Not that I am necessarily for it in every case, I was just wondering, do you think it would help stop repeat offenders? Especially with child molesters, one time is far too many.
2007-05-25 09:26:48 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Maybe.
Not all sex offenders are equal. You have your old pervert rapists and then you have 12 year olds who think it's funny to moon Mrs. Smith. Both groups often have to register as sex offenders (which is a really stupid thing with our judicial system).
I would have no problem having rapists or adult child sex offenders be castrated IF THEY REOFFEND. But everyone else? Oooh, that's a toughy.
I know a guy in my neighborhood who, when he was 12, fondled his 8 year old sister. Totally wrong--totally gross. But it happened. Well, this guy ended up having to register as a sex offender well into adulthood causing potential issues on job applications and people in the neighborhood could think that he was a monster--when all he did was do something inappropriate when he was 12. I thought he was a weirdo until I actually talked to him about the issue and he explained why he was on the registry.
Now the man is married with kids and lives a great life. But could you imagine how cruel it is to make him suffer from his choices (which he didn't even know were illegal) when he was only 12? There's no way you could castrate this guy. Anyone convicted of sex stuff under the age of 18 shouldn't even be on the sex offender registry.
Everyone else? There are some compelling cases for castration for reoffenders and rapists. But the guy who graps a woman's chest or who moons people--despite being a nasty sicko--shouldn't be castrated.
2007-05-25 09:48:04 · answer #1 · answered by YourMom 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
1
2016-06-03 06:21:45 · answer #2 · answered by Claudia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not believe that this method would reduce the recidivism rate of child sex offenders. Most by the time they have been caught even for the first time have somewhere on average of 30 victims out there. Since we can not punish them for a crime they have not been accused of and not evidence or complaint has been filed then we must treat these offenders in the harshest possible terms. Myself I would not oppose a measure to imprison a first time child sex offender to a min. life sentence. And I mean natural life, they do not leave the prison until they are carried out in a box. There of course could be exceptions like with the 18 year old boyfreind that sleeps with the 16/17 year old girlfriend. Maybe even say anyone under 15 years old gets you a life sentence. I am not sure what the cut off mark should be or what kind of exceptions would be needed but I would most definatly be in favor of some very harsh punishments ont hese offenders.
2007-05-25 10:22:53 · answer #3 · answered by dlee_75 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My biggest question to that.. would be that .. even if castrated.. would that change them mentally? Physically they couldn't do certain things, but they could still abuse people.. and especially with child molesters, because a large number of times with that, it is touching, etc.. and.. well.. the guy would still have hands, etc.. so.. it wouldn't necessarily stop him.
I don't know what, if anything, can be done to change a sex offender. I am sure that everyone CAN change.. but I don't think that there is any one way for that to happen.. Castration may work for one person, while another, the only way to keep him from offending might be constant prison.. It's so hard to say..
2007-05-25 09:32:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are no reputable studies showing the recidivisim rate you mentioned. Your question/survey is based an a lie and so the results mean nothing. You also fail to define "sex offender." It could include the dude who pees in the alley behind a bar and it might exclude the viscious person who shoves a beer bottle up the *** of someone. If you are asking about castration instead of other remedies, then you are a fool for even asking. If you asking about it in addition to other punishments, then it could have a limited place in the world.
2016-05-17 22:10:57 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I remember hearing about "chemical castration" delivered in pill form. Regardless, whether an offender has surgery or takes a pill, I am skeptical of it deterring them from molesting children. Sure, they could not become erect, but there are many other avenues one can take if the desire is strong enough.
I suppose what I'm saying is although you take away the ability to be physically aroused, I doubt it would remove the psychological urge that these preditors share.
2007-05-25 09:37:55 · answer #6 · answered by sleepingliv 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that it would reduce the number of repeat offenders in the case of child abuse. But, it won't ever happen in the United States.
2007-05-25 09:33:48 · answer #7 · answered by alee522 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I think there is a way to do it chemically. It would be just like gelding a horse to calm the horse down. But what would you do with a female sex offender? Remove her vagina?
2007-05-25 09:35:39 · answer #8 · answered by Laying Low- Not an Ivy Leaguer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No because the behavior is mental, not physical. It's a sickness. Molestation doesn't have to mean actual penetration. Castration would only take away some of the physical ability to molest. Most pedophiles can't be rehabilitated. The only way to keep them from doing it again is to keep them away from kids.
2007-05-25 09:31:36 · answer #9 · answered by amyaz_98 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This won't help unless you also include a lobotomy! Having non-working sex organs won't stop a sick-o! They should just be donated to science!
2007-05-25 09:34:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋