Poland approves chemical castration for paedophiles

WIZE

ABC NEWS
Posted Wed Jun 9, 2010 8:31am AEST
Some rapists and paedophiles in Poland could be forced to undergo chemical castration after a new law came into effect.
The procedure, to control the offender's sex drive, would apply in cases involving sex crimes against children or in cases of incest.
The law was passed last year with strong backing from prime minister Donald Tusk after the case of a man in his 40s who was convicted of repeatedly raping his daughter and fathering two children by her.
Anyone guilty of raping a child under the age of 15 can now be forced to submit to chemical and psychological therapy to reduce sex drive at the end of a prison term.
A court will decide on the appropriate therapy after consulting experts.
Chemical castration has been tried in France and Canada, but normally on a voluntary basis.
The use of compulsory chemical castration, which is reversible, remains a subject for debate in Europe.

Link http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/09/2922199.htm?section=justin

I think this should be rolled out to the rest of Europe only if they are 100% Clear Evidence that they are Guilty of rape

BBC NEWS Poland castration law takes effect
A Polish law that can force some rapists and paedophiles to undergo chemical castration has come into effect.

The legislation, passed by Polish MPs last September, applies to men who rape children or immediate family members.

The procedure has been tried elsewhere, but usually on a voluntary basis.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk proposed the measures after a series of high-profile paedophilia cases last year.

Under the law, prisoners would be forced on their release to take drugs to reduce their sex drive, but courts are required to consider the opinions of psychiatrists before ordering it.

According to Polish politicians, the country now has the toughest legislation towards paedophiles in Europe.

Link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/10269055.stm

funk-you

What a load of bollocks.

-Funk

Danbo!

But what about rehabilitation? This is an absolute joke, these people should be given a chance.

Just kidding, great news.

ronnie3585

Yeah, 90% rapes are the worst. So unfulfilling.

SV

Just chop off their penis, it's probably cheaper.

Hopefully that wouldn't be reversible either!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

WIZE wrote: »

Link http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/09/2922199.htm?section=justin

I think this should be rolled out to the rest of Europe only if they are 100% proven Guilty of rape

Before we decide, shouldn't we find out if it actually works?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

funk-you wrote: »

What a load of bollocks.

-Funk

SV wrote: »

Just chop off their penis, it's probably cheaper.

Hopefully that wouldn't be reversible either!

So a load od no bollocks, really....

(SV - castration is the removal of the testicals, not the penis. You don't need a penis to rape)

Sea Sharp

Not a perfect solution but significant progress all the same.

pickarooney

If there were such thing as a 10% foolproof guilty verdict maybe.
Does castration actually prevent a rapist repeat offending though, or is it just some sort of appeasement gesture?

IvyTheTerrible

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Before we decide, shouldn't we find out if it actually works?

I don't know if it stops psychos being psychos. There was a French guy (who spent time in Ireland and harrassed several women) who was chemically castrated for other offences in France. he ended up disemboweling a woman and her two children over here.

Wreck

We should probably do this before these sickos get a chance to commit a crime, preferably shortly after birth. That'll sort this menace once and for all.

The_Kew_Tour

Fair play to them. Make these sick people think twice.

SV

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

(SV - castration is the removal of the testicals, not the penis. You don't need a penis to rape)

I know, but I still want the penis removed, it's a suitable punishment.
You don't need testicles to rape either!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

funk-you wrote: »

What a load of bollocks.

-Funk

Pun? Or do you really feel that way?

I think it's a good thing... if it reduces crime then fcuk their rights to be honest...

pickarooney

adrian280582 wrote: »

Fair play to them. Make these sick people think twice.

By inducing short-term memory loss? Good idea: chemical deja vu.

SV

Katherine Cold Seabed wrote: »

if it reduces crime then fcuk their rights to be honest...

hmm, that's a good point
let's lock every black person in the US inside their house and refuse to let them leave.

statistically this would reduce crime drastically so..y'know..fúck their rights.

seamus

pickarooney wrote: »

Does castration actually prevent a rapist repeat offending though, or is it just some sort of appeasement gesture?

No, however it does reduce sexual desire to very low levels. Even removing the penis doesn't prevent a rapist from using other objects (as they very often do).

It's an appeasement measure for the public. Particularly for violent rapists, it fails to address the underlying psychological issues which cause them to attack people in the first place and won't prevent them from carrying out further attacks in future.

I remember watching a program about an institute in the US where repeat offenders could voluntarily go into this chemical castration/suppression programme and although some of them claimed to be "cured" by it, many of them said that although they had decreased sexual desire, they believed that they would have difficulty restraining themselves if they were released.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SV wrote: »

I know, but I still want the penis removed, it's a suitable punishment.
You don't need testicles to rape either!

You can want all you like, it's never going to haeppen because it's just one sicko punishing another.

The idea behind the castration is that it reduces the sex drive and therefore reduces the likelyhood of further crime. Whether it works or not, I don't know. I doubt it, because it fails to get to the root of the problem.

Vengence-based mutilations, I'm pretty sure, don't.

Poly

Bullet in the head has also proved successful.

smokingman

Thank you Poland!
Showing the way for the rest of us bleedin hippies....I honestly hope this catches on in the rest of the world.

Banned Account

Here comes the lynch mob.

If you are willing to carry it out and face the consequences when an innocent man is chemically castrated then away you go - I'll move to a civilised country instead.

ejmaztec

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Here comes the lynch mob.

If you are willing to carry it out and face the consequences when an innocent man is chemically castrated then away you go - I'll move to a civilised country instead.

I don't think space travel has advanced enough to get that far yet.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

SV wrote: »

I know, but I still want the penis removed, it's a suitable punishment.
You don't need testicles to rape either!

Removes the "drive" to rape, removes the sexual desire etc etc.

seamus

Katherine Cold Seabed wrote: »

Removes the "drive" to rape, removes the sexual desire etc etc.

Links, citations, etc?

The "drive" to rape is not usually motivated solely by sexual desire.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

SV wrote: »

hmm, that's a good point
let's lock every black person in the US inside their house and refuse to let them leave.

statistically this would reduce crime drastically so..y'know..fúck their rights.

That's the stupidest fcuking thing I have heard in recent times, it is racist and implies I suggested racial profiling. How the fcuk do you think this is logical?

Fcuk their rights because they are black? Fcuk their rights because they are a rapist? Notice the difference? Fcuking rediculous post.

SV

Katherine Cold Seabed wrote: »

That's the stupidest fcuking thing I have heard in recent times, it is racist and implies I suggested racial profiling. How the fcuk do you think this is logical?

Fcuk their rights because they are black? Fcuk their rights because they are a rapist? Notice the difference? Fcuking rediculous post.

fúck their rights because stastically black people commit most crimes in the US.
and stastically this would reduce crime.


Isn't that what you said? If it reduces crime then fúck their rights?
Might wanna reword it then boy.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

seamus wrote: »

Links, citations, etc?

The "drive" to rape is not usually motivated solely by sexual desire.

Sure isn't, not all car crashes are caused by speed, but if we punish people for speeding it will reduce car crashes... understand?

Citations? Get them yourself, it's common knowledge really, you can try claim otherwise, but it would be pointless. Testosterone is a sex hormone, it's comes primarily from the testes, 2+2?

--Kaiser--

Are they taking the mick?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SV wrote: »

fúck their rights because stastically black people commit most crimes in the US.
and stastically this would reduce crime.


Isn't that what you said? If it reduces crime then fúck their rights?
Might wanna reword it then boy.

No, he said **** the rights of criminals. You were the one who implied that blacks were criminals, so we should **** their rigths as well.

ScumLord

Don't really see how it would help, as like Seamus says rape isn't always about the sex.

The thought of any kind of castration sends shivers down the spine of any man, I don't really know how likely it is to deter someone who's physiologically damaged enough to rape someone.

SV

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, he said **** the rights of criminals. You were the one who implied that blacks were criminals, so we should **** their rigths as well.

No, I'm simply going by on exactly what was said.
there's a remote chance it was worded fúcking stupidly..though only a remote chance!


like was said, if it reduces crime then fúck their rights.

bluto63

Voluntary basis agree with 100%. I don't agree with forced chemical sterilisation.

RobbieTheRobber

The risk with anything like this or the death penalty is what happens when an innocent person is convicted.

What happens when a vindictive person makes false claims and the truth does not come out until later, is it right to punish innocent people because of fear.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SV wrote: »

No, I'm simply going by on exactly what was said.
there's a remote chance it was worded fúcking stupidly..though only a remote chance!


like was said, if it reduces crime then fúck their rights.

I read it ok.

Anyway, I'm still wiaiting for how your theory of penis removal reduces crime.

Stab*City

Katherine Cold Seabed wrote: »

Pun? Or do you really feel that way?

I think it's a good thing... if it reduces crime then fcuk their rights to be honest...

I can stomach everything else in this sick world but not paedophiles.. If you rape a little boy or girl in my opinion you should lose every human right in an instant.. i say not only cut their dickz off but there arms and legs too..

ScumLord

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The risk with anything like this or the death penalty is what happens when an innocent person is convicted.

What happens when a vindictive person makes false claims and the truth does not come out until later, is it right to punish innocent people because of fear.

The operations reversible according to this source.

RobbieTheRobber

Stab*City wrote: »

I can stomach everything else in this sick world but not paedophiles.. If you rape a little boy or girl in my opinion you should lose every human right in an instant.. i say not only cut their dickz off but there arms and legs too..

Indeed because the justice system never fails!

SV

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I read it ok.

Anyway, I'm still wiaiting for how your theory of penis removal reduces crime.

Oh it doesn't, but removing the penis is a suitable punishment.
I'm a believer in punishment for crimes, not rehabilitation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SV wrote: »

Oh it doesn't, but removing the penis is a suitable punishment.
I'm a believer in punishment for crimes, not rehabilitation.

In other words you're quiet happy to let the crime levels to stay up and reoffending levels to soar. Lovely. Thank God you're not minister for Justice.

SV

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

In other words you're quiet happy to let the crime levels to stay up and reoffending levels to soar. Lovely. Thank God you're not minister for Justice.

Nah, because they'd eventually be killed for reoffending.

seamus

Katherine Cold Seabed wrote: »

Sure isn't, not all car crashes are caused by speed, but if we punish people for speeding it will reduce car crashes... understand?

Apples and oranges.

Citations? Get them yourself, it's common knowledge really, you can try claim otherwise, but it would be pointless. Testosterone is a sex hormone, it's comes primarily from the testes, 2+2?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape

Rape is usually driven by anger and a need to assert one's power over another. Sexual gratification is normally only a side-effect, if it even occurs at all.

Therefore removing a rapist's sexual drive is unlikely to reduce his/her chances of re-offending.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SV wrote: »

Nah, because they'd eventually be killed for reoffending.

"Eventually"...?! Em.. yes. QED. Kind of mkaes my point for me. Long live crime.

celticbest

This should be introduced as a European law, it would probably be the first meaningful law in the history of Europe.......

SV

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

"Eventually"...?! Em.. yes. QED. Kind of mkaes my point for me. Long live crime.

Oh yes, after they've had their fun and destroyed society enough then they'll be killed.

jesus christ like, it's only fair.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

SV wrote: »

fúck their rights because stastically black people commit most crimes in the US.
and stastically this would reduce crime.


Isn't that what you said? If it reduces crime then fúck their rights?
Might wanna reword it then boy.

You might want to back off... boy... Try add logic to your arguments, and before you post them.

People don't commit crime because they are black, they just happen to be black. Sure yea, it would reduce crime if you were to discriminate against blacks, but that's not very legal, or moral is it? You are punishing somebody because of their skin colour not their crime.

Any reason why you don't want this? What is your point exactly?

ScumLord wrote: »

Don't really see how it would help, as like Seamus says rape isn't always about the sex.

The thought of any kind of castration sends shivers down the spine of any man, I don't really know how likely it is to deter someone who's physiologically damaged enough to rape someone.

Why ban drink driving? Why ban speeding? Why ban anything? As in most cases there's not one sole contributor to the statistics.

I don't think the polish government went out on whim and decided to do this with no proof or evidence. I am pretty sure they done their research.

SV

Katherine Cold Seabed wrote: »

You might want to back off... boy...

lol

Katherine Cold Seabed wrote: »

People don't commit crime because they are black, they just happen to be black. Sure yea, it would reduce crime if you were to discriminate against blacks, but that's not very legal, or moral is it?

no but if it would reduce crime then fúck their rights.

--Kaiser--

celticbest wrote: »

This should be introduced as a European law, it would probably be the first meaningful law in the history of Europe.......

LOL

Pittens

Rape is usually driven by anger and a need to assert one's power over another. Sexual gratification is normally only a side-effect, if it even occurs at all.

I wonder why they even rape then? Why not go into a house and boss people around a bit.

Pittens

Wreck wrote: »

We should probably do this before these sickos get a chance to commit a crime, preferably shortly after birth. That'll sort this menace once and for all.

Joking? right. Surely....

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The risk with anything like this or the death penalty is what happens when an innocent person is convicted.

What happens when a vindictive person makes false claims and the truth does not come out until later, is it right to punish innocent people because of fear.

In an ideal world, but we don't live in an ideal world. They say it will happen in cases where there is 100% certainty.

seamus wrote: »

Apples and oranges.

??? WTF is that supposed to mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape

Rape is usually driven by anger and a need to assert one's power over another. Sexual gratification is normally only a side-effect, if it even occurs at all.

Therefore removing a rapist's sexual drive is unlikely to reduce his/her chances of re-offending.

You make the assumption that all rapists are motivated by power and anger, which is not true. If this procedure reduces the rape rate in the country, then it's a good thing. Try tell a woman who has been raped that you disagree with the rapist being protected from chemical casturation and see how far you get

What's quite shocking is people protecting these rapists. Why? What exactly are people protecting these pieces of shít for?

dearg lady

Katherine Cold Seabed wrote: »

I don't think the polish government went out on whim and decided to do this with no proof or evidence. I am pretty sure they done their research.

It's probably best not to make assumptions like this, think back on some of the stupid knee jerk laws introduced in this country.

I truly wish governments did their research before introducing laws, but unfortunately it's not always the case.