PDA

View Full Version : What should be the punishment for rapists and pedophiles ?



Maciamo
10-01-06, 23:08
As much as I can be liberal when it comes to laws, as much can I be strict when it comes to punishments. If it were up to me, torture or mutilations would be reinstored instead of long prison terms as punishments for "wicked crimes" (like serial murders, pedophilia, etc.).

Serial rapists and pedophiles should be castrated, as it is the best way to prevent them to commit the same crime again, other than give them an irrevocable life sentence or execute them.

In fact, part of the reasoning is that it cost less to tax payers and is probably more effective to castrate a rapist and force him to follow a reeducation programme at his own cost (maybe 1 year, or as long as it take, and if they can't pay for it anymore, they'll have to work for free for the government to pay it), than to keep them in jail for years.

What are your views on this ?

No-name
10-01-06, 23:12
Do you mean simply castrated or emasculated? What if they commited their crime with a foreign object?

Maciamo
10-01-06, 23:21
Do you mean simply castrated or emasculated? What if they commited their crime with a foreign object?

What do you mean by emasculate (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/emasculate?view=uk) ? Make less virile ? How ?

Of course, castration can be chemical (no need to take them off with tongs :blush: )

nice gaijin
10-01-06, 23:25
sexual predators are one of those crimes that takes a lot of insight to understand why the criminal acts that way, and also one of those crimes that really boils my blood.

While I think it depends on the nature of the crime and the ability to truly be rehabilitated (not just able to "control" urges with therapy and medication), I think that violent serial rapists or pedophiles leave us with little choice, and castration starts to sound like a good option. Ultimately this could probably never be done as it probably qualifies as "cruel of unusual," but it wouldn't be a bad solution.

edit//On the flipside, what if the criminal is castrated then released, and just becomes increasingly violent? Or is the argument that this would only be performed on lifetime inmates anyways?

Ma Cherie
10-01-06, 23:32
A punishment for rapist and pedophiles. Hmmm............complex issue. Anyways, you don't seem to think that pedophiles and rapists can be redeemed. Then, I could be wrong.:relief:

Before we try to figure out a punishment for rapists and pedophiles, we should try to figure out why they commit these crimes in the first place. Is it in the culture? Is it Genetic, or other factors. There has been some research to suggest that if people are molested as children they are likely to become pedophiles themselves. And there's other factors about this as well.

As far as rapists are concerned, it seems by now that people who rape aren't doing it because they want sex. It seems to be more about control and power. And there should be some efforts made to figure out why some people rape other people.

However, I don't know if castration of would solve the problem of rape or pedophilia. I think pedophiles should be punished by imprisonment as well as rapists.

Clawn
10-01-06, 23:36
It really is too complex a matter to judge in such a short time, so I will tell you what I basically think on the issue.

I think they should be imprisoned and put into a reeducation program(which I forgot to vote for). I think that castration should be saved for rapists who've commited the act more than once. If we give them the chance to change their ways and they deny it, then I believe harsh punishment is in order.

No-name
11-01-06, 00:14
I thought to emasculate meant to remove the entire genetalia and not just the testicles, but I guess the words are synonyms. What is the word I am thinking of?

silver angel
11-01-06, 00:36
From a document I saw a while back (20/20 or dateline..something of the sort, sorry I can't remember!), many child rapists and pedophiles end up beaten to within an inch of their lives in prison. Even serial murderers and felons find that disgusting. Personally, if my child was molested or a child close to me, I'd want to seriously hurt that person. I believe that they should be hurt in most unimaginable ways. Death is an easy way out, but prison does punish them (other prisoners do have their way with them.). I just hate how they get released and then a huge warning goes out to the neighbourhood.
But then there's the question of if doctors say it's safe to release them, why do they commit(sp?) the crime again? (vunerable? provoked?)

nice gaijin
11-01-06, 00:56
I thought to emasculate meant to remove the entire genetalia and not just the testicles, but I guess the words are synonyms. What is the word I am thinking of?I thought to emasculate meant to enter into marriage ;) sorry couldn't resist.

The removal of one or both of the testicles (known as castration, gelding, neutering, orchiectomy, or orchidectomy) is really all that's required to remove the sex drive. Chemical Castration essentially achieves the same end without surgery, and is not a permanent condition. Removal of the glans is a completely different procedure (penectomy) and has nothing to do with castration.

Maciamo
11-01-06, 01:00
I didn't know we had specialist in the matter on board. :blush:

nice gaijin
11-01-06, 05:11
I used to frequent bmezine :)
I had to look up the other terms for castration though.

Sensuikan San
11-01-06, 05:47
Both categories should be screwed to death by carefully selected teams of professional nymphomaniacs - in public.
That'd teach 'em!
ジョン

Tsuyoiko
11-01-06, 13:47
I think they should be sent to prison where they can receive re-education. I think that castrating them is no different from cutting the hands off thieves. I also think that removing their ability to commit the crime again removes the responsibility for their actions. We should be trying to rehabilitate them, and if that fails then keep them in prison. How we pay for that is another, more general problem.

Maciamo
11-01-06, 14:36
I think they should be sent to prison where they can receive re-education. I think that castrating them is no different from cutting the hands off thieves.
Hands serve other purposes than stealing... Now if someone was a serial groper, thief, used their hands to make obscene gestures in public everyday, etc., as a judge, I would consider having them cut, depending on how serious his/her case is.

RockLee
11-01-06, 22:05
Nudering them won't do much I think, neither would castrating.They should be put away BUT (and this should be a new rule in every prison) WITHOUT any privileges such as TV,good food etc. That's where all the money goes too, those sons of B*tches get all the luxury and royal treatment for commiting serious crimes.That's a serious mistake in my eyes.And for life should be FOR LIFE.

Last week on tv there was this sob politician who wanted that prisoners could be reintroduced to society after they were rehabilitated.I think this is VERY wrong.A murderer,rapist,pedophile,serial killer or any criminal who commited a serious crime should get life long emprisonment.:okashii:

If we treat them as they did with their victims we're no better, remember this.

No-name
11-01-06, 22:17
Lock 'em up. While there there- keep them busy, give them skills to function in society..but don't expect reformation.

bossel
12-01-06, 05:08
As in any other crime you have to consider the individual circumstances.

But I oppose any forced mutilation, torture or death penalty.

トラちゃん
12-01-06, 05:15
I'd say prison for both, but definatly an education programme. They aren't going to learn by sitting in prison for a few years. In any case it could get worse.
It also depends how serious the crime is.

Doc
12-01-06, 06:30
When people tell me that we should spare sex offenders any punishment except jail time because they're human, I always ask the fabled question "what is human?" The way I see it lock them up and torture the hell out of them with both psychological and physiological tortures from inmates. I cannot stand sex offenders at all as they are on the top of my "most hated" list, and I have no sympathy for them. :okashii:

Doc :wave:

Duo
12-01-06, 06:31
I could see myself supporting something as making sure these people wouldn't be able to do the same crime again. I would however choose an option for something such as chemical castration. Pedophiles especially should be treated in the harshest way because they destroy what is innocent in our society. Crimes against children should be punished by a harsher degree. A pedophile and rapist act on premeditation, they dont just simply walk on the street and get the sudden the thought of attacking someone. They stalk the victim, follow them, and usually carry out the crime in secluded areas or places that they are sure not be found. I think a weakness in our society is at times trying to deal with such offenders by our standards; I think that sometimes we can't afford to be so complacent and liberal and that some people dont deserve to be judged by laws and regulations that are not of the same category as their crimes

Doc
12-01-06, 06:40
You do have to realize that chemical castration does not work. The sex drive is all in the brain, and pedophiles can still rape with a foreign object. We just need these sick freaks off the street period. Did you know in the state of Washington there is a prision on a man made island in the middle of a lake that houses all the major sex offenders (mainly pedophiles) in the state? There are a total of 5,000 inmates if I remember correctly. Who knew that rounding up a bunch of people and putting them on a island together locked up was actually a good thing! :cool:

Doc :wave:

Revenant
12-01-06, 08:39
As always, punishments should be a conditioner, and not anything done out of revulsion, revenge, or hate.

Prison, or in other words, restricted freedoms, shouldn't be meted out as a punishment, but simply with the intent of restricting the freedoms of those who threaten the safety or well-being of others.

But if rape is to intimately show one's dominance over another, and to feel the power of having broke and brought great suffering to another, then castration may only take out the sex drive and the ability to do it with their own sex organ. It is still possible to attack someone intimately without the use of one's sexual organs, or even a sex drive.

Pedophiles I do not understand at all. I've heard it is a disease of the mind, and possibly something that is incurable.

Perhaps a lack of sex drive will take away one of the driving factors behind their actions. If that were the case, then it is possibly one way of rehabilitating them. The other driving factor, the strong need to assert dominance over another would also have to be addressed somehow.

I'm still for imprisonment now, but I don't know a whole lot about this topic, so that opinion is no where near solidified.

Maciamo
12-01-06, 13:02
But I oppose any forced mutilation, torture or death penalty.
Why is that so ? Isn't it preferrable to be mutilated and free than not mutilated and in prison for 20 years or life, where one's health will deteriorate and other prisoners may harm, mutilate or even kill that person ?

Another way of seeing is : what is worse, psychological torture or physical torture. I think that many of us are subject to (more or less strong) psychological torture from time to time (in relationship, being forced-fed religious dogmas at school, knowing that Bush is president of the USA...), and overtime it can be worse than physical torture. Chemical castration is a surgical operation under anaesthesia, and shouldn't be seen as "torture". Some people decide to get operated because they don't want children anymore. What's all the fuss about doing it to rapists, if it can take away their "incontrollable pulsions" and facilitate their readaptation into society ?

Maciamo
12-01-06, 13:14
You do have to realize that chemical castration does not work. The sex drive is all in the brain, and pedophiles can still rape with a foreign object.

Not if you operate them in a way that they cannot have an errection anymore (not sure if it is possible, but otherwise remove the penis too).

What about lobotomising the part of their brain responsible for sex drive ? I also thing that dangerous criminals should get a lobotomy of the frontal lobe to "calm them down" (they will still be able to live normally, think normally, move normally, but with constantly "neutral" emotions). I think such method was practised in the 1930's, but some conservative Christians lobbied against it, as they saw it as immoral (the same that see abortion or cloning as "immoral"). Of course people were much more conservative and religious in the 1930's than now (well, in Europe at least), so I am rather surprised that the idea has not been revived lately.

I have heard people say "what's the point of living without emotional excitemnt ?". Well, I ask them "what's the point of living if you are imprisoned for the rest of your life ?". Again, better free and "emotionless" than "lunatic" (like any serial murderer) and living between 4 walls for the rest of one's life.

Maciamo
12-01-06, 13:23
Prison, or in other words, restricted freedoms, shouldn't be meted out as a punishment, but simply with the intent of restricting the freedoms of those who threaten the safety or well-being of others.

Exactly ! That's why I think that there should be a actual punishment instead (lobotomy, castration...) to prevent dangerous/serial criminals from committing crimes again, then set them free after that. It will cost much less to society, and will enable readaptation of "treated criminals" into society.


But if rape is to intimately show one's dominance over another, and to feel the power of having broke and brought great suffering to another, then castration may only take out the sex drive and the ability to do it with their own sex organ. It is still possible to attack someone intimately without the use of one's sexual organs, or even a sex drive.

In that case, a lobotomy is preferrable.

Tsuyoiko
12-01-06, 14:45
Maciamo, I find your arguments quite persuasive. Some posters favour castration because of a desire for revenge or punishment, which I would not support. But it might be an effective means to ensure the rehabilitation of the offender - provided it leaves every other aspect of their mind and body intact.

I still have some misgivings - is our medical knowledge sufficient to carry out lobotomies that remove the violent desires and nothing else? How would we reintroduce them into society? I'm not convinced everyone would understand that they are now physically incapable of committing the same crime. I think everyone has heard the stories about what happens when paedophiles in particular are released.

Maciamo
12-01-06, 14:58
I still have some misgivings - is our medical knowledge sufficient to carry out lobotomies that remove the violent desires and nothing else? How would we reintroduce them into society? I'm not convinced everyone would understand that they are now physically incapable of committing the same crime. I think everyone has heard the stories about what happens when paedophiles in particular are released.
I am not sure if our medical knowledge is sufficient to "remove" only one's sexual drive, but for criminal behaviour, this has been tried and tested. Have a look at what Wikipedia says about Psychosurgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy). Note that I am against lobotomy as a treatment for depressions or light mental illnesses, as it has irreversible effects. Only serious criminals with no change of successful readaptation should be treated this way.

Here is an explanation on what the frontal lobe controls. It is very basic, and it is important to understand that each of the function described below is "managed" by a different part of the frontal lobe. If I remember well my neuropsychology books, emotions and sex drive are in the central part ("between the eyes"). Judgement, reasoning and calculation are on the front-left side, language on the left-rear side, imagination and creativity on the front-right side... Of course, each tiny zone of the brain has a different function. So, the principle is to do a MRI or other brain imaging test on the patient, determine exactly where their sex drive or violent behaviour is located, then remove it.

This was done reasonably sucessfully to treat depression and schizophrenia in the 1930's, so I have no doubt that with all the knowledge acquired and technological progress made since then, such an operation to treat dangerous criminals can only be even more successful.


The frontal lobe of the brain controls a number of advanced cognitive functions, as well as motor control. Motor control is located at the rear of the frontal lobe, and is usually unaffected by psychosurgery. The anterior or prefrontal area is involved in impulse control, judgement, language, memory, motor function, problem solving, sexual behaviour, socialisation and spontaneity. Frontal lobes assist in planning, coordinating, controlling and executing behaviour.
Thus, the efficacy of psychosurgery was often related to changes in personality and reduced spontaneity (this included making the person quieter and lowering their sex drive). Certain processes related to schizophrenia are also believed to occur in the frontal lobe, and may explain some success. However, certain types of inappropriate behaviours increased as a function of reduced impulse control (in some respects they became more childlike). Further, it decreased their ability to function as a member of the community by reducing their problem solving and planning abilities and making them less flexible and adaptive. It usually had no bearing on IQ except with respect to problem solving.
I wouldn't worry too much about dangerous criminals having reduced "problem solving and planning abilities and making them less flexible and adaptive". This will be all the easier to control their behaviour.

Tsuyoiko
12-01-06, 15:16
Thanks Maciamo. Perhaps my skepticism stems from experiences with the British NHS :p

bossel
13-01-06, 03:48
Why is that so ?
Because corporal punishment is so ... well ... medieval.
Worse: CP is irreversible & hence a punishment that I simply cannot support if only for the reason that I don't trust the infallibility of justice.


Isn't it preferrable to be mutilated and free than not mutilated and in prison for 20 years or life, where one's health will deteriorate and other prisoners may harm, mutilate or even kill that person ?
From a Libertarian POV I favour compensation over punishment. Criminals shouldn't be locked away, mutilated or killed, but kept in a state to pay compensation to their victims (or the victims' heirs). There may be cases in which some form of imprisonment is necessary, but that should be the exception not the rule.


Chemical castration is a surgical operation under anaesthesia, and shouldn't be seen as "torture".
It's mutilation, which is worse than torture. If they themselves decide to have it done, no problem. But force it upon them? Nope.


What's all the fuss about doing it to rapists, if it can take away their "incontrollable pulsions" and facilitate their readaptation into society ?
Because you don't cure the problem, but only one symptom. The problem is not what hangs down there, but what goes on up in the brain. &, no, lobotomy is not a valid solution to me, reasons as above (anyway still to crude).


(they will still be able to live normally, think normally, move normally, but with constantly "neutral" emotions)
I have a hard time to consider life & thought normal with "neutral" emotions.

*Ev3*
13-01-06, 11:41
My view. To the thoughts, i respond immediately with emotions.
"i want to castrate all rapists of children, without anasthetics". :angryfire:
Thinking more rationally .. rapists and pedophiles shold go to prison , to keep other people safe from them , and also so they can have a rehabilitattion programme.

It depends if they committed the crime once or many times .. if they committed once , there is perhaps a chance they could "recover" ( not committ again ) .. although it is a risk.

If they committed more than one time , they shold go to prison for a long time , because it's a suitable punishment .. but a lot of the time , sentences are really short , a lot too short , not just for rape/pedophile , but for other serious crimes like murders. :souka: A punishment shold be a proper punishment.



What about lobotomising the part of their brain responsible for sex drive ? I also thing that dangerous criminals should get a lobotomy of the frontal lobe to "calm them down"

:shock: i can't belive it! There are really people who think this way?!? That's really horrible and nazi. :( If someone is a dangerous criminal, why not just keep them locked up in prison? ( Dutch Baka said well .. not a luxury hotel :okashii: .. a place where it's punishment , not priveleges. ) Oh, but i forget .. that costs money, doesn't it? :okashii:

_______________________

PS


I always ask the fabled question "what is human?"

Malice and misery. ;-)

Tsuyoiko
13-01-06, 12:36
CP is irreversible & hence a punishment that I simply cannot support if only for the reason that I don't trust the infallibility of justice...It's mutilation, which is worse than torture. If they themselves decide to have it done, no problem. But force it upon them? Nope.I agree, but I thought about it from another angle. Could we consider these urges as a mental illness? Wouldn't we then want to treat that illness? Of course, there is still the issue of consent. But don't we sometimes say that certain mental illnesses render the patient incapable of giving consent? I'm still undecided.

Maciamo
13-01-06, 12:44
I have a hard time to consider life & thought normal with "neutral" emotions.
That's part of the punishment. Personally, I don't want to support a regime that make its citizens pay to "nurse and feed" its worst criminals in prison until they die. I agree with you that dangerous criminals (esp. serial rapists and murderers) should be forced to work for the community. But so should be unemployed people on the dole. We can't place dangerous criminals at the same level as unemployed people ! What's more, nothing but a precise lobotomy can guarantee that these "working criminals" won't escape or cause more problems. I believe that taking their emotions away is a good enough punishment. After all some ordinary people did choose that method to cure their depression (which is far too radical).

I am for rehabilitation of criminals, and for having them pay back society for what they did. The best way I see to have them work in a docile manner, assure that they won't escape and commit more crimes, and punish them all at once, is lobotomy and government work (or any work that could benefit the victims' family if any).

I just don't understand how life in prison is more beneficial to either the criminal in question or society.

Revenant
13-01-06, 13:00
Perhaps the solution to this would be an option of either imprisonment or a castration of some sort, which could also include a lobotomy (is it truly reliable?) for some of those with a driving need to dominate another.

I have a different idea for prison, but I'll start a different thread for that.

Maciamo
13-01-06, 13:07
Perhaps the solution to this would be an option of either imprisonment or a castration of some sort, which could also include a lobotomy (is it truly reliable?) for some of those with a driving need to dominate another.
I have a different idea for prison, but I'll start a different thread for that.

An option for the judge or for the criminal ? Naturally, I never said that all criminals should get a lobotomy. Never ever for petty crimes, and not even for a one-time rapist or a murder with mitigating circumstances. Lobotomy is only for cases with no chance of readaptation who would normally end their days in prison (thus not making it an exceedingly harsh punishment).

Revenant
13-01-06, 13:20
The criminal. I think your idea is great, but it is after all the criminals body. They should have the right to choose whether they get something permenant done to it, or sit in a jail cell for years on end.

Maciamo
13-01-06, 13:26
The criminal. I think your idea is great, but it is after all the criminals body. They should have the right to choose whether they get something permenant done to it, or sit in a jail cell for years on end.

Since when should the worst criminals get the right to choose what justice they deserve ? In the USA or Japan, criminals condemned to death don't have the right to object to the ruling, because they are opposed to death penalty in principle. :blush: Likewise, I don't often see judges changing their ruling because the criminals is afraid about what might become of his/her health/body in a high security prison.

Reiku
14-01-06, 17:43
Well, this is a very emotional issue...

...it's pretty much impossible to avoid offending on this one--so I'll just speak my mind.

What punishment?

I really don't know--in certain circimstances I'm not sure any is justified, in other circumstances I don't think you could be punished cruelly enough.

The biggest issue here is that anyone willing to do something like this in spite of the massive cultural taboos and the fear of horriic legal consequences is really not going to be detered.

These are primarily emotion driven crimes and as such logic usually doesn't figure into the decision.

There's also the issue of how severe a crime it is: With murder you're dead, but I find it hard to believe that rape is better than being killed. Granted I've never experienced either, but a murder victim doesn't have to cope with the experience of being killed, so I'd say rape is worse. As for pedophilles...

...man, that's a tough one--I don't think we have a sufficient understanding of the thing to even start with it. I mean, what qualifies? How do we determine whether a person is mature enought to have sexual relations? Because the whole "one age fits all" thing is bulls**t.

In fact, sex in general is largely misunderstood--it's such an emotional issue, so complex, and has so many fears and taboos and desires involved that we really don't understand it at all.

If you look at it logically, there should be a distinction between sex for procreation, sex for social reasons, and sex for enjoyment.

Of these, I'm not sure all of them should be forbidden to children--but I don't think we're mature enough as a species to know where to draw the line.

And really, if we can't tell at what point something becoemes wrong, what the h*** are we doing punishing it?

This is just one of those things we're going to hqave to blunder though untill we figure out the answer--but I suspect we're a long way off.

bossel
15-01-06, 05:30
Could we consider these urges as a mental illness? Wouldn't we then want to treat that illness?
At least in Germany the individual case is reviewed. If a mental illness is diagnosed, the perpetrators will not end up in prison but in special medical institutions.

worst criminals
Worst is a matter of opinion. I see murder still as much worse than rape. The physical & psychological damage of rape usually can be treated/healed (& the victim's still there to be compensated), death can't.

But so should be unemployed people on the dole.
Well, that depends. In Germany we pay unemployment insurance. If you pay for it, I don't see why you should be forced to do a job you don't like in case you need the insurance.

What's more, nothing but a precise lobotomy can guarantee that these "working criminals" won't escape or cause more problems.
AFAIK, lobotomy is far from precise.
Lobotomy is mutilation.
A lobotomy is not a guarantee that serials would not cause any more problems (since the underlying problems may not lie in the part of the brain you lobotomise).

The best way I see to have them work in a docile manner, assure that they won't escape and commit more crimes, and punish them all at once, is lobotomy and government work
With government work, you again have the problem that you pay them with tax payers' money.

Maciamo
15-01-06, 13:04
Worst is a matter of opinion. I see murder still as much worse than rape. The physical & psychological damage of rape usually can be treated/healed (& the victim's still there to be compensated), death can't.

I was talking about (serial) murderers here. Or serial pedophile rapist-murderers like the infamous Dutroux in Belgium 10 years ago, who kidnapped, raped and killed many young girls.



Well, that depends. In Germany we pay unemployment insurance. If you pay for it, I don't see why you should be forced to do a job you don't like in case you need the insurance.

If you pay for it... But there are many people here who never managed to find a job after their studies and are on the dole. It does not really motivates them to look for a job...


AFAIK, lobotomy is far from precise.
Lobotomy is mutilation.
A lobotomy is not a guarantee that serials would not cause any more problems (since the underlying problems may not lie in the part of the brain you lobotomise).

As medical technologies improve, we will be able to do more precise operations. MRI would probably be able to determine the exact part(s) of the brain where the problem lies.


With government work, you again have the problem that you pay them with tax payers' money.

The idea is to make them work for free, and pay their food and accommodation like tax-payers would have in jail. In other words, they are in jail, but go out everyday to do public work to pay for their tax-funded food and accommodation. This in turn reduces the tax-money used in public works, so tax payers end up paying less.

bossel
16-01-06, 04:17
I was talking about (serial) murderers here. Or serial pedophile rapist-murderers like the infamous Dutroux in Belgium 10 years ago, who kidnapped, raped and killed many young girls.
I see. Dutroux surely doesn't look like being resocialisable (although you never know). But this case is interesting insofar as IIRC not only Dutroux & compagnon were involved, but also some women. How would you go about giving them the snip?


As medical technologies improve, we will be able to do more precise operations.
Not for quite some time, I suppose.


MRI would probably be able to determine the exact part(s) of the brain where the problem lies.
That implies that there could be one particular region in the brain identifiable with the problem. This I doubt.
Currently we don't know enough about the brain anyway, but what I remember from some articles I read in recent years, brain structure is highly complicated with a lot of interconnections of various kinds. Not only the neuron connections are important, but also how & when they fire, which hormones are distributed, & probably some other stuff.



The idea is to make them work for free, and pay their food and accommodation like tax-payers would have in jail. In other words, they are in jail, but go out everyday to do public work to pay for their tax-funded food and accommodation. This in turn reduces the tax-money used in public works, so tax payers end up paying less.
I thought your comment was in response to my compensation suggestion.
What you describe is common practice already, AFAIK (this doesn't really pay for all state expenses, but that would probably go against the prohibition of forced labour, anyway). But I'm no friend of jails, as stated above. I prefer the perpetrators to be able to make a decent living & pay their victims instead of the state.

Eldritch
15-11-15, 15:49
The crimes we describe as "rape" are nearly as varied as people involved. The appropriate actions required to rehabilitate, the severity of the offense, the damage done, the likelyhood of reoffending, these things all depends are the exact nature and circumstances of the crime and pretending that there being a "standard punishment for rape" ccould ever work is lazy and ignorant.
And this is another point but I don't think punishment should be the goal of the justice system, regardless of what the "appropriate punishment" is, thats not even the question our justice system should be asking. It should be wondering "how do we make things better - for everyone" and "how do we fix the broken members of society".

LeBrok
15-11-15, 17:46
The crimes we describe as "rape" are nearly as varied as people involved. The appropriate actions required to rehabilitate, the severity of the offense, the damage done, the likelyhood of reoffending, these things all depends are the exact nature and circumstances of the crime and pretending that there being a "standard punishment for rape" ccould ever work is lazy and ignorant.
And this is another point but I don't think punishment should be the goal of the justice system, regardless of what the "appropriate punishment" is, thats not even the question our justice system should be asking. It should be wondering "how do we make things better - for everyone" and "how do we fix the broken members of society".The idea is to correct behavior by inducing pain.

Angela
15-11-15, 19:41
In the U.S. there's indeed a difference in terms of how many years convicted racists serve in prison depending on the situation.

A child rapist is among the lowest forms of human life. Their recidivist rate is horrendous. You can't rehabilitate them. They should be locked away for good. The same goes for serial rapists of adults. Or, for the latter, we can go Old Testament with a technological twist and just chemically castrate them. It's already being done. These subgroups really can't be cured, so those are the options on the table.

TDGBlitz08
03-02-16, 19:12
As someone who has worked with criminals - this is in a mental hospital for those considered criminally insane, so by no means little wimps flexing muscle thinking themselves tough [we had cannibals, serial rapists, killers, psychopaths and sociopaths, etc.] - I can tell you a few things. Most "serial" anythings do not learn and they definitely do not "repent". Re-education programs are by & large mostly useless - because if they really "worked" you'd not hear about Jack, Dick and Joe doing it all over again sometimes five seconds out the door - because the "experts" who spend 30 minutes a month with these people think they know all.

We had one patient who did not believe in western medicine but the "experts" said he was okay to go wander the streets unsupervised after totally ignoring the comments of nurses who worked with this guy almost 24/7.

We had one serial rapist who was never, ever allowed - not even for a minute - to be left alone with any female staff. This is despite having done his crimes nearly 12 years ago because there was something "wrong" in his head. Any time a woman was doing anything in this guy's vicinity at least one male staff was nearby and doors were NEVER allowed to be shut.

We also had a guy, a number of years behind bars, who seemed pretty harmless. He had raped, killed, chopped up his wife, and served her for dinner with all the indifference you'd show a chunk of beef.


So as for this - sterilize them. Better yet, cruel as it sounds, just put them on death row. A number of prisons are playgrounds nowadays due to PC & human rights complaints, etc. - exercise rooms, TV, etc. There's a reason why you get repeat offenders.


Oh and as for the comment about such people getting the crap beaten out of them in jail - better believe it. These sorts are considered scum - utter bottom of the totem pole, particularly child molesters.

LeBrok
04-02-16, 03:24
As someone who has worked with criminals - this is in a mental hospital for those considered criminally insane, so by no means little wimps flexing muscle thinking themselves tough [we had cannibals, serial rapists, killers, psychopaths and sociopaths, etc.] - I can tell you a few things. Most "serial" anythings do not learn and they definitely do not "repent". Re-education programs are by & large mostly useless - because if they really "worked" you'd not hear about Jack, Dick and Joe doing it all over again sometimes five seconds out the door - because the "experts" who spend 30 minutes a month with these people think they know all.

We had one patient who did not believe in western medicine but the "experts" said he was okay to go wander the streets unsupervised after totally ignoring the comments of nurses who worked with this guy almost 24/7.

We had one serial rapist who was never, ever allowed - not even for a minute - to be left alone with any female staff. This is despite having done his crimes nearly 12 years ago because there was something "wrong" in his head. Any time a woman was doing anything in this guy's vicinity at least one male staff was nearby and doors were NEVER allowed to be shut.

We also had a guy, a number of years behind bars, who seemed pretty harmless. He had raped, killed, chopped up his wife, and served her for dinner with all the indifference you'd show a chunk of beef.


So as for this - sterilize them. Better yet, cruel as it sounds, just put them on death row. A number of prisons are playgrounds nowadays due to PC & human rights complaints, etc. - exercise rooms, TV, etc. There's a reason why you get repeat offenders.


Oh and as for the comment about such people getting the crap beaten out of them in jail - better believe it. These sorts are considered scum - utter bottom of the totem pole, particularly child molesters.
I do believe that for such serial criminals only chemical "castration" makes sense, otherwise they shouldn't be ever released. In some worst and unambiguous case death penalty for serial offenders might be the best solution for all parties.
Welcome to Eupedia TDGBlitz08.

firetown
05-01-17, 20:08
In the U.S. there's indeed a difference in terms of how many years convicted racists serve in prison depending on the situation.

A child rapist is among the lowest forms of human life. Their recidivist rate is horrendous. You can't rehabilitate them. They should be locked away for good. The same goes for serial rapists of adults. Or, for the latter, we can go Old Testament with a technological twist and just chemically castrate them. It's already being done. These subgroups really can't be cured, so those are the options on the table.

If you give capital punishment for murder, chemical castration would be equally appropriate. With a rape happening every seven minutes, the amount of rapists in the states alone must be in the millions ... scarry but true. No, the lock them up for good thing needs to stop imo. Even though there is financial interest in such a "solution". But if indeed justice was to prevail and all rapists get convicted, it would be financially impossible to make this happen.

What is important is to stop the cycle of abuse as many victims of pedophilia re-enact and later become pedophiles themselves.

Alongside the right message being sent.

What we are dealing with is two issues:

1) The sick desire.
2) The decision to act upon it.
I don't believe there should be second chances for those who have been proven to commit these crimes. And there is absolutely no other way to go about it but to ensure that those who "have completed both tasks" will be kept from ever having an erection again.

Nothing unusual painful, no grandstanding, no more talk what we should do and throwing out cool phrases. Logic is the only approach to ensure that the next generation will be better off than this one.

don_joe
28-12-17, 23:41
The problem is not the appropriate punishment, it's rather the question if we have the right person caught. Look at the news from the US, they have a series of prisoners being released and proved not guilty after decades in prison. What's worse, to have punished someone with mutilation who isn't guilty or having a guilty person just locked away?

davef
29-12-17, 00:07
What's worse, to have punished someone with mutilation who isn't guilty or having a guilty person just locked away?

No offense, but isn't the answer to this question a little obvious?

don_joe
29-12-17, 00:18
No offense, but isn't the answer to this question a little obvious?No offense. It is. Just my answer to this debate.