Bill that requires child molesters be castrated.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It isn't sexual because oftentimes the perpetrator seeks to have a position of power, not a good time with the child.

Then wouldn't castration remove their ability to do that?

They can molest a child with dildos if they need to y'know?

Again, it isn't sexual gratification what they want, it is a position of power. Physical abuse follows the same pattern.

[United Marxist Nations]

Then wouldn't castration remove their ability to do that?

They can molest a child with dildos if they need to y'know?

Again, it isn't sexual gratification what they want, it is a position of power. Physical abuse follows the same pattern.

That's a bit of a blanket statement, isn't it?

[The Grey Wolf]

How about no.

It makes you a dick for doing shit like that.

The justice system isn't meant for revenge.

^ This. I fucking hate child molesters, and I would have no qualms about having them face firing squad. But the bill... I just can't support it. The justice system is not about "getting back" at the criminal, no matter how sick or depraved they are.

[Scomagia]

The crime is sexual but the drive to commit the crime isn't.
And when I say rehabilitation I refer to Scandinavian justice systems.

That's a bit of a blanket statement, isn't it?

I know, but I mean I can't find any statistics regarding its effectiveness.

Perhaps a bit, yes. However, the fact that people do commit sex crimes for non-sexual reasons does show that castration would have limited effectiveness does it not? And as Kat pointed out, what does one do about female offenders?

I can't seem to either. If you would allow that point to slide I would be most appreciative. I'm getting over a stomach bug and searching for statistics between bouts of vomiting and blowing up my toilet doesn't sound like fun.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

How about no.

It makes you a dick for doing shit like that.

The justice system isn't meant for revenge.

^ This. I fucking hate child molesters, and I would have no qualms about having them face firing squad. But the bill... I just can't support it. The justice system is not about "getting back" at the criminal, no matter how sick or depraved they are.

This

[Scomagia]

Which I have brought up but the answer to it was, predictably, "acceptable losses."

I saw, it doesn't really say much.

Honestly, nobody should go through it unjustly. Acceptable losses or not, it isn't right for people who have done nothing wrong to undergo such a horrible thing (I am talking about the falsely convicted, need I point out).

I most certainly agree.

[United Marxist Nations]

That's a bit of a blanket statement, isn't it?

I know, but I mean I can't find any statistics regarding its effectiveness.

Perhaps a bit, yes. However, the fact that people do commit sex crimes for non-sexual reasons does show that castration would have limited effectiveness does it not? And as Kat pointed out, what does one do about female offenders?

I can't seem to either. If you would allow that point to slide I would be most appreciative. I'm getting over a stomach bug and searching for statistics between bouts of vomiting and blowing up my toilet doesn't sound like fun.

Fair enough; I think chemical castration should be considered if the person did it for sexual purposes. Otherwise, imprisonment would have to do.

EDIT: Though, I do think execution should be considered for particularly heinous cases.

[Der Kaiser Mikey III]

this is faqed up. Like, even execution sounds more reasonable than that scheisse lol

[Primo Victoria]

Also, the false convictions issue.

Which I have brought up but the answer to it was, predictably, "acceptable losses."

This is a worthy question, but it is a question that can be applied to any punishment. There are really only two solutions, and neither is perfect. We can either drastically reduce the punishment for a given crime for fear of punishing the innocent, but then the punishment ceases to be a punishment, or we can do everything in our power to insure that no innocent is ever found guilty, which, while I believe it to be the better option, will inevitably fail.

Until we can find a way to perfectly divide innocence from guilt, innocent people will be punished for the crimes of the guilty. It is not acceptable, but it is unavoidable, and we cannot abandon justice in the quest for perfection.

[Scomagia]

Perhaps a bit, yes. However, the fact that people do commit sex crimes for non-sexual reasons does show that castration would have limited effectiveness does it not? And as Kat pointed out, what does one do about female offenders?

I can't seem to either. If you would allow that point to slide I would be most appreciative. I'm getting over a stomach bug and searching for statistics between bouts of vomiting and blowing up my toilet doesn't sound like fun.

Fair enough; I think chemical castration should be considered if the person did it for sexual purposes. Otherwise, imprisonment would have to do.

But how does one determine whether sexual desire was the primary motivator? Because if the accused are aware that they will not be castrated if they say that it wasn't sex based then that's what they will do.

Edit: And again what would we do about female offenders? To me there are too many variables for this to be effective, and I don't think there is any way that I could see it as just.

[United Marxist Nations]

Fair enough; I think chemical castration should be considered if the person did it for sexual purposes. Otherwise, imprisonment would have to do.

But how does one determine whether sexual desire was the primary motivator? Because if the accused are aware that they will not be castrated if they say that it wasn't sex based then that's what they will do.

There's probably a way they could figure it out. But then, you also have to realize that any motive could be contested by a defendant in any crime.

[Lemanrussland]

How about no.

It makes you a dick for doing shit like that.

The justice system isn't meant for revenge.

^ This. I fucking hate child molesters, and I would have no qualms about having them face firing squad. But the bill... I just can't support it. The justice system is not about "getting back" at the criminal, no matter how sick or depraved they are.

Agreed 100 percent. It's about protecting the public and minimizing damage to all parties involved.

[Scomagia]

Which I have brought up but the answer to it was, predictably, "acceptable losses."

This is a worthy question, but it is a question that can be applied to any punishment. There are really only two solutions, and neither is perfect. We can either drastically reduce the punishment for a given crime for fear of punishing the innocent, but then the punishment ceases to be a punishment, or we can do everything in our power to insure that no innocent is ever found guilty, which, while I believe it to be the better option, will inevitably fail.

Until we can find a way to perfectly divide innocence from guilt, innocent people will be punished for the crimes of the guilty. It is not acceptable, but it is unavoidable, and we cannot abandon justice in the quest for perfection.

However, mutilating a person is not justice and will very likely increase the amount of victims that are murdered because of the threat of castration. And given that sexual desire is often not the primary motivator in these sorts of crimes the offenders will simply use objects on their next victim. Also, castration is only effective on males. What of female offenders?

[Antanjyl]

Physical castration is a bit much. Reversible chemical castration would probably work better(while still being morally repugnant). Not to mention what would happen to those wrongfully accused. Not much going back from that once it's done.

[Der Kaiser Mikey III]

Physical castration is a bit much. Reversible chemical castration would probably work better(while still being morally repugnant). Not to mention what would happen to those wrongfully accused. Not much going back from that once it's done.

it's all wrong man, that's just unnecessary. Kill them, none of this halfway cruelty shit.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Which I have brought up but the answer to it was, predictably, "acceptable losses."

This is a worthy question, but it is a question that can be applied to any punishment. There are really only two solutions, and neither is perfect. We can either drastically reduce the punishment for a given crime for fear of punishing the innocent, but then the punishment ceases to be a punishment, or we can do everything in our power to insure that no innocent is ever found guilty, which, while I believe it to be the better option, will inevitably fail.

Until we can find a way to perfectly divide innocence from guilt, innocent people will be punished for the crimes of the guilty. It is not acceptable, but it is unavoidable, and we cannot abandon justice in the quest for perfection.

we actually have this on criminal court: it's called a "beyond any reasonable doubt" and "beyond a shadow of a doubt" burdens of proof.

[Scomagia]

But how does one determine whether sexual desire was the primary motivator? Because if the accused are aware that they will not be castrated if they say that it wasn't sex based then that's what they will do.

There's probably a way they could figure it out. But then, you also have to realize that any motive could be contested by a defendant in any crime.

I see far too many moral and practical drawbacks for this to be an effective punishment. Also, I have to ask again what would be done to female offenders?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This is a worthy question, but it is a question that can be applied to any punishment. There are really only two solutions, and neither is perfect. We can either drastically reduce the punishment for a given crime for fear of punishing the innocent, but then the punishment ceases to be a punishment, or we can do everything in our power to insure that no innocent is ever found guilty, which, while I believe it to be the better option, will inevitably fail.

Until we can find a way to perfectly divide innocence from guilt, innocent people will be punished for the crimes of the guilty. It is not acceptable, but it is unavoidable, and we cannot abandon justice in the quest for perfection.

However, mutilating a person is not justice and will very likely increase the amount of victims that are murdered because of the threat of castration. And given that sexual desire is often not the primary motivator in these sorts of crimes the offenders will simply use objects on their next victim. Also, castration is only effective on males. What of female offenders?

Remove their ovaries, uterus, and their clitoris.

That way we can ensure they don't spread their dirty child-molesting seed to our population.

[Scomagia]

Physical castration is a bit much. Reversible chemical castration would probably work better(while still being morally repugnant). Not to mention what would happen to those wrongfully accused. Not much going back from that once it's done.

it's all wrong man, that's just unnecessary. Kill them, none of this halfway cruelty shit.

Because the death penalty is humane.

[United Marxist Nations]

There's probably a way they could figure it out. But then, you also have to realize that any motive could be contested by a defendant in any crime.

I see far too many moral and practical drawbacks for this to be an effective punishment. Also, I have to ask again what would be done to female offenders?

No idea; maybe someone who actually supports the position of castration would know more, but I'm playing devil's advocate.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But how does one determine whether sexual desire was the primary motivator? Because if the accused are aware that they will not be castrated if they say that it wasn't sex based then that's what they will do.

There's probably a way they could figure it out. But then, you also have to realize that any motive could be contested by a defendant in any crime.

This actually happens a lot, why do you think criminal and civil cases go to court?

[Scomagia]

However, mutilating a person is not justice and will very likely increase the amount of victims that are murdered because of the threat of castration. And given that sexual desire is often not the primary motivator in these sorts of crimes the offenders will simply use objects on their next victim. Also, castration is only effective on males. What of female offenders?

Remove their ovaries, uterus, and their clitoris.
But that does nothing to stop them from re-offending.
That way we can ensure they don't spread their dirty child-molesting seed to our population.

But that does nothing to stop them from reoffending.

[United Marxist Nations]

There's probably a way they could figure it out. But then, you also have to realize that any motive could be contested by a defendant in any crime.

This actually happens a lot, why do you think criminal and civil cases go to court?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

[Scomagia]

I see far too many moral and practical drawbacks for this to be an effective punishment. Also, I have to ask again what would be done to female offenders?

No idea; maybe someone who actually supports the position of castration would know more, but I'm playing devil's advocate.

I had figured that was what you were doing.

[Primo Victoria]

This is a worthy question, but it is a question that can be applied to any punishment. There are really only two solutions, and neither is perfect. We can either drastically reduce the punishment for a given crime for fear of punishing the innocent, but then the punishment ceases to be a punishment, or we can do everything in our power to insure that no innocent is ever found guilty, which, while I believe it to be the better option, will inevitably fail.

Until we can find a way to perfectly divide innocence from guilt, innocent people will be punished for the crimes of the guilty. It is not acceptable, but it is unavoidable, and we cannot abandon justice in the quest for perfection.

However, mutilating a person is not justice and will very likely increase the amount of victims that are murdered because of the threat of castration. And given that sexual desire is often not the primary motivator in these sorts of crimes the offenders will simply use objects on their next victim. Also, castration is only effective on males. What of female offenders?

You speak of castration as though the government would be taking an axe to the offenders genitals. It's actually a very simple procedure, basically a vasectomy, it hardly qualifies as "mutilation". It seems to me that if the punishment for molestation being harsh would encourage murder, the fact that murdering a child will in may places lead to the death penalty would have an opposite effect. As for sexual desire, that is only part of the point of castration, the other half of the equation is for punishment to be harsh enough to dissuade the criminal in the first place. As for castration only being effective on males, that is very true, However, that does not mean that female offenders would not be punished, it simply means that that particular punishment would not be available for them.