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?

How would that work for females?

Also, chemical castration isn't as effective as you would hope..

in men it can lower sex drive and levels of aggressions for many sex offenders this in itself is punishment they don’t want to have that taken away from them

sex offenders (overwhelming men) are extremely difficult to manage once living in the community, they can’t stay in prison forever and no matter what conditions are put around them, no matter whar psychology they have worked through they still very often go on to abuse again

many aren’t even tagged as this is unfair on them.

there are few female sex offenders so my response is in regard to male sex offenders and it’s a case where it shouldn’t be ruled out as women shall be treated differently

There are plenty of female sex offenders... they can also be chemically castrated

Lowering sex drive ....and levels of aggression (?) not heard of that bit being affected

Agreeing to chemical castration is an alternative to a custodial sentence, people here seem to think it's both! It's a trade off..

The state should have as little control as possible - sadly not everyone in civilised society can be trusted to behave aim a civilised manner, so that doesn’t really work.

I think abusers (including state abuse of power - but that’s a whole separate conversation) of any sort need to be removed from society all together. Sort of what happened to lepers way back when, send them to a remote island or something.

I don’t think it should be used as a trade off if it’s ongoing punishment as meeting a parole officer/being monitored can do very little it’s another layer to try and stop these offenders from offending again

no repeat sex offender wants to feel less powerful,
wants their sex drive lowered wants their aggression toned down they enjoy being what they are they enjoy inflicting harm and pain both physically and psychologically they just don’t want to get caught it’s not a sickness or an addiction it’s a desire that they have total control over

there are not plenty of sex offenders who are women compared to men the issues is overwhelming from male abuse

That's not my experience of what these men want.

really you haven’t met repeat sex offenders who are highly manipulative

I’m surprised if you work with repeat offenders

YABU

Women abuse too so you are being unreasonable unless you also advocate sterilisation for women. Who decides? Who makes sure the system is applied equally and fairly and is not open to abuse? So do you then widen it to doing the same to those with no stable home to raise a child, ongoing addictions, intellectual or physical disabilities, poverty??? YABU. It is a dangerous and slippery slope

Posters who want to sterilize 'undesirables' - you might want to be careful there. Authoritarian personalities consistently measure higher than average in psychopathic traits. Wouldn't want to end up on the wrong end of the measuring stick now.

The issues with chemical castration are that :

• it's expensive , as it's ongoing treatment(sometimes for decades)
• it relies on continuous compliance from offenders

-there has to be a trade off in some form, in order to gain consent.

Some people think that criminals should have rights equal to those of law-abiders.

No they don't. Nobody has argued against the existence of a justice system. They're just arguing against the idea of a horrific, authoritarian, invasive, unethical, eugenics-based one that has already been tested by history and found to be evil. Not least because the people advocating for it had simplistic, self-righteous arguments about how they were Good and nothing could ever be wrong if they were punishing Bad, and anyone who wanted an alternative was on the side of Bad. Like you.

Working in the legal area, and have experience of so so many cases with repeat offenders. I'm aware of many cases, where a man (I've no personal involvement in cases with female offenders, so won't comment on that) has been released, and we know it's just a matter of time before he'll reoffend, and they so frequently do.

Many relevant posts above on chemical castration, and my only experience having it discussed/debated at conferences. The positive results are compelling, but it's non-trivial. It's a process that requires medical supervision, subjective ratings, monitoring, and is basically expensive. The positive results in studies I've seen presented typically include willing participants.

I personally wish it were an option, but given the systems in place the reality is that it will not happen. It could be done, but there is not enough societal pressure. Everyone know sex offenders will be released, and predictably reoffend (of course it tails off with age) and devastate women's lives and their extended families.

Some people think that criminals should have rights equal to those of law-abiders.

A "criminal" is merely what the state says a criminal is. It can change at the drop of a law. In 1966 men were "criminals" for practising homosexual sex. In 1968 they weren't. Luckily they still had rights in both cases.

I notice slow walking is to become a criminal offence. Presumably they should lose their rights too ?

We all would like less crime.

But if a death sentence isn't a deterrent for people why would castrations be more effective?

Oh, just bring back the death penalty and hang them why don't you?

And no "...the protection of children" does not come first.

Castration doesn’t stop people abusing children. It will reduce someone’s sex drive, but it doesn’t mean they no longer experience the desire to exert power or cause pain or humiliation, sexual or otherwise.

People would know of other people who had been castrated for criminal acts.

Plus apart from a deterrent, it would prevent children being born to criminals, and that would reduce crime dramatically.

Oh, so a bit like the sex offenders register ...which definitely is a deterrent...

I think it’s a disgusting idea and I’m a person who often says my mother shouldn’t have been allowed to have children. But double barrel surname, head of local primary, pure rp when speaking. Do you think anyone believed us?

Would they not be allowed trousers either?

Would it? Is criminality hereditary?

Children with criminal parents are far more likely to grow up to become criminals themselves, compared to children with law-abiding parents.

Children with criminal parents are far more likely to grow up to become criminals themselves, compared to children with law-abiding parents.

That's an environmental and socio-economical issue, rather than genetics though.

How many criminals have criminal parents? I don’t mean petty criminals as I think even you agreed they don’t need to be castrated. Murderers, rapists, child sexual abusers, for example. Do they have criminal parents?

And vice versa - do the children of murderers and rapists etc. disproportionately become murderers and rapists etc.?

Please cite your sources.