Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is doing both necessary? No person who is castrated is likely to offend again for obvious reasons. Why put them on a public registry? One or the other; both is excessive.
Because:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan
most "rape" is about power, NOT sex. Cutting a psycho's balls off won't stop him from doing something real bad again and some castrated dudes are still horn dogs and CAN have sex..
And if they violate the terms of their sex offender status (including a permanent ankle bracelet), then lock them up. For life.
Not to get graphic, but rape can be done without a penis. So they need to be restricted from contact with potential victims. At least if they're castrated though, then even if they do offend again, the victim will have much less chance of exposure to disease/pregnancy.
And if they violate the terms of their sex offender status (including a permanent ankle bracelet), then lock them up. For life.
Not to get graphic, but rape can be done without a penis. So they need to be restricted from contact with potential victims. At least if they're castrated though, then even if they do offend again, the victim will have much less chance of exposure to disease/pregnancy.
But if they're on a public registry and apparently have to wear an ankle bracelet, why castrate them?
I get that rape is a serious crime, but we're not barbarians. I thought we were past cutting body parts off as punishment.
I could see reason to require vasectomy though. But to actually cut it off... as you said, they can rape without it and if they're on a public registry it seems like an excessive punishment, which is unconstitutional.
And if they violate the terms of their sex offender status (including a permanent ankle bracelet), then lock them up. For life.
Not to get graphic, but rape can be done without a penis. So they need to be restricted from contact with potential victims. At least if they're castrated though, then even if they do offend again, the victim will have much less chance of exposure to disease/pregnancy.
There are several problems with castration.
To begin with, it would be extremely difficult to argue that the amputation of a body part didn't violate the constitutional injunction against cruel and unusual punishment.
Secondly, for obvious reasons, it would be impossible to enact this punishment against female offenders. While men are far more likely than women to commit sexual assault, women do account for about five percent of offenders. This is still a huge number of actual perpetrators. Moreover, that rises to twelve percent for victims under the age of six.
Thirdly, it is a penalty for which there is no available reversal or compensation in instances of conviction due to mistaken identity or a fraudulent accusation. This is especially problematic when one considers the fact that it is becoming increasingly common to replace rationally-acquired evidence with popular opinion in regards to interpreting sexual assault claims.
Lastly, it is a remedy which appeals primarily to the emotional desire for retribution, rather than the practical desire of public safety. A large number of sexual assaults are committed, as you've pointed out, by use of an object other than a penis. Amputating someone's genitals will not serve the function of containing their psychological rage--it may even make things worse.
if they're on a public registry and apparently have to wear an ankle bracelet, why castrate them?
I get that rape is a serious crime, but we're not barbarians. I thought we were past cutting body parts off as punishment.
I could see reason to require vasectomy though. But to actually cut it off... as you said, they can rape without it and if they'rewhich vasectomy a public registry it seems like an excessive punishment, which is unconstitutional.
Good point. I was thinking more of surgical castration -- safe, and under anesthesia and medical care. Similar to neutering pets. I'm sure there are people out there who'd advocate taking a rusty sword to a screaming rapist's nuts in the town square, but that's not what I'm advocating. The key is making it more difficult for a rapist to offend -- on all fronts. As well as reducing the risk of STD transmission if they do (which vasectomy wouldn't prevent). Not torture or vengeance.
To begin with, iconvictd be extremely difficult to argue that the amputation of a body part didn't violate the constitutional injunction against cruel and itnusual punishment.
Secondly, for obvious reasons, it would be impossible to enact this punishment against female offenders. While men are far more likely than women to commit sexual assault, women do account for about five percent of offenders. This is still a huge number of actual perpetrators. Moreover, that rises to twelve percent for victims under the age of six.
Thirdly, it is a penalty for which there is no available reversal or compensation in instances of conviction due to mistaken identity or a fraudulent accusation. This is especially problematic when one considers the fact that it is becoming increasingly common to replace rationally-acquired evidence with popular opinion in regards to interpreting sexual assault claims.
Lastly, it is a remedy which appeals primarily to the emotional desire for retribution, rather than the practical desire of public safety. A large number of sexual assaults are committed, as you've pointed out, by use of an object other than a penis. Amputating someone's genitals will not serve the function of containing their psychological rage--it may even make things worse.
Fair enough. What about mandatory hormone treatments (ideally something like a yearly injection or implant, etc)? This would be reversible (in case the convict was actually found innocent), no hacking off body parts, and the lowering of testosterone would make them all around more docile. It would also work for female offenders.
Good point. I was thinking more of surgical castration -- safe, and under anesthesia and medical care. Similar to neutering pets. I'm sure there are people out there who'd advocate taking a rusty sword to a screaming rapist's nuts in the town square, but that's not what I'm advocating. The key is making it more difficult for a rapist to offend -- on all fronts. As well as reducing the risk of STD transmission if they do (which vasectomy wouldn't prevent). Not torture or vengeance.
Right.
The only problem I have with this is the lack of real evidence that suggest rapists are actually likely to re-offend. There are some studies that show they are very likely, but some suggest that they aren't. What doesn't really happen is addressing why they re-offend either. Sex offender laws on residency restrictions, for example, may be counter productive because it drives them away from their community and might very well increase there chances of recommitting the same crime.
The laws regarding rape (and their release from prison) do need to be effective and not too lenient, but if their too restrictive, it may do more harm than good. This is something I think is true with all crime. Many ex-cons struggle to be accepted in their community or find jobs, often regardless of what the crime was. By creating this image that all former convicts are significantly more likely to commit (in their case another) crime may very well be the reason recidivism rates are as high as they are. That, and many prisoners are drug abusers and without proper medical care are likely to still technically be drug addicts upon release. But that's another topic.
Sex offenders, at least rapists anyway, are a serious issue. But what works best for society at large is stopping them from committing these crimes by rehabilitating them and releasing them into society as regular people. That should be the goal. It does not bode well for us to have a large prison population (it costs money and reflects poorly on us) or to have ex-cons needlessly struggle, increasing their chances of re-offending.
Rape needs to be addressed. The best place to start would be sex ed for students. Do more than what typically is done in American sex education, which is scare tactics revolving around unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Teach the importance of consent and intimacy. Teach students how to handle sexual relationships, how to have sex safely, and how to avoid sexual assaults. The sooner in life people learn about this, the better the results will be.
if you go back and read my post you will see that i want to cut their balls off and then execute them, so how do you get defend out of that, troll master
Part of the reason "rape" and the sentencing is kinda watered-down is the laws consider a LOT of different things rape..........rape in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th degree. Lying about rape is a problem also.....makes some sceptical.
Then you have the fact that there has been a lot of older women caught "dating"
teen boys............ everyone is happy and fine with this. So when it is called "rape", people just laugh and shake their heads..........maybe this should be allowed and not even called rape.
if you go back and read my post you will see that i want to cut their balls off and then execute them, so how do you get defend out of that, troll master
Please, stop it. How you can defend this is unimaginable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
