castration of sex offenders

[squirreltual]

Being a sexual offender is a heinous crime but the death penalty is a punishment that exceeds the crime unless a murder was also committed.

why?

Chemical castration is also erring on the side of innocence. Irreversibly castrating sex criminals will inevitably lead to some innocent people being castrated which should be avoided.

Chemical castration for long periods of time can result in irreversible effects on sex drive. Plus other side effects like osteoporosis and heart disease. By needing to "err on the side of innocence" the justice system would be undermining itself. Before dishing out chemical castration it would need to be sure anyway. Plus it hasn't been proven to work.

One of the figures I've seen shows sex offenders are more likely than other types to re-offend with other non-sexual crimes, which would go some way to showing it's irrelevance.

Maybe people are just more drawn to the idea because it's softer and more idealistic. We want to believe in something more clinical where our hands don't get dirty and everyone is safe.

[MisterNi]

why?

Where would you draw the line then?

Chemical castration for long periods of time can result in irreversible effects on sex drive. Plus other side effects like osteoporosis and heart disease. The alternatives being permenant cas By needing to "err on the side of innocence" the justice system would be undermining itself.

Those instances are are rare, and most cases are reversible if the dosage is ceased. Besides, the underlying assumption is that the vast majority are indeed guilty of being a sex offender and deserve any and all punishments that come along with it, commensurate with the crime. Making the process mostly reversible is to protect the small minority who are wrongly convicted.

Before dishing out chemical castration it would need to be sure anyway. Plus it hasn't been proven to work. One of the figures I've seen shows sex offenders are more likely than other types to re-offend with other non-sexual crimes, which would go some way to showing it's irrelevance.

It's been proven to work pretty well in the US. It's mainly the anti-psychotic element that subdues the user.

Maybe people are just more drawn to the idea because it's softer and more idealistic. We want to believe in something more clinical where our hands don't get dirty and everyone is safe.

Maybe, although the US, particularly in the Southern United States, has had a fairly negative reputation when it came to administering justice via castration of criminals in the early 19th century. There have been dozens of instances where innocent people were either framed or put to trial by a biased jury only to be executed or castrated before a higher court would even have a chance to overturn the faulty conviction. So there's a sound reason for seeking a reversible process due to legitimate historical reasons.

[squirreltual]

Where would you draw the line then?

Around the necks of those who have raped infants. I had conversations with a man who had regularly raped all his children, forcing them to then assault each other too. It was very tragic and I could see how he too was a victim, having been abused as a child himself. I still believe he should have been killed. It would have allowed his victims opportunity to come to terms with what happened much earlier on, although it obviously will still massively impact them for the rest of their lives. Now he is dead they feel they can breathe - they have closure.

Aggravated rape is a hugely different crime to sexual activity in a public lavatory, for example; it should be treated as such. Courts should work on a case by case basis, as always.

Those instances are are rare, and most cases are reversible if the dosage is ceased. Besides, the underlying assumption is that the vast majority are indeed guilty of being a sex offender and deserve any and all punishments that come along with it, commensurate with the crime. Making the process mostly reversible is to protect the small minority who are wrongly convicted.

It's been proven to work pretty well in the US. It's mainly the anti-psychotic element that subdues the user.

What about protecting the public from re-offences? I am not familiar with anti-psychotics as chemical castration, but SSRIs and anti-androgens. They rely a lot on self reporting and psychological counselling in addition. I don't know why anyone would make this mandatory. How is it not cruel in itself when anti-psychotics are a slow iatrogenic death? I haven't seen stats on proof and I'm assuming as with other cases, double-blind trials are near impossible. It also sounds expensive.

Maybe, although the US, particularly in the Southern United States, has had a fairly negative reputation when it came to administering justice via castration of criminals in the early 19th century. There have been dozens of instances where innocent people were either framed or put to trial by a biased jury only to be executed or castrated before a higher court would even have a chance to overturn the faulty conviction. So there's a sound reason for seeking a reversible process due to legitimate historical reasons.

If you are saying the courts cannot be trusted and sentencing has to primarily work around that, then the current system is not fit for purpose anyway. Then you have bigger fish to fry.

[mu4]

Around the necks of those who have raped infants. I had conversations with a man who had regularly raped all his children, forcing them to then assault each other too. It was very tragic and I could see how he too was a victim, having been abused as a child himself. I still believe he should have been killed. It would have allowed his victims opportunity to come to terms with what happened much earlier on, although it obviously will still massively impact them for the rest of their lives. Now he is dead they feel they can breathe - they have closure.

Aggravated rape is a hugely different crime to sexual activity in a public lavatory, for example; it should be treated as such. Courts should work on a case by case basis, as always.

What about protecting the public from re-offences? I am not familiar with anti-psychotics as chemical castration, but SSRIs and anti-androgens. They rely a lot on self reporting and psychological counselling in addition. I don't know why anyone would make this mandatory. How is it not cruel in itself when anti-psychotics are a slow iatrogenic death? I haven't seen stats on proof and I'm assuming as with other cases, double-blind trials are near impossible. It also sounds expensive.

If you are saying the courts cannot be trusted and sentencing has to primarily work around that, then the current system is not fit for purpose anyway. Then you have bigger fish to fry.

Aggravated Incest is pretty heinous, and most recidivist child molesters/sexual predators are often incorrigible. I see these as much as psychological disorders as crimes, however I don't think they get the benefit of the doubt as far as rehabilitation past a certain point. I don't really care if there is death penalty or life in prison for these sort of crimes, but one key thing is how to get people to come forward. There is a lot of hiding and covering up in families and institutions. The problem is this particular crime does lead to some level of false reporting due to malice/revenge, while real instances are hidden due to shame/guilt and other issues.

[MisterNi]

Around the necks of those who have raped infants.

I'd raise the age limit past that of infancy but I agree with you that the younger the child, the more heinous the crime.

I had conversations with a man who had regularly raped all his children, forcing them to then assault each other too. It was very tragic and I could see how he too was a victim, having been abused as a child himself. I still believe he should have been killed. It would have allowed his victims opportunity to come to terms with what happened much earlier on, although it obviously will still massively impact them for the rest of their lives. Now he is dead they feel they can breathe - they have closure.

Yes, most abusers themselves have been victims of abuse. Still, the case you've written about is an extenuating circumstance. Not ever victim of abuse resorts to that level of abuse on further victims. That father was obviously borked in the head and wasn't fit for society so executing him was best for both society and to provide closure to his victims.

Aggravated rape is a hugely different crime to sexual activity in a public lavatory, for example; it should be treated as such. Courts should work on a case by case basis, as always.

Yes, the original premise asks if castrating child sex offenders is ethical.

What about protecting the public from re-offences?

Well, you have to remember that decisions to parole a child predator aren't made in a vacuum. If a person is chemically castrated while paroled, they were deemed rehabilitated and ready to become members of society again. Child predators are also required to register as a pedophile in a public government database of child predators. So there're a multitude of factors to protect both the public and the parolee.

How is it not cruel in itself when anti-psychotics are a slow iatrogenic death? I haven't seen stats on proof and I'm assuming as with other cases, double-blind trials are near impossible. It also sounds expensive.

I think you may be overthinking a simple situation. Chemically castrating someone is much less cruel than permanent castration and in many cases, the criminals in questions would never have been never have been deemed fit to reenter society were they were not castrated or monitored in some manner. Monitoring every paroled person convicted of sex crimes against children isn't exactly cheap so castration would be the solution that removes the drive in a person to commit such a crime in the first place, be the least invasive to the parolee's personal life and be the cheaper solution.

If you are saying the courts cannot be trusted and sentencing has to primarily work around that, then the current system is not fit for purpose anyway. Then you have bigger fish to fry.

The system work but every so often someone will slip through the cracks. It's the by-product of running a system that is both adversarial decided by a jury of one's peers.