Should child rapists be "sexually neutralized"?

From: www.haaretz.com


Bill seeks to castrate rapists of children
By Ruth Sinai


Convicted child-rapists will have to undergo
chemical castration as a condition for their
release, according to a draft bill the ministers'
legislation committee is to discuss on Sunday.

The bill, initiated by Yuval
Steinitz (Likud), proposes
that child rapists sentenced
to two or more years would be
released on concluding their
prison term only if they
agree to undergo regular
medical treatment that
suppresses their sexual
drive. Those who refuse will

remain in jail for 20 years longer, or until
they agree to take the treatment.

"Sexual assault of children is a recurring
pattern," said Hila Kerner-Suleiman, director
of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in
Israel. "Sex offenders' place is behind bars,
unless they undergo treatment that has been
proved effective in preventing them from
attacking children."

But the Justice Ministry objects to the bill,
pointing to studies that show that chemical
treatment is not suitable for rapists, since
they are driven by violent urges, rather than
sexual ones.

Ministry sources note that the treatment also
requires continued maintenance, as its effect
wears off after three months. In addition, it
must be accompanied by psychological treatment
and supervision, otherwise it is worthless,
they say.

The ministry also objects to punishing
castration refusers, saying a person cannot be
punished twice for the same offense. "Even a
criminal has certain basic rights," a senior
jurist says.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/368625.html


Do you think it is "over the top", or is it the right thing to do?

 

From the legal point of view it's way over the top. On the other hand, should it prove effective, why not. But then again this would inflict a problem of extending such measures to different crimes via use of different drugs. Sure on one hand we would have less crimes (assuimng it would work mind you) but it would bring us way too close to a police state.

 

Well I think rape is one of the most heinous crimes by itself. So raping of a child is one of the crimes commitable. I think, whether rape is caused by violent urges or not if some one has no sex drive (in most cases reduced testosterone), they may still have violent urges but they wont be sexual. Not to mention that anyone who forces themselves on children in this way should have it done anyway.

 

Rane thinks that all peadophiles and child rapists and adult rapists and rapists of all types should be round up and shot ... or hung .... whitchever is quiker ... though some would argue that they should die slowley, to pay for their crimes ...

 

Well what about statuatory rapists? Are they the same as child rapists? what if an 18 year old guy has sex with a 16 year old girl? Should he be shot? or a 19 year old guy with a 16 year old girl? Should the 19 year old be hung, and the 18 year old be left alone? In my opinion allowing one form of cruel and unusual punishment to cement itself legally in our various justice systems is to open the door for more and more of them further down the road. "What do you mean we can't cut the legs off of jay walkers? We cut the dicks off of rapists don't we?" It just sounds like a bad idea to me. Psychiatric evalutation should be the only thing they get, other than heavy jail time. Besides, don't you think cutting the dicks off of people in this society would eliminate rapists but replace them with serial cop-killers? What do you think would happen to a judge who sentenced 10 or 20 men to castration? I know I would track him down after i got out of jail.

 

Rapists rape not because they are horny and desire sex; instead, the sex act to them is a form of dominating their victim, being in control of them, whereas in their (the rapist) day to day lives, they most of time lead repressed, emotionally scarred lives, and the act of rape is one of release. So I don't think cutting off the dick¹ of a rapist would do anything at all.



¹What if the rapist is a woman? Do you put a penis on her, or sew up her holey-hole hole?

 

Well, if it was Rane's daughter (or son) which fell victim to one of those bastards, Rane wouldn't even think twice before pulling the trigger...

 

I entirely agree with chemical castration. Having children does affect the way I feel, yet is not the whole of my reasoning. Any rapist should be made to undergo indefinite phyciatric care during inprisonment, and after being paroled. Likewise they should have no choice of chemical castration or not. When time is served then they recieve the castration upon parole, ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE!!! Better yet, no jail time to serve, just castration after conviction.

Sleek said:

Abso-fucking-lutely NOT! (not bashing you sleek, just vehemently disagreeing with the question) Statuatory rapists are not rapists as it is defined by our law. They simply have sexual relations with someone who is not of legal consenting(sexual) age. This too is open to interpretion by different states and countries. In the U.S. we have legal consenting and marrying ages as low as 14 yrs old! Now this means that at 14 one may get married and therefore have sexual intercourse with their spouse. Some states have annendums to laws stating that 17 is legal (consenting age for sex) and in the same thought that 16 is legal with parental consent. The bottomline in statuatory rape boils down to someone of legal consenting age having sex with someone that is under the legal consenting age. Nowhere does it stipify that there was or was not mutual consent from both parties, but simply that someone (parent, teacher, etc.) did/does not approve of what is going on. I knew several 'couples' that committed acts that would fall under statuatory rape every night! Statuatory rape is like sexual harassment: both are open to individual interpretation and every case is different depending on the circumstances. It is only rape when one party does not consent to the sexual act in question. If statuatory rapists were the same as any other rapist, then we would never have brought the term into popular use. The answer to sleek's question is very obvious: of course statuatory rapists are NOT the same as child rapists-otherwise they would be titled/labeled such. My rebutal to his question would then be this

All this needs to be at no cost to the public. Any cost incurred by an individual while inserving time needs, not should, to be charged to either the individual and/or their family. I am also very sick adn tired of paying for convicted killers/murderers to sit in jail/prison with a death sentence for 5, 10, or 20 years. That is complete bs! Upon conviction, a murderer should be given 24hrs to get their affairs in order and then executed. And the execution needs to be something that does not cost the public several hundred or even thousand dollars. It NEEDS to be something like a bullet (costing just pennies) or a hanging. No exceptions, no appeals, no living 15 years on death row-just death!

Now I understand that this may be a bit harsh, but consider the fact that our prison system is so beyond overcrowded that we are constantly building new jail and prisons to 'fix' the problem. The way we 'fix' the problem is to eliminate death row and carry out executions immediately rather than allowing convicts to live for years at taxpayers expense. Likewise we eliminate any and all luxuries. Such as weight benches, TV's, posters, games, etc. I truly believe that we need to stick to the saying "Don't do the crime, if you can't pay the time." When someone commits a crime and is then found guilty they lose any and all rights to outside priviledges that could be possible other than books! Inprisonment in intended to be the punishment for a crime and time to reflect and think about the offense committed. That means deprivation of all things that make you feel like you are alive or part of the world that you committed the crime in. If you commit a crime then you are saying that you do not care for the governing laws of order. So therefore if you commit a crime why should the system whose laws you flagrantly pissed on protest you from going to jail? Why should they allow you to ry get out before your sentence/punishment is served? Why should prisoners be allowed amenities that the 'free' or law abiding part of the population have access to? Why must we (those that commit no crimes and follow the laws) be financially responsible for paying for someone that does not care for the laws?

I FULLY SUPPORT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR ALL CRIMES!



to Jar: btw-if you thought that I was one of those life is precious and should be treasured idiots in my baby name thread; this should prove otherwise.

 

Despite Sleek's informative (read: penis-obsessed) post, the issue is actually chemical castration. California was considering a similar law a few years ago, and there were some studies floating around that indicated the recidivism rate drops from 87% to 2% with some sort of castration. Or thereabouts.

One problem is that the patient would have to keep up with his injections for the effect to be maintained, and if he'd happen to be lazy, forgetful, or prone to parole violations that could be a problem. Also, I'm not sure what sort of effect the removal of a being's sex organs would actually have; my dogs do it more than anyone else I know and they're both neutered. It's like having the Kama Sutra performed on my lawn 24/7.... Amazing the things they don't mention on the Discovery Channel.... But I digress.

On the other hand, I'm a big fan of castration. There are certain people I just don't want to be reproducing, and child rapists are among them. Might not do much for their behavior but at least their genes won't be going anywhere. Unfortunately it seems the best way to handle such deviants is to confine them for life or to exterminate them. Rehabilitation hasn't quite had the promised effect yet.

 

This man knows what's up. I absolutely agree with everything you say here. The whole concept of Death Row is ludicrous. Why keep the prisoner alive for years, if you are going to kill them anyway? I realize that they allow time for appeals and such, but five years or more? Ridiculous. The reason they use expensive execution techniques is so the condemned will die instantly and with no pain. That's atrocious. Why should they feel no pain when their victims and the families felt so much? I'm a serious advocate of a return to public hanging. Hell, I wouldn't mind beheadings either. Sure, it sounds barbaric, and maybe it is. Our society has "outgrown" things like that, right? I disagree. Just because something was used in the "old days" doesn't mean we should throw it out. We have more and worse crime in these "civilized" modern times than in the 1800's, when public hanging was common. In addition, I am also an advocate of execution for rapists and child rapists/sex offenders as well as murderers. To me, rape, any kind of rape, is almost worse than murder, because the victim has to live with the psychological damage for the rest of their lives. I have at least one close female friend who was raped, and may God keep the offender out of my reach, or I swear I'll shoot him in the head.

 

Prisoners are usually declared dead about seven minutes after the administration of lethal injection begins. This is after not one but three (I think) injections are made: one to knock you out, one to collapse your lungs, and one to stop your heart. Why? Anyone who's had a pet euthanized knows that it takes just one injection (a lethal dose of a common sedative whose name I do not recall) and mere seconds to bring on death. Strapping the prisoner down and administering several injections via complex devices over several minutes is entirely for the benefit of the victim's family, so they get a sense that the prisoner is indeed suffering. It's all a show, and an expensive one at that.

Ideally I'd like to see a return of gladiatorial competition, with death row inmates sliced and diced by the veteran gladiators. Yes, I'm a dreamer....

 

Sigurd said:

This something that you have hit right square on the head. I truly believe that public punishments-be it executions, or whatever-would definitely dissuade individuals from committing many crimes. And the no pain thing well, a bullet to the head would do the same as a lethal injection. The same as would a guillotine, but I would be against a length of rope either. I believe that we departed from hanging due to the negative conotation from its use on slaves. However in my home state, it is still legal to be hung if caught stealing livestock(horses, cows, pigs, etc.). This should be enforced, and harshly. I do not believe in any type of lenience for any criminal. Thes "professional athletes" and celebrities that commit crimes would not get by with a slap on the wrist, some bribe $, and a nice short stay at some ritzy minimum security "prison" that serves caviar and has tea time in the afternoon. They would be subject to the same punishment as any other citizen under the same circumstances. IF YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU DO THE TIME! Absolutely, positively, beyond any doubt, no exceptions! This also makes me wish that I had $$, because then I could get away with anything short of murder, and sometimes even that!



I had better stop before I get to hot-headed about this topic. Growing up like I did (farmboy, Eagle Scout, service veteran) coupled with my life experiences has made somewhat bitter, and extremely opinionated and liberal with my vocalization of my opinions on such topics!

 

Are you serious? If you are, can we get married?

 

:lol: Yes, I'm serious. While there are many aspects about the games I think out to be changed for the modern world (using slaves, fighting animals to extinction, etc.) I'm extremely interested in the Roman conception of violence and death. These things are a part of our life and are not in any way contrary to our nature, and what's important is knowing when violence is appropriate and when it isn't, rather than avoiding it entirely.

Other animals know this well enough: bunny edges close to the dog's food bowl, dog growls at the bun to indicate he wants the food to himself, bun backs off, respecting the dog but unafraid. Dog is just communicating after all, and no harm is done. Darn, I'm digressing again aren't I.

Anyway, demonizing violence as something to be avoided at all cost, when violence is a part of our nature, does more harm than good. Likewise, the sentiment that death is unnatural seems similarly harmful. There's value in knowing about violence and death, knowing when to use violence and when not to, and also when and how to face death. The games put these things into context for the Roman commoners who might not have the opportunity to engage in philosophical study.

Plus, I've always been a huge fan of vengeance. Sword flies through air, severs head of human scum, world is immediately made a slightly safer (and more entertaining) place. I used to have an English penpal; I wrote to him after 9/11 expressing anticipation at the vengeance that would surely come, and he wrote back saying something about how revenge isn't all that helpful, or healthy, or something to that effect.... Hmph. Great motivator, vengeance.

And no, I don't think I'm evil simply because I don't think like a modern decadent anti-capital-punishment European.

 

my favorite saying growing up was given a little tweak to make it apply to my way of thinking:

or as my favorite uncle (21yrs in the Marine Corps) taught me:

and

Come to think he is/was and always has been crazy :lol: :lol:


Ahhh, how they comfort me.......[/quote]

 

Severity o fpunishment doesn't really do wonders with crime rate. It's inavitability of conviction that really does. Now don't think that I'm for lenient punishments. I sincerely wish for all that is the worst in the world to happen to rapists, slave traders and all those macho home abusers.

 

I think I speak for all of us when i say; "macho home abusers???!?!?!!!'

 

Those who abuse their families, psychologically* and/or physically, sorry I don't know the proper term in English.

*edited

 

Dragoon said:

The correct term would be psychologically. glad to help out