Chemical Castration?

[Humanae Libertas]

I'm very much against this. We don't need an expansion of government, even if it doesn't affect non-criminals.

 

[Cyberbrain]

If you breakdown cruel and unusual punishment:

Cruel is anything unnecessarily painful, torturous, or degrading...Unusual is anything inappropriate for use as a general punishment...

So I'd think that'd qualify on both. And capital punishment is immoral. Why should the government ever be allowed to do something that would land me a felony?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Nevermind.

 

[Pericles]

On a more serious note, I think I'll spend time/resources trying to arm the public. An armed woman is less likely to be raped.

If your acquaintance got a bullet in his chest/head he'd probably lose his woody real quick...

Thread could have ended at this post.

 

[specsaregood]

Going back to a point that I made earlier, do you guys think it would be acceptable if it was a condition of parole?

No.

I have no problem with it being a voluntary condition of getting out on parole.

 

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

And how many CONVICTED felons have been set free over the last few decades due to the fact of corrupted Prosecutors who withheld evidence or their DNA proved they were not at the crime scene--etc...

One of the very reasons I am against the death penalty! Too many people have been convicted when they were not guilty and America has more people incarcerated than any other country, including China. The Justice system is so corrupt, I would rather see it castrated!!

+ rep

 

[Lishy]

If someone looks at what the government may deem 'child porn' (But has never harmed a child), then why does he require castration? Maybe probation, but castration is a little too harsh...

 

[ShaneEnochs]

If someone looks at what the government may deem 'child porn' (But has never harmed a child), then why does he require castration? Maybe probation, but castration is a little too harsh...

It's a thought crime.

Kidding. I was speaking more in terms of child molesters.

 

[jbauer]

I live/grew up on a farm. Chemical casteration (haven't tried it myself) doesn't hurt. I belive you can have it done to yourself it you want.

I can tell you if you have an angery cow, horse, pig etc casteration does the trick. I don't particularly like the idea of government having the ability to do it to you. BUT, you have to stand up for the victim as well. I completley understand there are instances where wrongly accused people come to light. But the vast majority of the cases they did what they were charged with.

I'd say if you are a 2x convicecd sex offender (rapist, child ect) that they should casterate them. I completley understand the ramafications of this but I also completly understand the damage done to the victims.

 

[Domalais]

So South Korea has joined a few other countries in using chemical castration on convicted pedophiles and rapists. At first I was like, "whoa, what?" but considering that they are CONVICTED, I'm not entirely sure this would be considered cruel or unusual considering their particular crimes.

What do you think?

This doesn't work. There have been cases of castrated rapists raping again.

A lot of sexual behavior isn't about sex or pleasure so much. Particularly when it comes to very young children, the molester isn't getting a whole lot out of it... it's not like they can do (m)any sex acts. It's about the situation, the power, ownership, and often times mental issues. You can't castrate that away.

 

[jbauer]

What about shooting them instead? Pretty sure they can't "boink" small kids if their dead. I think child molesters belonged hung alongside the road for all to see.

This doesn't work. There have been cases of castrated rapists raping again.

A lot of sexual behavior isn't about sex or pleasure so much. Particularly when it comes to very young children, the molester isn't getting a whole lot out of it... it's not like they can do (m)any sex acts. It's about the situation, the power, ownership, and often times mental issues. You can't castrate that away.

 

[MelissaWV]

There are a variety of torture methods that do not involve physical pain, and still fit the definition. The most obvious of these is something like "Chinese water torture." I doubt many people would say that a drop of water hurts.

 

[jmdrake]

Let's make sure we're all talking about the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration
Chemical castration is the administration of medication designed to reduce libido and sexual activity. Unlike surgical castration, where the testicles or ovaries are removed through an incision in the body,[1] chemical castration does not actually castrate the person, nor is it a form of sterilization. [2]

Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of Depo Provera.[3] Chemical castration has, from time to time, been used as an instrument of public and/or judicial policy despite concerns over human rights and possible side effects.[4][5]

 

[MikeStanart]

So South Korea has joined a few other countries in using chemical castration on convicted pedophiles and rapists. At first I was like, "whoa, what?" but considering that they are CONVICTED, I'm not entirely sure this would be considered cruel or unusual considering their particular crimes.

What do you think?

Except a conviction doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty.

Keep them locked up unless evidence surfaces that they're innocent.

It's cruel and unusual.

 

[MikeStanart]

I have no problem with it being a voluntary condition of getting out on parole.

I concur. If they agree to the treatment to allow them into the world, this seems like a logical solution.

 

[Yieu]

Let's make sure we're all talking about the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration
Chemical castration is the administration of medication designed to reduce libido and sexual activity. Unlike surgical castration, where the testicles or ovaries are removed through an incision in the body,[1] chemical castration does not actually castrate the person, nor is it a form of sterilization. [2]

Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of Depo Provera.[3] Chemical castration has, from time to time, been used as an instrument of public and/or judicial policy despite concerns over human rights and possible side effects.[4][5]

The wording of the phrase just comes off as using caustic chemicals to remove all exterior parts, which sounded quite a bit painful. Looking into it further, it uses antiandrogens. This is a female hormone and is one of the hormones used in the male to female transgender process. This chemical would alter their physiology to be more female, and would alter their mind and body in other ways, neither of which should be done by force, so my prior comments stand.

This is a delicate subject because people want to see justice for such a horrible crime. But tampering with the way someone's physical body works without their consent seems a bit cruel and unusual. If someone volunteered for chemical castration without conditions, there would be no issue. Conditional voluntarism is not exactly voluntary.

 

[tttppp]

There's too many wrongfully convicted people to make this work. Additionally, there are many people listed as sex offenders who are in no way pedophiles. It doesn't make sense to castrate an 18 year old for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend.

 

[jmdrake]

The wording of the phrase just comes off as using caustic chemicals to remove all exterior parts, which sounded quite a bit painful. Looking into it further, it uses antiandrogens. This is a female hormone and is one of the hormones used in the male to female transgender process. This chemical would alter their physiology to be more female, and would alter their mind and body in other ways, neither of which should be done by force, so my prior comments stand.

This is a delicate subject because people want to see justice for such a horrible crime. But tampering with the way someone's physical body works without their consent seems a bit cruel and unusual. If someone volunteered for chemical castration without conditions, there would be no issue. Conditional voluntarism is not exactly voluntary.

I agree that it should be voluntary. But I think it's important to realize that the process is reversible. I could see someone agreeing to this if there was some trade off. Some terms of release of sex offenders has it so they can't even live anywhere. (In some states you can't live within X miles of school or daycare center or church which has in effect made some people homeless). My mind isn't made up about this.

 

[pintbottlepress]

I would (at least) support it as an option for the convict who wishes to negotiate a reduced sentence. Perhaps even mandatory punishment, depending on the severity of the crimes (i.e. a long history of pattern behavior and hard evidence to back the charge).