Chemical Castration, soundbite?

[Loosehead]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6746965.stm
As it's voluntary I think those that acknowledge the problem would probably not need the drugs and those that don't won't volutneer. Is this just another liberal soundbite avoiding dealing with the problem properly?

[NJOK]

I think you're quite far off the mark there. I'm sure there are loads of paedophiles who enjoy breaking the taboo, and frightening children and causing harm.

But I bet you there are a huge number who would turn it off, forever, in a heartbeat if they could. If you offered them an instantaneous switch, they'd flick it.

Most true paedophiles are sexually attracted to children in the same way (I presume) you're sexually attracted to women. You've not decided to be, you just are. What if it was morally repugnant, dangerous and illegal for you to have any form of sex with a woman - would you want to keep having those urges for the rest of your life?

Remember that there are probably hundreds of paedophiles in the UK who have never committed an offence. They have to live with those urges every day and it probably sickens and frightens them. A significant numvber of those that have committed an offence probably wish they didn't have the sexual urges that made them want to do it in the first place.

Suggesting that by acknowledging the urges, you've overcome them and don't need help, is way way too simplistic.

[Supernick]

This is the right way to go, and I would also open up VOLUNTARY chemical castration. It's a long and painful process though according to the reports today, and so I wouldn't condone it as a forced punishment.

[Reverandfunk]

Not sure why it should be solely voluntary. You're convicted of a sex offence and dna proves it beyond a reasonable doubt then why not chemical castrate as a matter of course.

Hang on I can hear someone going on about human rights....

[jake-the-peg]

It was one of your "rip off their goolies" posts that got me looking for evidence that this didn't work.

I was surprised to find that castration has been very sucessfull although not completely - the surgical approach has been best with a worst case of 10% recidivism

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/16/ T2

As for the voluntary aspect - yes it would have to be and yes it is basic human rights.

You know guys there was a regieme 60 years or so ago that went in for forcible sterilisation on people - I really don't think we want to go down that road!

I think it's really amazing that the government is actually going to do something positive that will actually have an effect of sex crimes and you cannot find it in yourselves to actually say that it's good, you have to try and makeomething bad out of it.

Had Margaret Thatcher introduced it you'd have praised it to high heaven which makes me think...

Have the Tories decided to support it or would that involve having a policy on something?

[Reverandfunk]

I think there is an arguement for forcible sterilisation when you see some of todays "parents".

I saw a programme on castration about a month ago on channel 4 I think that if you take the sexual urge away from paedophiles the majority aren't going to re-offend. As for human rights I think you lose them when you sexually assault someone.

Should have done it years ago instead of trying to rehabilitate.

[fairkatrina]

Hmmm...don't suppose anyone here has ever heard of a man called Alan Turin? He was a brilliant mathematician, one of the best that this country has ever produced. During WWII he broke the enigma code using a series of bulbs and switches which he adapted from a system created by the Royal Mail. After the war he went to Manchester University and developed his invention into the world's first computer. However, he was homosexual and got caught and convicted. Instead of a jail sentence he was offered hormone treatment (something the British discovered the Germans playing around with in the concentration camps). He accepted, and grew a beautiful pair of breasts. His physical appearance changed so much it was unmistakable what he'd gone through, so he poisoned an apple and ate it (hence the logo for Apple Mac computers by the way). I see something similar happening with this. Of course paedophiles need to be stopped, but I don't think any kind of chemical or hormonal treatment will help, anymore than it helped Alan Turin.

[Loosehead]

Yes I was aware of The Alan Turing story. But we are not talking about Homosexuals are we. Anyway for what it's worth I don't think castration is the answer. We should look at permenanat custody for the deteremined peadophiles, they can ot be cured because they do not accept that it's wrong, and before someone chimes in, no I don't think a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old is punishable by life ok, you know what mean here!

[kwicky]

Surely paedophiles do not suffer from depression causing them to commit these horrible acts? It seems a bit of a cop out to me giving them anti-depressants.
Some of these vile creatures commit not one but two horrible acts. Sex with minors and then quite often a murder. I sometimes ask myself if the murder carried 2 or 3 times the sentence of the sexual act would many more children not be killed.

[ruby27]

I consider NJOK's answer to be very comprehensive, but I would like to add into the debate that a perspective/analysis of sexual violence is that sexually abusive acts are not primarily about sexual attraction, but about dominance and control. Consequently castration psychical or chemical isn't possibly the solution to prevention or control.
Marxist/Feminist theories (well some) consider that sexual domination is about the means of production and in a patriarchal system the means of production are very much about production of ones own (or closest males relative), offspring. Control of purity of this line is very important (those who transgress or feared to disobey, can be through chastity belts, female circumcision, forcible incarceration in nunnery�s psychiatric hospital,� honor killings, etc be controlled brought back into line and set as examples to others.)
Many serial killers �get off� by gruesome and complicated means of killing others, without any form of sexual intercourse taking place. Not aware if any evidence if their libido was controlled this would equate with lessening of violence.
Many homosexual rapes involve the perpetrator as being anti homosexuality/gayness but act in ways that violate the victim
Rapes of women in their 70/80 years of age � not usually seen as expressions of sexual arousal and lack of control but acts of violence and need to objectify the victim.
Therefore sexual attraction and sexual behavior exists at multiple levels of meanings and if it is predominately about control, diminution of sexual arousal isn�t sufficient as prevention as the �need� to own and control is intrinsic to the (perceived problem).

Personally if the chemical castration works and doesn�t have any dire side effects other than those wished for � no problem, give the jab to any sexual offender. Article 3. Should cover it everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person � that cover it the right

[Scylax]

Chemical, or surgical, castration does not alter
a man's gender: he is still a man, and has been
male since before birth, and that odd little Y shaped
chromosome is still there to prove it.

Similarly, a woman remains a woman even after
a Wertheim's hysterectomy.

Reducing a man's testosterone level may reduce
his libido, but all too often the sex-offence, especially
rape, has little to do with sexual drive. The drive is
power, and domination: castration won't help.