Should a man convicted of rape be allowed to choose between..

Question

a) a long prison sentence

b)walk free but have his p***s surgically removed

Answer 1

Troll

Answer 2

Rape does not have anything to do with s*x,it is about having power so the surgery would not solve the problem.If you read about many rapes they use other object to rape with.

A very very long prison sentence with no parole.

Answer 3

you forgot c) nailed to a stake & fed to dogs. (after long prison sentence & NON-surgical castration. to h**l with walking free)

Answer 4

A long prison will be good , this will give him ample time to understand what he did was wrong , removing his p***s surgically doesn't   make any any sense , he will still live a good life , life in prison is h**l   .

Answer 5

He lost the right to chose anything when he was found guilty.

Answer 6

Death penalty. Rape is a hate crime you cant fix that kind of evil.  

Answer 7

(c) castration for rape and child molestation.

Answer 8

No.  The prison sentence is unlikely to stop his desire to inflict violence on others, but it will keep him away from others for a good long time.  Cutting off his p***s would not have any effect other than to maim him and create a disabled person

Answer 9

Yeah great idea, because we all know that women never ever ever make false allegations of rape do they!!!!!

Answer 10

No, he could still use a s*x toy or strap-on. Rape is RARELY about s*x, it is usually about power. My thought on that is the people who just want s*x do a better job fighting the temptation, because they can get s*x somewhere else.

Answer 11

I would go with the surgical removal option, but there are laws against cruel and unusual punishment, and I suspect, despite how fitting the punishment would be, it would be considered cruel and unusual!

Timothy

:o)

Answer 12

I am all for executing the rapist...   either that or have his p***s pulled off.

Answer 13

lol no i think they should chop his p***s off then send him 2 life imprisonment  

Answer 14

I agree with the first answer: both. Where were you when I needed you?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

.

Answer 15

No choice for him.  And there are many cases where castration does not prevent future s*x crimes, they just get more bizarre.

Answer 16

Well personally I agree with both.. They proclaim that people that are predator's are in prision, don't really not have that urge once they are out to do the same crimes before going in to the prision system.. And from what've ever heard that other prisioners really come down on Rapist or child moestation. so eh do both..lol

Answer 17

NOWAY! He should be in prison. Having his p***s cut off doesn't mean that he can't rape again. He could use "other" objects to rape a women if he really wanted to. I think cutting off a mans p***s is a horrific thing to do and it really won't accomplish anything. Rape isn't just a physical act, it's a mental act. People who rape are sick individuals and need psychiatric counseling.

Answer 18

no. i think both should be mandatory.

Answer 19

Like people have said, a rapist can just as easily find another way to rape. I say keep him/her in jail.

Also, I'm pretty sure rape isn't a hate crime.

Answer 20

JO, I have a hard time ans. this question because it all depends on it the person is really, really honestly Guilty. Then I think they should not

have  there parts cut off neither should they get a long time in jail because that would not be a deterrent to the rest who would be thinking of the same thing. When you are SHORE that the person are ally GUILTY then the Doctor should have the vane that gives the erection have it detached, so that he cannot have any more erection & it he should commit another rape like, with his fingers or ORALEY then

you deal with that when & if it he should be stupid enough to do it again. NOW, the part that I have problem with is when some one weather a child or an adult should accused the guy for rape, he did not do it, they quote & quote, fiend him guilty, they did what I say should be done to him. Then after the fact you fiend that he is TOTALY INNOCENT, NOW  what do you do??. So you see you can only do what I say should be done only when you are so shore that you have got your man & only then!.

Some time in the year 07, a gentle man who is up in age was working

for a School as one who clean the School, & the yard & things like that aka. Jennetor, was liked by all of the Teachers & children. One of the child accused him that he fondled or touched her and he was arrested, finger printed,& spend a night & a day & a half only to fiend that the child had

lied on him because he was no where near where she say they were & she is the one who had come clean after they question her then she changed her lies, so supposed they had not fiend the truth before it get to the big house, & then they say he is guilty, what would happened to him? so you see what I am talking about? and I am shore

that there are thousand of cases like that one, That is why as a jury I think & know that you have to look down the MIDDLE of the road, and

not on any one side of that road and you will see the truth in the middle

of that road. NOW YOU SEE WHY I HAVE TROUBLE ANS. THIS QUESTION

Answer 21

No, because you can still rape somebody with "bad touching". They should go to jail and be castrated.

Answer 22

No - I understand that castration does not prevent the production of the relevant hormones and the desire to rape. Anyway, doesn't that give the offender what might be seen by his victim as an escape from punishment?

Answer 23

No he shouldn't have a choice, prison sentence and p***s amputation, after all the woman who he raped didn't have a choice, did she?

Answer 24

That's comical and should be true at the same time.

Answer 25

I say go to prison because this can be reversed if down the line he is found innocent.

The criminal justice system is a joke in the UK just look at the Barry George case ok he is a waste of space but he served 8 years for a crime he didnt commit :)

Answer 26

This question keeps popping up and seems to be an obsession with some people. Most female responses are predictable, but I despair at the male chop it off brigade.

Do they not realise, quite apart from the false rape claims, that 'true rape' has been watered down by militant feminists to include acts which definitely should not be regarded as rape, and increasingly they tilt the scales against the man to the point where rape is considered to occur because the woman says that it has.

You guys, could be said to be protesting too much. The severity of  the punishment you would invoke acting as a proxy as to how unlikely it would be for you to commit that crime.

Well, think again. Given the broad definition of rape today: Harriet Harman would be quite happy to find you all guilty whenever any woman shouted rape. Moreover, the definition could be tightened further to entrap even more men. Men can't use alleged drunkeness as a defence, for example.

Forceable rape by a stranger should incur a prison sentence, but lets keep it in perspective. Murder and child kidnap/child physical abuse are worse, particularly given the increasingly sexualised world that we live in. Even rape, doesn't carry the stigma, nor the need to carry a child to term, as was the case in our more moral past.

You certainly aren't the first, nor the last that keep playing into the hands of militant feminists. I am simply here to warn you against your own naivety.