BOF Posted June 13, 2007 Author Moderator Share Posted June 13, 2007 RICO the danger here is that the 'mob' i.e. most of society will think it is acceptable, and once the government have the majority they can use the democracy card. A bit like the smoking ban. Regardless of the morality or correctness of doing it - once most people are of the attitude that 'hey it benefits me' or 'hey it doesn't affect me' then they'll back it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 What happens when the ages start to move outwards? What about a consensual 12 year old and 18 year old? A bit weird, certainly - but child abuse? What about if a 12 year old rapes a 9 year old? Castration for the 12 year old? At what age of both victim and assailant would this be used as a possibility? Incidentally, as with rape isn't a lot of child abuse more to do with power rather than sexual excitement? If so, what good is it going to do to reduce somebody's sexual urges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Hang on. It's optional treatment for potential offenders. What's the argument against? If someone wants to chemically castrate themselves then that's fine by me. Perhaps they should ban chemical castration in public places though, you never know what the side effects of passive castration might be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Hang on. It's optional treatment for potential offenders. What's the argument against? If someone wants to chemically castrate themselves then that's fine by me. Oh, in that case fine. No problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that this is voluntary! the offender has to actaully agree/volunteer for this treatment as a way of stopping them re-offending. It is not a blanket approach for all those found guilty of "molesting" children/minors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 But Jon even the voluntary aspect needs guidelines as to when it is an option and under what circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 But Jon even the voluntary aspect needs guidelines as to when it is an option and under what circumstances. for those that think they will be potential re-offenders without this measure. i'd imagine there will be some strict guideliness on the deployment of this, yes. But for those that say, "please help me, I'm feeling the urge to do X with a small child, can you employ this procedure on me please" then surely you'd snap their hand (or somehting else :winkold: ) off and get it done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancsVillan Posted June 13, 2007 Moderator Share Posted June 13, 2007 [offtopic] I have to admit to looking at this forum quickly and reading this as Sheff Utd to be chemically castrated[/offtopic] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 13, 2007 Author Moderator Share Posted June 13, 2007 Euthanasia is voluntary, but is still illegal in most countries. If the government, or the justice system, is letting people do this to themselves then they must be treating it as an acceptable deterrent, so in that case the discussion of whether it is right or wrong must still be had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 OK. Anyone think it is NOT right to chemically castrate an existing "peadophile/sex offender" who has already comitted sexual offences to children and who has him(her) self requested the procedure to stop him(her) reoffending as they think they possibly will? How can it possibly be wrong in this instance? This is what the new measures outlined are aimed at IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted June 13, 2007 Author Moderator Share Posted June 13, 2007 I wonder is it in any way reversible. I'd be more comfortable supporting it if it was tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Anyone think it is NOT right to chemically castrate an existing "peadophile/sex offender" who has already comitted sexual offences to children yeah me .... a death penalty is more fitting and more humane for the rest of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Anyone think it is NOT right to chemically castrate an existing "peadophile/sex offender" who has already comitted sexual offences to children yeah me .... a death penalty is more fitting and more humane for the rest of us this country hasn't had a death penalty for many years now - and quite rightly IMO. Also, who of sane mind is going to Volunteer to be put to death? :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdabush Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 I love how the word castrate has come into this. My understanding is that it is actually treatment to control libido and is only temporary. My concern is that 'treatment' of offenders in the medical sense has not got a good track record. I'm surprised someone hasn't recommended aversion therapy by now. The other problem I have with this sort of rhetoric is that it pandas to those who like to portray paedophiles and 'werido loners' in anoraks, rather than the truth that they are usually known to the children and are often members of their family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 Absolutely not. The idea that this sort of treatment, even to convicted sex offenders, can work is complete guff. Despite the fact that the treatment borders on Dr. Mengele-ian, the main problem is that it completely pisses all over the principle of individual re-assimilation of criminals back into society - the whole point of a justice and rehabilitation system. It takes away the responsibility of the individual to re-assimilate - the only way you can truthfully prove that the individual has remorsed over their crime and has worked to make sure it never happens again. "Castration" on the political will of headline-hunting politicians takes the responsibility to assimilate and truly repent away from the individual, and it puts that reponsibility into the hands of the state. No thanks. And what do I think of the story? A knee-jerk solution to appease the right-wing tabloids and out-flank the opposition. This government has'nt done that before, oh no..... :roll: Just a question, why is this a right wing thing? Didn't Stalin commit mass genocide??? Anyway, on a voluntary basis, great, also on repeat offenders great, in a none voluntary basis, on a 17 year that has consensual sex witha 15 year old, it's just stupid. Some sexual offenders are preditors and they can't be be assimilated back into society, they can't help themselves and when they re-offend where does that leave the poor victim, probably likely to cause the same offences and the cycle continues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts