I'm going to start off by apologising that what I'm about to ask may causes offense, or if if a subject like this shouldn't be discussed on the Bit-Tech forums (if a moderator feels that is the case, feel free to delete the post) Now with the apologies out of the way, I want to ask the question if it's ever justified, or if it would prevent further sex crimes if repeat offenders were castrated ? I know some may think this is a rather extreme view to hold but i feel something must be done to prevent repeat offenders, be that repeat rapists, or repeat pedophiles. We have the ability to either chemically, or physically castrate offenders and AFAIK doing so reduces their sex drive, if they can't control themselves isn't it our responsibility as a society to enforce control on them ? Isn't it our responsibility to protect those who can't protect them selves.
I think it's fully justifiable for repeating rape / paedophile offenders. In fact I sometimes wonder if people in general should be allowed to have so many children especially when you see the gene pool some of them come from
While most people would say "Yes, castrate those rapists and peadophiles, they're just going to do it again", Castration is technically a violation of their human rights. I don't think these scumbags should have rights as they barely qualify as a human, but it's just the way it works. Death penalties are abolished almost everywhere too. Most governments see Corporal Punishment as worse than Capital punishment because it inflicts pain and suffering for a long period of time and can be seen as an act of torture, most of them were abolished before Capital Punishments like hanging or beheading.
Well yes, it definitely does get in to another discussion if we want to talk about offenders like this having most of their human rights. I personally would say no, and totally agree with the idea.
We already live in a world where the media will print his full name, address and photo before he is convicted, so once you get accused of anything at all your life is over anyway, so capital punishment really just saves you the effort of killing yourself once the first accusation has been made.
i'm going to throw a spanner in, and say, what happens when it is later found that the supposed offender was actually wrongly convicted? that is part of the reason why the death penalty was revoked. i'm all for it, if it can be proved 100%, and that's the key, for anything permanent to be carried out, you must have irrefutable evidence. I also don't believe anyone should be named before a trial for sexual offences, as it can be very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff when questioning supposed victims.
That is the major problem. There is no such thing as 100% certain, unless there is a video evidence. How many people on death row in USA were freed after DNA tests have shown they couldn't commit the crime ? Lots. But at the time police, prosecution, judge and jury were all 100% certain he did it.
Aside from the human rights issue (which is an entirely reasonable argument in itself), the problem with castration is that it presumes the underlying issue with sex crimes is sex itself. In other words, if a man commits rape and is then castrated, he won't commit rape in the future because castration will remove his sex drive. The point is that rape, molestation, and all the other sex crimes aren't actually driven by a desire to have sex; they are displays of power. If you castrate a sex offender he will find other ways of exercising his power. Which leads me to my next argument. The usual support of castration is that by castrating a man, and therefore removing his sex drive, castration is a just form of punishment. But what does it show, really? To understand that we must first begin to understand why men rape or molest (read: understanding, not condoning - people often conflate the two). Typically, it is rooted in the desire for power and/or control. In the rapist'w world view, sexual assault is a legitimate method to exert power over someone else. Many times people commit sexual assault were victims themselves. That is how they formed that world view - you either get molested, or you are the one doing the molesting. They find that it's far better to give than to receive. Put yourself in the mindset of a rapist. In that context, what does castration prove? Does it demonstrate that in a civilized society, there are healthy and productive ways to exert authority - even further, that you don't necessarily have to exert authority to begin with? Or does it show that in a civilized society, sexual mutilation is a justified way to exert authority. In this context, all castration does is verify the rapist's world view. Once again, he is the one being abused, and it has reinforced his idea that it's better to be the one on the giving end. Let's assume, however, that you can make a solid argument in favor of castration for a man who are 100% guilty, without a doubt, no question about it, and you feel completely justified in castrating him. What about women? Ninja Edit: Indeed. In fact, in the USA there is no such thing as 100% certainty. Even video evidence means nothing without the proper context behind it. In a criminal case, the only thing the prosecution has to determine is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I too share the idea that when someone violates another person they should be denied human rights, after all they didn't extend those rights to the person they assaulted. But are we no better than them if we force something on them ? True there are people in jail who have been wrongly convicted, this is why i don't think it should be a first offense response, maybe use a three strike system, I mean whats the odds of someone being wrongly convicted three times ? This really get to the heart of the matter (IMHO) are sex crimes driven by a persons sex drive, or a deeper psychological problem ? IIRC I watched a TV program once that had sex offenders explaining what drove them to commit these crimes, from what i remember most seemed very meek personable people, one man even wanted to be castrated to take away the urges he kept feeling. So have we failed as a society to help that person deal with what happened to them in the past ? Don't convicted sex offenders have counseling in prison to help them deal with what they are feeling, yet still go on to offend again ? Did the counseling fail, or are the reason biological ? Don't we do the same when we lock them away, are we not exerting our authority on them. I would like to offer a counter point: If the reason someone commits a sex crime is actually driven by sexual desire, is it not the human thing to do ? If someone has mental health problems we provide them with drugs so they can lead a normal'(ish) life. True it isn't an ideal solution, but aren't the vast majority of sex crimes committed by men ? Doesn't the USA still have the death sentence ? It seems this 'solution' is 100% without doubt.
You guys are recommending a solution without examining where the urges come from. Supermonkey makes the point that it's not sexual in nature always. I'm going to go further and point out that MRIs show that the brains of repeat offenders show that their brains aren't like ours. And that there are ways to work on that without castration. Castration is an act of revenge, not punishment. It makes you feel satisfied that they got what they deserved, not that justice was done. There is no place for revenge in a system of justice. They are diametric opposites. You already dehumanize them, then you attack a part of them that isn't really even the issue to "punish" them. This is really a lot like the gay rights issues-consider that many people group them together. It runs both ways, you know. But even further on the subject, did you know that possibly as much as 60% of those convicted of sex crimes in the US are innocent? That there is absolutely no punishment for making a false report? Sheriff's deputies have come by to tell us there was an offender living a few doors down, but then said that he was accused as part of a divorce, and that they didn't give much weight to it. The supposed offense happened in this county, they were called out to investigate. Alabama grand jury took it out of their hands, prosecuted anyway. Man was forced to take a plea bargain (involving no jail) just to get it to stop because he couldn't afford a lawyer. That is the reality for a large part of sex offenders on the books. But by all means, let's take these people who may have clean records otherwise and many of whom never have any police contact afterward, and take their rights away because they're "sex offenders." We as a society are all too quick to accuse, give no recourse to judges or juries but a guilty verdict by the way we spread the information beforehand and make sure that if they don't have money they're going down. You can get 10 years for having taken a picture of your child without their diaper. Many parents and grandparents were convicted under this law and are now sex offenders. A man moons his buddy, there happens to be a child nearby, even though they didn't see. This man is now a sex offender charged with exposing himself. This is the reality of how most sex offenders are made. Abrogation of human rights for certain crimes has been a standard human reaction as long as there were humans. I support a death penalty-some people have become so dangerous that they can control crime syndicates in prison, for example, or people who are released from prison and that week commit more murders. If the person is a dedicated recidivist, or the details are both grotesque and true beyond doubt (leaving physical evidence, videotape, etc) I would support a quick, clean death to prevent this from happening again, because our laws and those that uphold them cannot contain this person. Some people really are rabid dogs, and need to be put down as such. But not the number we execute, and often not the ones we execute. We do not establish reasonable doubt, because that would take effort to do so, and we know how everyone hates effort. For those men who do habitually offend, if they wish to be castrated, let them be. If it is a matter of power, let the prison system have them (though it needs serious reforms) but if it is diagnosed to be a mental issue, there are mental hospitals where they would be taken care of properly, and their recidivism rates are much lower that way. Actually treating the problem helps more than a hastily applied revenge because what they did offends our sensibilities (even though it should.) In America, everyone is a single step from being a sex offender. Evidence is not necessary-just a good story. Would you castrate the lot of them, just because someone said something with no evidence to back it? You're not doctors, you don't know why they did it. You don't know if they even did it. All you know is what the news tells you, news designed to make people read it. Do we know enough to even make the call cogently?
i am for it for the worse offenders. sometimes i wish my hormones would switch off it's like a constant nagging making you ultimately have children, being released from that isn't a bad thing. for a pedo that temptation will always be there untill one day it gets too much and they abuse a child, if they can't control it then castration i think is a good idea. that few minutes after ejaculation before your hormones kick in again is what i imagine it's like.
As Supermonkey says: sex crimes are about power, not sex. Castration won't work (not to mention that no reputable doctor will do it). At most it will confirm the offender's world view. And as KayinBlack says: castration is about revenge, not punishment, not rehabilitation. Yes, convicted sex offenders do sometimes have access to counselling in prison, but they do not necessarily engage. Often they don't think they've done anything wrong; often they are in denial. Their mental health issues are also very entrenched and take a long time to treat.
I was wondering what was bothering me about forced castration, but Supermonkey brought it sharp focus here: I have sexual urges too, most healthy people do. And yet, depending on societies, rape is either prevalent or pretty rare. This suggests the problem lies more in the attitudes rather than in the biology. What I would support, however, is "encouraging" castration. Maybe even give a discount in jail terms to sexual offenders willing to go with the procedure, or any other bribe. On a loosely related note: I remember seeing on TV a lady that started a "charity" whereby she gave money, a few hundred quids, to drug dependent mothers with already a few children in foster care, in return for accepting to be "sterilised". I thought it was a brilliant idea and yet there was an uproar about it.
Different thing altogether. Voluntary sterilisation is an effective way of stopping reproduction. Enforced castration is not an effective way of stopping sex crime (it might result in a false sense of security though, and result in the release of dangerous offenders). If you castrate an offender, he will need to take testosterone hormone to prevent gynaecomastia (moons), weight gain, osteoporosis, increased risk of heart disease and depression (men use their testicles for more than just shooting their load, you know). This testosterone will put his sex drive back into default state. So congratulations! You have not changed anything. But that doesn't matter anyway because sex crimes are acts of humiliation, dominance and power. Of course enforced castration is an act of humiliation, dominance and power too, enforcing the world view of the offender. Kiss any engagement in therapy goodbye. Meanwhile the offender may now be spurred on to commit even more violent sex crimes to compensate form his perceived loss of masculinity, power and control. So arguably you made things slightly worse.
what about chemical castration as its reversible - so would protect anyone wrongly accused and because its not actually surgically removing anything would it still enforce the offenders world view? sorry for the double post. I have no idea why it happened?
But isn't the brain effected by our hormones ? So wouldn't castration have an effect on the brain, if you have ever owned a dog you will know they are right randy buggers, but once they are neutered they calm right down. I don't think anyone is saying castration should be the first port of call, but if someone has been convicted, has served time in jail, has gone through treatment programs, etc, etc. Then maybe as a last resort, if everything else has failed to prevent them from re-offending. But when all other options have been explored and they continue to violate people, then what ? As i mentioned earlier, some serial sex offenders have actually said they want to be castrated, but as you mention no reputable doctor will do it. I could be showing my ignorance on the subject but isn't there also chemical castration ? Does that have similar results as taking a knife to the family jewels ?
"Please take these tablets which will chemically neuter you and grow you a nice pair of man-bobs. If you refuse, we'll hold you down and inject you by force." Sound humiliating, domineering and intrusive enough? And hey, if you're found to be innocent, no harm done, surely? People are not dogs (didn't we just have a conversation about the trouble with oversimplification? ). This is your clinical psychologist (C Psychol. AFBPsS; HPC registered NHS professional with 20 years clinical practice) speaking: IT DOES NOT WORK. Then do something that works. Lock them up for life. Some offenders do ask for castration. That doesn't mean it works; it means that they are psychologically messed up and caught in complex drama triangles and abuser-victim reciprocal role dynamics which would take more than one short post to explain. Yes, that's the whole point of it.
