-
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?
- Thread starter Shanadeus
- Start date
- Status
deVIZtator
Member
Yay.
This oversteps the bounds of rehabilitation. You are entering the territory of outright disabling the convicted when you talk of chemical castration. What about the wrongfully convicted? That the treatment is technically reversible is irrelevant; it is a severe and psychologically-oriented punishment.
What of a husband and wife if the husband is wrongfully convicted and chemically castrated? Jailtime can only exacerbate issues that already existed in the relationship (if the wife believes that the husband committed the crime despite his testimony, for example), while chemical castration fundamentally modifies the personality of the individual and has effects that are not as easily reversible as simply ending treatment.
If you accept that chemical castration is appropriate simply because it is effective at preventing repeat offenses, then applying life sentences to every crime is a far more applicable and effective solution; how can you have repeat offenders if no one is ever released from jail?
If you believe that a punishment must be reasonable and proportionate, then I have to wonder how a punishment that absolutely does not offer a chance of rehabilitation is in any way reasonable.
What of a husband and wife if the husband is wrongfully convicted and chemically castrated? Jailtime can only exacerbate issues that already existed in the relationship (if the wife believes that the husband committed the crime despite his testimony, for example), while chemical castration fundamentally modifies the personality of the individual and has effects that are not as easily reversible as simply ending treatment.
If you accept that chemical castration is appropriate simply because it is effective at preventing repeat offenses, then applying life sentences to every crime is a far more applicable and effective solution; how can you have repeat offenders if no one is ever released from jail?
If you believe that a punishment must be reasonable and proportionate, then I have to wonder how a punishment that absolutely does not offer a chance of rehabilitation is in any way reasonable.
let's say they are 100% verified crazy people, would you guys be ok with these dangerous incarcerated men to the privilege to let their girlfriends into jail so that they can have babies? isn't the point of prison to keep people away from public? and why is eugenics so wrong? why do we need to reintroduce genes into the gene pool that include people that clinically insane? i don't understand the resistance to this.
Rehabilitation and life sentences are not necessarily at odds. Those granted life sentences are presumed to be able to become rehabilitated within the prison system; a life sentence only ensures that they are not reintroduced into society, rehabilitation or not.RedStep said:
The re-offense rate doesn't indicate that rehabilitation is impossible; it merely indicates that our current method of rehabilitation is successful about 20% of the time. Eugenics succesfully rehabilitate 0% of the time. They may reduce crime, but they do so in a manner that sets a very dangerous precedent and in a manner that leaves the wrongfully convicted in even more of a messed up state then locking them in a box with a bunch of criminals.
Fugu said:
It is not eugenics if the intention is not to remove them from the gene pool, this won't affect any kids that the convicted might already have.
And the effects are mild enough for even permanent castration to be less cruel than prisontime:
Plenty of these side effects are also beneficial in removing the criminals ability to commit crimes (such as the loss of muscle mass) as well as easily treatable (gynecomastia, which is really a cosmetic issue but still have several effective treatments)
Now if you are sent to prison for 10-20 years you have the high risk of being raped, with all the associated psychological and sometimes physical damage (think diapers for the rest of your life) that follows from it. And then we have other forms of prison violence, assault and even murder, that might affect you adversely and make you incapable of living (in the case of murder - at all) a normal life outside of prison should you ever be found wrongly imprisonment.
Applying life sentences to all crimes would be an effective way of reducing crime - at the cost of losing the potential contribution a major part of these imprisoned individuals could have given society were they not locked up. Being castrated, in combination with therapeutic rehabilitation, would not only reduce the re-offense rates to insignificant levels but also give us the benefit of re-introducing a non-violent individual back into society - to contribute and perhaps in that way, in a small way, try to amend for the crimes he has committed.Fugu said:
It feels like most people opposed to this fear that this might happen to yourself - you're letting your fear of getting personally castrated getting in the way of the major benefits this brings to both the criminal and society.
If one of you are ever wrongly accused of sexual abuse of a minor, of some extremely violent rape or of murder then you probably be better off castrated and live your life just like before aside from one aspect rather than being put in prison where you in the first case would probably be killed on first sight.
Lost Fragment
Obsessed with 4chan
But they should throw in some mandatory counseling and stuff too if they don't already.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
optional reduction of sentence with agreeing to it
so 'hey pedo, take these pills at the 5 year mark, or 20 years jail'
^something like that.
so 'hey pedo, take these pills at the 5 year mark, or 20 years jail'
^something like that.
Option it. Reduce prison sentence substantially (but not from 20 years to 1 year... that's just silly). Place optioned prisoners in a different prison away from general populace.
No physical castration.
Rehabilitative and preventative measures are always significantly better options for society in general that vengeful or punishment based measures.
To some degree the measures intersect, but there's also a huge amount of it that doesn't; society is way too geared towards seeking vengeance through the prison system, while using the excuse of deterrence with stiff punishments.
Or maybe it's just because the religious are an angry vengeful wrathful crowd, much like their own god. Might explain why atheists have lower incanceration rates.
No physical castration.
Rehabilitative and preventative measures are always significantly better options for society in general that vengeful or punishment based measures.
To some degree the measures intersect, but there's also a huge amount of it that doesn't; society is way too geared towards seeking vengeance through the prison system, while using the excuse of deterrence with stiff punishments.
Or maybe it's just because the religious are an angry vengeful wrathful crowd, much like their own god. Might explain why atheists have lower incanceration rates.
Letting prisoners chose what sort of punishment or measure they shall receive is a bit silly to me, especially when it comes to dangerous criminals that will be more dangerous if they chose not to have the castration.
Keep in mind that non-mandatory castration is already used in several parts of the US:
Keep in mind that non-mandatory castration is already used in several parts of the US:
I'm really just suggesting that this should be taken up everywhere, and be applied for all crimes where lower testosterone levels would reduce the re-offense rate.
I am opposed to this for several reasons, but fear that this might happen to myself is not one of them. Rather I am opposed to it primarily because of the dangerous power that it gives the government; that is, the power to deprive a person of the right to determine what enters their body. The government is simply too human and too corruptible to be trusted with such a great power; it is for the same reason that I do not allow the government to medicate me now that I do not trust the government to medicate criminals. What makes this particularly important is that this specific right grants us the ability to maintain our personal integrity; without this right, the characteristics of the individual are largely meaningless as the government is given the power to modify them at the first sign of deviance. It's downright Orwellian in the manner that Depo Provera outright removes the ability to think of committing a crime.
You use the flaws of many prisons to justify your statement that chemical castration is a better treatment; this is fallacious because the increased crime rate within prisons is not a fundamental flaw of the prison system but rather an indication of a flawed implementation (perhaps better security would help). At the end of the day, a rape in a prison is not a state-conducted rape.
One of the most common arguments against this is the example of the wrongfully convicted and it is so important that it must be brought up repeatedly. As I stated before, this is a unique kind of violation on human rights, separate from simply removing an individual from society; the state is altering the way a person thinks, talks and acts directly. Because of this, they are entirely responsible for the actions of that person for the period that they are drugging them. Because many people depend greatly on sex for their own personal happiness or for their relationships on others, the amount of damage that its removal can do is immense and far more wide-reaching than the prison system will ever be directly capable of.
ChronicleX
Banned
I say give them the choice. Lock away for 40 years so by the time they come out they too old to rape anyone, or come out after 10 years with broken balls. If you give them the choice, I am sure most will pick the castration over another shower with "Big Tony" :lol
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
I think chemical castration is a good idea. AFAIK it isn't permanent, so you just have to make sure they stay on the pills.
You have some good points but I guess we just have different views on the fundamentals. I don't for example think it's "Orwellian" in any manner to remove the ability to think of committing a crime. When you are put in rehabilitation in certain countries you're also, essentially, removing the criminals ability to think of committing a crime - the goal of rehabilitation is after all to sufficiently change the criminal's nature so that they will not commit any crimes again. And as for the bolded, you are greatly understating the damage a false or true conviction of pedophilia (and violent sexual assault and so on) and the subsequent prison time can do to you.Fugu said:
This is something that should be repeated, I'm not suggesting that people accused of "drunken rape", which sometimes turn out to be false, should just willy nilly be castrated based on witness testimony only. Castration should in my opinion be reserved for certain types of criminals and crimes - mainly offense repeaters and those with hormonal imbalances.siddx said:
turnbuckle
Member
No. Just throw them in jail. What the fuck.
Vicetrailia
Member
Nay, this sounds so ridiculous to me. This is a drug that can only possibly negatively affect me and that is not fair. I'm still a human being.
Unless someone WANTS to do this then they can, but they still must face all of the punishments for actually offending in the first place.
Unless someone WANTS to do this then they can, but they still must face all of the punishments for actually offending in the first place.
Megadragon15
Member
If I didn't know better, I would say someone (the op) has a dim view of men in general.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
Not an easy judgment call. My gut feeling is yes, but the ramifications could be bad.
Mudkips said:
Now we're getting somewhere.
Ultimately, I would probably go with mandatory life. I wouldn't willingly allow 4 sexual predators hurt at least four other people/kids to help the one that might not. The needs of the many, and all that.
That's why I should be president; I'm willing to make the tough choices.
siddx said:
Isn't that every conviction, according to the law?
Actually, you do stop them from re-offending. There's a reason that castration is in place for certain crimes already, in the US, and that is because it works.Mudkips said:
ssolitare said:
So can prison time, and I'll just go ahead and assume that you don't share my belief that protecting future potential victims from repeating offenders is more important than facing just a "punishment".
Puddles said:
Eugenics is a horrible idea precisely because of that sort of reasoning. Someone with the IQ below 80 might contribute more to society than someone with an IQ above 120.
And if you're not going to decide who may and may not reproduce based on how much they contribute to society then what factor should we use?
And more importantly why?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Yay if the prisoner and his doctor feels that it would be a productive course of treatment to help rehabilitate the prisoner.
Nay if it's being done as a means of punishment, for many reasons.
Nay if it's being done as a means of punishment, for many reasons.
Vicetrailia
Member
Shanadeus said:
It's more important.
MuzzledBasher
Member
In the other thread with the woman getting stabbed by her boyfriend while having sex you also mentioned the offender as well as his relatives should be castrated, I'm not completely sure of whether that was in jest or not but it does seem to indicate that you are in favor of eugenics?
I suppose I can understand the merit of castrating Rapists, but what does castrating 'all violent criminals' as you typed in your op entail? Just what exactly would the violent crimes have to be to constitute castration? What reasoning would you use to justify that because on the outset of things it sounds pretty ridiculous.
I suppose I can understand the merit of castrating Rapists, but what does castrating 'all violent criminals' as you typed in your op entail? Just what exactly would the violent crimes have to be to constitute castration? What reasoning would you use to justify that because on the outset of things it sounds pretty ridiculous.
That was a reference to the judiciary system taking place in a alternative dimension in one of J.Sawyers books. See my previous posts for my feelings on eugenics:MuzzledBasher said:
The reason you'd also castrate certain kinds of violent criminals is because it'd lower their testosterone levels and thus lower their aggression and impulsiveness - which is often the main cause to non-planned violent crimes. And if this is just flawed reasoning with no conclusive data backing it up then I guess we'd just have to limit castration to rapists, child molesters and other sex offenders - where we have conclusive evidence of castration actually working and lowering the re-offense rates of these particular criminals.
The best thing that can happen to a kitteh imho!oracrest said:On the subject of castration...
I_D
Member
Chemical castration seems to imply that the belief is that most rapists and molesters do so because of their need to have sex.
It seems obvious to me that it takes more than just a strong sex drive to rape or molest a person. Unless this drug prevents erections or just completely eliminates any type of aggressive behavior, I don't see how it could make that much of a difference.
It seems obvious to me that it takes more than just a strong sex drive to rape or molest a person. Unless this drug prevents erections or just completely eliminates any type of aggressive behavior, I don't see how it could make that much of a difference.
but the fact stands that it is effective in stopping these kinds of behaviors.Immortal_Daemon said:
To be honest, I don't really know why exactly castrated sex offenders have a much, much lower re-offense rate than sex offenders who aren't castrated. But it is still effective in stopping these kinds of behaviors.
pakkit said:
I prefer yay, gives it a more positive sound don't you think?
Because that won't help re-integrating them into and help contribute to society after the treatment and rehabilitation.Xeke said:
I don't argue castration because I think they deserve it, I'm arguing it because it is effective and has the highest net benefit to society at a large when compared to the other options.
Shanadeus said:
Because generally I'd like to see negative genes weeded out of the population.
We should try to breed out the most hideous people too, while we're at it. Not saying they can't raise children, but they should come from donor eggs and sperm. Theoretically, the most hideous people would naturally go extinct, but what happens is they end up marrying each other.
Escape Goat
Member
Puddles said:
notsureifserious.gof
MuzzledBasher
Member
Shanadeus said:
Alternating someones sexuality in order to reduce violent crimes seems to be an unusual and cruel punishment if you ask me; what kind of crime are we talking about here exactly? To use chemical castration to reduce aggression in the convict so as to prevent him from committing further crimes can be used to justify castration on most criminals (I'd guess it would encompass almost all repeated offenders) I'd imagine.
Also is there any estimate on the cost of chemically castrating criminals periodically as opposed to keeping them in jail indefinitely? I'd imagine it would be much cheaper on the state which can make the use of castration as a punishment more enticing I suppose.
Puddles said:
Beside the fact that what you are proposing is ridiculous, what would be the point of doing that now? Maybe couple of centuries ago it could have led to certain positive effect in the population but in probably 5 or so decade we can probably genetically engineer superior offspring making attempts at eugenic in our time worthless and even dangerous considering its history.
Eteric Rice
Member
I'd be okay with it so long as it can be reversed if the person is found innocent.
MuzzledBasher said:
The kind of crimes I'm talking about here is really extremely violent assaults, and then most probably if it's found that the criminal has above average testosterone levels. Due to the whole uncertainty on the subject I'd be more in favor of a two or three strike solution (commit the same or similar crime of violent tendencies once or twice again and you are to be chemically castrated) until we've gained enough data to evaluate the effectiveness of castration in these cases.
If it turns out that it's not actually effective on non-sexual criminals then we can easily reverse the chemical castration no permanent physical change done to the body.
The most common chemical castration agent is Depo Provera which costs about:MuzzledBasher said:
It would of course be significantly cheaper for the government to administer it to male convicts if it were to be done on a large scale (we can shave of some costs here by removing all female specific costs such as pregnancy tests among other things).
I'd say that even at the high range, it'd still be quite a lot cheaper than keeping them in jail - year by year. And the money saved on this could be used to more effectively rehabilitate and contain criminals who don't benefit from castration.
- Status