Chemical castration for pedophiles and rapists

Yes or no?

On one hand I say why limit it to just chemically? Why not go all the way and make SURE they'll never be able to get aroused again? Then on the other hand, I do know that some people who are charged with these crimes are not always guilty, so it's a slippery slope...but I definitely think when you have a repeat offender, that there's no doubt of their guilt, only of how many victims he has, hell yes, chop chop the family jewels.

When there is definite proof I say chop them off!

I say no, absolutely not. That's very medieval and barbaric. First of all, a pedophile means they're sexually attracted to kids, but it doesn't mean they've harmed them physically at that point - if they reach that point, then they're called child molesters. Second of all, a rapist can still violate people without their penises - with blunt objects, with molestation, etc.

MandyPerfumeGirl wrote:I say no, absolutely not. That's very medieval and barbaric. First of all, a pedophile means they're sexually attracted to kids, but it doesn't mean they've harmed them physically at that point - if they reach that point, then they're called child molesters. Second of all, a rapist can still violate people without their penises - with blunt objects, with molestation, etc.

Well I've got news for you, you only find out somebody IS a pedophile AFTER they've harmed children, so what's wrong with castrating them then? And why shouldn't the same apply to rapists? Sure, they can use other objects but it takes away their main source of 'power'.

I think that chemical castration should be available to those who want to be rehabilitated in exchange for a slightly less harsh sentence.

Supernova wrote:

Well I've got news for you, you only find out somebody IS a pedophile AFTER they've harmed children, so what's wrong with castrating them then? And why shouldn't the same apply to rapists? Sure, they can use other objects but it takes away their main source of 'power'.

Would you chop off somebody's fingers if they stole something? She's right, that shit is a little barbaric. We don't live in medieval times. I'm willing to be sending a rapists to jail where he would be subjected to the same kind of pain he inflicted on someone else wouldn't be a picnic. Exactly what is castration going to do in favor of locking someone up?

RedBedroom wrote:I think that chemical castration should be available to those who want to be rehabilitated in exchange for a slightly less harsh sentence.

. That I can go for. How crazy is it to suggest castration as a punishment instead of subjecting them to the same torture? Yeah, you rape someone and now we're going to chop off your dick and send you back out in the wild so you won't do it anymore. That doesn't take care of them problem at all.

Supernova wrote:On one hand I say why limit it to just chemically? Why not go all the way and make SURE they'll never be able to get aroused again? ...when you have a repeat offender, that there's no doubt of their guilt, only of how many victims he has, hell yes, chop chop the family jewels.

Tony Marino wrote:When there is definite proof I say chop them off!

Forgiveness_Man wrote:xD My thoughts exactly! Why limit to chemically? In the most extreme cases deserving of this, just go all slice, slice! xD

Sorry guys, your sentiments on this issue are not up for debate.

The U.S. Constitution specifially forbids "cruel & unusual punishment." And that was put in there in the 18th century precisely to prevent castration, cutting off ears, hands, fingers, noses and other disfiguring practices that were common with inquisitors and other hardliners of the immediate past.

Hence, "chemical castration" as an alternative that can suppress sexual urges in men, while not being permanent or disfiguring. And, I agree it should be used as a condition of eventual release of certain aggressive/violent sex-offenders.

Supernova wrote:On one hand I say why limit it to just chemically? Why not go all the way and make SURE they'll never be able to get aroused again? Then on the other hand, I do know that some people who are charged with these crimes are not always guilty, so it's a slippery slope...but I definitely think when you have a repeat offender, that there's no doubt of their guilt, only of how many victims he has, hell yes, chop chop the family jewels.

xD My thoughts exactly! Why limit to chemically? In the most extreme cases deserving of this, just go all slice, slice! xD

Exactly. The problem with chemical castration is they only need to miss ONE pill and then, oh well, they can't help themselves, right?

MandyPerfumeGirl wrote:I say no, absolutely not. That's very medieval and barbaric. First of all, a pedophile means they're sexually attracted to kids, but it doesn't mean they've harmed them physically at that point - if they reach that point, then they're called child molesters. Second of all, a rapist can still violate people without their penises - with blunt objects, with molestation, etc.

Agreed.
I would have a "cut their nuts off" attitude if someone I love were the victim of a sexual predator, but you can't go by that because it's revenge talking not rationale. Rationally if someone rapes or molests someone and is discovered, charge them with the crime and send them to prison. Give them the maximum sentence under the law and don't allow possibility of parole if this individuals crimes were that heinous, but I don't agree with things like castration or legal torture.

MandyPerfumeGirl wrote:I say no, absolutely not. That's very medieval and barbaric. First of all, a pedophile means they're sexually attracted to kids, but it doesn't mean they've harmed them physically at that point - if they reach that point, then they're called child molesters. Second of all, a rapist can still violate people without their penises - with blunt objects, with molestation, etc.

1. Well I don't say we round up anybody that is merely a pedo and do it. But if we wanna distinguish between regular ole pedos and pedos who've molested/raped children, okay. We only castrate the ones who've done it, the "child molestors" if you will.

2. That's true. Hence why we aren't releasing them back onto the streets just cause they don't got their weapon of choice any longer.

3. Barbaric? Kind of like raping a child maybe?