Rape

Remove all ads!

chev

No, it's not. Deviant can use anything to rape, bottle, stick, whatever. Cutting something off doesn't change a mind of abnormal person. I was suprised, but one of my friends (with degree of psychology) confirmed that. I'm talking about facts, not theory.

 

That's correct. I know. But if we stuffed him with antilibidiants, he would probably have no incentive to do that. However, even if we can't prevent him from using something else, we can still prevent him from impregnating his victim and that's already a plus.

@T2Bruno: You know, lack of reciprocation or consent is a turn off for me and even just mere consent won't do the job. But not every guy has the nerve and not every woman acts in good faith or in a reasonable or responsible fashion.

 

So your friend castrated himself!?!?

 

@chev
Sorry, but I disagree. I know few documented cases when raping was done by broken bottle, kitchen knife...uhh, that's terrible I know, but true. So I don't know which is worse.

@Aldeth
Huh ???

 

You said that your friend confirmed this using facts, not theory. That suggested that either he, or someone he knows was castrated in order to confirm it. Otherwise, you mean there was a study done, not by your friend, and that study confirmed it for you, but based on your statement it sounded like it was your friend who confirmed it through some strange self-castration method.

 

@Arendil: I agreed with you on that, although I find it hard to imagine that such cases would be more than a fraction of the total number.

So with what exactly do you disagree - with that preventing the rapist from being able to make the victim pregnant is not a good thing, or that stuffing him with antilibidiants could reduce his sex drive to none and stop his fantasies?

"Tools" are already horrible, but they won't make anyone pregnant. Castration still helps...

 

@Aldeth, oh my, I'm sure you understand what I wrote...to make it clear - I was talking with my friends about that topic, and someone said what I wrote above, and I couldn't believe. THEN I asked about that one of psychologists I know (also my friend), and he confirmed that such cases exists.
Up to this point I was thinking that castration is a not bad idea...

@Chev maybe little misunderstanding...I wanted to say that we can prevent rapist from impregnating victim, yes, but what he can do after castration can be as bad or maybe worse.

 

@Arendil: Well, but we would need to assume that the rapist were one of the more sadistic kind. Those guys don't limit themselves to enforcing physical contact even before they are castrated. Granted, they might run rampage in revenge the moment they are released from prison, although I'm not sure if the risk is really so high.

However, we can't put them behind bars for life or execute them because if we do so, they will start murdering their victims in order easier to hide their crime. That's what death penalty for rape in the USSR produced in the thirties.

Those guys don't deserve to live in a society. They should never be let go if they haven't undergone therapy with a strong chance of success - if there is any.

But I still insist on making them infertile. Sterilisation would do.

 

First of all, I was using 'you' as a universal pronoun -- my apologies if it felt directed at Chev.

Chev: I've always like the castration idea for sex offenders, it may not do anything to stop the violent tendancies of the individual -- but it would sure act as a great deterrent for those that are 'riding the fence.'

I certainly wouldn't want to be caught on the wrong side of that law in a he said/she said....

 

Date rape pill kiddies would be deterred, no doubt. Abusive bosses, fathers, priests etc too. Plus those party loons who look for a passed out girl to get their only chance. Only guys with real issues would still challenge their luck, I think. They need treatment more than punishment, anyway, I think. A real psycho is not the same as a stupid kid with a date rape pill who will likely never pull that trick again after getting out of prison.

 

I would have sterilization as a possibility to avoid prison sentence (there is no point putting the guy in prison for rape if you sterilize him) if I'd have it at all. Forceful sterilization is just plain wrong and goes with me to the same cathegory with the death penalty and organized torture.

All of those who have commited acts of violence need serious help much more than punishment.

 

Forced sterilisation is a means of protection from protecting unconsenting women from being impregnated by the rapist. It's his choice to make a wrong use of his genital faculties in a way harmful to others, therefore the others' safety overrides his freedoms in this particular respect.

And I believe there is still much point putting him in prison because even if he cannot impregnate, he can still force the act on an unconsenting woman. Well, I think it's not a bad idea to keep rapists and other sex offenders away from the society for their whole lives unless a change of character can in some way be proved.

Agreed. But I would still keep punishment for those who have been too lenient in handling their wicked selves.

 

It has been touched upon but there are other kinds of sterilization than to just cut the tubes to make it impossible for the man to impregnate the woman. Chemical castration is what is used against many pedophiles and other deviant sexual aggressors, this removes the sex urge in the person in question and seems to work to some extent.

As for the topic it seems like no one has a good solution on the word vs word cases.

 

Here's an idea. Execute rapists. The second the guilty verdict is given. Too squeamish for that, or don't support the death penalty? Fine, and this might be an even better idea. After castrating him, cut off his hands so he can't hold her down or use tools on her, cut out his eyes so he can't look at women, sever his spinal cord so he's paralyzed from the neck down, and brand RAPIST or CHILD MOLESTOR on both cheeks and his forehead so everyone knows exactly what he is and treats him as he deserves. Obviously, you must be certain as to his guilt to go to such measures, but I guarantee he would never do it again. My sister was raped, so I would even settle for the guy to be handed over to the girls family for a certain period of time, and then doing the above. To protect women and children from being killed to hide a man's crimes, make the penalty for doing so even more severe than the above.

 

It's an abhorrent crime and it spreads like a plague. It's awful and I've had enough of it. What are those guys thinking. I wouldn't cry if they all died. I would gladly kill one if there were no other sure way of stopping him, even if he were my own brother. I have nothing against gutting their jewels, although I wouldn't have the guy executed. Still, a potentially reoffending rapist is better executed than let loose.

How about putting them all in a good old-fashioned stone quarry and spending the income on some anti-rape program. Or on opening another quarry.

And I don't just mean those typical thugs who abduct and abuse stranger. Castrate kids who use date rape pills. Castrate bosses who molest workers. Just make sure the case is 100% proved before something irreversible happens.

Know what Henry V did in France? In a conquered city, he had rapist soldiers from his own army tied to pillories at the city market and gave knives to the victims. We can only guess what happened next.

So, my gentle reader, if you have used the date rape pill, know that I want your genitals on a golden plate.

 

If you will read my post again, you will notice I clearly stated you must be 100% convinced of the man's guilt before you take such actions. And, only about 10% of innocent men (convicted of murder) in prison are released because of DNA evidence, so the problem lies in the justice system itself more than anywhere else.

 

@dmc: That's why I stress it all the time that his guilt needs to be 100% proved before anything irreversible happens. And no convictions relying on unproven innocence - one is innocent until proved otherwise, no matter the crime.

 

It is logically impossible to be 100% certain of someones guilt, ever.

 

Even if you catch them in the act of committing a crime?