This would accomplish atleast two things: 1. It would insure that the perpetrator would never do it again, and 2. It would free up jail cells for those who commit other types of violent crimes.
2007-03-16 00:23:41 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
To "Ranjeeh": Would you mind telling me how you castrate a female sex offender? I'm sorry, but there's nothing there to cut off. Didn't you pay attention to my question?
2007-03-16 01:08:02 · update #1
Absolutely. That was an argument set before officials in the recent past and it was finally deemed "inhumane."
Get that! Someone commits an inhumane crime (Many times)
but we don't want to be inhumane to them. It's one of the reasons I am ashamed of America.
2007-03-23 04:17:15 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Castration does not prevent children being molested, nor does it prevent erections, so how do you think it will solve the problem. There are many forms of child abuse besides sexual abuse. Because someone has been castrated this does not prevent them from offending again. It's not about freeing up jail cells but building more jails to service the community properly.
2007-03-21 10:25:20 · answer #2 · answered by Dr Paul D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Child molesters often have low sex drive. Castration is unlikely to make much difference if it is carried out in adulthood or even late adolescence. Put them in prison.
Other sex offences? Rape is not primarily a sexual crime, it is a crime of aggression like assault. Castration might make some difference.
Just be sure you are not treating the symptom and not the cause. Some violent offenders have been found to have heavy metal poisoning or long standing brain damage from a childhood accident.
2007-03-16 01:24:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
In theory, castration sounds like a good solution. But I've seen convicted sex molester's being interviewed and some confess that they would only find other means of abuse if they were castrated. I know this will probably get lots of thumb downs, but I'm not on here for a popularity contest, just simply to voice my opinion and try to help occasionally. But if you want to solve the problem, and free up jail cells, 2 words, DEATH PENALTY.
2007-03-16 00:36:19 · answer #4 · answered by sparkie 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Castration would have no effect on the offender. Sex is a product of the mind, not the body. Castration would only remove the organs - not the intent and desire. The offender would simply find another way to molest.
Of course, a lobotomy might work.....or better yet, lock the sickos up for life without parole.
2007-03-16 02:37:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
A criminal is a crimal, and being castrated would not stop him from kidnapping someone, and beating them or torturing them or raping them with some object as some crimals do.
Castrating someone may add to their sexual frustration instead of solving the problem. All crimanals should be punished up to the fullest extent of the law (in jail).
Plus, on the rare case of someone being falsely accused, if being jailed wasnt enough....ouch.
2007-03-21 23:43:32 · answer #6 · answered by serina_2cool4u 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sex offenders are categorized in different ways. I think that it should depend on the type of sexual act that was committed. There is a state where a guy was exposing himself in the public and he is now in the sex offender database....should he be castrated or does he need therapy?
2007-03-23 14:33:21 · answer #7 · answered by queentasha26 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wre,
Following this line of logic, you would say that sexual abuse or molestation of children is driven by sexual impulse.
I say not...I say it is driven by the need to control...to hurt.
So, if not by the penis, then what? A baseball bat? A fist? A broomstick?
I'm not saying it's a bad idea...I'm simply suggesting that it's a little too simplistic. Let's castrate this dude (chemically or physically) and set him back out in the streets...he no longer has a sex drive, so our kiddies will be okay...uhh...NO.
If anything, he'll be madder 'n hell, looking for an opportunity to vent his anger...here comes little Johnny, walking home from school...
I say that these individuals (male and female) are unredeemable. A bullet costs much less than surgery or supporting them in lock-up.
To your addendum...See, there's my point. You can chemically sap the female offender's drive, but that doesn't mean that she can't sexually abuse kids...do you think that all sexual abuse is about penetration? Not hardly!
2007-03-16 01:27:53 · answer #8 · answered by Wolfsburgh 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, this would not be possible in the US. A good idea in theory, but it would violate his civil rights to be a pervert. On the flip side, most castrated sex offenders would find another method to violate the victim. It's not about the sex, it is about power and victimization.
2007-03-23 04:51:53 · answer #9 · answered by godged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if we can hang the murderers and rapists as well.
Also whats with the male thing. Lets have a impartial approach, why not female sex offenders too. Remember Rosemary West in Bristol, she should have had neck extensions just like Fred!
We also have to identify the crime. Is humping a 16 year old hooker a sex crime?
2007-03-16 00:33:55 · answer #10 · answered by Ranjeeh D 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorta for the 1, 2 rule. Three strikes is outdated. First time, shame on you; second time, shame on me. As far as sex offenders, I like the whole castration concept. Strict enforcement is definitely a deterrent, wouldn't you say? For peds, they should definitely be put to death. I mean honestly, does anyone think they will "reform"? Instead the "politically correct" put up with nuts like NAMBLA. Please... the thought just makes me wretch. Reform just doesn't happen with these types and instead perpetuates a cycle of ill. I'm all for forgiveness, but I just don't see it happening.... 2 strikes, you're OUT.
2007-03-16 00:35:13 · answer #11 · answered by J.B. 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋