Bill that requires child molesters be castrated.

[Herskerstad]

If convicted by a grade A, irrefutable evidence going past mere witness testimonies then I would see no issue with it.

Could make them a head shorter while they are at it as far as I care.

[AiliailiA]

If convicted by a grade A, irrefutable evidence going past mere witness testimonies then I would see no issue with it.

Could make them a head shorter while they are at it as far as I care.

Grade A evidence? What is that? I'm pretty sure it's not a legal term.

[Zottistan]

The fact that this was suggested is just obscene. The justice system shouldn't be used for vengeance.

[AiliailiA]

Then explain, since the software (the brain) and hardware (let you figure that out) still work perfectly, how the computer will no longer work?

I didnt suggest the computer wouldnt work. I suggested the program may not work effectively. The program being the desire, drive, and obsession to commit offensive acts of a sexual nature. Effectively in the reduction of the desire, drive, and obsession to commit offensive acts of a sexual nature via hormonal reorientation alongside mental adaptation to the castration.

Or they could simply not consent to being "reorientated". They could get testosterone and inject it.

Shall we ban that? We tried to ban it, for a small class of people who consent to blood tests as a condition of their employment ... but they still got it and used it. I mean professional athletes of course. Testosterone isn't hard to get. It doesn't even have to be synthesised, testosterone from other mammals works just fine.

So it's like trying to ban recreational drugs. Except with even less legitimacy, because we'd be trying to ban certain people from using a "drug" which everyone else gets naturally from their glands.

Let's call this the War on Balls, and expect the same rip-roaring success as the War on Drugs.

[Galloism]

If convicted by a grade A, irrefutable evidence going past mere witness testimonies then I would see no issue with it.

Could make them a head shorter while they are at it as far as I care.

Grade A evidence? What is that? I'm pretty sure it's not a legal term.

Inspected by the FDA.

[AiliailiA]

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives.

Not all of us accept conscription as legitimate.

It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned,

Explain billing them for it then. In the unlikely event that the released prisoner wants to be castrated, and you say nonetheless it is a sacrifice for the strength of the State, why in hell charge them costs to do it?

to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Shit like that is exactly why it is so hard to make any constructive, libertarian suggestions about eugenics.

Five parts of good eugenics is sullied and dragged down one part of that shit. You would use eugenics against people's will for the "betterment of society". What fascist crap.

[AiliailiA]

Grade A evidence? What is that? I'm pretty sure it's not a legal term.

Inspected by the FDA.

I was trying to compose an answer to this, and in the process I clicked on some other tab I had open from before. It seems apt:

As the old saying goes:
There is very little a determined man can't fit into a meat grinder.

[Cosmicus]

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. There is nothing cruel and unusual about it.

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" -Gandhi

[Foderosovia]

Nothing but deserved. There is no "inhuman" in a phrase containing "child molester". It is not about what the state has the right to do with its citizens. It only applies to a minority that deliberately chose to do it, acknowledging of the consequences of molesting a child.

[The Emerald Legion]

Err... how does this apply when the child molester in question is female? Is it even possible to castrate a woman?

[Galloism]

Err... how does this apply when the child molester in question is female? Is it even possible to castrate a woman?

You could remove her ovaries.

... which is a fucking awful punishment.

[Schweizweld]

I would only support this in cases where it was 100% certain that the person was actually guilty. There are far too many false accusations and people are often found guilty with no evidence based only on someone's word. There is a guilty until proven innocent attitude in cases where someone is accused of child molestation and it is nearly impossible to prove one's innocence when there is no evidence.

[Madenia]

I agree with this bill in the case of violent rape of a child only or one incredibly young like under ten.

Statutory rape should be a crime but castration is too far there.

[Bottle]

No it doesnt. Folks have two eyes. Last one standing has an eye left.

The law isnt meant for revenge, true enough, but it is meant to reaffirm the public trust. Why is this bill offensive if it can help protect both potential victims and victimizers?

Explain to me how castration prevents rape without making Bottle collapse in fits of hysterical laughter. For men or women.

My chuckles should be considered the ultimate standard for reasoning and evidence.

[Kaztropol]

There is at least one group of people that would be adversely affected by this, and that I do not remember seeing mentioned so far.

Testicular cancer survivors, would find their lives become more awkward.

Products and treatments for testicular cancer survivors, would be of equal use to any offender sentenced to this punishment.
Cosmetic testicles, hormone treatments, that kind of thing.

There would be legal restrictions on the sale and use of those products, because the electorate that would approve this kind of law, would tend to be wary on offenders getting their hands on "the means to offend again".

So, Survivor Joe, arranges for a day off work, to have one of his neuticles replaced (or whatever the brand name is, I think "neuticles" is actually a brand of dog cosmetic testicles), because of there being a problem, say a product recall on a defective batch. Jim the Jerk, a co-worker, remarks that "neuticles, eh? I thought they only gave those to paedos". Suspicious Susan, a co-worker who quite fancies Joe, now gets doubts about the reality of Joe's condition.

An awkward situation at best.

Might make more men afraid to have lumps checked out by their doctor, because of the fear of the treatments for cancer having a side effect of being mistaken for an offender.

[Freelanderness]

This law will do nothing but backfire in regards to reducing child abuse.

1) Victims will be less likely to come forward. The overwhelming guilt that already accompanies it would be exacerbated. I know that I could not even stomach sending him to jail, let alone if I knew he might have his bodily integrity violated.
1.5) Others will also be much less supportive. Think about how we have the whole "You'll ruin his life" just for sending him to jail. Imagine what it would be like for the chemical castration.

2) Abusers will be more motivated to cover their tracks. This means it's harder to find them.
2.5) And they may also resort to murder in desperation.

3) It does not prevent them from reoffending.

4) It is an absurd violation of human rights, and useless violence.

[Hathradic States]

This law will do nothing but backfire in regards to reducing child abuse.

1) Victims will be less likely to come forward. The overwhelming guilt that already accompanies it would be exacerbated. I know that I could not even stomach sending him to jail, let alone if I knew he might have his bodily integrity violated.
1.5) Others will also be much less supportive. Think about how we have the whole "You'll ruin his life" just for sending him to jail. Imagine what it would be like for the chemical castration.

2) Abusers will be more motivated to cover their tracks. This means it's harder to find them.
2.5) And they may also resort to murder in desperation.

3) It does not prevent them from reoffending.

4) It is an absurd violation of human rights, and useless violence.

Issue outlawry to them would be much better, would it not?

[Freelanderness]

This law will do nothing but backfire in regards to reducing child abuse.

1) Victims will be less likely to come forward. The overwhelming guilt that already accompanies it would be exacerbated. I know that I could not even stomach sending him to jail, let alone if I knew he might have his bodily integrity violated.
1.5) Others will also be much less supportive. Think about how we have the whole "You'll ruin his life" just for sending him to jail. Imagine what it would be like for the chemical castration.

2) Abusers will be more motivated to cover their tracks. This means it's harder to find them.
2.5) And they may also resort to murder in desperation.

3) It does not prevent them from reoffending.

4) It is an absurd violation of human rights, and useless violence.

Issue outlawry to them would be much better, would it not?

Rehabilitation is the best solution, and you will not budge my opinion on it. As much as the emotion inside me would wish a million deaths upon them, that is not a just occurrence, and not a consequence of a just society.

[Solsteim]

Well aside from breaching a human beings (in my opinion) sacred right of self sovereignty, this bill would also have the horrendous consequence of mutilating the hundreds of american men each year who re arrested for bullshit "sexual" crimes that don't actually harm anyone (examples that come to my head: man sentenced to 2 years in prison for exposing buttocks in sight of child, man arrested for bathing his daughter in a manner his wife considered inappropriate). I know the bill says that it will only happen to child molesters, but when you start using punishments like that, its use can expand beyond all reason.

[Hathradic States]

Issue outlawry to them would be much better, would it not?

Rehabilitation is the best solution, and you will not budge my opinion on it. As much as the emotion inside me would wish a million deaths upon them, that is not a just occurrence, and not a consequence of a just society.

And I firmly believe that rehabilitation does no solace to the victim.

[Solsteim]

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. There is nothing cruel and unusual about it.

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" -Gandhi

Best quote ever.

[Freelanderness]

Rehabilitation is the best solution, and you will not budge my opinion on it. As much as the emotion inside me would wish a million deaths upon them, that is not a just occurrence, and not a consequence of a just society.

And I firmly believe that rehabilitation does no solace to the victim.

To ensure that the predator has never the opportunity to re-offend is grand solace indeed.

[Flaxxony]

Good. I hope they are killed afterward also

[Freelanderness]

Well aside from breaching a human beings (in my opinion) sacred right of self sovereignty, this bill would also have the horrendous consequence of mutilating the hundreds of american men each year who re arrested for bullshit "sexual" crimes that don't actually harm anyone (examples that come to my head: man sentenced to 2 years in prison for exposing buttocks in sight of child, man arrested for bathing his daughter in a manner his wife considered inappropriate). I know the bill says that it will only happen to child molesters, but when you start using punishments like that, its use can expand beyond all reason.

Child molestation is never bullshit.

[Flaxxony]

And I firmly believe that rehabilitation does no solace to the victim.

To ensure that the predator has never the opportunity to re-offend is grand solace indeed.

It doesnt change that their kid got messed up