Chemical Castration for sex offenders in Poland, introduce it here in Ireland?

gurramok

Should we do the same?

About time we should but what would the liberal PC brigade think!:rolleyes:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/chemical-castration-for-sex-offenders--in-poland-1482565.html

Indo wrote:

Chemical castration for sex offenders in Poland

Poland, enraged by a shocking case of incest, is set to become the first country in the European Union to give judges the right to impose chemical castration on convicted paedophiles.

Although the plan has drawn overwhelming public support -- 84pc of Poles approve, according to a survey conducted for 'Dziennik' newspaper -- it has also sparked criticism from liberal politicians and doctors who argue that forced castration violates fundamental human rights and debases the medical profession.

"I don't think you can call such individuals -- such creatures -- human beings," said Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, in an emotional outburst after the incest case came to light. "Therefore I don't think you can talk about human rights in such a case."

A 45-year-old man was arrested in Poland a fortnight ago after being accused of fathering two children by his young daughter; the Polish press compared it with the case of Josef Fritzl, the Austrian who kept his daughter prisoner for two decades, abusing her and creating a secret family.

Fury

The fury of the prime minister is now being translated into law. The Health and Justice ministries have been working on a draft that is likely to be presented to cabinet as early as next month. All the indications are that the law will be passed by parliament where there is a clear majority for punitive castration.

Britain is to offer testosterone-reducing medication to sexual offenders before they are freed from jail. Germany has a similar scheme and connects the medication to therapy: the offender has to volunteer for both courses of treatment.

"This isn't part of the punishment, but aims to reduce the likelihood that they will need to be punished again," said Professor Don Grubin, a Newcastle university criminal psychiatrist, involved in co-ordinating the British scheme.

But the government of Mr Tusk -- until now viewed as much more socially liberal than his predecessor, Jaroslaw Kaczynski -- is determined to make the administration of libido-lowering drugs compulsory if there is a risk of sexual offences being repeated.

Judges, after consulting doctors, will make it part of their sentencing.

"I want Poland to have the strictest possible legislation against criminals who rape children, it is as simple as that," said Mr Tusk.

ejmaztec

Why waste money on chemicals when a pair of garden-shears is perfectly adequate for the purpose?

chin_grin

"chemical castration"? Nope. This way would be far more fitting.

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVK3_qIJxw20

seamus

Hard cases make bad laws.

The very fact that Poland's PM publicly claims that the guy is subhuman, just shows how much of a moron he is.

Chemical castration doesn't deter paedophiles and there's no proof that it does.

Chemical castration of "sex offenders" is like prescribing amputation for everyone convicted of "stealing". It's far too vague and open to abuse & mistake.

kaimera

do we have that many polish sex offenders here ?

Silenceisbliss

No, it will violate their human rights!

they violated someone elses human rights....i say ejmaztek has the right idea...garden shears!

sorry snyper

Gummy Panda

chin_grin wrote: »

"chemical castration"? Nope. This way would be far more fitting.

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVK3_qIJxw20

Never looking at that link again.

chin_grin

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Never looking at that link again.

Ah yeah, sorry should have warned people about that!

Turd Ferguson

What will they do with all the "medical waste" they remove?

DIBBS

Karl Hungus

seamus wrote: »

Chemical castration of "sex offenders" is like prescribing amputation for everyone convicted of "stealing". It's far too vague and open to abuse & mistake.

I was just about to come in here and say "Lets cut off people's hands for stealing too!" but you beat me too it.

People are far too quick to support ideas like this, and as much as a crime like paedophilia is an emotive subject, we really need to take a step back from this.

chin_grin

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

What will they do with all the "medical waste" they remove?

DIBBS

Mmmyep, I'd swim in it just to see if I come out like this http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/125449054_ef4b95cbc8.jpg?v=0.

TripleAce

Great idea - scissors would do too though.

Silenceisbliss

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I was just about to come in here and say "Lets cut off people's hands for stealing too!" but you beat me too it.

People are far too quick to support ideas like this, and as much as a crime like paedophilia is an emotive subject, we really need to take a step back from this.

Karl.....

stop being so serious and sensible omg! it's AH

kaimera

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I was just about to come in here and say "Lets cut off people's hands for stealing too!" but you beat me too it.

People are far too quick to support ideas like this, and as much as a crime like paedophilia is an emotive subject, we really need to take a step back from this.

and do what Karl?

is there anything that has been proven to deter the sick ****s? I actually don't know, wondering if there is

Gummy Panda

How does it work?

do they give you a drug and thats it no more sex or is it a prescription you have to regularly take?

Also if it just stops errections, isn't most of child abuse cases not full sex but fondling and such?

Jumpy

Gummy Panda wrote: »

How does it work?

do they give you a drug and thats it no more sex or is it a prescription you have to regularly take?

Also if it just stops errections, isn't most of child abuse cases not full sex but fondling and such?

I think it will kill the sexual desire as well. Sort of like a testicle guillotine in chemical form I guess.

Karl Hungus

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

Karl.....

stop being so serious and sensible omg! it's AH

I'm not being serious or sensible, I just have a very refined and high brow sense of humour that has obviously gone over your head.

mareczku

Seamus I don't agree.

Fistly you are not cutting any bits off. The purpose of this is to lower the testoserome level (kinda clockwork orange if you know what I mean) simply put its a sexual urge produced by chemicals if you remove the chemicals we will reduce the urge.

The day a person violates a child is, in my opinion, the day they lose their rights if this prevents children from the same in the future this can only be good.

This is already in place and functioning in Germany and I think it is something that the EU should consider (especially Belgium)

Mark

seamus wrote: »

Hard cases make bad laws.

The very fact that Poland's PM publicly claims that the guy is subhuman, just shows how much of a moron he is.

Chemical castration doesn't deter paedophiles and there's no proof that it does.

Chemical castration of "sex offenders" is like prescribing amputation for everyone convicted of "stealing". It's far too vague and open to abuse & mistake.

Robbo

gurramok wrote: »

Should we do the same?

About time we should but what would the liberal PC brigade think!:rolleyes:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/chemical-castration-for-sex-offenders--in-poland-1482565.html

Good old AH, where you can resurrect the policies of the third Reich by pretending to stick it to the "liberal PC brigade".

Now that property's gone belly up, have you found some new windmills to tilt at?

seamus

Gummy Panda wrote: »

How does it work?

do they give you a drug and thats it no more sex or is it a prescription you have to regularly take?

It's a prescriptive drug. And it doesn't really work. Results have varied dramatically.

The primary problem is that it only works effectively for people who want it to. If someone doesn't see the wrong/harm in fondling young boys, then the drugs may reduce their sex drive, but it can't remove the desire.

Even a dog without balls will still hump your leg. Just not as frequently.

For people who want to not go near children, it's an aid - a reduction in sexual drive will make you less likely to want to engage in sexual activities. There have been a number of cases of "cured" people, who returned to the community, managed to function normally in and around other families and their children, stuck to their medication, yet still managed to get themselves into trouble.

The problem is as much about people's sexual attitude and maturity as it is about their sexual desires.

The day a person violates a child is, in my opinion, the day they lose their rights if this prevents children from the same in the future this can only be good.

As much as our outrage politics like us to think that all children are shining stars in the heavens, simple fact is that one person's rights to not outweigh another's. It's very natural to think that someone who hurts a child is more of a monster than someone who hurts an adult, but it's hypocritical to say that everyone is equal, except if they're children, at which point they're more important.

We're very deeply set in the dark ages of this whole problem. We haven't a clue how to deal with it, haven't a clue what's an appropriate response, yet we seem to think that it's OK to throw out everything which makes us a civilised society when we have to deal with it.

KnifeWRENCH

I'm in two minds about this one: a part of me thinks "Yeah, serves the bastards right". But then again, as seamus already said, "it's open to abuse and mistake."

So at the moment, I am firmly in the "Atari Jaguar" camp.

ejmaztec

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

What will they do with all the "medical waste" they remove?

DIBBS

Big Mac value meal.

gurramok

Robbo wrote: »

Good old AH, where you can resurrect the policies of the third Reich by pretending to stick it to the "liberal PC brigade".

Now that property's gone belly up, have you found some new windmills to tilt at?

It's working in Germany(not Third Reich ) already so why not try it here?

Plenty of windmills to tilt at, there's a storm coming

Acacia

Robbo wrote: »

Good old AH, where you can resurrect the policies of the third Reich by pretending to stick it to the "liberal PC brigade".

Now that property's gone belly up, have you found some new windmills to tilt at?

Agreed. If you don't agree with taking away human rights in the name of 'the greater good' than you're just a tree-hugging, PC, Liberal.

The whole castration thing seems a bit extreme for me. Never mind the third reich , it's positively medieval.

Dudess

Acacia wrote: »

Agreed. If you don't agree with taking away human rights in the name of 'the greater good' than you're just a tree-hugging, PC, Liberal.

Don't forget pinko looney leftie bleeding heart do gooder commie nazi.

seamus wrote: »

the drugs may reduce their sex drive, but it can't remove the desire.

Inextricably linked though, nay?

I actually don't see a huge problem with it.

Robbo

gurramok wrote: »

It's working in Germany(not Third Reich ) already so why not try it here?

Plenty of windmills to tilt at, there's a storm coming

Do we have a worse rate of sexual offences than Germany? Personally, if we were to co-opt any of their laws, I'd be looking for an increase in motorway speed limits, but that's just my preference and it's not as emotive as yours.

Perhaps we could start at actually making sex offenders complete mandatory treatment programmes and then work up towards your rabble friendly "hang-em, flog-em" policy?

Dyr

The problem with all permanant punishments is what happens if you get some poor sod whos wrongly convicted?

Other than that im all for it, and if turns out the problems in their head rather than their sack, we remove that out too :pac:

seamus

Dudess wrote: »

Inextricably linked though, nay?

Not necessarily. For many people, rapists in particular, the crime has less to do with actual sexual desire and more to do other chemical kicks they get from the crime.

Physically castrated rapists have reoffended. Again and again.

It's a symptom of our culture that we want to believe that there is one cause to these crimes and therefore a simple fix. Most crimes committed directly against another human being (as opposed to say, shoplifting) are complex and are the product of a large number of factors. Removing one of these factors will often not prevent the crime (or a similar one) from reoccuring.

Darragh29

ejmaztec wrote: »

Why waste money on chemicals when a pair of garden-shears is perfectly adequate for the purpose?

+1, mechanical castration is the way to go...

Loose Lips

seamus wrote: »

It's a prescriptive drug. And it doesn't really work. Results have varied dramatically.

The primary problem is that it only works effectively for people who want it to. If someone doesn't see the wrong/harm in fondling young boys, then the drugs may reduce their sex drive, but it can't remove the desire.

Even a dog without balls will still hump your leg. Just not as frequently.

For people who want to not go near children, it's an aid - a reduction in sexual drive will make you less likely to want to engage in sexual activities. There have been a number of cases of "cured" people, who returned to the community, managed to function normally in and around other families and their children, stuck to their medication, yet still managed to get themselves into trouble.

The problem is as much about people's sexual attitude and maturity as it is about their sexual desires.

As much as our outrage politics like us to think that all children are shining stars in the heavens, simple fact is that one person's rights to not outweigh another's. It's very natural to think that someone who hurts a child is more of a monster than someone who hurts an adult, but it's hypocritical to say that everyone is equal, except if they're children, at which point they're more important.

We're very deeply set in the dark ages of this whole problem. We haven't a clue how to deal with it, haven't a clue what's an appropriate response, yet we seem to think that it's OK to throw out everything which makes us a civilised society when we have to deal with it.

Seamus: This is indeed a thorny issue and a solution to it is not immediately obvious. The sad fact is that there are always going to be a small number of people in the world who are, for want of a better word, monsters. We need to ensure that these 'monsters' are prevented from doing harm, but we also seem to want to avoid doing anything as bad as the 'monsters' themselves.

A certain amount of vanity appears to be at work in us here. Just like you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, you can't take out the trash without getting your hands dirty.

God bless

Silenceisbliss

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I'm not being serious or sensible, I just have a very refined and high brow sense of humour that has obviously gone over your head.

the one of the lamest and most egoistical things ive heard all day....hmmm:rolleyes:

CiaranC

Bleeuurgh, AH makes me want to puke. Half you scumbags would have us living under some Saudi-esque terror state.

Zillah

Its not permanent. The most common form is Depo-Provera, the subjects injest large quantities on a weekly/daily basis. As said, its not a magic cure for unwanted sexual urges. It can suppress desire, but offenders can offend if they want to, and many report that it has little effect.

Dudess

CiaranC wrote: »

Bleeuurgh, AH makes me want to puke. Half you scumbags would have us living under some Saudi-esque terror state.

They wouldn't really... it's mostly just talk.

seamus

Loose Lips wrote: »

Seamus: This is indeed a thorny issue and a solution to it is not immediately obvious. The sad fact is that there are always going to be a small number of people in the world who are, for want of a better word, monsters. We need to ensure that these 'monsters' are prevented from doing harm, but we also seem to want to avoid doing anything as bad as the 'monsters' themselves.

The use of the word "monsters" indicates an unwillingness to believe that these are human beings, just because of their actions.

A dog attacking and killing another dog, is still called a "dog", so why should it be any different for human beings? The idea that someone can be a "monster" or "evil" is a social justification for not applying normal rules to them, to allow people sleep more soundly in their beds. People aren't born "evil". There's no such thing as a person who is born inherently and unreversibly "evil".

There were times gone by where left-handedness was "evil" or heresy was "evil", and society justified ridiculing, outcasting and torturing these people on the basis that they were somehow subhuman. The fact is that they simply didn't understand the concept, therefore by branding the people as non-human, they were swiftly dealt with.
So too is the problem of paedophilia. We need to study it, intensively and coldly, without any passion or prejudice, with a view to deciding what needs to be done with it. It's not going away, and all the castration in the world won't do a damn thing.

MizzLolly

I'm not sure if 'chemical' intervention is the solution, that kind of suggests that the reason a man rapes/abuses a person is due to factors outside of his own free will/choice. It subtly suggests that it was not the actual person who committed the crime but rather his urges, caused by 'chemical' forces within his body.


Maybe they should take a look at the psychological factors that play in this.
If the problem isn't caused chemically, why try fix it that way?

pickarooney

Only if they spey wimminz who lie about it.

Loose Lips

seamus wrote: »

The use of the word "monsters" indicates an unwillingness to believe that these are human beings, just because of their actions.

A dog attacking and killing another dog, is still called a "dog", so why should it be any different for human beings? The idea that someone can be a "monster" or "evil" is a social justification for not applying normal rules to them, to allow people sleep more soundly in their beds. People aren't born "evil". There's no such thing as a person who is born inherently and unreversibly "evil".

There were times gone by where left-handedness was "evil" or heresy was "evil", and society justified ridiculing, outcasting and torturing these people on the basis that they were somehow subhuman. The fact is that they simply didn't understand the concept, therefore by branding the people as non-human, they were swiftly dealt with.
So too is the problem of paedophilia. We need to study it, intensively and coldly, without any passion or prejudice, with a view to deciding what needs to be done with it. It's not going away, and all the castration in the world won't do a damn thing.

Seumas: I didn't mean they were monsters in the same sense as the Kraken, or Godzilla. They are humans, but their desires and actions are so transgressive as to earn them a separate category to normal offenders, whose motivations and actions we can understand.

Like you rightly say, people have always feared that which they do not understand and can't explain, hence the use of emotive labels, such as monster.

As our present state of understanding is so limited, the focus of our actions has to be to prevent these people from causing any harm. You are right in saying we should try to understand what causes them, and attack the problem where it originates.

But we shouldn't ignore the possibility that they are simply 'wrong' people, who are made of 'the wrong stuff.' Stuff that should be removed from the gene pool.

pablomakaveli

I say convicted paedophiles should be tied to a stake on a busy street and passers-by invited to give them a few swift kicks to the offenders balls. eventually after all that punishment their balls would probably just turn green and fall off.:)

In all seriousness though, there is no guarentee they wont offend again. some paedophiles abuse children just because it gives them a sense of power and castration wont change that.

taibhse

seamus wrote: »

The use of the word "monsters" indicates an unwillingness to believe that these are human beings, just because of their actions.

A dog attacking and killing another dog, is still called a "dog", so why should it be any different for human beings? The idea that someone can be a "monster" or "evil" is a social justification for not applying normal rules to them, to allow people sleep more soundly in their beds. People aren't born "evil". There's no such thing as a person who is born inherently and unreversibly "evil".

There were times gone by where left-handedness was "evil" or heresy was "evil", and society justified ridiculing, outcasting and torturing these people on the basis that they were somehow subhuman. The fact is that they simply didn't understand the concept, therefore by branding the people as non-human, they were swiftly dealt with.
So too is the problem of paedophilia. We need to study it, intensively and coldly, without any passion or prejudice, with a view to deciding what needs to be done with it. It's not going away, and all the castration in the world won't do a damn thing.

I don't think you can somehow compare lefthandedness to paedophilia???
This is a serious crime and leaves its victims scarred I'm sure for the rest of their lives. If it was your child or sister or family member, would you be so understanding, I don't think so.

People are forgetting the focus should be on the victim. The people who commit these crimes are sick and I think they should lose the rights that most of us enjoy. Just because they are people?????? so what.

Zillah

MizzLolly wrote: »

I'm not sure if 'chemical' intervention is the solution, that kind of suggests that the reason a man rapes/abuses a person is due to factors outside of his own free will/choice.

It is so cute that you think free will/choice are anything other than chemicals.

seamus

taibhse wrote: »

I don't think you can somehow compare lefthandedness to paedophilia???

I didn't. Read the post again.

ShellBell1

gurramok wrote: »

Should we do the same?

Yes.

taibhse

I did, and I read it as a comparison between the two. i.e society doesn't understand it so its classed as evil based on that lack of understanding

Piste

What does chemical castration actually do? Just inhibit testosterone? If they had some sort of chemical precodure whereby the man couldn't get an erection then it would be much safer as rapists etc. couldn't physically commit their crime.


We'd still have the paedophiles though.

SheroN

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.

seamus

taibhse wrote: »

I did, and I read it as a comparison between the two. i.e society doesn't understand it so its classed as evil based on that lack of understanding

Not really. My point was that society classes anything that it doesn't know how to deal with as "evil" so that it can comfortably exact punishment without actually doing anything about it. Left-handedness was probably a bad example, I was using it more to highlight how easy it is to class anyone as "subhuman" to justify doing whatever you want to them.

At best we can call paedophilia now a mental illness. That still leaves us with big holes and questions though - can we prevent it from occurring in the first place, and what can we do to "treat" it? Castration has been shown to not work.

taibhse

Not really. My point was that society classes anything that it doesn't know how to deal with as "evil" so that it can comfortably exact punishment without actually doing anything about it. Left-handedness was probably a bad example, I was using it more to highlight how easy it is to class anyone as "subhuman" to justify doing whatever you want to them.

OK see your point now, yes people point out things as "the other" to justify a lot of things

I believe people are born straight or gay or bi whatever, so are people born paedophiles?

If so any route of treatment would have a low success rate since it would be a "natural urge" for them

seamus

taibhse wrote: »

I believe people are born straight or gay or bi whatever, so are people born paedophiles?

Well we don't know. There's evidence to support the theory that people who were abused as children are more likely to abuse children themselves. Which would seem to indicate that it's something which is acquired.

It's also worth separating paedophilia (which involves children) from an attraction to teenagers and young adults (the word escapes me now). The two types of attractions rarely overlap, and the latter is often accepted to be a normal sexual attraction, just with a preference for younger members of the sex, distinct from paedophilia which often doesn't distinguish based on sex and is an attraction to young children.

Loose Lips

taibhse wrote: »

I believe people are born straight or gay or bi whatever, so are people born paedophiles?

If so any route of treatment would have a low success rate since it would be a "natural urge" for them

taibhse: Your belief about gays is not proven. Nor is the leap that pedophiles are the same as gays. Therefore, the conclusion that treating pedophiles would not work is faulty.

taibhse

Loose Lips wrote: »

taibhse: Your belief about gays is not proven. Nor is the leap that pedophiles are the same as gays. Therefore, the conclusion that treating pedophiles would not work is faulty.

There is science to believe that people are born with a sexual orientation. Brain scans have been done on straight and gay people and there was some evidence to show that e.g some gay women had a brain similar to a males and vice versa.

I never said it was proven.

I would never say that gays are the same thing as paedophiles that's one large presumption from my post. Its perfectly natural IMO to be gay/ straight whatever. Paedophiles on the other hand are sick IMO