Chemical castration for sex offenders?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AGinAg (37)
  • Start date Start date

No more spunking for pervs?

  • Total voters
    17
A

AGinAg (37)

Guest
Currently being considered by the government.

www.theguardian.com

Shabana Mahmood considers chemical castration for serious sex offenders

Justice secretary expected to back radical sentencing reforms, including use of libido-suppressing drugs in England and Wales
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

On one hand it's the first potential physical punishment by law, since we got rid of the death penalty.

On the other hand, fuck 'em, they deserve it, particularly serial or violent offenders and those who offend against children.

I've always wondered why this isn't an option for potential sex offenders, before they offend, especially for paedophiles.
 
I'm aware it isn't a perfect science, but so many of them reoffend after leaving prison, and the experiments seem to show positive results. And absolutely offer it up to those who feel they're a wrong 'un. Although as with assisted death, there's always the risk of abuse.
 
I think I'm against it being mandated by the state, it feels wrong but I'd struggle to articulate exactly why.

There was a call on the radio from someone who was on the same sort of medication for a cancer caused by aggressive testosterone levels and the effect it had on him that, if it works that way for everyone, should absolutely be an option for anyone that has sexual attraction to children.
 
I'm not a medical expert, but you don't have to have libido or a high sex drive to commit a sexual offence? I get the connection to sexual stimulation, but I thought a lot of sexual abuse and assault were power motivated.
 
Last edited:
I may be misunderstanding but from reading that article it seems like the proposal is suggesting rapists should be released after half their sentence and given these drugs to take. Surely they could just opt not to take them? If it's "mandatory"... How? It feels like it's very open to abuse.

I suspect it won't work and probably won't happen but has been put front and centre to prevent the story being "Labour considers abolishing prison sentences for assault and burglary" or "Labour considering halving sentences for rapists and murderers".
 
I'm incredibly uncomfortable with forcing anyone to take medication without their consent for whatever the reason. It's giving at worse Nazi level eugenics. At best it's giving Facebook comments levels of understanding when it comes rehabilitating criminals. "HANG THE LOT OF 'EM"-stylee.
 
Is there any actual suggestion that a significant proportion of people who are in prison for sexual crimes are there because they can’t control their urges? Or is it more likely that they are offending because they are cunts? If there’s medication that can stop someone being a cunt, it should be prescribed widely.
 
I'm against, not necessarily out of respect for the bodily rights of the offenders, but because this feels like the start of a VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE

No government should be thinking they have the right to physically change anyone's body
 
I have moral guilt about neutering cats even if it gives them healthier and longer lives, so no. This level of intervention from human to human feels extremely unethical.
 
I think if you view it as punishment then it's obviously a bad thing, but as a health and wellbeing matter it is entirely defensible.
 
Roe-st Potato 🥔 🌳 said:
I'm not a medical expert, but you don't have to have libido or a high sex drive to commit a sexual offence? I get the connection to sexual stimulation, but I thought a lot of sexual abuse and assault were power motivated.
Click to expand...
This!! The majority of it is about power and control. Or just "being a cunt" as dmlaw puts it.

Paedos are a different story and MAYBE it should be looked into for them, but the article doesn't even mention that...
 
I don't support it as a punishment as such, I don't see that as a reasonable response.

However as stated, to medically prevent or discourage such actions, you can easily see through the lens as a medical necessity.
 
I know a lot of it is control and power, but surely a very chunk of it is just out of control sexual urges?
 
This is absolutely my most right wing opinion, but frankly I think go right on with it, and extend it to domestic violence offenders and all. The more grotesquely aggy violent men get the snip, the better.
 
I watched a Louis Theroux thing years ago about convicted paedophiles going to a special unit where they could choose either chemical (or medical I think) castration if they wanted to. From what was discussed during the episode castration removed all sexual feelings and urges, not just the children ones.

Should it be mandatory? No, never. I do think there should be a way that, if the person wants to, they can try chemical castration to see whether it helps and, if it does and they want to, they could be surgically castrated.

I would be worried if they just give the offenders the drugs and let them out of prison early though, who's to say they will keep taking them once they're free?
 
That said, it's coming to something that we're going to be a country where trans people can't get mones but they're COMPULSORY for violent criminals
 
floppet said:
I watched a Louis Theroux thing years ago about convicted paedophiles going to a special unit where they could choose either chemical (or medical I think) castration if they wanted to. From what was discussed during the episode castration removed all sexual feelings and urges, not just the children ones.

Should it be mandatory? No, never. I do think there should be a way that, if the person wants to, they can try chemical castration to see whether it helps and, if it does and they want to, they could be surgically castrated.

I would be worried if they just give the offenders the drugs and let them out of prison early though, who's to say they will keep taking them once they're free?
Click to expand...
Is it not a permanent thing?
 
I guess voluntary then, and keep the rest of them locked up, but that's not really the point is it?
 
I imagine at this particular level of release they'll be electronically tagged anyway, so making the appointments to maintain it mandatory would be relatively more straightforward.
 
It's not just about the concept itself, it's about context.
The fact that this is suddenly a good idea being floated around at this particular time in humanity's history is very telling.
Open this door at your own peril.
 
Suedehead said:
It's not just about the concept itself, it's about context.
The fact that this is suddenly a good idea being floated around at this particular time in humanity's history is very telling.
Open this door at your own peril.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is another point that's in my head, what if tomorrow in a more right wing society, it is other people or behaviours or characteristics that law enforcements such as these target?

And another thing, isn't this whole discussion serving as a sort of biological or physiological excuse for a rapist or a paedo? Billions of men are not castrated and have zero difficulty not to rape. People rape cause of what's on their minds not their pants.

And a last thing, isn't one of the points of our judicial systems for a sentence to help reform the sentencees? Apart from the purpose of punishment and to protect society from the unlawful conduct. How does this do that?
 
If we're heading towards WW3 we may as well go ALL IN. Castrations, the lot.

I don't agree with the argument that it's the beginning of something worse. That's used for assisted suicide.

Oh God, now I've typed that, I have to wonder IS STARMER THE NEW HITLER?
 
Suedehead said:
It's not just about the concept itself, it's about context.
The fact that this is suddenly a good idea being floated around at this particular time in humanity's history is very telling.
Open this door at your own peril.
Click to expand...
I mean, I'd say it's more to do with trying to find any means possible to manage a prison system at completely full capacity that has no choice but to try and find any other means of punishment and protection for the public at large that can work alongside having to release a lot of these prisoners for serious offences early.

Plenty of other countries have had similar recourses for these types of cases instituted over the last few decades. If someone can't control themselves and has used their body as a weapon, why should they have the right to remain such a threat to other people and not have the sting taken out of them?
 
Last edited:
Marina Salty said:
And another thing, isn't this whole discussion serving as a sort of biological or physiological excuse for a rapist or a paedo? Billions of men are not castrated and have zero difficulty not to rape. People rape cause of what's on their minds not their pants.
Click to expand...
Most people can control themsleves, but it feels pretty obvious that those who can't probably aren't quite so well equipped to handle the hormone in their bodies that increases aggression and sex drive. We are ultimately talking about cases of people who have actually committed the crimes here, not castrating men who haven't attacked other people or shown an obvious disposition to aggression!
 
Some people might see it as a slippery slope, but then, to be fair, so is sexual.violence in most instances. If you've done it once, you're probably going to do it again. Can't say my heart bleeds for something that takes the risk factors out. Or the precious right of the sexually violent and abusive to stay on a hormone soup that has them with the impulse control and capacity to reproduce of an XL Bully.

(okay fine, I'm perhaps being slightly provocative on purpose there :D)
 
Not r brave XL Bullies catching strays. They've been through so much.
 
Idk I still don't think we should be attributing a great deal of influence when it comes to criminal behaviour in things like someone's hormones. Usually that's not the cause but a contributing factor. Why not deal with the cause? Unless we are discussing specific psychopathology with proven hereditary association.
 
Marina Salty said:
Idk I still don't think we should be attributing a great deal of influence when it comes to criminal behaviour in things like someone's hormones. Usually that's not the cause but a contributing factor. Why not deal with the cause? Unless we are discussing specific psychopathology with proven hereditary association.
Click to expand...
How do you propose we deal with the causes of rape?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom