Chemical Castration for Child Sex Offenders, yea or nay?

Things are badly managed, and that is just another reason to be against the DP, IMO. A lot of times authorities just want to convict someone for a crime to make the public happy. There have been some cases where it didn't even matter if the person they convicted for the crime was actually guilty of the crime! There are prosecutors and even forensic laboratories who will tamper with or hide evidence, etc. We had two cases in MA where evidence was tampered with in forensics laboratories just recently (within the past 5 years or so). That is something important to keep in mind when it comes to the DP. It reminds me of a case in Rhode Island where a state trooper was charged with killing and dismembering his mistress. All of the evidence seemed to point directly to him; the fact that he was having an affair with this woman, the fact that he had been seen with her shortly before her murder, etc., but come to find out it wasn't him and it was some other deranged lunatic. While we don't have the DP here in MA, he was going to be serving a life sentence and I believe he had served like 10 years before they finally released him, an innocent man.

 

Ok I partially take that back since in my haste I missed the claim that it's "reversible". I do however have reservations about that and don't know if the claim has been thoroughly tested and found to be 100% true in all cases.

Yes I agree with that but I have zero trust in the US (in)justice system to get it right. There are far too many wrongful convictions as a result of the unconstitutional "plea bargain" blackmail system, some of these have resulted in wrongful executions and many years in prison. So I can't agree with anything that increases the level of punishment for the prison industry and especially anything that sets a precedent for other types of barbaric consequences. Furthermore, does the term "child predator" or "child molester" include those who have done nothing to children other than privately view child pornography? And if it doesn't, will the precedent eventually include those types of people?

These are some of the many reasons I object to this proposal.

 

I would agree if you were talking about the death penalty. So what solutions do you have?

 

Neither would I. They are the lowest of lifeforms.

 

I'm willing to bet that in MOST cases, the ones who are convicted are truly guilty, while truly innocent people being convicted is not the norm though. In a lot of cases there actually is some overwhelming evidence of guilt, and yet sometimes they will still release these nuts back into society, exposing them to our kids! Something needs to be done about this. Something more than what we are currently doing.

 

What exists, jail sentences. It's admittedly not a solution or a deterrent but it does keep them off the streets for a length of time and the Megan's Law designation might make it a bit more difficult for them to do it again once released. Other than that, it's difficult to come up with any permanent solution. Criminals will commit crimes no matter what types of punishments are on the books, barbaric or not. It is the nature of humanity, there are defective personalities among the civilized.

 

As shown in the Innocents Project, there are many people unjustly convicted due to police/prosecutor corruption such as planting of evidence, intimidation or coercion of witnesses, mistaken identity, etc.

 

I don't have a hand in the criminal justice system, I am only an interested citizen.

I am not beguiled by Innocence Project stories, or the sad case of the RI Trooper. I look at who is doing the most bad: repeat violent offenders, street and prison gangsters, repeat sex offenders and the like. Taking out the worst of the lot should be a top priority.

That is why I believe all adult repeat violent offenders should be executed within 6 months after their 3rd + violent felony conviction (or separate trip through the system.)

Even IF they happen to be innocent of their latest crime, or even 2 of the 3 violent crimes in their career---there is no statistical chance they are going to be innocent of all three. Hang them and justice has been rightly served.

 

And I'm still not understanding why you would be against chemical castration which could certainly help to cut down on such crimes committed against children?

 

I don't see how it is "cruel and unusual" to eliminate the sex drive of a child predator?

 

I'm sure of that was YOU who was wrongfully convicted you just might change your viewpoint.

 

end the war on drugs and plenty of room for child molesters

 

In fact, considering that we have the means to do it, it is "cruel and unusual" to child victims NOT to do it, IMO.

 

Everyone always says that, but in most cases of people actually being imprisoned for drugs, it is because that was just one of MANY charges against the person, or because of drug trafficking or other such things. Usually simple users of drugs who are found with drugs (without committing any other crimes) wouldn't be doing life sentences. They would usually do an overnight stint in the local jail until their court dates and then released with probation and a fine.

 

Most paedos are mentally ill and probably do not even want to do what they do, so perhaps some of the not-yet-convicted would sign up for castration voluntarily?

As far as rape goes there really is no other suitable sentence than castration or even sterilisation, imo. Especially Sweden is notoriously laughable when it comes to punishing sex-offenders and that is deeply disturbing. Time and time again they are just being sentenced to community service, therapy and/or terrifyingly low jail-time not even reaching a year. Many times, they even let rapists walk free even if there is tons of proof they did it.

If I had a daughter or a sister who fell victim of rape, I would take 5000 years in prison for torturing the rapist to death.

 

I hate this argument because it really does nothing but to serve as a apologetic for assault, rape and murder - "bo hoo, criminal rights blah blah. They need kisses, hugs and teddies, not jail" Ugh.

 

How many of the sentenced sex-offenders are wrongfully convicted anyways? There are some psychos (like four or five) who would lie about being raped and some, very few, psychos who would brainwash their child into telling someone "fiddled" them. I also recognise that, sometimes, police might pick the wrong guy, but so what? These are exceptions and I do not really think it is worth risking more victims only to protect a minority of "wrongfully convicted". If that logic is stressed in absurdum, there should be no laws at all because "what if x is innocent?"

 

Re-read post #52. To summarize, it sets a really bad precedent. And another point I didn't mention. If it wears off after a time and the child predator is eventually released from prison, it serves no purpose after release from prison unless it is forced. But that violates all sorts of basic protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

 

I think you would feel different if it was you falsely arrested and imprisoned, I feel for anyone raped by the system like that

sometimes the inmates have no victims, sometimes they are the victims...

http://www.forejustice.org/wc/ray_krone_JD_vol2_i9.htm

 

Yeah, probably. But so what? The average woman just does not go around, randomly reporting men for rape out of the blue. I make sure not to make friends with such psychos.

 

How does it set a bad precedent? They would receive shots when needed at probation appointments. Easy peasy.

 

Right. It happens sometimes, but most women aren't lying about being raped.

 

It does not violate any protections. Criminals and especially those who prey on children have LOST their rights.

 

I think that might would be an option the offender could be given. I am not sure that cutting off the hormones really will get at the root of their malfunction. My state often just drives them from the gate of the prison through the gates of a psych hospital for sex offenders where they can be locked up indefinitely on the mental grounds.

 

Some people manage to move on after they have served their sentence following rape and I guess, sometimes, even a rapist is worthy a second chance (depending on the severity of the rape and context, of course). But, at least for people who get out of jail only to rape again, there should be no question at all about if castration is the right or wrong thing to do - just do it!

However, when it comes to paedophilia, chemical castration should be done imediately since there should be absolutely no sympathy left for this category of societal waste. Chemically castrating them means their sex-drive will be reduced which in turn means fewer sex-crimes on children and a lowered demand for child-pornography. How anyone can see this as something bad is beyond me.