Most sexual predators are doing it for the sex; rather, they are doing it for the power or to fulfill some other need that just happens to manifest itself through sex.
Chemical castration, just like real castration, would only make them offend in a different manner.
2007-08-31 19:08:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mathsorcerer 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
"Sex Offender" is a pretty liberal term. An 18 year old man having sex with a 17 year old girl is illegal in most states and would fall under the category of "sex offender" However, this type of sex offense is generally overlooked. Now if a 45 year old man nails a 17 year old girl then it's a different story and yes this person should be labeled as a "sex offender" and I would agree with your chemical castration. Better yet, have it removed surgically so you have to wear a colostomy bag the rest of your life. But what about women sex offenders? There seem to be a lot of female teachers lately getting caught having sex with their male students. Just curious.
"Child molester" makes it more clear. I do not have kids but child molesters make me sick and would have no problem with seeing them executed.
2007-09-01 00:51:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Where did you get the impression that we used chemical castration on sex offenders? I do not believe that we have ever done anything like that! Curious as to why you would ask this please explain?
2016-05-18 04:24:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by agnes 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is a facility in my State that is just for chemical castration. It's not a surgery (like some of you think). It merely involves taking medications to lessen a man's sex drive and urges. If you misuse/abuse it (his sex organ) then you lose it. These are guys who are pedophiles and who rape innocent children and women. If this measure is the only way to get them to stop this behavior, I think it is a good idea.
2007-08-31 20:55:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Seablanco1 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
It would depend on the person, and the severity of the crime. If there was sufficient severity, and enough proof that no amount of training would change them, then they should be put to death because of their threat to society. That said, again, it would depend on the person, what led to the crime, extenuating circumstances, and likelihood of future commission of the crime. I do not believe that ALL sex offenders are going to be repeat offenders. That said, those that pose a threat, should be made a non-threat, and not by incarceration either.
2007-08-31 19:13:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Castration for sex offenders?
I believe they should be punished but not mutilated.
Maybe we should cut tongues out if someone lies, be alot of silent people on earth.
Maybe cut fingers off if you steal, pull out eyes if they look at someone nasty.
How about sawing off legs from robbers.
How about tearing someones heart straight out of there chest for not feeding the poor and caring for others, since there heartless for not being caring.
2007-08-31 19:19:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by s l 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
It might help but from what I understand sex offenders are the way they are because of a psychological defect...
2007-08-31 19:08:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by ☺☻☺☻☺☻ 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
It seem the only solution.
All other solutions come after the act is committed
People these people are "sick", then why is there no options for treatment.
You need a "before the crime" treatment
2007-08-31 19:13:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
just remember people, our kids will respond the same way, if we mistreat any human being they will do the same but possibly in a different manner, if someone is a threat to society lock them up and treat them in a humane way. Set an example for the next generation.
2007-08-31 19:59:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
23 hour lockup with bubba and a broom.
Lets play the "how far the broom fits into a colon" game
2007-08-31 19:08:28
·
answer #10
·
answered by Kevy 7
·
2⤊
1⤋