Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: "Chemical castration" of repeat sex offenders

  1. #1

    Default "Chemical castration" of repeat sex offenders

    I just saw someone post this on a facebook account. I don't really know what to make of it, so I was curious to see what people here thought.

    Chemical and Surgical Castration - Criminal Law

  2. #2

    Default

    What the!? I've lived in Florida all my life and never once have I heard of this. I'm so...confused, I don't know why.

  3. #3

    Default

    I'd vote yes. If you're going to commit crimes serious enough for this against real people, maybe you need two in the back of the head.

  4. #4
    Spearmint

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzy View Post
    I'd vote yes. If you're going to commit crimes serious enough for this against real people, maybe you need two in the back of the head.
    That's what I've always thought too. If I had my way the death penalty would be the primary sentence for people that bad.

  5. #5

    Default

    So let me make sure I understand the issue at hand - the idea is that someone has such unmanageable compulsions that they are unable to keep themselves from raping someone, so instead of keeping the person locked in jail, they're injected with chemicals that prevents erections?

    Well, since chemical castration doesn't eliminate the compulsion (in compulsion cases, rape is about power and dominance, not sex), and someone can be sexually or physically victimized even if the attacker doesn't have a hard-on, what's the point? Yes, chemical castration makes it easier for someone to deal with compulsion urges, but if the castratee has no desire to manage the urges, that doesn't do squat. Sure, make it optional - that way the offenders who WANT to get better have some extra medical help. But the ones who don't want to be chemically castrated aren't going to be stopped by it anyway, so making it mandatory is very counter-productive. If they're that much of a danger and don't have any desire to keep their impulses in check, then they shouldn't be released back in to the public.

    Yet another example of being hard on criminals, not being hard on crime.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by bgi39jsjw0ggg View Post
    So let me make sure I understand the issue at hand - the idea is that someone has such unmanageable compulsions that they are unable to keep themselves from raping someone, so instead of keeping the person locked in jail, they're injected with chemicals that prevents erections?

    Well, since chemical castration doesn't eliminate the compulsion (in compulsion cases, rape is about power and dominance, not sex), and someone can be sexually or physically victimized even if the attacker doesn't have a hard-on, what's the point? Yes, chemical castration makes it easier for someone to deal with compulsion urges, but if the castratee has no desire to manage the urges, that doesn't do squat. Sure, make it optional - that way the offenders who WANT to get better have some extra medical help. But the ones who don't want to be chemically castrated aren't going to be stopped by it anyway, so making it mandatory is very counter-productive. If they're that much of a danger and don't have any desire to keep their impulses in check, then they shouldn't be released back in to the public.

    Yet another example of being hard on criminals, not being hard on crime.
    I'm glad you mentioned that, because I think most people forget (or don't know) that rape isn't about sex, it is about power and dominance. I think the person who posted this knew a victim of a sexual assault and kind of posted it out of emotion without thinking about it, and I'm glad you offered the logical thought process of analyzing it objectively.

  7. #7

    Default

    Yes bgi, you hit the nail on the head. A lot of criminals ask for chemical castration because it keeps them out of jail. The sad thing is that child molesters and rapists, and other sex offenders have a mental illness. If they are chemically castrated, they need to be closely monitored, and everyone knows, there's not enough money and personal to do that. Really, people like that need to be confined in their own community where they could live a normal life, but would come home to the same place, reporting in. Even then, there are probably many who would find a way around that. That's why a lot of states are keeping sex offenders in jail long after their sentences have been served. They simply can't be trusted.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by bgi39jsjw0ggg View Post
    Yet another example of being hard on criminals, not being hard on crime.
    Oh please, PLEASE tell me that was an intentional play on words.

    I'm for chemical castration, but in conjunction with other things and with a higher burden of proof and better standard to judge what the appropriate act for receiving the treatment is than is currently in place.

  9. #9
    LilLillyKitten

    Default

    Ok, so... chemically castrating rapists and releasing them is the worst possible thing you could do. It doesn't stop the compulsion... they just get more "creative." *shudders*

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by dogboy View Post
    That's why a lot of states are keeping sex offenders in jail long after their sentences have been served. They simply can't be trusted.
    I can understand keeping them in jail if they're still a danger. It's releasing them and then putting overly-complicated and onerous restrictions on them that I don't understand. If they're so dangerous that they can't even be within 200 yards of a school, church, shopping mall or playground (substitute whatever the rules are in your jurisdiction), then they're too much of a danger to be let out of jail. If they AREN'T too dangerous to release, then it's pointless to put all sorts of bizarre restrictions on where they can live and work.



    Quote Originally Posted by Linkitty View Post
    Oh please, PLEASE tell me that was an intentional play on words.
    I was hoping SOMEONE would catch it



    Quote Originally Posted by Linkitty View Post
    I'm for chemical castration, but in conjunction with other things and with a higher burden of proof and better standard to judge what the appropriate act for receiving the treatment is than is currently in place.
    I'm all for it if it's voluntary. Just like rehab, it only works if the subject actively participates. Even with messed-up hormone levels, it still takes willpower. If it's done against the will of the castratee, then it won't have the intended effect, which means they're still too dangerous to be released, which means that the castration was pointless to begin with. If they're so dangerous that they need to have a medical procedure done on them to make them less dangerous, then forget the castration and just leave them in jail/mental hospital/etc.

    ---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 PM ----------



    Quote Originally Posted by TygerLily View Post
    Ok, so... chemically castrating rapists and releasing them is the worst possible thing you could do. It doesn't stop the compulsion... they just get more "creative." *shudders*
    Only if it's done against their will. If they do it voluntarily, then the chemical castration can help give them the edge they need to overcome the compulsion (assuming they actually have the desire to do so).

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-Nov-2009, 15:25
  2. "Obama" now substituting "hey" "yo" "sup"??
    By mm3 in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-Nov-2008, 04:29
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 22-Jul-2008, 23:40

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.