Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 61

Thread: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

  1. #51
    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
    Who is going to pay for that?
    The offender?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius
    It's incidental, but a huge factor. You can't ignore the reproductive consequences of this option.
    See above re: artificial insemination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius
    Not if their release is contigent upon taking them.
    They could tell their parole officer that they're taking them. After ten more people are raped, the district attorney realizes who the culprit is. Oops.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #52
    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 RightinNYC View Post
    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.
    The alternative is incarceration for a long period of time. Does THAT not call into question personal autonomy?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC
    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.
    The difference is that you have a constitutional right to an attorney and to a fair trial. You don't have a constitutional right to a pair of testicles. In fact, over 50% of the population doesn't have them. Furthermore, I don't see how it can be considered "cruel" as long as it's done with anesthesia and no negative health consequences result.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC
    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.
    The problem in Skinner v Oklahoma was that the state was doling out very different punishments for roughly comparable crimes (larceny/embezzlement) without offering any justification for doing so. In this case, the class of crimes for which an offender can be castrated (rape / molestation / sometimes murder) would NOT be roughly comparable to the crimes for which an offender could not be castrated (stealing a TV), and there WOULD be a justification for doing so: Namely, that castration will tame the offender's sexual urges and greatly reduce the risk of recidivism.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 03-13-09 at 06:16 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Europeans debate castration of sex offenders - International Herald Tribune

    I don't understand how one can support surgical castration while simultaneously opposing the death penalty.
    A bullit is so much cheaper.

  4. #54
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    northern ca.
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    184

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    If it can be proven without a doubt,that some one is guilty of violent rape or being a pedophile.They should get the death penalty,because they have already screwed up somebodies life,why give them another chance.

    Castration would just piss someone off enough, to start killing people or using foreign objects on someone in retribution.

    And yes its about power over someone.

  5. #55
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:27 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,726
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    This will only turn those offenders into more violent offenders. You take a guys manhood in an attempt to kill his drive and "disarm" him you might as well put a gun in his hand and tell him he has nothing to live for. Segregation of sexual offenders and rehabilitation are the only ways in which to protect society from them. Well you could execute them, but I'm not a death penalty supporter.
    Rehab?
    Most of these perverts return to their ways after release.

    It doesn't work, and they should be punished first and foremost.
    They committed abysmal crimes against humanity.

    They have proven themselves inhumane.
    They need to be removed for a long time... with that in mind:

    I think they should be given a choice.

    Castration and a 7-year sentence so they can learn to live without their driving passion, or imprisonment until they are 60. Minimum sentence 25-years.

    I do agree castration might trigger a revenge mentality, making castration a non issue.

    In either event it would serve as a deterrent, and if not... then they have to live with the consequences of their brutal actions.

    In the latter instance, imprisonment, their testosterone levels will have subsided. In the meantime they can enjoy being a pin cushion for the inmates.

    I wouldn't be against the death penalty.
    Last edited by zimmer; 03-14-09 at 07:31 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  6. #56
    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 rudedog View Post
    If it can be proven without a doubt,that some one is guilty of violent rape or being a pedophile.They should get the death penalty,because they have already screwed up somebodies life,why give them another chance.
    Because if they don't have their balls, they have very little sex drive. And if they have very little sex drive, it's highly unlikely that they'll reoffend.

    Quote Originally Posted by rudedog
    Castration would just piss someone off enough, to start killing people or using foreign objects on someone in retribution.
    Is there any evidence of this? Castration eliminates sex drive for most people.

    Quote Originally Posted by rudedog
    And yes its about power over someone.
    ...which is predominantly a sexual impulse.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #57
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverOprah
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,620

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    Taking a life and cutting off the penis is very different.
    Do you have a penis?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #58
    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 Infinite Chaos View Post
    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.
    Because the discussion moved to the US topic. The aforementioned point still holds, as it's "an irreversible imposition on a person's physical being" regardless of where we are.

    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.
    I don't have as much of a problem with chemical castration as I do with surgical castration.

    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.
    Prison is widely accepted as a proper form of punishment. Surgical castration, imo, is about as close to cruel and unusual punishment as you can get, hence the 8th Amendment problems.

    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.
    Louisiana is proposing mandatory chemical castration, like several states have. European countries are talking about incentivized surgical castration, which raises problems of state coercion and improper influence. Were a US state to pass a law allowing the state to incentivize surgical castration, I believe that law would be invalidated by the court.

    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?
    My general rule of thumb is that anything outlawed by Britain in the 13th century as being cruel and unusual is probably still cruel and unusual today.

    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.
    If a pedophile wants to be castrated and is making that choice freely, I don't have a problem with that. States can offer that option without constitutional problems. Where it becomes an issue is where the state is incentivizing that practice.

    Think about this: If NYC wanted to create a program where it would offer complimentary sterilization to any who wanted it, there would be no problem with that. But if NYC created a program where it would pay people $5,000 to get sterilized, there would be a massive uproar because it would be (rightly) seen as paying poor people to get sterilized.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The alternative is incarceration for a long period of time. Does THAT not call into question personal autonomy?
    Of course, but they're simply different. You can't deny that surgical castration carries a much harsher connotation.

    The difference is that you have a constitutional right to an attorney and to a fair trial. You don't have a constitutional right to a pair of testicles. In fact, over 50% of the population doesn't have them. Furthermore, I don't see how it can be considered "cruel" as long as it's done with anesthesia and no negative health consequences result.
    Do you have an explicit constitutional right to not have your hand cut off for stealing (so long as they used anesthesia)? Of course not, but such a law would be immediately invalidated.

    Sexual reproduction is even more protected, given that it falls within the penumbra of **** that Roe gave us.

    The problem in Skinner v Oklahoma was that the state was doling out very different punishments for roughly comparable crimes (larceny/embezzlement) without offering any justification for doing so.
    Do you think that if the OK law had offered a justification, the court would have decided to uphold it? I don't. The language of the decision made it pretty clear, imo, that even though they were only ruling on the EP issue, it would have been overturned regardless.

    This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race-the right to have offspring.
    Several objections to the constitutionality of the Act have been pressed upon us. It is urged that the Act cannot be sustained as an exercise of the police power in view of the state of scientific authorities respecting inheritability of criminal traits. It is argued that due process is lacking because under this Act, unlike the act upheld in Buck v. Bell, the defendant is given no opportunity to be heard on the issue as to whether he is the probable potential parent of socially undesirable offspring. It is also suggested that the Act is penal in character and that the sterilization provided for is cruel and unusual punishment and violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. We pass those points without intimating an opinion on them, for there is a feature of the Act which clearly condemns it. That is its failure to meet the requirements of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty.
    All these indications are dicta, but every single state court that has addressed the issue has held that it's unconstitutional and I very much doubt that any case would come out differently today, as it would face challenges under both the state and federal constitution.

    In this case, the class of crimes for which an offender can be castrated (rape / molestation / sometimes murder) would NOT be roughly comparable to the crimes for which an offender could not be castrated (stealing a TV), and there WOULD be a justification for doing so: Namely, that castration will tame the offender's sexual urges and greatly reduce the risk of recidivism.
    And I think that regardless of what level of scrutiny the court would apply, the plan would fail because it's not the least restrictive alternative. If chemical castration works as well as surgical castration, I don't see the justification for allowing the state to incentivize surgical.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #59
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    northern ca.
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    184

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Because if they don't have their balls, they have very little sex drive. And if they have very little sex drive, it's highly unlikely that they'll reoffend.



    Is there any evidence of this? Castration eliminates sex drive for most people.



    ...which is predominantly a sexual impulse.
    I don't know about you but,if someone cut my balls off their would be hell to pay.Maybe not sexually but physically, and if you already committed sexual acts against someone,why give them another chance,to screw up another life again.

    I've had some serious sexual impulses in my life, and never thought of rape or child molestation.These people are some serious sick people and they should be put down.

    It may be a sexual impulse as you say, but they are taking something from someone against their will,which is a power trip plain and simple.

  10. #60
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Most of these perverts return to their ways after release.
    I know it's popular on message boards to say that sexual offenders can't be rehabilitated. But the facts run contrary to opinion. Sex offenders tend to have a lower re-offense rate than most other criminals. From the Bureau of Justice:

    Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

    Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.
    It's important to note that the 43% above include NON-SEX offenses. The rate of SEX offense is only 5.3%. Compare this with the recidivism rate of other (non-sexual) offenders:

    Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
    Bureau of Justice Recidivism Rates

    The data indicate that sex offenders have a MUCH lower recidivism rate than other criminals. That doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about recidivism. But it's nice to keep the facts correct when discussing the issue.

    Last edited by Grateful Heart; 03-15-09 at 01:33 AM.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 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
  •