I've been thinking about this overnight (um....about a solution to the problem, you deviants) and I've even come up with a possible work around to the "innocent man" argument. During the process of castration, a sample of sperm is taken. The innocent man gets a monetary compensation, and the option of free IVF if he wants a family. The sperm samples of guilty men are used for study.
Ok, it'd be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad to be wrongly accused, and even worse to be found guilty, but according to survive.org.uk "Only 16% of all rapes are ever reported to the police."
also:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The numbers of rapes that were reported to the police trebled between 1985 and 1993, but the number of men who were convicted of rape has remained virtually the same. According to Home Office statistics, out of the 4600 rapes reported in 1993 less than 10% resulted in a conviction. That was a drop of 24% on the figures for 1985. In 1993 only 89 convictions for rape out of a study of 335 cases of alleged rape rape were achieved. 165 complainants dropped out before the start of court proceedings for a number of different reasons. The main ones were because the woman withdrew her allegations, refused to testify, the suspect was never identified and charged, or the police decided to drop the case because they felt the allegations were false. Of the 170 cases that eventually did end up in court 34 defendants were acquitted or had the case against them dismissed, and a further 47 were convicted of lesser offences. A Thames Valley Police survey showed that although 90% of women who had never experienced a sexual attack, when surveyed believed they would report the crime, in reality only about 6% of women who had actually been raped made formal allegations A staggering 83% of rape victims knew their attackers, and almost half of all rapes happened in the victim's home. The vast majority of alleged victims are under 30 with a fairly high proportion of those aged under 16. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so those are statistics for rape, not child abuse (or as the US used to call is "statutory rape of a minor") but I'd imagine those are even worse. Not only are the chances of someone falsely reporting small, but the chances of a false conviction are tiny.
Surivive has actually got some good hard info for rape and child abuse. Its not pretty reading.
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Jan 13 2004, 08:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Jan 13 2004, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've been thinking about this overnight (um....about a solution to the problem, you deviants) and I've even come up with a possible work around to the "innocent man" argument. During the process of castration, a sample of sperm is taken. The innocent man gets a monetary compensation, and the option of free IVF if he wants a family. The sperm samples of guilty men are used for study.
Ok, it'd be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad to be wrongly accused, and even worse to be found guilty, but according to survive.org.uk "Only 16% of all rapes are ever reported to the police." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a man who watches castrations performed in a factory like procession, I dont think $10,000 and a small bottle of my own sperm is quite going to make up for the fact that my testicles/manhood are now residing in a jar. Even with chemical castration, unless its semi-permanent, it might as well be physical.
So you'd be happier for a serial rapist or child abuser to reoffend than run a minisule chance of castration?
What about a life sentence instead?
What about castration in the case of semen DNA evidence?
I have to say the more I think about this, the more I'm believing its the right way to go. Take an extremely minor risk, and reduce the chance of women experiencing horrific crime? I'd take the risk.
Hmm, one point i've not seen raised, although correct me if it has, is the dividing line of paedophiles.
Right now, it seems although everyone is discussing paedophiles who have actually taken part in the physical act of child molestation. I can see how castration would be a fitting punishment, remove the tool.... as it were. But a portion of convicted paedophiles have never touched a child, they may deal in the trade of child pornography and such.
I am, however, behind those who support castration in the cases of sexual offences, i feel that anyone who would do such things deserves to be punished, and punished severely, but there is too much on the line if it was a false accusation. If someone has allegedly been raped, it's hard to turn to them and tell them they're lying, and with a good deal of cases there can be a large amount of doubt as to whether the accused actually did it.
<b>[tbZ]BeAst</b> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've been thinking about this overnight (um....about a solution to the problem, you deviants) and I've even come up with a possible work around to the "innocent man" argument. During the process of castration, a sample of sperm is taken. The innocent man gets a monetary compensation, and the option of free IVF if he wants a family. The sperm samples of guilty men are used for study.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im sorry but there is no amount of monatary compensation that can make up for the loss of one's manhood. To think so is insane.
As for the punishment, I would only support it in the same way I would support the death penalty. If they have absolutley undisputable evidence (a video of the offender caught in the act or something), then I would not care. If, however, there is a chance of innocence than the punishment should not be considered.
<b>Epidemic</b>
The reason you do not here of woman pedophiles is because there is a double standard, and they are not reported as much. This, however, is for a different thread.
Did everyone ignore the talk about chemical otherwise somewhat reversable sterilization or earlier in the thread?
Look, there are two modern, non-choppy-choppy ways to do things. You either keep the subject on a drug that interferes with his ability to reproduce (can be anything from anti-viagra to just removing your ability to produce live sperm), or you perform a vasectomy. People have vasectomies <i>willingly</i>, it's just a little incision and tube-tying, and the guy gets to go home the same day (as long as somebody else can do the driving). Reversal is usually successful, you just go in with another incision and repair the damage (which should be minimal unless you get Dr. Nick to operate).
On females: There is an equivalent of the vasectomy that has been around much longer (but is more invasive, so not really an option), and there are <i>tons</i> of chemical methods of birth control that have been around for many years, and at least some of them inhibit the sex drive. But here's the thing: even if you had a female sex offender, preventing her from getting pregnant would be a rather moot point. It's not like the victim is now pregnant. The only issue you might actually want to persue is libido inhibitation, and that really isn't the important issue here. People do awful things to children not because they just want some lovin', but because they're something in their head that gives them that desire. Removal of hormones would not solve the problem, and I would not even venture to say that it would be worth the trouble of the drugs.
Now can we please keep our minds out of the gutters?
<!--QuoteBegin--Handman+Jan 13 2004, 12:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Jan 13 2004, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Im sorry but there is no amount of monatary compensation that can make up for the loss of one's manhood. To think so is insane. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am assuming from seeing the words 'permanent' and 'loss' scattered liberally around this thread that people have again violated <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638' target='_blank'>FAQ Rule #6</a>. I've been on quite a rant about this lately, so it is in you folk's best interest to start following the rules or face the consequences.
<!--QuoteBegin--esuna+Jan 13 2004, 09:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (esuna @ Jan 13 2004, 09:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm, one point i've not seen raised, although correct me if it has, is the dividing line of paedophiles.
Right now, it seems although everyone is discussing paedophiles who have actually taken part in the physical act of child molestation. I can see how castration would be a fitting punishment, remove the tool.... as it were. But a portion of convicted paedophiles have never touched a child, they may deal in the trade of child pornography and such.
I am, however, behind those who support castration in the cases of sexual offences, i feel that anyone who would do such things deserves to be punished, and punished severely, but there is too much on the line if it was a false accusation. If someone has allegedly been raped, it's hard to turn to them and tell them they're lying, and with a good deal of cases there can be a large amount of doubt as to whether the accused actually did it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First, thanks for thinking about what was written - Its a dark issue, which has no quick fixes. I came into it undecided, but am now leaning towards castration for the greater good.
I'm reading what you've written as "I'd be in favour of it if the accused was certainly guilty". What level of certainty would you need? Aside from being a witness, how else could guilt be established to your satisfaction?
The traffic in child porn? Hmm... lesser offence certainly, the individual not having <i>personally</i> abused the child, but a disturbing crime nontheless. I'd say the current system is fine as a template: jail sentence (reduced for giving up other traffickers, or perpetrators) put on the sex offenders register (with all that entails).
I'm still not 100% behind the castration idea, but I have to say I haven't seen any real arguments against that weren't (if you pardon the slightly emotive definition) selfish.
As shown above, even with the current rates of detection, theres a small chance of being convicted for rape/ child abuse, and (without knowing how many convicted child abusers/rapists were ACTUALLY guilty) I'd estimate an miniscule number convicted wrongly. As a counter point, I believe that Survive had it that a woman is raped every 78 seconds in the US. Even if half of those rapes weren't from serial rapists, you could stop the half that were from ever offending again.....
First, I can verify Mons' source about the castrations. It is also true that castrations can be performed in Germany. They are however not imposed by a court, but a voluntary step a pedophile may take if he feels this might help him overcome his perversion. Seeing that most pedophiles are put into preventive detention (thanks to the irreviersible nature of their tendency) after their 15 years (which is the maximum sentence that can be spelt out in Germany), many see this as one of a very small selection of chances of becoming free again.
The process is however not without controversy amongst experts: As the (almost) zero chance of a cure of the tendency of pedophily indicates, we are discussing a severe, <i>severe</i> mental disorder here. (One of the most usual initial causes of it is by the way an experience of being molested in ones childhood.) The problem this poses for the idea of a 'crime prevention' via castration is that the center of the impulse that leads to the horrible crime is in fact not located in the offenders gentalia, but his brain. In other words, even if he can never get an erection again, he might still lust after sexual intercourse with children. As a results of this urge, other crimes almost as severe as a full fledged rape might occur.
This, in turn, means that a castration is in fact little more than a superficial insurance for both the offender (many pedophiles live in bitter disgust of their own sexual preference) and the public.
Let me by the way add that there <i>are</i> possible treatments for sexual offenders, although pedophiles are surely the hardest cases in the this field of hard cases - there is for example a chance at helping a sexual offender in shifting his urges to socially more acceptable preferences.
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Jan 13 2004, 05:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Jan 13 2004, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm reading what you've written as "I'd be in favour of it if the accused was certainly guilty". What level of certainty would you need? Aside from being a witness, how else could guilt be established to your satisfaction? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> When it comes down to it, to give such a severe punishment, the evidence would have to be flawless. That's my main worry about the idea, when it comes down to it, it can just be one person's word against another, and as has been already mentioned in this thread, one party could be lying....
Nemesis expressed my concern: that it is fundamentally a software error in the human brain that twists our natural breeding instincts into coveting small children sexually. I am however curious to why the disorder cannot be cured. I think it is because the methods attempted are not working, as well as the fact that the very act of child molesting is a crime so taboo that you're effectively destroyed as a person and beyond redemption, and you know it! Despair makes people do silly things, such as keep raping children or taking drugs.
The low chance of a cure has very much to do with the fact that the initial cause (as much as there can be spoken of a singular cause) is usually so far in the pedophiles past - as I said, it lies often in an abused childhood. As a rule of thumb, <i>any</i> sickness will be more difficult to treat the longer it takes until the treatment begins - just imagine walking around with a broken arm for twenty years. Would you be surprised to find it irreversibly damaged?.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem this poses for the idea of a 'crime prevention' via castration is that the center of the impulse that leads to the horrible crime is in fact not located in the offenders gentalia, but his brain. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that chemicals needed to actually have a sex drive, yes, are in fact produced by the ****. The feedback mechanisms in place ensure that sperm production occurs and that everything is running normal, this is what largely creates a sex drive. Castration in fact interrupts this pathway very efficiently, because the tissues involved are now removed. So the brain lacks feedback and the system falls apart. This can in fact prevent that impulse to a very large degree, because hormonally, they aren't THERE to produce it. For example, as such men will lack gonadotrophic hormones, they will be unable to produce other chemicals hormones and hence greatly reduce sex drive. This is actually pretty much fact that castration reduces sex drive, the argument revolves around how much.
It is easy to think that the brain does everything, but this is very untrue. There is a literal battery of hormones that control just ONE function usually. Sex is no different.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This, in turn, means that a castration is in fact little more than a superficial insurance for both the offender <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, no...not really that cut and dry, quickly searching pubmed right now has found articles saying completely otherwise. As annoying as always, I can only give you the abstract as that is all that is online from the paper. It does have the journal it is in though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Data are reported on the sexual behavior of 39 released sex offenders who agreed voluntarily to surgical castration while imprisoned in West Germany. <b>Findings indicated that frequency of coitus, masturbation, and sexual thoughts are seen as strongly reduced</b> after castration.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arch Sex Behav. 1981 Feb;10(1):11-9.
Bit dubious on the date though, but pubed doesn't really focus on psychology much sadly.
However, it is worth noting that
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In general, the findings do not justify recommending surgical castration as a reliable treatment for incarcerated sex offenders.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Partly because they didn't seem to think it was overly efficient for rapists, or on younger males. However, it is interesting to contrast this paper to the more modern ones below, I decided to lead with this one first as it seemed easier to read.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although, there is <b>some indication</b> that recidivism will decrease following chemical castration, its use is limited by a high refusal and drop-out rate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, more papers seem to think this than do not. Then again, more papers thought bacteria couldn't live in the stomach than couldn't. The remainder is waffling on about if hormonally treating pedophiles (IE chemical castration) is better.
Interesting paper though (I can read the full text, but don't quote from it as nobody else can see it, what's the point, could make up anything I wanted :/)
Verh K Acad Geneeskd Belg. 1997;59(5):371-8. Dutch.
Next paper:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 5 cases, the treatment ended their deviant sexual behavior and markedly decreased their sexual fantasies and activities without further significant side effects than those related to hypoandrogenism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This paper is extremely complex, but what it is saying is exactly what I berated you for above: That they are using another hormone to interrupt the normal function of that pathway (IE a chemical castration method), and are in fact succeeding.
It is just too easy IMO for people to say "oh it's their brains" when hormones are just as, if not more, powerful than any electrical impulse.
Interestingly
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->GnRHa treatment, which leads to reversible castration, may constitute a promising treatment of paraphilic behavior and may favor the possibility of concurrent psychotherapy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is more than this as well, but it gets so horribly out of date it probably has been made irrelevant by some psychological analysis recently done. Then again, most of that is probably irrelevant.
I've made my point, and backed it up scientifically anyway <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Again
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nemesis expressed my concern: that it is fundamentally a software error in the human brain that twists our natural breeding instincts into coveting small children sexually.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, it's HORMONES, which are indeed directed by the brain in some cases, or are they? It is now known that some chronically obsese people are in fact that way, not because of any 'brain error' but instead because they have a problem in their biochemical pathways producing the hormone leptin. Yet, you would argue that this is just another fault in their brains :/ Incidently, leptin isn't even produced by the brain, fat cells do it. Leptin ACTS on the brain however, and the malfunction (a deficiency I believe) causes someone to basically not stop eating (or stop accumulating fat).
Both you and Nemesis are GROSSLY over-simplifying an incredibly complex process and missing the point in the process. Sex drive is both a brain AND genital thing, because it is in fact your genitals that actually GIVE you a sex drive to begin with. Again, the brain works by responding to things like hormones that make you do various things (I can go into depth in the immune system if you want proof), without those hormones around stimuli and responces are greatly reduced. The literature (see above) GREATLY agrees that neutering pedophiles does exactly that, reduce their sex drive.
1) There are methods of castration that are reversible, ending the innocent man argument. 2) Both chemical and surgical castration are likely to lead to a reduction in recidivism, the perp now not being hormonally compelled to offend. 3) It IS possible to introduce this as a method of treatment, without massive adverse effects on the subject (although the 1st study didn't think it was a suitable treatment for the offender).
Ok everyone, I think you can safely pen me in on the side of the Kiwis, then.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) There are methods of castration that are reversible, ending the innocent man argument. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really sure on this, those papers are quite old and quite frankly, I wouldn't know if those methods got to clinical trials or even worked. IIRC however, I do believe there are plans for a reversible chemical castration, and in fact a male 'injection' that stops sperm production for a while (without affecting, well you know <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->). I'm quite interested in that myself, because it would just make my life so much easier <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Ah, thanks for those links, Aegri. My knowledge of the topic is based on conversations with the psychatrists in the clinic I work in and on my mother, who is currently laying the treatment segment for sexual and violent offenders in the JVA Bruchsal out, so I'm usually at a loss of points from where to start looking for source material.
Anyway, your argumentation is based on the assumption that a pedophiles disorder is exclusively based on his sexual impulses - make them dissapear, and the disorder, while not cured, becomes insignificant. This is in my understanding however not the case in so far that it's not a purely sexual disorder - other impulses, for example insufficience complexes tend to play a role, as well. Guess I'll have to do some research...
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IIRC however, I do believe there are plans for a reversible chemical castration, and in fact a male 'injection' that stops sperm production for a while (without affecting, well you know <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->). I'm quite interested in that myself, because it would just make my life so much easier <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)
It probably is possible though.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I read about this maybe two years ago. At least back then, the sperm growth could not be 'motivated' sufficiently anymore once the injections were aborted.[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Jan 14 2004, 10:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 14 2004, 10:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ah, thanks for those links, Aegri. My knowledge of the topic is based on conversations with the psychatrists in the clinic <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm loath to admit it but their opinion is possibly a little more valid from a psychological point of view. I know that there is a LOT of argument about this, and clearly scientists have taken sides as usual.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I work in and on my mother, who is currently laying the treatment segment for sexual and violent offenders in the JVA Bruchsal out, so I'm usually at a loss of points from where to start looking for source material.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Psychology journels at a University/Library will have an infinitely better opinion. There is in fact an entire journal just dedicated to pedophilia, rape and other things. Not sure about the exact name, but there should be one readily available. Those will give the best impression, pubmed is mostly about biochemistry type things, I don't know if there is a more psychology based one or not.
The REALLY annoying thing is I can't even get all the full text articles. Really be irritating to find something useful, then not be able to access it.
You could look there, be aware though you can't get full text (just abstracts, what I've been linking too) unless you access it from a university or have access to those journals. Usually the abstract will give a fairly solid idea of what is going on however. Usually...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyway, your argumentation is based on the assumption that a pedophiles disorder is exclusively based on his sexual impulses - <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I realised I made that mistake afterwards.
I do not deny that equally as important are social issues, for example, some rapists do it not out of any sexual deviancy at all. I'm aware of at least some psychological evidence that indicates that they do it for power or many other reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->make them dissapear, and the disorder, while not cured, becomes insignificant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the majority of cases castration is likely to be effective (and the literature agrees), the difference seems to be in the degree of effect. There are bound to be individuals this has no benefit for, who will still go on to reoffend. However, if a good majority have positive effects in regards to their reoffending, then I say we should probably use it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is in my understanding however not the case in so far that it's not a purely sexual disorder - other impulses, for example insufficience complexes tend to play a role, as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is both, it is like clinically obsese patients. Some have a deficiency in the hormone path for leptin, others are just plain screwed in the head.
The difference here is we're talking about a process where we reduce, or entirely remove an important sexual stimuli altogether. By killing their sex drive completely, in a lot of cases this will function pretty well to prevent reoffending. My implication that it would help them psychologically was incorrectly implied, nor the fact that it would stop ALL pedophiles from reoffending (I doubt it would be that effective). Sorry if that impression was there, because that definitely isn't going to be right <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I will concede I know little about psychology of pedophiles or similar, I'm a microbiologist with a bend for the immune system. I do know about the sheer power that hormones have, as the ENTIRE immune system is based off hormonal communication. I take quite an interest in hormones of any sort as a general rule.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 13 2004, 11:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 13 2004, 11:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Handman+Jan 13 2004, 12:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Jan 13 2004, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Im sorry but there is no amount of monatary compensation that can make up for the loss of one's manhood. To think so is insane. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am assuming from seeing the words 'permanent' and 'loss' scattered liberally around this thread that people have again violated <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638' target='_blank'>FAQ Rule #6</a>. I've been on quite a rant about this lately, so it is in you folk's best interest to start following the rules or face the consequences.
The treatments (even surgical) are not permanent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> True
Nothing short of bobbing it (or "them) off with a blade will do.
Just an FYI: Here in my town we have a sexual predator treatment facility. Basically its a prison, with razorwire, the whole nine yards. Its population is 90% pedophiles, the other 10% are rapists, public masturbationists, etc. Anyway, I went on a tour of the pervert palace, and Just by looking at some of the pedophiles you can tell something is deeply wrong with them. Its not a gross hobby like S&M stuff, its a real sickness and just by looking into their eyes you know something is wrong. Its not easy to "get the wrong guy" when it comes to pedophiles(Unless of course the jury is a complete bunch of dolts) Just thought I'd throw that bit out into the mix. Real life experiences always spice up discussions <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Jan 14 2004, 03:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jan 14 2004, 03:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'd argue that 'looking into somebodys eyes' to determine guilt can not be called acceptable juristic procedure. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not what I was trying to get acrossed ......
<!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Jan 14 2004, 10:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Jan 14 2004, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm quite interested in that myself, because it would just make my life so much easier <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Pill, shot, hormonal release implants, and all sorts of other lovely goodies that will fix the discrepancy between male and female pregnancy prevention are in the works. Expect FDA approval of at least some of them in a few years. Even in foreign lands, I'm pretty sure the FDA is one of the few respected gov't agencies from the US.
Your sources are pretty good, btw, if old. They would at least mostly stand up against modern inspection.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
The part that I can't help but find a bit of friction over is the fact that most here are classifying child molestors and paedophiles as the same thing. Wake-up call. They're not. Neither is a subsection of the other, though there is obviously some overlap.
A paedophile can be one their entire life and do nothing to a child, while still posessing the sexual arousal and attraction. Are they to be lumped in, not actually having done anything, and subjected to chemical or surgical castration? Yet there are others who molest children only to see the pain, or due to lack of a more preferential partner... with no particular attraction.
Male or female, I disagree with the supposition that castration will remove or reduce paedophilic urges. It will /likely/ reduce <b>incidences</b>, but the urges would still remain. It's more a matter of teaching those who cannot comport themselves in a proper manner to do so. Strengthening willpower. Showing them the alternatives for relieving that particular stress without actually involving a child.
<!--QuoteBegin--UZi+Jan 13 2004, 08:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Jan 13 2004, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Is it a civil liberty to rape woman?
Here is my view of the world. You take one persons right, you get one of your personal rights taken away. Simple.
People who rape in NZ will think twice when they are stareing at a stub. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> basically what he said...
if you violate soembodys rights... then u should have urs taken away.. be it a **** chop.. or prison.. or shot. i dont care. rapists.. murderers.. pedo;'s they are all scum
<!--QuoteBegin--Moquiao+Jan 15 2004, 04:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Moquiao @ Jan 15 2004, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> if you violate soembodys rights... then u should have urs taken away.. be it a **** chop.. or prison.. or shot. i dont care. rapists.. murderers.. pedo;'s they are all scum <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because any justice system is fallible, sometimes extremely fallible, your "scum" may not be guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Permanant damage is unacceptable without overwhelming evidence (like having the act caught on camera, and having a guilty plea). That's just about never.
<!--QuoteBegin--taboofires+Jan 15 2004, 11:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Jan 15 2004, 11:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Moquiao+Jan 15 2004, 04:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Moquiao @ Jan 15 2004, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> if you violate soembodys rights... then u should have urs taken away.. be it a **** chop.. or prison.. or shot. i dont care. rapists.. murderers.. pedo;'s they are all scum <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because any justice system is fallible, sometimes extremely fallible, your "scum" may not be guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Permanant damage is unacceptable without overwhelming evidence (like having the act caught on camera, and having a guilty plea). That's just about never. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> no not really, yeah it happens.. i mean i myself have been arrested over 10 times well not arrested but taken in for Q's and being 'under suspision' actually arrests was like 3 times.. but i have not once done anything..
but it still stands.. sure with any system there is a no goinh back point..
ok how is this for an idea.. i thought.. what if pedos/child bothering people had 'danger' or soemthing tatooed on theyre forehead.. i think that would be awesome.. it would humilaite them everywhere for the rest of theyre lives... dirty freaking scum <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Moquiao+Jan 16 2004, 03:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Moquiao @ Jan 16 2004, 03:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but it still stands.. sure with any system there is a no goinh back point..
ok how is this for an idea.. i thought.. what if pedos/child bothering people had 'danger' or soemthing tatooed on theyre forehead.. i think that would be awesome.. it would humilaite them everywhere for the rest of theyre lives... dirty freaking scum <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, you cannot fully make reperations for any unjust punishment. However, you should still make efforts to minimize any pains suffered by an innocent party. Spending some time in prison for no good reason can be compensated for by getting the innocent back on his feet via time paid for lost work and clearing his record. Losing the ability to experiance the wonders of parenthood is hardly on the same plane.
And will someone please pass this man a copy of the Scarlet Letter?
While I'm still searching for a library near me that offers in-depth psychological works, I got around to talk a little longer to some of the 'experts' I already cited:
Maybe I should first thank Tal for making the distinction between pedophiles and molesters, because it is vital for the understanding of the issue.
Any kind of rape, like any other kind of pathological crime, can be committed for various reasons. Some of the most common are insufficience - or grandiosic complexes (please bear with my sketchy translations of psychological termini), or simple sadism. None of these sicknesses are primarily sexual, although sexual aspects may play a role. A criminal with such complexes will however not commit the crime for the sake of sexual pleasure, he will either try to re-affirm himself by forcing someone into a completely submissive position towards him, or simply because he enjoys to inflict pain.
Now, one should know that a pathological crime is usually the effect of a long lasting stream of thoughts and fantasies about a situation comparable to the crime - what later seems like an abrupt, unforseeable outburst is in reality usually product of an only half concious mental development that finds its valve in the crime. To re-iterate, these thoughts are <i>not</i> necessarily sexual. Sexual satisfaction is <i>not</i> the primary aim, but the means of the criminal.
What we are discussing here is an attempt at removing that means.
The effect of this is that the criminal will not be able to vent the pressure built up by his psyche in this - undoubtely horrible - way, but this doesn't mean he won't search for an alternative. Speaking with my mother, she cited a number of examples from the 70s and early 80s, the time she had begun as social worker in prisons, when parts of the first batch of castrated molesters returned into detention - often for abnominable murders that included a long "foreplay" of progressively crippling the victim.
Seeing this, my point still largely stands: The removal of the sexual outlet for their disorders won't pacify the offenders, or at least their vast majority.
The theory of a 'purely hormonal' child molester as Aegeri put it forward is also considered in the (still very young) sexual science, but practically, it seems to be a rather small segment of the 'demographic' we're tackling here. In the 'usual' case, we're facing mixed problematics with both sexual <i>and</i> otherwise psychological reasons for their crime - a simple removal of the sexual aspect would thus postpone a new crime, but not remove the danger.
<b>CWAG:</b> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not what I was trying to get acrossed ......<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know, but you'll have to admit that <i>any</i> kind of face value, and your argument operated on just that basis, can not be considered helpful in the frame of a juristic process, since a persons stand towards another 'type', be that race, sexual orientation, gender, nationality, social status, political orintation, and so on, can greatly influence it.
--
Leaving aside my personal opinion, Moquiao, a note: Please consider that this is supposed to be a place for serious, mature discussion. I'd like to ask you to adhere to our rules and base your argumentation on rational thought, not emotional judgement. I'd greatly appreciate if the rest dropped the issues raised by Moquiaos such statements. If this is not possible, I'll have to go on a cleaning tour.
TAK, your post was deleted because it balantly violated the 'read all other posts' rule.
Well, if it's done with chemicals, then I'm ok with it. If it is surgical and they cut the whole package off, I'm against it fully. There is a BIG difference between stoping sperm production and cutting off a part of someone's body.
Now I don't care if it's chemical or snip snip, but it should always, ALWAYS, be with the prisoners consent. If he says yes and decideds to get a castration for a shorter sentence then I'm ok with it, but if it turns into a mandatory thing I'm not. It should be a decision made by the owner of the... package, and his decision alone.
Comments
Ok, it'd be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad to be wrongly accused, and even worse to be found guilty, but according to survive.org.uk "Only 16% of all rapes are ever reported to the police."
also:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The numbers of rapes that were reported to the police trebled between 1985 and 1993, but the number of men who were convicted of rape has remained virtually the same.
According to Home Office statistics, out of the 4600 rapes reported in 1993 less than 10% resulted in a conviction. That was a drop of 24% on the figures for 1985.
In 1993 only 89 convictions for rape out of a study of 335 cases of alleged rape rape were achieved. 165 complainants dropped out before the start of court proceedings for a number of different reasons. The main ones were because the woman withdrew her allegations, refused to testify, the suspect was never identified and charged, or the police decided to drop the case because they felt the allegations were false. Of the 170 cases that eventually did end up in court 34 defendants were acquitted or had the case against them dismissed, and a further 47 were convicted of lesser offences.
A Thames Valley Police survey showed that although 90% of women who had never experienced a sexual attack, when surveyed believed they would report the crime, in reality only about 6% of women who had actually been raped made formal allegations
A staggering 83% of rape victims knew their attackers, and almost half of all rapes happened in the victim's home. The vast majority of alleged victims are under 30 with a fairly high proportion of those aged under 16. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so those are statistics for rape, not child abuse (or as the US used to call is "statutory rape of a minor") but I'd imagine those are even worse. Not only are the chances of someone falsely reporting small, but the chances of a false conviction are tiny.
Surivive has actually got some good hard info for rape and child abuse. Its not pretty reading.
Ok, it'd be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad to be wrongly accused, and even worse to be found guilty, but according to survive.org.uk "Only 16% of all rapes are ever reported to the police." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a man who watches castrations performed in a factory like procession, I dont think $10,000 and a small bottle of my own sperm is quite going to make up for the fact that my testicles/manhood are now residing in a jar. Even with chemical castration, unless its semi-permanent, it might as well be physical.
What about a life sentence instead?
What about castration in the case of semen DNA evidence?
I have to say the more I think about this, the more I'm believing its the right way to go. Take an extremely minor risk, and reduce the chance of women experiencing horrific crime? I'd take the risk.
Right now, it seems although everyone is discussing paedophiles who have actually taken part in the physical act of child molestation. I can see how castration would be a fitting punishment, remove the tool.... as it were. But a portion of convicted paedophiles have never touched a child, they may deal in the trade of child pornography and such.
I am, however, behind those who support castration in the cases of sexual offences, i feel that anyone who would do such things deserves to be punished, and punished severely, but there is too much on the line if it was a false accusation. If someone has allegedly been raped, it's hard to turn to them and tell them they're lying, and with a good deal of cases there can be a large amount of doubt as to whether the accused actually did it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've been thinking about this overnight (um....about a solution to the problem, you deviants) and I've even come up with a possible work around to the "innocent man" argument. During the process of castration, a sample of sperm is taken. The innocent man gets a monetary compensation, and the option of free IVF if he wants a family. The sperm samples of guilty men are used for study.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im sorry but there is no amount of monatary compensation that can make up for the loss of one's manhood. To think so is insane.
As for the punishment, I would only support it in the same way I would support the death penalty. If they have absolutley undisputable evidence (a video of the offender caught in the act or something), then I would not care. If, however, there is a chance of innocence than the punishment should not be considered.
<b>Epidemic</b>
The reason you do not here of woman pedophiles is because there is a double standard, and they are not reported as much. This, however, is for a different thread.
Look, there are two modern, non-choppy-choppy ways to do things. You either keep the subject on a drug that interferes with his ability to reproduce (can be anything from anti-viagra to just removing your ability to produce live sperm), or you perform a vasectomy. People have vasectomies <i>willingly</i>, it's just a little incision and tube-tying, and the guy gets to go home the same day (as long as somebody else can do the driving). Reversal is usually successful, you just go in with another incision and repair the damage (which should be minimal unless you get Dr. Nick to operate).
On females: There is an equivalent of the vasectomy that has been around much longer (but is more invasive, so not really an option), and there are <i>tons</i> of chemical methods of birth control that have been around for many years, and at least some of them inhibit the sex drive. But here's the thing: even if you had a female sex offender, preventing her from getting pregnant would be a rather moot point. It's not like the victim is now pregnant. The only issue you might actually want to persue is libido inhibitation, and that really isn't the important issue here. People do awful things to children not because they just want some lovin', but because they're something in their head that gives them that desire. Removal of hormones would not solve the problem, and I would not even venture to say that it would be worth the trouble of the drugs.
Now can we please keep our minds out of the gutters?
I am assuming from seeing the words 'permanent' and 'loss' scattered liberally around this thread that people have again violated <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638' target='_blank'>FAQ Rule #6</a>. I've been on quite a rant about this lately, so it is in you folk's best interest to start following the rules or face the consequences.
The treatments (even surgical) are not permanent.
Right now, it seems although everyone is discussing paedophiles who have actually taken part in the physical act of child molestation. I can see how castration would be a fitting punishment, remove the tool.... as it were. But a portion of convicted paedophiles have never touched a child, they may deal in the trade of child pornography and such.
I am, however, behind those who support castration in the cases of sexual offences, i feel that anyone who would do such things deserves to be punished, and punished severely, but there is too much on the line if it was a false accusation. If someone has allegedly been raped, it's hard to turn to them and tell them they're lying, and with a good deal of cases there can be a large amount of doubt as to whether the accused actually did it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, thanks for thinking about what was written - Its a dark issue, which has no quick fixes. I came into it undecided, but am now leaning towards castration for the greater good.
I'm reading what you've written as "I'd be in favour of it if the accused was certainly guilty". What level of certainty would you need? Aside from being a witness, how else could guilt be established to your satisfaction?
The traffic in child porn? Hmm... lesser offence certainly, the individual not having <i>personally</i> abused the child, but a disturbing crime nontheless. I'd say the current system is fine as a template: jail sentence (reduced for giving up other traffickers, or perpetrators) put on the sex offenders register (with all that entails).
I'm still not 100% behind the castration idea, but I have to say I haven't seen any real arguments against that weren't (if you pardon the slightly emotive definition) selfish.
As shown above, even with the current rates of detection, theres a small chance of being convicted for rape/ child abuse, and (without knowing how many convicted child abusers/rapists were ACTUALLY guilty) I'd estimate an miniscule number convicted wrongly. As a counter point, I believe that Survive had it that a woman is raped every 78 seconds in the US. Even if half of those rapes weren't from serial rapists, you could stop the half that were from ever offending again.....
First, I can verify Mons' source about the castrations. It is also true that castrations can be performed in Germany. They are however not imposed by a court, but a voluntary step a pedophile may take if he feels this might help him overcome his perversion. Seeing that most pedophiles are put into preventive detention (thanks to the irreviersible nature of their tendency) after their 15 years (which is the maximum sentence that can be spelt out in Germany), many see this as one of a very small selection of chances of becoming free again.
The process is however not without controversy amongst experts:
As the (almost) zero chance of a cure of the tendency of pedophily indicates, we are discussing a severe, <i>severe</i> mental disorder here. (One of the most usual initial causes of it is by the way an experience of being molested in ones childhood.) The problem this poses for the idea of a 'crime prevention' via castration is that the center of the impulse that leads to the horrible crime is in fact not located in the offenders gentalia, but his brain. In other words, even if he can never get an erection again, he might still lust after sexual intercourse with children.
As a results of this urge, other crimes almost as severe as a full fledged rape might occur.
This, in turn, means that a castration is in fact little more than a superficial insurance for both the offender (many pedophiles live in bitter disgust of their own sexual preference) and the public.
Let me by the way add that there <i>are</i> possible treatments for sexual offenders, although pedophiles are surely the hardest cases in the this field of hard cases - there is for example a chance at helping a sexual offender in shifting his urges to socially more acceptable preferences.
When it comes down to it, to give such a severe punishment, the evidence would have to be flawless. That's my main worry about the idea, when it comes down to it, it can just be one person's word against another, and as has been already mentioned in this thread, one party could be lying....
Except that chemicals needed to actually have a sex drive, yes, are in fact produced by the ****. The feedback mechanisms in place ensure that sperm production occurs and that everything is running normal, this is what largely creates a sex drive. Castration in fact interrupts this pathway very efficiently, because the tissues involved are now removed. So the brain lacks feedback and the system falls apart. This can in fact prevent that impulse to a very large degree, because hormonally, they aren't THERE to produce it. For example, as such men will lack gonadotrophic hormones, they will be unable to produce other chemicals hormones and hence greatly reduce sex drive. This is actually pretty much fact that castration reduces sex drive, the argument revolves around how much.
It is easy to think that the brain does everything, but this is very untrue. There is a literal battery of hormones that control just ONE function usually. Sex is no different.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This, in turn, means that a castration is in fact little more than a superficial insurance for both the offender <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, no...not really that cut and dry, quickly searching pubmed right now has found articles saying completely otherwise. As annoying as always, I can only give you the abstract as that is all that is online from the paper. It does have the journal it is in though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Data are reported on the sexual behavior of 39 released sex offenders who agreed voluntarily to surgical castration while imprisoned in West Germany. <b>Findings indicated that frequency of coitus, masturbation, and sexual thoughts are seen as strongly reduced</b> after castration.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arch Sex Behav. 1981 Feb;10(1):11-9.
Bit dubious on the date though, but pubed doesn't really focus on psychology much sadly.
However, it is worth noting that
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In general, the findings do not justify recommending surgical castration as a reliable treatment for incarcerated sex offenders.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Partly because they didn't seem to think it was overly efficient for rapists, or on younger males. However, it is interesting to contrast this paper to the more modern ones below, I decided to lead with this one first as it seemed easier to read.
<a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7212993&dopt=Abstract' target='_blank'>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...3&dopt=Abstract</a>
More fun
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although, there is <b>some indication</b> that recidivism will decrease following chemical castration, its use is limited by a high refusal and drop-out rate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, more papers seem to think this than do not. Then again, more papers thought bacteria couldn't live in the stomach than couldn't. The remainder is waffling on about if hormonally treating pedophiles (IE chemical castration) is better.
<a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9490924&dopt=Abstract' target='_blank'>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...4&dopt=Abstract</a>
Interesting paper though (I can read the full text, but don't quote from it as nobody else can see it, what's the point, could make up anything I wanted :/)
Verh K Acad Geneeskd Belg. 1997;59(5):371-8. Dutch.
Next paper:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 5 cases, the treatment ended their deviant sexual behavior and markedly decreased their sexual fantasies and activities without further significant side effects than those related to hypoandrogenism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This paper is extremely complex, but what it is saying is exactly what I berated you for above: That they are using another hormone to interrupt the normal function of that pathway (IE a chemical castration method), and are in fact succeeding.
It is just too easy IMO for people to say "oh it's their brains" when hormones are just as, if not more, powerful than any electrical impulse.
Interestingly
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->GnRHa treatment, which leads to reversible castration, may constitute a promising treatment of paraphilic behavior and may favor the possibility of concurrent psychotherapy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8356897&dopt=Abstract' target='_blank'>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...7&dopt=Abstract</a>
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1993 Jun;87(6):445-50.
There is more than this as well, but it gets so horribly out of date it probably has been made irrelevant by some psychological analysis recently done. Then again, most of that is probably irrelevant.
I've made my point, and backed it up scientifically anyway <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Again
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nemesis expressed my concern: that it is fundamentally a software error in the human brain that twists our natural breeding instincts into coveting small children sexually.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, it's HORMONES, which are indeed directed by the brain in some cases, or are they? It is now known that some chronically obsese people are in fact that way, not because of any 'brain error' but instead because they have a problem in their biochemical pathways producing the hormone leptin. Yet, you would argue that this is just another fault in their brains :/ Incidently, leptin isn't even produced by the brain, fat cells do it. Leptin ACTS on the brain however, and the malfunction (a deficiency I believe) causes someone to basically not stop eating (or stop accumulating fat).
Both you and Nemesis are GROSSLY over-simplifying an incredibly complex process and missing the point in the process. Sex drive is both a brain AND genital thing, because it is in fact your genitals that actually GIVE you a sex drive to begin with. Again, the brain works by responding to things like hormones that make you do various things (I can go into depth in the immune system if you want proof), without those hormones around stimuli and responces are greatly reduced. The literature (see above) GREATLY agrees that neutering pedophiles does exactly that, reduce their sex drive.
what I got from skimming was the following:
1) There are methods of castration that are reversible, ending the innocent man argument.
2) Both chemical and surgical castration are likely to lead to a reduction in recidivism, the perp now not being hormonally compelled to offend.
3) It IS possible to introduce this as a method of treatment, without massive adverse effects on the subject (although the 1st study didn't think it was a suitable treatment for the offender).
Ok everyone, I think you can safely pen me in on the side of the Kiwis, then.
/edit spelling.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really sure on this, those papers are quite old and quite frankly, I wouldn't know if those methods got to clinical trials or even worked. IIRC however, I do believe there are plans for a reversible chemical castration, and in fact a male 'injection' that stops sperm production for a while (without affecting, well you know <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->). I'm quite interested in that myself, because it would just make my life so much easier <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->)
It probably is possible though.
My knowledge of the topic is based on conversations with the psychatrists in the clinic I work in and on my mother, who is currently laying the treatment segment for sexual and violent offenders in the JVA Bruchsal out, so I'm usually at a loss of points from where to start looking for source material.
Anyway, your argumentation is based on the assumption that a pedophiles disorder is exclusively based on his sexual impulses - make them dissapear, and the disorder, while not cured, becomes insignificant. This is in my understanding however not the case in so far that it's not a purely sexual disorder - other impulses, for example insufficience complexes tend to play a role, as well. Guess I'll have to do some research...
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IIRC however, I do believe there are plans for a reversible chemical castration, and in fact a male 'injection' that stops sperm production for a while (without affecting, well you know <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->). I'm quite interested in that myself, because it would just make my life so much easier <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)
It probably is possible though.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read about this maybe two years ago. At least back then, the sperm growth could not be 'motivated' sufficiently anymore once the injections were aborted.[/edit]
My knowledge of the topic is based on conversations with the psychatrists in the clinic <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm loath to admit it but their opinion is possibly a little more valid from a psychological point of view. I know that there is a LOT of argument about this, and clearly scientists have taken sides as usual.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I work in and on my mother, who is currently laying the treatment segment for sexual and violent offenders in the JVA Bruchsal out, so I'm usually at a loss of points from where to start looking for source material.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Psychology journels at a University/Library will have an infinitely better opinion. There is in fact an entire journal just dedicated to pedophilia, rape and other things. Not sure about the exact name, but there should be one readily available. Those will give the best impression, pubmed is mostly about biochemistry type things, I don't know if there is a more psychology based one or not.
The REALLY annoying thing is I can't even get all the full text articles. Really be irritating to find something useful, then not be able to access it.
<a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/' target='_blank'>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/</a>
You could look there, be aware though you can't get full text (just abstracts, what I've been linking too) unless you access it from a university or have access to those journals. Usually the abstract will give a fairly solid idea of what is going on however. Usually...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyway, your argumentation is based on the assumption that a pedophiles disorder is exclusively based on his sexual impulses - <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I realised I made that mistake afterwards.
I do not deny that equally as important are social issues, for example, some rapists do it not out of any sexual deviancy at all. I'm aware of at least some psychological evidence that indicates that they do it for power or many other reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->make them dissapear, and the disorder, while not cured, becomes insignificant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the majority of cases castration is likely to be effective (and the literature agrees), the difference seems to be in the degree of effect. There are bound to be individuals this has no benefit for, who will still go on to reoffend. However, if a good majority have positive effects in regards to their reoffending, then I say we should probably use it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is in my understanding however not the case in so far that it's not a purely sexual disorder - other impulses, for example insufficience complexes tend to play a role, as well. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is both, it is like clinically obsese patients. Some have a deficiency in the hormone path for leptin, others are just plain screwed in the head.
The difference here is we're talking about a process where we reduce, or entirely remove an important sexual stimuli altogether. By killing their sex drive completely, in a lot of cases this will function pretty well to prevent reoffending. My implication that it would help them psychologically was incorrectly implied, nor the fact that it would stop ALL pedophiles from reoffending (I doubt it would be that effective). Sorry if that impression was there, because that definitely isn't going to be right <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I will concede I know little about psychology of pedophiles or similar, I'm a microbiologist with a bend for the immune system. I do know about the sheer power that hormones have, as the ENTIRE immune system is based off hormonal communication. I take quite an interest in hormones of any sort as a general rule.
I am assuming from seeing the words 'permanent' and 'loss' scattered liberally around this thread that people have again violated <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638' target='_blank'>FAQ Rule #6</a>. I've been on quite a rant about this lately, so it is in you folk's best interest to start following the rules or face the consequences.
The treatments (even surgical) are not permanent. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
True
Nothing short of bobbing it (or "them) off with a blade will do.
Just an FYI: Here in my town we have a sexual predator treatment facility. Basically its a prison, with razorwire, the whole nine yards. Its population is 90% pedophiles, the other 10% are rapists, public masturbationists, etc. Anyway, I went on a tour of the pervert palace, and Just by looking at some of the pedophiles you can tell something is deeply wrong with them. Its not a gross hobby like S&M stuff, its a real sickness and just by looking into their eyes you know something is wrong. Its not easy to "get the wrong guy" when it comes to pedophiles(Unless of course the jury is a complete bunch of dolts) Just thought I'd throw that bit out into the mix. Real life experiences always spice up discussions <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Not what I was trying to get acrossed ......
Pill, shot, hormonal release implants, and all sorts of other lovely goodies that will fix the discrepancy between male and female pregnancy prevention are in the works. Expect FDA approval of at least some of them in a few years. Even in foreign lands, I'm pretty sure the FDA is one of the few respected gov't agencies from the US.
Your sources are pretty good, btw, if old. They would at least mostly stand up against modern inspection.
A paedophile can be one their entire life and do nothing to a child, while still posessing the sexual arousal and attraction. Are they to be lumped in, not actually having done anything, and subjected to chemical or surgical castration?
Yet there are others who molest children only to see the pain, or due to lack of a more preferential partner... with no particular attraction.
Male or female, I disagree with the supposition that castration will remove or reduce paedophilic urges. It will /likely/ reduce <b>incidences</b>, but the urges would still remain. It's more a matter of teaching those who cannot comport themselves in a proper manner to do so. Strengthening willpower. Showing them the alternatives for relieving that particular stress without actually involving a child.
Here is my view of the world. You take one persons right, you get one of your personal rights taken away. Simple.
People who rape in NZ will think twice when they are stareing at a stub. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
basically what he said...
if you violate soembodys rights... then u should have urs taken away.. be it a **** chop.. or prison.. or shot. i dont care. rapists.. murderers.. pedo;'s they are all scum
Because any justice system is fallible, sometimes extremely fallible, your "scum" may not be guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Permanant damage is unacceptable without overwhelming evidence (like having the act caught on camera, and having a guilty plea). That's just about never.
Because any justice system is fallible, sometimes extremely fallible, your "scum" may not be guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Permanant damage is unacceptable without overwhelming evidence (like having the act caught on camera, and having a guilty plea). That's just about never. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
no not really, yeah it happens.. i mean i myself have been arrested over 10 times well not arrested but taken in for Q's and being 'under suspision' actually arrests was like 3 times.. but i have not once done anything..
but it still stands.. sure with any system there is a no goinh back point..
ok how is this for an idea.. i thought.. what if pedos/child bothering people had 'danger' or soemthing tatooed on theyre forehead.. i think that would be awesome.. it would humilaite them everywhere for the rest of theyre lives... dirty freaking scum <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
ok how is this for an idea.. i thought.. what if pedos/child bothering people had 'danger' or soemthing tatooed on theyre forehead.. i think that would be awesome.. it would humilaite them everywhere for the rest of theyre lives... dirty freaking scum <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you cannot fully make reperations for any unjust punishment. However, you should still make efforts to minimize any pains suffered by an innocent party. Spending some time in prison for no good reason can be compensated for by getting the innocent back on his feet via time paid for lost work and clearing his record. Losing the ability to experiance the wonders of parenthood is hardly on the same plane.
And will someone please pass this man a copy of the Scarlet Letter?
Maybe I should first thank Tal for making the distinction between pedophiles and molesters, because it is vital for the understanding of the issue.
Any kind of rape, like any other kind of pathological crime, can be committed for various reasons. Some of the most common are insufficience - or grandiosic complexes (please bear with my sketchy translations of psychological termini), or simple sadism. None of these sicknesses are primarily sexual, although sexual aspects may play a role. A criminal with such complexes will however not commit the crime for the sake of sexual pleasure, he will either try to re-affirm himself by forcing someone into a completely submissive position towards him, or simply because he enjoys to inflict pain.
Now, one should know that a pathological crime is usually the effect of a long lasting stream of thoughts and fantasies about a situation comparable to the crime - what later seems like an abrupt, unforseeable outburst is in reality usually product of an only half concious mental development that finds its valve in the crime. To re-iterate, these thoughts are <i>not</i> necessarily sexual. Sexual satisfaction is <i>not</i> the primary aim, but the means of the criminal.
What we are discussing here is an attempt at removing that means.
The effect of this is that the criminal will not be able to vent the pressure built up by his psyche in this - undoubtely horrible - way, but this doesn't mean he won't search for an alternative. Speaking with my mother, she cited a number of examples from the 70s and early 80s, the time she had begun as social worker in prisons, when parts of the first batch of castrated molesters returned into detention - often for abnominable murders that included a long "foreplay" of progressively crippling the victim.
Seeing this, my point still largely stands: The removal of the sexual outlet for their disorders won't pacify the offenders, or at least their vast majority.
The theory of a 'purely hormonal' child molester as Aegeri put it forward is also considered in the (still very young) sexual science, but practically, it seems to be a rather small segment of the 'demographic' we're tackling here. In the 'usual' case, we're facing mixed problematics with both sexual <i>and</i> otherwise psychological reasons for their crime - a simple removal of the sexual aspect would thus postpone a new crime, but not remove the danger.
<b>CWAG:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not what I was trying to get acrossed ......<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know, but you'll have to admit that <i>any</i> kind of face value, and your argument operated on just that basis, can not be considered helpful in the frame of a juristic process, since a persons stand towards another 'type', be that race, sexual orientation, gender, nationality, social status, political orintation, and so on, can greatly influence it.
--
Leaving aside my personal opinion, Moquiao, a note: Please consider that this is supposed to be a place for serious, mature discussion. I'd like to ask you to adhere to our rules and base your argumentation on rational thought, not emotional judgement.
I'd greatly appreciate if the rest dropped the issues raised by Moquiaos such statements. If this is not possible, I'll have to go on a cleaning tour.
TAK, your post was deleted because it balantly violated the 'read all other posts' rule.
Now I don't care if it's chemical or snip snip, but it should always, ALWAYS, be with the prisoners consent. If he says yes and decideds to get a castration for a shorter sentence then I'm ok with it, but if it turns into a mandatory thing I'm not. It should be a decision made by the owner of the... package, and his decision alone.