I think it would cut down on the numbers of repeat offenders... (keep same amount of jail time btw)... Seriously... that would teach em a lesson...
2007-12-06 15:00:26 · 11 answers · asked by Reduviidae 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
You wanna know the pathetic thing? This exact question was asked in my newspaper... sad...
2007-12-06 15:15:42 · update #1
Actually there were a few states that tried this, but the Supreme Court deemed it at "cruel and unusual punishment", which pretty much eliminated the practice.
2007-12-06 15:05:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I am for the castration of violent rapists however like in the case Genarlow Wilson castration would be overkill. Genarlow Wilson was convicted of statutory rape at 17 for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend by the state of Georgia. In a very ill-advised move he and his teenage friends rented a hotel room, partied and got drunk and videoed some of the exploits of the party on a cellphone. One such exploit was Genarlow receiving oral sex from his girlfriend. The state of Georgia convicted him and sentenced him to 7 years at 17 for having sex with his girlfriend. He only served 2 years after the Georgia House of Representatives created a law called the Romeo and Juliet law when minors that are 2 years difference in age that have consensual sex will not be charged will statutory rape. Now Imagine this kid being castrated for this? This is why we must be careful how we interpret the law. We can't rush to judgment and handle each situation on a case by case basis..
2016-05-21 23:00:47 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Castration is not the removal of a man's organ, it's the removal of his testicles. He can still get an erection, he can still beat a woman.
I have a better idea however :)
Let's tattoo their crime on their cheek and turn them loose into society with no benefits of such society. In other words, don't call a cop if someone beats you up, steals your car, stabs you. Don't call 911 for anything. No court system, no Social Security, none of the benefits that come with being a part of society.
After all, their actions show they are refusing to behave within societal boundaries, so, survive without it if you can't stop. Well, survive for as long as you can lol.
2007-12-06 15:21:33 · answer #3 · answered by Lisbeth 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We should also cut off the hands of thiefs too. A cruel and unusual crime deserves a cruel and unusaul punishment.
2007-12-06 15:07:48 · answer #4 · answered by stunna3m 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have to realize that rape isn't about sex its about power. If you were to castrate rapist the would just rape with an instrument. Serial rapist need to be locked up forever without a chance for parole.
2007-12-06 15:07:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with your first answer, but how ironic that it is cruel and unusual punishment when the victim went through something more horrible.
2007-12-07 00:55:56 · answer #6 · answered by Lisa T (Stop BSL) 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's cruel and unusual punishment, and rape is not about sex, but control.
And, if I remember correctly, a man can still get an erection even if they were castrated.
2007-12-06 15:12:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
because it would violate their right to procreate according to the courts and libs. Apparently their right to procreate supercedes the rights of their victims not to be a unwilling participant in such actions.
2007-12-06 16:44:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because you can't castrate female rapists.
2007-12-06 18:35:35 · answer #9 · answered by favoritefood0 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Also, what if the guy was innocent?
2007-12-06 17:13:02 · answer #10 · answered by sister_godzilla 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋