Castration of rapists as a preventive health measure.

[Junghalli]

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?

Excission or better yet sowing the vagina closed should work nicely.

[Junghalli]

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?

I agree with you. I was merely bringing up a factoid.

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.

Yeah, that's pretty much my stand on the whole issue.

[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?

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.

BANG!

*rapist falls dead ten feet from his intended victim*

That, friends, is my point.

[General Zod]

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.

BANG!

*rapist falls dead ten feet from his intended victim*

That, friends, is my point.

What point? That you can't make a coherent argument to save your life? I'm still not seeing what the whole focus of your argument is here, aside from slippery slopes and appeals to emotion.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

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.

Chemical castration is reversible, sheesh. That fact was brought up several times in this thread already.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

For the record, there is an very easy way to make this a part of the release program. It is a fact of our justice system that an individual on parole can have a large number of special conditions set on their release. So just make the punishment for rape 15 years to Life. That means have 15 years rapists can be paroled, but one of the terms of their parole is that they must be chemically castrated.

[Surlethe]

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.

Revenge? Who's talking about revenge? We're talking about deterrence, not revenge.

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.

Red herring.

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

Brutalize? You call a surgical procedure brutalization?

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?

Answers, in order: Doctor. Doctor. Yes. What about it? No. Slippery slope. Slippery slope.

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?

Well, if he's convicted of rape, then yes. This is punishment, which usually comes after conviction, and years of appeals.

Where does it end?

Slippery-slope.

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)?

This is, in fact, much rarer, but presumably, we practice female castration. It's not unheard of, I think.

[Netko]

Excission or better yet sowing the vagina closed should work nicely.

Please go read about the extreame forms of FGM practised in parts of northern Africa (coincidently, pretty similar to your proposal). Especialy examine the (unintended) consequences of such procedures (except the death rate do to complications I guess, since I assume your idiotic proposal includes doing the procedure in a hospital).

The analogy on the male part would be to slice off the penis (and not the balls btw) and then sew the "stump" almost closed so that it hurts like hell when you urinate. "Cruel and unusual punishment" teritory, don't you think?

Hell, I agree with those posters that think anything beyond chemical castration is cruel & unusual. Especialy with a system in which mistakes are expected to occur (if not, there would be no need for a appeal process to be available).

[Junghalli]

Please go read about the extreame forms of FGM practised in parts of northern Africa (coincidently, pretty similar to your proposal).

Where do you think I got the idea?

Especialy examine the (unintended) consequences of such procedures (except the death rate do to complications I guess, since I assume your idiotic proposal includes doing the procedure in a hospital).

The inability to have sex and have children, which is sort of the idea. Care to elaborate?

The analogy on the male part would be to slice off the penis (and not the balls btw) and then sew the "stump" almost closed so that it hurts like hell when you urinate.

Human anatomy 101: the urethra and vagina are seperate.
Fully sowing it shut would create problems with menstruation, but you could leave a small hole, enough so drainage could occur, but would still leave the person incapable of sex.

"Cruel and unusual punishment" teritory, don't you think?

Yes, because I suggest how it might be done in theory I'm all for it.
Of course it's cruel and unusual punishment. So is castration. Your point?

[Zero]

Chemical castration is reversible, sheesh. That fact was brought up several times in this thread already.

Reversing chemical castration seems to be a quite simple, from the googling I've just done.. just discontinue injections. I will admit, this was a brain fart on my part... had a fucking ton of those lately...

Chemical castration is a pretty simple idea. Get rid of the sex drives of those people who's sexual desires specifically harm other people, and the harm they inflict should be minimized. Since it is actually easily reversible simply by discontinuing injections, the troubles involved in the fallibility of our legal system are pretty simple too. There's nothing apparently barbaric or wrong when dealing with chemical castration... seems pretty clear cut to me.

Chemical castration is a good solution to rape, and pedophilia as well (already implemented in California, methinks...).

Does anybody have any clues as to the side effects of chemical castration?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Junghali, this is one of the sickest fucking arguments ever made on this board, possibly comparable to the misogynistic Doctor Moriarty in the level of fucktard asshatedness. There is absolutely no comparison conceivable between such an extreme, painful, and extremely harmful form of mutilating torture and a reversible chemical injection at a regular interval to reduce the sex drive.

In addition to this being a totally irrelevant red herring (and probably several other fallacies at once), it is simply and absolutely disgusting and shocking to see such an argument, without question.

[SirNitram]

Of course it's cruel and unusual punishment. So is castration. Your point?

You are committing a frankly offensive red herring. So now the beating comes.

First off, dickless wonder, FGM is not performed with first world medicine's anastethia and disinfection. Second, one is an eminantly reversible process; the other is a lifetime long mutiliation. One is performed on convicted criminals, the other on innocent young women. One is a carefully attuned medical technique, the other is savagely with a blade and needle.

You're disgusting. The next time you try a blatant Appeal To Emotion Fallacy, try to be a little on-target with your bullshit red herring. Simply declaring from your computer desk both are 'cruel and unusual' and therefore the same is asshattery of the highest order.

In short, your argument holds no water, and you are scum. Have a nice night, go play in traffic.

[Adrian Laguna]

Am I the only one that realizes that Jungalli does not support the procedure he described? He did fuck-up by comparing it to castration, but I don't think it is deserving of the verbal lashing. Also I believe he is talking about physical castration not chemical, in which case he is guilty of not paying any fucking attention.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Am I the only one that realizes that Jungalli does not support the procedure he described? He did fuck-up by comparing it to castration, but I don't think it is deserving of the verbal lashing. Also I believe he is talking about physical castration not chemical, in which case he is guilty of not paying any fucking attention.

We fully understand that. First of all:

1. Physical castration does not necessarily do anything more than disconnect the testicles from the reproductive system, causing infertility. This is not REMOTELY comparable to the extreme barbarism of the form of FGM that he is comparing it to.

2. Ignorance of the actual form of castration being discussed is not an excuse. It merely turns you from a fucktard into a fucking idiot.

3. We aren't calling him on supporting the procedure he described, but on raising it (FGM) as a fucking double-fallacy, both red herring and appeal to emotion all at once.

Now, if you would not mind and perhaps go somewhere else to interject your comments, so perfectly irrelevant and worthless as they are to the subject at hand?

[Netko]

While the other posters pretty much dealt with this proposal, I would just like to elaborate a bit on the following part:

The analogy on the male part would be to slice off the penis (and not the balls btw) and then sew the "stump" almost closed so that it hurts like hell when you urinate.

Human anatomy 101: the urethra and vagina are seperate.
Fully sowing it shut would create problems with menstruation, but you could leave a small hole, enough so drainage could occur, but would still leave the person incapable of sex.

I know they are seperate, however the women that had the procedure done on them (that model that now works in England comes to mind, and some others - sorry can't remember the names, it's been a while since I read up on this barbaric practice) reported that there were also problems urinating (it burned) as well as having the most horrificly painfull menstruation since the hole that was left was extreamly small.

Do to the diffrences in anatomy, the previous analogy was the best I could do, and even that one leaves out the whole menstruation part which is considered the worse part by those women.

Your proposal is even more horrific if you did it fully knowing that such a thing actually occurs and what it entails beyond a abstract "sew her vagina closed".

[Broomstick]

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.

I'm going to disagree with some of this, even if you aren't.

"Rape is about power, not sex" is simplistic. Yes, some rape is about power, but not all, and not all "assaults about power" involve rape. There is also a sub-category of rapist who rape due to cognitive or inihibition problems - a severely retard adult male may have the impulse to have sex without have the intellect to understand concepts like "consent", for example, and some types of head injury will also destroy an individual's capacity to make moral decisions or suppress urges. Then we have consensual statutory rape, which doesn't involve violence. So there is no one, simple cause of rape.

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?

I question whether HIV is inevitably worse than the consequences of some sexual assaults with inanimate objects.

We also have to consider that any man who have his testicles forcibly removed is going to be mighty, mighty pissed. There is also no guarantee that the castrated offender is going to think the way we do. There have been instances of rapists who, unable to achieve/maintain an erection, have erupted into murderous rage and first mutilated then killed their victims without engaging in intercourse first.

The potential damage that can be caused by penetration of the pelvic cavity by a sharp object is quite nasty. Assuming you survive the perotinitis that will almost inevitably result, you may wind up with part or all of your intestines removed. This puts you at life-long risk of malnutrition, or may even require you to get all nutrition and fluids intravenously - this, by the way, almost inevitably results in liver failure within 5-10 years. Your bladder and kidneys could be destroyed - that's a lifetime of dialysis or, if you're lucky, a transplant followed by a lifetime of medication and medical follow-ups. Um, oh yes, destruction of reproductive and sexual organs is also a possibility, but it's a lot easier to live without those than some of those other major organs I mentioned. I'm sure I haven't covered all the possibilities.

In other words, rape with a metal pole could leave you just as disabled as the worst case of HIV, and with a shorter life expectancy than you would have with HIV and some decent retroviral medication. AIDS is horrible, but it's not the only horrible thing out there.

Remember, this isn't affection sex play with toys between lovers - this is a brutal assault with a weapon by a person who doesn't give a damn about the victim.

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.

It's sort of reversible.

Yes, it's done by injecting a medication that chemically inhibits testosterone and if you stop regular injections then testosterone production resumes.

However, testosterone does more than simply drive libido and, to a lesser extent, aggression. Over the long term, testosterone deprivation will cause a man to "feminize" - beard growth slows or stops, fat is deposited on the body in the buttocks, breast growth occurs, bone loss and osteoporosis can set in over the long haul, muscle strength dimishes... Allow the man's natural chemistry to reassert itself and his beard will grow again, the buttocks would lose some but not all of the new fat, and the breast development would reverse only a miniscule amount. Past the age of 35 the bone loss will not reverse. Muscle strength could, possibly, be regained with exercise. The point is that with time some of the side effects of this treatment become permanent or require surgical intervention to reverse.

There were reports in the UK where chemical castration for sex offenders has been used that the offenders so treated were feminized enough to become victims of sexual assult themselves, had dimished capacity to defend themselves, and requested mastectomies.

Another flaw in this treatment/punishment is the notion that male function in humans is controlled solely by the testes. It isn't. As far back as the ancient Greeks it was recognized that some men, if not most, castrated after puberty nonetheless retained some capacity for sexual intercourse (we're taking about ennuchs who retained their pensises) and such men were valued as sexual slaves. In the case of surgical castration this is due to the fact that the adrenal glands also produce testosterone. In this regard, chemical castration is actually more effective as it targets the biochemistry.

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?

Factual flaw at work here - a woman's sex drive is not driven by her ovaries. It's testosterone driven, just like a man's (although women produce and utilize much smaller amounts of testosterone) and most of woman's testosterone is produced by her adrenal glands.

I think castration would be most effective in those for whom the sex drive is the main origin of rape - the severely retarded who can't learn impulse control, the brain damaged, and victims of dementia such as Alzheimer's who become a hazard to others. Those of normal intellect and emotion... not so effective because in humans the drive to have sex and the impulse to commit crimes are not entirely biochemical in origin.

[Junghalli]

Whoa, calm down people, I was simply responding to this.

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?

I was simply proposing an alternative theoretical solution. I was not making any ethical argument whatsoever. I should have been more clear on this. So simmer down.

[SirNitram]

Whoa, calm down people, I was simply responding to this.

Couldn't they have their ovaries removed?

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

I was simply proposing an alternative theoretical solution. I was not making any ethical argument whatsoever. I should have been more clear on this. So simmer down.

My good retard, you proposed sewing someone closed to be equal to a first world medical procedure. Do you not fathom how different they are? Perhaps you can lay off crack for a while, if you were not blatantly trolling with red herrings and appeals to emotion.