Europe discusses castration for sex offenders

[Cynthetiq]

View: Europeans Debate Castration of Sex Offenders
Source: Nytimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

Europeans Debate Castration of Sex Offenders
March 11, 2009
Europeans Debate Castration of Sex Offenders
By DAN BILEFSKY

PRAGUE — Pavel remembers the violent night sweats two days before the murder. He went to see a family doctor, who said they would go away. But after viewing a Bruce Lee martial arts film, he said, he felt uncontrollable sexual desires. He invited a 12-year-old neighbor home. Then he stabbed the boy repeatedly.

His psychiatrist says Pavel derived his sexual pleasure from the violence.

More than 20 years have passed. Pavel, then 18, spent seven years in prison and five years in a psychiatric institution. During his last year in prison, he asked to be surgically castrated. Having his testicles removed, he said, was like draining the gasoline from a car hard-wired to crash. A large, dough-faced man, he is sterile and has forsaken marriage, romantic relationships and sex, he said. His life revolves around a Catholic charity, where he is a gardener.

“I can finally live knowing that I am no harm to anybody,” he said during an interview at a McDonald’s here, as children played loudly nearby. “I am living a productive life. I want to tell people that there is help.”

He refused to give his last name for fear of being hounded.

Whether castration can help rehabilitate violent sex offenders has come under new scrutiny after the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee last month called surgical castration “invasive, irreversible and mutilating” and demanded that the Czech Republic stop offering the procedure to violent sex offenders. Other critics said that castration threatened to lead society down a dangerous road toward eugenics.

The Czech Republic has allowed at least 94 prisoners over the past decade to be surgically castrated. It is the only country in Europe that uses the procedure for sex offenders. Czech psychiatrists supervising the treatment — a one-hour operation that involves removal of the tissue that produces testosterone — insist that it is the most foolproof way to tame sexual urges in dangerous predators suffering from extreme sexual disorders.

Surgical castration has been a means of social control for centuries. In ancient China, eunuchs were trusted to serve the imperial family inside the palace grounds; in Italy several centuries ago, youthful male choir members were castrated to preserve their high singing voices.

These days it can be used to treat testicular cancer and some advanced cases of prostate cancer.

Now, more countries in Europe are considering requiring or allowing chemical castration for violent sex offenders. There is intense debate over whose rights take precedence: those of sex offenders, who could be subjected to a punishment that many consider cruel, or those of society, which expects protection from sexual predators.

Poland is expected to become the first nation of the European Union to give judges the right to impose chemical castration on at least some convicted pedophiles, using hormonal drugs to curb sexual appetite; the impetus for the change was the arrest of a 45-year-old man in September who had fathered two children by his young daughter. Spain, after a convicted pedophile killed a child, is considering plans to offer chemical castration.

Last year, the governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, signed legislation requiring courts to order chemical castration for offenders convicted of certain sex crimes a second time.

In the Czech Republic, the issue was brought home last month when Antonin Novak, 43, was sentenced to life in prison after raping and killing Jakub Simanek, a 9-year-old boy who disappeared last May. Mr. Novak, who had served four and a half years in prison for sexual offenses in Slovakia, had been ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, but had failed to show up several months before the murder. Advocates of surgical castration argued that had he been castrated, the tragedy could have been prevented.

Hynek Blasko, Jakub’s father, expressed indignation that human rights groups were putting the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims. “My personal tragedy is that my son is in heaven and he is never coming back, and all I have left of him is 1.5 kilograms of ashes,” he said in an interview. “No one wants to touch the rights of the pedophiles, but what about the rights of a 9-year-old boy with his life ahead of him?”

Ales Butala, a Slovenian human rights lawyer who led the Council of Europe’s delegation to the Czech Republic, argued that surgical castration was unethical, because it was not medically necessary and deprived castrated men of the right to reproduce. He also challenged its effectiveness, saying that the council’s committee had discovered three cases of castrated Czech sex offenders who had gone on to commit violent crimes, including pedophilia and attempted murder.

Although the procedure is voluntary, Mr. Butala said that he believed some offenders felt they had no choice.

“Sex offenders are requesting castration in hope of getting released from a life of incarceration,” he said. “Is that really free and informed consent?”

But government health officials here and some Czech psychiatrists counter that castration can be effective and argue that by seeking to outlaw the practice, the council is putting potential victims at risk.

Dr. Martin Holly, a leading sexologist and psychiatrist who is director of the Psychiatric Hospital Bohnice in Prague, said none of the nearly 100 sex offenders who had been physically castrated had committed further offenses.

A Danish study of 900 castrated sex offenders in the 1960s suggested the rate of repeat offenses dropped after surgical castration to 2.3 percent from 80 percent.

But human rights groups say that such studies are inconclusive because they rely on self-reporting by sex offenders. Other psychiatric experts argue that sexual pathology is in the brain and cannot be cured by surgery.

Dr. Holly, who has counseled convicted sex offenders for four decades, stressed that the procedure was being allowed only for repeat violent offenders who suffered from severe sexual disorders. Moreover, he said, the procedure is undertaken only with the informed consent of the patient and with the approval of an independent committee of psychiatric and legal experts.

Jaroslav Novak, chief of urology at the Faculty Hospital Na Bulovce in Prague, said: “This is not a very common procedure. We carry it out maybe once every one to two years at most.”

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

Dr. Fred S. Berlin, founder of the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins University, argued that chemical castration was less physically harmful than surgery and that it provided a safeguard, because a psychiatrist could inform the courts or police if the patient ordered to undergo treatment failed to show up. A surgically castrated patient, Dr. Berlin said, can order testosterone over the Internet.

For Hynek Blasko, the father of Jakub Simanek, neither form of castration is the answer. “These people must be under permanent detention where they can be monitored,” he said. “There has to be a difference between the rights of the victim and the perpetrator.”

This is a tough one. If the invididual requests it, why not? If they are coerced, it's a bit different, but if they do it of their own free will AND are able to stay off the sex offenders list, I'm game for trying it here in the US. Of course, it takes one moron who has a mental predisposition and pathology to harm individuals to have this option taken away.

I'm probably even for it being imposed for multiple offenders.

The reduction in rate from 80% to 2% may be incorrect as sighted by the article, but even if the rate is a drop to 30% or even 10% isn't that better? One person or more less harmed?

Do you think that it is acceptable as a choice? Do you think that it should be imposed?

[Xerxys]

I have so many questions. I know testosterone is produced mainly in the testicles but I thought sex happens in the head, not the penis. Isn't the pituitary gland responsible for 80% of the things that go on in the human body? Then what would stop someone from feeling the satisfaction of stabbing someone the same way normal folk feel when they complete a task? -- short of a lobotomy, how does this work?!!

Secondly, can someone describe what "rehabilitation" means? We rehabilitate muggers, people who commit robberies. Folk that hurt other people can NOT be rehabilitated. And this is a wide range IMHO. From PIMPS to rapists to murderes. They are all alike. They lack the complete connection that is empathy for others. In fact, I have to go further and say they feed off it.

If it helps and actually drops the percantage of repeat offenders by a significant amount, then why hasn't it been enforced damnit, I mean, Sex offenders are actually sick, not like an addiction which in many cases can be controlled, but actually ill. This my friends, is actually a cure!!

[Cynthetiq]

with regards to folk who hurt other folk, really? what about people who happen to have done it in a momentary fit for whatever reasons of passion or anger?

If you haven't seen what qualifies as sex offender status, you're in for a big surprise to label them as "actually sick"

[Xerxys]

I shouldn't have generalized. In the article it says 'certain' types of registered sex offenders, hence I have to keep to my vote. Enforce it.

[Cynthetiq]

Can you explain better what you mean by enforced? You mean continued incarceration?

[Xerxys]

Personally yes, I would prefer incarceration. But I mean castration. Of course this method reserved for the most henious of crimes. According to the article (seeing as I know nothing about castration) it appears to work. Simply put, that to me is a cure much like amputation is a cure to gangrene.

[Manic_Skafe]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Do you think that it is acceptable as a choice? Do you think that it should be imposed?

I'm all for it as long as the criminal is allowed to make the choice without being forced, coerced or offered incentives to undergo the procedure. Hell, I'm all for regular law abiding citizens being able to have their yarbles lopped off if that's what they want.

But forcing a person to undergo such a procedure is just plain wrong. Just as we don't prescribe lobotomies to violent schizophrenics, we shouldn't allow incredible acts of violence to drag us into the stone ages.

Hynek Blasko, Jakub’s father, expressed indignation that human rights groups were putting the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims. “My personal tragedy is that my son is in heaven and he is never coming back, and all I have left of him is 1.5 kilograms of ashes,” he said in an interview. “No one wants to touch the rights of the pedophiles, but what about the rights of a 9-year-old boy with his life ahead of him?”

Smells like vengeance to me.

[Xerxys]

I thought if I wanted to I could do this of my own free will.

Manic, are you saying that it wouldn't help at all if it were to be imposed?

[FuglyStick]

A complicated question. Rehabilitation should be the primary objective, even dealing with sex offenders. And their illness isn't in their testicles, it's in their mind.

That being said, I have little sympathy for sex offenders, illness or no. Which is why I am glad I don't have to make those decisions.

[highthief]

Voluntary castration? OK, sure.

Involuntary castration? Not a chance. Why not just go back to the rack, thumbscrews and lopping the hands off of thieves while we're at it?

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by highthief

Voluntary castration? OK, sure.

Involuntary castration? Not a chance. Why not just go back to the rack, thumbscrews and lopping the hands off of thieves while we're at it?

Well if we gave repeat offenders the voluntary choice of lopping off their hand instead of 20 years incarceration...

[blahblah454]

I have no sympathy for sex offenders. I suppose many might have a mental condition but I still find it incredibly hard to find even an ounce of compassion for them.

I think I might be for lopping the hands off of thieves. I suppose it depends on what exactly was stolen and how it was done and such... but if that is the punishment and its a well known fact that you will have a hand (or two) removed for doing it then its the thief own fault.

I also think that each and every person who gets caught drinking and driving should be charged with attempted murder. For those of you who say thats pretty extreme for someone who made a mistake, well too fucking bad. I was taught that it is wrong, had friends lose their lives to drunk drivers, had friends who drank and drove, and I stand by how I feel about it.

I suppose just be thankful it is not someone like me who makes the rules.

[Glory's Sun]

Are we arguing this for all sex offenders or just the violent and repeat offenders? It discourages me a little bit that the term is used so loosely and with little empathy. The point is being made that sex offenders that are repeat offenders lack the empathy emotion in their brain, yet, the same type of thing is evidenced in this thread. I don't really need to bring the argument in that there are so many on the list that shouldn't be.

There is no definitive right answer to this question. If a person has been found to be incapable of rehabilitation, cutting their nuts off isn't going to do anything, especially if they are violent offenders. It's a mental disease and should be treated as such in the cases that it is found to exist.

[Manic_Skafe]

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Manic, are you saying that it wouldn't help at all if it were to be imposed?

Whether or not it would be effective is besides the point. While a shotgun blast to the face would cure recurrent headaches, there are obviously better solutions.

Originally Posted by blahblah454

Kill 'em all!!!

[FuglyStick]

Originally Posted by blahblah454

I also think that each and every person who gets caught drinking and driving should be charged with attempted murder. For those of you who say thats pretty extreme for someone who made a mistake, well too fucking bad. I was taught that it is wrong, had friends lose their lives to drunk drivers, had friends who drank and drove, and I stand by how I feel about it.

The problem with this argument is that talking on a cell phone while driving is just as dangerous as driving under the influence. Those that rant about the evils of driving under the influence (which I am not defending) use the general "alcohol is evil" morality to support their opinions.

If you are going to take the "hardliners" stance, make sure you apply it to everyone, not just to your convenient cause.

[Xerxys]

I don't know about using the term "loosely". I do however hope that FuglyStick and blahblah454 wouldn't castrate the kids in this thread had they been found guilty and labelled sex offenders.

As far as that goes, not everyone is equal. There are certain measures we implement like age (adulthood) and mental status to gauge whether or not one can differentiate between right and wrong. Court comes in here.

This method properly used, would in fact solve a lot of problems. I say enforce it on sex offenders of a certain degree.

Manic, This can't seriously be akin to a shotgun to cure headaches or going after a mosquito with a hammer. This is appropriate.

Sex offenders have the argument behind them that "My brain made me do it" which is true. Remove the cause of this and we have a solution.

(According to the article, of course.)

[FuglyStick]

Point taken, Xerxys, which is why I said I was glad I didn't have to make those decisions. On a case be case basis, I would like to think I could be fair; when it comes to a uniform policy, however, I'll admit that I would not.

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by FuglyStick

On a case be case basis, I would like to think I could be fair; when it comes to a uniform policy, however, I'll admit that I would not.

I think a case by case basis is the only correct measure that this law could really exist. Otherwise, we'd have the public urinators, the 18 year old who fucked his 16 year old girlfriend and the *gasp* innocents being castrated for no reason. If a person commits a violent sexual act.. then maybe they should be castrated, but seriously, what is that going to really do? Create a mentally unstable person who is now more unstable because they are mutilated. It doesn't take a dick to cause violent sexual acts... and this law doesn't even begin to address female sex offenders.

The whole sex offender registry is a joke.

and btw, I've had a friend killed because of drinking and driving too, but I'm not going to sit here and say they should be put away for life because they fucked up. A hardline stance does nobody justice in the end. It's not going to bring back anyone.

[ASU2003]

Originally Posted by guccilvr

If a person commits a violent sexual act.. then maybe they should be castrated, but seriously, what is that going to really do? Create a mentally unstable person who is now more unstable because they are mutilated. It doesn't take a dick to cause violent sexual acts... and this law doesn't even begin to address female sex offenders.

The whole sex offender registry is a joke.

and btw, I've had a friend killed because of drinking and driving too, but I'm not going to sit here and say they should be put away for life because they fucked up. A hardline stance does nobody justice in the end. It's not going to bring back anyone.

The question is, would the criminal still do this, if they knew that this would be the punishment for a violent crime?

You know, I'm not going to steal anything in the Middle East.

[dksuddeth]

is rape/sexual assault no longer about 'control', but actually about nothing but sex?

[Xerxys]

I know that in the real world many things often have the same effect. There are many causes of Pedophilia for example.

I read this article here that convinced me that there is more than one cause...

Source:
Psychology Today: The Mind of a Child Molester

The Mind of a Child Molester   click to show 

The Mind of a Child Molester

By: Amy Hammel-Zabin

You may have met convicted sex offender Alan X. He didn't skulk behind bushes, instead he cultivated his victims amid their families, churches and, yes, Boy Scouts troops. This cunning sociopath manipulated and molested more than 1,000 boys by becoming their best friend. Here he turns a laser-sharp eye on himself.

I was 7 when I first offended. I lured a boy of 5 into a storage shed and manipulated him into pulling down his pants and underpants. It was in the middle of summer, and the child was wearing no shirt, shoes or socks, so when he submitted to my demands, he was standing naked before me. Once he had stood there for a moment or two, staring at the floor to avoid my eyes, I told him to get dressed, and after bribing him to keep our secret, we left.

Although I had no physical contact with the boy, the absolute high came for me the instant the child undid the snap to open his pants. I felt as if electricity were pouring through me. I enjoyed making him stand there, but the rest of his act, actually taking the pants down, was not nearly as exciting as when he made the first move indicating that he was going to do what I wanted.

I was the youngest of three children born into a middle-class working family. I never really wanted for any physical necessity nor was I ever subjected to any form of physical abuse.

My family operated in a very cold, detached and formal fashion. Communications between us were more an exercise in intelligence and civility than a genuine sharing of feelings, experience and concern.

When I entered school, life became more confusing. My classmates and teachers made up a world of noise, emotion and direct confrontation beyond my experience. It wasn't long after I started school that I discovered masturbation. Although I viewed everyone around me as being different from myself, I enjoyed sharing this pleasure with another kid. I was almost immediately caught engaging in mutual fondling with a boy younger than myself. My mother's reaction had a tremendous impact on me. She was horrified.

For the only time in my life, I witnessed her being emotional and out of control. She dragged me into the bathroom and attempted to "scrub" the dirt off me, while screaming, "Only twisted, sick and evil people do things like that!"

I quickly found myself being asked to Sunday dinner or to drinks by a variety of church families. I was attracted to invitations from young families who had sons. When I first began going to this type of household, I tried to act as if the boy didn't exist. I wanted to portray myself as a young man who was pleasant to children but quite clearly not overly comfortable around them.

Slowly, I'd expand my contact with the boy I had targeted, and if my initial feelings regarding his potential were good, I would offer to let him tag along the next time I was heading out from their house to the mall or on some errand. Once I had the child alone, even in these brief initial instances, I fell back to the first step of the pattern that I had used my entire life. I attempted to get him to "open up." And I learned what may have been the single most important lesson in becoming a manipulative predator: I learned to listen.

By listening to a boy, sharing secrets and encouraging him to talk about everything that was on his mind, he usually wanted to spend time with me and inadvertently provide me with all that I needed to know about his personal vulnerabilities to victimize him. I found that most people loved to talk about themselves if given the chance; and that they would, once convinced you could be trusted, sit and tell you absolutely everything about themselves and their families. I think it was clear to me even at 11 and 12 that these boys felt nobody ever really listened to them.

Secrecy, though, was also a critical weapon both to entice and ensnare my victims. In childhood, having a secret was the ultimate status symbol. It added a feeling of importance, prestige and the sense of control.

My methods were designed to build, very slowly, a child's acceptance of the need for secrets. At the same time, secrecy gave me the opportunity to make a child believe that I was the only person in the world who really cared for him and looked out for him.

I would test the boy to see if he had the ability to keep a secret. I would, for example, swear in front of him. Having done this, I would explain that I should not have and ask him to keep my mistake just between the two of us.

I waited to see if he did, in fact, keep quiet about the incident. If he didn't, I would then immediately end all attempts at victimizing him. On the other hand, if after a week it was clear that this secret had been kept, I escalated the process.

Keeping all of these seemingly minor secrets built up a feeling of equal responsibility and equal guilt in this totally innocent child. And it was this inability to inform on me without having to explain his own willing participation that finally kept him captive to my sick desires.

Secrets became proof of our mutual trust. Little by little, all of his possible reservations and inhibitions were shed, and he began to come to me with every complaint, question and request. In most cases, the victim would call me to discuss how to handle his parents when he wanted to do something they might not normally allow.

Alan was caught when a mother found a Polaroid of her son in a sexual position. Multiple victims came forward. Alan pleaded guilty on all charges and received five to six consecutive life sentences with no parole.

Before I was sentenced, I was put on Lupron [an anti-androgen that lowers testosterone]. My entire life changed. I cannot remember a period in my life when I was not acting out and spending hours lost in fantasy and plotting. Nothing that I did proved sufficient to break this destructive obsession until I was put on Lupron.

Obviously, Lupron, or any other form of chemical castration, does not alter the mind's ability to conjure up deviant thoughts. But without the ability to achieve gratification, the thoughts are short-lived. The most stimulating and erotic of ideas has little appeal when the body refuses to respond. For the first time, I could go to sleep without fantasizing and masturbating. I often lay in bed at night asking myself what life could have been like if I had been given this drug 20 or 30 years earlier.

Another critical part of the recovery process is peer groups. I have seen genuine progress made with fellow offenders, simply through the process of being surrounded by peers and therefore having to face the reality that they are neither alone nor different from other offenders.

Most of the guys in prison would enjoy nothing more than having the opportunity to get back out into the world, if only briefly. The world remains for me one that I simply can't handle. As they were taking me from the transport van into the hospital for medical testing I had to walk past a 12-year-old boy. All of the old feelings came crashing down. I felt as if this kid were a magnet pulling me toward him. If nothing else, I am glad that I am tightly confined behind iron bars.

Amy Hammel-Zabin, Ph.D., is a music therapist at New York University. She met Alan while working as a therapist in the prison where he is incarcerated. This excerpt is based on letters he wrote to Hammel-Zabin.

In this guys case ... in a nutshell. He was a social degenerate. Yes. It's his fault for being what he is. Sure his family was clinical and cold but he was unable to develop the intelligence to see past that. I grew up cold and disconnected but I dont seek high's from doing anything this perverse ....

I hear it now ... people are different bla bla bla ..... The point is he was able to stop this shit because of the medication.

C'mon people .... agree or disagree!! I am determined to convince you castration would prevent repeat offenders.

EDIT: Just saw dk's post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape

According to the article though ... the perp said he was unable to sustain any "thoughts" because his body didn't respond after the medication.

[wayneferrell479]

Certainly may help prevent re-offenders and put off casual maybe offenders

[Manic_Skafe]

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Manic, This can't seriously be akin to a shotgun to cure headaches or going after a mosquito with a hammer. This is appropriate.

Then I suppose this is where our opinions differ. I respect the right of sex offenders to live their lives just as everyone else does after they've served their time - even repeat offenders. Some of which may be beyond rehabilitation but castration won't serve as a miracle cure in helping them.

It may reduce aggressive/violent behavior but there are much less barbaric solutions that don't involve permanent disfigurement. I'd go on but Gucci and Hightheif have already said it.

Sex offenders have the argument behind them that "My brain made me do it" which is true. Remove the cause of this and we have a solution.

A Clockwork Orange

Who'd have thought such a defense was so common? I can't seem to remember a single case in which this defense has been used - how has it effected sentencing?

In this guys case ... in a nutshell. He was a social degenerate. Yes. It's his fault for being what he is. Sure his family was clinical and cold but he was unable to develop the intelligence to see past that. I grew up cold and disconnected but I dont seek high's from doing anything this perverse ....

Yeah, because there's no correlation at all between being abused and becoming an abuser. If you can see past his issues then why can't he?

Ridiculous.

[mixedmedia]

In this guys case ... in a nutshell. He was a social degenerate. Yes. It's his fault for being what he is. Sure his family was clinical and cold but he was unable to develop the intelligence to see past that. I grew up cold and disconnected but I dont seek high's from doing anything this perverse ....

Perhaps then it is lost on you that many repeat violent/sexual offenders are highly intelligent. More intelligent than average, as a matter of fact. 'Perversity' has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with genetics and environment. Nature and nurture.

As for castration, I'm not staunchly against it for the worst offenders, but I don't think our justice system is equipped to implement it fairly, justly or effectively. There would have to be a major overhaul in the way we look at sex crimes and how perpetrators are classified. I don't see that happening in a society so pressured by hyperbole when it comes to sex crimes and the public's ready exchange of vengeance for justice.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by ASU2003

The question is, would the criminal still do this, if they knew that this would be the punishment for a violent crime?

Harsh punishments don't work as a deterrent because the vast majority of criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they thought they would be caught.

Originally Posted by wayneferrell479

Certainly may help prevent re-offenders and put off casual maybe offenders

Casual offenders? Is that a guy who thinks, "hmm, I could play Xbox live, but ... nah, I think I'll go rape someone instead"?

[Terrell]

I'm opposed to castration for rapists and child molesters. (I hate the term sex offender because it's broader than the crimes we're actually discussing). I think those who rape people, whether their victims are adults or children should be sent to prison for very long periods of time. Life without parole is acceptable.

One of the problems I have with castration is that it's irreversible, and if you castrate an innocent man for rape, you cannot put his balls back on. I also wonder, particularily on our side of the pond, if standards of proof are high enough. I also wonder about juries wanting to err on the side of the victim, when they're not sure (when the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the accused). Another problem is that there is no equivalent punishment for women who rape or molest. This punishment is specific to one gender, and doesn't that fly in the face of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

[DaniGirl]

I heard of castration as a means to rapists and child molesters, but I didn't know how effective it could be. I think its something that should be used in some cases. But it is extreme. It would be fine if prison worked, but in a lot of cases the rapist is back on the streets in as little as 5 years.

[Plan9]

Wait...

Originally Posted by Crompsin's Smoothspot

THESE AREN'T THE KIND OF FRIENDS I WANT TO HAVE!

...

I'm a hardcore nutjob, so I'm all for castration. I think anyone convicted of blatantly obvious blind-man-could-see-it molestation charges should lose their nuts. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until you violate the law. It's only fitting kid-touching creepazoids lose their manjunk. Eye for an eye, manjunk for a kidjunk violation. Obviously, this would require careful legalese to prevent it from being used on public pissers and the like.

Depo-style chemical castration isn't enough. I don't feel that castration is about vengeance, it's about permanent measures to show the severity of the offense. And, hell, castration is cheap 'n easy justice. Whether it stops Joe Specific isn't as valuable as the general deterrence.

How many guys joke about how they'd rather die than wake up without their junk?

Granted, I'm also for the death penalty, abortion, and upping the double nickel speed limit. Humans are garbage.

[DaniGirl]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

...

I think anyone convicted of blatantly obvious blind-man-could-see-it molestation charges should lose their nuts.

Eye for an eye, manjunk for a kidjunk violation.

That is awesome, I could not have said it better!!!!

[Plan9]

I wonder how those against the death penalty feel about this issue. It's just so cruel to punish blatant criminals with a fitting physical justice.

Originally Posted by MSD

Harsh punishments don't work as a deterrent because the vast majority of criminals wouldn't commit crimes if they thought they would be caught.

Or prosecuted. Or sentenced for an appropriate crime (plea bargain GO!). Or kept locked up for their full sentence. Courts are one big fail circus.

...

It's easy to look at the (US) legal system and throw up your hands and suggest that deterrence is useless and that punishment is fruitless. "They'll just do it anyway." Okay, so do nothing? Anybody who's taken a 300 level justice class knows that preventative / preemptive Dr. Phil social programs would fix a lot more crime issues than any combination of harsh punishments, but I believe that harsh punishments work as a deterrent when they're less mysterious and more brutal. Don't discount the hammer because the helping hand is often more appropriate a tool for dealing with wayward citizens. You still need to keep the hammer in your toolbox and use it occasionally... and when you do, don't dick around with the fucker... slam it with a purpose. Take those nuts!

To me, the death penalty is useless because it involves of finality and how fucking long it takes to kill someone who actually deserves it. It's all "oh noes they might kill me in 19 years after 32 appeals." Castration could be made quick, painless, and may have quite the psychological effect on men.

Hell, I get really nervous just thinking about getting a simple vasectomy.

...

Probably doesn't need to be stated, but I'll drop it anyway: This type of extreme punishment would only be reserved for a very specific group of offenders.

[Reese]

Probably doesn't need to be stated, but I'll drop it anyway: This type of extreme punishment would only be reserved for a very specific group of offenders.

To be determined by who? A judge? A psychiatrist? A vengeful jury?
This and the question Does it actually work are my only two problems. Our sex offender list is already flooder with 14 year old sexters and other completely harmless people, can they really guarantee it'll be used like we all think it should be?

I'm all for voluntary castrations, hell, The government should pay for them for anyone that wants it without question. Maybe we'll actually prevent a crime when a would be sex offender decides to cull his urges before he actually commits a sex crime.

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

I wonder how those against the death penalty feel about this issue. It's just so cruel to punish blatant criminals with a fitting physical justice.



Or prosecuted. Or sentenced for an appropriate crime (plea bargain GO!). Or kept locked up for their full sentence. Courts are one big fail circus.

...

It's easy to look at the (US) legal system and throw up your hands and suggest that deterrence is useless and that punishment is fruitless. "They'll just do it anyway." Okay, so do nothing? Anybody who's taken a 300 level justice class knows that preventative / preemptive Dr. Phil social programs would fix a lot more crime issues than any combination of harsh punishments, but I believe that harsh punishments work as a deterrent when they're less mysterious and more brutal. Don't discount the hammer because the helping hand is often more appropriate a tool for dealing with wayward citizens. You still need to keep the hammer in your toolbox and use it occasionally... and when you do, don't dick around with the fucker... slam it with a purpose. Take those nuts!

To me, the death penalty is useless because it involves of finality and how fucking long it takes to kill someone who actually deserves it. It's all "oh noes they might kill me in 19 years after 32 appeals." Castration could be made quick, painless, and may have quite the psychological effect on men.

Hell, I get really nervous just thinking about getting a simple vasectomy.

...

Probably doesn't need to be stated, but I'll drop it anyway: This type of extreme punishment would only be reserved for a very specific group of offenders.

I don't think this takes into consideration that pedophilia is a compulsion and not simply a choice. I don't think that the deterrence of castration would be as compelling to a true pedophile as it would be to other child molesters...and those pedophiles are the ones we're really after, right? The 'specific group of offenders?' The end result, just as in the death penalty, is punishment for its own sake rather than prevention. You may call that doing something, but I call it an afterthought. What we need to be doing is trying to identify and detain true pedophiles early on, which would mean realizing that not all child molestations are created equal. But we've got so much inappropriate emotional garbage invested in the idea of sex with children that we (in actuality) imperil them over and over again. People are so fucked up.

[Hyacinthe]

I've actually had discussions with friends and family on this exact topic.

A big part of me supports the idea of enforced surgical castration because I don't believe any child should be raised to see someone who has the inherent darkness in them that habitual sex offenders do as a good person or role model. Children deserve better then that. In the case of Women I support chemical or surgical sterilization as an equivalent, as in the removal of ovaries not forcing her to use a contraceptive.

So who do I think it should be used on - as I stated before habitual offenders, 3 strikes ( or 3 counts of violent sexual assault) the 3rd one you're convicted of - compulsory sterilization. By doing something like that not once, not twice but 3 times means that you have had two chances you know actions like the ones you have previously committed are wrong and you have CHOSEN to do them any way. If the rehabilitatin hasn't taken the first or second time I think it is a waste of taxpayer resources to keep trying to implant a moral compass in those people.

Luckily Terell not being American I don't have to give a fig for the amendments to your constitution

I don't think that it would treat the underlying issue though, if the violent tendencies are caused not by testosterone but because the person enjoys the power trip that sexually assaulting someone gives them it could just make the situation worse - leading to sexual assault with a foreign object for example. I'll admit few things have scared me as much as the sight of a long necked beer bottle did for a few years.

Am I perhaps being vengeful? Maybe but honestly I don't care, being nice to these people and trying to help them hasn't worked the frequency of violent sexual assault continues to climb on a global level maybe it's time to try the opposite route and simply remove their DNA from the gene pool. If you believe that pedophiles are born from a genetic disposition ( alot of psychiatric illnesses are geneticall based for example) then you logically should be all for this plan.

[tisonlyi]

Horrifyingly, I have sympathy for Bobby Jindal's law.

There's no getting away from the fact that _repeat_ paedophiles are pretty much incurable. There's no regime of meditation and orientation that can rewire that sexual part of the brain.

There was a documentary recently A Place For Paedophiles (you might/will be able to get it from here) which documents some aspects of a draconian facility in the US, for people who had completed their sentences in prison, but were still not being allowed out onto the streets. There were people there who were undergoing therapy, but still... You don't get the impression that they're reformed. There was also a man who was about to be/had been castrated... He was still disturbing, but the fact that his purely sexual urges will be reduced to almost zero, his urges for domination or power will also be dramatically reduced at least gives you some confidence that his likelihood of recidivism would be reduced.

AFAIK, it's impossible to achieve an erection in the absence of testicles without some testosterone patches and planning hours in advance.

I think, by now, no-one can deny that there is such a tiny hope of reform for paedophiles that death, life incarceration or castration can start to be seen as the only options.

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Wait...



...

I'm a hardcore nutjob, so I'm all for castration. I think anyone convicted of blatantly obvious blind-man-could-see-it molestation charges should lose their nuts. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until you violate the law. It's only fitting kid-touching creepazoids lose their manjunk. Eye for an eye, manjunk for a kidjunk violation. Obviously, this would require careful legalese to prevent it from being used on public pissers and the like.

Depo-style chemical castration isn't enough. I don't feel that castration is about vengeance, it's about permanent measures to show the severity of the offense. And, hell, castration is cheap 'n easy justice. Whether it stops Joe Specific isn't as valuable as the general deterrence.

How many guys joke about how they'd rather die than wake up without their junk?

Granted, I'm also for the death penalty, abortion, and upping the double nickel speed limit. Humans are garbage.

so all you would need is a conviction to support this act? even if someone was wrongfully convicted? I mean.. fuck.. it's one thing to give someone some money because they were wrongfully convicted, but I think handing them their nuts in a jar isn't going to be any sort of condolence for the fuck up.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I don't think this takes into consideration that pedophilia is a compulsion and not simply a choice. I don't think that the deterrence of castration would be as compelling to a true pedophile as it would be to other child molesters...and those pedophiles are the ones we're really after, right? The 'specific group of offenders?' The end result, just as in the death penalty, is punishment for its own sake rather than prevention. You may call that doing something, but I call it an afterthought. What we need to be doing is trying to identify and detain true pedophiles early on, which would mean realizing that not all child molestations are created equal. But we've got so much inappropriate emotional garbage invested in the idea of sex with children that we (in actuality) imperil them over and over again. People are so fucked up.

Hahaha... afterthought.

Tell me, what part of the criminal justice (courts) system isn't an afterthought, MixedMedia? This isn't Minority Report, we're very reactive here.

I do concur that hardcore pedophiles won't be deterred by anything, including the death penalty or being forced to watch Billy Mays ads for 96 hours straight. Their twisted Chester brains are screaming for perversion and they'll go for it regardless. It's worse than a drug addiction because the feenin' comes from the inside, without external chemical "motivation."

Ugh, afterthought. Once again... "do nothing." So what kind of proactive measures should we take to screen the men of America to determine whether or not they're child molesters / pedophiles? Figure out the magical molester gene and screen the country? What kind of psychological battery can determine such things? And what about Our Rights? "Innocent until proven guilty" probably means "don't screen me, I didn't do anything yet."

My limited education has taught me that "yet" is key word in the criminal justice system.

...

Originally Posted by guccilvr

so all you would need is a conviction to support this act? even if someone was wrongfully convicted? I mean.. fuck.. it's one thing to give someone some money because they were wrongfully convicted, but I think handing them their nuts in a jar isn't going to be any sort of condolence for the fuck up.

Yeah, a solid conviction. That thing where we believe in the system for ten seconds based on forensics such as DNA evidence (Sir, do you mind telling us how your semen got into the child's rectum?), maybe witnesses or other high tech shit. Beyond A Reasonable Doubt (TM).

Nothing is ever 100%. Especially not justice. OJ Simpson'd!

...

Somebody do something. Our shit's broke and everybody's bitching.

I wonder how I'll go over in law school.

...

Originally Posted by Hyacinthe

Am I perhaps being vengeful? Maybe but honestly I don't care, being nice to these people and trying to help them hasn't worked the frequency of violent sexual assault continues to climb on a global level maybe it's time to try the opposite route and simply remove their DNA from the gene pool. If you believe that pedophiles are born from a genetic disposition ( alot of psychiatric illnesses are geneticall based for example) then you logically should be all for this plan.

Dangerous. I approve.

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Hahaha... afterthought.

Proactive as in in-depth psychological investigation after a first offense. Should they really be given three tries (at getting caught)? Very often one or more children are dead by that time.

What is obvious is that people are so quick to scream 'pedophile' without really knowing what that is. What the difference is between someone who obsesses about having sex with children (very high recidivism) and one who has sex with a child for other psychological reasons (very low recidivism). Yet, we treat them all the same - and we default to the latter category in our justice system. So, in essence, my point of view is not that much different than yours. Just more specific.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

But I tend to favor detention to castration...for one thing, I am not convinced that disorders like pedophilia are solely sexual in nature. I'm not convinced that a castrated pedophile would necessarily be safe.