Forgive me if this has been discussed before. (I seldom come on the heap) Perhaps some fresh discussion would liven things up though.

I found an article (http://wpmi.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=22BF95E8-AA4D-4CED-A79A-BE18618D13B2) which discusses the idea of castrating sex offenders. I'm keen to know what the views of you guys are.

Is castration really the answer, though? It seems like it's going too far. I don't have any incredibly good arguments against it, it just seems like it's too much. There are other ways to keep a sex offender from abusing a child again.

It doesn't fix their warped mind.

ETA: And if you castrated a woman, she could still have sex. There are female sex offenders.

If you castrated a male, they could still do things that would be considered a sexually offense/sex abuse.

Castration doesn't do anything but cost the system money. Because the general public would ultimately be the ones paying for the surgery.

Wouldn't the psychological and emotional pains caused by castration make them likely to commit non-sexual but still violent crimes? Rape is usually about showing your dominance and power, not sexual satisfaction, anyway.

"Chemical castration" (link (http://www.aclufl.org/about/newsletters/1997/chem.cfm), link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depo-Provera)) is more effective than actually giving them the chop. Much of the hormones ar e produced by the brain, so the urges are still there, even after castration. I'd like to see a trial of say, 20 high-risk violent sex offenders confined to one building, requiring them to have (whatever's in depo-provera) injections daily and make sure they're back by a certain time, in order to let some of them lead a relatively normal life. There's too much emphasis on punishment, and not enough on therapy these days. (cue Clockwork Orange theme)

It has been discussed, in another thread.

An it is pointless, as the person could always go to a good endicrinologist and these days, endocrinologists can put a castrated person on a hormone regimen that will make them practically indistinguishable from someone producing natural hormones.

Further, the problem is not that these people are performing sex acts; the problem is that they are doing things to people withouth their consent. Preventing the person from having sexual functioning won't prevent them from doing other things to people, without their consent -- things that are equally bad, if not worse. You think that sex offenders who kidnap little girls, perform sexual acts with them, than chop their hands off, will stop doing such things just because they can't actually get an erection or ejaculate anymore? They can still kidnap little girls and cut their hands off. They can still have contact with the girl's genitals, including injurious contact.

If you believe punishment should be exacted, for sex crimes, then yes, castrate the criminals. But if you believe castration, or chemical castration, is therapy, or a medical procedure that is preventative in any way other than the way that punishment may be preventative -- you are full of it.

"he general public would ultimately be the ones paying for the surgery."

Castrtion is not exactly expensive.

It still costs. And from what I've seen, when the government/state is paying for it they medical provider charges a handsome ransom.

"from what I've seen, when the government/state is paying for it they medical provider charges a handsome ransom."

That is more the result of corruption -- the doctors and the goverment officials who created the program came up with a little money-making scheme for both of them (the gov official gets a kickback from the doctor, from part of his excess fee).

Surgical castration can be done in maybe 15 minutes. Scrotal ligation castration -- in just a couple minutes -- tho, for an involuntary patient, you would have to keep him restrained for a couple of days, to keep him from removing the ligature.

Here (http://encyc.bmezine.com/?elastrator) is how it is done, in a couple of minutes, with an elastic band (warning, graphic).

It has been discussed, in another thread.

An it is pointless, as the person could always go to a good endicrinologist and these days, endocrinologists can put a castrated person on a hormone regimen that will make them practically indistinguishable from someone producing natural hormones.

Further, the problem is not that these people are performing sex acts; the problem is that they are doing things to people withouth their consent. Preventing the person from having sexual functioning won't prevent them from doing other things to people, without their consent -- things that are equally bad, if not worse. You think that sex offenders who kidnap little girls, perform sexual acts with them, than chop their hands off, will stop doing such things just because they can't actually get an erection or ejaculate anymore? They can still kidnap little girls and cut their hands off. They can still have contact with the girl's genitals, including injurious contact.

If you believe punishment should be exacted, for sex crimes, then yes, castrate the criminals. But if you believe castration, or chemical castration, is therapy, or a medical procedure that is preventative in any way other than the way that punishment may be preventative -- you are full of it.

This post makes so much sense to me. Way to go, Soilman!

Anyone who thinks castration, either surgical or chemical, is going to stop someone who preys on children is deluded. PROTECT (http://protect.org/) is pushing for legislation that would place those who abuse children on maximum security parole if and when they are released. This seems a much more effective tactic.

Is castration really the answer, though? It seems like it's going too far. I don't have any incredibly good arguments against it, it just seems like it's too much. There are other ways to keep a sex offender from abusing a child again.firing squad?:gun:

I like the idea,maybe the reasons people do things like this are much more complicated than a body part...but it might make them think twice if they knew they could lose their bits and pieces. :)

Anyone who thinks castration, either surgical or chemical, is going to stop someone who preys on children is deluded. PROTECT (http://protect.org/) is pushing for legislation that would place those who abuse children on maximum security parole if and when they are released. This seems a much more effective tactic.


Life in prison without any chance of parole seems like a better idea to me.

My issue with this is that sex offenders are typically people who've been abused as children, and so while such people they are certainly guilty of absolutely horrible acts, they have a terrible story to tell as well, very complicated. Prevention of child abuse would be the best solution, I'd think, however we might arrive at that.

i don't think it would be at all effective in preventing them from harming people, but i admit the idea sort of appeals to me anyway.

Life in prison without any chance of parole seems like a better idea to me.

I agree. The unfortunate reality is, sexual predetors are rarely given life sentences, so at the bare minimum, the public should be protected.

I suggest taking off their arms instead! Then you could tell your children to avoid anyone with no arms.

The best part is they wouldn't be able to do most things unassisted, they would in a sense be children themselves. They would be helpless to attack, abuse, etc.

My issue with this is that sex offenders are typically people who've been abused as children, and so while such people they are certainly guilty of absolutely horrible acts, they have a terrible story to tell as well, very complicated. Prevention of child abuse would be the best solution, I'd think, however we might arrive at that.
Maybe you're on to something here. If we castrate them, they can't have children and carry on the line of abuse. And they obviously can't adopt since they're registered sex offenders. So it sounds like a great way to stop the cycle of abuse to me.

"If we castrate them, they can't have children and carry on the line of abuse."

Well, that's not quite what I meant. I'm thinking in terms of prevention so that this sort of thing doesn't occur to begin with, which is very complicated, but ultimately preventing such acts from occurring initially would be the best, such a thing can obviously scar someone heavily for life.
Required parenting courses might be one avenue to weeding out potentially dangerous people, but like I said, this a very complicated issue, but one worth addressing froma prevention perspective.

I truly don't think you can ever 'stop' the abuse, but you can do things to limit it. This has existed longer than we have had names. Sadly, it exists so commonly within our typical families.

What steps can be taken? If you scare someone with threat of being caught and prosecuted, it could prevent some and encourage others who find the fear and taboo more exciting. If you remove someones hands, nuts, whatever, they could become more irrate and dangerous with less to loose than become more docile.

I agree with the notion that the best strategy is to try and prevent it from happening. Sadly, some people are just untreatable. I know 3 different women that work with abused children and have heard the horror stories. Sometimes the law can't even reach them as the abuse is happening due to technicalities. It's really viscious sometimes how justice and legal protection do not work unless the offense happens according to set guidelines.

Recently, a friend of mine was raped by three men with a wine bottle. The police did nothing. In fact, since no genital contact was made (by their assumption), it's not even 'rape' to the law, it's a sexual offense. She was even told by the 'investigator' working her case that she should stop calling because the investigator has 'a real rape case' to deal with.

Sorry to be so negative, but sexual abuse will always be there even as we are sexual animals who mostly try to live up to some moral standards. Without personal body monitors and GPS coordinates of all people to monitor for suspicious behavior, it will continue to happen.

I think one of the keys to helping to defeat this is to have more psychological monitoring of children in schools. Abused children tend to act like abused children, and that should be enough to at least find out more without assuming guilt.

The worst part is often sexual abuse is blocked out by the abused. On of my closest friends was abused by his father and he didn't realize it until many years later. His father would wait until he was asleep and he suspects that his father had drugged him on various occasions. Oh, his father was a college professor with tenure. How do I know he's telling the truth? I remember something that happened years back while sleeping over which happened to me, and I realized his father did to me what he done to his son. Ironically, he insisted that I sleep in the kitchen rather than in my friends room because that seemed a little 'weird having to boys sleep in the same room'.

It could be your neighbor, your pastor, your priest, your doctor, your children's teacher, the kid down the block, or even your best friend. Keep an eye open and an ear listening. If you suspect something, don't sit back and ignore it.

I think they should, if you can't kill'em. They have taken away the souls of the little children and stripped them of any trust, they can't get that back, so, taking something away from the abuser is just a start so yes, do away with the organ.

I think they should, if you can't kill'em. They have taken away the souls of the little children and stripped them of any trust, they can't get that back, so, taking something away from the abuser is just a start so yes, do away with the organ.

See, I think if the lawmakers in the above article were being honest, this is what they would say. While the sentiment is understandable, I don't feel it's the place of the legal system to exact vengeance on perpetrators. The system is there to prevent crime and protect the public. I don't feel that castration does either.

Not being a criminal psychologist, I don't know the reasoning or psychology behind sexual abuse: but I figure that it probably has to do with exerting power and domination.

However, I do know a bit about rape from a sociological perspecitve. Heck, what I do know about rape is that it is most prevalent in societies in which women are in transition to more eqaulity and thus challange male roles... and that it is also very prevalent in societies which are very patriarchal and thus women's lives are devalued. In those cases, rape has little to do with lust or sexual desire, but has much more to do with control and subjegation. Rape is often a tool of war in which men rape all sorts of women and girls, regardless of how sexually appealing that woman may or may not be. It is a tool of subjegation and subordination, kind of like when a dog asserts their superior status by "humping" an inferior dog. Heck, even alpha female dogs sometimes play the "top" position when reafirming their alpha status with subservient dogs.

That is why what a woman wears should have no bearing on rape cases. Sure, a woman may communicate "desire" with clothing, but that doesn't mean that they want to be raped... since rape has more to do with subjegation than desire.

I don't think that removing the sexual organs of someone who committed rape will stop them from subjegating others. That is a phsychological and social problem. Sure, certain hormones derived from sexual organs may give a shading to the type of subjegation the victimizer engages in, but I doubt that would be very different than the rape they did before.

To fight rape, it seems that the best long term strategy is to fight sexism. It won't give immediate dividends, but it would go a long way towards solving the root of the problem much more effectively than castrating rapists.

I draw and analogy from rape to child molestation. They are similar in many ways. I imagine that the motives are most likely similar.

For that reason, I think that castrating child molestors does nothing other than to impose the irreversible will of the state on the body of an individual. I think that state sanctioned castration could be practiced sloppily, and quickly cause more harm than good.

If we want to stop child molestation, I imagine that there are more ethical, more efficient, and more effective ways to treat the problem.

A number of people, including myself, have pointed out that removing the testicles of a convicted rapist will prevent him from raping again [I meant to say it may not prevent him from raping again, since he can get hormone treatments to enable him to have an erection], and certainly won't prevent him from doing other bad things to people. I did want to add that it occurred to me that removing his testicles would at least prevent him from getting anyone pregnant.