• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Europeans debate castration of sex offenders

It's not really "voluntary" if you tell the prisoner that he can either be castrated and go free or refuse castration and spend the rest of his life in jail. It's incredibly coercive.

If the normal punishment would be life in prison, I don't see the problem with such a policy. The offender is simply given another option.The whole point of keeping them in prison is to protect society from their criminal actions. If they can prevent the offenders from committing further crimes by other means, there is little reason for them to be in prison. Do you think having the option to get castrated instead of prison is worse than no choice at all?
 
So the choice is to either have your body mutilated and live a life as someone who has disfigured genitalia, or have no life at all.

I would like to see evidence that castration prevents pedophiles from desiring children. Last time I checked it was a social/emotional thing just as much as it is a sexual thing.
 
--I bet that telling someone who's had his balls removed that he can get testosterone injections isn't very comforting.

I never said it would be - however Laila made the point that someone who's had their testicles removed is still alive and breathing afterwards. Someone who's had the death penalty imposed on them has nothing.

You are the one in the first post equating the two! :lol:
 
If the normal punishment would be life in prison, I don't see the problem with such a policy. The offender is simply given another option.The whole point of keeping them in prison is to protect society from their criminal actions. If they can prevent the offenders from committing further crimes by other means, there is little reason for them to be in prison. Do you think having the option to get castrated instead of prison is worse than no choice at all?

If I put a gun to your head and say "your money or your life," is your decision to hand me your wallet being made "voluntarily"?

I never said it would be - however Laila made the point that someone who's had their testicles removed is still alive and breathing afterwards. Someone who's had the death penalty imposed on them has nothing.

You are the one in the first post equating the two! :lol:

rightinnyc said:
laila said:
Taking a life and cutting off the penis is very different.

I'm aware, but both involve an irreversible imposition on a person's physical being.
 
If I put a gun to your head and say "your money or your life," is your decision to hand me your wallet being made "voluntarily"?

Not a comparable analogy. Sex offenders go to prison by default if convicted. I hope we can agree that is a reasonable practice and they deserve to go to prison. Your analogy fails because death is not the same as imprisonment, and more importantly robbing someone is illegal and unethical, where as putting sex offender in prison is not. The only difference between our system and the Czech republic is that offenders have the option to get castrated if they decide its better than prison. In our system, they simply go straight to prison. If we use your analogy, the guy puts a gun to my head and shoots me without even asking for my money.
 
Not a comparable analogy. Sex offenders go to prison by default if convicted. I hope we can agree that is a reasonable practice and they deserve to go to prison.

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. If you get convicted of theft and the punishment is 3 months in prison, it's not that big of a deal. If I offer to let you out of jail so long as we cut off your right hand, you're probably not going to accept. However, if the punishment is 40 years in prison, you're probably going to agree to have your hand removed in exchange for freedom. Does that mean that your decision is "voluntary"? Of course not. I'm using the power of the state to increase the potential penalty for refusing to agree to my preferred outcome in order to coerce you to do what I desire.

Your analogy fails because death is not the same as imprisonment, and more importantly robbing someone is illegal and unethical, where as putting sex offender in prison is not. The only difference between our system and the Czech republic is that offenders have the option to get castrated if they decide its better than prison. In our system, they simply go straight to prison. If we use your analogy, the guy puts a gun to my head and shoots me without even asking for my money.

No, in my analogy, the guy is putting a gun to your head and letting you decide "your money or your life." If you turn over your wallet, he doesn't shoot you.
 
It's not really "voluntary" if you tell the prisoner that he can either be castrated and go free or refuse castration and spend the rest of his life in jail. It's incredibly coercive.

But if he picks castration instead of incarceration, it's probably because he thinks that THAT punishment is less cruel and unusual than the alternative. And depending on the circumstances, I'd be inclined to agree with him. We aren't talking about a guillotine-type procedure to chop off his balls while he's fully conscious.

You could look at the issue another way to make the same argument about incarceration...Offer the convict "voluntary incarceration" as an alternative to losing his balls. Would incarceration then be cruel and unusual?

Of course the punishment is coercive, as it should be...the offender was convicted of a crime, after all. But coercion doesn't imply that the convict is unable to make a legitimate choice between two distinct options.

RightinNYC said:
I bet that telling someone who's had his balls removed that he can get testosterone injections isn't very comforting.

I bet that telling someone who's facing 25 years of hard labor and gang rapes in prison that he can sue his guards for abuse isn't very comforting either. But what else can you do.
 
Last edited:
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.
Instead, keep them in prison for life at $20,000 annually...
It makes a lot more sense to study the Czech method and see how this works over the long run..
"Rehabilitation" has been shown NOT to work..
 
But if he picks castration instead of incarceration, it's probably because he thinks that THAT punishment is less cruel and unusual than the alternative. And depending on the circumstances, I'd be inclined to agree with him. We aren't talking about a guillotine-type procedure to chop off his balls while he's fully conscious.

You could look at the issue another way to make the same argument about incarceration...Offer the convict "voluntary incarceration" as an alternative to losing his balls. Would incarceration then be cruel and unusual?

Of course the punishment is coercive, as it should be...the offender was convicted of a crime, after all. But coercion doesn't imply that the convict is unable to make a legitimate choice between two distinct options.

1) Regardless of whether there is a choice, it's not a free choice. When the government acts in a way that is overly coercive, it can operate in such a way as to violate constitutional rights, even where there is still some semblance of a "choice."

2) Notwithstanding everything else, it's unconstitutional.
 
1) Regardless of whether there is a choice, it's not a free choice.

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?

RightinNYC said:
When the government acts in a way that is overly coercive, it can operate in such a way as to violate constitutional rights, even where there is still some semblance of a "choice."

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?

RightinNYC said:
2) Notwithstanding everything else, it's unconstitutional.

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.

Moreover, the zeitgeist in 1942 was horror over eugenics. These court opinions express grave concern that mandatory sterilization will somehow be used to sterilize entire races of people. 67 years later with Nazism a distant memory, the courts might very well not be so concerned over that sort of thing.




And again, I'd like to point something out, since it's important in these discussions: We're talking about a surgical procedure with anesthesia here, not guillotining his balls.
 
Last edited:
I support physical castration if their is physical evidence of rape of a child 12 or under and the offender is over 18. It is pretty much clear cut case that at la rape occur and there is no such thing as consent with a child that young.

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.
 
Let's not also overlook the fact that castration is sterilization. Is the EU getting back into the practice of eugenics again to prevent pedophiles from reproducing?

I believe it is willful coercion to offer them freedom from prison in exchange for sterilization.
 
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.

I disagree. Even the need for control, as it pertains to rape cases, is predominantly a sexual impulse. The mentality of a rapist may be a little more complex than "I was horny" (although often it is not), but it's still nearly always a sexual urge that prompts him to act.
 
Last edited:
Let's not also overlook the fact that castration is sterilization. Is the EU getting back into the practice of eugenics again to prevent pedophiles from reproducing?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
They could still reproduce via artificial insemination...

Who is going to pay for that?

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom