Just we cut the penis off of rapists, then it wont matter if he gets hormone shots or not. Either that or the death penalty.
Well, since 0.4% - 1% of rapists are women raping men, what do you propose to do with them? Carve something out? Chemically castrate them - if it’s even possible to do with women?
The data, from the same cite as above:
All violent: 429,400 (number of offenders)
Male: 96.2%
Female 3.8%
Rape: 33,800
Male: 99.6%
Female 0.4%
Sexual assault: 54,300
Male: 98.8%
Female 1.2%
Source: BJS, 1991 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities. (rev. 2/7/97)
“Federal statistical series obtaining data on arrested or convicted persons–Uniform Crime Reports, National Judicial Reporting Program, and National Corrections Reporting Program–show a remarkable similarity in the characteristics of those categorized as rapists: 99 in 100 are male, 6 in 10 are white, and the average age is the early thirties.”
WRONG. Even without the plumbing, there are cases where the rapist has sexually assaulted further victims. Being forcibly violated by fingers or other instruments is still rape, even if the perp has no penis.
Chemical or surgical castration may be a therapeutic modality which can be employed in appropriate cases, but making it a punishment would, I believe, violate the constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The Master says, “I am not aware of any tours, and I am not particularly interested in learning of any. Witnesses, incidentally, are usually reporters, officials, and the like; persons who are assholes, such as yourself, are not permitted to participate.” http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_219.html
This is enlightening. I need to go back and check out who the sources for my sources were. Thank you, Alien.
Again, I request some legal mind to explain to me why castration was seen as not falling under the category of cruel and unusual punishment.
Was the ‘voluntary’ factor used to justify its application, do you think?
Castration turns them into martyrs. Rape should be punishable ( I mean actual violent rape, not “wow-you’re-ugly-and-i-was-drunk-so-now-i-regret-it” pc version of rape((this did NOT happen to me, btw)) ) by the offender being hung outside by the ankles naked, beaten hourly with old carpet tack strips, and drizzled with hungry fire ants once a day. Yeah, it’s a little too creative for our justice system, but it would amuse me.
(Bolding mine.)
If this scenario had occured and the offenders were found to be statistically less likely to assault again, it still wouldn’t prove that castration was effective in preventing recidivism. It would be a flawed study off the bat because of the volunteer nature of the program. It would “select out” those offenders who fully intend to rape again as soon as they’re released-- the very offenders who pose the greatest threat. The program would attract offenders who wanted to stop themselves from doing such things again, so the sample would be “polluted” with those who might not have re-offended in the first place.
The truly hardened rapist wouldn’t necessarily be effected by castration, because, as other posters pointed out, rape is not about sex. It’s often about the sense of power that rapists get from completely dominating and degrading their victims.
There’s really no “cure” for rapists and child molesters, especially if they have no desire to change.
Has anyone considered the possible deterrent effect? I bet a lot of men would think twice about rape if there was a good chance that Mr. Winky would be whacked.
I remember a case where a rapist was castrated (unfortunately I cannot remember the state or why this was permitted, but I do seem to remember that it was chemical castration). He went out and got some kind of drug to reverse it and raped again.
I wish I could provide a cite here, but as I read it in a California newspaper about 15 or so years ago I don’t see how.
All the same, the case made me skeptical about castration as a solution.
I have no idea what really would be a solution, especially to child molesters.
And I have a big problem with this.
If the crime is bad enough to warrant 20 years, then he should do 20 years. HE did the crime, not his dick.
And if he gets out in 6 rather than 20, I still think that it’s very possible he’ll still be a violent miscreant. He still has his brain (which I’ve heard called the largest sexual organ)with him and may well still want to violate and contol women to make himself feel stronger. You don’t really need a penis for that.
Lissa:
Cite?
I’ve seen the chemical castration close up, and from what I saw it does drastically reduce sexual appetites and behaviours.
On the other hand…
If someone has committed rape I think they should get a hell of a long sentence. If they’ve raped a child then throw away the key. Child molestors should never get out, and whether they’ll do it again is not the point. How aboout a little righteous vengence against these sickos. Prison is supposed to be for punishment isn’t it.
If we can fix a serial killer so that he’ll never kill again does that mean it would be desirable to let him back out? I think not. Let the evil little fuckers rot in prison.
I used to be slightly more liberal on this but being a parent has made me more of a hard ass.
Except for Ehrenriech’s (hotly debated) book about the biological origins of rape, I’ve never really seen an argument to the contrary-- that rape is about sexual gratification. As this cite puts it:
A difference, of course, seperates the college boy who forces his girlfriend into sex and the violent predator that rapes at knife-point, but the underlying similarity is dominance.
Castration may stop the college boy, but then again, he may have never committed such a crime again (e.g he is not necessarily a sexual predator.) The violent rapist wants to completely dominate and overpower his victim. He gets a sense of power from the victim’s terror. This is not a man likely to volunteer for such a program. (Often, they try to commit their crimes even in prison.)
Do you have a cite to empirical evidence? (And it’s not a complete dichotomy- rape can be motivated by both sex and other factors.)
Assuming
– Low recidivism
– An appropriate, even if shortened, sentence
– Minimal (on the order of OTC drugs) side effects,
– Low cost
I would support reversible chemical castration. Of course, if found innocent, there should be some big bucks in store for the wrongly accused!
Your own numbers show that 99% people without penis’ do not commit rape. Cutting it off will solve most of the problem with repeat offendors, and as I said, there is still the death penalty(the preferred punishment). Lets change the law to cut them off, and then deal with the 1% of remaining rapes that do not involve penis’.
For the record, if a rapist is caught, tried, and convicted, the average actual time served in prison is only 73 months anyways, and then he is out again. No matter what the sentence is, the average rapist is currently only behind bars for 6 years and then let go with his penis still attached.
USA Today, page 1, October 24, 2001, Bureau of Justice Statistics Trends in State Parole 1990-2000
Serial rapists should be locked up for life, no parole. Anyone who would rape more than once is not someone who should be in society.
Rapists do use other objects to penetrate. It’s called symbolic rape, a way to violate the victim even more. And according to Robert Ressler’s books, it’s very common. Ressler was the head of the FBI Violent Crimes Unit, and interviewed a lot of serial rapists/murderers, including most of the infamous ones.
I wonder if this is true.
I have heard the assertion that most rapes go unreported from many different people.
Regards,
Shodan
No, they show that 99% of rapists are men, and only 1% are women.
Castrated male != Woman.
I thought we hammered that one out in the 1970’s.
A castrated male would still have a throughly masculine brain and self-identity. He would still have whatever drove him to rape. Even if he is without genitals, he may still be prone to violence.
I’m against any irreversible procedures on criminals (including death), on the odd chance of a wrongful conviction. If a person is truly a threat, then keep them locked up until they are a frail, broken old shell of what they used to be, or until they die. Should their innocence be shown later, a prisoner can always be released.
For the reasons stated above and by other posters, I’m also skeptical about chemical castration (although it bypasses my objections to irreversible punisments). It may be useful for not-yet-active pedophiles, however, who request treatment to avoid becoming predators.
True, but if there’s no conviction, we can never be sure who did it or if there was a rape. There will be repeat rapists who are never arrested or arrested and not convicted, and non-repeaters who will be wrongfully arrested.
I see no way to tell if one group is larger than the other.
What i find utterly amazing is how little many posters understand about Rape.
I don’t have a cite, as I’m going from memory from a long forgotten college course. Many (Whatever number you think that should be) Rapists suffer from some form of sexual dysfunction. Premature ejactulation or impotence. If memory serves me, many rapists ejaculate BEFORE they even penetrate. This of course isnt ALL rapists and as suggested there’s a difference in ‘date rape’ and a serial rapist.
It’s suggested that when their “failure” becomes apparent, the rapist’s level of violence towards the “witness” increases. Anger, frustration all the violent emotions that these people have are focused in act of violence…a personal one, but ultimately still an act of violence, of control. Their penis is a weapon, but it can be and often is other objects. Humilation of the victim is a part of the rapist’s desire.
My point being, if a lack of sexual function is a part of some rapist’s moviation. I fail to see how removing his use of that gland will deter him from his desire to hurt women. If rape was just a matter of ‘getting off’, then a hooker would be a lot more safe…you pay her, she provides the release. Rape is something else.
So now you have a guy who was already pissed off about his sexuality and is a rapist. Now the state, with the help of a least one of his victims, have given him a “real” problem with his penis and you’re going to release him into the public? And what, wait for the bodies to pile up? Is there any form of treatment involved here, or do we just “cut it off” and set him loose?
Yes their are studies that lower level of male hormone, in some cases reduces violent behaviour. Okay, in what percentage? Either they can be cured or they can’t, but removing the ability to use their ‘weapon’, without fixing the problem, if it can be fixed…is no different than taking a gun from a murderer and leaving him in a room full of knives.
You’re still a dead man. This is a very short-sighted idea…but I guess it makes everyone feel good. Rah, Rah.