Indonesian chemical castration
Discussion
grumbledoak said:
Acting on these impulses is a choice, not a medical condition. I don't see why we don't kill them.
Impulsivity IS a medical condition - or the inability to resist one's impulses at least, and a very common one, traumatic brain injury does that - and lots and lots (not all) of violent criminals - of all types - are pretty low functioning one way or another. I'm happy to lock them up and chuck the key away, I think there are actions for which rehabilitation to the extent that release is safe cannot be possible, but taking life is a step or two further than I can make peace with. I've seen the criminal justice system catastrophically f
k up, thank heavens we don't let them kill people…FlyingMeeces said:
Impulsivity IS a medical condition
Everything is a medical condition these days, in the case of most paedophiles impulsiveness is not an excuse. Many are very cunning and play the long game. I mean take the example of the British man in KL that was caught, absolutely sickening behaviour and if it were up to me he would not be alive. And take all the paedos that are caught by these vigilante groups - it's not impulsive to spend weeks grooming and then planning to meet etc.It's an incredibly hard question.
You could argue that a man (or women's) body is their own, and it's beyond the jurisdiction of the state or any other social construct to enforce or have right over how it operates or how it is controlled. You could argue that but there are several accepted deviations from that argument in society and law already, most notably the death penalty, medical interventions etc... There is already a fairly well trodden argument in philosophy and law over what role and jurisdiction the state should have over citizens bodies and the mind and body are inextricably linked, you can't punish one without the other. I suppose a fair compromise would be to offer the punishment as a way out of jail time and as a root to possible "treatment". I think this has been the case previously in several countries.
You could argue that a man (or women's) body is their own, and it's beyond the jurisdiction of the state or any other social construct to enforce or have right over how it operates or how it is controlled. You could argue that but there are several accepted deviations from that argument in society and law already, most notably the death penalty, medical interventions etc... There is already a fairly well trodden argument in philosophy and law over what role and jurisdiction the state should have over citizens bodies and the mind and body are inextricably linked, you can't punish one without the other. I suppose a fair compromise would be to offer the punishment as a way out of jail time and as a root to possible "treatment". I think this has been the case previously in several countries.
Rovinghawk said:
Mr Snrub said:
Rovinghawk said:
If the conviction is beyond doubt then I have no problem with whatever punishment is levied, particularly if it's appropriate to the crime.
Surely to be found guilty in the first place it must be beyond doubt? Could the procedure be reversed if they are later found to be innocent?If there's absolutely no question regarding guilt then whatever punishment is fine.
FlyingMeeces said:
grumbledoak said:
Acting on these impulses is a choice, not a medical condition. I don't see why we don't kill them.
Impulsivity IS a medical condition - or the inability to resist one's impulses at least, and a very common one, traumatic brain injury does that - and lots and lots (not all) of violent criminals - of all types - are pretty low functioning one way or another. I'm happy to lock them up and chuck the key away, I think there are actions for which rehabilitation to the extent that release is safe cannot be possible, but taking life is a step or two further than I can make peace with. I've seen the criminal justice system catastrophically f
k up, thank heavens we don't let them kill people…And how would that conversation go? Do you go to the doctor, or the police? Would the police be interested if you hadn't actually committed a crime at that point?
The other side of the argument was a bit more philosophical. Years ago, it was socially unacceptable, and illegal, to be gay. Times have changed and moved on from then.
But could the same ever be thought of paedophiles? That their sexual orientation is pre-programmed, that it isn't a choice, or that they should refrain from acting on their born instincts? Is it just our culture that makes it abhorrent, because in some cultures children are married pre-teen/pre-pubescent.
It all got a bit heavy at that point, and we moved onto the more pressing subject of why people sit in middle lanes.
S11Steve said:
The other side of the argument was a bit more philosophical. Years ago, it was socially unacceptable, and illegal, to be gay. Times have changed and moved on from then.
But could the same ever be thought of paedophiles? That their sexual orientation is pre-programmed, that it isn't a choice, or that they should refrain from acting on their born instincts? Is it just our culture that makes it abhorrent, because in some cultures children are married pre-teen/pre-pubescent.
I wrote one of my final year pieces for my Law degree on this very topic. But could the same ever be thought of paedophiles? That their sexual orientation is pre-programmed, that it isn't a choice, or that they should refrain from acting on their born instincts? Is it just our culture that makes it abhorrent, because in some cultures children are married pre-teen/pre-pubescent.
The critical difference between homosexuality and paedophilia as sexual preferences and their acceptability in our society is one of informed consent. A child, especially a young child, will never be able to give informed consent to enter into a sexual relationship with anyone, adult or otherwise. They simply do not have the mental capacity, maturity etc to make that decision; the same sort of reasoning as to why we don't let children drive cars on the public road as soon as they can reach the pedals. However, two adults* of the same sex do have the capacity to give informed consent to enter into a sexual relationship with one another and should be permitted to do so if they wish to, just the same two adults of the opposite sex do and can.
- Persons aged 16 or over
grumbledoak said:
Acting on these impulses is a choice, not a medical condition. I don't see why we don't kill them.
So is it the 18 year old lad that sleeps with a 15 year old girl he thought was the same age as him, is it the bloke who bought a second hand hard drive from a computer market that had a load of indecent images of children, is it the dad that is accused by his daughters friend who has issues and is after attention ?Having worked on the systems for "sex offenders" not all is quite as cut and dried as your traditional "kiddie fiddler".
To be honest I think executing people is as bad and reduces us to savages, Facebook is full of "string them up by the b
ks" and to be honest my concern is not for the paedo themselves but for our society itself, some were advocating public execution, the self same individuals post stuff that says how much we dont want Sharia Law which seems somewhat ironic.We dont, thankfully have the death penalty, mistakes do get made and a pardon isnt much use when someone has been killed and the daft mob rule torture stuff they come out with is pretty terrifying, some claim that they would torture another human because they have been told that they are a paedophile, I think a lot of it is making a point and qualify how much they hate paedos but I am sure some seem a bit too keen to start lopping bits off with bolt cutters, which to me, is every bit as disturbing.
Cant we just lock them up so they are no longer a danger ?
J4CKO said:
grumbledoak said:
Acting on these impulses is a choice, not a medical condition. I don't see why we don't kill them.
So is it the 18 year old lad that sleeps with a 15 year old girl he thought was the same age as him, is it the bloke who bought a second hand hard drive from a computer market that had a load of indecent images of children, is it the dad that is accused by his daughters friend who has issues and is after attention ?Having worked on the systems for "sex offenders" not all is quite as cut and dried as your traditional "kiddie fiddler".
To be honest I think executing people is as bad and reduces us to savages, Facebook is full of "string them up by the b
ks" and to be honest my concern is not for the paedo themselves but for our society itself, some were advocating public execution, the self same individuals post stuff that says how much we dont want Sharia Law which seems somewhat ironic.We dont, thankfully have the death penalty, mistakes do get made and a pardon isnt much use when someone has been killed and the daft mob rule torture stuff they come out with is pretty terrifying, some claim that they would torture another human because they have been told that they are a paedophile, I think a lot of it is making a point and qualify how much they hate paedos but I am sure some seem a bit too keen to start lopping bits off with bolt cutters, which to me, is every bit as disturbing.
Cant we just lock them up so they are no longer a danger ?
amg master said:
ell said.surely castrating someone wouldn't be the answer, the thought of the crime originates in the mind so even if they were castrated the thought would still be there.
And then they go and assault their next victim with a table leg instead. It's violence, it's not their sex drive that's the problem, testosterone isn't the half of it (or we'd never have violent criminals who are female, or indeed - horrors - prepubescent like the Bulger case kids). It isn't a solution.
Rehabilitate - properly - those for whom rehabilitation is possible. Lock up the rest. Forever.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff