Right, but either way, are you OK with it?? You have to think of the flipside, sooner or later an innocent person is gonna get wrongly convicted
I don't know, but if it could, then it should be, although (as a guesstimate) probably 95% of all sex crimes (especially on children) are committed by men.
Let's be clear here. I'm talking about PEDOPHILES, those who molest prepubescent (or not far from it) children.
No child sexual molesters hurt children. Not all pedophiles harm children and not all child sexual molesters are pedophiles. Are you calling for the removal of rights even if no harm has been done?
If you are only talking about those harming children , then stop using "pedophile" and use "child molesters ". The difference is significant.
Which is why she is calling for the chemical castration, because it is reversible. However, that brings to mind ChrisL, even the links you provided noted that there can be long term detrimental effect to taking the chemical castration drug. Are you willing to pay reparations to those suffer long term aftereffect of the drug, if it was found that they were innocent?
REad the title of the thread, and another thing is that you are quite bossy. I will say whatever words I want, thank you very much.
How is it any different than paying reparations for someone who was in prison for 30 years and was innocent? I think our children are worth it, yes.
That's on you, but by doing so you are ending up confusing the points you are trying to make. What you keep saying seems to run counter to the thread. I'm not trying to be bossy, and apologies if it comes across at way. It you keep using pedophiles despite what your thread title is, and it implies something different than what you are trying to put across, and that is what I am trying to point out to you.
If you are good with that and risking potential damage to a potential innocent, then as long as you are consistent with the above that's fine.
That's part of the overall problem. I agree they are scum of the Earth, but that gives a certain latitude in how far we can push the envelope on them. What I see is that too much focus on one class of criminal, a particularly hated class, opens up the opportunity for abuse against them. By widening the punishments used against them to other types of crimes would ensure that such abuses were limited. In the end the worst possible scenario is that child sex offenders are released because the laws were seen as cruel and unusual. The more common punishments like registries for felons and such make that almost impossible...
We got Baffin Island up here in Canada. Plenty of room, and too cold in the winter for them to get an erection. Its win/win
This is why chemical castration is not a good idea: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-solider-who-violently-raped-10792150 You can argue its reversible, but the accompanying diseases like osteoporosis and heart-disease are not reversible
You don't even know what that phrase means, do you? ROFL. Deflection about WHAT truth? You are welcome to participate in the thread, but stop making weird comments that have nothing to do with the thread. Thanks in advance.
Lying p.? What is a "p." Are you name calling now? AND calling me a liar is also name calling. I didn't lie. You didn't attribute the quote to the author. Who is the author of the quote?
I think releasing them out in the public without any medication is cruel and unusual to US and our kids.
You still haven't cited the author or the article from your other post yet either, which I specifically asked you do.