The Instigator
bigbass3000
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
drumbum565
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Should men found guilty of sex crimes be chemically castrated?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,733 times Debate No: 3288
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (11)

 

bigbass3000

Pro

Sex offenders, such as rapists, pedophiles, and exhibitionists, are among the highest reoccurring offense populations in the United States probation system. These offenders commit crimes that put fear into the general public and pose a threat to people that live in their neighborhoods. These offenders should be punished and not let off or forgiven of their crime(s) just because they have gone through a treatment program, most or which cannot show a significant success rate.

A sexual offence is one of the worst kinds of crime, damaging its victim both physically and psychologically. For such a horrific crime, a suitable punishment is needed. Castration fits the bill perfectly. It has been shown that for many sex offenders, the crime is caused by both psychological and physical urges – no rational counselling will prevent a repetition of the crime. Thus castration does not only stop further crimes by the offender (one of the main purposes of any punishment), but it is a strong deterrent for prospective offenders.

Castration will help the offenders themselves, by freeing them from the urges that motivate them to re-offend. Court testimony has shown that many sexual criminals would dearly like to be free of these urges, but cannot control their actions, much like a heroin addict cannot control theirs. Thus a chemical cure for these urges will free the offender.

Castration will also help the widespread hysteria about the crimes of a sexual nature. At the moment, there is a massive stigmatisation of sexual offenders, with them being ‘named and shamed' publicly (for example, by the News of the World newspaper in Britain in the summer of 2000), and hounded off their estates by mobs (as can be seen from the events after the News of The World campaign ). They are also subject to a large amount of violence in prison from other inmates. If castration is introduced, the public would know that these people are no longer a threat, and they would be allowed to get on with their lives. Castration removes both the public stigmatisation and personal suffering of sexual offenders, and should be embraced by the penal system.

Chemical castration is an ideal punishment for sex offenders. When Depo-Provera is administerd, recidivism rates fall to 5%. Their sexual fantasies are lessened as a result of the reduction of testosterone levels. Although men administered this drug are capable of having sexual intercourse, many people argue that chemical castration is cruel and unusual punishment. This argument is countered by the fact that sex offenders are required to get injections only once a month. What is "cruel and unusual" is allowing sex offenders to attack innocent women and children. This effective therapy will protect future victims. It is an "offender friendly" way of reducing sexual violence. [LaLaunie Hayes.]

Attempts to reduce aggression and sexual predation in male sex offenders have included surgical castration and chemical castration (the use of female hormones to suppress testosterone levels). Studies suggest that either approach can be effective; a 1989 German study by Wille and Beier, for instance, compared 99 surgically castrated sex offenders and 35 non-castrated sex offenders about a decade after their release from prison, and found that the recidivism rate of castrated offenders was 3%, while the rate for non-castrated offenders was 46%.

Peter Loosen and colleagues suppressed the gonadal function of eight normal men by administering a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, while keeping the subjects' testosterone levels in the low-normal range through the use of synthetic testosterone injections. The researchers say "this design allowed us to prospectively study behavioral changes in normal men during mild reductions (rather than during complete suppression) of serum testosterone levels."
The researchers report that all of their subjects showed marked reductions in outward- directed anger during the experiment, while half exhibited reductions in anxiety and sexual desire. This suggests, they say, that "measures of outward-directed anger are most sensitive to small reductions in circulating testosterone concentrations."
http://www.crimetimes.org...

Chemical castration is a simple way of giving pills to take for sex offenders. It is safe and when done efficiently saves peoplles lives.
drumbum565

Con

I just lost all of my arg. so I will redo

First i submit that this arg should be about implimiting this in the U.S. if you want to contest this then fine i have warrents but im to lazy to retype them especialy because I believe you will agree with that fact.

Now an obervation that I will lay groundwork for. This Debate can only center around permanant castration for the following reason.

Not all sex-offenders want to be "cured"
Therefore the reinterductionof these people with non-permanant castration(Pills or regular shots) into society will infact hurt society as a whole because: 1) The very substance of this debate suggests that sex-offeders who do not get castrated will attack again. 2) A person who must take a regular pill and does not want to change will simply stop taking the pill and will therein attack again, 3) someone who must regularly recieve shots will simply miss an apointment run and attack someone again.

Therefore non-permanant castration cannot be in this debate as it would damage society to no-end. So WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT PERMANAT CASTRATION.

C1. My sole contention will be that the Permanant Castration of the innocent is likely.

Sub (A) Courtrooms become biased against the defendant therefore making it impossible to recieve a fair trial.

In The case of Michal Devlin within two hours of being arrested everyone from Georgia to Oregan knew who he was. Where would he recieve a fair trial? Although our court system allows for persons to be tried in a differnent setting to ensure due process in the case of hanus sex-crimes no such fair trial can be given. Therefore the chance of a false conviction increases and as we are talking about permanatly damaging someones sex and repoduction capabilites such a situation would be a grave injustice.

Sub (B) False Claims are likely and hold such weight in court that they will lead to castration of the innocent.
In June 2006 Webster M. Smith was convicted on two counts of sodimy and 1 count of Rape. He was convicted on the accusers testimoney alone. One of the accusers was his ex-girlfiend. This is not the only case in which this has happed it is likely it will happen again and it is likely that it will happen again. Therefore it is quite possble that a person will be falsly convicted.

I also ask you to consder criminals of Statutory rape and people who just have bad luck and are convicted of a crime they did not commit Our nation believes it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man, so how can we justify rewireng an innocent persons body? We can't

however if I don't submit this soon i will lose so I appoligize for all of the spellng errors I don't have tim to run spell check.
Debate Round No. 1
bigbass3000

Pro

Yes there is always a possibility of that happening, but it is a what if. Chemical castration has worked and yes there will always be some who get through the cracks, but it is cheaper than counseling and other treatments that are ethical. Besides the only individuals who get shots are those in jail right now. If they were not in jail than they take pills. I have never heard of anyone, who was a sex offender on chemical castration, have to take a shot outside person. They would take pills. So in general, yes some individuals will get off the pills, but that still does not make it bad. Someone could easily lie to a sex offender program as well. These pills will work and if they don't want to change, they will end up back in jail.

His whole arguement about permanent castraton. unethical and wrong. Some sex offenders can clean up, why would you do that. You can look to chemical castration, because it is in the resolution. He is trying his best to make you believe that I can only use permanent, but I am talking about chemical nonpermanant castration. If you look at it, he is only doing this to give him the upper hand, so don't look to any of his arguements. Also extend my arguements as well which were dropped. He is not looking at thye big picture, his case is based on what if's that could happen. If he can provide evidence that say 10% of all sex offenders on chemical castration outside of prison are offending than that would be an arguement he can make. His arguements on permanant are strong I guess, but he said the innocent are hurt, but if it were chemical the innocent would not be hurt. So look at this cost benefit analysis. cost=some might not take their pills, benefits=it happens rarely and it is a what if scenario. The benefits outweigh the costs because their will always be some not taking their pills, but does that always mean they will offend again. Sex offenders are graded, by severe, moderate, and mild. Do all milds off their pills go out and offend again. No, it is a what if, not all offenders want to offend again, it is just a urge, what can surpress it pills. What is wrong with that. My opponent is trying to narrow the debate, so he can win and this should be seen as a bad idea on his part and is my first voter in this round. My others will be posted on my next post.
drumbum565

Con

drumbum565 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
bigbass3000

Pro

My arguements stand and my opponent needs to debate them, vote Aff, I thought he was worth it. But he really is not a true debater.
drumbum565

Con

drumbum565 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by scruffy_35 6 years ago
scruffy_35
I'm sorry that drumbum wasn't able to continue with this debate. He passed away in the middle of this debate. He was a friend of mine and he was part of the debate team in highshool and it was his passion. i know this happened a long time ago and this doesnt matter I just wanted to let you guys know. this was the last debate he was ever a part of and I love being able to read his words again.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
If no one takes this by tomorrow, I will challenge.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Dr_Harvey 8 years ago
Dr_Harvey
bigbass3000drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Creator 8 years ago
Creator
bigbass3000drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by aodanu16 8 years ago
aodanu16
bigbass3000drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by twinkiesunite 8 years ago
twinkiesunite
bigbass3000drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rnsweetswimn1 8 years ago
rnsweetswimn1
bigbass3000drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rnsweetheart 8 years ago
rnsweetheart
bigbass3000drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Gespenst 8 years ago
Gespenst
bigbass3000drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
bigbass3000drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kibbles 8 years ago
kibbles
bigbass3000drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
bigbass3000drumbum565Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30