Should convicted rapists be castrated

JTPB

Sleepy wrote:

I don't know whether to take that as condecension, naieveté or just the words of a sanctimonious prick.

It *is* condecension, I *do* consider msyelf to be superior to you, I'm afraid.

Kell

lisa.c wrote:

how can you say that not every waster who rapes is on the dole. rape is about power. people who rape do it for the power they feel not because they have no money to.people who have money and live in good homes and have good jobs rape to. that has to be the daftest statement i have ever heard

Erm, I dont actually recall pointing out that people from disadvantaged backrounds are rapists. Rape is an across the classes type crime, and thanks for reminding of that.

As many people here have been banging on about socio-economic factors that influence crime (I think we left the rape debate long ago and are now talking about crime in general), I was merely painting in broad brush strokes how things are panning out and the unliklihood of ever being able to re-habilitate the masses of people who do not conform to the law of the land.

I was pointing out that trying to rehabilitate repeat law breakers it is a waste of time resources and money. Someone cited an example earlier of repeat sexual offenders in an area of the states where the re-offending rate is 3.5%. By my calculations, that equates to 300 odd repeat sex crimes. Dont know about you, but I am not happy to accept these figures.

K-

Zulu

Kell wrote:

I think I am correct in thinking that you pointed out earlier that rehab/execution/imprionment etc werent an economics issue?

I don't think in did - but, if I did, it wasn't in this context. I probably said that they shouldn't be an economics issue. Naturally, of course, in todays society, they unfortunately, are.

Kell wrote:

Lets look at how things are panning out globally, and even look close to home for examples. Certain groups within socitey have learnt that it is OK to scrounge off the system for the duration of their life and earn a bit of cash on the side through crime. That group, through ignorance and a "I dont give a fúck" attitude, produces an excess number of children in relation to what the welfare state can sustain and that group of children learn the same principles of their miguided parents.

This is a very limited argument. Agreed in Ireland we has a big culture of it, but in Sweden say, that culture barely exists. It all depends on the society.

Kell wrote:

Slowly but surely, supporting this growing group of wasters and scroungers eats into economic budgets and drains resources from elsewhere, while the scrounging group, whom some have classified as "scumbags" increasingly run "out of things to do" and joy ride, rape, mug etc to get their kicks.

So lazy, unmotivated people, inevitable become joy riders/rapists/muggers? :rolleyes: That attitude is just a little snobby.

Kell wrote:

Over more time, the welfare state starts to eat so much into economic budgets that the nice law abiding people who think lofty thoughts of world peace and a society rid of crime, get repeatedly fúcked over and the tide of scumbags continues to rise.

So everyone on welfare is now a scumbag??? :eek:

Kell wrote:

Re-habilitate all of them? Charge you, me, and all the nice people for their re-integration into normal society? Fúck them. Fúck all of them. In fact, I am being honest in stating "shoot the fúckers".

I would gladly give 75% of my salary, if I believed that we had an effective rehabilitation system; if crime was being tackled successfully; if the world was becoming a safer/better place.

Kell

Zulu wrote:

So lazy, unmotivated people, inevitable become joy riders/rapists/muggers? :rolleyes: That attitude is just a little snobby.

So everyone on welfare is now a scumbag??? :eek:

I would gladly give 75% of my salary, if I believed that we had an effective rehabilitation system; if crime was being tackled successfully; if the world was becoming a safer/better place.

I dont limit unlawful activities to lazy un-motivated people, however, the hi-dependency, disadvantaged areas do possess higher crime rates.

Not everyone on welfare is a scum bag. Had you read my post correctly you would have seen that I did point out that the people who have decided to ride the system are scum bags. I didnt mention genuine merit for being on welfare i.e. disability, loss of job. People who have never contributed to society in terms of taxation and have never worked through choice, not circumstance, dont deserve welfare.

I am in agreement with your last point. If I got decent roads, affordable housing, good healthcare, equal education opportunities for my kids, dole that might just support me should I lose my job, I wouldnt mind paying 75% tax. Sad fact of the matter is that we dont get any of the above.

Oh and tell me, why do you incessantly cite Sweden as your utopia? How many countries in the world are there and you can only cite one example of how society can work properly? Sounds to me like you're clutching at a very lonesome straw.

K-

Zulu

Kell wrote:

I dont limit unlawful activities to lazy un-motivated people, however, the hi-dependency, disadvantaged areas do possess higher crime rates.
Not everyone on welfare is a scum bag. Had you read my post correctly you would have seen that I did point out that the people who have decided to ride the system are scum bags. I didnt mention genuine merit for being on welfare i.e. disability, loss of job. People who have never contributed to society in terms of taxation and have never worked through choice, not circumstance, dont deserve welfare.

Fiar enough - you were just sounding a little bad.

Kell wrote:

I am in agreement with your last point. If I got decent roads, affordable housing, good healthcare, equal education opportunities for my kids, dole that might just support me should I lose my job, I wouldnt mind paying 75% tax. Sad fact of the matter is that we dont get any of the above.

I know, but that is (imo) what we should strive for.

Kell wrote:

Oh and tell me, why do you incessantly cite Sweden as your utopia? How many countries in the world are there and you can only cite one example of how society can work properly? Sounds to me like you're clutching at a very lonesome straw.

LOL fair cop gov! I cite Sweden, because I've spent quite alot of time there and was very impressed with how the system worked. VERY impressed. They have alot of things sorted out. The reason I don't cite other societies, because a) I don't have first hand experience and b) unfortunatly, most of the world is too poor, and underdeveloped. They don't make for good examples frankly.

It might be a lonesome straw - but it's a valid one.

JTPB

Hanging people for stealing sheep never stopped sheep thieves. There will always be rapists; there will always be too many rapists no matter what is done.

This being the case, the salient variable is the level of barbarism in punishing the criminal.

elivsvonchiaing

JTPB wrote:

Hanging people for stealing sheep never stopped sheep thieves. There will always be rapists; there will always be too many rapists no matter what is done.

This being the case, the salient variable is the level of barbarism in punishing the criminal.

In certain crimes I'm in favour of a descent back to barbarism. Crimes where the victims life is ruined/massively compromised. Yes. Where a bank, a farm, any business whatsoever is massively compromised - no. I believe our judicial system has lost sight of this.

I remember a case going back to early eighties (can't remember the details). A bunch of arseholes beat the be-jeesus out of the husband gang raped the wife, while he watched. All were released when both husband and wife were still catatonic in mental institutions.

There is the dilema of innocent convictions - but where the evidence is 99% good - the hammer should fall hard.

My implementation of chemical castration involves nitric acid.

Georgiana

A few more thoughts on the subject

The questions we are looking at are

1. What should society do about those who have commited acts of violence, aggression etc on others and how? (Leave aside the question of why people commit violent actions for the moment)

2. Why should society choose any given line of action (This second important question has not been adequately explored so far on this thread-Rather people are making assumptions)

Now-what are the options and why might society pursue them?
Here are some of the obvious ones

a. Do Nothing-Why?- There is no good argument for this line of action as it provides no protection to society from further offences and does not hold an offender accountable

b. Remove the offender from society-Why? It protects society from further offence and may act as a deterrant to others-It also means the offender is made accountable for his/her abusive inappropriate behaviour. Most people agree it has merit

c. Aim to reform the offender so that he/she will not re-offend and will behave within regular codes of conduct. If this can be done there is no good argument for not doing it. Evidence suggests that there is considerable scope for such an approach but that it does not work in every case. There is no good argument for not trying to aim for maximum results by working to reform offenders behaviour as much as is possible. Psychologists and educators are key players in this arena but cannot be expected to reform all
criminals.

d. Engage the offender in activity whereby he/she repays something to society or to victims. Why? Because the offender owes a debt, holds him/her accountable and because it may have a reforming influence.

e. Confront offenders with the consequences of thier crimes. This has been tried in the UK where offenders meet victims who are willing to do so or families of victims. It is very successful in relation to reform of criminal behaviour which is why it is worth trying.

f.. Aim to make the offender suffer, to punish him or her. Why would we choose this option? This option is chosen because it brings about a feeling of satisfaction and perhaps relief for others. It can make victims of crime or other members of society feel satisfied to know that a perpetrator of crime is suffering. Some would claim it is "to teach them a lesson", to ensure that "justice is done". Teaching them a lesson makes the "teacher" feel superior and good about him/herself. It is very important to be clear on why we choose or recommend a line of action. The reason someone wants to castrate a rapist is simply because it makes him/her feel good, satisfied and on the high moral ground. In fact what has happened is that by making the offender suffer, the person or society who creates the suffering is simply repeating the aggressive action of the criminal. Anyone who has ever studied communication or conflict will know that to respond to aggression with more aggression creates a downward spiral which has no positive outcomes.


This is the truth and anybody who is honest knows it is the truth.

Georgiana

PS: I will concede that some criminals are so brutalised that they exude and expect aggression and conflict. Others are difficult to reform because of personality, mental health or drug problems. This does present a significant challenge. Basically these people have to be kept out of circulation. However, I believe there is no case in any circumstances for violence against people who have commited crime, no matter how bad the crime. And you can list all the Jamie Bolger etc cases. Further violence can do no good to anyone. It dehumanises the perpetrators.

elivsvonchiaing

Georgiana wrote:

PS: I will concede that some criminals are so brutalised that they exude and expect aggression and conflict. Others are difficult to reform because of personality, mental health or drug problems. This does present a significant challenge. Basically these people have to be kept out of circulation. However, I believe there is no case in any circumstances for violence against people who have commited crime, no matter how bad the crime. And you can list all the Jamie Bolger etc cases. Further violence can do no good to anyone. It dehumanises the perpetrators.

I have to agree with this. But I firmly stick by the premise that if the victim is severely brutalised - they need some form of justice. Whether the perpetrator is castrated by nitric acid or just two pirhanas in jamjar. The perperator gets locked up and the key disolved in nitric acid. I think either is good for the victim.

However, I feel the need to add that there are some crimes that make the perpetrator sub-human. Social environment doesn't figure here. E.g Charles Manson.

galwaydude18

anyone who committs rape should be shot dead!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: nothing else will suffice!!!!!! they will almost 100% certainly do it again once relased from prision! :mad: :mad:

JTPB

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

In certain crimes I'm in favour of a descent back to barbarism. Crimes where the victims life is ruined/massively compromised. Yes. Where a bank, a farm, any business whatsoever is massively compromised - no. I believe our judicial system has lost sight of this.

I remember a case going back to early eighties (can't remember the details). A bunch of arseholes beat the be-jeesus out of the husband gang raped the wife, while he watched. All were released when both husband and wife were still catatonic in mental institutions.

There is the dilema of innocent convictions - but where the evidence is 99% good - the hammer should fall hard.

My implementation of chemical castration involves nitric acid.

How charming. But why do you not suggest to arrange for beatings and rapes of the arseholes involved, as "an eye for an eye" doctrine - or is it that you want to exceed what that doctrine allows?

JTPB

galwaydude18 wrote:

anyone who committs rape should be shot dead!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: nothing else will suffice!!!!!! they will almost 100% certainly do it again once relased from prision! :mad: :mad:

Official US government and Canadian stats, which I have posted a link to elsewhere in this thread show that in actual fact , sex offenders have the second-lowest rate of re-offedning, so I am afraid we could not base Government policy on your outburst.

Georgiana

I would challenge the contributors here whether they are capapable of discussing the subject without resort to emotive language and opinion based on misinformation and false assumption. The level of the debate is frankly, for the most part a bit depressing.

People commit violent acts because it gives them some feeling of satisfaction. This is true in all cases, whether carried out by the original criminal or upon the criminal. Can people discuss this reality instead of venting your own need for satisfiction like a baying mob.

Zulu

galwaydude18 wrote:

anyone who committs rape should be shot dead!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: nothing else will suffice!!!!!! they will almost 100% certainly do it again once relased from prision! :mad: :mad:

"Almost" and "100% certaainly" don't sit well together.
Care to back this comment up with facts - or are you prepared to concede that it's just blantant sensationalism with on real meaningful imput to the discussion?

elivsvonchiaing

JTPB wrote:

How charming. But why do you not suggest to arrange for beatings and rapes of the arseholes involved, as "an eye for an eye" doctrine - or is it that you want to exceed what that doctrine allows?

"An eye for an eye" is from Exodus which puts it at about 1200BC. Since then I think mankind has worked out that theres more to justice than this. Ghandi had a go at it for what it is - primitive.

As I pointed out earlier there is a huge difference between crimes against property and crimes against the individual/human spirit. You could get an army of big-ass sex-offenders who could overpower these arseholes in their cells and rape them constantly. This will probably never traumatise them as much as they did their victims.

JTPB

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

"An eye for an eye" is from Exodus which puts it at about 1200BC. Since then I think mankind has worked out that theres more to justice than this. Ghandi had a go at it for what it is - primitive.

Not withstanding that the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" doctrine is indeed primitive, belonging to Biblical times, it would be more merciful and more advanced than the punishment you have proposed with nitric acid et cetera, which sounds like something out of Australopithecus times.

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

.......You could get an army of big-ass sex-offenders who could overpower these arseholes in their cells and rape them constantly. This will probably never traumatise them as much as they did their victims.

If rape is a traumatic experience then logically there is every reason to assume that it will traumatise whoever experiences it, whether they are a rapist or not.

However, I do realise that when you make the (rather unbelievable) assertion that rapists would never really be traumatised by being raped constantly, it clears the way for you to propose punishments that are more traumatic than being raped.

johnKarma

Dr johnKarma prescribes hearty doses of the Brass Eye Paedophilia Special to all.

elivsvonchiaing

JTPB wrote:

However, I do realise that when you make the (rather unbelievable) assertion that rapists would never really be traumatised by being raped constantly, it clears the way for you to propose punishments that are more traumatic than being raped.

I believe these people are in a place where since early childhood they have become immune to pain.

I've thought a bit about this and how to reach them - and therefore punish them. I have to eat my own words and say an "eye for eye" applies here.

Give them transexual surgery. When they are almost healed up put em in the cell with the rapist in it. This is truly an eye for an eye. :cool:

JTPB

Georgiana wrote:

I would challenge the contributors here whether they are capapable of discussing the subject without resort to emotive language and opinion based on misinformation and false assumption. The level of the debate is frankly, for the most part a bit depressing.

People commit violent acts because it gives them some feeling of satisfaction. This is true in all cases, whether carried out by the original criminal or upon the criminal. Can people discuss this reality instead of venting your own need for satisfiction like a baying mob.

I agree; I thought the quality of the contributions were better at the start of this thread than later, but I am aware that there are those whose feelings on the subject have a certain primal quality, and I had expected that elements of a "baying mob" would materialise. However, these primal emotions and their origins need to be addressed if progess is to be made, because otherwise they will lead to confusion.

JTPB

johnKarma wrote:

Dr johnKarma prescribes hearty doses of the Brass Eye Paedophilia Special to all.

Tension-laden ideational content causes hilarity when the tension is suddenly discharged in unexpected ways; I think it was Freud who said that.

I would indeed like take your perscription at some stage, :cool: however, right now I feel it might divert my attention from the more serious task of examining the tensions in this issue.

Who knows, it's possible that material suitable for another Brass Eye program might turn up here.

JTPB

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

I believe these people are in a place where since early childhood they have become immune to pain.

I've thought a bit about this and how to reach them - and therefore punish them. I have to eat my own words and say an "eye for eye" applies here.

Give them transexual surgery. When they are almost healed up put em in the cell with the rapist in it. This is truly an eye for an eye. :cool:

A couple of comments, but first a couple of questions:

1)Would you want the surgery carried out without anaesthetic?

2)Do you have any theories on how they became immune to pain?

Georgiana

JTPB wrote:

I these primal emotions and their origins need to be addressed if progess is to be made, because otherwise they will lead to confusion.

I agree that the primal emotions need to be addressed but society at large cannot/should not, in my view, legislate to satisfy such primal emotions. This is what is happening in the case of capital punishment in the US, but that a whole other subject. Some people would say "thats democracy" but democratic decisons/legislation reflect the state of maturity or otherwise of the population and is very culture related. If you grew up under Sharia Law, you might agree with it. Sounds like some of the people here agree with its key principles. Mature leadership and informed debate go some way to mature decision making rather than primal emotion based reaction.

Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "confusion".

pretty-in-pink

the only real suffering, that would make a perpee feel better, imo, is knowing that the perp is suffering from the weight of his/her conscience. i cant imagine anything worse then waking up and having to face yourself everyday if you truly regret what you have done.

you can lock someone up, but it most likely will make the problems worse regardless of the type of prison. if you brutilise someone they will eventually turn on society. just look at the movie "sleepers", based on a real situation. did the boys change into ultra perfect, decent members of society? no 2 of them went much much worse then they ever were, were just shells of people, the other 2 while they didnt turn into shells, they were unable to function as normal human beings.

anyone that has been attacked, raped, had someone taken from them, would you really wish that on someone else?on their family?what if ti was your brother/mother.father/sister/aunt/uncle/cousin etc? surely the disgust that those closest to the perp would hold for them would be the worst.

now i know there are cold attacks, or ones where the whole family are nearly in favor of such actions, so what do you do there?

rehab can work, if the person wants it to, if they dont nothing that we can do will change them, so do we kill them? i dont think so. castration wouldnt work either, as the many arguments here againnst it prove. there is no solutuoon for those who want to keep hurting people, who couldnt care less, dont focus so much on vindication but look more at preventing the whole sorry situation.

earlier when i said make them see the long term effects, i meant by facing up to people who have been attacked, andseeing the scars, facing the anger etc.

JTPB

Georgiana wrote:

I agree that the primal emotions need to be addressed but society at large cannot/should not, in my view, legislate to satisfy such primal emotions. This is what is happening in the case of capital punishment in the US, but that a whole other subject. Some people would say "thats democracy" but democratic decisons/legislation reflect the state of maturity or otherwise of the population and is very culture related. If you grew up under Sharia Law, you might agree with it. Sounds like some of the people here agree with its key principles. Mature leadership and informed debate go some way to mature decision making rather than primal emotion based reaction.

Also I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "confusion".

Society at large certainly should not legislate to satisfy such primal emotions, but they do need to be addressed and their origins analysed, because otherwise they will filter through to influence government policy in democratic societies.

An understanding of the nature, origin and intensity of these emotions/tensions is a critical step towards awareness of the factors which influence group decision-making, and hence is also a critical step towards recognising and removing irrelevant factors which would otherwise contaminate the decision-making process.

By "confusion" I mean confusion in the decision-making process due to contamination with emotional inputs of unidentified origins - origins which may be only marginally related to rape.

In other words, it needs to be known why people feel as they do about rape, and why people's feelings about it differ - some being very extreme - during the decision-making process.

Sleepy

My opinions on adopting a hard line to crime are, I must admit, entirely economic. To my mind, neither myself, nor any other tax-payer has a duty of care towards someone who repeatedly violates the laws of the state which our tax supports. If someone who is through their own choice a burden to society, they should not be supported by society. If you can provide a viable option for these people to pay for their own incarceration and (possible?) rehabilitation I'd be very open to it, and would in fact favour of it.

To be fair, this debate has changed my attitudes towards the idea that castration is probably an ineffectual "cure" for a rapist. Naughty_girl makes a very good point that if the perpetrator can be made to feel genuine remorse for their actions, it is probably the most effective punishment they can receive. However, in this scenario, one would have to assume that counselling would be required for both parties in order to stop the perpetrator from killing themselves when they've been exposed to the gravity of their crimes. I'm not sure that I could justify spending tax money on this when it is needed so badly by law-abiding citizens for health , education etc.

This is the main stem of my argument for killing career criminals. It's certainly not an ideal solution but until society has endless amounts of money we have to consider the question: is it right to punish society for the acts of one person who doesn't contribute to or respect that society?

As I've already stated, my arguments are heavily based in the econmic realities of this issue. Whilst economics aren't perfect, they are the best tool we have at our disposal for the running of nation states. Granted that if sensible economics were applied to other areas of society (the health system, government contracts etc. etc.) it might, at some stage in the future bring us to a point where we could rationalise spending money in an attempt to reform these people but even at that point it would be hard to convince me that spending money on criminals is better than spending it on law-abiding citizens of the nation.

JTPB

Sleepy wrote:

My opinions on adopting a hard line to crime are, I must admit, entirely economic.

I find much merit in your position. I just would be worried about over-reacting to the point that the State would actually be perpetrating a greater crime on the criminal than the criminal had committed.

I think the role of a criminal sub-culture may have had a lot to do with what the children in question did - an environment where "hard men" are looked up to, revered, and feared. Maybe they became that way because you'd have to become tough and a "hard man" yourself in order to get by in that environment. I'd say it has less to do with poverty and poor facilities than this business of being a "hard man".

Look at the feuds between criminals - gangland killings etc. That type of environment does not tend to breed polite people.

Georgiana

My arguments are heavily based in the econmic realities of this issue. Whilst economics aren't perfect, they are the best tool we have at our disposal for the running of nation states.


Economics is an extremely narrow limited basis on which to make decisons on questions of such moral complexity

test999

willy removal by sword (purely for dramatic affect) would be
a deterrent for all future rapists.

elivsvonchiaing

JTPB wrote:

A couple of comments, but first a couple of questions:

1)Would you want the surgery carried out without anaesthetic?

2)Do you have any theories on how they became immune to pain?

1) Absolutely not - they should be given the impression that their appeal is likely to work - get out the next day - given a congratulatory meal with a Mickey Finn in it. When they wake up they are now a woman. There is also the danger they may enjoy the pain of the surgery - I'm talking seriously twisted here - not just some pervert who hides in a bush and jumps on women cause he can't help himself.

2) Possibly (ok I'm really not basing this on any body of work that's been done on this - if you must call it bull**** - please feel free - but please mention your source that demonstrates this -i.e. prove me wrong) they endured some trauma in childhood that caused the invention of a god-like/demon-like personality that doesn't feel pain on many levels. Doesn't feel anything - sociopathically needs to perperate misery on others to feel anything. The alter-ego of the child is supressed very deeply by the more dominant personality and never resurfaces. Hence they are not diagnosed with MPD. Note: this just a theory

I should really have empasised more in my previous post - my suggested punishment would only apply where the victims are quite literally destroyed by the crime. Some college jock get drunk and perpetrates a date rape - I think just 20 years in the nick should suffice