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?

My experience related to dogs not perverts btw.

Are you comparing paedophiles and child abusers to innocent minority groups in nazi Germany?

Get a grip.

What’s the point in locking women up for decades just to stop them reproducing? Women who kill their kids probably won’t commit any other violent crimes, so locking them up beyond standard sentence duration doesn’t achieve much. Once they’ve served their time, they can be safely released. The only danger they present to anyone is if they’re allowed to have more kids. It would make more sense to enforce temporary or permanent infertility on them as a means to protect kids, rather than leave them in prison for ever.

No one has a right to have children who they then torture.

It’s a crazy world where people can be banned from keeping pets but allowed to produce endless children.

I don’t believe the PP was doing that OP. But the facts remain, history has shown us that when you persecute a group of people, the lines become blurred, more people become persecuted. More people become ‘othered’. It’s a very dangerous path to walk down because where does it end? Who says what crimes in particular are punishable by castration? What if the person is found to be innocent and they’ve been castrated? Life imprisonment, fine. But not castration.

I also don’t understand the slippery slope argument. If we sterilised people who killed their children, that’s a specific group of people ie people who have been convicted of killing their children. There’s no danger that we might actually start sterilising people who are gay or single parents, when the criteria was people who have been convicted of killing their children. It seems quite clear cut to me. Basically, don’t kill your children and you won’t be forcibly sterilised.

I agree with so much of what you are saying mumbles, I suppose I just don’t really know the answers. In practise, I don’t really give a stuff what happens to sex offenders and people that abuse and kill children, it’s just how these changes in law would come into affect I guess.

Just a thought but you’d also need to stop them having partners wouldn’t you or access to other children as step mothers have also neglected and killed children. Essentially you’d never really be able to be sure that they didn’t present a danger to all children. The reality of putting someone on a lifetime of probation where they couldn’t have a partner that had children would be very difficult. We can all probably think of many cases where social services have intervened because a woman has continued to see a partner she shouldn’t. I believe this was the case with Star Hobson.

It's quite an interesting topic.

On the one hand, eugenics spring to life...

But on the other hand, it is innocent children being born into a life of potential misery.

It's not just paedophiles that "abuse" children though.

I see kids on a daily basis being given such a miserable life because they are not parented properly and given very few boundaries and very little attention. The parents just leave them to their own devices, all day on screens/TV, poor diet, and yet the parents just keep getting pregnant, more kids sharing rooms etc... so limited space and privacy. Kids with SEN that need parental support, but the parents have moved onto new partners and more babies etc...

It makes me feel so frustrated that these kids who desperately need some boundaries and attention are just ignored.

I'm not suggesting sterilise the parents, but they certainly need to halt their levels of reproduction and instead focus on parenting the ones they do have, instead of expecting others to do it.

The "slippery slope" argument needs evidencing. Applying a law to a certain criminality is nothing new and I'm struggling to see how it's at risk of a "slippery slope"

@SchoolShenanigans

1. rape isn't a sexual crime it's a violent assault with sex as the weapon.

They don't "fancy" their victims. They crave power & control & degradation & superiority.

1. State control over bodies. Hell no.

1. Slippery slope to death penalty

1. Police lie. There are sooooo many proven cases of miscarriages of justice.

Horrific suggestion

No, but the examples you gave in your first post were not those, they were of people who you believed were not fit to have children because of other circumstances.

You only started talking about paedophiles as a defence mechanism when you were challenged about your abhorrent view and clear parallels began to be draw to policies enacted by the Nazi's in 1930s Germany. A classic right wing rhetorical tactic.

Even so, I don't believe that subjecting prisoners to forced medical procedures such as sterilisation is ever morally justified regardless of their crime.

I suggest you get a grip and realise that the death camps were the end of a process that started with the othering of groups and the imposition of policies like forced sterilisation that were expanded to include more and more groups as time went on.

I was wondering when someone would use the term ‘paedo apologists’ to describe an argument that they don’t really have the intelligence to debate correctly. Are you aware that when the law changes it changes for everybody? Have you ever heard of a miscarriage of justice? Would you be happy if a family member was falsely accused of raping a child and had his genitalia cut off? As I said, I couldn’t give a stuff what happens on a personal level to a paedo and I know what my emotion would drive me to do if they hurt one of my children, but when making laws you have to separate the emotion from the facts. It is this way for the protection of all citizens. The law lets down children and abuse victims at the minute. I accept that. I would advocate for tougher sentences, life meaning life etc, but calling someone a paedo apologist because they understand the complexities of a legal argument better than you do just makes you look silly.

I can't help but think that child abusers should have thought about this before they took control of an innocent child's body.

Your first post is all the evidence needed. You talk in your first post about examples of people who have had children taken into care and who have "undesirable" circumstances such as one parent in prison, etc. Imposing forced sterilisation as punishment for certain crimes begins to normalise it and it is clear that advocates of it like you are keen to see it applied to those that they deem unworthy of having children and not just child sex offenders.

Kathleen Folbigg lost 20 years of her life after being wrongly accused and imprisoned for 'murdering' her children.

If the Aussies had this policy she would've lost her womb too...

Ok so what proof would you require if you were making these laws to ensure that a miscarriage of justice didn’t occur? A slippery slope is a police officer making a decision that they don’t like someone or that they have a personal grudge and planting evidence/tampering witness statements. I’m sure even you are aware that the police are not whiter than white. ‘Rotten to the core’ I think the Met were described as.

I’ll shout it louder for the people at the back who may be having a hard time processing why forced sterilisation and castration is not a good idea.

MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE

POLICE CORRUPTION

FALSE CONFESSIONS

TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE

WITNESS INTIMIDATION

PERSONAL GRUDGES

Feel free to add your own.

1. It can be a sexual crime. Please show evidence where it's never a sexual crime.

1. State control over people's bodies - hell no? But it's ok for innocent babies to end up in care again and again? You've shown no regard for them.

1. Slippery slope to death penalty. I think it would do everyone a favour to kill convicted paedophiles. Their sexual orientation towards children rarely changes.

1. Yes police lie, but so do abusive parents.

Why are you defending child abusers? And in doing so, saying it's ok for more children to either live being abused or having to live in a failed (and often abusive) care system?

OP in the nicest possible way, you are missing the point time and time again. Saying that the police lie but so do parents is a terrible attempt at a defence of your argument. How would that argument protect a potentially innocent person about to be castrated?

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.

Sorry, where is the paedophilia in that example?

First post by the OP.

Defending the rights of all citizens is not defending child abusers. Jesus wept.

OP please let us all know how you’d legally protect anyone suffering a miscarriage of justice where they had been sterilised or castrated? Prit stik and a £100 ‘we’re sorry’ goodwill voucher? You don’t come across as having the capacity to understand an argument like this. You would benefit from reading up on it, understanding the law better, human rights and why they are there for the protection of all. Don’t ever assume that because a government is a supposedly 1st world country that the right thing would always be done.

No one is "defending child abusers".

You really don't want a paedophile angry at having his physical functioning impaired, whether it is due to orchidectomy, medication, dysfunction or more extensive surgery. I'm not going to go into detail, but rapists and abusers will still find a way to serve their purposes - and be angrier about it.

This really isn't about the criminals, this is about what we, as members of a civilised democracy, allow the state to do to its people.

Your idea leads to criminals effectively forfeiting any human rights and allows for any abuse to be meted out to those found guilty of any particular crime by the state as it sees fit as "they should have thought about it before doing the crime".