Urederra
Mostly harmless
IglooDude said:Okay then, maybe just a full-on sex-change operation then.
Then You would have occasional rapists who do so just to have a free free sex-change operation.
Should those convicted of sexual assault/child molestation be castrated?
- Thread starter GoldEagle
- Start date
Then You would have occasional rapists who do so just to have a free free sex-change operation.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
El_Machinae said:
The idea behind this is to get rid of the urge.
Bronx Warlord
Squad Leader
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
I vote for hanging, much cheeper than cutting a weiner off and you know they will never rape again
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Implant a device in the offenders head that zaps the brains pain center whenever he starts getting an erection. He'd have zero sex drive in no time at all. No knives, no messy clean up! Just set it, and forget it!
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Nah, kinda stupid really.
Oh look, we got his balls! Yay for us!
Oh look, we got his balls! Yay for us!
Eukaryote
Deity
Well, they should be imprisoned but Casteration only makes them unable to have kids, it doesn't make them unable to rape.
Perhaps men who rape should be given some sort of injection, or medication that makes them unable to get an erection, so they can't rape anymore. (If that exists, or is invented.) And maybe something else for women, like an operation that makes them have pains during sex.
Perhaps men who rape should be given some sort of injection, or medication that makes them unable to get an erection, so they can't rape anymore. (If that exists, or is invented.) And maybe something else for women, like an operation that makes them have pains during sex.
GoldEagle
Deity of All Drummers
Nevermind...
Mathilda
Queen
Yes, I'd agree wtih this.Eran of Arcadia said:
I'm not keen on locking people up for rest of their lives (too expensive) if there is an alternative that would prevent them from reoffending.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
Bozo Erectus said:
I'm for a clockwork-orange-style brainwash.
Offering voluntary is a good idea, but I'd argue that there should be no lighter sentence in return.Eran of Arcadia said:
The idea is that some offenders may rather they are castrated in order that they no longer have the urge (assuming that it does have this effect), if they know that otherwise they will just reoffend. Someone making the decision for this reason does not need to be persuaded by being offered a lighter sentence.
On the other hand, if it's possible that people may rather be castrated than spend longer in prison, then the danger is that innocent people may also end up making the choice. The only difference is that an innocent person may feel he has a chance of appeal, but after that I don't see guilty people as more likely to choose this.
But at least with prison, you have a chance to appeal, and stop the sentence if successful, rather than receiving the full extent of the sentence.IglooDude said:
Put it this way - imagine we decided that there should be no system of appeal (put forward the same arguments of "if you're found guilty, your guilty, the courts are fair" etc). Wouldn't quite a lot of people strongly disagree with that?
Indeed, imagine a system where even if it was later found out you were innocent, you still had to spend the rest of your life in prison. Rather absurd, surely?
At the least, a system would have to work like the death sentence does, in that you have several years in order for appeals. But the problem there is that the legal costs mean it's cheaper to keep them in prison for life (or so the argument goes) - and you still have the risk that you might later find them to be innocent. So why not just keep them in prison for life if they are deemed a danger for life?
Also - are those in favour of castration only saying that for rape, or any form of sexual assault?
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
IglooDude said:Send them to Mr. Darkshade's abode for his amusement.
No, I'd just have them fed to the dogs. I have no interest in that kind of child sex offender.
On the thread note, I am definitely not a fan of the position that opposes harming or killing nefarious criminals when carried out by the organs of the state, but will often support and celebrate them being beaten and killed by fellow inmates, or topping themselves inside.
I think I see what you're saying. Why pretend that relying on 'prison justice' is morally acceptable?
Again, the erection has little to do with the rape. Only a minority of molesters would be affected by attempts to remove their ability to get an erection. The rest would just escalate.
Again, the erection has little to do with the rape. Only a minority of molesters would be affected by attempts to remove their ability to get an erection. The rest would just escalate.
El_Machinae said:
Yes, you'd be taking away the tool
but there's also the matter of hormonal adjustment that few people seem to be factoring in.
Well, the loss of steady (and biologically programmed) testosterone would have effects, but not predictable effects. This loss can be off-set through steroids anyway.
