Page 2 | Italy moves towards Chemical Castration

GoodEveningMiss · 25/09/2024 13:05

poppyzbrite4 · 25/09/2024 11:53

It's very simplistic and akin to villagers with torches. Chemical castration is a human rights violation and won't solve anything. Predators are driven by more than sexual desire. Rape is about power and control, not sex and women can be raped with objects.

Edited

Sensible post!

poppyzbrite4 · 25/09/2024 13:13

Wordsofprey · 25/09/2024 12:46

Is it revenge, or is it justice? Everybody has a slightly different take on what justice is. It's subjective. It's irrelevant to me that a right wing government is implementing or attempting to implement chemical castration - it doesn't make me think "the right wingers do it, it must be bad!".

On the subject of chemical castration, not death penalty (because I AM aware my take isn't that accepted), what do you see as the problem?

Show quote history

I've already explained in my previous posts that rape and grooming is not sexual but based on power and control. Giving people drugs will not stop the need for violence and domination. They may turn to other deviant methods to fulfill fantasies.

The physical impact of the drugs is similar to a sex change and can induce osteoporosis and other harmful side effects. We also risk getting it wrong; there have been many miscarriages of justice.

It's not about justice, the concept is punitive. It's about seeking revenge and it strips people of their civil rights. We already have punishments for sex offenders and if they aren't working, then we need to change them.

We also need to make societal changes. We live in a culture where sexual assault and harassment isn't punished. Men are socialised to feel entitled to women's bodies and we need to change that. We need to eradicate rape culture. I also believe in banning social media for under 16s as it's a playground for predators.

Also, if this is compulsory how are these men going to be monitored to ensure they take the medication? Surely that will be time consuming and costly. That money would be better spent on prevention.

Original poster

3doughnutproblem · 25/09/2024 14:20

Maybe, where there is no doubt that the person (vile predator) is guilty, the victims should decide what happens to them:a choice of :1) life imprisonment (meaning life, with no getting out early)
2) chemical castration (despite the jury being out on it's effectiveness)
3) both
4) if the victim is murdered, their family decides
5)let the judge decide

This way the victim takes back some control and is now has some power over the offender, a small thing to ask when lives can be destroyed and changed forever.

OP posts:

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 25/09/2024 14:34

3doughnutproblem · 25/09/2024 14:20

Maybe, where there is no doubt that the person (vile predator) is guilty, the victims should decide what happens to them:a choice of :1) life imprisonment (meaning life, with no getting out early)
2) chemical castration (despite the jury being out on it's effectiveness)
3) both
4) if the victim is murdered, their family decides
5)let the judge decide

This way the victim takes back some control and is now has some power over the offender, a small thing to ask when lives can be destroyed and changed forever.

No.

It's completely inappropriate to have victims and victims families determining sentencing because they will likely be incapable of objectivity.

The next step is Retributive justice, which doesn't actually function in practice, and has been abandoned by all but the most regressive of States who tend to more or less ignore human rights as a matter of course anyway.

You don't improve your justice system by rolling it back centuries, and judicial process should never be at the whim of victims because it then becomes arbitrary by definition and ceases to treat everyone the same.

DixonD · 25/09/2024 14:38

3doughnutproblem · 25/09/2024 09:23

Might sound harsh but if they are at risk of violating a child's (or adult's if it's a rapist) mind and body they deserve it.
Understand that it may not remove the psychological desire but if it removes the sexual urge, part of the problem is sorted and that's good enough for me.

Show quote history

Well it’s not completely removed; there are plenty of ways to harm someone in that way, even without a penis.

LaerealSilverhand · 25/09/2024 14:53

@3doughnutproblem you seem to be unaware that we do have chemical castration in the UK. There has been a long running programme at HMP Whatton.

Strumitt · 25/09/2024 15:03

GardenOfficer · 25/09/2024 11:14

I’ve been watching a lot of nonce stings on FB this past week. I’d seen the original Chris Hansen years ago but all these new groups had passed me by till I looked into it after the HE trial.

Some of the hunters like to rant and rave at the men & have their own issues (ie abuse survivors) that they’re acting out. There’s American stings where they just chase down and punch the suspects.

The other day in the UK there was a troubling one where the nonce is having a full on Tourette’s attack while his poor mum in the background doesn’t know what to do.

The ones where there’s a partner or parent responding to the situation, or there’s a crowd involved to, do make for better drama - one clip had 900k views - but obviously it’s very sad for the relatives. It shows the damage these men do to their own families as well as their victims!

With the better stings, the hunters are disciplined in their righteous anger, and they’re very measured and get everything in order for the police.

There was a shocking one the other day about a 70-something accountant who had arranged to meet a 13 year old at a hotel. They talked to him for ages. And one of a senior lawyer who did the whole conversation standing there in his nice hallway in his boxer shorts. In both cases the hunters kept it calm which no doubt help with getting confessions.

I don’t actually know whether these confessions are admissible in court? But they have all the chat logs too.

Anyway to go back to the subject of this thread - I was shocked at how endemic this is, and yes chemical castration should be made widely available! Maybe in exchange for a reduced sentence - though sentences should be higher so that’s a moot point.

Those nonce stings are a disgrace and should be banned. It's basic entrapment just done for the entertainment of others.

SerendipityJane · 25/09/2024 15:04

Andrew Malkinson

Birdscratch · 25/09/2024 15:06

If chemical castration was effective in preventing reoffending it would have been used much more widely in the past.

Nicola1978x · 31/03/2025 01:27

3doughnutproblem · 25/09/2024 08:50

100% agree with this and wish we would do this in UK, if rapists and paedophiles wish to live in society, they need to have their sexual urges removed. My own opinion is that therapy and rehabilitation does not work for these offenders. I was unfortunate to cross paths with a paedophile as a child and all they care about is sexual gratification.

They have testosterone driven urges and can't control themselves.

Totally agree that rapists and paedophiles need to be physically castrated.

No excuses, no being soft on them, total penectomy and castrate them at the same time, keep us all a little bit safer from these male monsters.

Nicola1978x · 01/04/2025 18:17

Has anyone thought about starting a Parliamentary Petition?

"Calling on the Government to introduce the mandatory Castration and total penectomy for convicted Sex Offenders and Rapist"

Zero Tolerance punishment helps to keep women and girls safer.

Sorry if this sounds crude; simple if you commit a sex crime, you forfeit your Penis and Testicles, no excuses.

Keeping Women and Girls Save.

MaybeThisTimeILlbeLucky · 01/04/2025 19:03

You loose that right when you abuse woman and children, castrates away

Original poster

3doughnutproblem · 01/04/2025 21:22

As before, I do not believe these men can be rehabilitated, the urge is too strong and the only way to deal with this is to remove the urge - castration, if chemical doesn't work then physical castration. Otherwise they will continue to harm and or kill kids.

OP posts:

ThisUniqueDreamer · 01/04/2025 21:25

I disagree. I think having your urges and desires intact and be locked up for life with no hope of release and no hope of indulging those urges again is a far more just and appropriate punishment that walking free whilst on drugs.

brookboo · 01/04/2025 21:29

ThisUniqueDreamer · 01/04/2025 21:25

I disagree. I think having your urges and desires intact and be locked up for life with no hope of release and no hope of indulging those urges again is a far more just and appropriate punishment that walking free whilst on drugs.

But we don't do that and don't have the capacity to do that. Not even close. It's rife.

ButterCrackers · 01/04/2025 21:32

These people should be locked away for life.

Original poster

3doughnutproblem · 01/04/2025 21:59

ThisUniqueDreamer · 01/04/2025 21:25

I disagree. I think having your urges and desires intact and be locked up for life with no hope of release and no hope of indulging those urges again is a far more just and appropriate punishment that walking free whilst on drugs.

But they don't get locked up for life. At some point they end up back in society to re offend.

OP posts:

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 01/04/2025 22:15

I think it's important to point out to the people who advocate for people who commit sex offences to be locked up for life that there is not one single study which shows length of sentence is in any way a deterrent to criminals. What they do confess carries a deterring factor, is fear of being detected and punished.

If you argue that in order to protect women and children from reoffenders the length of sentence for sexual offences should be exactly the same as that for the most heinous of murders, then you are also advocating for a situation which will inevitably lead to an increase in the murder of victims of sexual offences to begin with. If the sentence is no different, then criminals will be more inclined to permanently silence their victim in an effort to evade detection.

So while it's perfectly understandable to want these people put somewhere where they can not harm, you have to also understand the full consequences of precisely what you are arguing for.

TooBigForMyBoots · 01/04/2025 22:23

I'm OK with it as an option for the courts.

HRTQueen · 01/04/2025 22:25

I think for repeat offenders (the ones caught) it can be an option but not for all

I woudl prefer longer sentences, extremely tight and enforced probation/recall conditions and the wearing of tags (at present many get out of this because it will impact their mental health 🙄)

they don’t change, urges may lessen as they get older and less opportunities but sex offenders particularly child sex offenders are never rehabilitated they just aren’t caught out again

PollyCreo · 01/04/2025 22:30

Back in the day, female abusers used to be sterilised.

Mycatisanevilgenius · 01/04/2025 23:13

Why isn't thus crime heavily punished with harsh sentences
How many times do perverts get away with suspended sentences

Original poster

3doughnutproblem · 02/04/2025 08:51

I don't think they do lose the urge as they get older, look at Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter, he re offended the minute he got out

OP posts:

Itrymybestyesido · 02/04/2025 08:53

BrokenSushiLook · 25/09/2024 08:59

Chemical castration removes the physical ability to get an erection but does not remove the psychological desire to dominate and overpower a victim - they can still abuse by other means.

But I also believe that forcing damaging chenicals into someone is fundamentally inhumane. When dealing with abhorrent individuals our own ethics must be beyond reproach. Keeping them locked up in prison but with their bodily integrity intact is appropriate and proportional. Violating their bodies to save the state the cost of imprisoning them is not.

Raping someone is pretty inhumane I would have thought?

ButterCrackers · 02/04/2025 09:10

XDownwiththissortofthingX · 01/04/2025 22:15

I think it's important to point out to the people who advocate for people who commit sex offences to be locked up for life that there is not one single study which shows length of sentence is in any way a deterrent to criminals. What they do confess carries a deterring factor, is fear of being detected and punished.

If you argue that in order to protect women and children from reoffenders the length of sentence for sexual offences should be exactly the same as that for the most heinous of murders, then you are also advocating for a situation which will inevitably lead to an increase in the murder of victims of sexual offences to begin with. If the sentence is no different, then criminals will be more inclined to permanently silence their victim in an effort to evade detection.

So while it's perfectly understandable to want these people put somewhere where they can not harm, you have to also understand the full consequences of precisely what you are arguing for.

If these abhorrent criminals are in prison for life they can’t reoffend - simple