Should sex offenders be CASTRATED?

Should sex offenders be castrated?

Some people say:
YES, they should be, considering 99% of sex offenders have a 100% repeat rate.

While others say that simply taking their weeners away won't necessarily STOP them from raping or molesting someone else. After all, there are PLENTY of ways to sexually violate someone w/o penetrating them. Plus, what about the women who are sex offenders? If we castrate the men for being offenders, what would a woman's punishment be, considering she doesn't even have a weener?

Personally...I believe in castrating any sexual offenders who have:
1. Sexually violated MORE than 1 person or sexually violated the SAME person more than once
2. Who are likely to get out of prison before their life is over.
And I say that b/c sex offenders become sex offenders in the 1st place, EMOTIONALLY. The penetration & touching is just the AFTERMATH & response/action to their disgusting/twisted thoughts. We may not be able to revive them emotionally/psychologically of their twisted thoughts, BUT if we take away the tools for which they use to violate others, that'd be a start!

Plus, I'm sure lots of offenders would better learn how to control their urges if they knew the automatic punishment was castration. In some countries where castration is MANDATORY, the sex offender rate is dramactically LOWER than it is in countries where prison time is only the consequence.

So with counseling, an attempt at rehibilitation AND castration for such offenders, I think it'd make our society alot more safer.

This topic is complicated since its so easy to be a sex offender these days. If a boy and a girl have sex and both are under the age of consent, and the girls mum had complained to the police about it ONLY the boy would be done for statutory rape, and would go on the sex offenders list. So basically being 15 and sleeping with you 15 year old girlfriend would make you a sex offender and therefore have to be castrated.

Also if the sex offender is in habbit of doing it (the urge is now just habbit rather then a testosterone filled impulse) then the guy will go and do it regardless of being castrated. And if the guy is having life in prison is there a need to castrate them too, as they wont be doing anything anyway, and even if it was to "make them feel less of a man" if everyone around them has been castrated too then im sure they wont care. Dogs get castrated and they still hump your leg, not as much but they still do it.

And with women what would happen sew them up? lol Not really a possibility and it wouldnt be right for only the men to be physically punished, equal opportunities and all that 🙂.

If you cut the dick off you have not castrated any one its the nuts you have to aim for. Just fucking kill them get rid of them if you castrat them they will just become somekind of cyco mass murder.

Posted by Days22
So lets not kill the murders we can to make the world safer...but lets casterate sex offenders to do so.
Eye for an eye good in one case but not the other.
You walk a thin line aqua.

Well honey there's a HUGE difference b/w taking away someone's genitals vs. taking away their literal life. There's not even any comparison. To me, cutting off a man's weener after he's sexually violated someone is the SAME as taking away someone's gun/knive/weapon after they've used it to cause harm to another person.

Castration is NOT the same as killing someone. I don't believe in the death penalty b/c I believe in other alternative ways to make someone "do the time for the crime." Plus, those who commit murders have a wayyyyy LOWER repeat rate than sex offenders do. It doesn't cost the U.S. 4xs MORE to castrate someone than it does to keep them in jail. BUT with the death penalty, it costs 4xs more to kill someone than it does to keep them alive

@LibraSun: Good points. I agree that simply cutting his genitals off won't necessarily make them stop, BUT it's no different than how putting someone in prison doesn't necessarily guarantee that they'll never commit another or the same crime again once they get out. And even though they're not guaranteed to never commit a crime again, that doesn't mean that we should let them go free back into the world just b/c of that fact. No their aszes need to STAY in jail.

Yes, some people may not learn a thing while in jail, BUT that doesn't mean that they should be let out. And yes there are other ways to sexually violate someone other than to physically penetrate them BUT if you take a man's tool of testosterone away, it may not help all sex offenders, BUT it will def. decrease the rate in which 1. Men re-offend again & 2. Men will start to think twice before acting on impulses (especially the men who haven't gotten caught yet or committed their 1st crime yet.)

Trust me, if they had a law that said, "Every man/woman who cheats will have to give up their genitals" I GUARANTEE YOU almost 75% of cheating would stop. Yes, the urges would still be there & yes there'd always be the dumbazs who won't stop, BUT as long as there are plenty who WILL stop, that's all that matters.

I must disagree with both let me die but leave my nuts alone.

Peadophiles and Rapists (who have been convicted) should be made to have a permanent tattoo on their chest "Im a sex offender"

@Days22: You're right. I am more passionate against rapes than I am against murderers b/c statistics prove that certain types of punishments for sex offenders actually DECREASE the rate in which they offend moreso than the same happens for those who murder others.

Problem is, the system is flawed. There's NEVER a guarantee that giving ANY punishment will actually help any cause. Hell, some people get even WORSE in prison but yet the very people who sent the criminal there probably thought prison time would "teach them a lesson."

Yes sex offenders would constantly appeal, BUT sex offenders are also likely to get out of prison BEFORE murderers are. So from my standpoint, I'm thinking moreso about the safety & rights of the community moreso than the person who made the DECISION to be a criminal. Someone who raped a 7 year old is more likely to get out of prison quicker than someone who killed a 7 year old. And since 99% of sex offenders have a 100% repeat offender rate, I only think it's fair that we can ATLEAST take SOME steps to TRY to make sure those sex offenders don't hurt anyone else when they are finally let out.

No, you don't necessarily have to penetrate someone to sexually violate them, BUT let's not turn a blind eye either to those who get the MOST fulfillment/pleasure out of penetrating others. To THOSE kinds of offenders, they wouldn't be likely to penetrate anyone else again if their persay genitals for non-existent. NO kind of punishment is guaranteed to work (prison time, counseling, execution, etc.) BUT clearly these strategies are used in other countries b/c they ARE seeing differences. Maybe not 100% difference BUT even if castrating sex offenders saves the misery of 5 children, it's worth it!

Hell prison time may NOT help or guarantee that the criminal won't any longer be a risk to society once they're let out, BUT does that mean that just b/c it's not 100% guaranteed that they shouldn't spend any time in prison? Ummm.

Castration does work in cutting the sex-offender rate down. It's no different than with the countries who consider the legal drinking age to be 16 vs. 21 here in the United States. Over here, we're like "What the hell! Why would we let a 16 year old drink?!" Buttt in other countries where the drinking age is LOWER, the rates for drinking related crimes are dramatically LOWER. It sounds crazy & seem ironic but statistics don't lie. In France, the legal drinking age used to be 13. And even though their legal drinking age is lower, SO ARE the rates for which drinking related crimes occur. Now how is that possible?! Idk BUT it is. Maybe human & social psychology can explain this.

And I feel the same about castration. The question is: At what point does society consider the rights of society vs. the rights of the criminal. I'm sure MOST criminals WISH THEY WEREN'T in prison or even feel that society doesn't have a right to put them there, BUT guess what? Their aszes are STILL in there b/c at some point we have to consider the rights of those who have been violated moreso than we consider the rights of those who did the violating.

And when it comes to castration. Hell it's ALL eye for an eye whether we send someone to prison for a crime OR execute them for a crime. Punishment IS eye for an eye. The question is, WHICH "eye for an eyes'" are considered morally justifiable? Of course the person who murders 2 people with a knife/gun does NOT want their weapon of choice taken away no diff. than sex offenders conveinantly don't want their genitals (which are often their choice of weapon) taken away

sex offenders must be kept away from the other inmates because they get the shit kicked out of them are killed. seems murders, and other inmates don't much care for them. So I have read.

Posted by Days22
im not disagreeing with your point. I agree they should be casterated. I just dont like the fact youre choosing an excessive eye for an eye in one crime and not the other. And trying to say that one is "morally justifiable" and the other is not is absurd.

basically in your world rapists should be punished worse than murderers. .

That's ABSOLUTELY what I'm saying. I def. am all for certain crimes carrying harsher punishments. I never said that the "eye for an eye" mentality was right BUT since the legal system uses the "eye for an eye" creed, it's something we all have to accept whether we personally like/accept it or not.

Hell, technically sending someone to prison is considered "eye for an eye." It's not the prison sentence itself that's necessarily eye for an eye. It's what those people have to go through/experience in the prisons that are sometimes considered WORSE than actually executing them.

I'm not basing my opinion that sex offenders should be more harsly punished on the fact that I think sex offenders are worse people than murderers. No. A rapist can be a good person on the inside just like a murderer can be the same if you really get to know them. As the saying goes, "Everybody's got a story." BUT, I'm basing my opinion on the statistics regarding repeat rates. I'm thinking about the high risk factors associated with letting out sex offenders. And statistics show that 99% of them have a 100% repeat rate.

I guess I'm just surprised that everyone looks surprised when a sex offender reoffends & ends up back in prison. To me, the solution is simple (not 100% guarantee BUT it would decrease the rate in which these things are happening): If we take away the tools for which they use to offend (sexually violating others), they'd be 10 times LESS likely to use a tool again that NO LONGER EXISTS.

Am I for rapists being punished more harshly than sex offenders? Yep. No different than I'm for murderers being more harshly punished vs. those in prison for drug trafficking or insurance fraud. There IS a difference.

When someone murders someone with a gun, the legal system takes away their priveleges & rights to guns. No one ever complains about that!

When someone commits bank fraud, the legal system takes away their rights to secure their own banking account, credit cards, checks or any other means that would allow them the opportunity to repeat the same crime.

When someone physically abuses their children, the legal system takes that person's children away. And they're LUCKY if they ever get their original rights back, EVEN IF they show proof that they've changed their ways in the future.

When someone gets enough DUIs, they take away your liscence for good. Sure that person will ALWAYS need a car, BUT it doesn't matter. If their weapon of choice was alcohol, anything related to alcohol will be taken away from them/kept from them.

When someone gets a felony, the legal system makes sure that they cannot obtain any more financial aid for schooling. It sucks of course, BUT the reality though is that that is EXACTLY the way it is.

So when someone sexually violates another person & uses their genitals as their weapon to do something, their rights to use that weapon (since they've shown MANY times that they can't use it wisely AND that their genitals are a vehicle for destroying/violating others) should be taken away.

When a person commits a crime period, certain rights of theirs are taken away. Yeah it sucks & no specific punishment is ever 100% guaranteed, BUT in this country, "eye for an eye" is EXACTLY what's going on this country. And that won't change any time soon

The "eye for an eye" creed is not all black & white. There's a "grey" area. There are different levels for eye for an eye. And like I said, the whole prison system in GENERAL is def. considered "cruel punishment" to the people who have to be sent there. BUT to the community/society, we feel that that "eye for an eye" was justified. That's why someone who sells drugs might get 10 years LESS than the person who stabbed someone (but yet did NOT kill them). There's different "levels" of "eye for an eye."