Should child molesters be castrated?

interested in seeing the general consensus

 

and after we should execute them

 

Chemical sounds good. In my state child molesters get an indefinite sentence so they might never be released anyway.

 

I like that!!

 

the vast majority of people I talk to irl are in favor of this...surprised it hasn't ever been properly considered (as far as I'm aware). It satisfies 3 out of the 4 goals of criminal law (societal protection, deterrence and retribution)

 

Does "cruel and unusual punishment" mean anything to anyone?

 

As recidivist pedophilia is a mental disease involving basic instinct parts of the brain that cannot easily at this time be manipulated through drugs or psychotherapy there is only one way to ensure that pedophiliacs with a high recidivism rate do not reoffend is through chemical castration(since actual removal of the organ could be considered cruel and unusual punishment).

However there is the very real possibility that the brain centers in question do not need actual sexual stimulation of the organ in order to provide the feeling of pleasure and well being associated with an orgasm and other, worse acts(such as sexual penetration with a foreign object) could provide similar feelings of pleasure within the individual.

We're talking about some gravely disturbed individuals here, so there may be no real permanent solution short of a death sentence for true recidivist pedophiliacs.

 

If you make it a common punishment then it is not cruel and unusual.

 

In my opinion, the only other option for repeat child rapists would be life in prison...if you give them the option of being castrated and released after serving their sentence, or getting life in prison, the vast majority would take the castration. So your "cruel" argument doesn't really work...the procedure is painless and it cannot really be considered crueler than life imprisonment.

 

Agreed...one of the downfalls would be the fact that it wouldn't have a 100% success rate...however, I'm not calling for this to replace a prison sentence...this should only be administered if a repeat offender IS released after serving a lengthy sentence...so while not completely eradicating the chance of the offence happening again, it would be more effective than the current system (just prison time). Anyone who commits the same act after chemical castration should be put to death or given life without the possibility of parole.

 

As long as there is proper due process I believe many states already follow this doctrine.

We just want to make sure only the worst of the worst get it, we don't want some 21 year old kid who got caught with a 15 year old girlfriend getting chemically castrated.

 

If it's made painless, is it still "cruel and unusual"?

 

I've looked it up and you're right...I had no idea...some states have even extended it to other sexual offenses (such as rape). As far as I can tell it's just 9/52 states though...I'd like to see it one day become a federal law.

Of course. The distinction needs to be made between sexual predators (adults engaging in sexual activity with underage teens) and child molesters (adults engaging in sexual activity with prepubescent children).

The former is illegal/immoral activity, the latter is a severe mental disorder.

 

no, I don't agree with castrating sex offenders. I think it provides a false sense of security....not to mention that most of the time they offer a trade off..less time in jail for example if they agree to be castrated.

but anyone that has dealt with animals at all will know that merely removing the testes does NOT prevent the animal from getting erections or having sex. I have seen dogs doing it, horses, cats...all castrated and all continued to get busy even after having their testes removed.

and if an animal can, a human can.

 

1. I'm suggesting it should be administered at the end of a prison sentence - no trade-off. It should be compulsory.
2. the poll/discussion is about chemical castration, as opposed to the less effective (more inhumane?) surgical castration...chemical castration doesn't have a 100% success rate, but it works the majority of the time and if prison time isn't reduced, I don't see the negative behind administering it.

 

And female child molesters?

 

why would they be considered differently?

 

Is that a trick question?

 

nope

10 characters

 

Hate to tell you but it is not actually about the sex but more about the power and controlling another individual. Castrate them and the urge to control still remains

 

If there is 100% certainty that you have the right person, I say yes, but only as a first step in a long, painful process ending in death, or begging for it.

 

It sounds like a good idea, but if you did it, you would be denying the person the right to have a relationship. You cannot take that away from them. On the other hand, it would prevent them having any desire to harm another child.

I see the positives and negatives. I'm unsure about it.

 

Nothing I've seen about recidivist child molesters suggests that kind of mentality. It's a warped sense of "love". They "love" the children, want to nurture and care for them, but unfortunately the sexual component of the "love" they offer is undesirable.

The type of molesters we are talking about here(I believe) are the really wierd ones who see their act of sex as an act of honest "love" and not a perversion.

That is a completely different mentality from a violent rapist. Child molesters typically don't violently rape the child. They entice the child through feelings of comradeship and friendship into giving in over a period of time. "You love me dont' you? All the nice things I do for you? I'm your friend, this is what friends do.. it's okay!"


I'm not saying that the "control" impulse isn't always there, obviously in some cases it is.. but much of the time it is not.

 

Yep and not by some easy injection method either.

 

No, just thrown in jail for life.