Europeans Debate Castration of Sex Offenders

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm with Partha on this. Removal of the sex organs will not stop a molester.

[Klast Brell]

Fuck that. I oppose it for the same reason I oppose the death penalty. Innocent men get convicted of crimes. Innocent men even plead guilty to crimes to avoid even harsher sentences. Chop off a guy's junk and find out 2 years later that the DNA did not match, or the kid lied, or whatever. You can't go back. It's too late.

If someone invented a way to get absolute confidence in all convictions I would have no problem with any of that stuff. You knew the consequences and you chose to do it anyway. No need for appeals. Your guilt is a fact. But until then...

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

In a voluntary situation most guys would rather do hard time then have their junk removed, so I'd think in cases like that then it'd be a bit different. I can't see anyone, guilty or not, volunteering to be truthful about it

[Baginns Hobbiton]

Hey there,

What about the people who are accused and convicted of rape but didn't actually do anything wrong? My wife could give herself some bruises, call the police, and claim that I raped her and I would be in jail. It would be her word against mine but I can guess whose sob story the jury is going to believe. Should a judge be allowed to order me to be castrated? Something like that can't be appealed.

Just food for thought.

PS. My lovely wife would never do that, but there are some crazy people out there.

PSS. I just noticed Klast made the same point... I agree with him.

[Harlowe]

Fuck that. I oppose it for the same reason I oppose the death penalty. Innocent men get convicted of crimes. Innocent men even plead guilty to crimes to avoid even harsher sentences. Chop off a guy's junk and find out 2 years later that the DNA did not match, or the kid lied, or whatever. You can't go back. It's too late.

If someone invented a way to get absolute confidence in all convictions I would have no problem with any of that stuff. You knew the consequences and you chose to do it anyway. No need for appeals. Your guilt is a fact. But until then...

I'm with Klast on this and totally agree with Partha & Embar. This isn't a solution, it's just another form of barbarism and it won't work.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

/agree Klast.

Also:

If they truly can't control their urges then they fit the definition of insanity and lose their rights

I completely agree with this point, but disagree with the conclusion Dd makes that an operation can be ordered to try and "fix" the offendor. While I'm not versed on the laws, my feelings on the matter are that if they can't control their urges, they shouldn't be forced to submit to this kind of mutilation (Or operation, whatever you feel like calling it). The same, in my eyes, applies to most murderers and the death penalty.

And I still say in both cases of sex offendors and murderers, to lock them up and throw away the key. Should their innocence be later revealed, they can be released. Otherwise, never and I mean never release them back into society.

[Ddrak]

Well, if they're insane (ie are not in control of their own actions) then prison is the wrong place. I'm not saying it should be ordered in all cases - that would be for a psychiatrist to determine, and I was thinking more about chemical castration than an actual operation, much like powerful anti-psychotics remove your brain. It's a case of curing their insanity, not punishment.

Dd

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

Well, if they're insane (ie are not in control of their own actions) then prison is the wrong place. I'm not saying it should be ordered in all cases - that would be for a psychiatrist to determine, and I was thinking more about chemical castration than an actual operation, much like powerful anti-psychotics remove your brain. It's a case of curing their insanity, not punishment.

Dd

If you were to cure their insanity then wouldn't you then have effectively controlled their urges ? I mean my ex husband WANTS sex ALL the time, and given the option will have sex at a moments notice but he doesn't go around raping women because he wants sex. It's hand in hand, once their urges are controlled then what... they're no longer a detriment to society ? If they're insane and you cure the insanity with drugs to remove their mind and sexual urges then in theory you have 1 of 2 things, a veggitable (i just like saying veggietable ok ?) or a normal human being.

[Partha]

Rape doesn't have a damn thing to do with sex, and that's the problem. It's like saying banning guns will solve the problem of alienated teens going postal.

[Klast Brell]

I keep hearing that line about rape not being sexual. I don't agree. Yes, It is violent. Yes it is a way of expressing your power over another. Yest to all the things that people say rape is. But it is a sexual way of doing so. The rapist still has to be aroused by his victim. He still has to get an erection, be turned on by the thought of doing that to his victim. he is using violence and power to get sex.

Remember Abner Louima? The New York cops rammed a plunger up his ass bad enough to leave him in the hospital for 2 months. I don't consider that rape. I doubt the officers had an erection while they were doing that. That was about violence and power. But not about sex. They were trying to hurt him and humiliate him. But they were not trying to obtain sexual satisfaction while doing so.

If a man wants to have sex with a woman so much that he doesn't care that she is saying no. If he wants to have sex with her so much that he beats he bloody and threatens her life to make her comply. How can you say that it has nothing to do with sex.

About ten years ago I got mugged. Three guys were walking past me on the sidewalk. As soon as they were behind me they sucker punched me. I ended up getting six stitches above my eye. From the moment they jumped me they were yelling. "Where's your wallet? Give it to me". They were using violence and power to get money. Saying rape is not about sex is like saying mugging is not about money.

The aftermath of rape is devastating to the victim. If a woman associates the violence and victimization with sex it will haunt her every time she contemplates sexuality. If she can convince herself that it had nothing to do with sex, she won't be traumatized next time her boyfriend or husband makes a pass at her. She won't be horrified when she meets that cute guy at her cousins wedding and he asks her out for coffee. So I can see why it helps to think that it has nothing to do with sex. But just because it helps to think about it that way, doesn't make it true.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You've got it backward. A rapist doesn't use violence and power to get sex, he uses sex and violence to get power.

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

Sex is still certainly involved as an aspect of rape however, if it wasn't then you'd simply have an abusive situation.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Sex is still certainly involved as an aspect of rape however, if it wasn't then you'd simply have an abusive situation.

Teh sex is the tool in the violence. Other people uses knives, guns, sticks. Rapists use sex as a weapon. Its not "sex" for pleasure's sake. What a rapist finds sexually arousing is not the act of sex itself, but the process of humiliation, subjugation and infliction of pain. That's what gets a rapist's dick hard.

[Harlowe]

You've got it backward. A rapist doesn't use violence and power to get sex, he uses sex and violence to get power.

I agree in a general sense. Of course one explanation doesn't fit all crimes, but power & control seems to be at the base of it.

[Fobbon Lazyfoot]

The point is, I think, that the cause of sexually deviant behavior has nothing to do with whether or not you are capable of reproducing. A murderer is going to kill people regardless of whether or not he has his gun or not, and if the problem is deeply psychologically rooted (as I think the case is with most sex offenders) then his brain is going to find a way to kill people without the help of his amygdyla or adrenal gland, or whatever else might biologically influence him to kill.

Sterilization might help sex addicts or people with overactive sexual urges, but its not going to do much good I dont think for people with serious problems.

I'm curious, however, to see if it actually would. If voluntary sterilizations could significantly reduce the proportion of re-offenders, which would take quite a few detailed scientific studies, then forced sterilization might actually be the answer. We can talk all we want about it, but thats the only way (that I can think of) to know for sure.

*edit* if reoffending penalties are harsh enough, sex offenders may find some incentive to undergo chemical sterilization, even if its optional and doesn't reduce the penalties that they would have anyway. If someone genuinly couldn't control their urges, they might find it useful to get a biological treatment for it.

[Alluveal]

Even if you remove the male genitals, they'll still find ways to abuse and molest. They have hands / fingers.

I'm ok with some sex offenders being locked away for good, w/o possibility of parole--especially where children are concerned.

Or tagged/implanted with a chip to keep track of their whereabouts. Or, put an explosive inside them so that if they come w/in 10 feet of a grade school or playground, their nuts get blasted.

[Alluveal]

Rape is a violent crime first and foremost. Rarely is it "sexual" in the way we know it.

I've read reports that most men don't get really that hard during it nor do many ejaculate during a rape. No idea how true that is.

[Partha]

I'm curious, however, to see if it actually would. If voluntary sterilizations could significantly reduce the proportion of re-offenders, which would take quite a few detailed scientific studies, then forced sterilization might actually be the answer. We can talk all we want about it, but thats the only way (that I can think of) to know for sure.

Already been tried in the past. Doesn't work.