Men accused of rape should be castrated

I'm going to offer rebuttals in the following round and strictly focus on contentions in this one. I want to point this back to round one and show what this debate is going to be focused on. Men who are accused by two or more *women* of rape should be castrated. Now on to the contentions C1) Accusations vs ConvictionsAccusation - a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong. [1]Conviction - to prove or declare guilty of an offense, especially after a legal trialLiterally when we are balancing the difference between an accusations and conviction, it's a monumental difference. One is actually processing and declaring someone guilty by a legal trial or system, and the other is merely asserting that someone is guilty. I feel bad for taking this debate because by the resolution it is immediately flawed. My adversary not only has to show that castration is a viable and ethical way to punish people for rape, but he must also defend the fact that people *accused* of rape should suffer castration. Also this is not just people that are accused by a legal system, it is people that are accused by a majority of women (2 or more). Needless to say that from the start of the debate there are flaws in this perspective. Anyone can theoretically be accused of anything. To show how and why this is flawed let's review a scenario. Say my fiance and 3 of her friends get together and decide they don't like Pro. They call the police and other legal authorities and accuse pro or rape. Note : Accusation is a claim that is not proven to be true, but simply a charge of something.Now according to pro's own resolution, he should be castrated because 2 or more women accused him of rape. Needless to say it's easy to point out the flaw in the resolution and show why it's an impossible BOP to uphold. Any given number of circumstances could occur that could lead to unethical castrations. In pros own resolution he is removing the power away from the legal system and conviction and giving it the public. The amount of faulty castrations would be unheard of by his own criteria. Any 3 women could just get together and accused anyone of rape, leading to non ending castrations. I don't know about other males, but i'm happy I have a penis. I don't want a group of salty btches or some of my exes trying to get my penis chopped off. So just to review this, let's go back over the basic premise of this contentionP1) To even properly Defend castration in the case of rape someone would have to be legally charged or convicted of rapeP2) Pro is removing the power of conviction and applying accusation as a criteria insteadC) The amount of unethical and wrongful castrations would be un ending. In the end pros proposition is not even realistic nor is it viable. Removing and denying someone the right of actually being convicted is actually breaking the 6th amendment in multiple ways as well. I will go over this on my next contention. His position is literally subjective and could be abused by any number of women. The legal system is here for for a reason, and asserting and removing that and replacing it with a 2 women majority is not realistic. C2) Right to a fair trialAnother faulty part of this proposition is that it is denying someone the right to a fair trial and the chance to be convicted. You are asserting that if a 2-3 person majority accuse you of something, that is you trial. Per the 6th amendment " In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. " [3]It even violates the 14th amendment " Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " [3]Both of these amendments promise someone the due process of law, by an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime was committed. Obviously a 2 women majority is not an impartial jury of the state. Again his proposition is violation amendments left and right.C3) Cruel and unusual punishment Another amendment he has broken is the 8th one" Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " [3]Torture was banned in all forms a few years back. Torture in it's earliest forms was banned under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights act in 1948[4], but just until recently torture was allowed under the perception of the act. 2 days after Obama took office, he made an executive order to ban torture without exception per the Human Rights act. We can view castration as both cruel and unusual punishment, and even consider it torture. This was not even done to people they were torturing actually. This is beyond both cruel and unusual and is a direct violation of the 8th amendment. ConclusionWhat my adversary is essentially proposing is an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth (code of hamurabi). While it seems like a good idea its not, and there are far more humane ways to discourage people of rape. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.ushistory.org...[4] http://www.ohchr.org...