|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Mar 19, 2023 3:04:45 GMT
If they are absolved of the crime due to a mental condition, they will be put against their will in a psychiatric facility. There they can be treated and drugged. But upon release the state cannot require them to be medicated.
When a criminal is released from prison, there will be conditions of his parole or probation. So yes, during parole, the child molester can be forced to take chemical castration drugs.
However, in this case, after the legal system has released this person from parole, they cannot require them to do anything.
Unless the child molester is on parole for the rest of his life, the state cannot permanently drug him.
There is also a problem here. Rape is about power, not always sexual desire. The castrated offender may still rape children as an act of power. Nothing has been resolved here. You just feel better about it. Chemical castration doesn't stop the offender from raping a child.
That this isn't understood, by so-called intelligent people like phony Bart is bamboozling. Yeah, castration prevents orgasm. It doesn't stop the criminal from having sexual thoughts and acting on them. It's a "feel good" solution which doesn't prevent anything.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 19, 2023 3:14:14 GMT
It's not an argument at all. It's an attempt to divert to an entirely different issue involving entirely different concerns. I understand you want to virtue signal against trans people here but it's a discussion of the application of justice in the case of a child rapist being ordered to undergo chemical castration in 25 years. Sex drive isn't always the issue in rape? How do you figure? Certainly power and domination play a large role but they stem from a need for sexual gratification to begin with. It's a large part of the equation. You claimed its reversible. Bringing up Transgender and those that approve of it to virtue signallers, is a valid point. What is reversible? Sex drive is part of the equation, but taking away someone's sex drive, especially from an already broken and damaged individual, is going to help what? Not to commit anymore sexually motivated crimes? Do you have data and evidence to provide this would work? Don't dig anymore holes for yourself here Bart, because you will keep falling into them. Your phony virtue signalling distorts you. It's not a valid point and you're smart enough to know it isn't. It's an attempt to wrench another issue you wish to virtual signal about into a topic where it doesn't belong in terms of rights issues. You're conflating an issue of people wanting and choosing to be a different gender with the issue of a child rapist being chemically castrated as a condition of his future release. If we're talking distortion, that's what you've aimed to introduce. But back to the topic. Yes, a reduced sex drive reduces their recidivism rates significantly-- from 50% to around 5-10%. Here's a study if you'd like: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565125/#B10Nobody is claiming it's perfect but it does seem to help. Now, why do you think we ought to err on the side of child rapists?
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 3:22:56 GMT
You claimed its reversible. Bringing up Transgender and those that approve of it to virtue signallers, is a valid point. What is reversible? Sex drive is part of the equation, but taking away someone's sex drive, especially from an already broken and damaged individual, is going to help what? Not to commit anymore sexually motivated crimes? Do you have data and evidence to provide this would work? Don't dig anymore holes for yourself here Bart, because you will keep falling into them. Your phony virtue signalling distorts you. It's not a valid point and you're smart enough to know it isn't. It's an attempt to wrench another issue you wish to virtual signal about into a topic where it doesn't belong in terms of rights issues. You're conflating an issue of people wanting and choosing to be a different gender with the issue of a child rapist being chemically castrated as a condition of his future release. If we're talking distortion, that's what you've aimed to introduce. But back to the topic. Yes, a reduced sex drive reduces their recidivism rates significantly-- from 50% to around 5-10%. Here's a study if you'd like: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565125/#B10Nobody is claiming it's perfect but it does seem to help. Now, why do you think we ought to err on the side of child rapists? I am riding of your reversible claim you made, which you have taken in a nonchalant manner. I have already expressed why the chemical castration aspect should legally be unethical. Why don't you err on the side of why there are child rapists? You are being a superficial douchebag.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 19, 2023 3:26:01 GMT
And you'd likely be wrong. When somebody is determined to be mentally ill and has committed violent crimes against other people, there isn't going to be an argument over whether they should be medicated upon release. They risk they pose to society has already been proven as greater than the risks associated with side-effects from the medication and infringement on individual rights. This is a massive hurdle to clear even with the most generous approach towards cruel and unusual punishment. For it to be cruel or unusual, the punishment has to be excessive in regards to the severity of the crime. You know, like breaking all their bones and disemboweling them. Letting a child rapist walk the streets provided he takes his shots, if anything, is extremely lenient considering the severity of the crime of raping children. You can try to distance against the child rapist here, but unfortunately, that's whose rights and punishment we are considering in this topic. If they are absolved of the crime due to a mental condition, they will be put against their will in a psychiatric facility. There they can be treated and drugged. But upon release the state cannot require them to be medicated.
When a criminal is released from prison, there will be conditions of his parole or probation. So yes, during parole, the child molester can be forced to take chemical castration drugs.
However, in this case, after the legal system has released this person from parole, they cannot require them to do anything.
Unless the child molester is on parole for the rest of his life, the state cannot permanently drug him.
There is also a problem here. Rape is about power, not always sexual desire. The castrated offender may still rape children as an act of power. Nothing has been resolved here. You just feel better about it. Chemical castration doesn't stop the offender from raping a child.
Well, in the case of being found mentally ill enough to be found not guilty and institutionalized instead, they never get out. It's virtually a mandatory life sentence and people seem to be fine with that. Yes, there are conditions to parole. One of the parole conditions here for freedom is chemical castration. That can be forced as a condition of parole and the conditions of the parole can last for as long as the judge sentences it to last. That can be five years or for the rest of your life depending on how severe the crime was. Raping children is easily the most severe crime a person can commit. Rape is about power, sure, and that power is expressed through the ability to dominate somebody sexually and stems from the power of sex itself. If you can't get it up, you lose that power. Seems like that would cut down the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 19, 2023 3:31:31 GMT
It's not a valid point and you're smart enough to know it isn't. It's an attempt to wrench another issue you wish to virtual signal about into a topic where it doesn't belong in terms of rights issues. You're conflating an issue of people wanting and choosing to be a different gender with the issue of a child rapist being chemically castrated as a condition of his future release. If we're talking distortion, that's what you've aimed to introduce. But back to the topic. Yes, a reduced sex drive reduces their recidivism rates significantly-- from 50% to around 5-10%. Here's a study if you'd like: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565125/#B10Nobody is claiming it's perfect but it does seem to help. Now, why do you think we ought to err on the side of child rapists? I am riding of your reversible claim you made, which you have taken in a nonchalant manner. I have already expressed why the chemical castration aspect should legally be unethical. Why don't you err on the side of why there are child rapists? You are being a superficial douchebag. The reversible claim you can go look up for yourself. There's a lot of medical research on chemical castration because it's been around for a long time even outside of being used punitively. I'm not going to bother giving you links from here because you're not going to care about them. Err on the side of why there are child rapists? Okay, why are there child rapists?
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 4:33:24 GMT
I am riding of your reversible claim you made, which you have taken in a nonchalant manner. I have already expressed why the chemical castration aspect should legally be unethical. Why don't you err on the side of why there are child rapists? You are being a superficial douchebag. The reversible claim you can go look up for yourself. There's a lot of medical research on chemical castration because it's been around for a long time even outside of being used punitively. I'm not going to bother giving you links from here because you're not going to care about them. Err on the side of why there are child rapists? Okay, why are there child rapists? Your links are just bogus anecdotal statistics that don't paint the larger picture.
You tell me why, or are you just being simpleminded? Perhaps its because majority of breeders don't know what the frick they are doing with raising their children, let alone why they are having them in the first place. Quick fixes DO NOT address the cause.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 4:35:43 GMT
If they are absolved of the crime due to a mental condition, they will be put against their will in a psychiatric facility. There they can be treated and drugged. But upon release the state cannot require them to be medicated.
When a criminal is released from prison, there will be conditions of his parole or probation. So yes, during parole, the child molester can be forced to take chemical castration drugs.
However, in this case, after the legal system has released this person from parole, they cannot require them to do anything.
Unless the child molester is on parole for the rest of his life, the state cannot permanently drug him.
There is also a problem here. Rape is about power, not always sexual desire. The castrated offender may still rape children as an act of power. Nothing has been resolved here. You just feel better about it. Chemical castration doesn't stop the offender from raping a child.
Well, in the case of being found mentally ill enough to be found not guilty and institutionalized instead, they never get out. It's virtually a mandatory life sentence and people seem to be fine with that. Yes, there are conditions to parole. One of the parole conditions here for freedom is chemical castration. That can be forced as a condition of parole and the conditions of the parole can last for as long as the judge sentences it to last. That can be five years or for the rest of your life depending on how severe the crime was. Raping children is easily the most severe crime a person can commit. Rape is about power, sure, and that power is expressed through the ability to dominate somebody sexually and stems from the power of sex itself. If you can't get it up, you lose that power. Seems like that would cut down the numbers. It is not about just getting it up. More simplemindedness from you.
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Mar 19, 2023 5:00:41 GMT
Actually, I didn't even allude to transgenderism because it's not germane to this discussion. Thank you for injecting it though. God knows we can't have a topic in the modern era with signaling our virtues. How so? The treatment stops and the body reverts back to normal. With what side effects? Permanently lowered sex drive, possibly depression and later cardiac problems; there are a few as with any medical treatment. What's the argument for a child rapist keeping his sex drive? What's the argument for a thief keeping his hand? He doesn't have one, even though he likely agrees with it being progressive and all....
Violent criminal behavior and sexual abuse are a social issue that breeders largely create. Bart linked me a Korean article and thinks its relevant...
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Mar 19, 2023 7:29:23 GMT
If they are absolved of the crime due to a mental condition, they will be put against their will in a psychiatric facility. There they can be treated and drugged. But upon release the state cannot require them to be medicated.
When a criminal is released from prison, there will be conditions of his parole or probation. So yes, during parole, the child molester can be forced to take chemical castration drugs.
However, in this case, after the legal system has released this person from parole, they cannot require them to do anything.
Unless the child molester is on parole for the rest of his life, the state cannot permanently drug him.
There is also a problem here. Rape is about power, not always sexual desire. The castrated offender may still rape children as an act of power. Nothing has been resolved here. You just feel better about it. Chemical castration doesn't stop the offender from raping a child.
Well, in the case of being found mentally ill enough to be found not guilty and institutionalized instead, they never get out. It's virtually a mandatory life sentence and people seem to be fine with that. Yes, there are conditions to parole. One of the parole conditions here for freedom is chemical castration. That can be forced as a condition of parole and the conditions of the parole can last for as long as the judge sentences it to last. That can be five years or for the rest of your life depending on how severe the crime was. Raping children is easily the most severe crime a person can commit. Rape is about power, sure, and that power is expressed through the ability to dominate somebody sexually and stems from the power of sex itself. If you can't get it up, you lose that power. Seems like that would cut down the numbers. But castration would not stop them from getting aroused. It seems castration as punishment is only symbolic. Inability to orgasm would not stop rape. They still get erections.
Give them longer prison sentences as fit the crime. But don't release them and think that castration will stop their sex crimes.
I'd prefer the government not use drugs and medical procedures as a form of punishment. It could be extended to other crimes as well.
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh (God/Almighty) on Mar 19, 2023 7:31:20 GMT
That this isn't understood, by so-called intelligent people like phony Bart is bamboozling. Yeah, castration prevents orgasm. It doesn't stop the criminal from having sexual thoughts and acting on them. It's a "feel good" solution which doesn't prevent anything. One can rape another person using a cut-off broom handle. A lot of male folks also think rape is only sexual thing, when it generally is not. It’s an act violence no less than an unarmed beating.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Mar 19, 2023 11:54:36 GMT
I am riding of your reversible claim you made, which you have taken in a nonchalant manner. I have already expressed why the chemical castration aspect should legally be unethical. Why don't you err on the side of why there are child rapists? You are being a superficial douchebag. The reversible claim you can go look up for yourself. There's a lot of medical research on chemical castration because it's been around for a long time even outside of being used punitively. I'm not going to bother giving you links from here because you're not going to care about them. Err on the side of why there are child rapists? Okay, why are there child rapists?One study I saw gave a figure of over 90% of child sex offenders having been abused as children. The implications if true, of calling people evil, of whether there is a useful direction curative therapy can go, is not discussed publicly.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 19, 2023 15:57:46 GMT
What's the argument for a thief keeping his hand? He doesn't have one, even though he likely agrees with it being progressive and all.... Violent criminal behavior and sexual abuse are a social issue that breeders largely create. Bart linked me a Korean article and thinks its relevant... Actually, I do. Apparently neither you nor Prince Myshkin noticed that PaulsLaugh (God/Almighty) previously made the exact same slippery slope argument, which I responded to at length. Not that I blame anybody for missing it; most people don't read back through threads. I'm still not going to cover the same ground again in the same thread. I linked you to the National Library of Medicine hosting an article from the Journal of Korean Medical Science. In South Korea, chemical castration for offenders who commit sex crimes against minors has been the law since 2011. That means we can draw conclusions from their research and experience. If you have a specific reason why their findings shouldn't be believed, feel free to offer it. I'll also respond to Prince Myshkin 's argument here to save space. Chemical castration reduces the likelihood of arousal and rape. It doesn't make it impossible; it makes it less frequent. Nothing is ever 100%. If you want to argue that it's useless and impractical, that's one thing and we can do that. But it's another thing to argue that it's cruel or unusual. Most people would agree to give them longer sentences but most people would also agree that violent child rapists should be executed or locked up forever. All ethical considerations taken into account, chemical castration upon release is getting off easily considering what society wants to do with them. I understand why you'd prefer government not do it. It smacks of authoritarianism. What next? Are they going to force every criminal to take drugs that lobotomize them and make them docile? That's always a risk of that. That's why you have to consider these things on a case-by-case basis and know when a case crosses the line and you're approaching that dystopian reality. So why does this case cross the line?
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 19, 2023 16:02:56 GMT
The reversible claim you can go look up for yourself. There's a lot of medical research on chemical castration because it's been around for a long time even outside of being used punitively. I'm not going to bother giving you links from here because you're not going to care about them. Err on the side of why there are child rapists? Okay, why are there child rapists?One study I saw gave a figure of over 90% of child sex offenders having been abused as children. The implications if true, of calling people evil, of whether there is a useful direction curative therapy can go, is not discussed publicly. Right. Nature vs. nurture. I'm on the nurture side and think that it's overwhelmingly a problem of a traumatic childhood rather than people being born bad. But what does that change?
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Mar 19, 2023 16:31:12 GMT
Yeah, castration prevents orgasm. It doesn't stop the criminal from having sexual thoughts and acting on them. It's a "feel good" solution which doesn't prevent anything. One can rape another person using a cut-off broom handle. A lot of male folks also think rape is only sexual thing, when it generally is not. It’s an act violence no less than an unarmed beating. I'm glad you framed it this way. This idea came directly from the feminist movement, specifically Brownmiller. I'm not saying that as a slam against feminism, before you get started; just stating the history. Rape is framed this way modernly because of that idea: that rape against a woman isn't a matter of sexual gratification but a matter of controlling women. Essentially, that rape is employed by males to violently keep women in their place as subservients. While I think there's merit to that idea, removing the sexual element and focusing entirely on power dynamics never made complete sense to me. It's not a catch-all explanation. After all, why would a man rape a child then? Children are at the absolute lowest rung of power. What is the man targeting then?
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Mar 19, 2023 22:24:23 GMT
One study I saw gave a figure of over 90% of child sex offenders having been abused as children. The implications if true, of calling people evil, of whether there is a useful direction curative therapy can go, is not discussed publicly. Right. Nature vs. nurture. I'm on the nurture side and think that it's overwhelmingly a problem of a traumatic childhood rather than people being born bad. But what does that change? It doesnt change anything if punishment is the only option society offers, because it makes us feel better. But there could be other options, such as the technology Deckard uses to find replicants, to find teenagers who were abused and either lock them up before they strike, or offer them pre-crime therapy. Current approaces dont work, such as Americas iniquitous public sex offender registers which encourage offenders to secrecy and potential re-offending. A more wide ranging debate would seem to be useful. Did you ever see the excellent Kevin Bacon film The Woodsman?
|
|