Would you support chemical castration for child sex offenders?

[FedUpWithIt All]

Poll question: Would you support chemical castration for child sex offenders?

Depo-Provera has been proven to inhibit the abilities of pedophilias to assault children. The progesterone in Depo-Provera counteracts the biological tendencies that lead men to rape children (4). By lowering testosterone, Depo-Provera reduces sex drive (6). Males can have sexual intercourse (7) but do not want to. Depo-Provera also decreases aggressive tendencies by reducing testosterone. "he castrated criminal would be more docile and have a better opportunity to be rehabilitated, educated, and to become a worthwhile citizen" (1). Castration removes the biological and chemical tendencies that are intrinsically linked to the desire to rape in males.

Depo-Provera also reduces recidivism rates. When used as a mandatory condition of parole (6), chemical castration decreases the occurrence of repeat offenses from 75% (6) to 2% (1). Prison is less desirable because it serves no rehabilitative purpose for sexual offenders. Pedophiles who spend time festering in a prison cell are given extensive downtime to concoct new sordid sexual fantasies involving children. These horrific visions are translated into terrifying realities once the criminal comes back into contact with children following his inevitable release from prison (1). Prison simply produces sneakier criminals. Pedophiles do not want to be incarcerated again so they think of new ways to rape children that will avoid detection and future detention (6). Prison increases aggressive tendencies in male pedophiles while chemical castration addresses the root causes of sexual assault and decreases further sexual deviance.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1778

[AngryAmish]

1. I don't think castrating children is a good idea

[FedUpWithIt All]

2. ...

:eyes:

:hi:

[Forkboy]

50. I do.

:evilgrin:

[PVnRT]

3. No - creul and unusual punishment

Let the flaming begin.

[FedUpWithIt All]

4. Do you have a solution for the problem you think is more humane?

[PVnRT]

20. Jail

[FedUpWithIt All]

26. Thank you. I appreciate the response.

I do not want offenders to be harmed. And i honestly want to know what other people think is affective.

My issue is that jail time is not currently a sufficient deterrent. I also have a real problem with life sentences for something i believe is compulsive and therefore has root in mental illness.

[PVnRT]

30. If it's a mental illness issue (and I agree that it is)

then deterrence is simply not a factor. Someone pathologically inclined to view children as sex objects and incapable of suppressing those thoughts is not going to be deterred by any form of punishment.

The best way to go after the problem:

1) Teach children that they should tell parents, teachers, cops, etc. immediately if an adult tries something inappropriate with them. Problems usually start with an adult trying to proposition or "talk dirty" to a child before progressing to sex.

2) Treat those convicted of these crimes, but understand that they are probably going to spend the rest of their lives in jail/institutions.

3) Make sure victims get all of the counseling they need, again, probably for the rest of their lives.

[FedUpWithIt All]

38. See, i guess that is where i was at odds with so many. I saw chem cast. more as a treatment

than a punishment. It gives an abuser a time free from their impulses and compulsions while allowing them to recieve other mental health treatment and still attempt to integrate into society

Teaching children is pretty well implemented in schools now. It will only be taught in homes when there are responsible and non predatory parents. A good number of children are victimized by the people who SHOULD be teaching them these things.

I support long term sentences (which i consider an unfortunate band aid solution) if that is the only option to keep these people from hurting children. I do think chem castration should be an option to avoid a long term sentence. But i only think it is a viable option if the sentences are long. 5 yr sentences for child rape is a failure if there is no other effort made to prevent re-activism.

[MajorChode]

49. The key word here is "option"

...and it should be the offender's option. As abhorrent as child rape is, such a measure clearly fits under the realm of cruel and unusual punishment. But if the offender chooses chemical castration over spending their life in jail, no problem. I also think that child rapists should still spend long terms in prison even if they are offered the option later.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. I would support taxpayer money paying for it if the offender chooses to take it

I do not support forcing it on someone.

[FedUpWithIt All]

6. What would be an acceptable mandatory deterrent IYO?

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. Let's just put 'em in concentration camps and gas 'em after they're no longer useful as worker slave

:eyes:

[FedUpWithIt All]

12. I asked you a genuine question. It is a serious problem and the consequences for the victims real.

I never suggested we harm rapists. (assuming there is no permenant damage from the treatment, which WOULD change my views on the subject) I don't feel that we can do what we have been with this issue and expect that it is going to improve. After short sentences violent child sex offenders are released and the re-activism rate is extremely high. So what do we do to prevent more victims?

Assuming chemical castration is not permanent and if it becomes evident that they are rehabbed they can stop the treatment.

I will assume you have no better solution due to your sarcastic rejection of my request for one.

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. I have no better solution that you are likely accept since you seem hellbent on mutilation.

sexual mutilation, that is.

How wonderfully ironic.

Why not fill 'em with PCP and use 'em in the marines?

Why not give that drug to ALL male convicts? Make 'em nice and docile, end the prison rape, maybe end the prison riots and fights, and when they get out of prison they'll be all calm and suggestible and lacking in passion about anything and totally ready to be perfectly compliant worker bees at whatever job your Big Brother government decides to assign them to. Maybe they'll work with me, because I'm sure at some point the government felt that I, too, needed some kind of mandatory "chemical rebalancing" so that I wasn't a "threat to the goodwill and safety of the nation". Maybe it was because I voted Democratic, maybe it was because I intentionally wore blue on a nation-wide yellow-wearing day as a protest, maybe it was because I was checking books out of the library written for people with more than a 6th grade education. Who knows? That's the beauty of Big Brother. He can do what he wants. "No, you see, you molested a child/voted Democratic/listen to rock music, and that means you're broken! We're actually SAVING you!"

:eyes:

[FedUpWithIt All]

22. You are jumping on my unnecessarily. I am WILLING to debate and possibly change views on the subjec

should a solution that prevents INNOCENT victims be offered. So far you have not offered any. Just sarcasm and vitriol.

It may be all about the perps to you. To me it is about protecting FIRST the ones who are doing no harm, preferably in the least harmful way to the perp. The evidence is torn on whether there are long term complications of chemical castration. If there ARE long term consequences then it changes my feelings on the subject.

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. You have no shown no signs of debate at all. All you have done, to every post,

is ask leading and smarmy questions back to the poster. You've offered no suggestion that you've listened to what they say, or have even given it any due consideration. You merely shout back another leading, misguided question.

Perhaps that's debate to you.

But it is not to me, and I think you'll find the majority of the world backing me on my position (my position that you are not engaging in debate, obviously, not my position on the question at hand re: sex offenders).

[FedUpWithIt All]

28. You stated your view on the subject. I asked you a further question.

Asking what you would consider an affective deterrent is NO a leading question.

As for Pri, she said she feels that chem castration should be optional but preferred prison as a deterrent. I was asking if she meant those things in concert.

To others who suggest jail is a workable solution i am simply asking if they mean jail as it currently stands or used in a new way.



I am WILLING to debate if something comes up that i find debatable. So far it is just people offing their opinions.

[jobycom]

23. You have to ask that question about every crime, or none.

Our prison system is greatly flawed, and as an advanced society we should be ashamed of it and should work out a better system. It is often little more than a school system to turn amateur criminals into hardened professionals. And in current practice, it often serves as a concentration camp for non-whites, to show them who still has power.

Pedophiles deserve prison more than the average criminal. Any argument about why prisons are ineffective in rehabing pedophiles applies to every other crime, as well, so any claim that prisons are poor forms of punishment or deterrent for pedophilia have to apply to all classes of criminal.

What's the best or most acceptable mandatory deterrent to all crimes? So far, prison, even though it is only weakly, if at all, successful. I don't think you'll get much traction arguing that pedophiles deserve prison less than other criminals--not that you argued that, but it is a possible interpretation of the whole discussion.

[FedUpWithIt All]

24. I am in support of a restructuring of our prison system.

I have a great aversion to the way it works.

But on this message board, i had a question about a specific subject. It recieves a lot of emotion when a new case is revealed but very little ACTUALLY changes and more victims, with all that this entails, are created every day.

I am seriously wondering what people think would work to lessen the damage. I have my opinions. I want to know what other people think.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. You pretty well summed up why I voted other..

although I really don't see the prison system as even "weakly" successful. Talk about EPIC FAIL.

[jobycom]

36. Do away with it and see what happens.

It's good at keeping the worst criminals off the streets. It's bad because it is used too often on people who shouldn't even be considered criminals, and because it too often turns rehabilitatable convicts into career hardened criminals.

A lot of its faults aren't even about prisons, but the judicial system which sentences people, and the legislative system which now takes the attitude that it must punish every action it can't find a reason not to punish, and a society that has so many axes to grind that it keeps electing legislators and judges who act that way.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. I could argue

that the worst criminals wear suits and ties and work on Wall Street but, I won't. The second sentence is a very good summation of the current situation.

[jobycom]

45. And I couldn't argue

with that. :)

[av8rdave]

48. I posted this in another thread, but how about....

If the offender is given a very harsh sentence (as they deserve!), but given the option to reduce that sentence if they agree to chemical or surgical castration? IF (and I'm no expert) that would truly eliminate the risk of them causing more harm, and they agree to it, perhaps it's worth consideration.

Just a thought...

[FedUpWithIt All]

53. I support the option of chemical castration in exchange for a shortened sentence.

It should be combined with some sort of mandatory mental health treatment IMO.

I think some states already offer this. I wonder if there are any stats on the success/failure yet.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. NO. Not unless they asked for its etc. And even then. It's cruel & beyond and above

a level of intrusion into one's body that the govt should have.

if we think a pedophile cannot be fixed, then life in prison without parole is acceptable to me. if you hurt children you dont deserve freedom, but i cannot indulge in immorality just because you are.

[FedUpWithIt All]

10. Currently, they do not receive life in prison. Do you think there should be mandatory

life term prison sentences for sex offenders due to the high level re-activism rate?

Perhaps with the option for something like chemical castration to lower sentence?

Do you think our current system for dealing with this issue is sufficient?

[Bucky]

9. One of life's little lessons...

I had a divorced friend a few years ago, a real macho air force veteran. One day he found out that his 16 year old daughter had been getting raped by her step father for the prior four years. Of course we were all shocked when we heard the news.

The first thing I said to him was "I'll bet you want to kill the guy."

But instead, my friend said, "No, what I want to do is protect my daughter and help her deal with this shit."

I realized that I was responding with the socially approved anger and judgment. My focus was entirely wrong. The #1 concern is with the victim. How to punish is a very comfortable conversation--we all get to act righteous and vengeful like a god out to flood or burn the sin out of humanity--but it's not the real priority.

Frankly, most of it seems to be about posing who can act the most irate, who can propose the cruelest retribution, or who can vent the most impotent rage.

It seems better to discuss how we should help the victims of the abuse heal; or how to prevent these atrocities from occuring to more children (or more realistically, how to reduce the total numbers of victims of this sadly inevitable crime). But for some reason, you never see threads about how can we best help the victims of these crimes. People just want to talk about vengence, not recovery.

Of course the perpetrators should be removed from free society--as I understand it most of them are incureable. Many of them themselves request chemical castration. But it's not a very important discussion.

[FedUpWithIt All]

13. "how to prevent these atrocities from occuring to more children"

This is the issue at the heart of this discussion.

How is this done?

[Bucky]

34. Educate kids on how to spot & resist inappropriate attention. Isolate offenders immediately

As I understand it, this sort of crime is just sort of programmed to occur in rare, but randomly occuring, cases in any given primate population. It's gonna happen no matter what. Having it not happen is about as likely as having a garden that never gets weeds. What prevention we can effect is best achieved by building community. Children should be under shared caregiving and as a culture we need to cultivate and reinforce values like identifying predators, allowing children to develop healthy awareness of what's appropriate & what's not in interactions with adults.

This is all pretty vague--I'm talking about goals, not means. In my heart I believe electing more Democrats will reduce child abuse, but that's probably not very objective of me.

[FedUpWithIt All]

39. Thank you.

I think the things you mentioned are important and some strides have been made in the last 20 years to educate children about potentially abusive situations and how to handle them.

I think the problem is that many children are abused by the people that are supposed to defend and protect them. These people actively break down a child's internal warning system and responses. A teacher may not stand a chance against a manipulative and abusive parent/caretaker.

The other issue are the neglected or non-nurtured children who are often a prime target of predators. Children who have attentive and nurturing parents might be taught what to do in a potentially threatening situation but they are also less likely to be exposed to one.

What do you mean by shared caregiving?

I am in complete support of better recognition and support in the healing process of young victims but i would prefer to see less victims, period.

[Richardo]

18. This is the best post on this subject I've read in quite a while

What a great Dad that guy is. Inspirational.

[PVnRT]

21. +1

:thumbsup:

It seems the discussion, even on DU, is more about revenge, posing and out-outraging each other than getting to the actual root of the problem and having any concern for the victim.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. well said.

:thumbsup:

[NJmaverick]

11. Chemical castration has pretty much the same impact as real castration

It reduces or blocks testosterone.

Sterility

In time that will reduce and sometimes eliminate a man's sex drive. They will usually become nearly to completely impotent.

It will also result in loss of muscle strength and mass

It puts the man at risk of bone density loses (the men will go through the same symptoms as women in menopause, including hot flashes)

There have been some studies that suggest the loss of testosterone can contribute to dementia or early alzhiemers

Any long term hormone suppliment also runs the risk of liver damage

Now with that said, I think that it should be given as an option. In other words offenders should be given an option of a reduced jail time in exchange for going on such a program. It shouldn't be mandatory.

[FedUpWithIt All]

14. Do you think current standards for jail time are sufficient?

[NJmaverick]

19. That's hard to say, as it varies from state to state

Plus I think there are many other crimes where criminals are hitting the streets way to early. I would think it would be better to focus on all of them, rather than single out one type of crime.

[FedUpWithIt All]

42. I agree that the system needs an overhaul.

[PeaceNikki]

15. This is a topic that is heavy with emotion.

I agree with Pri's statement above: if a person is a danger to society, they should not be free to re-commit.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

17. I'd support physical castration, as well

Of course, I think if you molest a child once, you need to go to jail forever.

[Lyric]

27. If they want it, fine. But to force it on them? No.

I do not believe in forcing medication upon a person who is sane enough to be in charge of their own medical decisions. Also, female hormones can increase the risk of developing heart disease and certain types of cancers. We have no right to force such a risk upon anyone.

Besides, what would we do to the female sex offenders? Plenty of them are already taking Depo-Provera, and giving them testosterone would make them more sexually aggressive, not less. Most pedophiles are male, but there ARE some that are female, after all. I am opposed to any legal punishment that is tailored to apply to only one gender. I advocate for getting RID of laws that treat men and women differently (like bans on topless women where topless men are permitted.) This would be counter to everything I believe in as a principle.

I also do not think we should treat all sex offenders alike. Some are more likely to re-offend than others. A guy who gets drunk and pees on a tree in a public park should NOT be on a sex offender registry for the rest of his life. Someone who's a true pedophile should NOT be released out into the public. True pedophilia is a dangerous psychosis that needs to be treated as such--not as a simple crime. If we treat it as a dangerous psychosis, we can keep them locked up where they belong (preferably in a mental health treatment center, not a prison.)

Our society's obsession with "punishing" people for having a mental illness is extremely disturbing, and yet, whenever anyone SAYS that out loud, they're accused of "defending child rapers." It must be nice to live in such a black-and-white world. As for me, I do not consider it cruel "punishment" to lock up true, diagnosed pedophiles for 50+ years. They are as dangerous to society as any other criminally psychotic person. I think it's crueler to let them out of prison and expect them to somehow "suppress" a mental illness by sheer willpower. Depo-Provera is not 100% effective, and it's also not gender-neutral. Keeping them locked away from children for life is both. Being locked up for 50+ years will not increase aggressive tendencies, provided that it's in a mental institution with therapy and medications. Such a solution would not be "punishment;" it would merely be the sad but necessary action required to keep children safe.

And yes, I am a former victim of child molestation. I was three. The guy who molested me was my adult cousin. He's dead now, but if he were still alive, I'd rather that he be in a mental institution than a prison, because he was truly, deeply SICK. I carry no anger about it, even though it was traumatic, because I understand that he wasn't of sound mind.

[FedUpWithIt All]

35. Thank you. I mostly agree with you.

I think that there should be a new classification system for sex crimes.

I do not prefer prison for serious sex offenders because i feel mental illness is at the core. But i am torn because i want them to be unable to continue to harm and the only way to prevent it is to remove them from society (for a long time) or otherwise prevent them from assaulting others.

I also was never opposed to the chem castration option as a voluntary thing. I think the possibility of long term health issue also mandates that it would be voluntary. But i think that having it as voluntary only works if the alternative option is LONG term removal from society. My problem is that i would really would like to see us moving more toward solutions as a society to replace the prison mentality we currently are mired in.

I see what you are saying about the gender specific bias of chem castration and i somewhat agree.

[jobycom]

29. Not forced, and not as an alternative to prison.

I could be persuaded by a lot more evidence than that article links that one could tie probation or even sentencing (reducing it) to voluntary use of such drugs, but so far the article, which appears to be a junior college paper with almost no documentation, is too vague to convince me.

I don't believe the crime of pedophilia--and here I'm not talking about a 24 year old man who sleeps with a 15 year old woman in the heat of passion, but about men who stalk children in a predatory manner as a pattern of behavior--happens because of uncontrollable sexual urges. I think that a person who commits that crime against children is amongst the most dangerous class of criminal, placing personal desire over the safety of the most vulnerable of people. Barring mental illness--which should result in treatment instead of punishment--there are any number of factors in a criminal decision. This drug might take away one of those factors, but not the rest. The person still has no regard for others.

So mandatory chemical castration is not punishment enough nor a convincing enough deterrent, IMHO. It may reduce one crime and create another, more violent crime, for all we can tell. The article sort of argues that the evidence suggests that there is low recidivism, but it doesn't show enough evidence to convince me that a person willing to give into an urge to molest a child will suddenly become a less dangerous person because of this drug.

Plus, there are other issues. The article lists some side effects, including some chronic, fatal illnesses. Can we force that on someone? Can weforce a person to take a drug which might cause diabetes or blood clots? What if long term uses causes Alzheimers or cancer? How much will the legal fees and settlements cost us, even if the human rights issue of cruel and unusual and unexpectedly permanent punishment don't move you.

So, I'm not for forcing someone to take a drug as part of a punishment, and I'm hesitant to offer it as an incentive to reduce a sentence because a judge could then threaten unrealistic sentences which all but force acceptance of the drug.

Those are my opinions.

[Heidi]

31. Not by force, and only as part of a treatment plan that includes therapy. (nt)

[tigereye]

40. that's an interesting question - I don't know

if it can reduce sex offense rates overall, that is great. But there seems to be a "punitive chemical restraint" trade- off that might be a slippery slope for the justice system to travel down, ethically. Are the offenders forced to take the medication, or do they have a choice of that or jail?


Judging from the long-term negative effects of sexual abuse on kids and adults with whom I have worked, it may well be worth the ethical/justice issues that it would evoke.

[FedUpWithIt All]

41. I am in support of the option in exchange for a reduced sentence.

[Midlodemocrat]

43. I don't. Lack of testosterone actually eventually destroys the body

so it's bordering on cruel and inhumane.

I support jail terms of life.

[noonwitch]

44. No, rape is an act of violence, not of sex

One does not need a functioning penis to abuse a child sexually. Objects work, hands, mouths, and so on.

First offense: 25 years, minimum, more if the circumstances merit (particular cruelty, plan to kill child afterward but got caught before that could happen, etc.)
Second offense: Life, no possibility of parole.

[FedUpWithIt All]

47. Chemical castration lowers the desire to commit sexual violence in most cases.

In most cases it lowers aggression, impulsive action, obsessive sexual thoughts and compulsive behavior.

[rug]

46. No.

[Forkboy]

51. No. If they want to they should be able to, but it shouldn't be forced, ever.

[flvegan]

52. No. I think the term "child sex offender" is too broad a term right now.

I couldn't possibly support chemical castration for a high school senior with a sophomore girlfriend because the laws of the state dictate that at midnight on one magical day dictates a legal age for sexual activity. However, I don't feel passive at all for a pedophile or any other form of sexual predatory. I think an appropriate jail term is the best start and proper punishment, and if released they should be old enough to not have testosterone production of any sort any more.

[FedUpWithIt All]

55. I should have clarified. I meant pedophiles and violent predators.

I think the current sex offender all-inclusive umbrella is a shameful disgrace.

[LSdemocrat]

54. I'd prefer life in prison without parole

On edit: I want to clarify that in cases of adults raping pre-pubescent children, I would support life in prison without parole.