when one is castrated due to prostate cancer at least (the lack of desire part). However, one need not rely upon it when punishing the offender. The point is Father #1 doesn't seem like a violent criminal in manner that Father #2 is since he never beat his daughter. This makes him much less of a general threat.
-BTW, you might want to support your claim with some evidence next time....

The vast majority of studies such as this one performed on sex crimes indicate the primary motivation was for power or dominance over the individual, rather than sex itself. Which suggests removing someone's genitals will have zero impact on their desire to commit such a crime.

[Darth Servo]

--Actually, it goes a long way toward stopping them from committing sex crimes by largely removing their desire for sex.

Last I heard, sex crimes weren't about desire for sex. It was desire for power over the victim. Thats what rape is about anyway. Often the rapist doesn't even use his own penis. I've read of cases where the asshole used a BROOMSTICK of all things.

[fgalkin]

--Actually, it goes a long way toward stopping them from committing sex crimes by largely removing their desire for sex.

Last I heard, sex crimes weren't about desire for sex. It was desire for power over the victim. Thats what rape is about anyway. Often the rapist doesn't even use his own penis. I've read of cases where the asshole used a BROOMSTICK of all things.

So, rapists never get an erection? How can they rape people then?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Servo]

So, rapists never get an erection? How can they rape people then?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Men can get erections from things other than a nekkid hot chick (tm). Especially the sicko that would do the things this thread is about.

[fgalkin]

So, rapists never get an erection? How can they rape people then?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Men can get erections from things other than a nekkid hot chick (tm). Especially the sicko that would do the things this thread is about.

Yes, but an erection is a strictly physiological response to sexual stimuli. You can't have an erection without sexual stimuli. Now, those people may get off on different things, but they still do it because these things give them sexual gratification.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[General Zod]

So, rapists never get an erection? How can they rape people then?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Rape isn't necessarily dependent on whether or not the victim is inserting his penis in places it doesn't belong.

Main Entry: 3rape
Function: noun
1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent -- compare SEXUAL ASSAULT, STATUTORY RAPE
3 : an outrageous violation

[General Zod]

Ghetto edit: that should read attacker, not victim. Blah.

[fgalkin]

So, rapists never get an erection? How can they rape people then?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Rape isn't necessarily dependent on whether or not the victim is inserting his penis in places it doesn't belong.

Main Entry: 3rape
Function: noun
1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent -- compare SEXUAL ASSAULT, STATUTORY RAPE
3 : an outrageous violation

The most common type does, and even those that do not involve the rapist sticking his dick where it doesn't belong, their body still treats it as sexual stimulii (aka gives him a boner).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin