Punishment For Rape

Permanent physical alteration of the convict's body is not the answer simply because it brings up the age old question 'what if he didn't do it?'. Because of the inherent nature of our criminal justice system (and human nature in general) we can never prove beyond any doubt that someone DID something. Therefore, we should never enact a punishment that cannot be undone in the future. As to the idea of torturing the rapists, apart from numerous constitutional violations, and the fact that by torturing a rapist, you have commited a crime that is just as bad as what he did, look at the precedent that act sets. If we can painfully castrate rapists, can we break the legs of people who speed? Can we submerge robbers in boiling oil? Crucify the violent? Draw and Quarter the murderers? In short, even though this is an awful crime, we cannot torture the offender, just because it puts us on the same level as him

--euler1700 "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

If you're American, how do you condemn all of this while perhaps rationalizing that the United States executes more crminals than any other developed nation?

You state that castration and the other subjects here violates the constitution. Why do you assume that this is purely within an American contest?

If you are pro-capital punishment, than your points here hold no merit. If you are American and opposed to capital punishment, than there is already such an "eye for an eye" mentality alive and well in your country, and you might do better to tackle that which currently exists rather than that which is only the focus of discussion.

Tammy

========== In Reply To ========== Permanent physical alteration of the convict's body is not the answer simply because it brings up the age old question 'what if he didn't do it?'. Because of the inherent nature of our criminal justice system (and human nature in general) we can never prove beyond any doubt that someone DID something. Therefore, we should never enact a punishment that cannot be undone in the future. As to the idea of torturing the rapists, apart from numerous constitutional violations, and the fact that by torturing a rapist, you have commited a crime that is just as bad as what he did, look at the precedent that act sets. If we can painfully castrate rapists, can we break the legs of people who speed? Can we submerge robbers in boiling oil? Crucify the violent? Draw and Quarter the murderers? In short, even though this is an awful crime, we cannot torture the offender, just because it puts us on the same level as him

--euler1700 "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

Adult on adult rape is very hard to prove in a court of law beyond a resonable doubt. But the rape of a child under 12 can be proven if a rape kit was performed and the crime was reported promptly.

This is quite a remarkable argument because it seems that those supporting the idea of castration aren't doing it out of a belief that it will prevent repeat offences but rather that it will be just revenge for a horrendous and evil crime based on the amount of torture involved. Many of the supporters not only wanted the convicted rapists castrated but also that it should be done to children who have raped and in addition, that it should be as painful and as drawn out as possible. I can't help feeling that these kinds of motivations and opinions going unchallenged led to the original rapists justifying brutally abusing women, children and indeed some men (I know of at least one case.) This is what was meant when you were being accused of bringing yourselves down to the level of the rapist.

The main point, however, I wanted to make was this. I believe that it is not the fear of the repurcussions that prevents crime but rather the fear of being caught in the first place and that this explains why the US can have a much higher murder rate than many other countries even though it kills convicted murderers. Given that killing murderers has had no preventative effect, can any of you say with any confidence (using research rather than intuition) that castrating rapists will have an effect? If the answer is no, aren't you really just dragging yourself down to the level of the rapist?

Euler1700,

The argument you have made is a good, well-written, and false. To prevent a crime we as Americans need to make bold and humane punishments for the convicted. Our justice system is flawed in that we cannot know for sure whether the accused committed a robbery if there are no witnesses. If convicted, he will spend some time in prison. If later another person confesses to the crime, this innocent man's time spend in jail cannot be "undone". However, that is the way it works in our justice system.
A statement needs to be made to potential child molesters that if they commit a crime and are convicted, the body part that they misused will be cut off. Physical castration is the answer to convicted child molesters. We as Americans need to send a message to these people. We need to start with the ones who we know are child molesters and rid them of that desire for good. Castration for child molesters also solves the problem of convicted child molesters not having a place to live due to zoning around schools. No testicles=no desire=no problem. Don't painfully torture them with castration. Give them anesthesia and surgically remove the testicles. If they want painkillers, they can buy them. Make them pay for the operation. -ActorLawyer19 ========== In Reply To ========== Permanent physical alteration of the convict's body is not the answer simply because it brings up the age old question 'what if he didn't do it?'. Because of the inherent nature of our criminal justice system (and human nature in general) we can never prove beyond any doubt that someone DID something. Therefore, we should never enact a punishment that cannot be undone in the future. As to the idea of torturing the rapists, apart from numerous constitutional violations, and the fact that by torturing a rapist, you have commited a crime that is just as bad as what he did, look at the precedent that act sets. If we can painfully castrate rapists, can we break the legs of people who speed? Can we submerge robbers in boiling oil? Crucify the violent? Draw and Quarter the murderers? In short, even though this is an awful crime, we cannot torture the offender, just because it puts us on the same level as him

--euler1700 "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"