No. Firstly, it's a barbaric and medieval form of punishment. We should aim to rehabilitate; not mutilate. And if rehabilitation doesn't work, keep them incarcerated.
Secondly, people are often wrongly convicted for these crimes. Imagine if we castrated an innocent man.
Surgical/Chemical castration of sex offenders? Watch
- 10-08-2016 23:53
(Original post by 1010marina)
- 11-08-2016 00:03
If there is 100% proof (eg. Video) and you are a repeat offender then yes. First time offence then probably not, no...
I think MUCH tougher sentences are needed for rapists and abusers. You get a lot more for fighting than rape and it's not fair on victims
(Original post by adesola15)
Wouldn't the UN have a fit? It's a breach of human rights.
Spoiler:ShowDoesn't mean I disagree though.
Posted from TSR Mobile
- Thread Starter
(Original post by hdog131313)
- 11-08-2016 00:05
Personally feel like violating a person's body because they violated someone's body is contradictory. I share that stance with killing a person because they killed someone. I think punishment in the form of deterring such behaviour shouldn't be so extreme that you violate a person. The court of law, I believe, is supposed to be morally superior to criminals. Sinking to the level of a rapist and violating them as a punishment would make me question and doubt the justice system completely.
Although personally i'm torn on the one hand i agree with your point but equally if theres a prolific and violent rapist/child molester around there comes a point when on the one hand you can lock them in a cell and throw away the key or try and make sure they cannot offend again i.e. some research indicates that having castrated someone chemically it can reduce such impulses when the hormones start to take effect. whilst locking them up simply costs a fortune and in essence just brushes the problem under the rug.
(Original post by sleepysnooze)
so if women rape men...?
yeah, something tells me this is just a punishment for men, isn't it.
(Original post by Robby2312)
I wouldnt be happy and that is precisely why Im not allowed to make the decision about what happens to the rapist.I have a large bias in wanting the perpatrator punished so I dont get to choose.Its decided by a fair and impartial system or at least it would be ideally.I never said castrating people was to do with Islam I just made the comparison because its the same line of thinking.An eye for an eye.But thats a barbaric way of thinking.
Although an eye for an eye i'dsurmise does work to a point, its current implenentation is barbaric but the other section of code which allows the family of the victim a greater say in the out come to the point of monetary remuneration seems interesting.
- 11-08-2016 00:08
Just no. Fundamentally disagree with it the same way I fundamentally disagree with the death penalty. A total breach of human rights.
(Original post by Razamataz666)
- 11-08-2016 00:09
well considering i believe in castrating half of the earths population to find a solution to overpopulation that does not involve murder, i am definitely for this. And the death penalty.
Then you get people who are innocent but found guilty, or guilty of something like self defence but its seen as murder, or someone who may have a moment of madness such as finding out their partner cheated on them and snaps then instanly regrets it, they need rehab not to be killed in retaliation.
(Original post by Napp)
- 11-08-2016 00:10
What're peoples views on that as a potential punishment?
You rape a person or child you loose what enabled you to do it..?
Rather a steep price but i'm curious what people would think about that. Also worth noting that you cant technically rehabilitate a sex offender either and they have a terribly high rate of recidivism...
(Original post by Napp)
- 11-08-2016 00:20
See thats better, all i wanted was an answer like that, well made!)
Although personally i'm torn on the one hand i agree with your point but equally if theres a prolific and violent rapist/child molester around there comes a point when on the one hand you can lock them in a cell and throw away the key or try and make sure they cannot offend again i.e. some research indicates that having castrated someone chemically it can reduce such impulses when the hormones start to take effect. whilst locking them up simply costs a fortune and in essence just brushes the problem under the rug..
I saw a Louis Theroux episode about sex offenders, and a man decided to be castrated (chemically, I think..), and because it was his choice I felt that was fine. And while people will argue "Why should they have a choice about their body when they didn't give their victim(s) a choice about their own?", I repeat that sinking to the level of a criminal in order to punish them is irrational when you're talking about the modern day justice system.
- 18-08-2016 03:07
wouldn't the rapists then turn into murderers