Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 101 total)
  • Why are rapists not chemically (or manually) castrated?
  • racing_ralph
    Free Member

    If its a 100% certain DNA match – castration surely is the answer

    philconsequence
    Free Member

    ever seen/hung around with a rapist who’s been castrated?

    put it this way.. a t-rex with its teeth removed still gets hungry… and frustrated…. and angry

    duntstick
    Free Member

    Apparently it doesn’t stop em. Other forms of weird domination of women occurs, and it ain’t pretty.

    CaptJon
    Free Member

    Human rights.

    chvck
    Free Member

    Is it just me or is the post count for this topic wrong?

    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    wowzers – thats weird shit.
    Funnily enough the answer to this question “

    ever seen/hung around with a rapist who’s been castrated?

    is NO

    scaredypants
    Full Member

    because rape’s mostly thought to be a crime of violence rather than lust, isn’t it ?

    now, branding on the forehead …

    (pulls down beanie, wanders off)

    lipseal
    Free Member

    Two lump hammers comes to mind.

    duntstick
    Free Member

    OP

    Only as weird as this Q on a pushbiking forum!!!!!!!!

    philconsequence
    Free Member

    🙂

    good to hear R_R!

    chemical castration (last time i encountered it at work… hopefully things have changed since 5-6 years ago) only seemed to kill the ability to achieve an erection, didnt do anything for the guy in question’s sex drive or psychology 🙁

    nickjb
    Free Member

    While we are at it people who speed could have their right foot cut off.

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    I didn’t think you could convict on DNA evidence alone, a premise based on the acknowledgement that it’s not 100% infallible. I think you have to have at least one other element of supporting evidence to make a conviction don’t you?

    I think the biggest problem though is that not all cases of rape are the same are they. For example, not getting consent because the girl is unable to give it is one level and then violently raping at knife point is another level. You could leave it up to the judge to decide if one cases warranted a castration penalty while another didn’t.

    duntstick
    Free Member

    Geetee, you’re giving this too much thought…

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    Maybe but it’s not like I’m planning anything…..

    That’s not even remotely funny is it.

    simonfbarnes
    Free Member

    If its a 100% certain DNA match

    ain’t no such thing

    bravohotel9er
    Free Member

    Because it would be barbaric.

    I work for the probation service and we get asked this question every now and again. Personally, for repeat offenders I’d favour life without the possibility of parole, but this is the UK and even that is deemed a little too draconian.

    FoxyChick
    Free Member

    For example, not getting consent because the girl is unable to give it

    Please explain.

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    Yes definitely don’t want to think too much about it.

    RR you like capital punishment and say cutting hands off theives?

    Life is soooooooo simple….

    duntstick
    Free Member

    I worked for a few years in the Police, and I consider death, with little chance for parole to be more appropriate……..

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    FC I am guessing unconscious or of limited capacity?

    FoxyChick
    Free Member

    Ah, that’s Ok then.
    Raping someone who is unconscious or of limited capacity is not as bad as raping at knife-point?

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Foxychick – I think he is just hard of thinking.

    Racing ralph? What would it achieve? What would act as a deterrent would be better conviction rates for rapists. Its a crime that is very hard to get convictions for for a variety of complex reasons.

    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    No one has convinced me otherwise yet

    dangerousbeans
    Free Member

    FC – more like both parties are pissed or high or both. You would be unable to have capacity to consent so would be deemed rape.

    Any sexual encounter where the female has had any amount of alcohol or drugs could be construed as rape if she decides the day after that, without the drink/drugs, she would have said no.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    if it actually worked it would be barbaric but worthy of consideration

    duntstick
    Free Member

    dangerousbeans
    Tis true and we all should warn our offspring accordingly!
    Big orrible grey area!

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    How about blind drunk? Everything up to this point has been indicative of being willing partners, but come the morning for whatever reason it becomes apparent that it wasn’t wilful consent as opposed to impaired judgement on one part and incapacity on the other.

    I’m still not saying that is acceptable but it’s a different thing to a predatory rapist stalking lone woman at knifepoint. Which is the point I think Geetee is making, that automatic castration on the basis of a DNA match would be wrong.

    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    So what if its barbaric, so is rape in 99.9% of cases. Punishments need to prevent the same offence being carried out

    mlke
    Free Member

    if you get all medieval with punishments then conviction rates will drop.

    And the inevitability of high publicity miscarriage of justice case

    “oops sorry we’ve got it wrong but here’s 1000 quid, your goolies in one jar and we’ve given you a second jar containing racing ralph’s goolies as he made the daft law”

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    so is rape in 99.9% of cases

    I could request source, but I get the point of hyperbole to make the point 😉

    The trouble is that a civilised society needs to consider the minority % just as much as the majority, if the penalty is to be as draconian as suggested. There is no such thing as acceptable collateral damage.

    bravohotel9er
    Free Member

    I could never support it, I oppose capital punishment too.

    I guess I’m a bleeding heart Tory!

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    LOL at jumpin to conclusions FC

    No one has convinced me otherwise yet

    I doubt many are trying, I’m certainly not, folk that cantrhink past views like this are extemely unlikely to change their views

    SurroundedByZulus
    Free Member

    What punishment should women that falsely accuse men of rape face?

    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    Stitches

    sofatester
    Free Member

    What punishment should women that falsely accuse men of rape face?

    On that subject, what if the rapist was in fact a woman?

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    Only a man can rape in the eyes of the law IIRC

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    Apparently it doesn’t stop em. Other forms of weird domination of women occurs, and it ain’t pretty.

    Yup, apparently rape has absolutely nothing to do with wanting sex. It’s about power, domination, and hatred.

    I’ve heard mentioned of completely non-homosexual men ie, heterosexuals, raping other men – for the above reasons.

    It’s also an effective, or at least often used, weapon of conquest. Again, for the above reasons.

    racing_ralph – Member

    Stitches

    So you want to make a “joke” ? You think this is a “funny” subject ?

    sofatester
    Free Member

    Only a man can rape in the eyes of the law IIRC

    I was thinking more along the lines of forced violation. Or being an accessory to rape. Which I’m pretty sure there have been a few convictions for over the years.

    Back to the OP. There is no such thing as 100% when it comes to DNA evidence. Plus as a few of the previous posters noted, rapists have a psychological fixation with power and domination. Removing or disabling part of there anatomy with not change this.

    myheadsashed
    Full Member

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 101 total)

The topic ‘Why are rapists not chemically (or manually) castrated?’ is closed to new replies.