One of the leading parties in Mexico, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI for its acronym in Spanish) has put forth a bill proposing the chemical castration of pederasts and rapists. The bill proposes that whoever commits a sexual felony in Mexico City will do time, and will be administered a pharmaceutical drug to diminish the intensity and frequency of sexual desire, which impedes an erection.
Once again, it seems that the authorities and decision-makers have completely ignored all the literature around rape and its myths, and continue to propose public policies which escape the massive legal and structural fallbacks regarding this issue.
According to statistics available through RAINN (Rape and Incest National Network), only 39% of rapes are actually reported. If the rape is reported, there is a 50% chance that an arrest will be made. If this is the case, the odds of prosecution are 80%, and 58% chance of a felony conviction. If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail. So, even in the case of the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is approximately a 6.24% chance the rapist will end up in prison. In other words, out of 100 rapes, only 6 people will be convicted…only six men will be chemically castrated. Now, regardless of the discussion of whether castration actually addresses the problem, you would think that a much more reasonable approach would be to tackle the issues that lead to such low rates of reports, investigations and convictions, rather than focusing on the 6.24% that actually do.
Many factors work as a disincentive to report rape, the most common being shame, fear of reprisal or belief that the police is biased. Women are ashamed of admitting being a victim of rape. This is rooted in the fact that women feel responsible for being raped. Either the time they were out, or the outfit they were wearing, or the people they were hanging out with, or the fact that they consumed alcohol…you name it, there’s always a reason to blame rape on the women themselves. Information on rape and its myths is essential to dispelling this sense of guilt. It seems “No means no” still hasn’t settled in.
Obviously, this requires information for the other side as well, the authorities’ side. A sensitization campaign of the staff in charge of creating reports is key. Women do not only have to admit to being raped, and give a full description of the incident and the perpetrator (reliving the experience), but they actually have to undergo a physical examination through which the authorities can determine if indeed the woman was raped or not. Let me repeat that …women actually have to undergo a vaginal examination (after already being raped) to prove they were raped. And this is only the initial stage of an investigation.
The police and authorities should be aware of and sensitive to the realities of rape, the realities of women who are victims of rape, and should be trained to deal with these situations. The process of reporting should make it as easy as possible for the victim te report rape, not harder. If women are not reporting rapes, this is the problem that should be addressed. Many countries flaunt statistics that rape reports have diminished, but this by no means implies that rapes are less frequent; rather, women have less and less incentives to report this type of violence.
Statistics show that more than 70% of rapes are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, most likely a relative or friend. Approximately 40% of rapes occur at the victim’s home, and 20% at a friend’s home. So, here are two great myths that must be eliminated. The common rapist is not some sketchy guy, lurking in the bushes of a park at night. It’s the father, the boyfriend, the uncle, the friend. And women are not more likely to be raped if they leave the home. Only one in ten rapes occur outside. Are they going to castrate the father, uncle, brother of the victim and assume that this will take care of the problem? Is rape, in fact, not a crime driven by sexual desire but more driven by power? Chances are that violence will continue to occur, in other forms perhaps, regardless of the castration. Actually, it is very common for women to be raped with foreign objects different to a penis…how will the law deal with this issue?
Sunday is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and it enrages me to see that having the tools, the knowledge and even the budget to make substantial changes that could actually lead to an increase in reports of rape and eventually more convictions, and hopefully less rapes, decision-makers continue to make simplistic, erroneous and ridiculous proposals to deal with situations as alarming and deeply outrageous as violence against women. Lack of information amongst the public and deep flaws within the judicial system seem to be places where issues regarding rape could be addressed and those certainly seem like much better places to start spending resources and more advantageous to eradicating violence against women that proposing to chemically castrate rapists and pederasts.
Once again, it seems that the authorities and decision-makers have completely ignored all the literature around rape and its myths, and continue to propose public policies which escape the massive legal and structural fallbacks regarding this issue.
According to statistics available through RAINN (Rape and Incest National Network), only 39% of rapes are actually reported. If the rape is reported, there is a 50% chance that an arrest will be made. If this is the case, the odds of prosecution are 80%, and 58% chance of a felony conviction. If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail. So, even in the case of the 39% of attacks that are reported to police, there is approximately a 6.24% chance the rapist will end up in prison. In other words, out of 100 rapes, only 6 people will be convicted…only six men will be chemically castrated. Now, regardless of the discussion of whether castration actually addresses the problem, you would think that a much more reasonable approach would be to tackle the issues that lead to such low rates of reports, investigations and convictions, rather than focusing on the 6.24% that actually do.
Many factors work as a disincentive to report rape, the most common being shame, fear of reprisal or belief that the police is biased. Women are ashamed of admitting being a victim of rape. This is rooted in the fact that women feel responsible for being raped. Either the time they were out, or the outfit they were wearing, or the people they were hanging out with, or the fact that they consumed alcohol…you name it, there’s always a reason to blame rape on the women themselves. Information on rape and its myths is essential to dispelling this sense of guilt. It seems “No means no” still hasn’t settled in.
Obviously, this requires information for the other side as well, the authorities’ side. A sensitization campaign of the staff in charge of creating reports is key. Women do not only have to admit to being raped, and give a full description of the incident and the perpetrator (reliving the experience), but they actually have to undergo a physical examination through which the authorities can determine if indeed the woman was raped or not. Let me repeat that …women actually have to undergo a vaginal examination (after already being raped) to prove they were raped. And this is only the initial stage of an investigation.
The police and authorities should be aware of and sensitive to the realities of rape, the realities of women who are victims of rape, and should be trained to deal with these situations. The process of reporting should make it as easy as possible for the victim te report rape, not harder. If women are not reporting rapes, this is the problem that should be addressed. Many countries flaunt statistics that rape reports have diminished, but this by no means implies that rapes are less frequent; rather, women have less and less incentives to report this type of violence.
Statistics show that more than 70% of rapes are perpetrated by someone known to the victim, most likely a relative or friend. Approximately 40% of rapes occur at the victim’s home, and 20% at a friend’s home. So, here are two great myths that must be eliminated. The common rapist is not some sketchy guy, lurking in the bushes of a park at night. It’s the father, the boyfriend, the uncle, the friend. And women are not more likely to be raped if they leave the home. Only one in ten rapes occur outside. Are they going to castrate the father, uncle, brother of the victim and assume that this will take care of the problem? Is rape, in fact, not a crime driven by sexual desire but more driven by power? Chances are that violence will continue to occur, in other forms perhaps, regardless of the castration. Actually, it is very common for women to be raped with foreign objects different to a penis…how will the law deal with this issue?
Sunday is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and it enrages me to see that having the tools, the knowledge and even the budget to make substantial changes that could actually lead to an increase in reports of rape and eventually more convictions, and hopefully less rapes, decision-makers continue to make simplistic, erroneous and ridiculous proposals to deal with situations as alarming and deeply outrageous as violence against women. Lack of information amongst the public and deep flaws within the judicial system seem to be places where issues regarding rape could be addressed and those certainly seem like much better places to start spending resources and more advantageous to eradicating violence against women that proposing to chemically castrate rapists and pederasts.
4 comments:
why on earth are feminists against this?
this is a really old post and i only found it through google, but i'm curious, why not properly punish the 6.24% that are actually convicts?
And i personally feel the physical alternative will be far more effective.
If women learn that reporting their assault will cause the attacker to lose his man-parts, report rates will go up as well
Since the victim is the witness to the rape, wouldn't it make more sense for the rapist to kill her afterwards to reduce the risk of being captured and castrated. Also, there is a spectrum between consensual sex and rape. If a woman maliciously reports a rape there's no way to reverse the punishment in the wrongfully convicted man. People who are a threat to society should be imprisoned. They should not be mutilated or executed as no justice system is perfect. These punishments pander to the worst aspects of human nature.
@Abhijeet You'd find it even harder to obtain convictions, when there's the smallest chance that the accused might be innocent. Malicious reports would go up with the genuine ones. Since the victim is usually the only witness to the crime, it would be logical for the rapist to kill the victim, to minimise the chance of being prosecuted, considering the penalty. Victims who know their attacker might be even more conflicted in reporting them, if it means their dad is going to be castrated as a result. What would be the penalty for women who commit sexual assaults? Castrating a women isn't the same thing as it is for a man. This means that there is an inequality in the sentencing of men and women. We should be striving for greater equality, not less. If someone is a threat to society, they should be detained in prison. Once you start down the road of cutting bits off of people, you can't fully restore those who are subsequently found to be innocent.
Abhijeet,
I have no problem cutting man-parts off rapists, even if it's only 6.24% of them - but there is research that shows that castration won't always curb the inclination to rape.
If the drive isn't repressed, castrated rapists will just go back to raping, with another organ or an object.
So it doesn't always help.
I would be in favour of would-be rapists scared off by cutting threats (if it works).
In actual fact, I wouldn't mind eliminating rapists altogether.
Post a Comment