Chemical Castration for Sex Offenders

[Kip The Fury]

Chemical castration is the administration of medication designed to reduce libido and sexual activity, usually in the hope of preventing rapists, pedophiles and other sex offenders (a predominantly male population) from reoffending. Recidivism rates are very high among sexual offenders once released, thus a humane method of treating them has been sought other than life long imprisonment or surgical castration. Chemical castration is not surgical castration (when testes are removed through an incision in the scrotum) nor is it a form of sterilization. Unlike actual castration, no permanent physical change is caused in the body, and the process is considered reversible when treatment is discontinued (for this reason, the term "chemical castration" has been called a misnomer). Chemical castration involves the administration of anti-androgen drugs, such as cyproterone or the birth-control drug Depo-Provera (an injection that lasts for three months per dose, making compliance easier to track). When used by men, these drugs can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Life-threatening side effects are rare, but some users show increases in body fat and reduced bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. They may also experience other "feminising" effects such as breast growth, reduced body hair, and loss of muscle mass.

First of all this is not a thread about preventing sex crimes from occuring (not completely anyway) this is about rehabilitating sex offenders and preventing them from re-offending.

Chemical castration has been shown to reduce recidivism rates in sex offenders from 40% to just 5%.

Britain is currently offering this treatment as a voluntary process, Poland have recently moved to make the process mandatory for all convicted rapists, sex offenders, peadophiles etc. At least six states in the United States (California, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Montana) have experimented with chemical castration laws. California was the first state to use chemical castration as a punishment for sex offenders. In cases in which the victim is under 13 years of age, California judges may require first-time offenders to undergo chemical castration. After a second offense, treatment is mandatory. In Iowa and Florida, offenders may be sentenced to chemical castration in all cases involving serious sex offenses. As in California, treatment is mandatory after a second offense. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed Senate Bill 144 June 25, 2008, allowing Louisiana judges to sentence convicted rapists to chemical castration.

In this thread id like to get a discussion going on the following points:

• Is this a viable solution for rehabilitating sex offenders?
  
• Should it be compulsory for all convicted sex offenders?
  
• Should we be trying to rehabilitate sex offenders in the first place?

Personally i feel that Chemical should be compulsory for all convicted sex offenders, i'm less certain about the idea of rehabilitating them in the first place however. Sex offences are horrendous crimes and can cause lasting physical and mental damage to the victims. IMO They should be locked away permanantly for the good of society as a whole, in addition to being chemically castrated,

However in the sense of giving someone a second chance, compulsory chemical castration and thorough therapy could possibly provide an answer.

Discuss...

Edit: A few links to related stories:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7871783.stm
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1778
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wickham/2001-09-04-wickham.htm
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...s-clinic-where-they-castrate-paedophiles.html

 

[SK]

• Is this a viable solution for rehabilitating sex offenders?
  
• Should it be compulsory for all convicted sex offenders?

Yes, this is a viable solution, if it does reduce recidivism rates in sex offenders from 40% to just 5% then obviously it is viable, it clearly reduces these crimes, without having to lock up or kill these people, every one deserves a chance at rehabilitation, and this way, criminals can be rehabilitated much easier, by taking away the temptation.

I also believe that chemical castration should be compulsory for some groups of sex offenders. However, the tricky thing with this situation is that, sex offenders is a broad term and covers a lot of people; child sexual abuse, downloading child pornography, rape, and statutory rape. Now I believe that each of these groups should be treated differently.

In my opinion all child sex abusers should have to be chemically castrated, as they have abused a defenceless child, and even though they may not be able to control what they like, they intentionally abused children and therefore should be castrated and given heavy sentences.

Sex offenders who download child pornography should be offered chemical castration, as they haven't abused anyone, and they can't help what they are turned on by, and by castrating them, you'll be taking away the temptation and possible abuse. This group should be offered lighter sentences, in return for being chemical castrated.

Now rapists are a difficult group, they're sexual needs are not illegal (such as children) but they have broken rules to meet their needs, so I don't think that they should be chemically castrated, but should be offered it, just to stop them offending again and help rehabilitate them, so when they come out of prison they don't re-offend.

Statutory rapists should also be dealt with in the same way as rapists, the other party has consented to sex, but they are too young, so I think that they should also be offered chemical castration to try and rehabilitate them. However, by the time they were out of prison, the young person they 'raped' will probably be old enough to give consent for sex, so they would most likely turn down the castration, but it should still be an option, if they are attracted to younger people.

• Should we be trying to rehabilitate sex offenders in the first place?

Yes, of course we should, everyone should be offered a chance of rehabilitation.

 

[X]

Great, now we're supporting mandatory chemical castration as well? Jeez, we're about 2 steps away from Brave New World here. Why don't we just start performing mandatory lobotomies on people as well, that would drastically lower the recidivism rate! Forget rehabilitation, let's just snip out parts of their body/brain!

Look, I'd support chemical castration if was done voluntarily. But that's it. Mandatory chemical castration? That's the definition of cruel and unusual punishment, something strictly in opposition to the Constitution. But I suppose you two will argue that because they've hurt a defenseless child, the Constitution doesn't apply to them or something, right? Wrong. Prove otherwise.

Nevermind the fact that chemical castration is notorious for not actually working among thousands of men who take the drugs.

I'll leave you two with a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

Those who would sacrifice liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[gd]

This is ridiculous. Castraction? Really? I know sex offenders aren't the best people in the world, but no one deserves that. It would definetly be classified as torcher. I guess in theory it would work, but why the hell would you castrate another human, regardless of what they've done. I could never support something like that.

 

[SK]

Great, now we're supporting mandatory chemical castration as well? Jeez, we're about 2 steps away from Brave New World here. Why don't we just start performing mandatory lobotomies on people as well, that would drastically lower the recidivism rate! Forget rehabilitation, let's just snip out parts of their body/brain!

Hold on a minute, I'm not at all supporting randomly mutating people in order to make the perfect human, in fact I think people do deserve liberty, but if you abuse that liberty, and are unable to be rehabilitated, something has to be done.

Look, I'd support chemical castration if was done voluntarily. But that's it. Mandatory chemical castration? That's the definition of cruel and unusual punishment, something strictly in opposition to the Constitution. But I suppose you two will argue that because they've hurt a defenceless child, the Constitution doesn't apply to them or something, right? Wrong. Prove otherwise.

I only suggested mandatory chemical castration in one particular case, in that of the child sex abuser. I could never defend someone's liberty if they sexually abused a child, sorry, but that's just me, children are defenceless, and somebody who would abuse a young child to satisfy sexual needs, doesn't deserve the liberty of sexual attraction.

Look, I'm okay with people being turned on by whatever they want, you can't help it. For example, homosexuality, you cannot control what you like, but if you have to break the law to satisfy your sexual needs, then why should you be burdened by having these needs?

Nevermind the fact that chemical castration is notorious for not actually working among thousands of men who take the drugs.

If you'll refer back to my first post I did say if it worked, it should be considered, it would have to be tested and proven with a high success rate if it ever was considered.

Those who would sacrifice liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I would not sacrifice liberty for safety, but don't you think it is unfair to the individuals who are burdened with the sexual attraction to young children, who cannot consent to sex?

Anyway, I can appreciate that we may differ on opinions, but I just wanted to clear up a few issues.

 

[X]

Hold on a minute, I'm not at all supporting randomly mutating people in order to make the perfect human, in fact I think people do deserve liberty, but if you abuse that liberty, and are unable to be rehabilitated, something has to be done.

What has to be done? I'm not sure if you're American or not, but there's this thing called the Bill of Rights, and one of the most important rights outlined in it is that man should be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Castration certainly falls under that cateogry, chemical or manual.

I only suggested mandatory chemical castration in one particular case, in that of the child sex abuser. I could never defend someone's liberty if they sexually abused a child, sorry, but that's just me, children are defenceless, and somebody who would abuse a young child to satisfy sexual needs, doesn't deserve the liberty of sexual attraction.

So you support a human right only for some people, but not others? That's a pretty hypocritical attitude to have. Being a child abuser doesn't disqualify you from the Bill of Rights, sorry.

It's the same argument with free speech; I in no way support neo-Nazi's spouting hatred and racism against others, but I'll fight to the death for their right to say it.

Some things (like the Bill of Rights) are far more important than your personal feelings.

Look, I'm okay with people being turned on by whatever they want, you can't help it. For example, homosexuality, you cannot control what you like, but if you have to break the law to satisfy your sexual needs, then why should you be burdened by having these needs?

A) Homosexual sex is actually still illegal in several states and nations.

B) Only if you consent to the chemical castration should it ever be used. If you're forcing it on them, you're pissing all over the Bill of Rights.

I would not sacrifice liberty for safety, but don't you think it is unfair to the individuals who are burdened with the sexual attraction to young children, who cannot consent to sex?

Which is why, again, I never stated to have a problem with someone voluntarily administering these drugs to themselves. I'm not talking about; I'm talking about forcing people to take these drugs as a form of punishment.

 

[SK]

What has to be done? I'm not sure if you're American or not, but there's this thing called the Bill of Rights, and one of the most important rights outlined in it is that man should be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Castration certainly falls under that cateogry, chemical or manual.

I'm not an American, but I am obviously aware of the bill of rights and I did say that chemical castration should be voluntary, except for child sex abuser, but that is just my personal opinion, I am not making any laws, the OP asked a question and I gave my opinion.

So you support a human right only for some people, but not others? That's a pretty hypocritical attitude to have. Being a child abuser doesn't disqualify you from the Bill of Rights, sorry.

I don't think so, I believe that crime and punishment should be treated individually, but again, that's just my personal opinion.

Some things (like the Bill of Rights) are far more important than your personal feelings.

I'm not trying to change the law, I simply gave my personal opinion, which you disagree with, which is fine. But, let me understand this, you think my personal feelings are not important because they do not match the bill of rights? The bill of rights is just other peoples personal feelings which became law, and because of that my opinions are invalid?

A) Homosexual sex is actually still illegal in several states and nations.

I understand that, but homosexual adults can consent to sex, that is why I don't look upon this against what I said, because my main qualm is that children cannot consent to sex or defend themselves and that is why punishments, I feel, should be much harsher for these type of crimes.

Which is why, again, I never stated to have a problem with someone voluntarily administering these drugs to themselves. I'm not talking about; I'm talking about forcing people to take these drugs as a form of punishment.

I completely understand what you are saying, and somewhat agree. I'm not suggesting all sex offenders should be castrated, and I do believe in rehabilitation and liberty.

Look, I'm not going to continue debating this because it's clear that neither of us are going to change our minds, which is fine, it seems pointless to keep going over the same points which we disagree on.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I'm a fascist and I think this is too much. What my nihilist friend is saying is one hundred percent right.

I think that the most important questions here is; why are second time sex offenders being let out of jail. A first rape is supposed to get you 20 years, a second even more.

This is the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. While I am usually on the side of the government, this is too much. Are we going to wire shut the jaws of perjurers? Are we going to remove the trigger finger from murderers? This seems a little too close to Hammurabi's code for me. Second millennium political thought has taken ancient laws and adjusted them to appropriate sentencing guidelines.

 

[Loveless]

First of all this is not a thread about preventing sex crimes from occuring (not completely anyway) this is about rehabilitating sex offenders and preventing them from re-offending.

Preventing sex crimes and preventing re-offending are essentially the same thing, unless you're ok with 1st time offenders as long as they don't do it again.

• 
  

  [*]Is this a viable solution for rehabilitating sex offenders?

  
  Absolutely. Currently rehabiliation rates currently equate to an epic fail and that's only considering those who actually get caught.
  
  

  [*]Should it be compulsory for all convicted sex offenders?

  
  Not for all, no.
  Child sex offenders - Mandatory
  Downloaders - Optional (but only for 1st offence)
  Rape - Mandatory
  Statutory - No
  
  

  [*]Should we be trying to rehabilitate sex offenders in the first place?

Of course but it's almost impossible to tell when someone is rehabilitated. In the meantime you can't just have them running around amongst the general populace.

Personally i feel that Chemical should be compulsory for all convicted sex offenders, i'm less certain about the idea of rehabilitating them in the first place however. Sex offences are horrendous crimes and can cause lasting physical and mental damage to the victims. IMO They should be locked away permanantly for the good of society as a whole, in addition to being chemically castrated

We live in a soceity that allows for rehabilitation and forgiveness, as such, permanently locking anyone up without a chance of freedom is a bad idea. Also, juries sometimes get it wrong. Consider a false accusation against yourself and what would then follow and you'll understand the system a bit better. (incidentally, this is why I'm against the death penalty)

However in the sense of giving someone a second chance, compulsory chemical castration and thorough therapy could possibly provide an answer.

Indeed
I'm of the opinion that when you violate someone else's human rights, you sacrifice your own (to an extent). Citing human rights or the constitution isn't going to wash with me because surely locking someone up in a cell for 30 years is a violation of human rights as well, it's at least arguable in the same terms, seeing as chemical castration is preferable to being locked up.

To GeneralDisarray, it's not torture, it's a sodding injection to prevent someone from ruining lives. Small sacrifice, big gain and it's not like it's even permanent.
My ex girlfriend was raped, stabbed multiple times and left for dead aged 12, she was then attacked again aged 21. If you saw the effect that it has on people, you wouldn't dare to argue against this. Personally if faced with one of these people I'd likely put a bullet in their head but I've at least argued sensibly up to this point.

 

[Razor]

Is this a viable solution for rehabilitating sex offenders?

No. You're fucking with hormones here, people. Birth control pills run the risk of blood clots and stroking out, even for those who are as young as their mid-20s. Hormones are completely screwy, and to mandate a punishment that can potentially cause the man to stroke out and die goes beyond anything you could legally use to punish a man.

Should it be compulsory for all convicted sex offenders?

No. Not at all. You can restrict the rights of a man who has broken the law. That's what Parole is. However, you can not force medical or surgical alterations upon a man. That goes beyond "You can't have a gun" into "We're going to control how your mind thinks." If you honestly believe that sex offenders can't be rehabilitated, keep them locked up. Don't fuck with their bodies and say "Go, be happy while you have breasts, are hideously fat, and may die of bone and heart disease."

Should we be trying to rehabilitate sex offenders in the first place?

Yes. Sexual desire may not be entirely controllable, but sexual impulses can be contained. As Jack McCoy said on Law & Order:

It's not the fact that we have those thoughts, it's what we do with them.

A man who thinks "Oh, my girlfriend's 15 year old is hot" shouldn't be locked up for statutory rape because he thought a underage chick was hot. In the same vein, a man who thinks "Oh, she's hot. I wanna rape her," but doesn't, shouldn't be locked up. We can't police thoughts, my friends.

Along that line of thought, if a man can learn how to control his actions while in prison should be allowed to go free. It's why we allow murderers to go free, we assume they won't murder again.

 

[Razor]

Preventing sex crimes and preventing re-offending are essentially the same thing, unless you're ok with 1st time offenders as long as they don't do it again.

Well, yes. But preventing a sex crime can be prevented by teaching a man how to contain his sexual impulse, not by chemically castrating someone. It's the same idea behind letting a murderer go free. We assume he's learned how to control his anger and/or impulse to kill, so we let him back out into general society. If we chemically castrate sexual offenders, we might as well give murderers a drug that makes them so physically weak they can't hold a gun or swing a knife. Or give people who embezzle money a drug that makes them so dumb, they can't do basic monetary calculations.

Absolutely. Currently rehabiliation rates currently equate to an epic fail and that's only considering those who actually get caught.

Oh. The good ole "There are so many out there! Trust me, more re-offend then we know of" defense.

That's like saying "We should chemically alter murderers because rehabilitation equates to an epic fail, and that's only considering those who actually get caught. Oh geez, I can make outlandish statements as well.

Child sex offenders - Mandatory

Then why don't we chemically alter child beaters, child kidnappers, the like? They all target children.

Downloaders - Optional (but only for 1st offence)

So. If a man downloads child porn twice he gets chemically castrated? Even if he has never touched a boy or girl in his life?

Rape - Mandatory

A man can still rape a chick without his penis. Just so you know. And I believe many men would be so pissed off at their man boobs and excessive obesity that they wouldn't think twice about raping a woman with a bottle or a stick.

Oh, wait. That goes against the entire thread of reasoning that people rape because they can sexual excitement from it. Damn.

Statutory - No

Just multiply that by 4, and you'll get how many "No"s there should be.

Of course but it's almost impossible to tell when someone is rehabilitated. In the meantime you can't just have them running around amongst the general populace.

If you can't tell a man's rehabilitated, he's not rehabilitated. And he should be in jail for longer. But chemically altering a man goes beyond every basic human rights document I've ever seen conceived. You fucking with a man's chemical make-up in a way that can cause him to stroke out and DIE. This shouldn't be taken lightly.

We live in a soceity that allows for rehabilitation and forgiveness, as such, permanently locking anyone up without a chance of freedom is a bad idea. Also, juries sometimes get it wrong. Consider a false accusation against yourself and what would then follow and you'll understand the system a bit better. (incidentally, this is why I'm against the death penalty)

That's right we allow for rehabilitation and forgiveness. Which is why we shouldn't stick a man with involuntary chemical altering of his body. It's an outrageous application of science.

I'm of the opinion that when you violate someone else's human rights, you sacrifice your own (to an extent). Citing human rights or the constitution isn't going to wash with me because surely locking someone up in a cell for 30 years is a violation of human rights as well, it's at least arguable in the same terms, seeing as chemical castration is preferable to being locked up.

Bullshit. Locking up a man for 30 years is different from forcing a procedure on a man that

1) Causes him to gain massive amounts of weight
2) Alters the way his brain functions
3) Causes him to be incapable of reaching erection
4) Can cause blood clots, stroke, bone disease, heart disease, the like.

You essentially forcing a man into playing Russian Roulette with his hormones.

To GeneralDisarray, it's not torture, it's a sodding injection to prevent someone from ruining lives. Small sacrifice, big gain and it's not like it's even permanent

.

It's not just a little injection that prevents a man from rape. It's a surgical alteration of a man's hormone makeup that can cause all sorts of deadly complications.

My ex girlfriend was raped, stabbed multiple times and left for dead aged 12, she was then attacked again aged 21. If you saw the effect that it has on people, you wouldn't dare to argue against this. Personally if faced with one of these people I'd likely put a bullet in their head but I've at least argued sensibly up to this point.

My sister was assaulted when she was 16, coming home from her job. Almost raped. Damn near it. Two of my friends were raped, one coming home from a frat party and the other while she was at the frat party. I still DARE to argue against this. Because it's not justice. Not in any way, shape, or fashion.

For someone who argues there "are no morals," you seem to be pretty sure no one should be arguing against this procedure. You also seem pretty much against rape. Hmm. Guess there ARE basic laws of Good and Evil.

 

[Loveless]

You're so full of crap I barely be bothered to argue with you. Th law is well within it's rights to keep someone in jail while they are a risk to the public. Now you can either keep these people in jail (which I'd prefer) or you can let them loose for a sacrifice. Frankly I think chemical castration is the easy way out. There is no way in hell these people should be released when they're extremely high risk to reoffend and there really is no comparison between kidnappers and childbeaters.
As for child porn, it's illegal so 1st time should be a warning and 2nd time should be mandatory because there are numerous studies that there is a progression.
I was going to continue but your post is so full of inaccuracies that I simply can't be bothered.
Out of interest, what your solution to this problem? I'd imagine it's something that involves not hurting the poor paedophiles feelings. Pfft, this thread makes me angry

 

[Murfish]

You're so full of crap I barely be bothered to argue with you. Th law is well within it's rights to keep someone in jail while they are a risk to the public. Now you can either keep these people in jail (which I'd prefer) or you can let them loose for a sacrifice. Frankly I think chemical castration is the easy way out.

Criminal justice isn't about the easy way out. If a rapist is rehabilitated and can leave jail with the prospect of having a life, then he should be let out when his sentence is up.

There is no way in hell these people should be released when they're extremely high risk to reoffend and there really is no comparison between kidnappers and childbeaters.

What do you think a chemically castrated man will turn to? He's going to want to lash out. There is something far worse thing than rape.

As for child porn, it's illegal so 1st time should be a warning and 2nd time should be mandatory because there are numerous studies that there is a progression.

So he goes to jail and you work with him. You don't take away his shot at a normal life for two mistakes that could literally take two minutes.

I was going to continue but your post is so full of inaccuracies that I simply can't be bothered.
Out of interest, what your solution to this problem? I'd imagine it's something that involves not hurting the poor paedophiles feelings. Pfft, this thread makes me angry

No, it involves protecting their rights. You keep them in prison, try to give them rehab. If that doesn't work you keep them there.

 

[Kip The Fury]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveless View Post
You're so full of crap I barely be bothered to argue with you. Th law is well within it's rights to keep someone in jail while they are a risk to the public. Now you can either keep these people in jail (which I'd prefer) or you can let them loose for a sacrifice. Frankly I think chemical castration is the easy way out.

Criminal justice isn't about the easy way out. If a rapist is rehabilitated and can leave jail with the prospect of having a life, then he should be let out when his sentence is up.

Just to clear something up, Chemical castration is in addition to a jail sentence, its for sex offenders reaching the end of their sentence not a get out of jail free card. Its also reversible, if i can draw attention back to the original quote:

Unlike actual castration, no permanent physical change is caused in the body, and the process is considered reversible when treatment is discontinued

If health issues, which are noted to be rare, do occur, the treatment can be discontinued and the whole process is reversed, its not a permanent change.

What do you think a chemically castrated man will turn to? He's going to want to lash out. There is something far worse thing than rape.

The drugs reduce testosterone, its more likely to calm aggresion in someone, like when a dog gets neutered. If somone can be identified as a violent risk then they should probably be kept in prison anyway. Im not saying it couldn't happen, just that with reduced testosterone its less likely.

Can i also pose this question to everyone ewho has disagreed with compulsory treatment: Would you still offer the treatment as a voluntary option? For example, if an offender showed remorse but was uncertain about being able to control their urges would you offer them the treatment to chemically control them? This would of course be in addition to a prison sentence and rehab while incarcerated.

 

[HBK-aholic]

This is ridiculous. Castraction? Really? I know sex offenders aren't the best people in the world, but no one deserves that. It would definetly be classified as torcher. I guess in theory it would work, but why the hell would you castrate another human, regardless of what they've done. I could never support something like that.

No one deserves to be raped or sexually assaulted either, but did these offenders give a damn about that? No, I didn't think so. I wasn't planning on posting in this thread until I saw the utter bullshit of this post. Now, I'm not 100% for or against chemical castration, there are benefits and their are negatives. But to say rapists don't deserve it is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

 

[X]

No one deserves to be raped or sexually assaulted either, but did these offenders give a damn about that? No, I didn't think so.

So that justifies cruel and unusual punishment on them? Shit, since they've raped a child, why not just skin them alive in front of a live PPV audience? Why not just feed them to a pack of lions Roman Coliseum style?

Oh wait, because human civilization has advanced past mindless barbarism, that's why.

 

[HBK-aholic]

So that justifies cruel and unusual punishment on them? Shit, since they've raped a child, why not just skin them alive in front of a live PPV audience? Why not just feed them to a pack of lions Roman Coliseum style?

Oh wait, because human civilization has advanced past mindless barbarism, that's why.

But no one's arguing for that are they? I'm not even arguing for chemical castration. But it really annoys me when people say shit like "that rapist doesn't deserve this" or "Well his human rights..", because how can you expect your rights to be upheld when you take others away? There are plenty of good arguments against this topic, but "they don't deserve it" isn't one of them.

 

[X]

But no one's arguing for that are they? I'm not even arguing for chemical castration. But it really annoys me when people say shit like "that rapist doesn't deserve this" or "Well his human rights..", because how can you expect your rights to be upheld when you take others away? There are plenty of good arguments against this topic, but "they don't deserve it" isn't one of them.

And this is the main flaw in every one of the pro-chemical castration and pro-death penalty arguments. You're not concerned with human rights, you're concerned with revenge. You think "Well this guy raped that woman, so he doesn't have human rights anymore". Bullshit he doesn't, EVERY man, woman, and child has the exact same rights, regardless of their crimes.

On the whole chemical castration thing...it's cruel and unusual punishment. No one has even attempted to refute that. So anyone who supports mandatory chemical castration, you also support throwing away the Bill of Rights.

 

[FromTheSouth]

But no one's arguing for that are they? I'm not even arguing for chemical castration. But it really annoys me when people say shit like "that rapist doesn't deserve this" or "Well his human rights..", because how can you expect your rights to be upheld when you take others away? There are plenty of good arguments against this topic, but "they don't deserve it" isn't one of them.

In America, the Bill of Rights protects against cruel and unusual punishment. We don't cut off the hands of thieves, we don't cut out the tongues of liars. Why would we effectively, remove the manhood of rapists (not technically remove, mind you)? They committed a horrible crime, and thus, get a long sentence. A society based on reciprocity has a defined sentence for each crime. Rape is bad, but it is not murder, so it gets a lighter sentence than murder. It is worse than assault, so it get a harsher sentence than assault. The sentences are prescribed in accordance to rights infringed upon. Adding castration to the mix makes the sentence go beyond the prescribed measures for all other crimes, thus making it cruel and unusual.

 

[HBK-aholic]

And this is the main flaw in every one of the pro-chemical castration and pro-death penalty arguments. You're not concerned with human rights, you're concerned with revenge.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll bring it up here. What is the problem with wanting some type of revenge? For the criminal to feel half as bad as what they put their victim through? Now, clearly, the legal system shouldn't be based around revenge completely, but everyone seems to act as if it's such a bad thing.

You think "Well this guy raped that woman, so he doesn't have human rights anymore". Bullshit he doesn't, EVERY man, woman, and child has the exact same rights, regardless of their crimes.

..Arguable. I mean, in theory this is true. And I'm not arguing they don't have human rights, but I'm just saying we shouldn't bend over backwards to make sure the rights of some of the worst people in the world are upheld when they don't care about anyone else's rights.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll bring it up here. What is the problem with wanting some type of revenge? For the criminal to feel half as bad as what they put their victim through? Now, clearly, the legal system shouldn't be based around revenge completely, but everyone seems to act as if it's such a bad thing.




..Arguable. I mean, in theory this is true. And I'm not arguing they don't have human rights, but I'm just saying we shouldn't bend over backwards to make sure the rights of some of the worst people in the world are upheld when they don't care about anyone else's rights.

These things you mention are what makes us better than other countries. Countries who summarily execute all criminals are barbarians. Countries that don't ensure the rights of everyone are looked down upon. We embargo their goods and sanction their governments.

This is also why we have representative democracies. America's thirst for blood is tamped down by the responsible people we elect. Our courts ensure that people will get punished properly instead of being stoned in the town square. (Not the good kind of stoned in the town square either, X......or, me.) The system may not be perfect, but it is well intentioned, and as fair as we can make it.

 

[X]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll bring it up here. What is the problem with wanting some type of revenge?

The justice system isn't about revenge, that's what's wrong with that. If it were than we'd kill murderers, we'd rape the rapists, and we'd cut off the hands of thieves. That what you want?

For the criminal to feel half as bad as what they put their victim through? Now, clearly, the legal system shouldn't be based around revenge completely, but everyone seems to act as if it's such a bad thing.

Because it IS a bad thing, and a naive idea at best. What you're basically saying is that we should play by the same rules as murderers and rapists, correct? There is no possible way to make a rapist feel the same amount of pain as his victim unless you want to condone state-sponsored rapings.

..Arguable. I mean, in theory this is true. And I'm not arguing they don't have human rights, but I'm just saying we shouldn't bend over backwards to make sure the rights of some of the worst people in the world are upheld when they don't care about anyone else's rights.

It's not arguable. Not in civilized countries at least. The justice system based on revenge that you don't think is so bad Becca? It already exists. It's in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do you support their "justice" systems as well?

 

[Kip The Fury]

At least six states in the United States (California, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Montana) have experimented with chemical castration laws. California was the first state to use chemical castration as a punishment for sex offenders. In cases in which the victim is under 13 years of age, California judges may require first-time offenders to undergo chemical castration. After a second offense, treatment is mandatory. In Iowa and Florida, offenders may be sentenced to chemical castration in all cases involving serious sex offenses. As in California, treatment is mandatory after a second offense. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed Senate Bill 144 June 25, 2008, allowing Louisiana judges to sentence convicted rapists to chemical castration.

So anyone who supports mandatory chemical castration, you also support throwing away the Bill of Rights

I know very little about american politics but doesn't the fact that some states can sentence serious sex offenders to chemical castration, even if it is second offense, render your argument about the bill of rights moot?

I may be totally wrong here but wouldnt it require majority support to pass that bill, im genuinely curious because im not an expert on American politics by any means.

Chemical castration isnt about revenge, its not about punishing a criminal by taking away his manhood. Its an advanced form of rehab to help them to surpress the urges that made them want to commit the crime in the first place.

If you dont agree with mandatory castration, would you agree with voluntary castration, if the criminal was truly remorseful and knew all the risks would you still consider it an option?

 

[HBK-aholic]

The justice system isn't about revenge, that's what's wrong with that. If it were than we'd kill murderers, we'd rape the rapists, and we'd cut off the hands of thieves. That what you want?



Because it IS a bad thing, and a naive idea at best. What you're basically saying is that we should play by the same rules as murderers and rapists, correct? There is no possible way to make a rapist feel the same amount of pain as his victim unless you want to condone state-sponsored rapings.

The punishment should match the crime, although not literally. If you kill or rape someone, you should spend the rest of your life in prison. If that happened, which it should, chemical castration wouldn't be necessary at all.

It's not arguable. Not in civilized countries at least. The justice system based on revenge that you don't think is so bad Becca? It already exists. It's in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do you support their "justice" systems as well?

Hence why I said, it shouldn't be based solely on revenge. But wanting it is not a bad thing.

 

[X]

I know very little about american politics but doesn't the fact that some states can sentence serious sex offenders to chemical castration, even if it is second offense, render your argument about the bill of rights moot?

Clearly you don't know very much about American politics. State rights vs. Federal laws is one of the oldest and most complex issues in our country. The Constitution is routinely pissed on by politicians, but that doesn't make their doing so RIGHT, does it?

I may be totally wrong here but wouldnt it require majority support to pass that bill, im genuinely curious because im not an expert on American politics by any means.

America doesn't have a direct-democracy, voters don't decide on legislation, politicians do.

Chemical castration isnt about revenge, its not about punishing a criminal by taking away his manhood. Its an advanced form of rehab to help them to surpress the urges that made them want to commit the crime in the first place.

"Advanced form of rehab"?!

Explain to me how destroying someone's sex drive is a form of rehab. I'd love to hear that one.

If you dont agree with mandatory castration, would you agree with voluntary castration, if the criminal was truly remorseful and knew all the risks would you still consider it an option?

I already stated I have no problem with voluntary chemical castration. People can do whatever the hell they want to their own bodies as long as it harms no one else IMO.

But forcing it on people? Haven't you guys ever read the book "Brave New World"? Or "1984"?