Castration for rapists?

Remove all ads!

The old fashioned way:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4125566.stm

The modern method:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4170963.stm

I think the former method would be an excellent deterrant, but its a pity that the chemical method in France is volunteer basis only.

Of course there will be rapists rights people protesting such an idea, but how about thinking of the victims of these bastards for a change?

 

I prefer to think about defending the humanity than defending the rapist. Of course if I let my personal feelings get in front of my judgement I would probably have a rapist tortured for a few weeks and then shoot his brains out, but that would be just to satisfy my personal lust for retribution and would hardly be justice from my "neutral" point of view.

As has been stated so many times on these boards, rape is not about sex it's about power. There are some idiotic youngsters who use date rape pills or something like that just to get laid but I don't think castration would be a fair punishment for those. Prison time will be enough. Violent rapists, who attack, beat up and rape a woman on the other hand have much deeper issues than their sexual desires so castration would hardly solve the issue with them either. They would find a way to cause malice to others even if their "equipment" would be malfunctioned.

Then we have the fact that castration causes permanent damage. What will you do if the rapist is found inocent afterwards? To me atleast no money in the world would be enough to compensate for such damage. Just the thought of being castrated and found innocent afterwards gives me the creeps.

Castration solves nothing, is a barbaric punishment equal to torture and death penalty and is difficult to compensate to someone wrongly conviceted. In short, castration as a way of punishing rapists sucks in every possible way.

 

Its true about the 'what if he is innocent' scenario, but thats where 'chemical castration' comes in. Its not permanent, so when the treatment stops, then the sexual desires come back.

I don't think that traditional methods are working well, as cases of rape seems to be increasing in lots of countries and something needs to be done...

 

I think it's stupid. Lock them up, at least that way they have a chance of proving themself innocent if they are, otherwise, they'll remain locked up. Don't castrate them, they can very well be innocent.

 

I think it should only be used when the rapist's guilt can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. As for not solving their mental problems: Who cares? It's more of a punishment than a deterrent anyway. An eye for an eye. (Or should I say one-eyed snake. )

 

Well I suppose I'd agree then that the chemical castration should be tested. I doubt that it will yield much better results though. The increse of rape cases is partly also explained by the fact that rapes are reported more often than they were ten years ago, so I'm not that sure if the rapes have actually increased and it's very difficult to say if they have since a big percentage of rapes are still not reported, which is of course unfortunate.

 

IIRC, there have been a number of programs in the U.S. wherein sex offenders have voluntarily undergone chemical castration. While the vengeful part of me says "cut off their twig and berries!", another part of me thinks of how the image of the pirate with a hook came to be. Removal of a hand was the punishment for certain violent crimes. It didn't solve the basic problem (violent, anti-social behaviour) with the criminal.

The same thing would likely happen with many rapists. They'd just use a foreign object to violate their victims.

On the other hand, I don't believe that therapy works any better at making these animals contributing members of society. They should just be locked up and the key thrown away, or executed if the cost of lockup is too high. Those are the only real options that protect society as a whole.

 

From Morgoroth:

That's a slogan. I appreciate the noble notion of telling rape victims that no, they didn't have sex. But the truth is that rape is about both power and sex drive. About a twisted sex drive that gets off on power and domination, but still sex drive. The same way as a paedophile doesn't only intend to hurt his victim (or doesn't at all, at least on the conscious level), but also seeks sexual satisfaction, a rapist also seeks sexual satisfaction; or using sex toys is not only about the mere subjective pleasure of plugging things here and there but also about sexual satisfaction. The statement that "rape is not about sex" is a gross deformation of truth and thus potentially harmful, no matter how noble the intent.

I respect your clemency and I would probably have the same concern if I were seating in the judge's chair, but I tend to think that a date rape pill user is not going to transform into a good husband and father. Some of those idiots don't think it's rape because the girl might even end up not knowing of it and certainly it isn't a violent assault in the physical aspect. Still, it is not desirable to give them another chance.

I agree. With such harsh penalties in place, one also needs severe punishment for fraudulent accusation. What about mandatory antilibidiants? Or some sort of forcible reversible conditioning too difficult to escape without professional aid and periodically controlled?

From Felinoid:

Well, I don't believe people should be punished if there's doubt. Perhaps you're speaking about a situation where all evidence points to guilt but there's still some room for different evidence, different explanations. Still, we can't really pass a sentence with the clause "we aren't sure" attached.

And now two thoughts of mine. Firstly, I believe castration would be a good punishment for propaganda reasons, but technically it would probably work better as a sort of protective means, such as life time ban from driving or owning animals.

Secondly, perhaps those of you who don't see abortion as wrong in case of rape, haven't even thought of this, but rape pregnancy is a great problem. Generally, Catholicism and probably other Christian churches opposed to abortion in case of rape have no problem with post-coital contraception in a non-marital non-consensual intercourse. But it won't always work. There's also the risk of affecting the husband's sperm if the victim is a married lady. There might actually be the risk of abortion. Or, ironically, the post-coital contraceptive might actually create the need for itself by catalysing certain processes. Actually, I have heard from women morally opposed to contraception even in case of rape. Castrating the rapist won't prevent him from using a foreign object, but it will prevent insemination.

However, this same purpose may be achieved by compulsory infertilisation of rapists. It's easier to revert and could be controlled periodically so as to avoid the risk of the rapist reverting it. A potential downside might be the effect of having perfect contraception on the offender's mind. Still, feeding him forcibly with antilibidiants could deal with that to some extent.

Lastly, from LKD:

Or they could turn into watchers and participants of a crime committed by someone else, not necessarily of the latter's free will. Abu Ghraib comes to mind.