Sex Offender Castration

I haven't read the link yet, but I wanted to make the following points:

Being the survivor of years of sexual abuse/rape, I can't say I'm against it.

However, what if someone was imprisoned wrongly? Not only would they have lost years of their life in prison, they'd also have lost something they could NEVER EVER hope to get back.

Plus, what would it really achieve? You either stop them being able to achieve an erection ever in their life, or you stop them being able to produce semen. The former seems a bit barbaric (well, more so than the latter) but if you can only do the latter you don't stop them being able to rape and abuse their victims, only to stop them impregnating them.
 
Everything that I have ever read about the crime of rape, which is, admittedly limited, seemed to indicate that the primary goal of the rapist was to dominate, humiliate, and injure the victim. To put it bluntly, you don't need to achieve either an erection or an orgasm to accomplish that. In fact the infamous Boston Strangler used foreign objects like broom handles rather than conventional penetration on more than one occasion. As for the castration itself, applying it as punishment for a crime is mutilation, pure and simple, regardless of whether it is done by a drunken mob, or under the most sanitary and painless circumstances by order of a judge, or even at the request of the rapist himself, and, to the best of my knowledge, is illegal anywhere in the United States.
 
From the article:

Several states, including Texas, Florida and California, now allow or mandate chemical castration for certain convicted sex offenders.

But, yes, this is mainly about European countries and the potential for this practice to expand.
 
white avenger
white avenger
Sorry, I missed the "chemical" part there, I just had visions of an a knife and a cutting board.
I think I have to agree with White Avenger here. I looked at this sort of thing when I was looking studying crime psychology and the general consensus was that as many paedophiles didn't have physical sex with many of their victims, as they could say in court that they never actually had sex with them, it would seem that although in some cases it may help to prevent the sexual urges, it may not actually stop abuse. Not all paedophiles are the same, same as any criminal; their motives are always different, as are their methods. And unfortunately, a lot of sexual abuse is about power, not necessarily the act itself.

I suppose what is problematic about it is whether the sex offender themselves wants to undergo the operation. If they feel that it will help control their urges then it may be right for them. The real problems will lie in if they decide to make this a standard punishment because the likelihood is that it won't be effective in all cases. And as, Queen Crabbit says, if someone was wrongly accused and imprisoned and they had this enforced on them it would awful, the same problems that you get with capital punishment.
It's a difficult subject and must be a difficult thing for governments to try and come to an agreement on.

It is an interesting article though; looking at both medical and psychological sides of sexual abuse.
 
white avenger
white avenger
Also, the convicted rapist might just be using this as a scheme to get out of prison.
Well I think obviously if one were to be in favor of this, it would have to be a limited practice. In the US at least, there are so many different types of things categorized as sex offenses and obviously some of them are much worse than others. It's much different, for instance, for a 19 year old to have sex with his 16 year-old girlfriend than it is for a middleaged man to rape a 5 year old. I think this punishment would have to be reserved for certain kinds of sex offenses, and possibly only for repeat offenders to avoid the castration of a wrongfully accused party.
 
But at best, the chemical castration process is only a factor as long as the offender takes the required medication. If he manages to escape, then he's fully restored as soon as the drugs wear off.
 
There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet at the moment.
I think we should castrate every man from the age of 13 up from tomorrow and tie up all the ladies tubes from the age of 13 up - hopefully we manage to thin out the crowd a bit.

Those of 12 years old and less can be the ones to kick start the planets procreation in a few years time!

---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 PM ----------

Revolver agrees: I knew you'd offer a unique perspective.
Click to expand...

Well the topic itself is a stupid one - not the fact you posted it, the fact its being officially discussed as a means to deter rapists.

Rape is hardly ever about sexual conquest, its about power.
 
R
Revolver
I knew you'd offer a unique perspective.
November
November
Better make it younger, the 12 yr olds have already started.
It's not just about rapists, its also about child abusers; in which they have found that some of these types of treatments have been known to be effective. Child abuse isn't always about the power. Paedophiles aren't as easily classified as rapists.
 
Flannen said:
It's not just about rapists, its also about child abusers; in which they have found that some of these types of treatments have been known to be effective. Child abuse isn't always about the power. Paedophiles aren't as easily classified as rapists.
Click to expand...

BUT Rapists would be given this method of treatment - which means that the whole thing is pointless because rape isn't always about having sex - if it was, they wouldn't risk getting in trouble.

As for paedophilia, well it happens, sad fact, but its not as rampant as the media would like to make out so I am willing to let the people that do this serve a prison sentence and keep a fully functioning penis.
 
Nothing wrong with bold statements, if that's your opinion, everyone has a right.
 
Re:

Revolver said:
From an article in the Times a few days back:

Europeans Debate Castration of Sex Offenders - NYTimes.com

Thoughts on the subject? Cruel and unusual punishment? A necessary measure for the safety of society?
Click to expand...


Each to their own on this issue. And I could care less what everyone elses thoughts are on this issue. Not to pull out my bitc* card, but...
I say chop the mother-flunken thing off and then throw them in jail. Most jailbirds would LOVE to room with a woman.
 
^ LMAO.

EB - Touche on the karma comment above. Oh and it's Flannen, not Flannel. 😉
 
I haven't read the article as I don't have the computer time at the moment to be able to do so, but I thought I'd throw my 2p's worth into this conversation.

Hypothetical:

A man is convicted for some sex crime or other and is chemically or otherwise castrated.

It later emerges that he's innocent of the crime(s) he was charged with and released from prison.

Question:

Should he be compensated for his 'loss' - after all, he might have been in a position prior to his illegal detention to start a family and now that opportunity is gone forever (unless some bright spark develops a way to re-grow testicles).

Should he have to carry the stigma that is given to those who perpetrate sex crimes with him for the rest of his life (as he surely will) regardless of whether or not he gets an apology from the local police for making a huge mistake in the first place.

Should he be able or indeed just go right ahead and sue the police for wrongful arrest, claim extra money from the government (either local or central) for the stress and suffering that he's endured.

--

Of course that's a hypothetical situation, but in real life I'm sure it's happened -- the wrong person gets arrested, charged and convicted for a crime that they haven't committed -- heck in the UK, innocent people were sent to the gallows because they were convicted of crimes they didn't do.

Your thoughts please.

Oh.. and before anyone jumps on the beat me down bandwagon - I know from personal experience what it's like to be accused of committing a crime that I didn't do.
 
Veyron said:
Hypothetical:

A man is convicted for some sex crime or other and is chemically or otherwise castrated.

It later emerges that he's innocent of the crime(s) he was charged with and released from prison.

Question:

Should he be compensated for his 'loss' - after all, he might have been in a position prior to his illegal detention to start a family and now that opportunity is gone forever (unless some bright spark develops a way to re-grow testicles).

Should he have to carry the stigma that is given to those who perpetrate sex crimes with him for the rest of his life (as he surely will) regardless of whether or not he gets an apology from the local police for making a huge mistake in the first place.

Should he be able or indeed just go right ahead and sue the police for wrongful arrest, claim extra money from the government (either local or central) for the stress and suffering that he's endured.


Oh.. and before anyone jumps on the beat me down bandwagon - I know from personal experience what it's like to be accused of committing a crime that I didn't do.
Click to expand...

The "chemical castration" is accomplished by giving the sex offender medication to suppress his libido, not actually castrating him, so simply stopping the treatment should reverse the condition.

And as far as I know, inmates later found to be innocent are given monetary compensation by the government, and I'm sure that there are an abundance of lawyers both willing and eager to represent them in court.
 
As white avenger says, most people committed of crimes they didn't commit, tend to get financial compensation and I know that over here, in the UK, there's also tends to be a lot of publicity around it; police apologising, them leaving prison etc. Not that I think a load of money is going to make them feel any better about it.

I agree with you Veyron about the stigma etc. People are always going to see you differently, and possibly even vigilante attacks.

It's not quite the same as what I just said above, but I remember hearing about a group of teenagers in the UK who attacked and beat a man who lived down their road because they found out he was a paediatrician (child doctor - not sure if you might have different terms for a child doctor in other countries!) and got a little bit muddled over paediatrician and paedophile!
Quite possibly one of the most ridiculous, and quite disturbing things I've ever heard!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom