Chemical Castration for Child Sex Offenders, yea or nay?

I'll bet you would be shocked to know how many violent offenders are released back into your neighborhood.

 

I'd go even further, death penalty for these sickos, and lets start doing the same thing to murderers. Try them, if convicted, take them to the back and do a firing squad.

 

I bet I am not but violent offenders and sex offenders are not always the same people. I have a convicted rapist living 2 houses away. Two houses beyond that was shot up pretty good in a driveby related to the people's son being a drug dealer feuding with another drug dealer. Across and up three there was another convicted rapist living with his family but he has since moved. I could tell you where every drug dealer in my neighborhood and the one beside it lives. Most of the people in my neighborhood have lived here longer than I have been alive. Decent neighborhood, but the crap is everywhere now. The drug dealers and their string of teenage customers scare me a lot more than the sex offender but he was convicted at 14 and is 30 now with a wife, a couple kids, a job. He is a decent fellow as far as I can tell.

 

Here is a great resource for every parent to look at. I believe you just enter your zip code, and you should be able to see the sex offender registry for your area. I used to take a look at every once in a while and even showed it to my son on several occasions. That way, he could see who these people are in case any of them ever approached him or something.

http://www.kidslivesafe.com/signup/...a=Master&vid=0ee17400469e4c159c7a55217a2a1750

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "when needed". Once their sentence is served, the only way it's "needed" is if they voluntary submit to it. It sets a bad precedent if it's forced meaning that what's to stop the US government from instituting other chemical means for other types of crimes under the pretext that this works for child predators.

EDIT: Or expand the forced use of chemical castration to those who simply view child pornography in private and have harmed no one.

 

It does if it's forced after their sentence is served.

That's not true of all their rights. Criminals who are sentenced to prison terms lose their right to freedom while incarcerated but they don't lose certain other rights, for example, the right to life and sustenance, among other things. Once they serve their term, they regain their right to freedom and other rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

 

When last I heard, the Innocents Project got about 1,000 people released. This is only a fraction of those wrongfully convicted. Perhaps if people like you were among those who spend decades in prison for a crime you did not commit, had to endure the pick-up-the-soap ritual in prison showers, and got a venereal disease from that activity, you would change your mind about all this.

In the law field there is an old adage about ''better that one hundred guilty people go free, than one innocent person be wrongfully prosecuted". Ask someone whose innocent son was beaten and raped to death in prison if his death was worth it for any reason. I don't think you would dismiss that scenario as being inconsequential.

 

The thread isn't about innocent people being wrongly convicted, so can we get back to the topic?

 

Well, I think if a person attacks a child, then they should lose their rights indefinitely. Our children are more important than these predators' rights.

 

you earlier post dealt with government abusing its authority:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ders-yea-or-nay.508102/page-3#post-1067668086

 

Chemical castration is not denying them their life or sustenance. If you are going to be against this, then you had better come up with a better solution. People are sick and tired of these things happening to kids by sick adults who should really NEVER be let out of prison.

 

While that is an interesting topic in and of itself, that is really not what I wanted to discuss when I started this thread. I want to know what people think of chemical castration and what do they suggest to help lower the frequencies of the crime of child molestation if they do not agree with chemical castration.

 

Chemical castration isn't even effective with these sickos. they should be locked up for life, period.

 

Shoulda, coulda, woulda! That's probably not going to happen, so we need alternatives.

 

I would have to go find the data, but I believe I read once that, on average, child sex offenders serve about 8 years in prison because they are most often let out early on parole for "good behavior." Lol! Well, it's kind of hard to molest children while you are in prison! Good behavior, yeah right!

 

Nope, all it takes is to stop pandering to the inmates and letting them run the asylums. Some crimes, and criminals, are 'special', and no one needs to let other crazies make stupid apologetics for them. No point in letting amoral idiots determine the narrative.


"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry

In any case, most don't get castrated unless they agree to it in exchange for early release or whatever, so whoever is whining about castration is just being ignorant. And, many of those castrated just keep on molesting kids anyway; it's a mental illness, just like homosexuality is; castration doesn't reduce the compulsions. Try lobotomies.

 

I disagree for two reasons. One, I have no trust in the (in)justice system driven by $$$. They have all too often incarcerated innocent people. And two, as already stated, it sets a bad precedent that I have no doubt will lead to other injustices.

I can't disagree with that but it doesn't change the point.

 

Again, we are talking about people who are clearly guilty here.

 

That isn't the point.

No I don't, I am not in a position to invent a "better solution".

So am I but it doesn't mean extreme measures should be taken without regard to the consequences.

 

And who determines that? The (in)justice system of course. Sorry, I'm not into extreme measures that will very likely lead to other injustices.

 

I will use my friend's stepfather who actually did molest her when she was about 13. He was a big fat disgusting slob of a man, and I mean really really fat. He fed my friend and a couple of her friends who were sleeping over that night alcohol and weed. He then butt raped them all. This wasn't the first time he had raped my friend though. He had done it at least several other times in the past. However, THIS time, one of the other girls told her parents about what had happened. He was convicted on multiple counts of rape and other charges (I can't remember what exactly - that was a long time ago). My friend ended up testifying against him, and she was also removed from her home and placed in foster care.

Do you want this guy walking around in your community leering at your little girl and her friends? Are his rights to not have to take a drug to control his sexual urges more important to you?

 

And do you feel the same about murderers and other criminals? Are they ALL innocent? Give me a break. While there are going to be SOME innocent people, the vast majority are guilty and there is overwhelming evidence to prove it.

 

There have been several cases of innocent people locked up for life. Some strictly for minor drug crimes on the basis of the 3 strike lunacy.

 

And there are those who have been wrongly sentenced to life imprisonment or execution. When the criminal justice system becomes trustworthy (if ever) and not driven by $$$, then we can revisit this issue. Until then, I completely disagree with escalating punishment for any crime. For me the plea bargain lunacy is a totally unconstitutional way of incarcerating many innocent people. And it's the number one tool of prosecutors.

 

I think the "3 strikes" law is related to violent crimes. Now why do you disagree with that law? It almost seems as if you want violent offenders walking among us with no consequences whatsoever. ???

The three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence.