Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61

Thread: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It's not so much about them not reproducing as it is about taming their sexual urges so they don't reoffend. Castration has proven to be very effective at greatly reducing (or completely eliminating) sex drive in human beings.
    I understand that, but let's not sugar coat it. It is sterilization. There are drugs that can be taken that greatly reduce sex drive. There are testosterone antagonists and inhibitors. Castrating them removes their ability to have children, which, in light of the EU's history with eugenics, is surely on the minds of everyone who is in favour of this legislation. This isn't the first time that nations in the EU have treated "sexual disorders" with castration.

    To say they are considering it now is false language. They are reconsidering it, after having stopped the practice already following the eugenics period.

  2. #42
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I understand that, but let's not sugar coat it. It is sterilization. There are drugs that can be taken that greatly reduce sex drive. There are testosterone antagonists and inhibitors. Castrating them removes their ability to have children, which, in light of the EU's history with eugenics, is surely on the minds of everyone who is in favour of this legislation. This isn't the first time that nations in the EU have treated "sexual disorders" with castration.

    To say they are considering it now is false language. They are reconsidering it, after having stopped the practice already following the eugenics period.
    They could still reproduce via artificial insemination...

    Sterilization is only an incidental consequence. The main purpose is to tame their sexual urges. If sterilization was truly the primary purpose, there would be no reason to limit castration to sex offenders.

    As for their being drugs that inhibit sex drive: I don't know how effective they are, but they certainly aren't as RELIABLE as castration, as the offender could stop taking them at any time.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #43
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    The problem I see with this is in MANY cases the assault isn't sexual it is about control. Taking away their sexual means by castrations, doesn't tame the need for control.

    IMO, all it will lead to is instead of the sexual control for the victim is the death of the victim. You have just created a murderer IMO.
    These people want to **** little kids because they are sexually attracted to little kids, not because they have some control fetish. Something is ****ed up inside their head,so instead of them being sexually attracted to a someone of the opposite gender and post pubescent they are sexually attracted to little kids. So it is nonsense to say they do this because have some need for control,they do this because they are sexually attracted to little children.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 03-13-09 at 01:37 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    They could still reproduce via artificial insemination...
    Who is going to pay for that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Sterilization is only an incidental consequence. The main purpose is to tame their sexual urges. If sterilization was truly the primary purpose, there would be no reason to limit castration to sex offenders.
    It's incidental, but a huge factor. You can't ignore the reproductive consequences of this option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    As for their being drugs that inhibit sex drive: I don't know how effective they are, but they certainly aren't as RELIABLE as castration, as the offender could stop taking them at any time.
    Not if their release is contigent upon taking them.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Europeans debate castration of sex offenders
    Europe is the bane of civilied society! How can they entertain such gruesome and barbaric ideas? Europe doesn't care about human rights. Blah-blah-blah. Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah....

    You see how that can get a little annoying? Yes, I'm talking to the nosey Europhiles. You know what, I think America should start utilizing the UN to push OUR way of life onto Europe, see how they like it.

    That way we can stop these barbaric practices from occuring! Human rights must be recognized! I'll draft up a UN treaty right away that shows you nasty Europeans how to govern properly.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    These people want to **** little kids because they are sexually attracted to little kids, not because they have some control fetish. Something is ****ed up inside their head,so instead of them being sexually attracted to a someone of the opposite gender and post pubescent they are sexually attracted to little kids. So it is nonsense to say they do this because have some need for control,they do this because they are sexually attracted to little children.
    How, then, do you explain sexual attraction?

  7. #47
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Courts often allow early parole for good behavior in prison. The convict's good behavior may have been motivated by his desire to get out of prison, rather than a "free choice." So what?
    The question turns on the behavior that is being incentivized. In the parole example, the government is using its punitive authority to pressure a person to behave nicely and not cause trouble. That's fine, as there is no personal right being impinged upon. In the castration example, the government is using its punitive authority to pressure a person to submit to surgical sterilization. That's a much more serious act, and calls into question personal autonomy.

    I don't follow your logic. If a rapist is faced with a choice between 25 years in prison and/or castration with 2 years probation, he may rightly feel that BOTH are "cruel and unusual punishment." But he committed the crime after all. If the state is willing to offer him that choice and he is willing to accept that choice, why not let him decide for himself which is crueler and more unusual? Why substitute a judge's opinion for the opinion of the person who will actually have to live with the consequences?
    Because the government cannot use its power unjustly to deprive others of their constitutional rights, even under color of law.

    Hypo: Say that a first-time DUI can be punished by up to $25k and a year in jail, but is routinely handled with a $1500 fine and 30 days probation. The defendant decides he wants to get an attorney and try to fight the charge, but the prosecutor tells him that if he goes out and gets an attorney, he will hit him with the full force of the law and push for the $25k and year in jail, which he stands a good chance of getting. The defendant, scared of this, agrees to forego the attorney and take the plea that the prosecutor offered.

    Although the defendant made a "free choice" in that situation, that plea would be reversed on appeal because the government simply cannot do that.

    You can give up all sorts of rights. The government just can't induce you to do so.

    Not the same situation. In that case, the vasectomy was MANDATORY. In this case, they're proposing OPTIONAL castration as an alternative to incarceration and/or in exchange for leniency. Furthermore, in that case the punishment was for ANY crimes except for a select few, whereas in this case the punishment is limited to crimes that might actually be PREVENTED by castration. Furthermore, the court ruled that Skinner v Oklahoma violated the Equal Protection Clause, not the 8th Amendment.
    Yes, but the point is that unless you want to pass a law saying that all felonies are punishable by castration, you risk running into the same equal protection problems. Some states are pushing this as we speak, so we may yet see an on-point resolution of the issue.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Child molestors should be given life in prison with the slimmest possibility of parole after a minimum of twenty-five years. In the event they are paroled, castration along with a surgically-implanted tracking device will be compulsory.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    All this bother over human trash.
    Just kill them.

    Child RAPE('molestation' is basically 'ethnic cleansing'..a way to make it seem less bad)
    Intentional Murder(IE--The Nightstalker- still ALIVE btw)

    Should be mandatory Death.
    Last edited by Triad; 03-13-09 at 05:17 AM.

  10. #50
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    You're missing a key point - the fact that the punishment already exists doesn't serve to eliminate its coercive effect. This is even more egregious where the potential punishment is significantly increased, as it is in this situation --
    You were careful before to use the term " an irreversible imposition on a person's physical being" however now in the post above it is a punishment. I also note the debate has shifted from the European theatre to a US constitutional one. The main point being "punishment" as your 8th Amendment relates to this.

    From what I've also read, the the term "punishment" is subjective. Where castration (chemical) is involved in the US (including Mr Jindal's signing into law) it becomes a mandatory punishment after 2nd offence - although I've read that there is talk of it being a 1st offence punishment too. In the European example (Czech republic) first discussed - it is/was an offer of an alternative i.e. incarceration or castration. In other parts of europe where it is being discussed it is chemical castration - which is not permanent anyway. If the offender stops his treatment he is not "castrated" anymore.

    But going back to punishment - prison is punishment, the way I see it, the surgical castration being offered to Czech paedophiles can also be seen as treatment and thus in the same light as treatment for any other tissue that causes a problem. The only difference is that the tissue removed from a paedophile that willingly undergoes the treatment removes a threat from other people whereas most tissue removal treats the subject himself. Besides, the question of choice negates the argument of coercion. There is no obligation yet in the European examples of enforced castration. That however is what I read is being talked about in Louisiana's laws.

    Personally, while the treatment is an offer that can be turned down then I cannot see it as punishment. When it becomes mandatory then it is - but is it cruel and unusual? That is another matter and it is still highly subjective - but there are some (maybe not many) paedophiles who have asked for relief from their condition. That much is known - and I see no reason to deny them this. If a suspected paedophile is actually innocent then it is unlikely they would take an offer of castration but would fight their case to prove their innocence. That is the only area where I have problems with mandatory castration - but I am not resolved in my mind yet - we don't have the Death Penalty in Europe however one area I have previously agreed with the Death Penalty was dangerous recidivist paedophiles.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •