" Certains veulent la peine de mort pour les violeurs" …. Castrés et émasculés d’abord ?

… » Inde: nouvelle manifestation anti-viol, mort d’un journaliste

Certains veulent la peine de mort pour les violeurs. Les agressions sexuelles sont fréquentes en ville dans ce pays. Et de plus en plus de voix s‘élèvent pour que les pouvoirs publics agissent..

…d’après le Hindustan Times. Elle a confirmé que six hommes l’avaient violé tour à tour dans un bus avant d‘être battue à coups de barres de fer et jetée hors du véhicule avec son ami qui a été tabassé.

Selon la police, dans le nord-est de l’Inde, à Imphal, capitale de l’Etat du Manipur, un journaliste de télévision a été tué par balle après que les forces de l’ordre ont ouvert le feu sur des manifestants venus soutenir une actrice victime de violences sexuelles. » (Extraits)

Avec AFP et Reuters

http://fr.euronews.com/2012/12/23/inde-nouvelle-manifestation-anti-viol-mort-d-un-journaliste/

**************************************************************************

« Certains veulent la peine de mort pour les violeurs. »

Castrés et émasculés, d’abord ?

Pour être absolument sûrs qu’ils ne recommenceront plus jamais .

Auteur : Tingy

Romancière féministe : je viens de publier " Le temps de cuire une sauterelle " :-)) Et de rééditer : "Le Père-Ver" et "Le Village des Vagins" (Le tout sur Amazon) ... et peintre de nombreux tableaux "psycho-symboliques"... Ah! J'oubliais : un amoureux incroyable, depuis 46 ans et maman de 7 "petits" géniaux...

8 réflexions sur « " Certains veulent la peine de mort pour les violeurs" …. Castrés et émasculés d’abord ? »

  1. J’ai lu ça ce matin dans les infos, une jeune étudiante qui s’est fait violée. Pourquoi les forces de l’ordre ne réagissent-elles pas?
    Dans ces conditions, il faut attraper les violeurs et leur couper tout. Au moins on sera sur qu’ils ne recommenceront plus.

    J'aime

  2. Women can’t stand it any more
    Should rapists be castrated? ABSOLUTELY!

    Provided that the man is unquestionably guilty, than there is nothing too brutal or painful that can be done to him, especially if his victims were children. Ive read in historical texts where a man had his erect penis inserted into a cage with hungry rats, and the rats devoured his penis. That to me would be a very fitting punishment! Sent by Teresa (Canada)

    I could not agree more, make it as painful as possible. Whether a rapists genitals are chewed off by rats, cut off with scissors or chopped off with a knife, surely this is the ideal punishment. Preferably carried out by women, in public, even televised. This treatment would certainly frighten men into thinking of the consequences of violence towards women and children. Sent by Alyssa (United States)

    I totally agree with you Jessica! For those men who rape children, nothing is too cruel! I find the idea of some rapist pig getting his wiener eaten off by rats a completely acceptable punishment for the rape of children. Of course, this would only apply if the man’s guilt is absolutely proven.
    – Sent by Emily (United States)

    Iam a veterinarian, so Im regularly castrating animals. I love this job. I would help gladly cut the rapists balls off!
    – Sent by Anna (Hungary)
    Good for you Anna, and i would gladly help hold him down while you get busy with your scalpel.
    – Sent by Sarah (United Kingdom)

    I think we should castrate them in public so everyone can see what castrating a man involves.The man should be bent over and restrained on a table or put in stocks and castrated with a burdizzo.A doctor used a burdizzo recently on a man and found it works better than surgery.It castrated the man no stitches or wound too heal and is over in 5 minutes. Sent by Sarah (United Kingdom)

    Rape is the worst crime a man can do to his victim. SO he should be exposed in public and castrated no matter what state of mind he is in
    – Sent by Jessina (United Arab Emirates)

    I believe castration should be a law to rapist. I experienced something like this and the man responsible for this was just in jail for 2 years, and i cant forget what happened to me.
    – Sent by denisse (United States)
    Men are responsible for 100% of rape crimes.
    – Sent by Lucy (United Kingdom)

    I strongly agree that rapists should be castrated totally! They only go to jail for an amount of time and end up coming out and DOING it again. Its not like theyll stop. Once a rapist is always a rapist. If theyre castrated, they would learn and suffer as the victims had suffered from them. Hopefully itll show other rapists to fear this and stop hurting women and children. I dont understand why nothing is being done about this. Its like some people dont care about what happens to women or children. But it only affects most of us women and less men. SO RAPISTS SHOULD BE CASTRATED NOW!
    – Sent by Rozalyn (United States)
    Re:Should rapists be castrated? ABSOLUTELY!
    Wow! What a great idea! I never thought of that! Of course rapists should be castrated, but Id rather see their dicks removed. Give em a life without sex. Now thats punishment! I have to say I really like the rat idea! Would take a long time, be very painful, and make the rapist feel completely pathetic as his precious dick is just a meal for a lowly rodent. Love it! Alyssa
    – Sent by Alyssa (United States)

    J'aime

  3. Any defendant convicted of rape will be assumed to have proven he is incapable of responsibly exercising his sexuality in society. As such, the penalty for rape will be immediate and irreversible castration.
    o Section 1: The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the Constitution, will not attach to sex crimes. Instead, all individuals will be presumed to exist in a state of non-consent, as perTwisty Faster v. Patriarchy, which will replace Coffin v. United States as precedent in determining burden of proof for sex crime cases. As such, defendants accused of sex crimes will bear the burden of proof, and will have to prove their innocence. There is a danger inherent in such a system that a few innocent men will be punished, and this is quite unfortunate. It is not, however, more unfortunate than men raping with impunity in epidemic proportions simply because their victims are unable to prove to a room full of misogynists that, despite the ridiculous presumption of a default state of consent, they did not consent to a sex act. Victims will decide whether a crime has occurred, and defendants will not. This might frighten men, some of whom will claim that women will use the law to punish men out of vengeance. That might happen once in awhile, but our job is to protect the largest number of people possible, and false rape accusations are about ahundredth as common as rapes that go unpunished.
    o Section 2: Rape will be broadly defined as intentionally taking advantage of a person’s physical or emotional vulnerabilities for sexual purposes, including creating fear in order to coerce a victim into performing or submitting to a sex act against her/his will. That includes fear of any kind, not just of violence. That’s right. Men will have to learn to have sex only with women who want to have sex with them, and will have to eschew high-pressure tactics, emotional and financial manipulation, as well as physical force if they want to avoid rape charges.
    o Section 3: Any defendant convicted of rape will be assumed to have proven he is incapable of responsibly exercising his sexuality in society. As such, the penalty for rape will be immediate and irreversible castration. If a weapon is used in the commission of the crime, or if the victim at any time during the crime feels that her/his life was in danger, the added penalty of life in prison without parole will attach. Prison sentences are to be served at specially-constructed facilities at which offenders will perform uncompensated labor in service of women and children. What such labor will consist of will be decided by the administrators of individual facilities, but the result of the offenders’ labor must meet two criteria: 1) it must provide tangible benefits for women and/or children, but 2) offenders shall not come into direct contact with any women or children at any time.
    o Section 4: Offenders may appeal their sentences one time only. Appeals must be made on grounds other than “women are emotional and unreasonable and so we shouldn’t let them define rape and decide who’s guilty.” Women, who have much less incentive to use sex as a weapon than men do, are much less likely to violate men’s rights through rape accusations than men are to violate women’s and children’s rights through rape. This is not up for debate, and is thus not sufficient grounds for appeal.
    I’m pretty sure Deuce’s Law would bring us a dramatic reduction in rape, and most likely destroy the pornography industry and drastically curb sexual harassment (more on this later). Too bad men, even those with women and children under their care, will never submit to any sort of limits being placed on their sexuality (or, rather, their prerogative to use their sexuality as a weapon for controlling women), because this law would really work. It’s a shame they’re allowed to vote. They’re so hysterical and irrational about this sort of thing. Snarf snarf.
    * Note: False rape charges are MUCH less common than rapes that go unpunished. Let’s say 1 in 100 rape charges is false (which is a VERY high estimate). Well, as it stands now, only 6% of rape cases ends in conviction. That means that of 100 rapes, 1 is false, 6 of the rapists are (often lightly) punished, and 93 go free. On balance, it seems that 1 innocent dude suffering is less of a problem than 93 rapists getting away with sexually abusing innocent women and children. Remember, I’m not talking about the death penalty here. Also, don’t you think, in the case of a false accusation, that almost anyone would recant before allowing an innocent person to be castrated? As it stands now, the legal system is asking us to trust men not to rape us, and they’re doing it anyway. If the legal system asked men to trust women not to have them castrated, I think it’d be more reasonable. Women are simply not as violent as men are. I know there are exceptions, but it’s a fact.
    ** Another note: credit is due to Davetavius for being one of the few dudes reasonable enough to think section 3 is a good idea, and for the conversations from which this post derived (though he would strenuously disagree with Section 1).
    *** A final note: I’m not surprised or anything, but I’m getting some seriously gnarly comments about this. I suppose men don’t like to hear someone discuss treating them the way they’ve treated women throughout history. I wonder why? Anyway, if you’re thinking about commenting on this, have something to say or fuck off. I’m not posting bullshit insults, so if that’s what you’re planning to write, do one. Also, please read this before commenting as I’d rather not have to explain it.
    **** And an even finaler note: Go look up the definition of satire. This post is meant to serve as a foil to our current legal system. I admit that it doesn’t provide men with safeguards against castration, but nor does our current system provide women with any against rape. Neither one is a satisfactory system. Stop bitching about this hypothetical and start coming up with a solution or go ahead and admit to being a rape apologist.

    J'aime

  4. Every time I write about rape people freak out. I can honestly say that, as much time as I’ve spent thinking about rape and how to stop it, I never realized that rape was such a controversial subject (at least in the way I’ve come to discover). I never knew there were so many rape apologists (MRAs, regular dudes, even women) that would come over here and give me a bunch of shit for making the outrageous suggestion that we ought not to keep allowing rapes to go unpunished. I intended to show that our legal system doesn’t protect women from rape, but plenty of people missed that point, detoured by talk of castration and jettisoning the presumption of innocence. I see now that I should’ve written something much simpler and more obvious if I expected these 4Chan types to understand me.

    Fine, then. Some people need a Fox News-style Outrage!(TM) in order to get a point, and I’ll deliver. In the lovely state of Kansas, where they still have analog gas pump readouts that only go up to $25, a 14-year-old girl has been raped. She was hanging out with three of her friends when two of them left the room and the third, a 13-year-old boy, raped her. She tried to deal with the situation on her own, but decided after about a month to tell a school counselor about it. The counselor told the cops, and guess what happened? The GIRL has been charged with “rape” and “criminal sodomy.” The age of consent in Kansas is 16 (yikes), but the state also has a law similar to that in California under which sex with someone under 14 is taken to be a more serious crime.

    I don’t think I’d argue with the idea that someone who has sex with a child under 14 ought to face a stiffer penalty than an 18-year-old having consensual sex with a 16-year-old, but what the fuck? That isn’t what’s going on here. A 14-year-old girl goes to see her school counselor for help after having been raped, and SHE gets in trouble? There’s been no mention made of the boy having been charged with anything. I am assuming that the boy was charged and then denied that he raped the girl, claiming that the sex was consensual, which is to be expected, but is this prosecutor out of his fucking mind? The kid can mount a defense and can claim whatever he wants, but the idea that the prosecutor would charge a rape victim with a crime as a response to that defense is pretty fucking weird.

    I know some of the Tom Leykis types will argue that maybe she did consent and only decided to call it rape once she felt some regret over the whole thing, but whatever. We have no way of ever knowing that, which I suppose means that the prosecutor can do little toward convicting the boy (remember that thing about the presumption of innocence working in favor of rapists and against victims?). But what is the value in charging the girl? The boy, according to all I’ve read about the story, has made no claim to having been forced or coerced into anything. While it may be true that the idea of consent by either of these two at such a young age is a bit of a joke, that doesn’t seem to have dampened the prosecutor’s enthusiasm for charging this girl with a crime that implies she took advantage of someone too young to consent, even though she’s only a few months older than he is. He has effectively chosen to ignore a forcible rape and to prosecute the victim for taking advantage of her rapist. Oh, the beauty of the American legal system.

    What does this story say to the people who’ve heard about it (which includes every girl in the area it took place in, I’m sure)? First, it says that we have no idea how to deal with the issue of consent. When someone is under 16 in Kansas, they are unable to consent to sex, and so exist in a perpetual state of non-consent. All it takes for a rape to have been assumed to have occurred is the admission that intercourse took place. But that only applies if one of the participants was over 16. If they were both under 16, it’s all good. Unless, of course, one of them was under 14, in which case it’s not cool. Unless they’re both under 14. But if you step over the state line into Missouri, the age of consent goes up to 17. Apparently the kids in Kansas mature faster than those in Missouri. Good to know. The kids in California are immature as fuck, though, because they can’t consent until they’re 18. Schizophrenic, I know. But that’s not all. Once a person has reached whatever age of consent their state representatives have laid down, they go from a perpetual state of non-consent to a perpetual state of consent, meaning that once they pass 16, 17, or 18, they have to prove that they did not consent to a sex act in order for the person who forced them to submit to the act to be punished for doing so. Makes almost as much sense as Bush lyrics.

    The second thing this case tells the girls of Kansas is that, if they ever get raped, they’d better think twice about reporting it to anyone, even if they need help dealing with the emotional effects of the attack. Rape victims everywhere already know that, if they report having been attacked, they’ll be called whores, be exposed to ridicule and slander, and be treated mercilessly in court, just in the hopes that their case will be one of the few cases that will be prosecuted or end in conviction. But now they’ve got the added fear of being charged with a crime if the prosecutor doesn’t like that they’ve reported having been assaulted. What the fuck is this, Afghanistan?

    No wonder 60% of rapes go unreported. Even among those that are reported, only half of reported rapes lead to arrests, and of those, only 80% will be prosecuted. Of those that are prosecuted, only about half will result in conviction, with only 69% of those convicts getting any jail time. That means 16% of reported rapes end in jail time (and most sentences are pretty paltry), and that only 6% of rapists will ever see any jail time at all if we include unreported rapes. 15 in 16 rapists go free. What was the highest estimate for false rape claims? Like 7%? Suck on that, MRAs.

    The third thing this law tells us is that our legal system is fucked. Not only do we have no way to determine consent and no method for convicting rapists, but we have no way to control prosecutorial bias. Here we have Ted Nugent prosecuting a case in which he’s decided, on his own, that the girl is lying and that she has victimized the boy. He’s clearly using his prosecutorial discretion and technicalities in the law to pursue some kind of agenda. (I wonder what kind of record he has when it comes to prosecuting rapes.) Rape victims are forced to reply on police, prosecutors, judges, and juries to take their claims seriously, to pursue their attackers, to prosecute them when they catch them, and to remove them from society in order to mitigate further damage. It’s too bad the people victims have to rely on aren’t very reliable when it comes to treating rape victims with dignity and respect, or even believing their stories.

    The proverbial deck is proverbially stacked against rape victims. Victims are met with potential disbelief and disrespect at every stage of the process. The foundational concept of the presumption of innocence, coupled with prosecutorial, judicial, and juridical indifference to rape victims’ claims, has dumped us in a legal shitheap from which there doesn’t seem to be an escape. You may not agree that we should assume that defendants are guilty until they can prove otherwise, but you can’t claim that our current system protects women (or anyone, really) from rape. Deuce’s Law might be the only alternative. I’m just saying.
    http://rageagainstthemanchine.com

    J'aime

Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s