There's a dichotomy between the ethical legitimacy of retributive justice and the feasability of its implementation. Of course a rapist deserves to have his balls ripped off. If you're arguing against that then you're fighting a losing battle. Surely someone who commits such a heinous crime is removed from the consideration we would put on the rest of humanity. The only reason we don't rape rapists is because there's always the possibility of innocence.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am not going to argue against it, because it's just my opinion, I mean, you said that as if it was true or something. I mean, it's completely opinion based. In my opinion, a rapist doesn't deserve to have his balls ripped off. Just because I don't share the same veiw as you doesn't mean it's wrong. Of course it's a losing battle, because it's all just based on what your personal veiw of the world is. It's not like we can come up with some sort of well defined universally excepted right answer. I mean, how do you think either one of us would go about arguing this? There isn't anything but opinion that we can cite. It's a moral question. And you're wrong about the reason being that there is a possibility of innocence. We don't do that sort of thing now, because it's extreme, and could be seen as going too far, because it would be like commiting a sexual crime against the convict. Our society isn't built off of that sort of justice system.