Should convicted rapists be castrated

beer enigma

I've just finished reading the report in today's Examiner about the five lads from Limerick who pleaded guilty to the gang rape of a woman & assault of her boyfriend.

Apart from feeling revulsion over the whole thing, the worst of the sentences was 10 years, with the youngest guy (still under 16) getting four years detention. What on earth use are these guys to society , let alone the danger they will probably still pose when they're released in about 5 or 6 years time.

Now, maybe you'll think me extreme, but if you castrated them all, they'd never pose a similar risk to society again.

Stark

They might deserve castration, but how's it going to help really? You don't need to be fully functional in the down below area to sexually assualt someone or commit an alternative form of violent crime for that matter.

Silent Grape

i dont agree with the castration thing. these people obviously have problems, castration wont solve the problem and return them 'safely' into the community. hopefully by the end of their term they may have grown up and sorted out whatever it was that made them commit such a crime.

Saint

Silent Grape wrote:

i dont agree with the castration thing. these people obviously have problems, castration wont solve the problem and return them 'safely' into the community. hopefully by the end of their term they may have grown up and sorted out whatever it was that made them commit such a crime.

well the victim obviously has a problem, not to sure about those that did it however.

Silent Grape

their penis' didnt make them do it, they're heads did, and as stark said, there are many other ways of sexual assault that do not have anything to do with a penis.

Bard

No, they should be chained up, covered in petrol, set alight and left to burn. That would probably help.

beer enigma

Silent Grape wrote:

i dont agree with the castration thing. these people obviously have problems, castration wont solve the problem and return them 'safely' into the community. hopefully by the end of their term they may have grown up and sorted out whatever it was that made them commit such a crime.

But it may certainly put an end to their sexual desires. The effects of castration will almost certainly reduce their sexual urges to zero. Why do guys like this have rights ?? - what about the victim - she's condemned to a lifetime of it, not just a few years.

Silent Grape, you say its their heads that make them do it -the effect of castration is in effect to nullify any sexual thinking, thus reduce the risk. They still keep their penis, just lose their desire.

Stark

Rape has nothing to do with sexual desire.

beer enigma

Well I have to admit that I'm not an expert on the subject (thankfully), but there must be an element of sexual gratification in it

Silent Grape

stark is right, rape has absolutely nothing to do with sexual desire. rape should be called a power assault, instead of a sexual assault. men dont rape women because they are horny. they rape women because they are incredibly greedy with power, and also incredibly incredibly insecure.

i am not justifying what they did in any way, but castration will not 'help' the problem and wont help in putting a turned around individual back on the streets, just maybe a more screwed up one, who may never be able to reconstruct their lives in a positive way. and thats what society needs to be able to do.

obviously being in prison takes away they're right of freedom.

beer enigma

So when the paper reports one of the 16 year olds in court saying "we came across them and i fancied a shag as i hadnt had sex in ages"

This doesn't imply a sexual motive ?

Stark

16 year olds lie. What they really meant was "We fancied ruining a girls life for the power trip and to show off to each other". They could all have been gay for the difference it would have made to their decision.

beer enigma

He also has 35 previous convictions, 10 of them for sex offences.....

Silent Grape

generally people who fancy a shag go out looking for girls to proposition, they dont rape anybody.

he was covering up. hes 16, he's not going to be honest about it. they may come across cocky, confident, dont give a **** attitute, but really they dont have a clue whats going on, and sex was probably the last thing on their minds at the time

the_syco

Castration is not the cure, but the deterrant.

4 years, and they're back out. Some even do it again.

If castration will happen, less may go through with the act.

Many see it as punishment, but if losing your balls doesn't deter you, time in prison sure as hell won't.

chewy

a 16 year old with 35 previous convictions and 10 sexual ones? what was this guy up to?



castrastion is stupid and dangerous idea!

Silent Grape

i agree that it may serve as a good deterrant, it will stop a man forcibly penetrating with his penis, but as already pointed out, there are many other means to sexually assault a person. and it wont stop the underlining dangerous thinking. its barbaric to mutilate a persons body like that. treating the whole thing as a revenge thing - give the perpertrator as much hell as he's given him victim- is not the positive way of looking at it, because there is no reliable way of judging that.

i have no idea what the answer is, the end result is to let an adjusted, safe thinking person back into society, and castration is sure as hell not going to do that.

Sand

Hard to have an opinion as Ive no real idea what motivated those lads to do that. Id imagine there must have been some sexual undertone to it, because if it was simply a power trip then there a variety of other ways to "show off".

Castration might serve as a pretty severe detterent and more importantly it would satisfy the publics needs to see justice being done to retain confidence in the legal system - which is at an all time low these days. The fact that this guy had so many previous convictions just underlines just how broken law enforcement is in this country, and why people dont waste their time bringing charges to court - why bother? If hed been clipped the first time theres a chance the other 9 sex assaults plus this rape wouldnt have happened.

But on the other hand, what happens when an innocent guy gets convicted based on a spiteful testimony or plain bad police work? Maybe a 3 strikes and youre out to eliminate the unlucky?

AngelofFire

No not a good idea. If the authorities demonstrate a mafia style mutilation as a force of reason, draconian and violent solutions to problems will filter down into all aspects of society.

As Mahatma Ghandi said "an eye for an eye makes society blind"

beer enigma

Ok, so I admit to not knowing the answer here - castration is used in many countries world wide as a deterrant but perhaps its not the best way. I do disagree with those who think that rape is not related to sexual desire when there is so much evidence/history pointing to the fact.

This case may well have been a 'spur of the moment' action, but none the less, sexually driven once the decision has been made.

I guess it goes down to how far we as a society are willing to go in relation to stamping out this type of crime...

Syth

I don't think convicted rapists should be castrated. I don't think it's a good
detterent. Look at the deterent we have now. Look at the social stigma a rapist
has. Some say that out society encourages rape, but try going into a bar and
proudly announcing that you are a rapist. See if you are encouraged. As for the
revictism argument, it don't think it will work. Many have already mentioned
that it's possibe to still sexually assault somone even if the little general
is dead. Also should we now start cutting of the hands of thieves? Should we
break the spines of murders to make sure they can't kill again? Should we make
blind anyone who knocked a person donw in a car, so thay can't drive again? No.

As for the whole 'rape is nothing to do with sex' argument, I think that is
false. consider these 2 simple facts:
o Men will do lots of things to have sex. Many, many men are willing to chase
(figurativly) after women to have sex, heck, sme are even willing to pay for
sex. Many men really wan tsex.
o There are some men who are willing to use violence to get what they want.
Whether it is some cash or a flash phone, there are men who are willing to use
violence to get what they want.
Thus it seems obvious that there will be a small amount of men who are willing to use violence to get sex, ie willing to rape.

Also there are cases where a man and a woman are "gettin' it on", and the woman
doesn't want it to go that far, she wants to stop. Most men would stop, a tiny
amout wouldn't and whould then rape the woman. If the 'rape is nothing to do
with sex' argument was true, then the man would change from thinking about sex
just before the woman wanted to stop (actually it's probably all he can think
about), and then suddenly, not be thinking about sex. Most of the men out there
will tell you that that kind of switch doesn't happen.

Silent Grape

rape is fundamentally about power. it has very little to do with sexual desire. its the fundamental power problem that a rapist has which makes him the kind of person to keep going once the other person has said no.

there are other power crimes aswell, such as random beatings etc. its the need to know that someone is scared of you, it doesnt have to be violent, think of the bullying that goes on in schools etc. not to be too generlised, but the thought process that occurs within these people that is the problem, not their organs.

most men want to have sex, not all of them rape,
most people need extra cash, not all of them beat old people to a pulp to get it.

it would be completely hypocritical and animalistic to use such a barbaric method of 'deterrance'. it would also lower our society to their standards.

perpetrator/victim meetings are a start when it comes to changing the mindset of such people.

Syth

Steven Pinker's 'The Blank Slate' is a book which advocated the nature side of much of humanity. One topic he talks about is rape, he supports the 'rape is about sex' theory. It's a good read.

rape is fundamentally about power. it has very little to do with sexual desire.

can you back that up? What about the little argument I gave? Just because not all men rape even though nearly all want sex, doesn't mean that those that do rape don't do it for sex. After all there are many people who wouldn't steal to get money, yet some people steal, and I'm sure there exist people who steal to get money, liekwise some men rape for sex. (It's probably not conscience, but it's like instinct.)

Out of curiousity, does anyone knwo if any state does castrate rapists and if so what is their rape rates like?

Specky

Out of curiousity, does anyone knwo if any state does castrate rapists and if so what is their rape rates like?

...and even more curiously, what do they do with the "bits"? Make tiny furry handbags perhaps.....

rape is fundamentally about power. it has very little to do with sexual desire.

Here we go with the "black and white" argument again. That's not true. In some cases it's about power, in some cases it's about sex, in some cases it's about other things altogether.

Most things are more complex than a cursory generalisation is able to summarize. Masturbation, for instance is self abuse and self gratification both at the same time.

Silent Grape

thats why i said 'fundamentally', of course there are other issues at play, nothing is ever black and white. i argued with myself for months that i hadnt been raped, and eventually gave in to the fact that i had been. the lines may have appeared blurred (to him) but it was still rape.

its like there's a switch in their brain which doesnt click when they're faced with a boundary. people like this also may also have been bullies and generally use intimidation to get what they want. what im saying is that it doesnt end with a need for sex, nor does it begin with sex being the issue. sex is just another thing they feel they have to have power over.

the instinct argument is bollocks. people have free thought. people know what is right and wrong. of course conscience comes into it, but these people just ignore their consciencess', or make up an excuse for doing it 'she was drunk and moaning so i thought she wanted me to go on' - yeh, it was really my instinct.

Specky

'she was drunk and moaning

...sounds like my wife... but seriously...

its like there's a switch in their brain which doesnt click when they're faced with a boundary.

As with any form of crime/boundary crossing behaviour, there is a process of self justification which removes the validity of any counter-argument or pre-learned rules, but it is extremely difficult to understand "why" some people feel able to cross such a boundary.

Crime prevention through understanding of perpetrator motivation has failed completely (progressive crime prevention theorists consider removal of opportunity a more valid means of reducing crime but this is often not a realistic proposition in the case of rape where the majority of crimes are committed by people known to the victim in circumstances where barriers to opportunity are less easy to establish). The result is the thinking that to prevent a criminal re-committing a crime you put them in prison. I suppose that a similar argument could be given in favour of castration. No danglers, no hanky panky....but do we not take the same chance we do with any form of corporal/capitol punishment? What if we got the wrong person? Mistakes cannot be fixed.

This is, of course, no comfort for victims (or victims of the future who fall prey to repeat offenders, which crimes could have been prevented if the offender had originally been removed of his fluffy bits). I see the validity of the argument for nut removal but I'd be hard pressed to agree with it's implementation as there have been too many judicial mistakes and wrongful convictions in the past...and yes, I know there have also been too many rapists who have gotten away scott free, but people get away with stuff for very bad reasons all the time. One might point out a certain high court judge for instance....

Silent Grape

i agree with u specky, you make a lot of sense.
the reason i used the 'she was drunk and moaning' thing, was that my rapist tried to justify his actions with that line. he left out the other things i was doing/saying at the time, obviously.

i was also subject to a charity worker, not naming names, obviously, who molested me in my car. i wouldnt be in favour of chopping off his fingers, as much as i probably wouldve enjoyed it at the time, because it wudnt stop him from attacking again. the only thing that would stop him would be to put him in prison and make it so horrible he'd never dare commit again.

locking up - only way, in my opinion, for a lot longer than the standard 10 years or whatever it is.

Syth

..and even more curiously, what do they do with the "bits"? Make tiny furry handbags perhaps.....

Maybe they let them take them home in a jar?

beer enigma

Silent Grape wrote:

rape is fundamentally about power. it has very little to do with sexual desire. its the fundamental power problem that a rapist has which makes him the kind of person to keep going once the other person has said no.

..... not to be too generlised, but the thought process that occurs within these people that is the problem, not their organs.

Castration is not designed to be a mutilation in revenge for the act of rape - the effect of castration is to stop the production of male endorphins (I may have the spelling wrong here) and in effect take away the sexual power thinking of the brain. Same methodology used with livestock. In order to placate aggressive animals, castration is commonplace.

Interestingly enough, castration is practiced in many states in the USA that are in total opposition to capitol punishment

Specky

Maybe they let them take them home in a jar?

just be careful not to keep them next to the pickled onions in the fridge.

sliabh

Andip wrote:

Interestingly enough, castration is practiced in many states in the USA that are in total opposition to capitol punishment

I believe that is chemical castration. It's reversible. Something that is extremely important if you convict the wrong person.

And I think it may be voluntary. You get a reduced sentence or it is done as part of a treatment program.

beer enigma

Yeah you're right about the chemical part Sliabh - wasn't aware of that.

I'm only advocating its use in cases where guilt is beyond doubt or where the guy/guys admit to the crime such as the recent case.

sliabh

Andip wrote:

I'm only advocating its use in cases where guilt is beyond doubt or where the guy/guys admit to the crime such as the recent case.

They may be slower to admit to it if their dangly bits are in danger!

pretty-in-pink

ok lets keep this brief as my first post got lost as I got logged out............grrrrr

1) an eye for an eye would be:

anal rape......he gets raped with a dildo
vaginal rape......he gets raped with a penis
oral rape.......he has to suck some guy off
use of drugs....he gets drugged
use of violence.....he gets the same treatment

it would not be castraton.

As much as I would have loved to have seen my attacker getting that humilation, pain, grief etc, I now dont think I could. Thats not cause I forgive him but rather because nobody deserves to feel like that

2)society and our justice system weighs in on the attckers side.....cause the poor lamb
a) didnt mean it
b) was drunk r on drugs
c) missunderstood
d) didnt know better

Only a tiny minority would lie bout being attacked, and the ones that lie should get nearly the same treatment as an actaul rapist/sex offender

I say NAME AND SHAME let the consequences be felt.

Sex offenders go on the list permently, have regular photots taken, and whereever they live is told that they are living near a twisted sicko.

Those that falsely accuse get named and warnings are given about being with them anywhere not public........as all complaints must be taken seriously just in case an actual attack takes place.

lets see what happens then.........................

MiCr0

the entire world will get over taken with poster's of people who've commited crimes.......
i'm assuming this would be true for all crimes, not just emotive one's like rape etc.

drivers who've crashed their car, reversed into some one when parking etc, would have to have warnings on their car.

Any one who speeds should be restriced from going above 25mps at anytime, anywhere ever?

In fact, why stop there....

Sleipnir

How many rape convictions have been overturned?
Would some innocent man losing his balls be an "acceptable mistake" ?
Would it be if you were the one wrongly convicted?

What you're asking is "should we torture criminals?"
No, of course not because in doing so you degrade yourself, your system of justice and you make yourself as bad as the criminal.


Those animals who gang-raped that girl should be thrown in the worst prison we have for the remainder of their days but they shouldn't be maimed as
that is something the likes of Saddam would do.

vibe666

repeat offending rates are exceedingly low for those who've been chemically 'castrated', which is just an injection which i believe needs to be done every 6 to 12 months to be effective, and diminishes all sexual desire (and hense ability to get an erection) to practically zero.

if someone is wrongly convicted then 6-12 months down the line they get the use of their love spuds back, end of story. seems fair to me.

the man who raped my fiancé only ever went to court to see me convicted of setting fire to his house, funnily enough.

we went to the police and were told that because of a lack of physical evidence (3 weeks after the rape, because she was in denial and didn't tell me) it would be her word against his, and could take over a year to go through court, with her entire sexual history laid bare (while his was safely tucked away, out of sight) etc. etc.

we tried to get on with our lives, but things went a bit pear shaped and i ended up finding out where he lived and going to 'pay him a visit'. he wasn't there, and i snapped and tried to torch his house, failing miserably, thanks to his house alarm and a squad car 2 streets away.

anyway, he moved away from where he lived because my g/f's friends worked in the same place as him, and he was forced out, but he's now living in a new town and getting on with his life.

anyway, 3 strikes and they're off seems like a fair deal to me. minimal chance of getting the wrong guy that way.

Specky

Andip wrote:

I'm only advocating its use in cases where guilt is beyond doubt

erm...hold on a sec, if the crime is not proven beyond doubt they shouldn't have been convicted, that's quite fundamental to our system of justice. So ALL convictions are based on this fact, even the incorrect ones.

love spuds

That's a new one on me, but I like its Irishness and shall hereafter always refer to my testicular dangleages in such terms.

Those animals who gang-raped that girl should be thrown in the worst prison we have

That particular case was very disturbing on a number of levels. The perpetrators were, in my opinion, very young. I don't know about other people here but at that age although I was actively shuffling the old pocket poker pack on a regular basis, I was still a spotty, giggling schoolboy with little prospect of physical contact with third parties beyong the field of sport.

To do something so....self destructive just poses so many questions about the perpetrators. I am not sympathising with them before I get accused of such, but I think anyone would be drawn to try to understand their motivation in order to try to avoid the same situation recurring. I have a daughter, and my natural protective instincts automatically make me want to stand between her and any threat.

They obviously weren't going to get away with what they did. It was so obviously wrong that no defence could deny it, two eye witnesses, etc. Did they believe they were going to get away with it? It they did, what does that say about the perception of our country's law enforcement services?

Was it, on the other hand, a purely self destructive act? I believe that the four youngsters involved were a self contained crime wave guilty of everything imaginable in the local area. Did they do it because they knew they would get caught for all the other stuff so why not go out with a bang (no pun intended)?

If that is true what does it say about our penal system where the penalties are so leniant that if you are about to be caught for shoplifting you might as well shoot someone on the way out because it won't really make much difference to your sentence but it may add a few kudos points to your criminal persona?

I don't know...

Any crime inflicted upon the person is deeply disturbing. Some people who are victims of muggers or even burglers are deeply traumatised by their experience and may never recover. My grandmother suffered three heart attacks as a result of repeated burgleries and eventually died of a heart attack that maybe she would have survived if her heart hadn't been so weakened by her previous experiences.

I have never been raped and cannot begin to understand the trauma such an event must leave on a person. However I do understand what it is like to be the victim of personal crimes against myself, my family and my friends. I feel very angry sometimes when I think about these events, at other times I remember how powerless I felt at the time, and how frustrated I felt at some of the responses I received from members of the law enforcement services. Unfortunately we all descend into statistics for these people and the responses we receive from them often reflect this. Perpetrators also are statistics and that's also often the way they are treated. It isn't always appropriate or effective but I suppose we have to believe that in many cases it is.

Being qualified in criminology and having worked in the security industry for a sizeable chunk of my career I would have to question the continued optimistic stance put on crime figures by the police service here and abroad. I think things are worse than they were, and just because numbers on crime reporting analyses say otherwise does not make it any different.

But that's not the subject of the thread.

I say leave the luv spuds in place...but maybe poke them with a cattle prod every now and then as a reminder.

Wacker

One thing that I'd like to ask (please bear in mind that I am both against capitol punishment and castration of sex offenders): if you're prepared to castrate sexual offenders, why not just finish the job, so to speak, and execute them?

Seriously, castration is a massive step. That is denying the guilty party the chance of ever having children of their own. It would probably reduce the risk of them ever carrying out a sexual assault again, but execution would definetly prevent them from ever csrrying out ANY crime again.

What I'm really asking is, is castrating a criminal of this nature really more tolerable than executing one?

Silent Bob

I have a question for those advocating castration.

One of the fundamental tenets of our legal system is that when your debt to society has been paid you are once again considered a full citizen of the country with all the rights that that entails.

If you castrate somebody then that is (as far as I am aware) permanent and for life. Are you then proposing that their debt to society will never be paid until they are dead? Who are we to mess with someone's entire life, beyond that period that is required in order to pay for the debt to society?

Specky

Seriously, castration is a massive step. That is denying the guilty party the chance of ever having children of their own.

actually it's bigger than that, you are effectively denying the person the possibility of enjoying any form of sexual relationship with anyone, which may, in some cases, mean that you are denying them the chance of any intimate personal relationship.

The knowledge of this may be enough to push the victim of castration in another direction, bitterness at their loss leading to violence, crime or self destruction. Perhaps.

In a similar way to how some women find themselves de-feminised by mastectomy or hystorectomy (sp?), men would be likely to suffer similar psychological trauma if their masculine trouser handbags were removed. Let's not make the criminals into the victims here but surely the purpose of punishment ought to be to make things better not make things worse?

pretty-in-pink

We need more punishing punishments............our system is like a smack on the wrist.......and te scummier someone is the more they get away with. I deeply sympathise with the guy who got in trouble for doing what the police should have. There is NO SUPPORT AT ALL FORM THE LEGAL SYSTEM for the victim.........its just more trauma and "are you sure, cause guys r just so horny, why were u there, why were u wearing that". Its criminal. Put more women in power cause the law is essentially a boys club.

women do not exist to be degraded and i fail to see why we should be super careful when dealing with the "rights" of the brutes who hurt people for fun. They dont stop to give a blind hoot about who r what they destroy. I reckon they deserve all the bad karma they get. Its not natural to kill, rape or maim for fun. In nature animals that kill for sport are isolated and despised. they are well known. but if a human does it then we assume they can change. we are bringing our own demise about by letting crimanals do what they like. evil doesnt change....and anyne who has said they can possibly repay their "debt" and be normal, that they deserve a family and to have sex and so forth......

how would you feel if your daughter or son was going round to the house of a convicted rapist? murderer? if the person showed no remorse, did it on purpose? name and shame the lot of them. it might be the only deterant.

to quote a very apropriate song "if you tolerate this then your children will be next"

the less our justice system works for us the greater the risk of having vigilante groups.....but at least some justice would be done then.

Sleipnir

naughty_girl wrote:

We need more ounishing punishments............our aystem is like a smack on the wrist.

Move you keyboard slightly to the left.

Zulu

naughty_girl wrote:

We need more punishing punishments
....its just more trauma and "are you sure, cause guys r just so horny, why were u there, why were u wearing that". Its criminal. Put more women in power cause the law is essentially a boys club.

:rolleyes: ....give us a break, willya. Putting more women in power will do what exactly? All of this is because of men is it? Why not just lock men up altogether?

naughty_girl wrote:

women do not exist to be degraded and i fail to see why we should be super careful when dealing with the "rights" of the brutes who hurt people for fun.

Because if we degrade them, we are NO better. It is important to lead by example. There was a time when we punished such crimes brutally, but, thankfully, we've evolved into a civilised society.

naughty_girl wrote:

In nature animals that kill for sport are isolated and despised. they are well known.

<sorry, I can't help myself here!>
By whom exactly? Is their an animal Interpol? Perhaps an animal UN? We'd better be careful - if they catch on to our eating them, they mightn't like it, and start a trade embargo!

naughty_girl wrote:

but if a human does it then we assume they can change. we are bringing our own demise about by letting crimanals do what they like. evil doesnt change....and anyne who has said they can possibly repay their "debt" and be normal, that they deserve a family and to have sex and so forth......

Rehabilitation is exactly what separates us from animals

naughty_girl wrote:

the less our justice system works for us the greater the risk of having vigilante groups.....but at least some justice would be done then.

ahh yes, justice "mob style". Super! Reminds me of the Paediatrician who's house was attacked and who's family was chased out of town when they "named and shamed" the paedophiles. ....but at least some justice was done then. :rolleyes:

Specky

Hell hath no fury like a woman's scones....

...and if we implement a system of more sever punishment and the crime continues, then what do we do?

In some parts of the US the death penalty is still exercised, yet people still commit horrible crimes. So can a deterant actually work? I don't think it can, there will always be situations where all rationale goes out the door and the criminal does what he wants in the heat of the moment.

Deterants only work on the un-motivated criminal, for those with motivation they must make a decision and their own ability to retionalise or their knowledge of the facts regarding the potential of receiving a particular punishment may be limited. In which cases, the deterant will have no meaning.

If, on the other hand, you REALLy want more harsh punsihments as revenge (and I have to be honest and believe that many people do want this more than anything) then I don't think that's entirely constructive as it just drags you in to a sort of tit for tat psychological merrygoround that neither victim nor perpetrator may be able to get off easily.

With any punishment you have to ask yourself "and then what?" Whatever you do to the perpetrator there is a future beyond this and you have to be looking at a way to make that better for everyone than the past. Sometimes the only way to achieve this might be to incarcerate the perpetrator for the rest of his/her natural life, sometimes it might be placing that person on the sex offenders register and having them electronically tagged, but in some cases this wouldn't be the best for everyone (this is where I started, my opposition was to the "black and white" approach advocated by so many people here. By categorising all perpetrators into the same scumbag pigeon hole you are in some ways doing the same as they are claimed to do by categorising all women as weak, to be dominated, treated as sex objects etc.

To paraphrase your question about whether I want my daughter to grow up in a wolrd like this, it's too late, she will. The world will not change for the better for a long time, if ever. You want to break gender stereotypes? Well try stopping all the crap that goes along with bringing up kids (blue for a boy, pink for a girl, ribbons in their hair, dolls and prams and actionman, toy guns and toy shopping trolleys.....)have kids, then try it. You'll find it's a little difficult to break the mould. While all of that exists there will always be an obvious definition of male and female roles and behaviour in society, and just like any other prejudice, people will continue to abuse the male/female relationship.

Zulu

What sort of castration do you mean? Chemical?
What about female rapists? How do you propose to castrate them?

Kell

Personally, I would be in favour of chemical castration. While I dont necessarily agree with rapists ever being allowed to function as a normal person based on the fact that they have denied their victim that right, the sway of opinion here might just sway me a little.

By the sounds of it, chemical castration nullifies endorhpins and I would think too that it would nullify testosterone too. Now, before you all assume I am going down the road of rape being a sexually oriented crime which I do not believe it is, surely lowering testosterone levels would lower any form of aggressive tendency in the perp to commit the crime?

Rape is an extraordinarily violent crime whether its in a laneway or in the comfy surroundings of your own bed while being off your head on some date rape drug, and any method of removing such an aggressive streak within a person that would make them commit such a crime has got to be considered.

Having given support to far too many people that have been raped has prompted me to want to want to enter the field of crisis counselling, specifically rape counselling. What it has also taught me is to absolutely despise rapists of all descriptions. While I take on board that there is something seriously wrong with the mind set of the rapist, I still cant find an excuse for it or even bring myself to consider their argument for the crime.

Take on board this for a moment. In some of my counselling literature, reference has been made to paedophiles and the fact that they will not be cured no matter how much money is thrown into their rehab. They wont be cured because paedophilia is their sexuality, just like you and I are either hetero, bi or gay. Consider this for a moment then. Is rape a feature of a rapists sexuality and if it is, is there anything really that can be done about it?

K-

Zulu

Kell wrote:

By the sounds of it, chemical castration nullifies endorhpins and I would think too that it would nullify testosterone too. Now, before you all assume I am going down the road of rape being a sexually oriented crime which I do not believe it is, surely lowering testosterone levels would lower any form of aggressive tendency in the perp to commit the crime?

This isn't true. Testosterone dosen't equate to violence. If you wish to create a more passive person - I would recommend a full frontal lobotomy - it works 100% of the time, but thats no more right than the rape crime in the first place.

Kell wrote:

Rape is an extraordinarily violent crime whether its in a laneway or in the comfy surroundings of your own bed while being off your head on some date rape drug, and any method of removing such an aggressive streak within a person that would make them commit such a crime has got to be considered.

I hope you wouldn't consider a full frontal lobotomy! ...people need to consider the innocient - not just the victim. People get wrongly convicted all the time. If casturation, or any other forced medical proceedure is made available, how would you feel if you were innocient? We must srrive for a less barbaric society.

Kell wrote:

Take on board this for a moment. In some of my counselling literature, reference has been made to paedophiles and the fact that they will not be cured no matter how much money is thrown into their rehab. They wont be cured because paedophilia is their sexuality, just like you and I are either hetero, bi or gay. Consider this for a moment then. Is rape a feature of a rapists sexuality and if it is, is there anything really that can be done about it?

Not all hetrosexual people have sex. Not all gay people have sex. You see, wheither a person is aroused by aggressive sex - that dosen't make them rapists. It takes a very special sick basta*d to commit that crime.

Silent Bob

naughty_girl wrote:

Its not natural to kill, rape or maim for fun.

Are you claiming that dolphins living in the wild are not natural because they rape, kill and torture 'for fun'?

There's at least one counter-example for you. Killing, torture etc. are bad and wrong, but they are not solely a human invention.

beer enigma

Just for info......

ps....for the couple of you who have seen fit to hammer my 'reputation' level for starting this thread - shame on you. I opened this as a genuine & open debate & I think (hope) that has been achieved. Negative reputations on this board should not be used just because you don't agree with me.

NY Times wrote:

HELENA, Mont. -- Hoping to save money on prisons, Montana has become the second state to approve the use of "chemical castration" to reduce the sexual drive of sexual offenders who are about to be released from prison.
A similar program went into effect this year in California, where the law mandates that sex offenders convicted of child molestation for a second time be injected with a drug, usually Depo-Provera, that reduces testosterone levels, which in turn reduces sex drive.

The Montana law, which is to take effect Oct. 1, does not mandate injections, but allows judges to impose them if an offender commits rape or incest for a second time, or if a first offense is particularly heinous.
The injections would begin a week before the offender is to be released from prison and would continue until the Montana Department of Corrections deems them no longer necessary -- which could mean for life. Once the injections stop, the sex drive returns to previous levels.
"It's like a nicotine patch," said state Rep. Deb Kottel, Democrat of Great Falls, who sponsored one of two bills on the issue that passed. "It takes the edge off and allows people to quit."
Officials estimate that the injections will cost $21 a day, while incarceration costs $44 a day.

amp

I don't think reputation has even been implemented fully yet.