• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Chemical and physical castration for dangerous criminals - yay or nay?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shanadeus

Banned
15088001.jpg


Chemical castration is the administration of medication designed to reduce libido and sexual activity, usually in the hope of preventing rapists, child molesters and other sex offenders from repeating their crimes. Unlike surgical castration, where the testes are removed through an incision in the scrotum, chemical castration does not actually castrate the person, nor is it a form of sterilization, hence the term "chemical castration" has been called a misnomer.

Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when treatment is discontinued; in the case of Depo Provera, "no permanent physical change is wrought in the body."

07-029f4.gif


Castrations after the onset of puberty will typically reduce the sex drive considerably or eliminate it altogether. Also castrated people are automatically sterile, because the testes (for males) and ovaries (for females) produce sex cells needed for sexual reproduction. Once removed the subject is infertile. The voice does not change. Some castrates report mood changes, such as depression or a more serene outlook on life. Body strength and muscle mass can decrease somewhat.

Physical castration appears to be highly effective as, historically, it results in a 20-year re-offense rate of less than 2.3% vs. 80% in the untreated control group, according to a large 1963 study involving a total of 1036 sex offenders by the German researcher A. Langelüddeke, among others, much lower than what was otherwise expected.

I think that all violent or sex-criminals should be castrated.

First through a chemical castration under a period of x years, while rehabilitating the criminal and easing this new and significantly less aggressive (both physically and sexually) individual into society as a societally contributive person, and secondly through a physical castration to make sure there are no relapses. This also give wrongly convicted individual some time to complain about their conviction before the permanent and irreversible castration.

So why aren't we doing this already?
 

JCX

Member
I believe we have done this before. What if someone is wrongly convicted?

JK lol years of your life down the drain/reputation ruined/no chance to even have kids.
 
So there are no more aftereffects from chemical castration? I thought that such procedures could result in complications(increased breast tissue).
 

Slavik81

Member
Shanadeus said:
So why aren't we doing this already?
Things like this have been done before. The threat of chemical treatment lead to the suicide of Alan Turing after he was convicted of homosexuality.

Wikipedia said:
In January 1952... Homosexual acts were illegal... and so [Turing was] charged with gross indecency under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, the same crime for which Oscar Wilde had been convicted more than fifty years earlier.

Turing was given a choice between imprisonment or probation conditional on his agreement to undergo hormonal treatment designed to reduce libido. He accepted chemical castration via oestrogen hormone injections.
...
On 8 June 1954, Turing's cleaner found him dead; he had died the previous day. A post-mortem examination established that the cause of death was cyanide poisoning. When his body was discovered an apple lay half-eaten beside his bed, and although the apple was not tested for cyanide,[49] it is speculated that this was the means by which a fatal dose was delivered. An inquest determined that he had committed suicide, and he was cremated at Woking crematorium on 12 June 1954.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
SolarPowered said:
So there are no more aftereffects from chemical castration? I thought that such procedures could result in complications(increased breast tissue).
Removing testosterone via either physical or chemical castration will likely lead to gynecomastia. Same if someone started taking testosterone blockers. Afaik there isnt a way around that.
 

WedgeX

Banned
JCX said:
I believe we have done this before. What if someone is wrongly convicted?

JK lol years of your life down the drain/reputation ruined/no chance to even have kids.

Exactly.
 

ruuk

Member
Nay. The justice systems in the world make far too many mistakes to start butchering potential innocents.
 

Shanadeus

Banned
JCX said:
I believe we have done this before. What if someone is wrongly convicted?

JK lol years of your life down the drain/reputation ruined/no chance to even have kids.

Chemical castration then for the cases where nothing has been directly caught on film. Chances are that a innocent sentenced to chemical castration would serve significantly less time in jail. Rather, they'd be rehabilitated in an and let free once testosterone levels have reached the desirable levels - with weekly or bi-weekly depo shots.

Compare those two options side by side (10-20 years in jail or 6 months-1 year in an institution) and you'll see that you're better off being castrated - especially if it's also reversible in case you're acquitted and since you also won't risk being raped or assaulted in jail.
 

Gaborn

Member
Shanadeus said:
Chemical castration then for the cases where nothing has been directly caught on film. Chances are that a innocent sentenced to chemical castration would serve significantly less time in jail. Rather, they'd be rehabilitated in an and let free once testosterone levels have reached the desirable levels - with weekly or bi-weekly depo shots.

Compare those two options side by side (10-20 years in jail or 6 months-1 year in an institution) and you'll see that you're better off being castrated - especially if it's also reversible in case you're acquitted and since you also won't risk being raped or assaulted in jail.

So you're saying you'd give an unfair ADVANTAGE to male sex offenders who want to get out early and punish female sex offenders since they can't be castrated?
 
No. There are a lot of consequences to chemical castration which could lead to more violent acts. Plus, when you allow the government to regulate our bodies where is it going to stop? Thats a slippery slope I don't even want to get near.
 

Shanadeus

Banned
Gaborn said:
What equivalent would be used for similar female offenders? This is unequal punishment.
Gaborn said:
So you're saying you'd give an unfair ADVANTAGE to male sex offenders who want to get out early and punish female sex offenders since they can't be castrated?
Women with higher than average testosterone levels could possibly get something reducing that, but there is really no equivalent solution for women because they also don't (usually) commit sexual and/or violent crimes because of their biology.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#intro said:
For the 1976-2004 period men committed 93.3% of felony murders and 85.5% of murders due to argument. Men committed 91.2% of gun homicides, 79.1% of arson homicides and 63.3% of poison homicides.

It's not about being fair and square, it's about lowering the re-offense rate among the criminals - thus reducing the total suffering and crimes that would happen if we didn't castrate these men.
 
Not going to happen. ACLU would fight it as violation of the 8th amendment, especially in perpetuity. Also, how would you enforce it?
 

Raxus

Member
Dr. Pangloss said:
Not going to happen. ACLU would fight it as violation of the 8th amendment, especially in perpetuity. Also, how would you enforce it?
This. Too many what if scenarios make this a bad idea.
 

Gaborn

Member
Shanadeus said:
Women with higher than average testosterone levels could possibly get something reducing that, but there is really no equivalent solution for women because they also don't (usually) commit sexual and/or violent crimes because of their biology.

It's not about being fair and square, it's about lowering the re-offense rate among the criminals - thus reducing the total suffering and crimes that would happen if we didn't castrate these men.

No, as YOU said it's about
Compare those two options side by side (10-20 years in jail or 6 months-1 year in an institution) and you'll see that you're better off being castrated - especially if it's also reversible in case you're acquitted and since you also won't risk being raped or assaulted in jail.

Why should only male offenders have access to the second option? That's bullshit.
 

Jerk

Banned
Absolutely not.

Lock the fuckers in jail and/or find humane ways to rehabilitate them.

None of this castration business.
 

B.K.

Member
Jerk 2.0 said:
Lock the fuckers in jail and/or find humane ways to rehabilitate them.

There's no such thing as rehabilitation for criminals. Especially when they're sexual predators.
 

Shanadeus

Banned
Gaborn said:
No, as YOU said it's about

Why should only male offenders have access to the second option? That's bullshit.
That was a response to the following:
I believe we have done this before. What if someone is wrongly convicted?

JK lol years of your life down the drain/reputation ruined/no chance to even have kids.

And it wouldn't be an option, of course not. I was merely comparing the pros and cons between the two different punishment from the perspective of a someone wrongly convicted.
A woman can't, because of her biology, receive this punishment and the female equivalent would have no effect on her re-offense probability.

Bear in mind that I believe that the duty and goal of the justice system should be to decrease the crime rate in society through measures such as rehabilitation, isolation and in this case castration. I don't think that it should be there merely to met out "justice" in the form of an arbitrary long imprisonment, completely disregarding that prison time very often leads to more crimes being committed by the newly released former convict.
 

IrishNinja

Member
threenote said:
Nay to this eugenics bullshit.

this, so hard. "i dont want the state in my bedroom/civil liberties/etc but i'll turn a blind eye to whatever horrors they commit in the name of security!". i dont normally indulge in the fallacy of slippery slope arguments, but this is one of those exceptions.
 

Xeke

Banned
Shanadeus said:
That was a response to the following:


And it wouldn't be an option, of course not. I was merely comparing the pros and cons between the two different punishment from the perspective of a someone wrongly convicted.
A woman can't, because of her biology, receive this punishment and the female equivalent would have no effect on her re-offense probability.

Bear in mind that I believe that the duty and goal of the justice system should be to decrease the crime rate in society through measures such as rehabilitation, isolation and in this case castration. I don't think that it should be there merely to met out "justice" in the form of an arbitrary long imprisonment, completely disregarding that prison time very often leads to more crimes being committed by the newly released former convict.

You also tend to believe a man should be punished to death for looking at a womans ass.
 

totowhoa

Banned
NAY.

Physical harm/death is not a solution. At least long term incarceration for aggressive crimes can be called off if necessary.
 

Gaborn

Member
Shanadeus said:
That was a response to the following:


And it wouldn't be an option, of course not. I was merely comparing the pros and cons between the two different punishment from the perspective of a someone wrongly convicted.
A woman can't, because of her biology, receive this punishment and the female equivalent would have no effect on her re-offense probability.

Bear in mind that I believe that the duty and goal of the justice system should be to decrease the crime rate in society through measures such as rehabilitation, isolation and in this case castration. I don't think that it should be there merely to met out "justice" in the form of an arbitrary long imprisonment, completely disregarding that prison time very often leads to more crimes being committed by the newly released former convict.

I'm really struggling with what you ARE saying then. So, practically, how are you suggesting this should work? Castrate the men and let them go? Reversing it (if they haven't paid an unscrupulous urologist to do it for them) if they're innocent? Castrate the men and imprison them for less time? While the women get the full brunt of their sentence (unless they're proven to be innocent of course). It really seems like a sexist punishment either way. Either you're suggesting punishing men more harshly than women because they're men or you're suggesting not giving women an option to make their sentence more bearable because they're women.
 

Shanadeus

Banned
Besides, this is already part of the justice system in the US:
California was the first U.S. state to specify the use of chemical castration as a punishment for child molestation, following the passage of a modification to Section 645 of the California penal code in 1996.[11][12] This law stipulates that anyone convicted of child molestation with a minor under 13 years of age may be treated with Depo Provera if they are on parole and if it is their second offense, and offenders may not reject the treatment.[11][12][13][14]

The passage of this law led to similar laws in other states, such as Florida's Statute Section 794.0235 which was passed into law in 1997.[15] As in California, treatment is mandatory after a second offense.

Besides California and Florida, at least seven other states, including Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin, have experimented with chemical castration [4]. In Iowa, as in California and Florida, offenders may be sentenced to chemical castration in all cases involving serious sex offenses. On June 25, 2008 Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed Senate Bill 144, allowing Louisiana judges to sentence convicted rapists to chemical castration.[9][16][17]

This has nothing to do with eugenics, it's about removing the ability to commit certain crimes in certain types of criminals. It's about making sure that your children and loved ones will be a bit safer with serial rapists among others being essentially neutralized - made practically incapable of hurting them.

And regarding the eight amendment, it's no more cruel or unusual than putting a criminal in jail for an set amount of time and then just letting them out - knowing from statistics that they will most likely commit crimes again.

If anything it's a humane treatment, it's not even a punishment, with the effect of making these people better adapted to modern society with their sexual and violent urges pacified.
 

Xeke

Banned
Shanadeus said:
Besides, this is already part of the justice system in the US:


This has nothing to do with eugenics, it's about removing the ability to commit certain crimes in certain types of criminals. It's about making sure that your children and loved ones will be a bit safer with serial rapists among others being essentially neutralized - made practically incapable of hurting them.

And regarding the eight amendment, it's no more cruel or unusual than putting a criminal in jail for an set amount of time and then just letting them out - knowing from statistics that they will most likely commit crimes again.

If anything it's a humane treatment, it's not even a punishment, with the effect of making these people better adapted to modern society with their sexual and violent urges pacified.

So thief's should have their hands cut off right?
 

totowhoa

Banned
Gaborn said:
I'm really struggling with what you ARE saying then. So, practically, how are you suggesting this should work? Castrate the men and let them go? Reversing it (if they haven't paid an unscrupulous urologist to do it for them) if they're innocent? Castrate the men and imprison them for less time? While the women get the full brunt of their sentence (unless they're proven to be innocent of course). It really seems like a sexist punishment either way. Either you're suggesting punishing men more harshly than women because they're men or you're suggesting not giving women an option to make their sentence more bearable because they're women.

Agreed. While punishment is due, it basically violates natural law to punish somebody in such a way if you can't go "Oops, sorry, back to where you were" when you find out you're wrong. It's one thing to exile or imprison somebody, it's another thing to kill or permanently damage that person in a physical way. That can't be fixed. The emotional damage that comes with that kind of HUGE fuck up can be fixed, even if it isn't easy. A sexist punishment like this is an even worse form of it. Ugh..
 

totowhoa

Banned
Shanadeus said:
If anything it's a humane treatment, it's not even a punishment, with the effect of making these people better adapted to modern society with their sexual and violent urges pacified.

It's inhumane because the punishment is not guaranteed to fall upon a guilty man 100% of the time. And that's that. Maybe with super crazy future technology it will. Until then, indefinite incarceration or exile is a better solution. Get them away and keep them there. If things change, let them back into the populace. This may sound expensive, but we jail people for non-aggressive crimes for very long periods of time... and in many cases, that shouldn't be happening either.

Edit: Sorry for the DP, wasn't paying attention.
 

Shanadeus

Banned
Gaborn said:
I'm really struggling with what you ARE saying then. So, practically, how are you suggesting this should work? Castrate the men and let them go? Reversing it (if they haven't paid an unscrupulous urologist to do it for them) if they're innocent? Castrate the men and imprison them for less time? While the women get the full brunt of their sentence (unless they're proven to be innocent of course). It really seems like a sexist punishment either way. Either you're suggesting punishing men more harshly than women because they're men or you're suggesting not giving women an option to make their sentence more bearable because they're women.

I'm just suggesting "punishments" that will reduce the rate of re-offense. And as there is no equivalent treatment for women they'll have to continue with whatever punishment that men who aren't eligible for this treatment are getting. Now that punishment, which women and men who for some reasons wouldn't benefit from castration or who can't because of medical reasons are sentenced to, should in my opinion be whatever is the most effective way of safely re-introducing them into society.

I disagree with plain jail time, I think it's an inefficient and counterproductive way of dealing with criminals, and that punishments should rather be "measures" and "treatments" with the aim of keeping the greater population safe from the criminals. If that means you have to isolate them from the whole then so be it. But if rehabilitation and other methods of dealing with criminals would prove to be more effective than jail time then that's of course the way it should go.

Sklorenz said:
Agreed. While punishment is due, it basically violates natural law to punish somebody in such a way if you can't go "Oops, sorry, back to where you were" when you find out you're wrong. It's one thing to exile or imprison somebody, it's another thing to kill or permanently damage that person in a physical way. That can't be fixed. The emotional damage that comes with that kind of HUGE fuck up can be fixed, even if it isn't easy. A sexist punishment like this is an even worse form of it. Ugh..

Sklorenz said:
It's inhumane because the punishment is not guaranteed to fall upon a guilty man 100% of the time. And that's that. Maybe with super crazy future technology it will. Until then, indefinite incarceration or exile is a better solution. Get them away and keep them there. If things change, let them back into the populace. This may sound expensive, but we jail people for non-aggressive crimes for very long periods of time... and in many cases, that shouldn't be happening either.

Edit: Sorry for the DP, wasn't paying attention.

I stand by my belief that prison time is more inhumane than chemical, and even physical, castration. Do I really need to pull up numbers of how many convicts are raped, assaulted and killed in prison?
How many that get permanent physical and psychological damage from their time in prison? Especially for people convicted for child molestation, rapes and other crimes that castration would be aimed at.
 

totowhoa

Banned
Shanadeus said:
I stand by my belief that prison time is more inhumane than chemical, and even physical, castration. Do I really need to pull up numbers of how many convicts are raped, assaulted and killed in prison?
How many that get permanent physical and psychological damage from their time in prison? Especially for people convicted for child molestation, rapes and other crimes that castration would be aimed at.

Do you have stats for physical/chemical damages due to castration? Basically, I believe in long term incarceration for sexual offenders, but the current system is far too lenient towards these aggressive people. Basically, if these people are found to be innocent 20 years later, then they're good to go with their reproductive system in tact, and they at least have the chance to rebuild their life and perhaps a family. Chemically disabling their erection and realizing 2 years later that CSI fucked up is not irreversible.

This argument may simply be a line in the sand that one must draw, but I currently prefer where I'm at on the issue. I don't believe in harming a person physically via chemicals or castration or lashes or stoning or lethal injection. That's physically irreversible 100% of the time.
 
sex crimes have more to do with power than sex. that being said, being unable to reproduce after you commit certain crimes might be a good idea.
 

totowhoa

Banned
AceBandage said:
Chemical castrations for some.
Tiny American flags for all!

oh ho ho simpsons.jpg

Never seen that episode, but a certain lawrence arms song clued me in long ago
 

Monocle

Member
Power, not sexual gratification, is the main motivation for most rapes. In such cases, castration merely restricts the rapist's options for violating the victim.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
paranoidfortean said:
sex crimes have more to do with power than sex. that being said, being unable to reproduce after you commit certain crimes might be a good idea.

Monocle said:
Power, not sexual gratification, is the main motivation for most rapes. In such cases, castration merely restricts the rapist's options for violating the victim.

I've always heard the "power not sex" theory but is there any actual empirical research to support it? The OP quoted statistics that suggest that lowering the sex drive has a very significant effect on recidivism.
 

NotWii

Banned
JCX said:
I believe we have done this before. What if someone is wrongly convicted?

JK lol years of your life down the drain/reputation ruined/no chance to even have kids.
Agree, but if they're caught red handed or a repeat offender I guess it's ok
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom