+311 You support the process of chemical castration (an injection that decreases libido by lowering testosterone levels) for rapists and pedophiles, amirite?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

lolwut

by Anonymous 12 years ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/south-korea-chemical-castration_n_1541888.html

by Anonymous 12 years ago

oh i see that would make sense to do

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What definition of pedophile are you using?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah. Pedophiles are fine, they just like children. Nothing wrong with that. But when they start molesting children, then it gets bad. Chemical castration for pedophiles is not good. It should only be used for criminals

by Anonymous 12 years ago

A pedophile who has been caught committing a crime related to pedophilia. You can't "cure" pedophilia with jail time and it's hard to turn them off to acting their desires, so this is a more practical way to ensure they don't harm any more children.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

@meerkat Yeah, that's an important factor as well. I meant did the post count guys who think seven//teen// year olds are attractive but they're under 18 so that's apparently pedophilia.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If I had a mental condition that made me sexually attracted to kids or if I could only get off by raping someone, I think I'd take that willingly.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

In some cases, I'd support just good ol' regular castration.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Most*

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's like you're trying to make someones opinion.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

For rapists.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Pedophiles can't control how they feel. Maybe if they molest a kid, I would agree, but you just said pedophiles.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Right, they can't control how they feel, without this injection.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Since I'd rather not go into how inhumane and rather totalitarian it is to forcibly deprive someone of something as natural as sex, I'll raise my other issue with this post. Most serial rapists and pedophiles don't do it because they're really horny, but in order to feel powerful. They may lose their desire for sex itself, but there's not really a chemical injection that takes away serious mental illness, so the guy could just pop a Viagra and do the same thing, because I don't think it's ever purely about sex in the first place.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm up for some good old hand chopping off.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I know how cruel this sounds, but I'm okay with torture for rapists, pedophiles, and murderers. They deserve it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Murderers deserve death row. Not torture.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Maybe they do, but that's not justice, that's revenge.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

People don't wake up one morning and decide "I'm going to rape a child today", it's a mental condition, like dyslexia or downs syndrome. Would you torture someone for being sexually attracted to members of the same sex if you believed it to be the wrong choice? Yes, paedophilia is bad, but they can't //help// it. You can't torture it out of them, it's not part of their rebellion against society. You can't just sit them down and educate them on why they're not supposed to be sexually attracted to children.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Trust me, I know it's not justice. But the fact that you raped someone is so fucked up it's unforgivable in my book. Normally I'm a firm believer in mercy, but after seeing the reality of the child sex slave industry... no. I just... I can never see those people as human. Ever. You must be pure fucking evil to do that to another human being. You can't compare paedophila to gay people.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Which is why rapists are sick minded. They're not evil, they don't need torture. Torture will not cure their mental illness. Help and counseling will.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And as for paedophiles, I was wrong, I can't compare them to rapists, exactly. You are 100% right. I understand that they are attracted to children as a gay person would be attracted to a member of the same sex. Thank you for pointing that out.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, I didn't mention rapists because I agree with you that rape is a fucking unforgivable thing to do.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Agreed.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I feel like it would only work for pedophiles that act purely on sexual desires and pleasure. Their behaviour is inexcusable and this is the least that we can do.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No because high libido is not the cause of rape or pedophilia, and testosterone is responsible for a lot more things in the body than just sex drive. I would support a punishment like this if and only if the person was a repeat offender AND they managed to interfere only with the pathway in the brain that is responsible for sex drive.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What about those who were wrongfully convicted?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The injections take place over a few months and don't last indefinitely, so once they are proved innocent then the treatments would stop and eventually they'll return to normal. I don't know how long it'll take for the medicine to wear off, though.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That makes sense, but what if they aren't able to prove their innocence?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well that happens with a lot of people. If they aren't proved innocent they'll still have to suffer the consequences of the guilty. I think that argument is mostly used for the death penalty, because if they are proven innocent there's no way they'll come back to life. The damage is already done. I think this is less severe and more similar to jail time, in that they can be stopped if the person is actually innocent. If not, unfortunately the same consequences will apply just like with jail time, except the effects will take a little longer to wear off.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Please don't call this 'medicine'; there is nothing medicinal about changing the way a person's body works to benefit everyone else. Also, as someone has already said, testosterone (and androgens in general) do more than just make you horny. You would potentially be subjecting that man to a lifetime of health implications. Even criminals deserve to be treated humanely and with dignity, otherwise what makes us any different than them?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, it's a medicine. It reduces the amount of testosterone in your body. It surely isn't reducing it to the point where results would be fatal, but this is just a way to prevent them from raping more people/children since a lot of people continue to commit these crimes after they're released. What makes the "inhumaneness" of this treatment more brutal than jail time? What makes us different than them if we detain them in jail anyway, put in a cell for years after years? This actually might be more humane because it lets them interact in the outside world without violent urges. Unless it doesn't kill/maim them, I'm for it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It is a drug, not a medicine. Medicines are therapeutic in purpose. All medicines are drugs, but not all drugs are medicines. What you are proposing is maiming; who is any one person to oversee the function of another's body and impose changes for their own benefit? All this amirite does is raise ethical questions of ownership of one's body, which is another ethical debate all on its own. There are a lot of things I don't agree with where the world is concerned, but the fact of the matter is that we all have to live to the same laws, and jail is the price some pay for going against that. There is nothing humane about injecting someone with a drug against their will and then expecting them to feel fine about being out in the world. If they willingly asked for it, even after being told the risks and possible consequences, then that's different. But to force it upon someone is a violation of their human rights (which, despite doing what they did, they still have). If we started doing this to pedophiles who have acted on compulsion, would we have to start doing something similar with zoophiles or people who knowingly infect others with HIV?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

By this logic, we should never afflict someone with a substance that'll change the way they act against their will. Tell me then, who really has ownership when police pepper spray violent protesters? Or when the police has the power to sedate someone? Those are all forced upon the person. Those are all against their "human rights". They committed a crime fully knowing of their consequences, therefore sympathy is not needed. Especially since this is a drug that does not have everlasting effects like the death penalty. Who is //really// in control of a person's body, then?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Sure, I'll go with your interpretation of that logic - I don't think that anyone should ever be able to force drugs onto another person; to do so would surely be equivalent to battery or rape. But, as I said, body ownership isn't something I'm prepared to go into. In an ideal world, a person would be in control of their own body, and in many circumstances, they are. However, we don't live in my idea of an ideal world, and law enforcement agencies' abilities to use 'crowd control' is something I'm not particularly fond of. It's easy to say that all child molesters are wrong and that they should be castrated for their sins and subjected to a life of androgen antagonist side-effects (to say there are none is naive) when you're hidden in the safety of your own home, but it's not nearly as simple as that. Committing a crime doesn't automatically mean a person should be treated like shit. I wouldn't advocate killing a murderer or treating him unkindly because that's just low, weak, and pathetic - and what justification does anyone else have to kill a killer anyway?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

"If they aren't proved innocent they'll still have to suffer the consequences of the guilty..." Um... that's kinda backwards... You proves someone GUILTY before you punish them.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

@dzmax: Maybe it'd be more humane to offer them a choice: jail time or injection. The point of this is that rapists/molesters continue to commit their crime after they are released, so jail time really has no effect, except lessening the number of their victims. The side I'm coming from is that I don't think we'd be treating them like shit. We wouldn't be physically causing them any pain and we wouldn't alter their lifestyle any more than jail time would. We'd just be targeting the urge that causes them to commit crimes, we're not harming any other aspect (for the most part) of their bodies. The real argument is whether or not the gov't should have power to do this. I'm against the death penalty, but I really don't view this as severe as taking someone's life. We would only be reducing their libido, and that's not "reducing their freedom of sex" because they probably wouldn't enjoy consensual sex that much anyway. You say we shouldn't treat them like shit, but the problem is if we treat them nicely, they will most likely repeat their offences. @saturnlite: That's what our judicial system aims to do, but unfortunately some people are still wrongfully convicted (e.g. being framed).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You wouldn't be targeting the urge. Rapists don't all rape because they're horny, so androgen antagonists would only make it harder for those rapists to rape. And you can't suddenly argue your point on the back of mine and pretend it was what you meant all along. You were advocating forced androgen antagonists on these people. "The point of this is that rapists/molesters continue to commit their crime after they are released, so jail time really has no effect, except lessening the number of their victims" Where's your proof? "We wouldn't be physically causing them any pain and we wouldn't alter their lifestyle any more than jail time would" No, 'we' wouldn't if these people willingly volunteered for these drugs. But that's not the point you were trying to make. "The real argument is whether or not the gov't should have power to do this" Government already has the power to do this in some places. "We would only be reducing their libido" And their quality of life. "they probably wouldn't enjoy consensual sex that much anyway" Proof? "if we treat them nicely, they will most likely repeat their offences" Proof!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If molesting/raping people is their "quality of life", I see nothing wrong with taking that away. All the proof you need is the 2nd comment of this post where I posted the link. That link, along with related others, is where I got all my information from.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Right, so you expect me to accept a news article (of all things) about one person in a completely different country as supporting evidence? Well that's cultural validity and all generalisability out of the window for a start. Quality of life doesn't start and end with sex. Side-effects of cyproterone, one of the drugs commonly used for chemical castration (copied from the BNF): fatigue and lassitude, breathlessness, weight changes, reduced sebum production (may clear acne), changes in hair pattern, gynaecomastia (rarely leading to galactorrhoea and benign breast nodules); rarely hypersensitivity reactions, rash and osteoporosis; inhibition of spermatogenesis; hepatotoxicity reported (including jaundice, hepatitis and hepatic failure (fatalities reported at dosages of 100 mg and above, usually in men treated for advanced prostate cancer) I'd say that's a pretty drastic change in quality of life, potentially - you can't predict who will develop side-effects to a drug or when. And this is all just if it is taken orally. The alternate route of administration is intramuscular injection, and that comes with a whole load of complications of its own on top of these.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What the heck. Obviously I expect you to accept a news article because first off, it's true. Second, it's an example of how other countries are progressively accepting this. What did you expect me to show you, a lengthy medical report and a documentary? Honestly, I don't give a crap about their "quality of life". Prison isn't exactly healthy, either. I assume prison conditions are slightly worse than that of the average household. Prison in the first place is "treating them like crap", and it's as crappy as it gets. As long as this treatment isn't torture and it doesn't kill, it's fine. Prison is a pretty drastic change in quality of life, too. As I said, I'd still support this process if they were given a choice. If someone commits a crime, you still have to deal with the consequences, and the consequences will never be "good", and if they are, it doesn't work. If they're really feeling sick and want to reject treatment, they can revert back to prison time. If I ever came off as wanting to force this treatment upon people, I'll just verify that it's not true.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Prison involves a change in lifestyle, not an inherent change in quality of life. Prisons have also been criticised for apparently providing better facilities than people on state benefits, I believe. You are making many claims with little evidence, and changing your entire stance as you go along. First, you were all for forcing injections on everyone, and now you are saying that people should have a choice. "They committed a crime fully knowing of their consequences, therefore sympathy is not needed. Especially since this is a drug that does not have everlasting effects like the death penalty." "Maybe it'd be more humane to offer them a choice: jail time or injection." Those two things alone make it pretty clear that you were quite happy with the idea of forcing this onto others at some point, when taken in context. If you don't care about people's quality of life, you really aren't in a position to be making decisions like this - and I'm glad you're not. You clearly lack the impartiality that making such decisions requires. The news article that I am not accepting as proof doesn't even support the subjective statements I asked you to prove. I would prefer a journal article.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

At no point did I support enforcing this procedure on "everyone". That's not what we're debating. We're debating whether or not this is humane or acceptable. If it makes you feel any better, I'll own up to changing my argument, though I don't see how it matters because it's a compromise. I don't care about a //criminal// who committed a crime this harsh, permanently affecting someone else's life. I don't care about //their// quality of life, I only care about whether or not they have one. I think they deserve to die, but I'm against death penalty because I don't believe a person's life is in the hands of the gov't; not because I want to be nice. The only reason this is a thing is because these criminals repeat offend after they're released from jail. It's a preventive procedure, and even if it saves one person from getting assaulted I don't care if a million rapists suffer from osteoporosis. Google it yourself, if you want a journal article. I'm not fantasizing. This is a procedure a few states in the US already implement. Jail time is also a national consequence. Unfortunately these law makers aren't too emotional because they aren't forgiving or sympathetic enough for you.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I won't Google it myself because I'm not the one who needs to be able to support the points they are trying to make. That news article hasn't shown that they have looked at any data at all, and it definitely wouldn't be enough to make a government consider this as a nation-wide policy. "Unfortunately these law makers aren't too emotional because they aren't forgiving or sympathetic enough for you." You just don't stop with presenting opinions as facts, do you? Are you one of these law-makers? Do you know how they feel when they do their job? You might think that the side-effects are pretty insignificant. I don't know what you know about them, but osteoporosis isn't a minor bother. People can fracture bones by falling off chairs or just sneezing. And the liver complications aren't something to laugh about. This wonder-drug you're proposing would cost millions in healthcare. And why do so many people on here think I are arguing or debating with them? I'm not doing either; I am simply pointing out the flaws in your comments and telling you where you are wrong. I daren't try to change anyone's opinion of anything they strongly believe in because to try and do so would be futile.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

How can someone exactly be wrong on an opinion question is beyond me. You weren't commenting on my inaccuracy, you were commenting on my lack of impartiality. If you don't want to Google it then don't Google it, I already showed you a source and if you choose to not believe it I'm not going to spend my time digging up more sources. Actually, you said it's a good thing I don't make laws because I'm not impartial enough. Apparently if you approve of a law like this you're not impartial. Like I said, if it saves just one person/child from being raped, I don't care if they all die. I'd rather that over the victim getting raped and all the rapists sitting mildly comfortably in a cell. I value the lives of the innocent over the horribly guilty.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No, it was definitely your inaccuracy I was commenting on. You called the drug a medicine, said it had no side-effects, and said that it wasn't fatal when it has the potential to be. You have also tried to portray a number of your own opinions as facts and you've tried to support them with a news article that lacks scientific basis. Good supporting evidence doesn't come from news websites; it comes from quantitative and qualitative research. This is what countries base decisions such as the one you are proposing on, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find something if you truly cared - but the fact that all you can muster is that news article leaves me thinking that you couldn't find anything or you didn't try - or you just came across the news article and thought it would make for a good ol' controversial amirite. Which is fine, but at least admit that proper research using Google Scholar or PUBMED or something like that is beyond your abilities. If you can really say so readily that you hope for thousands - if not millions - of people to die for the benefit of one person, you are truly a horrid person and my words fail me; I can't tell you just how disgusting you are. Truly...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The Constitution protects all citizens from cruel and unusual punishment, which this definitely would be, especially due to the lack of definitive results of such cases. Stop being sadists.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

.. This is in South Korea.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Your constitution is not in charge of the world!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If this punishment is a required punishment at point of conviction, I think it is taking away some fundamental right from people that, in certain circumstances, can't help what they feel. If the Injection is an option between the injection every few months or X amount of years in jail and the person has a choice then it seems valid

by Anonymous 12 years ago

At first I said no, but after I read the article I felt better about it. It said that the prisoner can refuse. So if he doesn't want the injection he doesn't have to get it. It's an alternative for jail. Much better then what I was thinking.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'd say no, because as the people above said, testosterone doesn't affect just the sex drive (get ready to hear any male with chemically lowered testosterone whine about how much his nipples hurt) plus sex drive isn't the main cause for rape. I can't find the pages, but there are six main different causes for rape, and they range from power trips to actual lust to sadism to just opportunity. Plus, what about female rapists? What about people who use things other than their willy to rape? What about people taking medications whom already have a lowered sex drive and rape anyway?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think for paedophiles that haven't actually hurt anyone, this could be a helpful solution for them. The problem is, people hear "paedophile" and think "child molester", so I'd imagine they have some serious trouble coming forward to ask for help. But for rapists, it's surprising how little sexual libido comes into play. It's often considered a mostly dominance/violence thing. In this sense, it's hard to see how something like this would help. Then again, I can't see any way a lower libido actually causes anybody any HARM (provided the chemical used has no side effects), so maybe it's worth trying anyway. What could be done about female rapists though? (Yes, I know females have testosterone too).

by Anonymous 12 years ago

No they would probably miss thier libido and decide to do something drastic about it ... anyway I don't think libido has anything to do with it, unfortunately.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Because most rape isn't rape it's just a girl getting drunk off her ass asking to have sex with a guy and not remembering that she asked him or she just wants to get him into true any way if you rape you have something wrong in you're head so they can get it sorted out Knut if you castrate him it will make him worse yes

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's drunk off her ass, or just wants to get him into trouble and its if u castrate him he will be worse

by Anonymous 11 years ago