Castration of rapists as a preventive health measure.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is something I've been thinking on for a little bit. In debates over the issue of castrating sex offenders, frequently the people who are opposed to it state that there is no evidence that sex is the actual reason for the crime, that it is an issue of power, etc, etc. This is all quite reasonable, and I'm not going to disagree with it. They continue along the lines that there's no point in castrating sex offenders, because they could just "use a broomstick" or something along those lines.

But isn't there are a point, even so? The actual act of sex, after all, comes with serious disease risks when you have someone with many partners, who's had frequent unprotected sex; the majority of sex offenders fall into this category. In many countries, such as South Africa, the spread of HIV to women has been linked to the rape epidemic. In short, rapists are spreading disease and infecting innocent people with a horrific and 100% fatal virus.

So why isn't that a justification for the castration of sex offenders before they are released? Yes, they can still re-offend by violating their victims with an object, but they can't spread diseases to them. It would certainly still be horrible in the extreme if a released sex offender raped your child with a broomstick or iron pole, or whatever, and might cause them serious internal injuries, infection, or so on, but the possible consequences pale in comparison to the prospect of your child getting HIV from being raped, don't they? So in light of that, is it not arguable that the castration of sex offenders before they are released is acceptable from a health standpoint, so that even if they do reoffend they can't infect their victims with a lifelong dehabilitating or even fatal disease?

[General Zod]

That would be a fairly valid justification for castration. At least I can't think immediately of any reason it wouldn't be. Too bad nobody arguing in favor of castration brought it up in the previous threads though.

[DrkHelmet]

I think I could agree with that. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Of course, others would say that this constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment."

What would you do if you castrated a guy and he was later proved innocent?

[Rahvin]

An added argument would be the risk of pregnancy from a rape. Pregnancies due to rape are one of the few exceptions even some (not all) Pro-Lifers will agree justify abortion. I certainly don't envy anythone in the position of deciding whether to keep or abort the child of thier rapist.

Then there's the deterrant effect. One would hope the threat of being castrated would scare a few would-be rapists out of the crime. I know, for me, even thinking about castration (even for a violent rapist) is less than pleasant.

[Rahvin]

[qs]What would you do if you castrated a guy and he was later proved innocent?[/qs]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is chemical castration not reversible? I understood chemical castration to be a hormonal injection that requires regular injections to remain effective.

Otherwise, yeah, the finality of chopping off some guys balls when he's later proven innocent would be a dilemma simlar the reason I am against the death penalty.

[DrkHelmet]

Then there's the deterrant effect. One would hope the threat of being castrated would scare a few would-be rapists out of the crime. I know, for me, even thinking about castration (even for a violent rapist) is less than pleasant.

I'm going to focus on this section. If you are going to use a punishment as a deterrent, it needs to be applied universally. You can't use it like we do the death penalty, where it hits like 0.5% of cases. (Don't quote me on that figure. I just pulled it out of my ass to make a point.) Deciding to castrate this rapist but not that one dilutes the deterrence value.

[Rahvin]

Ghetto edit - sorry for the bad quote tags. Could a mod please fix for me?

[DrkHelmet]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is chemical castration not reversible? I understood chemical castration to be a hormonal injection that requires regular injections to remain effective.

I'm not sure. I would have to research it first.

[Rahvin]

Ah, Texas.

With chemical castration, sex offenders are injected with drugs to reduce the amount of the male hormone testosterone in their system. With surgical castration, the testicles are removed.

Surgical castration isn't really more drastic than chemical, said Gordon Cappelletty, who directs the adult and adolescent sex offender treatment program at the California School of Professional Psychology at Fresno, Calif.

Both are reversible.

Apparently you can even have your balls reattached after surgical castration

[DrkHelmet]

Apparently you can even have your balls reattached after surgical castration

I don't think I want to experiment with that possibility .

[aerius]

Apparently you can even have your balls reattached after surgical castration

I don't think I want to experiment with that possibility .

John Bobbit got his dick cut off and tossed on the road and the docs managed to reattach it. And it works quite well since he starred in an amateur porn movie after the surgery.

That's the short term though, if they had to keep some guy's balls on ice for a year or 2 until they got him cleared of charges, there's gonna be some issues on making it all work again.

But with that said, I have no problem with surgical castration once they get the court system fixed up and false convictions drop down to an acceptably low level.

[Junghalli]

Apparently you can even have your balls reattached after surgical castration

I seem to remember that in the Known Space universe they'd revived the ancient tradition of taking away body parts of criminals (cutting off theives' hands, rapists' sex organs etc.) but they'd cryogenically preserve them and then reattach them after you'd served your sentence.
OK buddy, you can get your balls back in ten years, maybe six with good behavior.

[FSTargetDrone]

I seem to remember that in the Known Space universe they'd revived the ancient tradition of taking away body parts of criminals (cutting off theives' hands, rapists' sex organs etc.) but they'd cryogenically preserve them and then reattach them after you'd served your sentence.
OK buddy, you can get your balls back in ten years, maybe six with good behavior.

And in the US system of justice we do not surgically remove people's body parts as punishment. We don't chop off someone's hand if they use that hand to fire a gun and kill someone, do we? How is it any fundamentally different from snipping off someone's balls?

The idea of removing someone's body part, whether it be surgically or with a rusty machete is barbaric. Chemical castration, fine. But let's please not degrade ourselves as a society by acting like the savages we are trying to punish.

[wilfulton]

The thing of it is, if said rapist is merely going to continue his crimes after he's "done his time" why are we letting them out in the first place. If they are a threat to society, they should stay in the cage. Maybe not necessarily longer sentences, but don't be letting them out for "good behavior" or because of overcrowding, he does his time, and during that time, we work on rehabilitating the offender so he can function in society.

Ultimately, however, I'm not sure there really is any good answer for this question, because what if he isn't rehabilitated by the time his time is done? Do we lobby to hold rapists indefinitely, good idea though that may be, it sets a horrible precedent. Now that we can hold wrongdoers indefinitely, why not murders? burglars, pickpockets? unpaid parking tickets? speeders? dissident thinkers?

Naturally, this is a slippery slope type of reasoning, that starts out doing a good thing, and then degrades downward until freedom becomes the freedom to do whatever the Government tells you. Sadly, with bureaucratic entities (which governments inherently are) you can never be too careful about how much power you give them.

Other laws like "Three strikes, youre out," are also nice, but it does the victims no good to see their attacker locked up, really. They don't become un-raped, and they don't become cured of AIDS.

While I'm sure that most governments in general want to protect the public, neither does any judge want to sentence an innocent man for a crime he did not commit. Punishing the innocent is not justice.

So thus defense of self and family falls on the individual in the end. For the Government to "punish" a criminal for his wrongdoing is nice, but wouldn't you rather stop it from happening in the first place?

[Solauren]

Do we lobby to hold rapists indefinitely, good idea though that may be, it sets a horrible precedent. Now that we can hold wrongdoers indefinitely, why not murders? burglars, pickpockets? unpaid parking tickets? speeders? dissident thinkers?

How about just violent offenders, or serial offenders where someone could get seriously hurt?

While I'm sure that most governments in general want to protect the public, neither does any judge want to sentence an innocent man for a crime he did not commit. Punishing the innocent is not justice.

Neither is letting a serial criminal back out into the general populace to reoffend, but it happens all the time.

So thus defense of self and family falls on the individual in the end. For the Government to "punish" a criminal for his wrongdoing is nice, but wouldn't you rather stop it from happening in the first place?

Appeal to emotion.

okay, let's say a given country gets there 'raise them so they don't commit crimes' system working perfectly. Wonderful.
What about everyone not raised in that country?

Anyway, back on topic.

I agree, castration of rapists to prevent the spread of diseases is a good idea. Chemically if non-violent, physically if violent/serial

Off course, this also raises the question if we shold chemically castrate people with a sexual disease to prevent there spread as well?
Seeing as it's reversable....

[Surlethe]

I seem to remember that in the Known Space universe they'd revived the ancient tradition of taking away body parts of criminals (cutting off theives' hands, rapists' sex organs etc.) but they'd cryogenically preserve them and then reattach them after you'd served your sentence.
OK buddy, you can get your balls back in ten years, maybe six with good behavior.

And in the US system of justice we do not surgically remove people's body parts as punishment. We don't chop off someone's hand if they use that hand to fire a gun and kill someone, do we? How is it any fundamentally different from snipping off someone's balls?

Why not? It's an effective form of punishment; if you chop someone's hand off, they're never going to use it again to fire a gun. Justice is not only retributive but also preventive. I would think bodily harm is a far better way to deter someone from a crime than merely being locked up.

The idea of removing someone's body part, whether it be surgically or with a rusty machete is barbaric. Chemical castration, fine. But let's please not degrade ourselves as a society by acting like the savages we are trying to punish.

How is it degrading to engage in preventative, punitative measures?

[FSTargetDrone]

I would like to think that in civilized society we act better than those we intend to punish. Mutilating criminals is standard procedure in some really sordid parts of the world, and for the same reason I don't want to see prisoners of war or enemy combatants tortured, I don't want to see our justice system playing to the most base and repugnant emotions of humanity.

[wilfulton]

So thus defense of self and family falls on the individual in the end. For the Government to "punish" a criminal for his wrongdoing is nice, but wouldn't you rather stop it from happening in the first place?

Appeal to emotion.

okay, let's say a given country gets there 'raise them so they don't commit crimes' system working perfectly. Wonderful.
What about everyone not raised in that country?

Anyway, back on topic.

I agree, castration of rapists to prevent the spread of diseases is a good idea. Chemically if non-violent, physically if violent/serial

Off course, this also raises the question if we shold chemically castrate people with a sexual disease to prevent there spread as well?
Seeing as it's reversable....

Uh...I think you missed the point, dude. That means SHOOT THE SON OF A BITCH! And if the motherfuckers are violent, fuck surgical castration, the sickness ain't in their balls, its in their heads, so hang the bastards. Rope is cheaper than doctor's bills. And for that matter so is lead.

[Surlethe]

I would like to think that in civilized society we act better than those we intend to punish. Mutilating criminals is standard procedure in some really sordid parts of the world...

In other words, "They do it; I don't like them; therefore, I don't do it": a red herring which completely evades the point.

...and for the same reason I don't want to see prisoners of war or enemy combatants tortured, I don't want to see our justice system playing to the most base and repugnant emotions of humanity.

Torture is a red herring.

Why shouldn't our justice system play to those "most base and repugnant emotions" if so doing results in a lowered crime rate?

[FSTargetDrone]

Why shouldn't our justice system play to those "most base and repugnant emotions" if so doing results in a lowered crime rate?

And does such retribution lower crime rates? At this point we seem to be talking about revenge, and that should not, in my opinion, be part of a judicial system. If we want revenge to be part of a judicial system, then the point is moot.

The OT was whether or not castration would be an effective public health policy. If it can be proven that chemical "castration" or some other medication is effective in suppressing the urges of individuals that are otherwise driven to rape, then that may be an effective and I'd have no problem with that.

But it is not and should not be the business or the policy of the state to be brutalizing criminals.

And who are you going to get to perform surgical castration? For that matter, what about chopping off someone's hand? Are we going to have a surgeon come in and perform this? What about "do no harm?" Or will we just get a prison employee to march in with a machete and lop off the guy's hands? Why stop there, why not simply blind the rapist? Or, as suggested above, simply kill him?

What do you do with a 17-year kid who gets caught with his girfriend by her parents and they cry rape? Do we turn him into a eunuch too? Where does it end?

What do we do with women who are convicted of raping a male juvenile? What about a woman who is physically stronger than some man she attacks and forces him to have sex in someway (at gunpoint, whatnot)?

[Peregrin Toker]

What do we do with women who are convicted of raping a male juvenile? What about a woman who is physically stronger than some man she attacks and forces him to have sex in someway (at gunpoint, whatnot)?

Couldn't they have their ovaries removed?

[General Zod]

The thing of it is, if said rapist is merely going to continue his crimes after he's "done his time" why are we letting them out in the first place. If they are a threat to society, they should stay in the cage. Maybe not necessarily longer sentences, but don't be letting them out for "good behavior" or because of overcrowding, he does his time, and during that time, we work on rehabilitating the offender so he can function in society.

Because you don't punish someone for crimes that they might commit. Once they've served their time, they may be placed under some form of watch to see if there's any risk of them commiting the same crime again, or they may be let loose. Generally, this is why rapists are placed in a sex offender database. Also, unless you're psychic, you aren't going to know whether or not someone will commit a crime again after being released. The best you can do is tell who is at risk for being most likely to commit a crime after being let out, and monitor them appropriately.

Ultimately, however, I'm not sure there really is any good answer for this question, because what if he isn't rehabilitated by the time his time is done? Do we lobby to hold rapists indefinitely, good idea though that may be, it sets a horrible precedent. Now that we can hold wrongdoers indefinitely, why not murders? burglars, pickpockets? unpaid parking tickets? speeders? dissident thinkers?

Slippery slope. We don't hold people indefinitely, and you're jumping to the conclusions that rapists are the same as all criminals. In the case of rapists, the most dangerous ones are usually mentally imbalanced. The same cannot be said of petty thieves and other blue collared criminals.

Naturally, this is a slippery slope type of reasoning, that starts out doing a good thing, and then degrades downward until freedom becomes the freedom to do whatever the Government tells you. Sadly, with bureaucratic entities (which governments inherently are) you can never be too careful about how much power you give them.

If you realize it's a slippery slope, then you shouldn't be using fallacious reasoning when making your argument.

Other laws like "Three strikes, youre out," are also nice, but it does the victims no good to see their attacker locked up, really. They don't become un-raped, and they don't become cured of AIDS.

So? What the fuck is your point, aside from an appeal to emotion?

While I'm sure that most governments in general want to protect the public, neither does any judge want to sentence an innocent man for a crime he did not commit. Punishing the innocent is not justice.

Again, what's your fucking point?

So thus defense of self and family falls on the individual in the end. For the Government to "punish" a criminal for his wrongdoing is nice, but wouldn't you rather stop it from happening in the first place?

How exactly would you propose that? Do you know of any type of magic system that lets people know who's going to commit what crimes in advance? If not, then you're just spouting idiotic nonsense.

[General Zod]

What do we do with women who are convicted of raping a male juvenile? What about a woman who is physically stronger than some man she attacks and forces him to have sex in someway (at gunpoint, whatnot)?

Couldn't they have their ovaries removed?

You do realize that ovaries have absolutely nothing with a female's ability to have sex, right?

[Chmee]

How about a male chastity belt?

The central issue here is that you're changing a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence -- that when convicted of a crime, you receive a term of punishment that is finite, and when that term is concluded, you are released. We don't impose permanent body mutilation as punishment, and we generally don't impose lifetime 'semi-punishment' that lingers after your release from incarceration.

Maiming human beings and then releasing them back out into society does not sound like a recipe for less violence, but just a new way to add to the population of really bitter, angry people with a grudge against society who will find some violent way to express it.

[Zero]

The main issue I have with this scenario is that those wrongly accused of such things could be in quite a bit of trouble. Just recently, on television, I saw the story of a man who had been on death row for the rape and murder of a little girl. They used genetic evidence to show that he wasn't really the guy, but following this scenario, as a rapist, this man already would have had his genitals mutilated and gone.

Those accused of crimes aren't always guilty, and genital mutilation is permanent. Removal of any part of our bodies is permanent, and really, judiciary systems shouldn't be about revenge anwyays.