So Macedonia has passed a law allowing to castrate pedophiles...

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

The parliament of Macedonia has strictened (that a word?!) their laws against pedophiles. They have raised the maximum sentence as well as allowed, that a SECOND TIME OFFENDER can be castrated chemically.

I think it's a neat step into the right direction. I am not pro death sentence, but I think depending on the severity giving the possibility for a second chance is a quite high risk. Also chemical castration seems to be a bit too nice. People should be able to see the scars (especially potential sex partners!).

source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/macedonia-adopts-castration-bill-pedophiles-22373302

Any thoughts on this one?

Captcha: thick and thin.
I don't think THIS is appropriate right now.

I'm sure this is the right way to go and the number of child rapes in Macedonia will radically decline due to this new law.

(No, I'm not serious.)

What's the rational behind chemical castration?

Is it to prevent pregnancy? Is it reduce sex-drive? What if the offender is female?

Or is it just to scare men?

If so, why don't we just go back to the fun punishments of olde?

Seems like this bill is operating off of misguided notions regarding why these things happen. But I'm no expert.

"In June 2012, Macedonia launched an online register of convicted pedophiles who had been released, containing their pictures, names and addresses."

Dude- really?

To be honest this all seems a bit excessive.

Danny Ocean:
What's the rational behind chemical castration?

Is it to prevent pregnancy? Is it reduce sex-drive? What if the offender is female?

Or is it just to scare men?

If so, why don't we just go back to the fun punishments of olde?

It applies to only male offenders (because only men can be pedophies, duh!) and is supposed to lower ones sex drive to nothing. Of course, there's lots of ways around it, and often times, it just doesn't work on its own. Its highly ineffective, not to mention that the treatment has been associated as a "treatment" for being gay.

Can't see it making a huge difference either way if it's only second-time offenders, statistically sex offenders tend to have the lowest re-offending rates along with murderers. Not sure where I stand on this, I support treatments for people in prisons to reduce offending but I don't know if this will actually stop anyone or just enrage them so they offend in a different way, anyone got any studies?

Roggen Bread:
Also chemical castration seems to be a bit too nice. People should be able to see the scars (especially potential sex partners!).

Actually there's a good reason it's chemical, unlike physical castration chemical castration doesn't involve removing any body parts so if it turns out the procedure isn't effective, or the individual was wrongly convicted, it can be reversed by simply not taking the drugs any-longer.

JoJo:
Can't see it making a huge difference either way if it's only second-time offenders, statistically sex offenders tend to have the lowest re-offending rates along with murderers. Not sure where I stand on this, I support treatments for people in prisons to reduce offending but I don't know if this will actually stop anyone or just enrage them so they offend in a different way, anyone got any studies?

I was wondering if it would be more effective to rehabilitate them as if it were a psychological disorder? Surely what you're attracted to is a problem with your psychology, not your physiology?

For anyone unfamiliar with the specifics of the term, it's worth noting that the phrase 'chemical castration' is actually somewhat sensationalist in nature[1]. Chemical castration is medication that needs to be applied every few months for the sake of reducing sex drive through the reduction of testosterone levels. The effects are supposedly reversible simply by ceasing to take the drug. I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that it's a phrase with more bark than bite, but it's probably close.

Edit: And of course, several people beat me to it...

[1] Not the article's fault, it's the phrase itself and what it means

JoJo:

Actually there's a good reason it's chemical, unlike physical castration chemical castration doesn't involve removing any body parts so if it turns out the procedure isn't effective, or the individual was wrongly convicted, it can be reversed by simply not taking the drugs any-longer.

Okay. I stand corrected.

However: With physical castration you will not have problems with the procedure being not effective. That is the big plus. I think.

To be fully honest in this respect, I think the worst that can happen to a pedophiliac is that they go to prison anyways, atleast in the countries Ive grown up in (America/Germany). If a child molester goes to prison they are....marked so to speak.Ill give a rough number of 3/4 commiting suicide....and the latter will..be punished beyond all belief, Ive heard a few stories from ppl that are to this day in jail because of slight drug charges, that didnt go through with the mentioned self-jurisdiction- charges but...to put it nicely...the afformentioned criminals...were not...handled lightly from their fellow cellmates. As far as Ive also come to learn the guards will speak somewhat louder of the persons traits amongst eachother to give cellmates 'hints'...
on one respect, no I dont find it ok that they are telling what a person is in there for...but on the other hand I put rapists/child molesters in the same area so...meh ;o

Danny Ocean:

JoJo:
Can't see it making a huge difference either way if it's only second-time offenders, statistically sex offenders tend to have the lowest re-offending rates along with murderers. Not sure where I stand on this, I support treatments for people in prisons to reduce offending but I don't know if this will actually stop anyone or just enrage them so they offend in a different way, anyone got any studies?

I was wondering if it would be more effective to rehabilitate them as if it were a psychological disorder? Surely what you're attracted to is a problem with your psychology, not your physiology?

That's what I would lean towards, from what I've heard it isn't currently possibly to change an offender's sexuality away from children (if they even swing that way, apparently many molesters are simply indiscriminate and go after a child since they're an easy target) but teaching them better self-control and promoting healthy relationships with other adults would a more effective solution than forcing them to take a unproven medical treatment with heavy side-effects.

Roggen Bread:

Okay. I stand corrected.

However: With physical castration you will not have problems with the procedure being not effective. That is the big plus. I think.

Well, an erect penis isn't necessarily required to sexually exchange with someone, whether they'd still have to motivation to is another question of course.

As a society, we all want it both ways: we vilify anybody who has an attraction to children as worse than a murderer and a ticking time bomb (regardless of their self control), yet simultaneously expect them to own up to it despite the devastating social consequences that would have.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong! Maybe you're just destined to be a monster if you got a bad hand and have the wrong sexual makeup. But I kind of doubt it, and it seems like without that interpersonal, social support, there really is no preventative option.

Norithics:
As a society, we all want it both ways: we vilify anybody who has an attraction to children as worse than a murderer and a ticking time bomb (regardless of their self control), yet simultaneously expect them to own up to it despite the devastating social consequences that would have.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong! Maybe you're just destined to be a monster if you got a bad hand and have the wrong sexual makeup. But I kind of doubt it, and it seems like without that interpersonal, social support, there really is no preventative option.

Actually a really good friend of mine is pedophile (or so he says). While I do accept this (a murderer would be harder to accept) I seriously hope, that he will never ever actually assault a child.

As long as it stays with fantasies and internet stuff (that is DRAWN stuff...), whatever floats your boat.

And to be honest. The easiest way to prevent something from happening WOULD be chemical castration. Even though it is wrong on quite a lot of levels.

Lilikins:
To be fully honest in this respect, I think the worst that can happen to a pedophiliac is that they go to prison anyways, atleast in the countries Ive grown up in (America/Germany). If a child molester goes to prison they are....marked so to speak.Ill give a rough number of 3/4 commiting suicide....and the latter will..be punished beyond all belief, Ive heard a few stories from ppl that are to this day in jail because of slight drug charges, that didnt go through with the mentioned self-jurisdiction- charges but...to put it nicely...the afformentioned criminals...were not...handled lightly from their fellow cellmates. As far as Ive also come to learn the guards will speak somewhat louder of the persons traits amongst eachother to give cellmates 'hints'...
on one respect, no I dont find it ok that they are telling what a person is in there for...but on the other hand I put rapists/child molesters in the same area so...meh ;o

I can back some of this up. When I was locked up the sheriff's refused to believe I was straight so they put me in "protective custody" instead of general population. You know who else goes in protective custody? Rapists and others charged with sex crimes including pedophiles. My cellmate was in for sexual assault. The guards would let it slip who was in for what shortly after anyone new showed up. In my case, it turned out to be a good thing. I was charged with manufacture, import, and selling of illegal weapons. I was actually treated with a degree of respect.

On the other hand, pedophiles or anyone busted for sexual abuse of a minor are not treated very well, even among the protective custody crowd. Many of them even have young daughters, so it tends to upset them a great deal. I'm not saying that a pedophile will necessarily be killed in the shower, but they had better keep to themselves, lay low and accept the occasional abuse that the other inmates will heap on them. They usually can expect to get beaten early on as a reminder that inside, they are at the bottom of the pecking order. If they get uppity about it, they will possibly be killed.

Will they also be castrated for having manga that's a bit ecchi?

I've yet to see anything that suggests chemical castration reduces recidivism rates.

For that matter, what's the recidivism rate amongst convicted child abusers anyway?

I doubt it will do much. What would be far better in my mind is preemptive measures to stop it occurring at all. Change the way society looks at peadophiles and offer support to those who, for lack of a better term, "come out" with it. Help them, give them treatment, that sort of stuff. Don't force them to keep it locked up inside them and to try and deal with it on their own. That's how I look at it.

Norithics:
As a society, we all want it both ways: we vilify anybody who has an attraction to children as worse than a murderer and a ticking time bomb (regardless of their self control), yet simultaneously expect them to own up to it despite the devastating social consequences that would have.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong! Maybe you're just destined to be a monster if you got a bad hand and have the wrong sexual makeup. But I kind of doubt it, and it seems like without that interpersonal, social support, there really is no preventative option.

I had a similar debate with another LEO recently.

She said that the sex offender registry is a necessary evil because even though it can destroy the lives of people who don't 'really' belong there, it allows people to protect themselves from pedophiles in the nearby areas.

I told her that it's an unreasonable breach of privacy because if the pedophile (or other sex offender) has served their sentence and was released, it's unreasonable to continue to punish them for the crime since we don't have a similar system for other offenders (If you killed someone, you don't have to go around telling people that you're a murderer and register on a database for murderers).

She insisted that they need to be known because they're still a potential danger to those around them.

My only response was; if this person is still a danger to society, why were they released from prison? Otherwise, any other crime has the same potential for recidivism. We still don't track them in the same manner.

That's basically where any meaningful discussion ended because she apparently considers it a shame that they aren't publicly executed on conviction, but yanno.

Anyway, more on topic. I'll accept this if they pass a sister law that requires violent offenders to be stuck on tranquilizers for the rest of their lives. After all, if we're doing it for one crime, may as well do it for all of them.

Roggen Bread:
Also chemical castration seems to be a bit too nice. People should be able to see the scars (especially potential sex partners!).

I think it's quite sad that paedophilia is the last great societal scape-goat that it's considered socially acceptable to abuse. It's clearly a mental problem in need of treatment, and I would say it's hard to claim that it's a more destructive mental problem than many others. So when people wish violent disfigurement on such people, it makes me think they just have this vicious need to hurt, and there's only one segment of society left that it's acceptable to vocalize violent fantasies toward.

It seems more sane, cost-effective, and productive to put sex offenders with underage victims through psychological healing programs rather than just decide they are the worst people ever and fantasize about them being disfigured, knowingly make them victims of other criminals in prison, etc... It doesn't give us the self-satisfaction of watching another person we've decided is inferior to us be destroyed though, so...

It is a bit bizarre however that when a man inappropriately touches a child, often the internet brays for his private parts to be snicked off. When a man inappropriately touches an adult against their will, very often this same internet will just proclaim "boys will be boys" or "she probably really did want it, it's not his fault."

Kopikatsu:
Anyway, more on topic. I'll accept this if they pass a sister law that requires violent offenders to be stuck on tranquilizers for the rest of their lives. After all, if we're doing it for one crime, may as well do it for all of them.

Having read the wikipedia page about chemical castration, as I understand it the two are not really all that comparable. A violent offender may have had a single violent impulse as an emotional reaction to some other event. Or they may just have never developed the coping skills to consciously control their anger. I expect someone suffering from paedophilia has impulses they simply can't control, because we all know the penalties if they get arrested are so severe and life-destroying. What I think needs objection is not that chemical castration is being used, but that the clinical treatment of the disorder is being confused in the public eye with the punishment, and that its use is being mandated by politicians and not prescribed by psychology experts.

As long as they've actually done something to a minor, sure.

That's all I really have to say on the subject, surprisingly. I actually had this big argument prepared as I was clicking the link to this thread about how it should only be done to convicted ones. But that's said in the original post itself. So no dice.

Asita:
For anyone unfamiliar with the specifics of the term, it's worth noting that the phrase 'chemical castration' is actually somewhat sensationalist in nature[1]. Chemical castration is medication that needs to be applied every few months for the sake of reducing sex drive through the reduction of testosterone levels. The effects are supposedly reversible simply by ceasing to take the drug. I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that it's a phrase with more bark than bite, but it's probably close.

Edit: And of course, several people beat me to it...

Well, if that is all it is, then I have much less of a problem with the procedure than what the name would imply. Of course, then you would have to get into the problems of how one feels about court ordered medication regiments.

[1] Not the article's fault, it's the phrase itself and what it means

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:

It is a bit bizarre however that when a man inappropriately touches a child, often the internet brays for his private parts to be snicked off. When a man inappropriately touches an adult against their will, very often this same internet will just proclaim "boys will be boys" or "she probably really did want it, it's not his fault."

One thing I've noticed is that, if there is one thing all people maintain, it's the bizarre notion that adults are completely unlike children.

If someone rams his cock in a child, I wouldn't lose any sleep if their chemical castration had meant a dip in sulphoric acid.
Merely lowering the perps testosterone levels with some medicine is merciful any way you look at it. Or when no treatment works, a life sentence is acceptable.

veloper:
If someone rams his cock in a child, I wouldn't lose any sleep if their chemical castration had meant a dip in sulphoric acid.

That strikes me as pointlessly, callously, vindictive. Especially pointless. It won't make the victim any happier, it won't make the criminal any different. All it's doing is making you, unrelated to the incident, feel better about you. It doesn't help anyone else, and, arguably, doesn't even serve punitive justice.

I get that this is an emotive crime, but it is not one so severe as to throw away every other principal of justice that sustains our democracies, as people seem wont to do, for the sake of seeing the "wicked" suffer.

Such naive over-simplifications are not what gets things done, they are not rational, and they are most certainly not what makes humans great and civilisations flourish.

Danny Ocean:

veloper:
If someone rams his cock in a child, I wouldn't lose any sleep if their chemical castration had meant a dip in sulphoric acid.

That strikes me as pointlessly, callously, vindictive. Especially pointless. It won't make the victim any happier, it won't make the criminal any different. All it's doing is making you, unrelated to the incident, feel better about you. It doesn't help anyone else, and, arguably, doesn't even serve punitive justice.

I get that this is an emotive crime, but it is not one so severe as to throw away every other principal of justice that sustains our democracies, as people seem wont to do, for the sake of seeing the "wicked" suffer.

Such naive over-simplifications are not what gets things done, they are not rational, and they are most certainly not what makes humans great and civilisations flourish.

Watching people get fed to lions is a nice distraction from your own problems, though. Even in the US, where executions aren't public, they still get a crowd to stand around outside and cheer.

I'm still not sure why people insist on using these types of punishment for something that is recognized as a mental disorder. Surely it would serve society better to put them in therapy in an attempt to "fix" them? I understand there has to be a certain punishment attached to it to dissuade this type of behavior, but i'm convinced curing them works better than jailing them for a long time while castrating them.

generals3:
I'm still not sure why people insist on using these types of punishment for something that is recognized as a mental disorder. Surely it would serve society better to put them in therapy in an attempt to "fix" them? I understand there has to be a certain punishment attached to it to dissuade this type of behavior, but i'm convinced curing them works better than jailing them for a long time while castrating them.

But it's not about the society, it's about appearing "tough on crime", and generally dehumanizing the "other" in order to feel better about oneself.

And I agree, really, it would be much better if paedophiles could come out with their issues and have them fixed instead. But problems simply don't exist if we choose to ignore and/or vilify them, do they.

Also, note, "paedophilia" seems to get misused a lot, because someone who goes for a 14, 15 years old teenagers isn't a case of the "paedophilia" disorder...unless the particular 14, 15 years old is way, way late with their puberty.

Let's think about this, because clearly noone involved did.

1) Chemical castration doesn't work. It isn't going to cure paedophiles any more than it "cured" homosexuals in the 50s.

2) Chemical castration causes permanent physical damage and can shorten people's lives. It's a cruel and inhumane form of punishment. Although I guess if Macedonia wanted to poison its own accession bid to the EU that was probably the way to go.

3) "Paedophiles" and "child sex abusers" are not the same thing. In fact, most child sex abusers are not paedophiles, and vice versa. This is basic terminology.

Vegosiux:

generals3:
I'm still not sure why people insist on using these types of punishment for something that is recognized as a mental disorder. Surely it would serve society better to put them in therapy in an attempt to "fix" them? I understand there has to be a certain punishment attached to it to dissuade this type of behavior, but i'm convinced curing them works better than jailing them for a long time while castrating them.

But it's not about the society, it's about appearing "tough on crime", and generally dehumanizing the "other" in order to feel better about oneself.

And I agree, really, it would be much better if paedophiles could come out with their issues and have them fixed instead. But problems simply don't exist if we choose to ignore and/or vilify them, do they.

Also, note, "paedophilia" seems to get misused a lot, because someone who goes for a 14, 15 years old teenagers isn't a case of the "paedophilia" disorder...unless the particular 14, 15 years old is way, way late with their puberty.

Admittedly this is something that a lot of teenagers run afoul of as well. When your a teenager dealing romantically with other teenagers, it is really tricky trying to determine age. Especially once you hit 18 yourself. One girl i was with when i was 18, had me convinced that she was 19. Turned out she was 14. She didn't go to school(turned out she was independent study). Had me move into her room at her mom's house(her mom was fine with it and knew what was going on). She hung out at a bar that had signs clearly posted about no one under 18 being allowed. And she was incredibly well developed with a DD chest. I had no reason to suspect that she was underage.

Her sister eventually informed me about a lot of details i hadn't been aware of, not the least of which was her age. Oh and apparently i was the 22nd guy she had been with... at 14. Apparently she had screwed half of the bar she hung out at at various points and most of them were way older than me. We had only been with each other for a month, but that was a month too long. Her and her whole family were just messed up. I'd go into more detail but this post is long enough to make my point. I saw her again a few years ago. She tried unsuccessfully to sleep with me using her friend as bait. Turns out she's a stripper now.

Vegosiux:
Also, note, "paedophilia" seems to get misused a lot, because someone who goes for a 14, 15 years old teenagers isn't a case of the "paedophilia" disorder...unless the particular 14, 15 years old is way, way late with their puberty.

This is a big problem we have in the public discourse. Conflating ephebophilia to pedophilia, then pedophilia to child molestation. It's an incredibly dangerous line of thinking, because it turns something as relatively benign and probably unintentional as noticing the way puberty has changed a teenager into "that person is a dangerous monster."

I think to some degree, we've made us afraid of ourselves. Like if we let ourselves even unconsciously look at said teenager, we can't trust our judgement then say, "But of course I don't need to be involving myself with someone that young; it's illegal, they're not as emotionally developed as me, and they're probably pretty annoying, to boot." It seems like such an easy thought process, but no- somehow even the thought is Hell's Gate.

I've had a number of guys I've hung out with worry that they're pedophiles because they noticed a particularly well-developed 16 year old. It's just... it's crazy. And I can't help but think that it's that inward self-hating spiral that makes a person do crazy things, instead of just waving it off.

Pedophiles and aggravated rapists are in the same camp as first degree murderers in my book. Put 'em all on the chopping block. And make them suffer. A long and painful death is what they deserve.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Pedophiles and aggravated rapists are in the same camp as first degree murderers in my book. Put 'em all on the chopping block. And make them suffer. A long and painful death is what they deserve.

You do realize that "paedophiles" are simply people who feel sexual attraction to prepubescent children, regardless of whether or not they actually act on it?

I mean, if you're going to condemn people to chopping blocks, make sure the people you're condemning are actually the ones you want to condemn, I always say.

Vegosiux:
You do realize that "paedophiles" are simply people who feel sexual attraction to prepubescent children, regardless of whether or not they actually act on it?

I mean, if you're going to condemn people to chopping blocks, make sure the people you're condemning are actually the ones you want to condemn, I always say.

I'm talking about the convicted ones here. They should be killed, slowly and painfully. Because they're evil. And deserve it.

Big_Willie_Styles:
I'm talking about the convicted ones here. They should be killed, slowly and painfully. Because they're evil. And deserve it.

Nah. I don't think anyone who gleefully advocates torture and prolonged suffering for sick pleasure is in a position to take a moral high ground in anything, to be frank.

Big_Willie_Styles:

I'm talking about the convicted ones here. They should be killed, slowly and painfully. Because they're evil. And deserve it.

The ones convicted of what, exactly? Last time I checked, paedophilia was a mental disorder that you get diagnosed for, not a crime that you get convicted for.

Are you sure you don't mean "child sexual abuse"?

Vegosiux:
Are you sure you don't mean "child sexual abuse"?

Diddling little boys seems to be something pedophiles get convicted of.

And it being a mental disorder doesn't excuse the depravity and evilness it represents.

BathorysGraveland2:
Nah. I don't think anyone who gleefully advocates torture and prolonged suffering for sick pleasure is in a position to take a moral high ground in anything, to be frank.

That's puttin' words in my mouth. When did I say that? They deserve it because that's the just punishment for what they did. Plain and simple.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked