06
Feb
09

On air: Should sex offenders be castrated?

In jail Europe’s leading human rights body has criticised the Czech Republic for continuing to surgically castrate male sex offenders. The Council of Europe claims castrations had sometimes been performed without warnings of side effects and on men not capable of making an informed decision. In the past ten years 94 castrations have been carried out and a further 300 Czech men have undergone chemical castration since 2000.

Sweden, Denmark, Canada and 8 US states are using chemical castration, Britain is offering it to offenders leaving prison. Australia looked at the evidence and rejected it. What is chemical castration?

The arguments against are that they don’t lower offending rates, we don’t know enough about the psychological impact on chemical or surgical castration, plus it only tackles the physical aspect of sex offending not the mental attraction. The Council of Europe said the practice is degrading and amounts to mutilation.

The arguments for are that it is effective in reducing repeat offending – that’s according to the Czech government. Chemical castration is reversible, and countries that use it say it can be offered as a way for sex offenders to be released safely into the community.

Is castration about punishment or about treatment? Is it abhorrent, inhumane or the only way to protect society from dangerous people? Is this too simplistic an argument?

Some more background:

* Louisiana Gov brought in castration law
* South Korea just opened first chemical castration clinic
* Danish political party supporting chemical castration
* Poland PM supports chemical castration as a forced punishment
* Article on why even full castration doesn’t necessarily work


100 Responses to “On air: Should sex offenders be castrated?”


  1. February 6, 2009 at 14:16

    In the USA, there are teenagers who have been declared sex offenders for having sex with a boyfriend or girlfriend who’s younger than whatever the age of content is e.g. 16 or 17. There was also a girl who was deemed a sex offender for sending pictures of her own body to her boyfriend. So you can see, BAD police state goons can and will change the rules (and have done so) to increase the set of “offenders” to include perfectly harmless people.

    So no, we can’t castrate “offenders”, because we are seeing the out of control criminalization of innocent people.

  2. February 6, 2009 at 14:19

    No, that’s inhuman. Should we also kill reckless drivers for causing road accidents that result in deaths?

  3. February 6, 2009 at 14:23

    Great,

    But what is the agreed compensation for cases like this? http://innocenceproject.org/Content/44.php

  4. 4 Anthony from Cleveland Ohio
    February 6, 2009 at 14:25

    The offending is in the persons pathology. I have heard that chemical castration does reduce their desire, but they still have the pathology offend. I believe that there is no cure, but I also believe that with help and years of guidence, offenders can learn to live productive lives.
    The big problem is, they just don’t get the help. They may also not want the help. In that case, prison is where they need to be.

  5. February 6, 2009 at 14:32

    Yes, castration is the only acceptable and the least punishment for these men. I wish they do this in America.

  6. 6 Bob in Queensland
    February 6, 2009 at 14:38

    The problem is, this isn’t a punishment or an attempt a rehabilitiation; it’s an attempt to prevent future crimes. What’s to stop this being a “thin edge of the wedge”. In the future how about castration for, let’s say, an adult male who has committed no crime but simply admits he finds an under-age girl attractive?

  7. February 6, 2009 at 14:39

    as much as I would like to say I agree with this practice, which to a point I do, but its something in their head that attracts these sick people to children. I’m not saying stop the practice, but what do you do about the pedifiles and sex offenders that get their jollies watching?

  8. 8 Ramesh
    February 6, 2009 at 14:41

    I wonder why this option is considered in India to punish sex offenders.

  9. February 6, 2009 at 14:41

    A very emphatic and positive NO.

    Our society is becoming more grotesque and uncivilised by the day.
    Anyone who agrees with this as a solution to a problem is clearly mentally ill and incredibly cruel. It is they who need treatment.

    This is a horrendous *final solution*, and that it is practised at all is a good indication of how bad things have become. We are not moving forward but sliding backwards with a speed that is alarming.

    First, what is it going to achieve?
    Second, is this not the kind of thing that Nazi war criminals are accused of?
    Third, the legal system is so flawed that a ‘guilty’ verdict has been shown far too often to be wrong. All those hanged murders posthumously pardoned… those falsely accused of stealing a loaf of bread and shipped out to Australia.
    Fourth, have we not the resource available to psychoanalyse convicted criminals and attempt to find out WHY they commit the crimes they do, rather than just hanging them, castrating them, incarcerating them in some dungeon, beating and humiliating them?

    This is no way to learn what is going wrong, why people commit extremely antisocial acts, where does it all come from?

    Wrong place wrong time, at the end of a clever lie or conspiracy, oh dear me.

    What are the falsely accused going to do?
    Go ape, I tell you.

    I find the glee in man’s inhumanity to man incredible.

    That questions like this are raised at all makes me regret ever having children.
    What a horror show awaits them on this wonderful planet of ours.
    It is going to be difficult to explain that a moment of passion resulted in their lifetime of hell.

  10. February 6, 2009 at 14:44

    Repeated sex offenses are a serious crime. It amounts to killing the dignity of the victim(s). The offender should get all possible high punishment including castration, for his acts leave permanent psychological scars.

    If death penalty is acceptable to curb serious crimes, castration should also be applied.

    It can be argued that mutilation is inhumane when -for example- it comes to an eye for an eye ,the cutting off the hand of an unrepentant thief or castration. But society should be safe from serious offenders and they should be made to feel the pain they inflict on the others.

    It remains to ask if a husband should also be castrated if proven to have repeatedly raped his wife.

  11. 11 Donnamarie in Switzerland
    February 6, 2009 at 15:15

    The mutilation of one human being by another is morally repugnant, and it doesn’t matter if the one doing the mutilating is doing so in the name of a government. Justice cannot be served by mutilation. If a man cannot control his sexual impulses, he should be locked up, not carved up.

  12. February 6, 2009 at 15:25

    I think it should probably be looked into for extreme cases of repeated sex offence and criminals who are a menace to society. Sexual attraction is after all more physiological than mental.

  13. 13 Roy, Washington DC
    February 6, 2009 at 15:26

    It depends on how you define a sex offender. Someone who commits an offense against children is one thing, but someone who receives this label for relieving themselves in public (yes, this has happened) is another.

  14. 14 SAMUEL
    February 6, 2009 at 15:47

    Hi! This is Samuel from Nigeria. I dont think sex offenders should be castrated because they are humans like us! They should simply be taken to psychiatric hospitals for mental check-up!

  15. 15 Peter
    February 6, 2009 at 16:16

    Having an over sex drive does not turn a person into a sex offender . A sick mind even without a functionable sexual organ can be a dangerous sex offender.

  16. 16 Savane
    February 6, 2009 at 16:19

    Rape is sex without mutual consent, and no rape victim is given the opportunity to discuss the ‘side effects’ of rape or the choice to be raped or not!

    Rape is the one crime committed where the victim remains victimised (in many cases indefinitely) because of the shame associated with the crime – the shame of the victim, the pressure from family and friends not to report the crime or speak publically of it, and the humiliation of having to prove that rape occured.

    Why do we across the world have so much sympathy for rapists but not murderers?

    When the Sexual Offences Bill (now The Act) was introduced in Kenya, the media highlighted chemical castration, and the importance of the Bill, which covered mandatory minimum sentencing (as opposed to discretionary), and other rights victims are entitled to, was lost!

    Excuse me, but why are rapists being treated as victims? Do they really deserved our sympathy?

    Let’s get real here, people!

  17. February 6, 2009 at 16:29

    At 45 I interviewed one of the two serial offenders who had gotten their hands on me at 15. It was clear that the game of seduction of prey and the goal of mental control over others exists as a deeply ingrained pattern. The Reverend convinced me he was dying of advanced prostate cancer on the phone. I found out he left on a walking tour of Scotland the following week. Sexual gratification for predators is not all genitals and testosterone. Emotional manipulation of the whole community seems to be a big part of it. Could chemical castration address this?

    Perhaps the community needs to self-educate so the victims can come out of the woodwork. The charming rapists often come with loyal defenders. They are the ones who give truth to the rapist when he says “No one will believe you.”

    Another woman and I successfully lobbied the state legislature of California to give children a period of time after they reach their majority to file against their attackers. We modified statute of limitations for crimes against children.

    A proper social safety net around our vulnerable would catch more rapists than chemicals.

    Open your window. urn down your TV.

  18. February 6, 2009 at 16:50

    Sex offenders are mostly psychologically disordered. The scientific question that must first be answered is: Would castration help their disorder or make it worse? If it may make it worse then a castrated offender may be a worse threat for society.

    Another Important issue: Why do you consider all sex offenders to be males! There are also female sex offenders. How can we castrate them? Or such a law would only be applied on males? Would not it be then sexism?

    I think sex offenders should be properly punished and also psychologically treated before they released back to society.

  19. February 6, 2009 at 16:50

    maybe instead of just castration, sterilization (spell?) should be used. Make it so that offenders can not have children (victims) of their own. Also, not being allowed to continue the cycle of abuse that has been shown to lead to assaults of others (sexualy and just physicaly).

  20. 21 Archibald in Oregon
    February 6, 2009 at 17:09

    Having sex organs has nothing to do with sexual offense, other than the obvious. It is the mentality that should be addressed.

  21. 22 gary
    February 6, 2009 at 17:10

    The penalty is as barbaric as the crime. To some this constitutes justice; but not to me. Since capital punishment is maximally barbarous, life incarceration is the only acceptable alternative.
    g

  22. 23 Anthony
    February 6, 2009 at 17:12

    If the offender wants this, then I don’t feel that there is anything wrong with it. I do think we should spend more money on figuring out how to “change” peoples mentalities in situations like this.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  23. 24 Dictatore Generale Max Maximilian Maximus I
    February 6, 2009 at 17:30

    “The Council of Europe claims castrations had sometimes been performed without warnings of side effects and on men not capable of making an informed decision.”

    Oh! But if they were convicted of a sex offence(s) which was/were “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” then were they or weren’t they in a position to make an “informed decision” that they’re committing an offence?

    If they were aware that they were committing an offence then they deserve the punishment!

    If they weren’t aware and weren’t in a position to make an informed decision then too they deserve the punishment!

    So what is all the fuss about?

    The exceptions need to be ONLY as per: 1 Manx Shearwater February 6, 2009 at 14:16; who has indeed raised a very important issue.

  24. 25 Mukul, Parsippany, NJ
    February 6, 2009 at 17:35

    I thought hard about what punishment would be sufficient for offenders like the Joseph Fritzl?

    Death: That would be too easy for him.
    Long solitary prison sentence: Doubtful, he get daily quota of food in secure surrounding, maybe a book deal.

    I concluded that such people are animals and should be put up in a zoo with rest of the wild animals. People can then come and see what a repeat offender looks like.

  25. 26 Steve in Boston
    February 6, 2009 at 17:39

    Law enforcement officials will tell you there’s no cure for this kind of thing. They really have to be locked up forever.

    What they do here with Level 3 sex offenders is let them loose to live in the community amongst women and children.

    There has to be a better way. :-/

  26. 27 Dictatore Generale Max Maximilian Maximus I
    February 6, 2009 at 17:41

    There is a sexist element in this debate!

    Within the last week it has come to light that two female teachers in the USA were allegedly having sexual relations with boys who were 11 and 15 and the teachers were 25 and 32.

    The US news channel admitted that the ‘system’ was NOT as hard on female sex offenders as it was on men. My Q is why?

    What is the equivalent of chemical castration for women?

    When men are usually in the majority when it comes to framing and writing laws (and many women are quick to point this out quite correctly) then why is this ‘being soft on the women offenders’ allowed to happen? Are men still apologising for their behaviour during the ‘cave man’ days?

  27. February 6, 2009 at 17:53

    Hi WHYSers!

    Beyond the definition of ‘offender’ which one blogger pointed out is problematic, does this impact the desire to offend? Does it curb the lust, whether for power over another human being, often unable to give real consent either in or to the sex act, or the power gained by controlling a minor? Just curious.

  28. 29 David
    February 6, 2009 at 17:58

    How about the sound judgement of Donnamarie in Switzerland that follow

    ” 11 Donnamarie in Switzerland
    February 6, 2009 at 15:15
    The mutilation of one human being by another is morally repugnant, and it doesn’t matter if the one doing the mutilating is doing so in the name of a government. Justice cannot be served by mutilation. If a man cannot control his sexual impulses, he should be locked up, not carved up”.

  29. 30 Matt from Oregon
    February 6, 2009 at 17:58

    While castration would not be appropriate in every case it should be an option for the courts in America. Too many young girls and boys lives are destroyed because of these men and this punishment, if it does not deter some individuals, will at least prevent others from committing some of the worst attacks.

  30. 31 Ron S. from Ft Myers Florida
    February 6, 2009 at 18:01

    I have never believed that castration is the answer. It only takes away the offender’s physical aspect, not the emotional or psychological aspects. It would be the same as telling a kid his privileges of eating a chocolate cookie are taken from him-his apetite for them may diminish, but what’s not to say he won’t gain a tatse for, say, some other flavor cookie?

    Simply locking them and throwing away the key is not the answer either. It costs tax payers to have them rot in prison, and nothing gets resolved.

    Instead of money being spent on castrating offenders, perhaps the money should be spent on research as to WHY someone would do such a heinous act against another human being.

  31. 32 ransford (HM), ghana, accra -ips
    February 6, 2009 at 18:01

    Do you know the psychological tremour these victims go through? One would never know that cos some of the effects go beyound what we see or hear to what is hidden that can’t be seen.

    These hidden effects mostly come out later in the future.

    Offenders should not only be castrated, their hands should be chopped off and these signs would serve as a lesson to offenders and prevent potential offenders from perpertrating these acts.

  32. 33 Savane
    February 6, 2009 at 18:02

    If rapists were chemically castrated, would repeat offenders exist?

    Are there really any rapists who don’t think they are commiting a crime?

    What clues were missed?

    When did the screams ‘No’ mean ‘Yes’?

    Or ‘Stop’ mean ‘Go’?

    Or ‘Please don’t hurt me’, mean ‘Please hurt me?’

    Or did the rape victim trying to get away, fighting and kicking, mean they’re just playing ‘hard to get’?

    Are we suggesting some rape is justified or justifiable?

    Come on people!

  33. 34 Sue from Ohio
    February 6, 2009 at 18:10

    Having been a victim, I can say with no hesitation: kill them.

  34. February 6, 2009 at 18:13

    The primary concern of governments should be the protection of their law-abiding citizens. If they have to castrate sex offenders to achieve that, then they should. Of course if they didn’t release them, they wouldn’t reoffend.

  35. February 6, 2009 at 18:14

    I just have to say…. a man mistreated me once [that is not true, one man mistreated me several times] and my father told him pretty much that he was going to cut off his penis and cram it down his throat… seems a bit extreme… yet when somone you love is in danger, the retaliation you desire is rarely politically correct or humane..

  36. 37 ransford (HM), ghana, accra -ips
    February 6, 2009 at 18:17

    The kind or type of castration to be used or implemented should be limited to only surgical castration. Offenders should feel the pain!

  37. 38 David
    February 6, 2009 at 18:18

    I just could not contain myself, but had to laugh aloud at Mukul, Parsippanythe comment:

    “Mukul, Parsippany, NJ
    February 6, 2009 at 17:35
    I thought hard about what punishment would be sufficient for offenders like the Joseph Fritzl?

    Death: That would be too easy for him.
    Long solitary prison sentence: Doubtful, he get daily quota of food in secure surrounding, maybe a book deal.

    I concluded that such people are animals and should be put up in a zoo with rest of the wild animals. People can then come and see what a repeat offender looks like”.

    This sound like something to try for a while for sex offenders to underage children.

  38. 39 tim
    February 6, 2009 at 18:19

    The voice of do gooders always drowns out those that want to see justice for victims. Who cares about the feelings of convicted sex offenders. Why is there so much fuss over the feelings of criminals.

    Yes they should be castrated to punish them, prevention is a useful by product. Castration will prevent them comitting a sex offence but possibly not other crimes.

    Soceity needs to focus on the victims and how they feel not on the feeling of convicted criminals.

  39. 40 Robert Mendez
    February 6, 2009 at 18:22

    Why aren’t you asking about castrating women? Will you exempt women who are sex offenders of children? What about plain abuse, will those who abuse be somehow physically damaged?

    This is so perfect for the BBC, you take a highly flammable topic, and you only let the pov’s you want in the discussion. Just like the BBC.

  40. 41 Mary from Nigeria(Naija)
    February 6, 2009 at 18:22

    I do not think castration whatever form it takes should be condoned. People have a right to forgiveness.

  41. February 6, 2009 at 18:24

    In SubSaharan Africa where HIV, HEPATITIS-B are public health hazards, sexual offences may in addition to sexual assualt spread these life-threatening diseases. In such situations CASTRATING the offenders would be fair and appropriate deterent penalty.

    Bob, Kyengera, Uganda.

  42. 43 rawpoliticsjamaicastyle
    February 6, 2009 at 18:25

    As before, my question is: does chemical castration affect the desire to ‘offend’? Can it stop men and women from lusting after minors/ children, etc.?

  43. February 6, 2009 at 18:25

    Paul Kaela in Zambia, via text

    They should not be castrated. It is very inhuman and uncivilized. They should just be punished like in any other case. Next time we will hear that theives should have their hands cut off.

  44. 45 Jonathan (rainy San Francisco)
    February 6, 2009 at 18:25

    A barbaric, unspeakable practice. Most sex offenders are not rapists, not pedophiles, and not violent. And rape is about violence and control, not a high sex drive.

    Jonathan
    San Francisco

  45. February 6, 2009 at 18:26

    Arthur from Uganda, via text

    Sex offenders through their acts show their inability to control themselves and respect fellow human beings.they deserve to be punished by taking away something that hurts them and castration is the answer!

  46. 47 Michelle from Jamaica
    February 6, 2009 at 18:27

    How do you measure if treament works? We wait and see if they offend again? What consideration is given to the potential victims? Keep them away from society. That is the only solution.

  47. 48 Tobore, New York
    February 6, 2009 at 18:30

    While I deplore the acts and motivations of sex offenders, I think it’s barbaric to employ castration as a means of treatment or punishment for these crimes. It is akin to the sharia law practiced in some countries where thieves are punished by having their hands cut off. It’s hypocritical that countries like Denmark and the U.S, who decry these practices in other countries, would practice such a thing in theirs. I believe a life time in jail should suffice as punishment for rapists and other sex offenders.

  48. 49 Anonym
    February 6, 2009 at 18:32

    1.- I don´t agree with the word chemical “castration”. It´s a sensationalist word. Chemicals would help, the same as antidepressives do, to manage uncontrollable desirees. It would be a medical treatment which should work together with psychoterapist and psychiatrists. I don´t see nothing esentially wrong with that.

    2.- About the causes that lie behind these cases: Violence, misogyny, hate. Then, castration (physical castration) would not work because the reasons might always find other ways to exprese themselves. As I already heard, it would be the same as cuting hands to thieves.

    3.- If we accept castration for men. What about castration to females in Africa? It´s the same discussion as the one about the dead sentence…

  49. 50 rd
    February 6, 2009 at 18:35

    i am currently chemically castrated with a testosterone level of less than 20; this results from my treatment choice for locally advanced prostate cancer. fortunately i am amongst the 10% or less whose libido has not been eliminated; moreover i have stayed physically active to reduce side effects.
    what has not been considered are the significant medical side effects – adverse impacts on liver, heart, sugar levels etc etc. . in addition there are life-style effects that cannot be discounted but are secondary in the context of sex offenders.

    feel free to contact me if you want to discuss online – i will reply with my phone number.

  50. 51 Giselle in the Netherlands
    February 6, 2009 at 18:36

    Castration should be mandatory for likely re-offenders. The risk of re-offending is assessed in prisons. This is not about ‘eye for an eye’ retributive justice (punishment); this is about protecting the vulnerable members of society, namely women and children, who are most affected by sexual violence. Their protection should take precedence over an offender’s right to libido/virility. By offending in the first place, they give up that right, sorry!

    If castration is effective at “disarming” likely sexual re-offenders, I’m all for it.

  51. 52 Mary Anne
    February 6, 2009 at 18:40

    As a long term Transgender I used estradiol for over 10 years. Let me tell you- it is not reversible. In the long term the “chemical castration” will cause the genitals to atrophy, including the testicles as well as breast growth, and changes to hair pattern. There are psychological changes as well. The user will not be able to have an erection adequate for intercourse after long term use. Definitely NOT reversible after long term use.

  52. 53 Payam
    February 6, 2009 at 18:44

    how about giving them the option of either being castrated or going to jail?

  53. February 6, 2009 at 18:44

    If it could be proven that castration is an effective means of preventing sexual offenders from engaging in deviant behavior, then, yes, it should be considered in certain situations.

    If it is just intended as a form of punishment, it woud certainly be cruel and unusual, The problem with heading down the path of castration is that one could also make the arument that surgically removing the offender’s eyeballs would be at least as effective as castration as a method of preventing the offender from engaging in child abuse. It’s a slippery slope

  54. 55 Giselle in the Netherlands
    February 6, 2009 at 18:44

    This discussion of sex offenders needing to CONSENT to castration is hilarious — did their victims consent to being RAPED?

  55. February 6, 2009 at 18:48

    If we are to be forced to have convicted sexual offenders in our communities, they *should* be rendered harmless; especially violent rapists and child-abusers. The question is, how much is a community willing to spend in time and resources to keep them ‘harmless’? And the ones who re-offend; what happens then? What of the consequences on the community in treating the damaged women and children.. etc.

  56. 57 Hakim from Uganda
    February 6, 2009 at 18:49

    What are we saying here? Castrating anybody is against humanrights. And what if its a woman offender ,should we also castrate them?

  57. 58 Mushtaq A. Habibi
    February 6, 2009 at 18:49

    Castration is the only rational way to minimize sex offences, unless it provides a sort of panishment to the offender.
    If castration is barbaric then why police chases the theif and catchs him for his crime, why? Let him go, because it’s barbaric to panish a person for his wrong doing, the same case is with sex offenders through castration!
    I don’t support castration untill there is no legal alternative for stopping such offences in a society.

    Thanks
    Mushtaq A. Habibi
    From: KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
    Listening you LIVE……

  58. 59 Maximilian
    February 6, 2009 at 18:49

    This populist drivel is not the standard of programming I expect from the BBC.

    You really seemed to have scraped the bottom of the barrel in dredging up today’s guests. Would no-one in a position to provide professional informed insight agree to appear on this program? Perhaps they suspected, rightly, that it is little more than a forum for the angry, ignorant and opinionated to rant.

  59. 60 richard from washington
    February 6, 2009 at 18:50

    castration is at best a half-measure and practically clouds the issue. up to a certain point, most sex offenders can be helped to live safely within society through counseling dealing with the mental and emotional issues leading to their crimes. after that point it is either permanent exile or execution. castration is punitive and has no effect on prevention or re-offense rates in incurable offenders. is this issue really just society looking desperately for a ‘kindler, gentler’ permanent solution than execution or life imprisonment for sex offenders?

  60. 61 Alex J
    February 6, 2009 at 18:51

    I agree with castration for violent offenders/those at high risk of re-offending without it. The goal is to attenuate the sex drive in cases where there IS a strong sexual component, not just one of violence. But with SURGICAL castration at least, there is the question of what happens in the odd case of someone who’s wrongly convicted.

  61. February 6, 2009 at 18:55

    Individuals who are against this type of punishment for sex offenders keep saying that it is barbaric to castrate these offenders. I think that it is more then barbaric for these people to rape a child. I can’t imagine anything, other than murder, that is worse then this type of offence. I feel that anyone that is willing to commit this type of offence has lost all social morals and deserve castration. No, it is not a perfect punishment but neither is prison but we still us it.

  62. 63 Dictatore Generale Max Maximilian Maximus I
    February 6, 2009 at 18:56

    Re: Giselle in the Netherlands, February 6, 2009 at 18:44
    This discussion of sex offenders needing to CONSENT to castration is hilarious — did their victims consent to being RAPED?


    .
    Very well said! This is the Nature of the Beast. It seduces you so that all your namby-pamby desires come to the fore which make you focus on the rights of the offender and Not on the rights of the victims!

    .
    Mukul, Parsippany, NJ, February 6, 2009 at 17:35
    “I thought hard about what punishment would be sufficient for offenders like the Joseph Fritzl?

    ……..

    I concluded that such people are animals and should be put up in a zoo with rest of the wild animals. People can then come and see what a repeat offender looks like.”

    .
    I think Mukul has got it right. Let us get together and fill up the zoos or make new ones as the need may be!

  63. 64 ariel
    February 6, 2009 at 18:57

    why are men so afraid of this? women volunterily do this to themselves all the time.
    hysterectomies save lives, but castration is inhumane? why are they different? its a medical procedure to fix hormonal issues. i wish men could stop thinking their genitals are so special…

  64. 65 ira
    February 6, 2009 at 18:59

    Sex offenders should be chemically castrated,absolutely. What is barbaric is the act of rape.The worst fear for a male is not to have a functioning penis.Why ? Why do males rape thousands of woman in war? Why do males use their sexual organ for their power plays,hmm?For the people who defend them,I guess the rape victims don’t count.So,if you want to change society by enlightening males who rape than go ahead ,it’s truly needed.Yet meanwhile,take away their happiest tool of offense and their sex drive and a lot of woman and children will be spared the act of cruely by these particular men.I certainly will cry no tear over them..

  65. 66 Doug.patton
    February 6, 2009 at 19:04

    In the past 20 years the whole issue of stereotyping ‘Sex Offenders’ has become a profiteering Legal & Media INDUSTRY ‘ with no scale or proportion in any debate.

    The public needs accurate numbers not sensationalist climate-of-fear distortion.

    What would the gutless/populist chop-and-drug brigade do with the many female pedophiles – ‘clitorectomy’ ?

    Doug,

    U.K.

  66. 67 Matt in Prague
    February 6, 2009 at 19:04

    Locking people away in “Dungeons” is just as medieval and definitely does not fix the problem as we know. I know people are always thinking of new ways to proclaim their support for a humane world but these do gooders often go too far and give offenders more rights than the victims.
    Bravo.
    Actions speak louder than words.

  67. 68 Karac from Bolgar
    February 6, 2009 at 19:09

    Its too late chemical castration for adult to prevent them doing sexual offense
    Sex offense is may caused of their genetical orgin. It is fate they didnt choose but given by genetic or even god.
    I think MSNBC dateline created greate way out of this problem. Do you agree this kind of tv activity could stop sex offenders threat?
    Or doctors who ve professioned as genetic could fix their genetic in mother gust to warn against problem?

  68. February 6, 2009 at 19:12

    Castrate sex offenders?

    Very soon we will get thieves having their limbs chopped off, paedophiles having their eyes gouged, adulterers having their sex glands slashed off and a host of other draconian measures…
    Then we will not be any different from a society under Sharia law…

  69. February 6, 2009 at 19:28

    What a strange show!

    Usually if I am on the radio it is because I am a human rights activist and not a sex victim. I see myself now not primarily as a victim but instead as a successful citizen lobbyist for the sexual rights of children abused under official cover. That is the limit of my contribution, but nonetheless I have some peace.

    I am not sure that came across.

    I went on air so that one of you out there that can’t tell yet might have the hope of healing, voice and strength in safety and good company.

    Cheers to you , whoever you are.

  70. February 6, 2009 at 20:03

    RE: MAXIMILLIAN and ‘today’s guests scraped from the bottom of the barrel.’

    I am sure you would be a great last minute guest, perhaps you can give some pointers to on how to function as the stand-in rape victim. Your remark did sting, so perhaps that will be gratifying to you. I was not thrilled with what I had to work with and certainly didn’t make the points I might have with more prep time. I am one of the gals who has shaped California law. To do that I got called worse than bottom of the barrel.

    It is not easy to be on with two people who are paid professionals because the dialogue between rape victims and professionals is often slanted towards the doctor-knows-best. dialogue. Nobody wanted to talk about rape until we started changing laws and litigating with churches. We the activist victims created jobs for professionals and now we have to live with it.

  71. 72 Martin from Prage
    February 6, 2009 at 22:48

    OK, lets clarify the item a bit . 1 – this treatment is offered only to people sentenced for REALLY violent sexual crimes (showcase – then 16 year old boy sentenced to life for raping and murdering 4 women in Prague in the late 1980s ) the other option is life in prison or some asylum. 2 – guy has to agree. he is perfectly free to keep his balls intact inside of a jail 3 – none of physically castrated and then relased attackers have re-offended EVER 3 – chemical castration relies on the guy responsibly taking his medicine. last year a slovak man sentenced for sexual attack stopped taking his medicine after getting out of jail, moved to Czecho and raped and strangled 10 year old boy. 4 – It is a TREATMENT not a PUNISHMENT. It allows people suffering from dangerous disorder to live at large and not in some cage while protecting others. where is the problem ? 5 physical castration may sometimes be a treatment offered to people suffering from illnes like cancer etc.

  72. 73 Sabastion
    February 6, 2009 at 22:56

    First let me tell you a story… once upon a time there was a young 14 year old girl being babysat by her uncle… Her family told her it was just a bad dream. A decade later she still wakes up screaming some nights. Two years ago after all she could do to warn them he did it again… to her three cousins the youngest of which wasn’t even ten. This time the family took notice, this time the police were called, this time he got five months, out after two for good behavior. One in four women are sexually abused as a child, one in four. Young men of 18 have their lives destroyed because they had consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriends, and this man goes free. Today, right now this man goes free… What can we do? Tell me what the moral thing to do is. In Mexico rape is tried the same as murder with the same punishments. I agree with this. Because that man has destroyed four beautiful happy little girls, they don’t exist anymore, the women they will and have grown into were born that day in pain and fear, forever haunted by terrors in their sleep. The system is broken and I am far too close to its casualties to be objective. Please find an answer, all of mine are far less humane and far more permanent than castration.

  73. 74 Ash
    February 6, 2009 at 23:44

    Well, frankly I think for sadistic sexual offenders and pedophiles, it could be an option. Not all, but many sexual offenders (not an 18 year old guilty of sleeping with their 17 year old girl/boyfriend) are repeat offenders. They do their jail time (in an environment lacking their prey), sit through therapy sessions, and then walk back onto the streets and recommit the crime again and again until they are caught and go through the whole cycle again. I agree that castration seems barbaric, but what of the crimes they commit? It is a mental illness and rape includes emotional manipulation and power issues; however how many innocents will continue to have their lives shattered because we keep giving their predators slaps on the wrist?

  74. 75 Sulaiman
    February 7, 2009 at 08:27

    Castration does not belong to the 21st Century and beyond. Aren’t Europeans supposed to be ‘civilised’ and ‘developed’?

  75. February 7, 2009 at 12:01

    Castration is the only acceptable!

  76. 77 romeanna
    February 7, 2009 at 12:10

    Before approving the arguments for castration of sex offenders, remember the tragic case of Alan Turing. He was a code-breaker during the Second World War, and made an essential contribution to the fight against Nazism. However, after the war he was prosecuted as a homosexual, at a time (in the 1950s) when homosexuality was regarded with all the disgust which we now pour on paedophiles. He was offered the choice of chemical castration or imprisonment. He agreed to chemical castration. A few years later he committed suicide.

    While I have no grounds for arguing that his suicide was directly connected with the castration (there are also suggestions that it may have been murder), most people would not deny that this was an appalling way to treat a man whose crime these days would not be considered a crime at all: a man, moreover, to whom his country owed an enormous debt of gratitude.

    Physical castration is even more horrific than chemical castration in that its effects cannot be undone later. What if it is applied to someone who then turns out to be innocent? Remember the case of Alan Turing, horribly mistreated by his country for behaviour which we now see from a completely different perspective.

  77. 78 Emile Barre
    February 7, 2009 at 12:24

    About 900+ years ago, I might agree. Today, its education fully funded.

  78. February 7, 2009 at 14:37

    Very soon we will get thieves having their limbs chopped off…
    Well said, Israel. Sad that a topic like this is even worth a discussion. Castration of the offenders restores neither the dignity nor the lives of a victim. This kind of “justice” serves noone.

  79. February 7, 2009 at 14:38

    It is easy to condemn a “sex offender” to castration, but before you do it, think about the possibility of seating next to a female child in a plane, and while you dose, you accidentally fall on her and accidentally touch her breast, then she screams and in her statement to the police, she says you touched her breast!

    That is sexual abuse or harassment or molestation or what ever they may call it. The thing is, you are a sexual offender from that moment on until proved guilty!

    SO, TAKE A MOMENT AND SPECIFY THE KIND OF SEXUAL OFFENSES YOU LIKE TO SEE THE OFFENDERS CASTRATED!

  80. 81 bjay
    February 7, 2009 at 15:00

    Simple solution.
    This is a ‘Mental’ disorder.
    No curre, therefore they should be incarcerated for indefinite time or ‘brain surgery’.
    Who would justify that. (what next than, HITLER?)
    bjay.

  81. 82 Randy in Boise, Idaho, USA
    February 7, 2009 at 17:43

    Sure, I’ll vote for male castration, if female molesters have their breasts cut off, and there are many female molesters in prisons. Many a babysitter examines, touches, pokes, checks out the baby even though the diaper doesn’t need changing. I’ve walked in on my teen babysitter doing this, do we cut off her breasts? Don’t get mad or offended – you want the same for males, so let’s have equality of the sexes in all things…or do we cut off their hands because they used their hands to molest? Steal in India and you lose your hand! How far do we go to satisfy politicians and the press???

  82. 83 Pierre Parent
    February 7, 2009 at 20:06

    No one should be castrated, ever, for any reason.

    I say the same for clitorises.

    Physical mutilation, chemical attack, physical control, surveillance, et al. are all just ways your elected government wishes to save money. With full capacity prisons’ and with male hordes waiting to get in, it’s no wonder the gov would like to know if we would be willing to save money by chopping a few dicks. Our call.

    The rest is smoke and mirrors.

    The middle ages are back!

    Malc Dow above, also has wise stuff….

  83. 84 Rev Round
    February 8, 2009 at 02:37

    Since a higher percentage of sex crime happens within the family and a high percentage is committed by women will Mother have her testicles removed too?

    It is also worth noting where therapy is used instead of vengeance it is proven (in France) 4 out of 5 are not recidivist.

    So CCTV cams have not reduced crime and therapy has. Probably a good time to teach philosophy in ALL education courses as is done in France too.
    (Yep even the plumber has to learn philosophy too!)

  84. 85 Rev Round
    February 8, 2009 at 02:44

    And lets put paid to this myth once and for all. Castration is about vengeance not “cure”. Castration does not stop rape or sex offences.
    The people who advocate genital mutilation need therapy too.

  85. 86 Virgil H. Soule
    February 8, 2009 at 03:27

    In the U. S., we have a Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Castration falls into this category and I am surprised that any State in the Union would be considering it. The fact is that we really don’t know why sex offenders offend. We do know that many, if not most, will offend again and again if given the opportunity. These people simply cannot be trusted with freedom and must be institutionalized for their entire lives. If a dog attacks a human, it is euthanized without question. Should this rule also be applied to humans that attack and kill other humans? That gets us into the issue of capital punishment, which is a whole other matter. Personally, I think we should try to learn as much as we can from these people. Make each one a research subject and build a biographical dossier on each one, beginning with birth issues and exploring every aspect of their lives. Prevention and intervention should be the goal – not punishment.

  86. 87 Gifty Andoh Appiah
    February 8, 2009 at 14:19

    Rape is a devastating experience, a freind of mine was raped by her first boyfriend who was way older than her.ever since that experience, sex has been a scary thing for her though she tries so hard to overcome it. this has affected every other relationship she has been invovled with.for me, life imprisonment is better than castration.so many rape cases are not reported.(my friend’s is an example, cos she was too scared to report..besides, he was her boyfriend)i think we should look at reducing the possibility of rape through proper parental care among other things rather tha what to do to those who do it.

  87. 88 Stephen
    February 8, 2009 at 16:26

    A big “S.O.” on the forehead would be more practical punishment.

    1. Acts as a warning to others
    2. Doesn’t completely eliminate the potential for an otherwise healthy or intelligent human being to procreate
    3. Is a constant reminder

    Of course, the biggest con is the inevitable hate crimes against all those wearing the label, but this is a simple matter of practicality as one can already locate sex offenders through databases. That is, the label does not make discrimination possible, just easier.

  88. 89 Maxwell Sultan
    February 8, 2009 at 19:28

    I think sexul child offenders should be harshly punished but taking castration as a form of Punishment alone will not make our children safe, sexul offences come in a wide range of forms all of which cannot be prevented by castration, we should all teach our children to have an upright regard for each other so that we can all have a more sence of security for our children when we know they grow up looking at each other as friends, brothers and and one.

  89. February 9, 2009 at 11:50

    Sex offence is no doubt a henious crime,
    so punishment must be awarded to the extent that offender is to be deprived from sexual act .

  90. February 9, 2009 at 16:32

    RE: Rev Round, women offenders, statistics, France

    Rev (which I assume is Reverend?) states that “a higher percentage of sex crime takes place within the family.” Higher than what?

    It is true that incest is more prevalent than we can track, but my understanding is that we do not have good statistics because they are so hard to gather.

    It is not true that “a high percentage of women” commit these crimes. The primary crime by females in the family is turning a blind eye to incest by fathers, uncles, grandfathers and cousins.

    Despite these inaccuracies, I want to believe him on the French statistics. Does anyone have particular insight into the French approach? I like the philosophy and ethics classes.

  91. 92 ida symons
    February 9, 2009 at 21:25

    Yes, please castrate sex offenders, especially pedophiles. These people should not be given a second chance. They are released from prison early on ‘good behaviour’ but they don’t have children to sexually abuse, so of course they will be on ‘good behaviour’!

    Castrate the lot please

  92. 93 ~Dennis Junior~
    February 10, 2009 at 18:14

    Speaking from experience…Because I was a victim of sexual abuse, when I was in School…

    Is castration about punishment or about treatment?
    I think it is about punishment (and also treatment) so, they can not re-offend…

    Is it abhorrent, inhumane or the only way to protect society from dangerous people?
    NO, It protects the society at large!

    Is this too simplistic an argument? Yes…But it’s a topic of urgent for most of society…

    ~Dennis Junior~

  93. February 11, 2009 at 04:09

    NO,this is an unethical and unnecessary practice,and there is no real evidence that it is effective in reducing recidivism.Both surgical and chemical castration should be abolished.I know man-haters relish the idea,but they`re sicker than the offenders.Nora is mistaken.There are in fact a significant percentage of female sex offenders.The reason why they are not recognized or their offenses are minimized,is simply because they are female.Feminism,in alliance with the popular media and judicial system,has continued to excuse women from culpability in crimes most men are given long sentences for.This includes sex offences,which often involve sexual abuse of both males and females by the same woman.I`m not referring to female teachers who have sex with students.I`m referring to real female predators and sexual abusers.Yes,they are out there.And yes,females often perpetrate incest as well.I had a neighbor who was having sex with her daughter and the daughter`s cousin.

  94. 95 Petr
    February 12, 2009 at 14:40

    “A barbaric, unspeakable practice. Most sex offenders are not rapists, not pedophiles, and not violent.”

    Oh pleease. If you’d bother to read up on the issue, surgical castration is for repeated offenders, violent rapists.
    Too bad the bleeding hearts form the Council of Europe did not spend at least as much time worrying about the VICTIMS’ lack of consensus to be raped by those who they so vehemently defend.

  95. 96 Wayne Coleman
    February 22, 2009 at 00:00

    How will castration stop a rapist from raping or stop a child molester from committing another molestation? A man can still achieve an erection even while castrated. Even though there is a drop in testosterone, if the will to molest or rape in in the mindset of the person, castration is not going to prevent a further violation. Then, there is another aspect of castration. Now that there are more women committing sex crimes, what do you do to them? Do you give them clitoral castration such as the procedures happening in certain countries around the world? Most people consider that to be barbaric. We need sex treatment centers and places where they can get the help that they need. If they can’t be treated or they don’t want to be treated, then they should be away from society.

  96. 97 Daniella
    December 15, 2009 at 21:58

    This should be atleast considered in rape and other serious sexual offenses. We do it to dogs and it calms them down so why not humans? You can put a woman on the pill and she will seriously lose her sex drive. Half of this is mental which counseling can address but the other half is physical, hence you have VICTIMS. Please consider it!

  97. 98 Kim from Cali
    March 4, 2010 at 01:16

    If not castration than a lobotomy. I believe that therapy and having law enforcement track their every move is not helping the victims of these horrible crimes. It is inhumane to have women and children being violated and killed! When you commit a crime to this degree you have no rights, you are a lost cause and if the death penalty is not an option than we must castrate!

  98. 99 Virgil
    March 4, 2010 at 11:39

    In the US we have this thing called a Constitution that, among other things, prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Many argue that the death penalty falls under that prohibition but the Supreme Court has yet to agree. Castration for sex offenders would likely be viewed in the same way. The Constitution is a good idea. Everyone should have one. Governments must be kept at bay wherever possible.

  99. 100 eric
    March 14, 2010 at 00:59

    I think we need to legalize prostitution everywhere, it’s the lesser of two evils. It will be then affordable for these cretins, then they won’t feel the need to rape.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: