Chemical Castration for Sex Offenders

[FromTheSouth]

One of the castration sentences would have to be appealed, then the case would have to be requested by the Supreme Court. The high court would then rule whether or not this was cruel and unusual punishment, therefore a violation of the Constitution.

There is a process. I kind of think all laws should have to be signed off on by the Court, but that would be a mess of paperwork, and would not allow for open arguments on the case.

 

[Razor]

You're so full of crap I barely be bothered to argue with you.

Awwww. But you do. Shucks.

Or, you know, that statement could be used to try and sound superior without actually answering any point I put forward.

Th law is well within it's rights to keep someone in jail while they are a risk to the public.

Right-o. It's the good ole fashioned "You have rights, but we have take away those rights when you break laws" stance. The social contract, as some like to call it.

Now you can either keep these people in jail (which I'd prefer) or you can let them loose for a sacrifice.

Like what, 15 years in jail? Or a completely unfair and unnecessary punishment that tempts the hormones into a hormonal cocktail that can, at any moment, kill the man from a stroke?

Frankly I think chemical castration is the easy way out.

OK. You take a cocktail of hormones that can, at any moment, kill you from blood clotting. Or fuck with your body's normal ability to produce hormones, making you dependent on the injections that cause your life so much hell. Or simply fuck with normal bodily processes. Don't forget that.

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.

Why not? They target children, and can put the child through comparable mental harm. Beating a child within an inch of their life repeatedly is going to be as traumatic as raping them. I was beaten by a man who was dating my mother for an entire year, whilst he was beating everyone else in my family. I'm rather traumatized by that, to the point where I regularly have panic attacks and have, in some ways, stunted my emotional growth to that of a 5 year old.

But, you know. Raping a child is so much more traumatic. I should just suck it up and move along.

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? I didn't know that we are punishing criminals for shit they haven't even done yet. Might as well lock you up because you might steal a car.

I was going to continue but your post is so full of inaccuracies that I simply can't be bothered.

Like what? You can't just spout shit and not back it up.

Out of interest, what your solution to this problem?

Jail, and rehabilitation. I never said they shouldn't be punished. I'm just saying that the person shouldn't be punished in a way that is highly dangerous. You are fucking with their hormones. Birth control pills carry the risk of blood clot and stroke, and those are pills you take weekly, monthly, or once a few years; depending on the type you use.

I'd imagine it's something that involves not hurting the poor paedophiles feelings.

Jail would hurt a pedophile's feelings. I mean, it's not roses and gummy bears in there. Pedophiles aren't monsters dude, they're human beings with a fucked up sex drive.

Pfft, this thread makes me angry

Your implication that if I don't agree with your stance I don't feel for people whom were raped (including my friends and almost my sister), and your implication that my mental problems that are the product of being beaten aren't as bad as a child who was raped piss me off as well. Too bad you're mad that you can't form a coherent argument for mandatory, deadly punishment.

 

[Kip The Fury]

Clearly you don't know very much about American politics.

Nope not at all, not from America. I'll admit i was wrong with that argument

"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.

Maybe that wasn't the best description but still, my point is its not meant to punish, its meant to help by supressing the urge to have sex with children or to rape or whatever. Surely thats the point of rehabilitating sex offenders.

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

Razorback's kinda helped me out here, altho i kno he doesn't agree with my views

Pedophiles aren't monsters dude, they're human beings with a fucked up sex drive.

So supress the fucked up sex drive...

Yes theres rehab in prison and although thats been successful castration has been proven to reduce recidivism from 40% to 5%, much more successful. A small chance that the person could have medical complications is a small price to pay for such a big drop IMO

 

[FromTheSouth]

But supression of feelings isn't rehab. Rehab is putting an end to those feeling, or, at the very least, showing one the error of his ways. What you propose is no different than cutting off the hands of one who steals.

Do you honestly think that this would not be overturned when it reaches the Supreme Court?

I am tough on crime. Believe me, I think that punishments should be harsher, jail should be less pleasant, and that the police should be better trained in the process of law; but this is too much.

I have stated this already, but if we don't cut off the hand of a thief, why should remove the libido from a rapist?

 

[Kip The Fury]

But supression of feelings isn't rehab. Rehab is putting an end to those feeling, or, at the very least, showing one the error of his ways.

Supression is surely still better than someone having these feelings being allowed to prey on women or children.

What you propose is no different than cutting off the hands of one who steals.

Its not though. Cutting a thiefs hand off isnt going to get rid of the urge to steal, its just going to make it difficult and act as a deterrent. Castration will remove the urge and sex drive from a sex offender. In a sense its the opposite to cutting a thiefs hand off, the thief may still have the urge to commit the crime but it could prove difficult with only one hand. A castrated sex offender is still able to have sex, they just don't want to.

Depo-Provera has been proven to inhibit the abilities of pedophilias to assault children. The progesterone in Depo-Provera counteracts the biological tendencies that lead men to rape children (4). By lowering testosterone, Depo-Provera reduces sex drive (6). Males can have sexual intercourse (7) but do not want to. Depo-Provera also decreases aggressive tendencies by reducing testosterone. "[T]he castrated criminal would be more docile and have a better opportunity to be rehabilitated, educated, and to become a worthwhile citizen" (1). Castration removes the biological and chemical tendencies that are intrinsically linked to the desire to rape in males.

Taken from - http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1778

 

[FromTheSouth]

In your first post is says the procedure reduces the capacity for sexual arousal. What do you think this means? To me, that means that it causes erectile dysfunction. So yes, it is the same as cutting off the hand of thief.

And suppression is not the preferred option. We do not live in Minority Report. We do not legislate feelings.

 

[Kip The Fury]

In your first post is says the procedure reduces the capacity for sexual arousal. What do you think this means? To me, that means that it causes erectile dysfunction. So yes, it is the same as cutting off the hand of thief.

I've done my research since my first post and initially that was my uderstanding.
Further research however, led me to the quote in my last post.

Depo-Provera has been proven to inhibit the abilities of pedophilias to assault children. The progesterone in Depo-Provera counteracts the biological tendencies that lead men to rape children (4). By lowering testosterone, Depo-Provera reduces sex drive (6). Males can have sexual intercourse (7) but do not want to. Depo-Provera also decreases aggressive tendencies by reducing testosterone. "[T]he castrated criminal would be more docile and have a better opportunity to be rehabilitated, educated, and to become a worthwhile citizen"(1). Castration removes the biological and chemical tendencies that are intrinsically linked to the desire to rape in males.

Taken from - http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1778

Bad initial research on my part

We do not live in Minority Report. We do not legislate feelings.

Rehab is putting an end to those feeling

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Are you saying we can remove them altogether but we can't supress them?

 

[X]

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Are you saying we can remove them altogether but we can't supress them?

You really don't seem to understand the concept of "rehabilitation" Kip. Rehabilitation isn't about suppressing feelings or removing them BY FORCE which is what mandatory chemical castration is. Rehabilitation is a strictly voluntary thing. You can't force someone to rehabilitate themselves if they don't want to.

Chemical castration isn't rehab. It's nothing like it whatsoever.

 

[Kip The Fury]

You really don't seem to understand the concept of "rehabilitation" Kip. Rehabilitation isn't about suppressing feelings or removing them BY FORCE which is what mandatory chemical castration is. Rehabilitation is a strictly voluntary thing. You can't force someone to rehabilitate themselves if they don't want to.

Ok, i'll accept that but then whats to stop a sex offender simply refusing to go through rehab, serve their sentence and go back to preying on women and children? Its not going to happen with every offender, and the offender would have to be seriously wrong in the head but wouldn't these type of people be prime candidates for mandatory castration?

From research and the different points put forward in this thread i have reconsidered my opinion and i will concede that mandatory castration shouldnt be applied to all sex offenders.

However, i maintain that serious sex offences are a horrendous crime and offenders who display a substantial risk of re-offending should be castrated.

 

[X]

Ok, i'll accept that but then whats to stop a sex offender simply refusing to go through rehab, serve their sentence and go back to preying on women and children? Its not going to happen with every offender, and the offender would have to be seriously wrong in the head but wouldn't these type of people be prime candidates for mandatory castration?

Right, you do realize what you've just said right? You've just stated that we should begin punishing people for thoughts. Did I close my eyes and we woke up in Orwell's 1984? You've just suggested that we punish people for THOUGHTS. Do I need to explain how insanely wrong of an idea that is?

From research and the different points put forward in this thread i have reconsidered my opinion and i will concede that mandatory castration shouldnt be applied to all sex offenders.

However, i maintain that serious sex offences are a horrendous crime and offenders who display a substantial risk of re-offending should be castrated.

"Substantial risk of re-offending"...and how are you going to determine that? Is the guy going to lay out a detailed 10 step plan for how he's going to rape his next victim when he's released?

Again, you want to punish people for thoughts. THOUGHTS.

I really don't need to explain what's wrong with that theory, do I?

 

[FromTheSouth]

What's to stop me from raping someone? Should I be castrated? We need to have hope that prison is effective in reforming criminals. We need to hope that an observant and well funded police force can stop people from being victims. We need to hope that women can be better educated in the warning signs of an acquaintance or date rape.

There are so many factors involved in preventing crime, and this is one case where the simplest explanation is not the best. It would be easy to execute all criminals, to convict people with no trial, even convict them before they commit a crime. But we don't, and that is what gives us the moral superiority to call other nations on their barbarism.

 

[Kip The Fury]

Right, you do realize what you've just said right? You've just stated that we should begin punishing people for thoughts. Did I close my eyes and we woke up in Orwell's 1984? You've just suggested that we punish people for THOUGHTS. Do I need to explain how insanely wrong of an idea that is?

These are people in prison i'm talking about, locked away because they were deemed to be a threat to society. Im not talking about grabbing a random guy of the street here, im talking about convicted criminals.

"Substantial risk of re-offending"...and how are you going to determine that? Is the guy going to lay out a detailed 10 step plan for how he's going to rape his next victim when he's released?

Sure that would be the easy way, but there not going to be that stupid.

I was thinking more along the lines of psychological profiling. Pyschologists and parole boards can determine whther a prisoner has been rehabilitated, why cant this be applied to whether a sex offender will pose a risk of re offending.

Again, you want to punish people for thoughts. THOUGHTS.

I really don't need to explain what's wrong with that theory, do I?

No, you don't, i know whats wrong with that. My argument is against convicted sex offenders who could pose a further risk if they are released. If you get down to the base of the issue then yes maybe i am on about policing thoughts but these people have proven that they are willing to act on them.

What's to stop me from raping someone? Should I be castrated?

It wouldn't stop you raping someone in the first place but it would help to stop you re-offending

We need to have hope that prison is effective in reforming criminals. We need to hope that an observant and well funded police force can stop people from being victims. We need to hope that women can be better educated in the warning signs of an acquaintance or date rape.

Agree with you 200%

There are so many factors involved in preventing crime, and this is one case where the simplest explanation is not the best.

i'm not saying it would be the simplest or the best option in all cases, but it could be the simplest in some cases

It would be easy to execute all criminals, to convict people with no trial, even convict them before they commit a crime. But we don't, and that is what gives us the moral superiority to call other nations on their barbarism.

I'm not arguing this, i'm arguing that in a case where a convicted sex offender still poses a significant risk to the community despite the efforts or rehab or incarceration, castration could be an answer

 

[X]

These are people in prison i'm talking about, locked away because they were deemed to be a threat to society. Im not talking about grabbing a random guy of the street here, im talking about convicted criminals.

No, you're talking about punishing people in prison for something they MIGHT do. MIGHT. Which is punishing people for their thoughts.

I was thinking more along the lines of psychological profiling. Pyschologists and parole boards can determine whther a prisoner has been rehabilitated, why cant this be applied to whether a sex offender will pose a risk of re offending.

You really just don't know what you're talking about.

A) Countless people who have been deemed "normal" by psychologists have gone on to rape and murder people. Unbelievably flawed system.

B) You are again saying that people should be punished for thoughts. You want to punish someone for something they MIGHT do. As FTS said, we don't live in the movie Minority Report, and thank god we don't live in the totalitarian type of society that you seemingly want.

No, you don't, i know whats wrong with that. My argument is against convicted sex offenders who could pose a further risk if they are released. If you get down to the base of the issue then yes maybe i am on about policing thoughts but these people have proven that they are willing to act on them.

You're not getting it...just because they've been convicted of a crime that doesn't mean you can punish them because they MIGHT do it again. If someone robs a convenience store and is convicted for it, does that mean when they're released they should forever be banned from any convenience store on the planet? No. You don't punish people for thinks they HAVEN'T done yet. Again, we don't live in the movie Minority Report, and thank god for that.