Are Poland marking the way forward?

[GC]

Not seen a thread on this so not sure if any of you guys have seen this?

What do you think? should this be seriously considered over here?

I'm all for it to be honest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8383698.stm

[IndieHibby]

Not seen a thread on this so not sure if any of you guys have seen this?

What do you think? should this be seriously considered over here?

I'm all for it to be honest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8383698.stm

Part of me ponders the civil rights issue, but it doesn't take long to realise that if there is a clear proven link to it's application and a reported reduction in wrong 'tendancies', then....hell yeah!

The only slight problem would be if we had to release them or release them earlier as a result - what if the problem is pyscological?

Then they are unlikely to be able to reign themselves in just cos they've gone jaffa.

Seems like a bit of a Catch-22: "chop their balls off and then release them, or, if your not going to release them, then why chop their balls off?"

[GC]

Part of me ponders the civil rights issue, but it doesn't take long to realise that if there is a clear proven link to it's application and a reported reduction in wrong 'tendancies', then....hell yeah!

The only slight problem would be if we had to release them or release them earlier as a result - what if the problem is pyscological?

Then they are unlikely to be able to reign themselves in just cos they've gone jaffa.

Seems like a bit of a Catch-22: "chop their balls off and then release them, or, if your not going to release them, then why chop their balls off?"

I had the same concern, I mean just because they are not physically able to gain an erection it does not stop them committing other forms of sexual crimes which are no less horrific.

But then again if it reduces they're sexual urges to the point where they just can't commit the crime then I'd go for it.

It would have to be given serious discussion but something that should be looked at I think.

[Woody1985]

:top marks Poland

It is often stated the a large number of paedophiles are often those who have been abused in the past. By reducing their ability to abuse you could potentially reduce the risk as each generation moves on.

[Twa Cairpets]

Not seen a thread on this so not sure if any of you guys have seen this?

What do you think? should this be seriously considered over here?

I'm all for it to be honest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8383698.stm

Would there be instructions in English though? :devil:

[CropleyWasGod]

Are such measures reversible?

[ancient hibee]

Bit of a blow if you're not guilty.

[IndieHibby]

'bit of a blow' for those kids....

[CropleyWasGod]

'bit of a blow' for those kids....

Not if the chap is innocent, which is where the previous poster and I were coming from.

There would have to be safeguards built in, in case of miscarriages of justice.

[CropleyWasGod]

Another question.... are there similar procedures for women?

[Steve-O]

You guys do realise that this policy is not ACTUAL castration don't you?

I'm not sure if these drugs have permanent results, do they?? :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

You guys do realise that this policy is not ACTUAL castration don't you?

I'm not sure if these drugs have permanent results, do they?? :confused:

My question, too. If they have permanent results, then miscarriages of justice could be horrendous.

[IndieHibby]

Not if the chap is innocent, which is where the previous poster and I were coming from.

There would have to be safeguards built in, in case of miscarriages of justice.

That's true for that particular chap, but not true for all the others who were guilty.....

(i'm merely playing devil's advocate here - maybe we should have a devil's advocate smiley....)

[CropleyWasGod]

That's true for that particular chap, but not true for all the others who were guilty.....

(i'm merely playing devil's advocate here - maybe we should have a devil's advocate smiley....)

The devil's anti-advocate would say "better that a hundred pervs go unemasculated than one innocent guy lose his nuts."

Or something.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Another progressive move from that bastion of liberal thinking, Poland.

How does castration deal with the theory that abuse is about power rather than sexual gratification?

[EuanH78]

:top marks Poland

It is often stated the a large number of paedophiles are often those who have been abused in the past. By reducing their ability to abuse you could potentially reduce the risk as each generation moves on.

This is not strictly true. The act of abuse says absolutely nothing about the victim of the abuse, either at the time or in the future.

Disclosure of abuse (especially for males) is extremely difficult. Your statement above is part of a societal attitude that encourages those who are suffering to do so in silence.

The future of a victim is in their own hands, sadly they have to work through an enormous range of complicated issues that take a strength and courage that most of us will never have to find in ourselves.

Victims need help, understanding and an environment that encourages disclosure of these abuses and with that,the availability to get help.

To label victims 'potential' abusers as implied above is part of the overall problem.

FWIW chemical castration will solve nothing. IMO

[Woody1985]

This is not strictly true. The act of abuse says absolutely nothing about the victim of the abuse, either at the time or in the future.

Disclosure of abuse (especially for males) is extremely difficult. Your statement above is part of a societal attitude that encourages those who are suffering to do so in silence.

The future of a victim is in their own hands, sadly they have to work through an enormous range of complicated issues that take a strength and courage that most of us will never have to find in ourselves.

Victims need help, understanding and an environment that encourages disclosure of these abuses and with that,the availability to get help.

To label victims 'potential' abusers as implied above is part of the overall problem.

FWIW chemical castration will solve nothing. IMO

I take your point. However, it is not I that has previously provided this information. From what has been said on here in the past it's accepted as being accurate.

I agree that not all of those who have been abused will abuse again. If you can minimise the risk of those who have been caught and neutralise them by whatever means then it's fine by me.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I take your point. However, it is not I that has previously provided this information. From what has been said on here in the past it's accepted as being accurate.

I agree that not all of those who have been abused will abuse again. If you can minimise the risk of those who have been caught and neutralise them by whatever means then it's fine by me.

Have to say, I'd always been under the impression that many abusers of children had been abused themselves, as well. Mind you it was probably me that brought it up on here in one of our previous "heated debates".

I can see why the perception that they might be a paedophile might prevent some people from coming forward.

If anyone is interested in learning more about the subject, this is an interesting booklet, which deals with some of the myths. It isn't pleasant reading, but it is written in plain English, and at least gives us an insight into the experiences of survivors.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/07143029/13

[EuanH78]

Have to say, I'd always been under the impression that many abusers of children had been abused themselves, as well. Mind you it was probably me that brought it up on here in one of our previous "heated debates".

I can see why the perception that they might be a paedophile might prevent some people from coming forward.

If anyone is interested in learning more about the subject, this is an interesting booklet, which deals with some of the myths. It isn't pleasant reading, but it is written in plain English, and at least gives us an insight into the experiences of survivors.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/07143029/13

The implication of what was said is misleading, whilst many abusers have in actual fact been abused, we need to be careful not to reduce that logic to ' those that have been abused are abusers or even are likely to be ' which is not true.

That attitude is damaging to people who have already suffered horrendously and needs to change.

[steakbake]

It might be argued that it cuts reoffending and perhaps makes everyone feel better, but it wont stop child abuse from happening, sadly.

[Woody1985]

It might be argued that it cuts reoffending and perhaps makes everyone feel better, but it wont stop child abuse from happening, sadly.

I don't think it will ever stop but if we can take action that will reduce it by any means then we should.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The implication of what was said is misleading, whilst many abusers have in actual fact been abused, we need to be careful not to reduce that logic to ' those that have been abused are abusers or even are likely to be ' which is not true.

That attitude is damaging to people who have already suffered horrendously and needs to change.

Sorry, I was under the impression that evidence suggests you have more chance of becoming an abuser if you have been abused yourself.

[MyJo]

At least poland are making an effort to deal with these sub-humans rather than the british approach of wagging a finger at them, calling them a naughty boy and using taxpayers money to house them a few hundred yards away from a primary school.

here is what wikipedia has to say about chemical castration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration).....seems like a reasonable option for peadophiles IMO and excuse me if i couldn't actually give a ****** if they suffer side effects or not.

[Twa Cairpets]

At least poland are making an effort to deal with these sub-humans rather than the british approach of wagging a finger at them, calling them a naughty boy and using taxpayers money to house them a few hundred yards away from a primary school.

here is what wikipedia has to say about chemical castration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration).....seems like a reasonable option for peadophiles IMO and excuse me if i couldn't actually give a ****** if they suffer side effects or not.

Do you really think this is the case?

Like everyone, I regard child abuse as utterly vile, and I know that if anything was to happen to my kids then my desire for revenge wouldnt stop at chemcial castration. I therefore fully appreciate that I lay myself open to being accused of having double standards, but the risk of false convictions is too high. If it was you being accused (wrongly) how would you feel?

There are also questions of degree. This all gets onto very shaky ground here - is there a judicial difference between penetrative sex or other forms of abuse? Does the abuse need to be sexual, or would systematic child beating not carry the sanction of chemical castration? (If I recall correctly the "Baby P" case was violence with no sexual content). Is there a judicial dividing line between abuse of a five year old by a middle aged man and sexual contact between a fifteen year old and a twenty year old?

These are very difficult questions, and they are uncomfortable, truth be told, to even post on a message board. But I do think that these are the questions that need to be thought through and addressed rather than the cheap, knee-jerk tabloid headline type stance adopted in your post.

[CropleyWasGod]

For me, it's about potential miscarriage of justice.

In reading the Wikipedia article.... not that I set any store on the wonders of W*nkipedia :wink:.... it seems that the chemical process can be reversed. That's a reasonable safeguard, but for anybody wrongly convicted, there is the double whammy of the loss of liberty AND libido. Also, what happens to someone wrongly convicted who suffers a bad reaction, perhaps fatal, to the drugs?

Before someone jumps on the "PC Brigade" bandwagon, this is about justice. The protection of it, for everyone involved. If it could be shown that such a system was infallible, I would be more inclined to accept it. However, I don't know that it can be.

I would be very interested in reviewing the Polish experience in, say, 5 years' time.

[MyJo]

Do you really think this is the case?

Like everyone, I regard child abuse as utterly vile, and I know that if anything was to happen to my kids then my desire for revenge wouldnt stop at chemcial castration. I therefore fully appreciate that I lay myself open to being accused of having double standards, but the risk of false convictions is too high. If it was you being accused (wrongly) how would you feel?

There are also questions of degree. This all gets onto very shaky ground here - is there a judicial difference between penetrative sex or other forms of abuse. Does the abuse need to be sexual, or would systematic child beating not carry the sanction of chemical castration (If I recall correctly the "Baby P" case was violence with no sexual content)? Is there a judicial dividing line between abuse of a five year old by a middle aged man and sexual contact between a fifteen year old and a twenty year old?

These are very difficult questions, and they are uncomfortable, truth be told, to even post on a message board. But I do think that these are the questions that need to be thought through and addressed rather than the cheap, knee-jerk tabloid headline type stance adopted in your post.




Polish President Lech Kaczynski has signed a law making chemical castration compulsory for adults who rape children or immediate family members.
The introduction of the law means that Poland is now the only country in Europe where certain sex offenders will be forced to undergo the treatment.

nowhere does it mention chemical castration for anything other than rape and sexual offences against children so yes, the abuse that warrants this type of punishment would be sexual. physical and mental abuse would be dealt with as the crimes they are and suitable punishments imposed but i think its fairly straightforward in the criteria, If you sexually abuse a child, your sexual urges and libido will be supressed through chemical castration.

as for the judicial dividing line i believe thats what the age of consent is there for. The law is that you cannot have sex with an under-16 if your 17, 25 or 50 its all the same.

[Twa Cairpets]

nowhere does it mention chemical castration for anything other than rape and sexual offences against children so yes, the abuse that warrants this type of punishment would be sexual. physical and mental abuse would be dealt with as the crimes they are and suitable punishments imposed but i think its fairly straightforward in the criteria, If you sexually abuse a child, your sexual urges and libido will be supressed through chemical castration.

as for the judicial dividing line i believe thats what the age of consent is there for. The law is that you cannot have sex with an under-16 if your 17, 25 or 50 its all the same.

Thanks for the reply.

The question of degree still stands as valid though. If I take your point correctly, presumably sexual abuse stopping short of penetrative intercourse would not be punished by chemical castration? It would be difficult to justify to victims of other abuse that their suffering was on a somehow lower level, punishable by a lesser sanction. In the same vein, the rape of a sixteen year old girl would somehow been seen as different to the rape of a fifteen year old

Equally, your argument is exactly the same as could be advanced that violent offenders should be made to take drugs or have a lobotomy to remove their violent tendencies. You may of course agree with this as a form of punishment, but I dont.

The final point on age of consent cannot be written off in the way that you do. There is a massive difference, I think, between the rape of a pre-pubescent child by an abusive adult and the consensual sex between a 15 year old girl and her 16 year old boyfriend. A quick scout through various sources on the web shows that the around 20% of girls lose their virginity at 15. Doing some quick maths, lets assume that these girls/women each have a different partner, then that makes in the region of 5.5 million men paedophiles by your definition.

My point is that an emotive subject such as this does lend itself to entrenched positions of black and white, often at the extremes. Its when you dig into it and think about the all the issues that it becomes much, much more difficult to justify.

[Sir David Gray]

Thanks for the reply.

The question of degree still stands as valid though. If I take your point correctly, presumably sexual abuse stopping short of penetrative intercourse would not be punished by chemical castration? It would be difficult to justify to victims of other abuse that their suffering was on a somehow lower level, punishable by a lesser sanction. In the same vein, the rape of a sixteen year old girl would somehow been seen as different to the rape of a fifteen year old

Equally, your argument is exactly the same as could be advanced that violent offenders should be made to take drugs or have a lobotomy to remove their violent tendencies. You may of course agree with this as a form of punishment, but I dont.

The final point on age of consent cannot be written off in the way that you do. There is a massive difference, I think, between the rape of a pre-pubescent child by an abusive adult and the consensual sex between a 15 year old girl and her 16 year old boyfriend. A quick scout through various sources on the web shows that the around 20% of girls lose their virginity at 15. Doing some quick maths, lets assume that these girls/women each have a different partner, then that makes in the region of 5.5 million men paedophiles by your definition.

My point is that an emotive subject such as this does lend itself to entrenched positions of black and white, often at the extremes. Its when you dig into it and think about the all the issues that it becomes much, much more difficult to justify.

I don't know whether this might make you change your mind here or not but I totally agree with you here. :greengrin

To me, a paedophile is someone who preys on, and sexually abuses, young children who have no idea what sex is and could not possibly consent to such a thing, physically, mentally or emotionally. Although it is still against the law and they shouldn't do it, I don't believe that a man who has sex with a 14/15 year old girl is a paedophile and I don't think these people should be treated in a similar manner to people who sexually abuse five and six year olds. However, that's not to say that they should get away with something like that, they should clearly still be punished as the law states that you must be 16 before you can have sexual intercourse.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't know whether this might make you change your mind here or not but I totally agree with you here. :greengrin

To me, a paedophile is someone who preys on, and sexually abuses, young children who have no idea what sex is and could not possibly consent to such a thing, physically, mentally or emotionally. Although it is still against the law and they shouldn't do it, I don't believe that a man who has sex with a 14/15 year old girl is a paedophile and I don't think these people should be treated in a similar manner to people who sexually abuse five and six year olds. However, that's not to say that they should get away with something like that, they should clearly still be punished as the law states that you must be 16 before you can have sexual intercourse.

Must. Disagree. With. Falkirk... Cannot. Have. Convergent. Views.

Aaarrghh

No, its no good, we do actually almost agree about something. Except that there will be instances, I am sure, of a naive, immature 14 year old being subject to predatory advances in exactly the same way as is the case for younger kids. Just because his tastes are chronologically higher than anothers, doesnt necessarily exclude him from being a paedophile. Which just highlights the difficulty of fairly and justifiably enforcing something so draconian as is suggested.

[Woody1985]

Must. Disagree. With. Falkirk... Cannot. Have. Convergent. Views.

Aaarrghh

No, its no good, we do actually almost agree about something. Except that there will be instances, I am sure, of a naive, immature 14 year old being subject to predatory advances in exactly the same way as is the case for younger kids. Just because his tastes are chronologically higher than anothers, doesnt necessarily exclude him from being a paedophile. Which just highlights the difficulty of fairly and justifiably enforcing something so draconian as is suggested.

Where is this namby pamby liberal thinking getting us?

As someone has said above, it will be interesting to see in 5 years how our re-offending rate compares to ours at that time.

[CropleyWasGod]

Where is this namby pamby liberal thinking getting us?

As someone has said above, it will be interesting to see in 5 years how our re-offending rate compares to ours at that time.

Wasn't so much the re-offending I was talking about, it was the extent of miscarriages of justice.

[Twa Cairpets]

Where is this namby pamby liberal thinking getting us?
As someone has said above, it will be interesting to see in 5 years how our re-offending rate compares to ours at that time.

Namby pamby liberal thinking? hmmm.

Second point first. Yes, it will be very interesting to see what difference it makes, but five years is possibly too short a period of time. Why? Presumably, anyone caught and convicted from this period on will undergo the treatment rather than it being retrospectively applied to those already in prison. Five years will therefore see, I would think, no discernible change as a result due to the fact that the offender presumably would have been in jail anyway, and therefore not able to offend.

What you call "namby-pamby liberal thinking" I would call "thinking".

Have a read of some of the other posts, and let me know how you would address the points raised. Don't confuse what I've posted as me having the slightest modicum of sympathy for offenders - I have absolutely none whatsoever - but you can't, in my opinion, form an opinion on this from headlines and soundbites on this type of subject. You have to really, really think it through, look at all the difficult areas and the potential consequences.

[Woody1985]

Namby pamby liberal thinking? hmmm.

Second point first. Yes, it will be very interesting to see what difference it makes, but five years is possibly too short a period of time. Why? Presumably, anyone caught and convicted from this period on will undergo the treatment rather than it being retrospectively applied to those already in prison. Five years will therefore see, I would think, no discernible change as a result due to the fact that the offender presumably would have been in jail anyway, and therefore not able to offend.

What you call "namby-pamby liberal thinking" I would call "thinking".

Have a read of some of the other posts, and let me know how you would address the points raised. Don't confuse what I've posted as me having the slightest modicum of sympathy for offenders - I have absolutely none whatsoever - but you can't, in my opinion, form an opinion on this from headlines and soundbites on this type of subject. You have to really, really think it through, look at all the difficult areas and the potential consequences.

I've skimmed over again and taken some of the key points (may have missed some).

Mention of offenders rights

IMO, you lose your rights when you commit a heinous offence against another person. Being castrated with drugs is totally deserved IMO.

Physical Issue (drugs effects)

Again, you abuse someone and you are castrated with drugs, tough titty. From what I've read it would seem that it is reversable. Therefore, should someone be deemed no longer a threat to society (via namby pamby liberal methods :greengrin) then they can be taken off the drugs.

Miscarriage of Justice

Follows on nicely from the above, ultimately we have to have faith in the judicial system otherwise it diminishes it's effectiveness. Yes, there will be instances where we get it wrong. However, if the drugs are reversable then I don't see this as a massive issue. I know I'd see it differently if it was me but that's the same with a lot of things.

I understand the defence against these kinds of methods because of MoJ but I think that for the greater good and protection of more children/adults then it is justifiable.

Other crimes

There has been mention of other crimes such as psychological crimes, these are separate and should not incur the same punishment.

Underage Sex

The points raised already are good ones. I don't think this should apply to a 15/16 year old for example. As I understand the law already considers this in cases where this occurs. The could perhaps shore up the law i.e. allow a + / - 2 years difference i.e 16 and 14 y/o, 17/15.

Personally I think that an 18 y/o sleeping with a 15 y/o is just wrong.

I agree with other comments that there's a clear difference with an older man having sex with a youth and something like the above may combat youths from being branded paedos.

Re-offending

You make a good point about the re-offending rate and the timescale. I agree, that we'd need to look at this over the longer term. However, if something like this isn't attempted then we'll never know.

I look forward to your counters :greengrin although I might not be able to respond until I get home from work. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Do you really think this is the case?

Like everyone, I regard child abuse as utterly vile, and I know that if anything was to happen to my kids then my desire for revenge wouldnt stop at chemcial castration. I therefore fully appreciate that I lay myself open to being accused of having double standards, but the risk of false convictions is too high. If it was you being accused (wrongly) how would you feel?

There are also questions of degree. This all gets onto very shaky ground here - is there a judicial difference between penetrative sex or other forms of abuse? Does the abuse need to be sexual, or would systematic child beating not carry the sanction of chemical castration? (If I recall correctly the "Baby P" case was violence with no sexual content). Is there a judicial dividing line between abuse of a five year old by a middle aged man and sexual contact between a fifteen year old and a twenty year old?

These are very difficult questions, and they are uncomfortable, truth be told, to even post on a message board. But I do think that these are the questions that need to be thought through and addressed rather than the cheap, knee-jerk tabloid headline type stance adopted in your post.

I don't think there is anything wrong with double standards on such an emotive issue. How could someone be expected to be objective when it comes to a thing like that? Your duty to protect your child has been broached, so I think most people's natural instinct would be for revenge.

It's for everyone else to consider cooly, and rationally, the best response. The best response for me is the one that prevents it happening again - which of course in its extreme would be killing the offender.

This is such a difficult question to find an answer to. It seems to me that we shy away from considering all the aspects of "child abuse". We have to acknowledge that different people mature at different rates, so the age 16 thing is an arbitary age.

That said, at least it gives an adult a clear line for right and wrong. In law though, I think, a boy of 16 years and one day having sex with a girl of 15 years and 364 days would be an offence. Is it right to say that boy is a paedophile though? It seems to me that there are shades of grey in all of this.

This is where it could be sickening (it certainly isn't something I am comfortable with), should the same shades of grey apply to a 25 year old man having sex with the 15 year old girl.

As always in these debates, I'd like to stress that paedophilia appalls and disgusts me, as it would most people. I think sometimes the stigma surrounding the whole thing means that we don't try hard enough to understand the issues, and we don't consider the very real dillemmas surrounding sexual maturity.

If the chemical castration thing does work, and it stops abuse, and there is no alternative cure, it has to be something that is considered.

[Twa Cairpets]

I've skimmed over again and taken some of the key points (may have missed some).

Mention of offenders rights

IMO, you lose your rights when you commit a heinous offence against another person. Being castrated with drugs is totally deserved IMO.

I dont think I did mention offenders rights, you know. The other point is what constitutes a heinous offence. In my view, rape of a child is of course that, but then again I would argue so is rape of an adult. Physical abuse of kids (or adults, for that matter) is equally vile, is it not? Where do you stop?


Physical Issue (drugs effects)

Again, you abuse someone and you are castrated with drugs, tough titty. From what I've read it would seem that it is reversable. Therefore, should someone be deemed no longer a threat to society (via namby pamby liberal methods :greengrin) then they can be taken off the drugs.

Again, dont think that was me, but what youve said above just doesnt make sense. Who decides? Who is liable (both legally and financially) if there is a miscarriage of justice?


Miscarriage of Justice

Follows on nicely from the above, ultimately we have to have faith in the judicial system otherwise it diminishes it's effectiveness. Yes, there will be instances where we get it wrong. However, if the drugs are reversable then I don't see this as a massive issue. I know I'd see it differently if it was me but that's the same with a lot of things.

I understand the defence against these kinds of methods because of MoJ but I think that for the greater good and protection of more children/adults then it is justifiable.

I agree with the fact we do need to have a level of trust in the system, but you cant dismiss it as glibly as you do. Recidivism amongst molesters appears to be somewhere between 20 and 50% under current treatment regimes (in the US at least - link (http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html)here) but at what point do you balance the potential risk of incorrect castration through wrong conviction to the benefit gained by society as a result?


Other crimes

There has been mention of other crimes such as psychological crimes, these are separate and should not incur the same punishment.

As above Woody, the victims of other crimes may be equally innocent and be equally affected by the crime. The fact that it is a child does seem to make it worse (as a parent, its about the worst thing I can imagine), but in genuinely cold, considered analysis, why should this be the case compared to similar atrocities committed against older teens or adults. As FR says, the age of consent is relatively arbirtary.


Underage Sex

The points raised already are good ones. I don't think this should apply to a 15/16 year old for example. As I understand the law already considers this in cases where this occurs. The could perhaps shore up the law i.e. allow a + / - 2 years difference i.e 16 and 14 y/o, 17/15.

Personally I think that an 18 y/o sleeping with a 15 y/o is just wrong.

I agree with other comments that there's a clear difference with an older man having sex with a youth and something like the above may combat youths from being branded paedos.

So now you are applying seemingly arbitrary rules to the issue. Same issues apply wherever you set the mark - i.e. 18+1 day/15 years 364 days would still be a crime for you, whereas two days previously it would have been ok?



Re-offending

You make a good point about the re-offending rate and the timescale. I agree, that we'd need to look at this over the longer term. However, if something like this isn't attempted then we'll never know.

As a big fan of empirical evidence outweighing emotional knee jerk responses, I agree, but thinking about this as a result of this thread has made me think of a few more issues:

1) There is potentially a benefit in the drop of re-offending as a result of castration, but this only happens if the convicted are released back into society. Im assuming that the Poles are doing this as well as imprisonment, so where is the benefit? I'd prefer to see the incarceration element being much more of a punishment for this type of offence. Life meaning life, and being made to do something menial but for the benefit of society for the length of their imprisonment.
2) If there is a statistically significant link between those abused turning into abusers, is there not an argument to castrate them "just in case" because that would provide a further real drop in the numbers of kids abused in the future? (Obviously I think that is nonsense, but if, say 20% of abusers have been abused, and there is a 20% recidivism rate, the logic is unquestionable).
3) If the sanction for capture is seen as unacceptable, could there be a risk that to avoid capture, there is an increase of child murder/abduction?

Bottom line to me is that sexual desire for children is a result of some horrible miswire in someones brain. That doesnt excuse it or make it something to be pandered to as something they couldnt control, but it does suggest to me that in any population, there will always be people with that miswire who will have that perversion.

Doing what the Poles are doing may slake the desire for public revenge, but that doesnt make it the right thing to do.

[Woody1985]

I dont think I did mention offenders rights, you know. The other point is what constitutes a heinous offence. In my view, rape of a child is of course that, but then again I would argue so is rape of an adult. Physical abuse of kids (or adults, for that matter) is equally vile, is it not? Where do you stop?

Again, dont think that was me, but what youve said above just doesnt make sense. Who decides? Who is liable (both legally and financially) if there is a miscarriage of justice?

I agree with the fact we do need to have a level of trust in the system, but you cant dismiss it as glibly as you do. Recidivism amongst molesters appears to be somewhere between 20 and 50% under current treatment regimes (in the US at least - link (http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html)here) but at what point do you balance the potential risk of incorrect castration through wrong conviction to the benefit gained by society as a result?


As above Woody, the victims of other crimes may be equally innocent and be equally affected by the crime. The fact that it is a child does seem to make it worse (as a parent, its about the worst thing I can imagine), but in genuinely cold, considered analysis, why should this be the case compared to similar atrocities committed against older teens or adults. As FR says, the age of consent is relatively arbirtary.

So now you are applying seemingly arbitrary rules to the issue. Same issues apply wherever you set the mark - i.e. 18+1 day/15 years 364 days would still be a crime for you, whereas two days previously it would have been ok?

As a big fan of empirical evidence outweighing emotional knee jerk responses, I agree, but thinking about this as a result of this thread has made me think of a few more issues:

1) There is potentially a benefit in the drop of re-offending as a result of castration, but this only happens if the convicted are released back into society. Im assuming that the Poles are doing this as well as imprisonment, so where is the benefit? I'd prefer to see the incarceration element being much more of a punishment for this type of offence. Life meaning life, and being made to do something menial but for the benefit of society for the length of their imprisonment.
2) If there is a statistically significant link between those abused turning into abusers, is there not an argument to castrate them "just in case" because that would provide a further real drop in the numbers of kids abused in the future? (Obviously I think that is nonsense, but if, say 20% of abusers have been abused, and there is a 20% recidivism rate, the logic is unquestionable).
3) If the sanction for capture is seen as unacceptable, could there be a risk that to avoid capture, there is an increase of child murder/abduction?

Bottom line to me is that sexual desire for children is a result of some horrible miswire in someones brain. That doesnt excuse it or make it something to be pandered to as something they couldnt control, but it does suggest to me that in any population, there will always be people with that miswire who will have that perversion.

Doing what the Poles are doing may slake the desire for public revenge, but that doesnt make it the right thing to do.

Apologies, I was trying to give a view on my thoughts on each of the issues raised on the thread rather than your points specifically.

I agree that rape of an adult is a heinous crime. I think that people have always perceived children as being weak and unable to defend themselves which makes it more calculated and vile.

In terms of who decides re MoJ just now then they'd have to follow the existing procedures or create new ones for the specific scenario. Without going off on a tangent I think that the amount of MoJ that have been proven are miniscule, not to say that's a true reflection of the amount of MoJ.

As mentioned above, the MoJ is miniscule and therefore becomes less of any issue IMO. To get a true reflection of MoJ in cases such as child abuse would probably be extremely difficult. If you have between 20-50% going back to their old ways and the drugs are reversable then it should be less of an issue for those who don't IMO. Although it throws up other issues about how they live their life after the event, however, that wouldn't be my main concern.

Regarding the ages and suggested limits I think that would be a sensible approach although I appreciate your point. However, a broad range of things are determined by age, smoking, drinking, marriage, driving, joining the army etc. The line needs to be drawn someone and we should allow for a grey area.

My tea is ready so I'll come back to the last section after!

[Sir David Gray]

Must. Disagree. With. Falkirk... Cannot. Have. Convergent. Views.

Aaarrghh

No, its no good, we do actually almost agree about something. Except that there will be instances, I am sure, of a naive, immature 14 year old being subject to predatory advances in exactly the same way as is the case for younger kids. Just because his tastes are chronologically higher than anothers, doesnt necessarily exclude him from being a paedophile. Which just highlights the difficulty of fairly and justifiably enforcing something so draconian as is suggested.

Of course, each case must be dealt with on its own merit.

Young teenage girls can still be pressured into doing things that they don't want to do. That is absolutely wrong but I still wouldn't say that the offender is a paedophile. I think in this case, the term 'statutory rape' is more appropriate for when the minor has hit sexual maturity, but is not yet 16, as opposed to child molestation, for anyone engaging in sexual activity with a young child.

A lot of teenagers (particularly girls) can appear older than they actually are, by the way that they dress and act and also in terms of their height and build. I can understand how someone might find themselves in a position where they are attracted to a teenager who happens to be under the age of consent, but just looks old for their age. However, once they find out the actual age of the person, that should be the end of any prospective relationship and any responsible adult would then walk away.

However, I cannot understand how any adult could be attracted, in a sexual way, towards young children and it's fairly obvious that they are well below the age of sexual maturity, never mind the age of consent.

[EuanH78]

Sorry, I was under the impression that evidence suggests you have more chance of becoming an abuser if you have been abused yourself.

Sorry FR, seems I might be hung up on the semantics here. I just think there should be careful consideration about how things are phrased.

'Abusers are likely to have been abused' is true, the logical reverse that 'Those abused are likely to be abusers' is not so.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry FR, seems I might be hung up on the semantics here. I just think there should be careful consideration about how things are phrased.

'Abusers are likely to have been abused' is true, the logical reverse that 'Those abused are likely to be abusers' is not so.

Got you, I agree. Thanks for that. :thumbsup:

[CropleyWasGod]

Here's another angle.

I was speaking to someone tonight who deals with sex offenders as part of their required treatment after being convicted.

He was telling me that the various research into chemical castration suggests that, in terms of re-offending, it doesn't work. His opinion is that sex offences are less to do with physical urges than badly wired brains.

It strikes me that physical behaviour IS a function of brain wiring, but then I am no expert.

[Steve-O]

Thanks for the reply.

The question of degree still stands as valid though. If I take your point correctly, presumably sexual abuse stopping short of penetrative intercourse would not be punished by chemical castration? It would be difficult to justify to victims of other abuse that their suffering was on a somehow lower level, punishable by a lesser sanction. In the same vein, the rape of a sixteen year old girl would somehow been seen as different to the rape of a fifteen year old

Equally, your argument is exactly the same as could be advanced that violent offenders should be made to take drugs or have a lobotomy to remove their violent tendencies. You may of course agree with this as a form of punishment, but I dont.

The final point on age of consent cannot be written off in the way that you do. There is a massive difference, I think, between the rape of a pre-pubescent child by an abusive adult and the consensual sex between a 15 year old girl and her 16 year old boyfriend. A quick scout through various sources on the web shows that the around 20% of girls lose their virginity at 15. Doing some quick maths, lets assume that these girls/women each have a different partner, then that makes in the region of 5.5 million men paedophiles by your definition.

My point is that an emotive subject such as this does lend itself to entrenched positions of black and white, often at the extremes. Its when you dig into it and think about the all the issues that it becomes much, much more difficult to justify.

This IS the case over here in New Zealand...there are different 'levels' and those very things you mention set the levels. I would assume there is a similar state of affairs in the UK.