Rapists

[C4RM5]

What do you think you happen to rapists after they leave jail?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30022080

[Tonus]

The more relevant question should be "why are rapists leaving jail, unless it's in a coffin?"

[Chad32]

I think they should be castrated. Or maybe turned into eunuchs. I know that rape is more about domination than getting sexual pleasure, but I think getting rid of the testosterone would help diminish repeat offenses. Sexual lust must play some part of it, or they'd dominate people through easier methods.

Actually reading the article, it seems like he just took advantage of someone who was drunk. That's a little differnt than forcing yourself on someone, unless he was the one who got her drunk just so he could rape her.

[Ben Davis]

What do you think you happen to rapists after they leave jail?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30022080

Ideally, there only barrier to employment after release should be the need to protect vulnerable groups. In this regard, the current Regulated Activity legislation is pretty good. But here's where the problem is for me: rehabilitation is not a prime function of incarceration in the UK, punishment is. Consequently, the likelihood of someone coming out of jail and repeating their offense is high; amongst the highest in Europe. Since Ched maintains his innocence in a clear-cut case of him taking advantage of a drunk woman, I think that putting him in a high-profile, celebrity job, where he'll have ready access to vulnerable women (i.e. drunk fans!), is a mistake. So for me, it isn't about equitable employment opportunities for ex-cons, it's about protecting women from an unrepentant sexual predator.

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, I suspect the main motivator behind the current treatment programs being administered to these people is misguided.

[DeistPaladin]

I think they should be castrated. Or maybe turned into eunuchs. I know that rape is more about domination than getting sexual pleasure, but I think getting rid of the testosterone would help diminish repeat offenses. Sexual lust must play some part of it, or they'd dominate people through easier methods.

I would agree but for the prospect of the innocent who are wrongfully convicted.

I remember one case where a woman was raped and the guy they at first charged with the crime looked almost identical to the guy who later confessed to the crime. I can't fault the woman for fingering the wrong guy, given how much he and the actual perp looked alike.

It's the same reason I oppose the death penalty. You can release an innocent man from jail and clear his name. However, you can't give him his life or his genitals back if they turn out to be wrongfully taken.

Actually reading the article, it seems like he just took advantage of someone who was drunk. That's a little differnt than forcing yourself on someone, unless he was the one who got her drunk just so he could rape her.

The who issue with alcohol and consent is where I see some gray area. Different states draw the line differently as to what level of intoxication makes a woman unable to give consent. I remember when I attended a crime awareness seminar while I was in DC, the law as written was passed around. I was surprised to find that ANY alcohol in her system rendered her unable to give consent. After one drink, she can still legally operate a motor vehicle but can't have legal sex?

The gray area also lies in how different people respond differently to alcohol. I used to be a heavy partier in my college days and had a much higher tolerance. These days that I don't drink anymore, if I do have one beer I'm almost three sheets to the wind. Additionally, when I did drink in college to excess, sober people would have trouble knowing it by looking at me. I'm a very quiet and mellow drunk, it would seem. If a woman you hook up with at a party has a similar demeanor while drunk, is it possible you might have sex with her and not realize she's over the legal limit?

At the same time, I do realize why these laws are on the books. If she's truly incapacitated or incoherent from drugs or alcohol, she should be legally protected from those who would take advantage of it. And some might be more sensitive to the effects of alcohol where even low blood alcohol levels might have this effect. Also, my concerns in the paragraphs above are probably academic. I've had four different women confide in me that they are survivors of rape and not one of them ever sought justice or pressed charges. I can't imagine a woman actually going through all of that in our court system just to make a false accusation.

---

...just to add to my post, one shouldn't criticize an idea without proposing an alternative.

Instead of castration, I advocate a minimum 20 year prison sentence for each rape. You can always release an innocent man from jail, if we later find out some other guy did it. The minimum sentence for pedophilia should be life with no chance for parole, ever. No pedophile should ever be released from prison under any circumstances.

[Chad32]

If there's an age where a man's testosterone levels typically take a significant drop, then I'd put him a way until a little after that point. Though that may be a bit vague and wouldn't work for every case.

It kind of depends on the case. When I think rape, I immediately visualize some person holding a stranger down and raping them. Not people having a drunken one night stand, or people who would legally consent if they were old enough, but just aren't at the legal age, or whatever.

[GrandizerII]

Castration is way too harsh. Keep them in prison for life if necessary. Or have them continually monitored once set free.

[paulpablo]

It depends on the kind of rape it is.

I think the rape which doesn't involve coercion but is only rape because the girl is under the age of consent but still older than 15 is less serious than rape involving coercion with a woman above the age of consent.

On the website link you showed there one of the football players, Graham Rix was convicted of the crime of sex with a 15 year old.

She came to his hotel room after he made sexual advances on her previously.
But he's still basically classified as a rapist because he didn't wait a few months to do what he did.

I think the punishments should vary according to the crime. The punishment should be harsher the younger the victim is from the age of consent, and the more coercion involved in the crime.

For a more serious offense maybe some form of castration would work combined with a surgical shortening of the penis.
In some extreme cases maybe even the death penalty would apply.

I feel the urge to add I'm not a doctor, I don't know if it's possible to make someone a less sexual person via castration and surgical methods, it's pretty much a knee jerk shot in the dark, I'm just trying to say I think some sort of extreme punishment is necessary for extreme offenders.

[GrandizerII]

No, the punishment need not be so harsh just to satisfy one's lust for revenge or a misguided sense of justice. Life sentence is harsh enough and keeps them away from people they would pose a continuous threat to.

Resorting to severe measures such as castration (or death penalty) is not going to undo what they did to their victims, and all this does is continue to encourage a sense of barbarity that we (as civilized people) should've gone away with a long time ago.