Chemical Castration for Child Sex Offenders, yea or nay?

Good point. It's not like they're going to find pre-pubescent children to get their hands on while they're behind bars.

 

I have always thought it is the best possible answer. And kind of a win-win because they would be free to walk around and live their lives. I would think, if they are truly concerned with the safety of children, they would welcome a no-fail solution.

 

That way they can't want gay sex.

But someone else pointed out if we put them in the general population, things will take care of themselves.

 

No, we can't kill them (and in fact premeditated killing of any person cannot be rationally justified no matter how heinous their crime) nor can chemical castration be justified and it wouldn't stop the sexual assault of children anyway.

We can "lock them up" as long as necessary by committing them to a mental institution as opposed to sending them to prison. A person that's involuntarily committed to a mental institution can be required to stay there until they're mental illness has been adequately addressed and they no longer represent a threat to society.

Yes, it does require highly skilled and knowledgeable mental health professionals to evaluate if the person still represents a threat or not and it would always be preferred to error on the side of caution.

 

Anyways, if you think about this realistically, you will see that they are not just going to hold these people in custody for the rest of their lives. They are going to have to release them back into society at some time, and I think appropriate measures should be put in place. Just like the psychotic person who is released from the mental institution has to take mandatory antipsychotics so that he doesn't harm himself or someone else, so should the pedophile have to take drugs that will reduce his desire to harm others.

 

You cannot know if a person is a threat or not, and I don't care HOW experienced you are. You never know what is going on in the mind of someone else and ESPECIALLY a sick someone else who has something to gain by lying.

Our children are our FUTURE and are too important to be ignored for the sake of a child molester. Sorry. And guess what? This idea is catching on and I wouldn't be surprised for it to be the norm soon.

 

What makes this any different than them letting the psychotic out of the mental institution on mandatory antipsychotics so that he doesn't hurt anyone or himself? Do you object to that as well? And if so, why? If there is a medication out there than can help these people control their urges and help them be rehabilitated and rejoin society, then why ignore it in favor of locking them up for life, which comes along with a whole OTHER set of problems that we all have to share?

 

Hello Bridget. I don't think we've met or spoken. Welcome to the board and I appreciate you input.

 

The problem here is that chemical castration only deals with one form of child sexual predator. The ones who are sexually attracted to the children.

What about the ones who don't really get off on it, but do it as a means of fulfilling their need to dominate children? They don't need their own wedding tackle to do that, all they need is a quick schlep down to the local naughty toy store.

Heck, you can get a lot of that stuff on Amazon these days.

What about the ones who aren't pedophiles...but who support pedophiles by supplying child pornography. I can't remember the documentary...but on one such show they talked about a family who were creating child-porn materials under the guise of being a photography studio. They said that they weren't getting off on taking nude photos of the children, they were creaming their jeans over the money they were making.

 

I think women pedophiles should be called out also. Equal rights should matter in all areas.
Mary Kay I wouldn't consider as dangerous as some, but she is still sick.

 

Those are the ones who are just sadists and should be killed really.

 

I think perhaps we should attempt to expand the punishments we allow for sex offenders into a broader range of criminals. Only sex offenders get put on life-long lists and force to report. Why aren't all felons required to do so? People without kids are more at risk to recidivist burglars than child molesters. That said, if we are indeed to be equal under the law, we cannot have a class of criminal that is so unique that by definition the punishments set forth create an unequal situation. Better to expand things like felon lists than to open up the opportunity for some unelected activist judge to decimate the current punishments we do have...

 

Because a person who harms kids or any other portion of the population that is basically defenseless are another class altogether. They are predatory monsters and can't be trusted.

 

Are you maintaining that there is no possible way to rehabilitate them, even after extensive psychological treatment?

 

Plenty of them have told us with their own mouths that they cannot control their urges.

 

We had a poster here recently (who has been banned) who put off the impression of being a pedophile. He was here making all kinds of excuses of why it should be "okay" with everyone for adults to be sexing up children. Good Lord! These people are mingling with our children every day!

 

These men (and rarely women) are SEXUALLY ATTRACTED to children. Those are the people who they want to have sex with, who turn them on, etc. You are asking them to rejoin society and remain celibate basically. If you are going to insist upon that, then they need something to curb their sexual appetites because chances are they will experience a moment of weakness at some point and give into their urges and harm an innocent child in the process. This is just common sense. If we try to lock them up or kill them, then there will outrage about "THEIR" rights (as ironic as this is after their crimes!), so that is just not going to happen.

 

Thats very true, they have a very high recidivism rate, and experts say its something you just can't cure.
You can only control it some extent.

Think of it as trying to control your own heterosexual sex drive, I think very few people could do it

 

Shouldve asked the mods to report his IP# to the FBI

 

What about those who have been able to control their urges? I have difficulty in believing that the failure rate is 100% in these cases.

 

Some people have been reported.

TREATMENT OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS
No treatment for pedophilia is effective unless the pedo-
phile is willing to engage in the treatment. Individuals can
offend again while in active psychotherapy, while receiv-
ing pharmacologic treatment, and even after castration.
17
Currently, much of the focus of pedophilic treatment is on
stopping further offenses against children rather than alter-
ing the pedophile’s sexual orientation toward children.
Schober et al
34
found that individuals still showed sexual
interest in children, as measured by the AASI, even after a
year of combined psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy,
whereas the pedophiles’ self-reported frequency of urges
and masturbation had decreased. These findings indicate
that the urges can be managed, but the core attraction does
not change.

 

There is no link to where this information came from. I posted a study in my opening post which describes how successful it has been. Yes, some pedophiles have volunteered to have this kind of treatment for their disease. If it stops SOME from offending, then it is WELL worth it. No?

 

Well their are surgical procedures that are 100% effective -

​

 

^^^^ Jeezus, whats the story behind that picture??

 

Incorrect, which show the Hugh misunderstanding most people have when it comes to these sort of things. If the person is a pedophile, they do not need a penis to sexually assault children. What, did you think female pedophiles magically grow a penis when attacking their victims. Secondly for those that sexually assault for reasons other than pedophila, whether they attack adults or children, they can and have done so with external items, and not just their penis, if male. Again how do you think a female manages to sexually assault. One does not have to be sexually aroused to sexually assault. This point, more than any other IMHO, is the one that causes most people to miscomprehend the potential solutions to the problem.