Paedos to be chemically castrated

[lyrabelacqua]

What do you think of this ?
I think it's a great idea if it stops a perv's vile behaviour.

touche

Totally supportive of it,

but harely, on a practical note, how would your getting flung into prison on a murder charge help your vulnerable and abused child?

I think a jury would be able to deferantiate between a 20 year old having a relationship with a 15 year old

and a 30 year old abusing a 10 year old,

grey areas - yes, but the judicial system can usually see the difference between someone having been abused and someone having consensual (albeit slightly underage) sex in a relationship.

there are really two discussions happening here... the chem castration is to be voluntary. the murdering and stringing up will presumably not be on an opt-in basis.

I think it depends on which postcode you live in, aitch.

Again, you've gone for 10 and 15. Two ends of the grey area.

And I disagree about the judicial system. I know a boy who is on the sex offenders register for having sex with a girl 10 months younger than him.

voluntry??

cant see too many men opting for that then.

quite a few do, I believe, kitty.

I believe some people do opt for it in countries where it is offered.

well obviously it wouldnt do my kids any good aitch, but how could you let somebody get away with doing that to your kid, then they get a couple years in jail (maybe) and get out and do it to somebody elses kid. i do not believe any of these people can be cured or rehabilitated because i dont believe it is a disase. they will always be a danger to children and should be taken out of the community permantly. it that means sorting it yourself then sobeit

Maybe to stop it happening once and for all there should just be a HARD, FAST rule

anyone over 16 has sex with anyone under the age of 16 then you atomatically serve a sentance.

Sounds harsh, but NOONE under 16 should be having sex at all. (by law)

although you would have to then sort out who cares for your children whilst you spend the rest of your life in prison, of course.

So you ask for a passport or birth certificate before you go ahead?

I ,loked at this earlier for another thread- under 13 it is hard and fast, if the protagonist is over 16 then up to 14 years in prison (men ona rape charge, owmen on indecent assault)- over 13 or under 16 for the 'protagonist' then flexibility creaps in

Or so I understand it from the Brrok Advisory Centre website

Harley I ahve no idea what you think Paedophillia is, but often Paedophiles are vicitms themselves- thats a proven fact. And as such they MUST still face a stiff sentence and be subject to constant monitoring but 'sorting them out' is a teibly inhuman approach and frankly illegal. As it should be. Because the only crime worse than Paedophlia is murder. Which youa pepar to be advocating.

I understand what you are saying Peachy and four years ago I might have agreed with you. My daughter is three and a half now and paedophiles make my blood boil beyond all else. Perhaps the media in this country are to blame for we are made to believe that there are paedophiles waiting at every corner to take our innocent chidren and brutalise them. A good fried of mine who is a detective advises me that paedohiles are wide-spread, more-so than the media would have us know. Public swimming pools are apparently a haven frequented by would-be molesters and childrens entertainers are synonymous with child abuse.

Yes, I fully understand that my reasoning is that of an anxious mother who would personally castrate and disect anyone who harmed my daughter (yes, murder is more severe than the crime of rape but don't doubt me for a second when I say that I would murder someone who would harm my daughter or son in such a way). A mothers instict is one of the most powerful on earth.

It is difficult to classify crimes but I have to say that our instinct tells us a great deal. Our instinct (the instinct of a rational person who can empathise well) says murder, stealing, rape etc are bad. A caring mothers' instinct is fine-tuned to such an extent that they can tell their babies cry apart from that of hundreds of others. My insinct tells me that a man (or, even more incredulous, a woman)who would violate a child who is helpless to all intents and purposes deserves to suffer and significantly so. I m sure that there are hundreds of thousands of men who feel some 'inclination' towards this and yet manage to restrain themselves.

I was all for this until I read this:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6748789.stm

The second part of this article makes the argument for chemical castration a major concern if it could actually lead to more extreme forms of stimulation. I still believe, as per pagwatch's post earlier, that there is a deeper psychological issue to be addressed, not just a physical urge.

Don't know why they're bothering. The world is too overpopulated as it is. Get rid of the bastards who do these horrific things and you get rid of the problem at the source.

By Aitch on Wed 13-Jun-07 17:09:40
or what about someone who'd downloaded child pornography and was a likely offender of the future? to prevent him harming a child, should we kill him now?

YES, because it might be my child (god forbid). It is deviant behaviour, it cannot be classed the same as homosexuality, children are not sexual beings at all. If someone is getting off on watching child porn then they are getting off on children being harmed, thus condoning and providing a market.

OK, so it is an extreme view and maybe not the death sentence but viewing of child porn, it should carry a life sentence. I was watching the news earlier and what struck me was this, the suggestion that chemical castration may or may not help convicted peadophiles re offend. I thought to myself FFS, what is wrong with a country that releases people who actually might re-offend in the most heinous manner and are looking for ways of helping them not to do this. Keep them in prison or put them to sleep (ok so realistically, keep them in prison, i dont agree with the death sentence when it comes to it), it is the only way of 100% stopping them from doing it again. Am i the only person who can see that?

i meant to say this would help convicted peadophiles NOT reoffend!

LEM, to be honest I don't think they should be kept in prison forever more, as we are paying for them to be in there. They're never going to be fit to rejoin society safely so why not just get rid? Knowing that indulging their sick fantasies carries a death sentence would surely be a much better deterrent for anyone even considering pulling this shit.

you're right, though, killing them would definitely help paedophiles not re-offend.

thing is, a lot of those paedophiles will have been injured children themselves, now all grown up and all fucked up. so what you're really proposing is a cull?

fine, i can see the logic of that. it's never going to happen, though. and even a life sentence isn't for life, murderers get out on licence. i think it's as much a cost thing as anything else.

Lucyellensmum - I agree with you, I don't agree with the death penalty at all. Less developed (and I do belive that many countries are not as socially evolved as ours is, as politically-incorrect to say it, it is true).

BUT children... are children... are children. They are innocent in this evil world. They deserve a good start in life. We - the adults that surround them must be good examples. To violate a child in any manner, not just sexually, in my book is tantamount to murder. You are supressing/ regressing so many aspects of a small life. AN ADULTS RESPONSIBILITY AND PURPOSE OF NATURE IS TO NURTURE ITS YOUNG.

It makes me feel sick to the core that people can be voyeurs of this traversty - they are as guilty as the perpetrators.

so a child who is violated by an adult, who then grows up to be an adult who violates another child? did we agree on a cull?

Sorry, my train of though went off on a tangient.. I was going to day less socially evolved countries than ours condone eye for an eye - ie death penaltly. I do not, I believe we can be better than that and rise above evil but I do think that are disfunctional, evil people who do not deserve any amount of compassion or social care/ allowance. They should be dealt with severely and in our ridiculous judicial system where TV's and playstations are the norm in a prison cell, I hope that prison justice prevails - where people like Ian Huntley live every day in fear of what his inmates might do to him.