jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (14 posts)

Should a convicted rapist be castrated?

  1. dadibobs profile image60
    dadibobsposted 6 years ago

    Should a convicted rapist be castrated?

    Two arguments exist regarding this question. For castration is as a punishment, but also to remove the ability to repeat the act. Against castration is based along the idea that rape is a crime of anger and frustration, meaning this would inevitably lead to more violent attacks on women. What do you guys think?

  2. Ana Teixeira profile image83
    Ana Teixeiraposted 6 years ago

    if you are referring to serial rapists.. YES! chemical castration seems to be the only way of stopping them. They should, first and foremost be analized by a phychologist in order to determine if they are capable of "cure". If the psychologist thinks he won't be able to stop himself, then yes.. I'm in favour of chemical castration... but keep in mind that, as a woman, I'm particularly sensitive to this subject.

  3. duffsmom profile image60
    duffsmomposted 6 years ago

    This is an emotional issue.  I would have to say no - but  let me explain.  Not all rapists are serial rapists.  There are cases where someone can be convicted of rape in a case there they dated someone under age, and might not have know they were under 18.  Parents get angry, press charges and the guy does down for rape.

    In the case of a serial rapist, that can be proven without a doubt, yes chemical castration seems like a good remedy.

    1. profile image52
      anujaaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      chemical castration also for false rape accuser

  4. Seeker7 profile image97
    Seeker7posted 6 years ago

    For a seriel rapist where there is no doubt that he is guilty then I would say it should be considered. But I think each case should be carefully looked at on an individual basis before such action was taken.

    There are cases where a guy has been accused of rape and he did nothing of the kind, so it would need to be 100% certain that whoever is accused of this crime is definately guilty. You also get - is it 'statutory rape'? - where a man is charged with rape because of the young age of a female. Sometimes it could be quite possible that the guy had no idea that the female was so young. So again, the courts need to be absolutely sure that the guy is guilty.

    1. profile image52
      anujaaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      seeker7... u r right my friend,,there are a lot of innocent men in jail who have commited rape.there are many cases of making consensual sex without knowing her real age.if chemical castration to rape accused then same for false rape accusertoo.

  5. Bretsuki profile image79
    Bretsukiposted 6 years ago

    I would say no to castration either physical or chemical.

    I say this for several reasons. 1. There is always the likelihood of wrongful conviction. 2. There is a large body of evidence to show Rape is not a sexual crime but is motivated by power, the rapist is physically abusing the victim in any way they can, physical beatings, mental torture and sexually. Their aim is to inflict pain and subjugate the victim not always sexual gratification. 3. The crime of rape is an act of extreme violence, it should be considered in line with murder, I would not make it a Capital crime and open to a death penalty for the reason stated in reason 1, but believe a conviction could carry a penalty which includes the convicts total removal from society for their entire life.

    1. profile image48
      Hopewithinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      1. That's true, but DNA evidence is never wrong.
      2. Who cares if it is sexually motivated or by power? Rape is rape, there is only one way they can prevent it in the future and that's by castration.
      3. If rapist is free, he will likely rape again

    2. profile image52
      anujaaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      ms. hopewithin there are a lot of false rape claim ..what these bastards who cry false rape should get..they should also be castratrd.. and u must know dna evidence is wrong at many places..go and search about "innocent project" and shut ur mouth

  6. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 6 years ago

    I say no, because innocent people are constantly thrown in prison for crimes they did not commit. Second, our consitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

    1. profile image48
      Hopewithinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      DNA testing doesn't lie

    2. profile image52
      anujaaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      go search "innocence project"..u idiot

  7. WinglessGuardian6 profile image58
    WinglessGuardian6posted 6 years ago

    I believe that a rapist whether it be a first offense or serial, if tried and convicted  with clear and convincing evidence shouldn't be allowed beyond the gates of prison. What I mean to say is... Save Men, women and children the stress of fearing that rapist of coming after them again and simply put them to death.

  8. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 5 years ago

    I would vote for chemical castration. The man isn't mutilated, and it can be reversed if he's found innocent later.