To believe in forced castration?

[SchoolShenanigans]

Sorry if this has been done before, but AIBU to think forced castration should be in place for paedophiles and people of child bearing age who have been convicted of any form of child abuse?

I get people have bodily autonomy; but the protection of children surely comes first?!

Just read the thread where a couple have already lost one child to care, are neglectful to another (disturbed) child, with social services intervention, and now pregnant with another.

I also have a family member who has 6 children with different inappropriate fathers, in and out of prison, social services involvement and criminal convictions. Providing a shit childhood for multiple innocent children who will be affected for life.

Why are we so again castration as a mechanism to stop further reproduction in damaging environments?

In many cases, people with prior child abuse convictions just have subsequent babies immediately removed. What's the point? Just stop them being able to have kids and the problems sorted?

And I'm asking about YOUR daughter.

You'd be standing there arms crossed going"well dear, your DID know what the punishment would be... So no sympathy here, it's absolutely the right thing to do..."??

But they'd be safe. There'd be no crime. That's the priority, no? Ending crime?

Besides, how do you know everyone who gets castrated is guilty?

I'd have a points system. Different crimes would have different levels of points attach to them. Murder, rape, and other severe crimes would incur enough points to warrant immediate castration. Lesser crimes would not incur castration for a single offend but repeat offenders would soon build up their points and be castrated.

How do you know everyone we lock in prison is guilty?

No legal system is 100% infallible. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't lock people in prison when they are convicted beyond reasonable doubt.

Who would you expect to drag someone, hold them down and castrate them against their will?

You're right. That's why we should lock everyone in their houses. Because we prioritise safety above all else. Child safety especially. So if you don’t agree to be locked up, it means you love child abusers. Obviously.

That's my point. We're protecting society and good people, aren't we? How could anything be wrong if we're cutting crime? Don't you want to protect people? So agree to be locked up.

Your argument is stupid. The point is that if someone has to be inconvenienced to reduce crime, it should be the law-breaker, not the law-abider. Law-abiders should be free to live their lives and be as successful and happy as they can be. Law-breakers should not have this luxury. They should be treated in whatever way inconvenienced the law-abiding public the least.

Your argument is stupid.

Yes, that was the point. Things are not justified solely because they might reduce crime. There's cost/benefit and ethics to consider.

I thought that was obvious.

This policy is designed to lower the burden on the state.

So to continue the logic, we can consider euthanising the elderly in order to lower the burden of care. Perhaps once a person has exceeded their lifetime contributions then it’s off to the special hotel.

BTW I am not being serious, just applying the same fucked up logic to another vulnerable section of society.

You do understand that castration is not reversible?

Immigrants and gypsies, I should imagine.

But elderly people haven't broken the law. If people stay alive they will get old. It can't be prevented. But people do not have to break the law.

Well IMO the benefits outweigh the costs. And I don't have any problem ethically with castrating criminals to prevent them from breeding. The statistics are clear, when criminals breed they have a far higher chance of producing children that grow up to become criminals than law-abiders do when they breed.

Ok, let's say it takes 100points to be castrated.

And your useless ex boyfriend is at 99... Because he's committed 11 minor crimes... He has 5 kids from 5 mothers, I e is yours, ...Still cool with him being allowed to reproduce?

Ok. So what's the level at which you would castrate?

Like what crime?

The statistics are clear, when criminals breed they have a far higher chance of producing children that grow up to become criminals than law-abiders do when they breed.

This reeks of pre-crime

Murder, rape, armed robbery, terrorism, drug trafficking, slavery, torture, treason,

And what’s your tolerance level for miscarriages of justice, given that castration is not reversible.

Who would be doing the castrating?

Florenz

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Doctors and surgeons would be doing the castration. The same people who perform operations on prisoners currently.

How many of those operations are currently performed without their consent?

Would you allow doctors against it to opt out?

Florenz would likely make it a crime to opt out

You'd treat a torturer the same as an armed robber?

You think their crimes are equal?