Poland castration law takes effect

1069 said:

I believe it violates their right to bodily sovereignty.
They should be locked up, where they do not present a danger to society.

Click to expand...

Their bodily sovereignty will be violated a lot more harshly in prison than it will from the use of a medicine.

1069 said:

i do not believe they should be subjected to these drugs that alter their bodily functions.
It does not matter that they've robbed their victims of their bodily sovereignty.
That's what violent criminals do. It's a crime. That's why they're criminals.
It's not what governments should be systematically doing, however.

Click to expand...

What if the criminal offers to take it in exchange for a more lenient sentence?

1069 said:

To me, this is similar to the idea that we should sterilize women who abuse their children.
Many people on this board would no doubt support the idea. i do not, for the reasons outlined above.
Lock them up, take their remaining children away from them permanently. Whatever.
Don't go systematically diddling with their bodily functions.

Click to expand...

There is a difference: Sterilizing women who abuse their children will not in itself stop the abuse.

1069 said:

If we're going to "chemically castrate" rapists, why not amputate the arms of a guy who strangles somebody?
After all, that'll stop him from ever doing it again.

Click to expand...

His crime was not motivated by the fact that he has arms.

1069 said:

Amputate the legs of a guy who kicks somebody and severely injures them... or at least sever his spinal cord, so that he becomes a paraplegic. How about that?
Extract the teeth of somebody who bites another person in a drunken bar brawl and takes a chunk out of them.

Click to expand...

Their crimes were not motivated by the fact that they have legs or teeth.

1069 said:

I'm just saying, i can see where this sort of "poetic justice/ eye for an eye" idea is appealing to some folks, although it doesn't appeal to me at all.
But the salient point is that it won't prevent a single rape.
It won't lower the rate at which rape occurs.
It won't even stop these particular convicted rapists from sexually abusing others.

Click to expand...

The evidence seems pretty strong that it dramatically reduces recidivism rates for these kind of crimes.

wait and see, if it works in Poland, it should be adopted elsewhere, but for the most part, i agree with what 1069 has said

I think I was very strongly in favour of chemical castration - but I (think) I'm undecided now however, I have some initial thoughts to your points.

1069 said:

I believe it violates their right to bodily sovereignty.
They should be locked up, where they do not present a danger to society.
i do not believe they should be subjected to these drugs that alter their bodily functions.
It does not matter that they've robbed their victims of their bodily sovereignty.
That's what violent criminals do. It's a crime. That's why they're criminals.
It's not what governments should be systematically doing, however.

Click to expand...

1) Bodily sovereignty is just another form of liberty, people who commit crimes give up some of their liberties when punished. If someone commits a crime we don't hesitate to ask / force them to pay a price i.e. losing their liberty. Someone who robbed another of their bodily soveriegnty shouldn't have the luxury of retaining theirs through an act which doesn't just take away a victim's own bodily soveriegnty (wish there was a shorter typed version of that phrase) but leaves them with a psychological trauma that could last a lifetime.
A rapist simply finishes their term of punishment and is then taken off drugs. The drug is temporary and simply reduces libido - that probably (I'm guessing) also reduces any reflection that rapist would have about their crime. You could argue that a rapist serving a prison sentence has to suffer the frustration of not being able to act out their impulses - but I've read that peadophiles can be cunning and clever - sometimes the chase and grooming of a victim is as gratifying. Maybe chemical castration would take away that pleasure?

1069 said:

To me, this is similar to the idea that we should sterilize women who abuse their children.
Many people on this board would no doubt support the idea. i do not, for the reasons outlined above.
Lock them up, take their remaining children away from them permanently. Whatever.
Don't go systematically diddling with their bodily functions.

Click to expand...

I didn't know there were that many women?

Anyhow, sterilising a woman that abuses her children prevents new children from being created who would have to grow up knowing their mother abused them. It also prevents the situation arising again where a child could be abused. I am also aware of social services failures in the UK where children have been kept in such situations and monitored because some believe it's best for the child to grow up with their natural parents - even if those parents are a danger.

1069 said:

If we're going to "chemically castrate" rapists, why not amputate the arms of a guy who strangles somebody?

Click to expand...

Amputation is permanent - Chemical castration (another long phrase to type) is temporary.

1069 said:

After all, that'll stop him from ever doing it again.
Amputate the legs of a guy who kicks somebody and severely injures them... or at least sever his spinal cord, so that he becomes a paraplegic. How about that?
Extract the teeth of somebody who bites another person in a drunken bar brawl and takes a chunk out of them.
Blind the guy who looks at child porn.

Click to expand...

You're continually comparing permanent treatments to one that is temporary!

1069 said:

-- But the salient point is that it won't prevent a single rape.
It won't lower the rate at which rape occurs.
It won't even stop these particular convicted rapists from sexually abusing others.

Click to expand...

I'm theorising now but I would guess a physical castration would fit your scenario more. Chemical castration (from what I read) lowers the drive to commit the crime - whereas a physical castration would leave the rapist with the drive and he would then probably use some substitute object.

Just some thoughts.

jujuman13 said:

Link
A Polish law that can force some rapists and paedophiles to undergo chemical castration has come into effect.

Click to expand...

That seems like the type of law which will be objected to by the European Union, and Poland likely will be under pressure to get rid of it.

hazlnut said:

I agree with this but can't give the OP a thanks because of his inappropriate dig at the Catholic Church.

The criminal acts by (a relatively small number) of priests is inexcusable and the church's handling was shameful, a total disgrace.

That doesn't change the FACT that Catholic Charities have had a profound and positive effect on more people than all other Christian ministries combined. The number of Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, missions, shelters and charities dwarfs all other western religious organizations.

The Catholic priests and nuns that I know personally have always driven second-hand cars, lived in apartments, and taken their vows of poverty seriously.

Click to expand...

I could not care less had they lived in mud huts, which in some nations where this religion is practised they do just that.
Neither do I care whether they journey in second hand cars.
Every single member of the HRCC clergy takes a vow of poverty, some live up to their vows, many do not.
Some live up to the idea of helping humanity, many do not.
Whether the HRCC has had a positive effect on Humanity since it's inception is open to interpretation.
For those who have been affected by even just ONE Holy Roman Catholic Church Priest Paedophile, servile acceptance of the teachings of that religion are no longer acceptable.
Whether or not I personally dislike this Church is neither here nor there (and for the record I do detest it and it's false teachings), what is important is that it's Priests, Bishops, probably Cardinals who work with Children are prevented from abusing those children.
I had thought that Chemical Castration might have been the answer.

Hugh_Akston said:

Regarding the part in bold (my emphasis), are you wanting the Catholic church to simply perform this procedure on their priests simply because they are priests, or just on the priests that are found guilty of pedophilia/molestation?

Click to expand...

If it were pointed out to the Priests that chemical castration would not prevent their being able to use their Penis' from ejecting bodily waste and that in order for them to be allowed into the Priesthood they would have to agree to chemical castration.
With regard to those Priests who have been found to be guilty of Paedophilia/Molestation I would have hoped that they had been removed from any assosciation with children.
That this does not happen is patently obvious, so yes, I would apply it to all HRCC clergy who work with children.

If that's cruel and unusual then why not throwing someone into a prison where there's a good chance of rape or worse (they are sex offenders after all)? If anything, this allows the criminals to leave prison more quickly and isn't permanent. There's a difference between not liking a punishment and that punishment being cruel and unusual.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

If that's cruel and unusual then why not throwing someone into a prison where there's a good chance of rape or worse (they are sex offenders after all)? If anything, this allows the criminals to leave prison more quickly and isn't permanent. There's a difference between not liking a punishment and that punishment being cruel and unusual.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I think that requiring someone to take some medication is far less cruel than sentencing them to years of government-sanctioned sexual slavery.