Chemical Castration for Child Sex Offenders, yea or nay?

Those are risks, like risks from any medications that you take. Antipsychotics have those risks too. Maybe you should do some research first. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

So, because there are risks, you are against it? Are you also against giving psychotics antipsychotic medications?

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/0301/p617.html

The use of antipsychotic medications entails a difficult trade-off between the benefit of alleviating psychotic symptoms and the risk of troubling, sometimes life-shortening adverse effects. There is more variability among specific antipsychotic medications than there is between the first- and second-generation antipsychotic classes. The newer second-generation antipsychotics, especially clozapine and olanzapine, generally tend to cause more problems relating to metabolic syndrome, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Also, as a class, the older first-generation antipsychotics are more likely to be associated with movement disorders, but this is primarily true of medications that bind tightly to dopaminergic neuroreceptors, such as haloperidol, and less true of medications that bind weakly, such as chlorpromazine. Anticholinergic effects are especially prominent with weaker-binding first-generation antipsychotics, as well as with the second-generation antipsychotic clozapine. All antipsychotic medications are associated with an increased likelihood of sedation, sexual dysfunction, postural hypotension, cardiac arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death. Primary care physicians should understand the individual adverse effect profiles of these medications. They should be vigilant for the occurrence of adverse effects, be willing to adjust or change medications as needed (or work with psychiatric colleagues to do so), and be prepared to treat any resulting medical sequelae.

 

Acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol and other pain relievers) can cause kidney or liver failure.

 

ALL drugs have the potential for side effects. That is why patients are MONITORED by physicians while they are on medications.

 

If chemical castration is so wonderful, then why arent all 50 states doing it right now??

 

Maybe they will in the future. Hopefully they do because it would help to save a LOT of children from these disgusting low life sexual predators who like to prey on the weak and defenseless.

 

I guess we can't give prisoners Tylenol anymore. It COULD cause liver or kidney failure.

 

You seem to show an awful lot of concern for the RARE case where an innocent person might be given a testosterone suppression and next to none for his victims, who are children and have been raped and mentally tortured and also perhaps physically tortured. Why is that?

 

I'm not. I could actually give a rat's ass about this stupid thread.
I'm just arguing from the point of view of the government as to why they haven't adopted chemical castration as standard punishment, and that's because it's considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Anyways, that's the last I'm going to say about this. Can't believe I wasted so much time arguing this topic with some middle-aged woman who clearly has too much time on her hands

 

Nobody asked you to or forced you to respond to this thread. That was your own choice so don't blame it on me that you have poor self control.

 

It isn't considered "cruel and unusual" and it is not cruel and unusual. What IS cruel and unusual is letting these guys out to harm MORE kids.

 

What is also UNUSUAL is the amount of sympathy some of you show for these "people" who harm children and, at the same time, have not shown ANY sympathy whatsoever for their victims! Cruel and unusual is how THEY treat other people, children in particular!

 

Dutchie, not for nothing, courts "rarely" order castrations because:
1.Most of the judges are pederast and pedophiles.
2. What do you think happens in family courts all across the United states, when fathers are barred from seeing their own children? I am not speaking of abusive fathers, I am focusing on when courts bar the father from seeing and raising his own children, especially male children. That is a form of castration.

I know, here goes AlifQadr again with his wild accusations.

I am going to mention something to clarify. When i am critical of black females and black youth and their Hip-Hop, I am not doing because I hate black females and black youth.
I do it so that both can correct themselves and resolve and begin the Resurrection of The Black family. Long Live The Black Family!

A black female is not a Black Women yet. Male blacks are not yet Black Men. Comprehension is clear when you see with your Good EYE!

I know, the current topic is child molesters and should they be neutered, which is an obvious yes, but I had to clarify a topic of discussion that I brought up. Yes, there is a SERIOUS PROBLEM of Pedophilia and Pederasty among Black folks as well and I think about THEM as I think of Caucasian, Yellow, Brown, Mexican, Latin, Caucasians in the East who are Baby Rapers. THEY ALL NEED TO BE KILLED!

 

Seems like most people agree with chemical castration. Thanks for your votes! I'm very glad to see that other people are seeing how serious a problem this is and also want to do something about it.

Even if it doesn't stop ALL instances of child rape, it can stop some and that is a step in the right direction.

 

Personally I believe the castration should not involve chemicals at all once all doubt concerning innocence is removed.

 

I dunno...

Mutilation of a convicted person. Do I get to chop of your child's hand if it's caught steeling?

 

I LIKE YOUR SUGGESTION!

 

Chemical castration is not physical castration. The administered chemicals reduce hormonal production to reduce the chemical urge of sexual gratification. Now what tecoyah and myself are for, is in fact physical removal of testicles. Do you understand the difference?

 

It can cause permanent damage, as in bone brittleness and a reduction in length all due to loss in bone density. So what this is, is an eye for an eye mentality. Hence the door is open to chop of hands. And it seems you're all for this kind of thing. I also do wonder how you would apply non chemical castration to women? Sow it all up, African style?

 

You are comparing a child stealing to a grown man raping children, huh? Wow, just wow.

 

Anyways, it's nice to see that most people agree that chemical castration is not cruel and unusual punishment, considering the crime of child molestation. Raping children is cruel and unusual. A pedophile unable to get an erection is not cruel and unusual, IMO. The risks of osteoporosis and heart disease are no different from the risks from ANY medications that you might take every day. Every medication has potential risks and side effects. That is why patients who are on prescription medications are monitored by their doctors with blood tests and other tests, and if there is evidence of a problem arising from the medication, then they can just stop them. They can also do bone density tests and many other tests.

 

Oh noes. The poor pedophile might have brittle bones! The horror, the horror.

 

I find it amazing how concerned people are with the health and well being of child rapists though. Amazing might be an understatement.

 

What wow?
Your reaction to mutilate a prisoner to have liver or kidney failure suggest you're disappointed you can't mutilate them like that. And so I seriously fail to understand why this eye for an eye may not be installed for other crimes when YOU are like that.

You're just drawing a line to mutilate at pedophiles, and act rather "childishly" about it. Just hypocrite to not include mutilations for all crimes.

I find it amazing you're concerned about the health of criminals. Freaking chop of the hand of a thieve so it's can't steal anymore. It's well known stealing is just a stepping stone to the big leagues of armed robbery. And where you want to mutilate a pedophile so it won't do that no more, you're just letting it all happen elsewhere. Pathetic.

 

It's not an eye for eye. An eye for an eye would be raping them in the arse with a baseball bat.

It is controlling their urges related to their illness/disease, so that there is less risk that any child will be harmed. Stealing and raping children are NOT even comparable. You comparing those two crimes is what is pathetic, and so is your argument.

 

Your complete lack of concern over kidney and liver failure and them breaking bones over this, shows this is about an eye for an eye. It's just utterly stupid to just retract your viewpoint at this point. I'm not falling for it.