Rape Offences

seamus

The last 2 rape cases I've heard about, have me thinking about how rape offenders should be tried/sentenced.

Case 1: The X case guy. Taxi driver, his 2nd offence, the girl he rapes becomes pregnant, and subsequently aborts, risking her future childbearing prospects, as well as the untold mental effects on a young girl. She is afraid, as reported on the news, to get into taxis on her own. That may not sound like much, but it's probably just the tip of the iceberg. He gets 3 years and registered as a sex offender, plus a 10 year driving ban. (How did he get a PSV licence after his 1st offence? :rolleyes: ) The public are screaming for blood.

Case 2: A simple window cleaner. Never been in trouble before. Meets a girl while out one night, she invites him back to her place for 'coffee'. They get down to some kissing, etc. She invites him into bed, they get naked. Then she decides to stop. He's slightly drunk, and damn horny. Rapes her. Gets a 4 year suspended sentence and a €6350 fine, payable at €63 euros/week. The public are screaming for blood.

Do you rate both of these men in the same category? The judge in case 2 said the man got a suspended sentence because he 'was not likely to be a future danger to women'. I concur.

At the base of it, yes, he had sex with a woman who did not consent. But he had met her only that night. She invited him into bed. He obviously got the idea that she was a slut (or that she was very keen). I know I would, but I wouldnt rape her.

In case 1, the man was sober. The girl didn't lead him on, he just raped her. He had done it before. He is the classic rapist. Real rape imo, has nothing to do with being horny, or wanting sex. It is normally to do with degradation, power and humiliation. Why do you think that most rapists know their victims? They want to know about the power they have, and to humiliate this person who they know. That's the kick they get out of it, not the sex. Why else would someone rape more than 1 girl in one night (it happens regularly)? Surely sex once a week is enough to hold someone for a day or two? So it has nothing to do with sex. (remember this is all my opinion )

In case 2, It had everything to do with sex. He was horny, he wanted sex, and just lost some of his sense, and went too far. She should have known that inviting a man she only just met into bed, leading him to the edge and then refusing, was playing with fire. This doesn't absolve him, but certainly doesn't entitle her to full compensation/revenge for the act. He got a perfect sentence. He cannot be held in the same class as the man in case 1, ie a dangerous sexual offender, IMHO.

X-case man should be castrated. Opinions?


(Sorry about the rant)

TwoShedsJackson

No he should not be castrated! How does removing his sexual function either punish him effectively or restore anything to the victim? That is a prime knee-jerk reaction, string 'em up it's the only language they understand etc.

I fully agree that the guy in the X case should have got much heavier jail sentences in both cases, and also there's no way he should have got a taxi driver's permit either, but there are obviously flaws in the system there.

As for your contention that the other guy is less dangerous, you may well be right, but there is no way of knowing.

He obviously got the idea that she was a slut (or that she was very keen). I know I would, but I wouldnt rape her.

And that didn't give him the right to rape her either - had he stopped he would at worst have a case of the dreaded 'blue balls' but he didn't, and in my opinion he should be serving a custodial sentence for his crime.

She should have known that inviting a man she only just met into bed, leading him to the edge and then refusing, was playing with fire.

You seem to have omitted the fact that he threatened to kill the girl while raping her, the 'one mitigating factor against him', according to the judge :rolleyes: who also stated 'there was no harm done to the girl apart from the actual rape'. I think those two comments show that the judge is somewhat divorced from reality.

Why else would someone rape more than 1 girl in one night (it happens regularly)? Surely sex once a week is enough to hold someone for a day or two? So it has nothing to do with sex.

Back up that 'regularly' claim properly - those three sentences are pure conjecture and a half-assed attempt at psychology on your part.

This doesn't absolve him, but certainly doesn't entitle her to full compensation/revenge for the act

Oh your Honour she deserved it she was wearing a miniskirt/jeans/no knickers/delete as appropriate :rolleyes:

Boston

all i know is that in the x case, he got 14 years, was reduced to 4 was out in 3, got a taxi, "raped" another girl, and is now back in prison.

im not making this up, the times had a report on it

Slydice

surly not having his eh hmmmm "wee wee" would prevent him from repeating the type of crime

Lemming

Originally posted by Slydice
surly not having his eh hmmmm "wee wee" would prevent him from repeating the type of crime

Problem with serial rapists is that its more about power over the victim than it is about sex.

Most certainly the risk of castration may make many "jocks" think twice about it, but a "real" rapist (if you'll excuse my choice of words) is gonna do it anyway

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by seamus

Do you rate both of these men in the same category? The judge in case 2 said the man got a suspended sentence because he 'was not likely to be a future danger to women'. I concur.

at the end of the day rape is rape is rape is rape and there is no difference if it is premeditated, oppertunistic, or drunken.

and both deserve to due time for it....

mocar

as you said whitewashman. rape is rape is rape.
I am so angry words are not enough

meglome

the whole x case saga at this stage is a disgrace some of these judges badly need re-education.

How many guys out there have been in bed with a girl they just met and when push came to shove they wouldn't/couldn't have sex with her. They may have been tired, bored or drunk or whatever but they wouldn't give a second thought to rolling over and going asleep. So if a girl does this she is leading him on... well personally I don't buy it, it's bull****. Everyone has the right to say yes or no at any point along the line. Personally I’ve been there when things are going along nicely and the girl decides that she not into sex, well tough on me.

Friends of mine have been raped and they were never quite the same people. I dunno if I agree with castration but penalties should be severe... very severe.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mocar
as you said whitewashman. rape is rape is rape.

Is it?

Theoretically, statutory rape also covers rape where the victim is not in control of their full faculties. One example might be where a woman is drunk, has sex consentually and considers post facto that she has been raped when she sobers up.

So consider that if you meet an amorous lass at closing time in a nightclub. One chap in Canada got ten years for it a few years back.

Now if that dosen't get me flamed, I don't know what will...

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Is it?

Theoretically, statutory rape also covers rape where the victim is not in control of their full faculties.

well yes and no.
statutory rape basically means sex wiht an underage partner. and that is still a criminal offence. the age of consent is there for a reason so if you knowingly have intimate relations with someone below the age of consent (outside of a loving relationship) then yes id say that was rape. but it does become cloudy as to the maturity of the person and the setting etc etc etc.
however, the debate is probably aimed more at non consentory rape rather than the moral issues surrounding statutory rape.

by the way corinthian, yes i would consider your example as rape. its like going into a hospital, finding the coma ward and starting to have your wicked way with the patients. if someone is far under the influence of alcohol, and that is the only way you are going to sleep with them then i suggest a quick visit to the vidoe shop for am x-rated movie and hand shandy

dccarm

statutory rape basically means sex wiht an underage partner

Well like you say, yes and no. It does include sex with the mentally handicapped. A case in Scotland which thankfully never made it to court involved a mentally handicapped couple. Both were part of the care in the community scheme and had consentual sex. The woman's family tried to have the man charged with statutory rape, despite the fact that he was suffering from the same lack of mental capacity as her. The procurator fiscal eventually declined to take the case to court.

Xterminator

Of course there is a difference between siezing a opportunity and finding and forcibly raping a victim (whether you know them or not) posibly in there home or in an alley, park etc.

and

Being on a date with someone, (perhaps one of a number of dates) getting intimate, but then forcing yourself on that person, against their will.

The first is premeditated, the latter a crime of the moment.
Often you will find when date rape is claimed (and there are times it is claimed unjustly too) there has been a fair amount of drink, or possibly drugs taken by one or both of the partners, and you can be dealing with impaired judgement and possibly less than perfect recall.

Not that this excuses 'Date Rape' in any way. But premeditated rape is a very different crime.

Finally i have people i call friends who sufered rape too. But if I didnt reveal this, it would make my opinion no less valid. This thread is not nessecarily discussing the effects of rape on a victim, (though I believe this should be taken into consideration when sentancing) .

X

The Corinthian

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
statutory rape basically means sex wiht an underage partner.

Well, no. It means sex where sex cannot be reasonably given by the other party. This includes age (where one is too young to legally give consent), the mentally handicapped and those incapable to determining their own actions (such as an individual under rohypnol).

by the way corinthian, yes i would consider your example as rape. its like going into a hospital, finding the coma ward and starting to have your wicked way with the patients. if someone is far under the influence of alcohol, and that is the only way you are going to sleep with them then i suggest a quick visit to the vidoe shop for am x-rated movie and hand shandy

There you are getting all abusive again

I never said in my example that the other party was comatose. Just drunk. Not an uncommon beginning to many a romance in Ireland, I’ve noticed.

The question I posed was this - How drunk must someone be before they can withdraw consent after the event and after having given it in the first place? Should we all, both men and women, cry rape whenever we wake up after a night on the p1ss turn to see the creature from the black lagoon next to us and mutter “oh fsck…”? Does the other party having too much alcohol to drive make them incapable of legally giving consent? Or on another note, if a man spins a few yarns about his job, status, wealth, etc. can a woman claim that she was duped and hence gave her consent under false pretences?

In short, nothing is ultimately black or white, at least legally – that was my point.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Xterminator
The first is premeditated, the latter a crime of the moment.

Both are however still rape.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by The Corinthian
- How drunk must someone be before they can withdraw consent after the event and after having given it in the first place?

htey dont have to be drunk at all.
if someone says no, then it means no.

i suspect that in the sort of case youare talking about that no consent in the first place was given.
after all, how can it be rape if someone say yes and then 'doesnt' say no?

but im not going to go into the details as to what boarderlines rape and what doesnt.
i merely think that if someone does not want to have sex with you, or that you cannot or will not for whatever (legal) reasons then its rape, and it doesnt matter a damn what you say.

oh and yes if someone is too drunk to give consent then you should always assume that it is not given. i have to admit, im not proud of it but ive been in that situation far too many times before as a student. im not an honerable persona t the best of times, but i do respect the rights of others. besides, it hard to keep a hard on when someone is snoring

The Corinthian

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
i suspect that in the sort of case youare talking about that no consent in the first place was given.
after all, how can it be rape if someone say yes and then 'doesnt' say no?

We appear to be arguing at cross-purposes – Either I’m not explaining myself well enough, or you’re not reading.

The Canadian example I gave was where consent was freely given, then withdrawn after the fact (i.e. a day or two later). It was determined that as the woman was drunk when she gave the original consent, she was not in full control of her faculties and hence could not give consent.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by Clain
When people discuss the crime of rape, there is very often a strong emphasis on qualifying different types of rape. No one, I think, will argue against there being degrees of severity for this crime.

i would agree with you most o fwhat you say.
but im not so sure i agree about levels of rape.
i still maintain that rape is rape is rape.

corinth, you are right. we shall let it lie. i think we are talking about different points, and no, i cant read

bonkey

Originally posted by Clain
I would reiterate however, that the crime of rape is born out of anger and a need to humilate the victim.

In which case, date rape is not rape at all (unless premeditated) - as it is typically born out of lust, and a "need" to not stop. A man who is invited to bed, and then told stop (but doesnt) is not having sex out of anger and a need to humiliate the other party.

As for the Canadian case...the basic conclusion which most people came to at the end of it is that at the very least, sex on a first date when alcohol is involved is just opening yourself to possible prosecution.

Of course, the logical but farcical conclusion is that in order for men to be "safe" when having sex, they would need witnesses and/or a legally binding pre-sexual-contact contract of some sort.

As I said - farcical.

I'm not an advocate of "no sex before marriage" as per religious beliefs, but issues like the Canadian case mentioned here simply reaffirm my belief that in this day and age, casual sex is a highly risky business. Between the threat of STDs, criminal prosecution for rape, and what not, I often feel that maybe the whole idea of casual sex is whats wrong.

Of course, thats easy to say when in a stable and happy relationship. I'm not so sure I would have espoused that position so readily when I was long-term-single.

No such concern seems apparent when a male is raped - that seemly to be understood to be born of violence and derogation, and not about expressing a sexual instinct for itself.

Just on that note.....in Ireland, a male cannot be raped. Rape only applies when the victim is female. In the male case, it is classified as "sexual assault", which is a completely different kettle of fish from the legal stantpoint.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
i would agree with you most o fwhat you say.
but im not so sure i agree about levels of rape.
i still maintain that rape is rape is rape.

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
but im not going to go into the details as to what boarderlines rape and what doesnt.

Err - does this mean that what you are in fact saying is that you wont discuss what may or may not be rape, but once it *is* rape, then you see no levels or distinctions?

The problem with this approach (if I understand it correctly) is that it is most typically the "borderline" cases which are where people disagree on whether or not it *is* rape, and whether or not the sentencing can or should be as tough in these cases.

I agree with the principle that anyone involved in sex has the right to say "no", right up to the point where the act is completed. Thus, I see no distinction between the initial two cases, and agree that they were both rape and shoul dbe treated equally.

I do not agree with the principle that the Canadian case highlighted - that you can give permission, and then argue after the fact that you did not in fact mean to give permission and therefore it was rape.

The Canadian case was basically where the woman successfully argued that "yes really meant no".

Would you maintain that this, therefore, is the exact same (rape is rape) as when you have a violent attack as in one of the first points. Here, the guy apparently did nothing wrong. He was given permission. He was sentenced to 10 years for believing that for some bizarre reason, yes meant yes.

In this case, where the issue is far less clearcut, I'm not sure we can simply condemn the guy equally with those who dont understand that "no means no".

jc

Meh

Originally posted by The Corinthian
One chap in Canada got ten years for it a few years back.

I think we're all just speculating until we know the full facts on this case. Do you have a link to a court report or anything?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
but im not so sure i agree about levels of rape.
i still maintain that rape is rape is rape.

Rape is rape, but what is rape? That's all. We tend to forget to ask that question whenever we fall over ourselves to see who is more PC.

corinth, you are right. we shall let it lie. i think we are talking about different points, and no, i cant read

Fair 'nuf. 'N neither can write I

Originally posted by Meh
I think we're all just speculating until we know the full facts on this case.

Quite right. But at least now we are looking for the facts.

(And on that point, the Corinthian smiled and melted back into the shadows...)

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by bonkey




Err - does this mean that what you are in fact saying is that you wont discuss what may or may not be rape, but once it *is* rape, then you see no levels or distinctions?

no, i will discuss, i just cant give you an all encompassing formula for what constitues more 'subtle' forms of rape
i would consider rape to be any form of sexual contact without consent.
i am also saying that it starts to get cloudy with regards to statutory rape. ie underage or incapacitated, and you can only judge on an individual case.

but yes, once it *is* rape, i see no distinction, as in date rape is no better or worse than violent rape at knife point. what i mean by this is that i see no difference in the level of violation, obviously i would find violent rape a lot more nauseating and horrific and something i would never want any person to experience.

Originally posted by bonkey


I do not agree with the principle that the Canadian case highlighted - that you can give permission, and then argue after the fact that you did not in fact mean to give permission and therefore it was rape.
jc

i agree. but id didnt say anything with regard to this case apart from i read it wrong, so dont go quoting me inregard to it.

im talking about clear cut cases where no means no and no is said. im talking about date rape, violent rape, over enthusiastic lustfullness etc etc etc.
im not talking about one case in canada.

Ivan

Well I'm not sure if anyone added this already, but there was just so much information that I'm sure I missed some.

The facts in the first post, about the second guy are pretty jumbled up.

Firstly it was HIS house, he invited her to his house.

She went in because he said his mom was there, which she was and his brother. His brother came downstairs and offered them tea and hen ran off. The mother disappeared too. She apparently kissed him once and he tried to jump on her.

Leading to the eventual rape.

The judge gave him a 4 year suspended sentence, and ordered him to pay €6,350 or whatever the other guy said.

Which she turned down. And it is in the process of being appealed.

Turns my stomach to be honest, but also it highlights an important problem for me. If a man and a woman go out on a date. The guy is expecting sex, and the girl is trying reach some kind of emotional connection, or else she is also after sex. And then they end up in either of their houses and procede to have sex. What is to stop the girl from saying, You just raped me. I mean, its her word against his? Your not allowed to reveal any promiscious behaviour from either parties' history as a defence, and he is the dirty ol rapist and she is the pure, honest virgin.

Ok my picture is pretty one sided, and kind of warped, but its a scary picture non-the-less.
It could, (I'm not saying it will, and this is in no way an excuse for rape) happen that a guy and a girl have sex, and she decides that he was terrible, and screams rape.

Slight exaggerated, or is it?

X-case man should be castrated. Opinions?

He should be locked up, and have the key thrown away.

He obviously got the idea that she was a slut (or that she was very keen). I know I would, but I wouldnt rape her.

Isnt an excuse for raping some, because "she/he was a slut".

The girl didn't lead him on, he just raped her.

Well now thats a horrific statement. Again, another attempt at justifying rape? - "She lead him on?"


Ivan.

neuro-praxis

Just to backtrack a little bit:

While I recognise the need to have a legislation regarding statutory rape, I think that it is very dodgy ground. When I was 14/15 I had a 17/18 year old boyfriend for almost a year. Obviously he was above the age of consent whilst I was below it. However, I knew exactly what I was doing in that relationship, my wits were fully about me and was never pressured into anythng (he was a good guy). If I had had full sex with him and we were caught, he would have been liable for statutory rape (if my parents decided to press charges), and I feel that that would have been totally undeserving.

WhiteWashMan, I understand and appreciate your sentiments that rape is rape is rape (and it is so good for women to have the support of men on this matter) - but statutory rape is not the same as standard rape. Just because you are under 17 (and that is our legal age of consent - not 16 as is commonly believed) does not mean that you're woolly headed and you don't really know your own mind.

I think rape is such a difficult area. I have real problems with how the names of men charged (but not yet convicted) of rape are released. Their lives are then ruined, even if they are let go!

I am irritated by you people who call a woman who goes to bed with a man she has just met, a slut. Grow up.

I think that there should be a back-out clause during all sexual encounters, be they with lovers or one-nighters. There should a facility laid out at that start that either party can say "no" at any time. If somebody says no (be it on a date, in a marriage, in a relationship, to a stranger), and the other party continues, then this is rape.

bonkey

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
but yes, once it *is* rape, i see no distinction, as in date rape is no better or worse than violent rape at knife point. what i mean by this is that i see no difference in the level of violation, obviously i would find violent rape a lot more nauseating and horrific and something i would never want any person to experience.

In principle, Id agree with that. However, as you admit - you dont have an all-encompassing formula, and neither does anyone else. In the absence of such an all-encompassing formula, can we still treat every case equally? I'm not sure. I tend to side with you on punishment for the clearcut cases, but its when the "border issues" come into play that I'm not convinced the same punishments should be applied.

i agree. but id didnt say anything with regard to this case apart from i read it wrong, so dont go quoting me inregard to it.

Apologies - that was meant to be a seperate point, not a reply to you....only I forgot to say as much.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
I think that there should be a back-out clause during all sexual encounters, be they with lovers or one-nighters. There should a facility laid out at that start that either party can say "no" at any time.

This facility already exists. It's called "the law against rape".

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by bonkey


In principle, Id agree with that. However, as you admit - you dont have an all-encompassing formula, and neither does anyone else. In the absence of such an all-encompassing formula, can we still treat every case equally? I'm not sure. I tend to side with you on punishment for the clearcut cases, but its when the "border issues" come into play that I'm not convinced the same punishments should be applied.



Apologies - that was meant to be a seperate point, not a reply to you....only I forgot to say as much.

jc

um, then i think we will have to agree to agree.
as for the other thing, no matter

WhiteWashMan, I understand and appreciate your sentiments that rape is rape is rape (and it is so good for women to have the support of men on this matter) - but statutory rape is not the same as standard rape. Just because you are under 17 (and that is our legal age of consent - not 16 as is commonly believed) does not mean that you're woolly headed and you don't really know your own mind.

i also added in somewhere in this length game of 'round and round in circles' that this si where issues get clouded over.
im sure i said there were cases where statutory rape shoudlnt exist becuase two young people were in a loving relationship and in a circumstances that you mention yourself.

ultimately, if......
you prove someone of rape, then there should be no distinction.
some cases are more clear cut than others, but i refer mostly to cases where consent is not given not to cases of underage sex of consenting couples.

by the way, does anyone recall the case in england about 3 months ago with reagrds to the hamiltons who were accused of rape of a young girl. court ruled that she was a 'waltor mitty' type.

swiss

It is generally agreed in this thread that 'rape is rape is rape'. Therefore, according to the dictionary rape constitutes

The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.

This by definition does not cover statutory rape in the case where the minor involved is a consenting partner. Whatever opinons one may have about the morality of having sexual relations with a minor (and I have my own serious reservations in these cases - increasing geometrically with the age disparity between the two parties involved) it does not constitute rape in the classic sense of the word.

Sex crimes are amongst the most abhorrent, violent and primeval that can be committed by any member of the human race. It degrades both the victim and the attacker, and any such case of rape must be punished with the severity that such a despicable violation merits. It does not matter if the woman should 'lead the man on'. 'No' is a pretty unambiguous word in any language, and any continuation of sexual activites constitutes rape.

Two points I'd like to cover

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
I am irritated by you people who call a woman who goes to bed with a man she has just met, a slut. Grow up.

As already stated, stated misbehaviour/promiscuity (the two are often equated) is no excuse for rape. Going to bed with someone you have just met is promiscuous - but that is no valid reason to pass judgement on the character of any such person and is certainly no reason to insult them by calling them 'sluts' or any such derivative. I agree with neuro-praxis - it is none of our business what other people do with their lives.

Originally posted by bonkey
in Ireland, a male cannot be raped. Rape only applies when the victim is female. In the male case, it is classified as "sexual assault", which is a completely different kettle of fish from the legal stantpoint

Which is a fundamentally hypocritical and myopic approach to take, IMO. Males can become victims of rape just as much as their female counterparts. We need to target this deficit in our legislation as soon as possible to allow men the legislative protection they deserve against rape. Just because men are less willing to bring forward their any such instances of rape does not mean that these instances do not occur.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by swiss
Which is a fundamentally hypocritical and myopic approach to take, IMO. Males can become victims of rape just as much as their female counterparts. We need to target this deficit in our legislation as soon as possible to allow men the legislative protection they deserve against rape. Just because men are less willing to bring forward their any such instances of rape does not mean that these instances do not occur.

i think he was being technically pedantic.
i dontthink there was any indication to say that it was any less henious a crime.
just pointing out a legality.

ButcherOfNog

Originally posted by seamus
But he had met her only that night. She invited him into bed. He obviously got the idea that she was a slut

no = no, 2nd case is just as guilty of rape as first.

do u think its less a crime to rape someone you deem as 'a slut' and do u equate a girl that would sleep with u on the first nite 'a slut'?

seamus

Who'd have thought a rant could cause so much hubbub? Castor Troy was pretty much right (as usual) in his first reply. I had tonnes of speculation, and the castration bit was just venting. I was worked up.

Plenty of things came out badly:

do u think its less a crime to rape someone you deem as 'a slut' and do u equate a girl that would sleep with u on the first nite 'a slut'?

No and no. What I was actually trying to say was that if he had gotten into his head that she was 'easy' or 'wanted it', he may have felt like she wouldn't resist so much. Speculation.

As for drunken encounters......I believe that if you make a drunken mistake - Tough. A drunken woman may be consenting when drunk, but I think she should have no right to wake up and say 'I wasn't in my right mind, it's rape!'. She would know what risks are involved in drinking and the effects of alcohol on herself. Just the exact same as a man who woke up beside a woman, remembers nothing, but 9 months out pops a kid. Tough. He would be made pay support. Rape? Nah. (Whoops venting again, slow down )

And yes rape/assault crimes in this country are archaic. An interesting tidbit - In Ireland, when Gardai are called to a domestic disturbance, the man will always be detained, even if he is the one being beaten or attacked. Madness.

Ivan - I'm pretty sure my description is how it happened, seeing as that was the account given by every news programme in Dublin. (Oh but I forgot the 'I'll kill you' bit - tks Castor)

And on further thought, he should have gotten a solid sentence, ie served time, but not heavily severe.

Shinji

No he should not be castrated! How does removing his sexual function either punish him effectively or restore anything to the victim? That is a prime knee-jerk reaction, string 'em up it's the only language they understand etc.

Just going back to this very briefly; chemical castration is one of the most effective ways of dealing with persistent violent, sexually motivated behaviour in males (be they animals or humans). I believe some Asian nations already use it as part of their legal system, although I could be wrong.

Effectively what you're doing is sterilising the glands responsible for the production of testosterone. Net effects are to make the subject far less agressive, more "emotional" (if you ever have phases where you find yourself close to bursting into tears over the smallest things, that's a testosterone deficency) and to almost completely remove the sex drive. (It doesn't prevent successful intercourse, although naturally the subject won't be fathering any kids...)

Is it effective punishment? Well, it prevents the criminal from ever re-offending while enabling them to function as a member of society for the rest of their years. Does it restore anything to the victim... No, other than the knowledge that her assailant is no longer a threat to her or anyone else. Which, I guess, is a hell of a lot more than putting him in the 'joy for 3 years or fining him a few grand does....

beardedchicken

Originally posted by Slydice
surly not having his eh hmmmm "wee wee" would prevent him from repeating the type of crime

X-case man should be castrated. Opinions?

no, because a rapist does not need a penis to commit rape. and, as someone else said, that's just a knee-jerk reaction which does not help the victim in any way. we need MUCH tougher prison sentences, psychiatric treatment, and a better sex-offenders register, but also a change in the idea that rape is a minor crime, and that women (and men) who were raped were "asking for it" in some way.

www.drcc.ie
www.womensaid.ie

Shinji

no, because a rapist does not need a penis to commit rape

You see, it's a really bad idea to start pontificating about castration when you apparently don't actually know what it is.

(FYI: castration is the removal or neutering (by painless chemical means) of the testicles, thus preventing the production of semen and testosterone. It's not the removal of the penis or whatever the hell it is you seem to think...)

MrPudding

Originally posted by bonkey


Of course, the logical but farcical conclusion is that in order for men to be "safe" when having sex, they would need witnesses and/or a legally binding pre-sexual-contact contract of some sort.

As I said - farcical.
jc

I agree that this is farcical but you would not be "safe" All the witnesses and contracts in the world would not save you from prosecution when the woman could argue the next day that she didn't mean to sign the contract and that even though the witnesses say she was all for it at the time it turns out that in the cold light of day she changed her mind. Rape is a crime which makes me very angry but sometimes it can be taken too far.