Should convicted paedophiles be forcibly castrated?
What for? Numerous studies on the subject have revealed that sexual activity is not dependent on whether you have your balls or not.
Just remembered an old joke:
A sign at the entrance to the golf course:
Anyone caught stealing golf balls on the course will have their balls removed
I see. So, not a solution at all, right? Why do the French then castrate convicted paedopholes?
Funny joke. Thanks. :lol:
And how about this info?
Is it false?
Never ask why the French do anything. It may be because of their unusual dietary habits, or it may just be because they’re French.
Why did the French mandate a 35-hour work week for “job creation” for so long, even though it was known that it hurt the job market instead of helping it? Because they’re French.
The French are famous for doing the opposite of what the rest of the world knows will work, just because they’re French.
As with any drug-based crime-prevention remedy, it only works if the person takes the medication. The only way to make sure the pedophile takes the medication is to keep him under surveillance in prison. And if he’s in prison, you don’t need to drug him to protect the public; all you have to do is keep him there.
And what do you do in the case of a false accusation and conviction? Does the government say, “Oh, I’m sorry!” and put the innocent man’s balls back on? There are plenty of documented cases of people who were falsely convicted of child molestation because some other person wanted them punished for some other reason. It’s no different from the way sexual harassment charges or racism charges are leveled.
I see you have a “anti-French agenda”, there, Jamie. Why not post a thread about it?
Or oblige him/her to report to a clinic once per week, for example. Many “ex”-/offender drug addicts on conditional release have to do the same.
For how long?
Do tell more.
See “temporary” here.
“Chemical castration is a form of temporary castration caused by hormonal medication.”
And we are not only talking about punishment here, are we? We are also talking about helping the offender to avoid re-offending. How do you suggest we do the latter?
Yes, and they often as not skip their probation, run to a different city and live under a different name, or find some other way to get out of seeing their probation officer or taking the medication. Then they run around posing the same danger to society as they did before.
Until his prison sentence is up or until he’s no longer a threat to society, whichever comes last.
Charges of pedophilia, statutory rape, sexual harassment or racism are often leveled by people who dislike someone, want him punished, but have nothing legitimate to accuse him of. This is especially done a lot with sexual harassment and racism charges, because the criteria are vague and (at least in the US) feminists make sure there’s no legal punishment for leveling false charges.
Also, it’s been amply shown that children can be coached to “remember” sexual abuse that never happened, if a social worker questions the child aggressively enough.
You didn’t say “temporary” at the beginning of the thread. You talked about forcible castration. Besides, medicating is not the same as castrating, any more than it’s the same as lobotomizing. So talking about administering medication as a form of castration is absurd. It’s like saying that taking liver medication is the same as having your liver removed.
I suggest you do the latter by punishing the offender and making sure he is in prison. Letting people back out on the street and giving them “therapy” has not been effective with pedophiles. And what do you do with people who are simply psychopaths and don’t care? Any adult who is not psychotic understands that you’re not supposed to have sex with children, so if he does it, he should be punished. Usually punishment is motivation enough not to do something. If it’s not, he should stay in prison for life, for the protection of society.
Besides, pedophilia is not caused by the human sex drive, and removing a sex organ won’t stop it. Saying that castrating pedophiles will make them stop molesting is as absurd as saying that letting pedophile priests get married will stop them. Pedophilia is caused by a bundle of mental problems that are not affected by the presence or absence of a certain body part. It’s not really even sexually motivated.
And what’s your definition of pedophila? If a woman teacher has an affair with a 15-year-old boy in her class, she’s imprisoned as a pedophile in the US, whereas in some European countries they just think the boy got lucky. If a 35-year-old male teacher gets secretly kissy with a 16-year-old girl from school, he’s considered a pedophile in the US, but in some parts of Europe the local grannies are liable to think it’s “romantic” and that he’ll “wait for her”.
And how do we judge that he/she is no longer a threat to society?
Is that “often”, or “sometimes”, Jamie?
When he’s no longer a pedophile.
In the case of pedophilia and statutory rape, I would say “sometimes”. In the case of racism or sexual harassment charges, I think false accusations are more common than the legitimate ones.
By the way, remember when you wrote about American students who consider the French gay? Well, maybe there’s a element of truth in it considering that they resort to such a drastic deterrent as spaying people.
By the way, on the floor where I work there’s a French person. I’m really scared now… what if he starts coming on to me! shocks!
I didn’t say the French ARE gay, I just said that American kids think French culture is gay.
Well, after apologizing and returning the balls, they can say:
–We apologized for wrongly accusing you of the crime. Now the ball is in your court
Which reveals that those kids don’t know much about French culture.
Aren’t such “facts” published somewhere?
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”
A lot of the published data will be filtered through feminist academics, who have a vested interest in exaggerating the numbers. Thus, they’ll take even frivolous complaints seriously, much as they exaggerate the percentage of women who are beaten by their husbands.
I see. But, do you think the case of having punishment for false claims would make women who are sexually harrassed think twice before going to the police, their HR dept, the union, etc?
Going back to castration, you said that we should keep offenders in prison until their sentence ends or they are no longer a threat to society, whichever comes last. You also said that therapy doesn’t work. So, how would they ever become no longer a threat to society - excluding death in your answer?
You’re right! That’s the whole point of it! If there is a legal penalty for filing false sexual harassment claims, then the claims will generally only be filed by women who have really been sexually harassed and can prove it! In the current situation, too many innocent men have had their careers and reputations ruined by false sexual harassment accusations leveled by women who simply wanted the men “punished” for something and found that sexual harassment has the vaguest standard of proof and no bad consequences for the woman if she’s found to be lying. I’ve seen it happen in companies that some woman will simply not like working with some man – maybe he is a demanding boss or somehow reminds her of her ex-husband or some other person she doesn’t like – and so she actively looks for an opportunity to bring a sexual harassment accusation even though the man has never sexually harassed anybody.
I think they always remain a threat to society.
The Catholic Church in the United States is a sad illustration of the ineffectiveness of therapy. Somehow in the late '60s and early '70s, a lot of homosexual pedophiles went through the seminaries undetected, and they began molesting boys at their parishes. In those days it was believed that psychotherapy could cure anybody, and so the men were sent to therapy but never incarcerated. Most of them continued to molest people – including the ones whom the therapists said were “cured” – and by the 1990s the number of victims numbered in the hundreds or thousands, and the church is having to pay millions in damages to these victims. So much for therapy. The bishops call the cops now.
Do you think that proving it, and being believed, is that easy?
Sh*t happens, Jamie. I feel sorry for those men. Have you also seen the many cases where men think it’s OK to touch a woman’s ass in the office and call it “playful”?
So, again, what should we do with offenders?
Here we go, Molly, back to square one! Back to the damn Russia of Stalin’s ruling, where once a goddamn squealer rats on some decent guy and bingo! that guy suddenly disappears and noone sees him again! And no proof, no evidence. Just some loony’s blabbering that counts !
No way, Molly!!! If a woman wants to fetch law of me, then she mush have really smashing evidence that I harrassed her, or else there should be a penalty for her acting like an a$$hole !
If you can’t prove an accusation, you shouldn’t make it.
No, it didn’t just happen. A dishonest woman did it by leveling a false accusation. That’s an act by a conscious individual, not an event that just “happened”.
Honestly, I have worked in factories, and I’ve worked in many corporations, and I’ve witnessed more incidences of false sexual harassment accusations than I have of men touching women sexually. It stands to reason, because the man knows he can get into trouble for touching the woman that way, but the woman knows she CAN’T get into trouble for falsely accusing someone.
However, I have seen many cases where women have touched men sexually – because men seldom file sexual harassment complaints, so women never get into trouble for that kind of touching. If the man doesn’t happen to like being touched that way by that particular woman or any woman, and he complains, the women will tell him to “lighten up”.
I told you, but you didn’t like my answer.