Should men found guilty of sex crimes be chemically castrated?
Men found guilty of sex crimes should be chemically castrated.
Let me start by saying that, if it was allowed, I wish they would be physically castrated! This is a subject that I feel very strongly about. There is no crime more damaging then a sex crime. Those who have been violated in such a way can be mentally damaged for life. I do believe however, in certain cases, that these men cannot help their urges. Therefore, the only way to rehabilitate them, if you will, is by chemical castration since the other option is not possible. I would however place very strict rules on this law. There are a few instances when "sex crimes" are not legitimate and I would not want a man to go through life under chemical castration if there were any questions about the offense. There would have to be absolute proof in my opinion.
Posted by: w00tboycomicCastration removes the sexual urge!
Firstly, those who don't agree with chemical castration need to go away and educate themselves about what exactly chemical castration is. It is not a surgical procedure or operation of any kind. It is a simple injection, most commonly used it the female contraceptive injection, which effects only last for 3 months and has to be repeated for the effect to be maintained. It is not a permanent or irreversible procedure and in no way is it mutilation. If it takes away a mans sexual urge and helps prevent him reoffend then that is the only way forward to ensure the safety of others, if he is to be let back into society.
Posted by: Yummymummycastrate sex crime
Those committing sex crimes should fear, at minimum, chemical castration and full castration, if they murder their victim. Although there is something to be said for the victim to have a say re choice of punishment, I believe in the interest of society, those committing sex crimes, should know the consequences 0f their actions.
Posted by: opinion8edSimple solution to a complex problem
Of course some men will balk at the ideal of castration but it works. It is as simple a procedure as removing wisdom teeth and the results are proved to work. I say cut their balls off. They are being used as weapons so just remove them. I cannot see why anyone would argue with this.
Posted by: AnonymousNeglect is worse then sex abuse
Who's kid gets nabbed if not neglected first Lock your doors.
Who's uncle perve has time with the kids.
Cut nuts or not they offend anyway IF THEY WANT TO. Offender Registries PA LeeeeesePosted by: AnonymousI think it should be permanent castration.
Their actions have a lifetime affect on their victims, I think that the very first time they commit an offence they should be forcibly castrated, (removal of both testes) as its proven that at least 65% of sex offenders committing an offence go on to re-offend and quite regularly this can go from rape to abusing their own children or family. So yes anyone being placed on the sex offenders should be court ordered to attend surgical castration to protect future possible vices.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, I think so.
Yes, i think they should be castrated, because sex crimes are made by sick people. If you arrested a person with any mentl illness they'll do the same thing again when they can. It's almost instictin So, yes, I think they should be castrated. Expecially when they do this to children.
Posted by: AnonymousI do believe that repeat sex offenders should be chemically castrated, to control dangerous urges that they clearly cannot control themselves.
Since many sex offenders contend that their crimes are the result of a disease that they cannot control, I do believe that chemical castration is a fair way to treat repeat sex offenders that want to return to normal society.
Posted by: ToughEfrain26In some instance, I think that men that are found guilty of sex crimes should be castrated.
Since many sex offenders contend that their crimes are the result of a disease that they cannot control, I do believe that chemical castration is a fair way to treat repeat sex offenders that want to return to normal society.Sex is an act oriented toward the future, and sex crimes are a violation of the human right to face the future with dignity.
Posted by: AnonymousStudies prove pedophiles can NEVER be rehabilitated.
Offenders WILL repeatedly offend. Prevention of future offenses is the only solution. I'm not even sure castration is enough? Surgical penis removal in addition to castration seems it would be more effective on these monsters. This is not about "an eye for an eye"; this about protecting not just our children but all victims; male or female, young or old, weak or strong, from these sick sociopaths. Having such a stern and permanent punishment might also be a great deterrent to anyone contemplating offending for the first time - whether planned or opportunistic.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, but it depends on the crime and the criminal, because of the potential to wrongfully accuse someone.
Chemical castration should only be used when it is proven that the person is a repeat offender. I do not feel that it is applicable to first-time offenders, because we do have an error rate in finding people guilty of crimes they may have not committed. But I am all for it if the person is a repeat offender.
Posted by: SlipArnalCastration will set an example so that others out of fear will not commit such crimes.
If this is done, I am not saying such sexual crimes will vanish from the society immediately, but I believe this may be an effective step to reduce sexual crime rates. And probably end sexual crimes against women. Such men are a boon to the society we live in. If they cannot respect women and abuse them by raping her and assaulting her they don't deserve a normal human life. A harsh punishment is necessary in order to get reduce such crimes rates.
Posted by: AnonymousBecause the protection of human rights and dignity extends into composition of future generations, sex criminals are to be subject to castration.
Alongside the imperative to protect human rights and dignity, stands the imperative to have concern for the future. In this matter, they meet. Sex is an act oriented toward the future, and sex crimes are a violation of the human right to face the future with dignity. Rape, in particular, is often the violation of a woman's rights and dignity, in her own person, to make reproductive decisions. Society's interests in the future are also imperiled. Socio-biologists have advanced theories arguing that rapists carry hereditary material into the next generation through their heinous act. Castration stops this directly. Finally, castration is a proportional punishment for sex crimes, which are themselves an attack on the sex organs of the victim.
Posted by: 53xyMyIoAfter multiple offenses I think strong measures are required to limit a sex offenders behavior.
I don't think the first offense mandates this type of action but after multiple offenses I believe that strong action is required whether it is chemical castration, long term imprisonment, or confine in a community for sex offenders. Because sex offenders tend to offend again I don't believe that just confining them for short periods of time does the job.
Posted by: TasticBranYes, as part of their punishment and for crimes of a certain degree.
Nineteen year old males who have intercourse with sixteen year females, even though it is not lawful, they should not be castrated. But, men who commit devastating sex crimes, which leave behind a wounded victim, should be. Castration should be used as part of a vast punishment, not alone. Castrating these guys would, at least, diminish their sex drive and sexual function. But, sex crimes are not always committed because of a perpetrator's sex drive. And, some sexual function is still possible after castration. So, castration should only be used as part of the punishment.
Posted by: MohaI0v35If this was done to men who were sex criminals we wouldn't have to deal with it as much.
There just isn't a strict enough punishment system going on right now. These criminals will go on to do it again and again to young children without much of a punishment whatsoever. For the most part they get a little jail time or a small slap on the hand in the form of a fine while the victim lives with it forever.
Posted by: B3rkIffyYes, this NEEDS to happen
The internet is allowing men to fuel their fantasies and the line between fantasy and reality is becoming blurred, I am scared to be a woman in 2013 and I fear sex crimes will soon become the 'norm'. Men should also be able to opt for voluntary castration if they feel their urges are becoming dangerous.
Posted by: AnonymousIn some instance, I think that men that are found guilty of sex crimes should be castrated.
For the most heinous sexual crimes committed by men, the punishment should be chemical castration. If the court finds the crime heinous, by a set of guidelines already decided, the punishment should be chemical castration. Added to that, if the man is a repeat offender, he should also be castrated, regardless of the degree of the crime.
Posted by: BGrahamyes it should be allowed
Chemical castration is not the full solution for pedophiles and such, but its ethical because once the medication is discontinued the person can resume a normal life and the product itself is pretty efficient. It lowers testosterone levels which would make aggression levels and sex drive levels much lower making them better.
Posted by: AnonymousYes.. What else can be the punishment?
It will be a good deterrent .. Surgical castration can also be done in case of rarest of rare cases. Capital punishment is another deterrent to stop crime against women... Men found guilty of sex crimes should not be chemically castrated.
It is not cruel and unusual,"eye for an eye" punishment is required in such cases...The justice system is not for revenge but we have to punish the offender.Posted by: AnonymousIn certain circumstances, men should be chemically castrated.
If there is absolute and conclusive proof, men who are guilty of more severe crimes such as child molestation and rape and repeat sex offenders for rape should be chemically castrated. They are a harm to society and have demonstrated that they can not exercise their sexual freedoms with dignity.
Posted by: Blah45I think it is a good idea as long as it's not permanent, depending on the type of offense.
To permanently take away someone's sex drive could be a huge deterrent, but it is an unusual punishment and should be used carefully. Society needs an adjustment when it comes to sexual tolerance, the more restrictive the more deviant the behavior becomes.
Posted by: langgaSexual predators that prey on women or children are usually VERY hard to cure and chemical castration may be the only way to avoid future crimes.
Psychiatrists and psychologists are pessimistic about the possibility of curing sexual predators that prey on women or children. Serial predators overwhelmingly go back to repeat their crimes when their time in prison is over. Something needs to be done to change their behavior and chemical castration seems to be the best solution found so far.
Posted by: ddeathnoteYES YES YES
These are not men nor are they humans they cause suffering for their sick enjoyment of hurting others.... Victims suffer for life, so should the person or "pig" that caused the suffering. Men found guilty of rape should be castrated and men found guilty of child offenses should be killed....
Posted by: AnonymousSurely they can control themselves then.
The fact is that you are causing detrimental physical and mental damage to someone, and jail time isnt enough of a punishment for such an incredible feat of inhumanity. With the usual 'blame the victim' mentality, men who rape get away with it with no remorse and are likely not to even be convicted. What's to stop them from doing it again? The only people against castration are those who would be threatened by it - i.e. rapists themselves. Do we want a safe and just society? Here's one of the steps in the right direction.
Posted by: Anonymouscastration is effective treatment
Surgical castration is by far the most effective treatment for most sex offenders. The procedure only takes about an hour and is cost effective. Removing wisdom teeth takes longer. The offender in some cases can still acheive errections but that can be fixed by a simply cutting a nerve with durring the procedure. Lets be realistic. The offender is using his penis as a wepon in a criminal act. Should we not disarm him.
Posted by: Anonymous
Most of the people commenting on this topic don't really have a clue.
I am a registered sex offender. I was convicted, sentenced, and spent my time in prison, for committing a sexual crime in my state. Now, here is what I actually DID, to get locked up and have my life ruined. I anonymously downloaded illegal porn on the Internet. And just to be clear, when I say illegal porn, I'm not talking about some child being kidnapped and raped or whatever twisted crap people can imagine. Because the vast majority of "convicted sex offenders" in this country, have never even thought about doing anything like that. I'm talking about looking at videos of girls who were not quite 18, and which were filmed entirely BY the underage girls themselves, in private, without any coercion from anyone else. I don't personally know any of these girls and have never communicated with any of them. I simply downloaded the videos they made of themselves, and watched them.
Do you think I should be forced to take drugs for the rest of my life that make it impossible for me to have sex?Posted by: AnonymousI do not believe they should be chemically castrated unless there is an equal punishment for women, as well.
Except in the utmost serious of cases, I don't think men should be chemically castrated. While men are the ones who commit the most sex crimes, women occasionally do them as well. And because women cannot be castrated, it is not fair that one gender receives a harsher penalty than the other.
Posted by: 54ndDaviMen found guilty of sex crimes should not be castrated because the legal system already punishes them appropriately.
One reason that men convicted of sex crimes should not be castrated is because the legal system makes mistakes and people are wrongly accused and convicted periodically. Another is that (particularly in the US) sentences for sex crimes are quite harsh and the faulty prison system tends to allow those found guilty of sex crimes to be seriously assaulted (both sexually and physically) by other inmates.
Posted by: TwoVicHuman rights and lack of criminal justice
Chemical castration is obviously a human rights violation since it is cruel punishment and it seems to be a poor excuse for a weak judicial system that should be imprisoning these and many other types of criminals for much longer. These sentences are far too short and there are way too many options for criminals to be released back to society. Also, there is a huge part of the blame on society as a whole for: weak parenting, permitting sexuality to dominate so much of the media, etc.
Posted by: AnonymousEven though being found guilty of this crime is terrible, the United States should not move to impose strange punishments.
There are a number of awful and monstrous crimes that take place in the United States. Some of them include sex crimes, and those are some of the worst. The history of the United States has been free of torture and unusual and excessive punishments. The US Constitution guarantees that no person, even if convicted, will be subject to cruel or unusual punishments. To chemically castrate a convicted felon would fall into this cruel category.
Posted by: ChotAngurisOverall, I feel that men found guilty of sex crimes should not be chemically castrated because it is more important to deal with the underlying problem.
Having some personal experience with the situation, I feel that chemically castrating men guilty of sexual crimes is not the solution. First and foremost these men should undergo a lot of therapy to resolve underlying problems that have caused them to do this. There are also situations where men might have also been wrongly accused like in instances where a girl was found out by her parents and instead of openly admitting to her desires she blames the man. If however there are repetitive crimes and especially ones dealing with children, something more severe should be done.
Posted by: eyeslikethatNot at all.
They are already severly punished for the crime. I also want to mention it is not only men that commit these kinds of crime but woman do also. Now I ask myself why is it only men are the ones that should be chemically castrated. Where does that leave the female that is also a sex or repeated sex offender. Men are not the only ones that commit sexual crimes woman do also. Wake up and smell the coffee. Its not just men commiting these crimes but woman as well. So if we are talking about any kind of punishment for this crime we need to speak to both genders not just male.
Posted by: AnonymousI'm against chemical castration because innocent men can be sentenced and it does not show gender equality
Living in a society where chemical castration is imposed or even optional will be shaming to men, and I'm referring to non-criminal men. There will be always the fear of being falsely accused, but yes, females don't care about that. Before applying a law, it should be equal for both gender, else it's like moving back to stone age laws.
Posted by: AnonymousMen found guilty of sex crimes should not be chemically castrated.
Men convicted of sex crimes should not be chemically castrated. Sex crimes are by no means acceptable, but how could one justify such a harsh punishment? This is like taking humanity back to fascism. It would be impossible to draw the line between crimes that ?justified? chemical castration and those that did not.
Posted by: NatBIabNo!!!!!!!! for castration
No for the reason there is that nor the goverment or religion should dictate what should be done to the reproductive organs in females or males . We are not yahoos mutulating body parts just to satisfy our minds and also beleiving what society tells us to do or act or what to think of .
Posted by: AnonymousMen found guilty of sex crimes should not be chemically castrated because there is a possibility of innocence.
Men found guilty of sex crimes should not be chemically castrated simply because the justice system is not without error. It is quite possible that a convicted person could be innocent and then chemically castrated, only to be exonerated at a later time. How would society ever be able to compensate the wronged individual?
Posted by: ThegaXenMen found guilty of sex crimes should not be chemically castrated; it is cruel and unusual punishment.
Men found guilty of sex crimes should not be chemically castrated. To do so is to impose cruel and unusual, "eye for an eye" punishment, which is not the purpose of our justice system. The justice system is for rehabilitation, not revenge. Chemical castration harkens back to the days of barbaric punishments like cutting off hands for stealing.
Posted by: FilthyLucas60I am against the chemical castration of men found guilty of sex crimes because I believe it is inhumane.
Chemical castration is a radical and life altering procedure that demeans felons. Typical prison lengths for sex offenders are not as long as the life sentences for murderers, yet chemical castration is in essence a life sentence. Finally, I believe that psychological counseling is a much more humane and thus preferable alternative to chemical castration.
Posted by: IarsChromeIt's not necessarily useful.
It's analogical to the ancient inhuman punishment of amputating the arm of people caught for theft. Here it aims to take away the sexuality of men, their desire or drive, rather than a body part. The result might not necessarily be positive. There are much better modes of punishment for sexual offenders.
Posted by: AnonymousThey shouldn't be castrated, but put in jail for the crimes they committed.
It would be wrong to castrate a man of his own dignity and that would be unruly to do that to them. They however do deserve a punishment for what they have done to people they have tortured and not allowed to go near those they offended. It is wrong and very cruel, but they deserve to not be abused. They did what they did and should receive a prison sentence.
Posted by: waffletimeNo, I do not think men found guilty of sex crimes should be chemically castrated, because some sex crimes are worse than others.
No, I do not think that all men that are found guilty of any sex crime should be chemically castrated. Urinating in public is considered a sex crime, and requires people to become a registered sex offender. but, that is not something that makes someone deserve chemical castration at all.
Posted by: SeriousNestor34I disagree that men should be chemically castrated because it doesn't prevent them from committing sex crimes.
The assumption is that the only way a man can harm another sexually is with his penis, this isn't true. Women and children and other men have often been raped with inanimate objects and tortured sexually in other vile ways. Castration only works to a degree and only if the medication is continuous so it's not a valid solution. Anyone who abuses another human being sexually would be better off in prison for life with no chance of parole. That hump should also be forced to live in general population where his future would be filled with the same kind of abuse he perpetrated on his victims.
Posted by: N3vinFaceIf chemical castration helped, I would be for it, but it apparently doesn't.
Apparently, the prevailing science suggests that sexual predators aren't ONLY motivated by the hormonal factors which are commonly thought of as "sex drive". For certain rapists, violent power fantasies matter more than hormones. For others, social factors like dominance are the overriding reason for committing offenses. It's unfortunate that there isn't a good way to reduce recidivism in this offender population. Until there is, incarceration is in many cases our only option.
Posted by: 54uIIanNo, because there are too many types of sex crimes to be able to lump each into one category.
As disgusting as I think sex-related crimes are, chemically castrating someone would fall under cruel and unusual punishment. Most crimes of that nature are not truly of a sexual nature and are more about power. And, in many cases, they do not involve "penetration". Taking away a guy's manhood will not solve the problem. Besides, where would we stop? Would we lobby to castrate the 18-year old who got his 17-year old girlfriend pregnant, when her parents file charges on her behalf? After all, that is statutory rape which, in many, if not most, states is considered a sex crime.
Posted by: 5h4bbyHaIeyChemical castration, death penalty
Some want chemical castration or the death penalty for rapists...
Men who rape do so to secure power and control. Men who rape children do so to secure power and control. Rapists are therefore motivated by power and control using a forced sexual act to achieve this is just a way of gaining power - not a way of gaining sexual relief...
Ruthless, sociopathic people hurt because that is what they do. Bees sting because that is what they do... insects bite. Some people hurt others. You can try to find the 'underlying cause' all day. You can blame it on society, poor parenting, genetics, troubled childhood, getting in with the 'wrong crowd'. It all boils down to the fact that some people are mean by nature....
Rape is very difficult to prove...Allegations are more likely to be believed without the evidence by the media, the police, prosecutors and people in general...
Three basic defenses to rape:
1) The act never happened.
2) It happened, but she consented.
3) It happened, but with another man.
DNA evidence rules out 1 and 3, But, what about 2? Consent cases... 'cause woman might claim rape after consensual sex... Death penalty is irrevocable, so in case of mistakes there is no going back....
I suppose there is only one proof "Video Evidence with a time stamp on it"... Often there is no other evidence as to whether or not the act was consensual... This is precisely why many are falsely accused and convicted... There are many cases in which someone has been convicted of rape based primarily based on the testimony of an alleged rape victim...Posted by: AnonymousI do not believe chemical castration to be a good practice.
I find there to be nothing more despicable then men who are guilty of sex crimes. I do not however think that it is right to chemically castrate these men because of there crimes. Although it may seem like a reasonable idea, I can not rap my mind around chemically burning off someone's genitals. I think that it is much more important that we focus on rehabilitation.
Posted by: 5h4rdEgbeMen should not be chemically castrated if found guilty of a sex crime, because too many people who are found guilty are innocent.
If you look back over the last fifteen years at the number of people who were found guilty, but were later found innocent through technological advances, you would realize that any sentence, other than time in prison, is wrong. How would you feel if someone you loved was convicted of a crime, found guilty, sentenced to chemical castration and, later on, they proved that said person was innocent? Those men would have lost their chance at a normal life.
Posted by: jennydiaz118I don't think men guilty of sex crimes should be chemically castrated.
I don't think that men guilty of all sex crimes should be chemically castrated. While I think sex crimes are awful and deserve harsh punishment, I don't think that every single sex crime should warrant a chemical castration. However, I think men that are found guilty of sex crimes against minors and small children should indeed be chemically castrated, in hope that it would discourage other potential sex offenders from committing the crime.
Posted by: CiriHug2I have been charged with a sexual crime and have not gone to court yet. If I am found guilty I do not agree with the statement.
The legal system is so messed up that innocent people are found guilty all the time. If something drastic like this was to happen, it would cause more of a headache to undo it than to fix our judicial system. It would also have to depend on how serious the sex crime was as well. If we were talking about a serial rapist then I would agree.
Posted by: SquareArlie59Castration
In a democratic country, "eye for eye" is not a preferable option. Castration is like mutilation which is not at all a solution. Also laws should be made equal for both Genders.
It is also like shaming the dignity of whole males. Laws should be made to prevent and reduce the crimes and not to cruelty against human rights.Posted by: AnonymousCastration is an act of hate/revenge! not justice!
It is the mind,heart and soul that is not right! Men need help! Who have done sex crimes just like "all peopl?" Who hurt others! Will you be the one to reach out to them and make them see they can be a good person and find love-respect and true sanctification for life! And themselves! If a person has a problem in life "whatever it may be! Do we as a society of intelligent and morally responsible citizens cut them to pieces, for a quick solution or do we find real solutions! If our justice system cages men up for years, and years like brute animals and provides no real answers for life, such as, spiritual, family, social and friendships/real woman relationships, but instead only provide feeble, bias or harsh and unrealistic/forced treatment of offenders! Do not expect real positive results! "this is the ultimate kicker for me to say, as hard as it is to say! All people must learn to forgive and not destroy life! But provide restoration, peace, love! For answers to all of society's problems! Finally the law was established to protect and serve the people! The law has a job too do let them do it in the right/just manner, which should be able to determine that serious crimes deserve serious time! And death is a wrong uncivilized method! Just as castration is! If any offender is to be released, wouldn't it be smart to really, reestablish people in society, not under a bridge at release! Not in a half way house! If we the people are smart enough to vote for thousands of programs $$$ why is it hard to establish constructive long lasting work/home/life etc. Programs, esssssspecially for sex offenders .let's change this madness!
Posted by: AnonymousI oppose chemical castration for sex crimes, some men are 18 and the girl is 16, that is a sex crime.
I do not believe that all sex crimes can be labeled as such without breaking them down to different degrees. Two teens that have consensual sex, with one being 16 and one being 18, there is no way that is a crime that deserves chemical castration. A rigid law that covers anyone who commits what society considers a sex crime is just wrong.
Posted by: F ClaytonNot all sex crimes deserve such permanent punishment.
Some sex crimes, such as mutually consensual sex with a minor that is technically statutory rape, may not deserve such a harsh and permanent punishment. For example, an 18 year old convicted of consensual sex with a 17 year old should not be subjected to chemical castration as a punishment.
Posted by: Wynn354