Comments:France considers chemically castrating sex offenders

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Should sex offenders be castrated?

Yes!. The lives of the innocent (children)should take precedence over the rights of the perpatrator (usually adults).18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.188.217 (talk • contribs)

• What about Situational Offenders? They probably won't re offend anyway so castration of any sort would little more than a punishment rather than prevention. This, of course, brings up the issue as to whether or not the punishment is reasonable or going to far. Besides, how many cases have there been where kids have cried wolf (that wasn't retorical, BTW, I don't have any figures to hand) and how would that look if someone completly innocent had their physiology messed up so some brat could get a bit more attention from their parents? --Bisected8 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• and what good is that for the victims? Certainly, there's a form of revenge satisfaction to it, but I believe that castration is simply useless as far as legal deterrants and punishments go. The perpetrators will still have the mental ability and the physical ability to harm victims and would be perpetrators would probably not change their actions (it is likely a mental problem, not something that a person would weigh the odds on and consider their conscience). I think it's just cruel and unusual punishment here (even if it's reversable)... also, "think of the children!! would someone please think of the children!!!" has become a fall-back argument for people without the time or ability to think of a more valid and pertinent argument. the sexual offense issue is about more than just children. stop using them. --131.104.241.221 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Hostile

Should sex offenders be castrated?

castrating sex offenders?

• retribution: check! (directly related to nature of crime.)
• punishment: check! (inflicts justifiable pain of loss to convicted offenders.)
• deterrence: check! (logically gives would-be offenders more to think about.)
• cost-effective: check! (cheaper than incarceration; should effectively reduce crime.)
• humane: check! (more humane than incarceration or death penalty.)

opinion: try it out for 2 years and do a study. then hold a 6-month moratorium to complete the findings. 218.186.13.246 (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fool proof...until they arrested the wrong person and a major lawsuit comes up. But I would support this in America.--KDP3 (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think screwing someone's biochemistry up is more humane than locking them up or killing them, then you either have a lot to learn about physiology, or you're that chap from Harry Potter.--Bisected8 (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Should sex offenders be castrated?

Make it Obligatory and why reversible, make it permanent..!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.148.143.28 (talk • contribs)

and why stop there? why not cut out the tongues of people who state opinions critical of the governmetn why not cut out the eyes of people who pirate movies or cut off burglars' hands like they did in the middle ages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.241.221 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• And have people who walk too slowly along the pavements and in supermarket aisles feet cut off, that'll learn 'em! Disclaimer: I'm beign ironic. --Bisected8 (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Chemical castration

That's what was done to Alan Turing - his choice rather than go to jail when found guilty of being a homosexual. It changed him from a competitive cross-country runner into what he called a "blob". He committed suicide. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My country (counting the UK as a singular) remains so embaressed and ashamed that they recently issued him an official posthumous apology. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And it only took them 55 years! That's what you call real shame, isn't it? --92.24.45.0 (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

After his work on decryption was vital for winning WWII, no less. At least Mr. Brown isn't entirly useless. --Bisected8 (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Should sex offenders be castrated?

I agree completely. America should already be doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.196.135 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a great idea! I would have gone for a more harsher penalty.

They should slowly hang till dead, all murderers, rapists and pedophiles and cut off a finger or two for thieves. Then we could go back to leaving our doors unlocked, our kids on the beach or let them play wherever (without having to constantly supervise them), etc. Life would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.146.16 (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mutilation of criminals sounds great, until someone decides that you are a criminal. Wait until someone realises what they can do about your kids stealing from the corner shop or making too much noise in class and then we'll see if you still think it's a better wolrd for them.--Bisected8 (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• There's no reason to make it a slow or painful death; if there is no doubt that someone needlessly or selfishly caused harm to another person then they need to be removed from society - permanently, in the case of execution. It should never be about satisfying the victim or punishing the criminal: it should be about protecting the people, and that requires diligence - not sadism! Sadly, no one has a competent legal system, and so there will almost always be doubt as to whether or not someone is really guilty despite being sentenced as such. The need, or perceived need, of chemical castration simply treats a symptom of a much greater problem, but whether or not this is the best option given the current state of things will hopefully be determined by people who can look at this with advice from all angles - medical, legal, ethical, and perhaps others. --67.174.131.145 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Efficacy

Has any kind of study been carried out on the effectiveness of this kind of thing? Castration of paedophiles might seem clever to daily mail readers, and call me pessimistic, but I have doubts that reducing someone's libido is going to stop this kind of behaviour. It does definitely have big potential to further frustrate, alienate and anger them though.

Genital mutilation/deformity and the inability to form relationships has proven links to lots of unhealthy behaviour. Doing such things to the people in question could result in some real monsters, I imagine.

To achieve anything; sexual abusers either need to be reformed or totally removed from society FOREVER. This seems to be a dangerous mix of neither in my opinion. Shane.Bell (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with that. But, I do tend to be concerned about how you would do that. Because, for a lot of what are generally considered serious sex offences, you can class them as a mental illness. This good, in that the psychiatric community is - supposedly - better equipped to assess if someone is 'reformed' or 'cured'. Prison has it's nasty stereotypes, not that all are privately-run US-based ass-raping institutions. You do have to be very careful that you don't cast the net so wide that you include 'statutory rape' universally. A 17 year-old, with his 15 year-old girlfriend may be a crime, but... --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Brian, you're absolutely right. Statutory rape, especially two young people who happen to cross the cut off line, is a wholly different case with a wholly different solution to anything being mentioned here. That's why I always try to use terms like 'sexual abusers' rather than 'Paedophile' which tends to bring images to mind of the worst possible case in most people.

The solution if it was up to me, would be a massive rewriting of the incredibly ineffective current law in this area. We really need thorough case by case review of things like this (expensive but sadly necessary) to determine whether or not abuse has occurred. Not formulaic laws based on the magic number: 16 that ruin lives and waste time and money.

IMHO the age of consent is entirely irrelevant, predatory sexual abuse is as common for people well above the 16 limit as harmless consensual relationships are for people who straddle (or who are both below) the age limit.

As for those who are found to have committed abuse. I see no problem or reason not to commit them to mental institutes (if found mentally impaired), or secure prisons for those who are simply violent, along with all of the others who are not safe to walk the same streets as the rest of us. I see no difference other than that one riles parents greatly and the others less so. Shane.Bell (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Should sex offenders be castrated?

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.236.200 (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Only on the proviso that female sex offenders are treated with an equally nasty punishment, it is not only men that are sex offenders, you know. TrumpyNZ (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)