User: Stringer

You are just telling the usual feminist brain washing which can be heard everywhere so you could just not intervene.

Already, you're simply labelling what I said rather than dealing with it directly. This isn't argument, just propaganda.

The proof the society does'nt really think rape is so damageable is that it permit it in man'prisons thought it has all the necessary control to stop it.

Or that proves the contempt wardens have for their prisoners. There are any number of reasons why it might be true, if indeed it is true.

When you will be falsely accuse of rape and had to spend several year in prison , being raped there then may be you will stop thinking : "If anything, there is a problem with women not admitting that they've been raped, not the other way round."

Or maybe I have personal experience of people who have been raped but didn't confront their rapists because, as teenagers at the time, they couldn't face admitting they'd been raped to their parents and the people that did it got away with it.

What you don't get is that I'm not arguing that checks shouldn't be put in place to prevent false accusations but rather this rubbish idea that rape victims aren't really damaged by the experience. Victims can be men/women/young/old so it's not just a feminist issue either.

This last post is just as bad as the rubbish coming from the previous post and it's pretty depressing that so many have such an inability to see both sides of coin. It's pretty clear that the last poster has no idea how much damage rape can do.

There is no doubt that false accusations of rape should be treated very seriously but this only reflects the fact that it's such a serious offence and is not, as implied by the tone of this last post, an suggestion that many cases are just the result of vindictive women. If anything, there is a problem with women not admitting that they've been raped, not the other way round.

========== In Reply To ==========

Would be just as much a failure as the death penalty has been for murder and at huge expense (more expensive, paradoxically to kill someone than to jail them for life). The murder rate is no lower in states with the death penalty than the ones without and there's no evidence that introducing it for rape would be any different.

Besides, the potential for a false conviction in a rape case is possibly greater than for murder cases (often it's just one person's word against another's) so the potential for killing innocent people is too great.

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?