Castration of sexual offenders

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by in_the_cheapseats, Feb 5, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Now, IMO, some countries get the punishment for sexual crimes right. Some may go too far. I'm hoping for some sensible debate rather than emotive "string em high and castrate the lot" which I envision I'll get from some c/s. :D

    Although there appears to be a lot of bleeding heart types damning the Czech approach to dealing sexual offenders, they obviously find it to work. They will physically and permanently castrate sexual offenders.

    I didn't realise that France, Italy and Poland also have the ability to castrate their offenders, using a chemical procedure instead.These other countries may then release the offenders back into the community oncw they have been neutered.

    I realise that this punishment is a harsh one but for repeat offenders and those deemed to be a continued risk to women if released, I think castration is an option that should be available.

    It is certainly a more cost effective measure than having to lock a serial offender away for life. With an av cost to the tax payer of £130k per annum per head (Ref from 2007 study on costs, a snip seems a pretty good way of saving some money as well.

    Thoughts for its use in the UK?
  2. You can understand it in the majority of bang to rights caught in the act cases - especially child molesters but what happens if a woman falsely cries rape? - be a bit of annoying to get part of your nuts cut off only to prove later she lied!
  3. The underlying problem is in their brains not their genitals.
    It's better to cut their heads off.
  4. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Or rather their brains reaction to the hormaones that the sexual organs produce for them. That is the whole point of neutering. It removes the hormonal imbalance many of these offenders suffer from.
  5. yeah I agree, one of my ex's had a girl cry rape on him, broke him. Got dragged through court etc turns out the girl was just lying.
    Kiddy fiddling (which has already been done ) yeah, there's no excuse for it but I remember reading an unofficial statistic once that approx. 80% of rape cases were fabricated. Not quite sure why you'd ever do that, but having your nuts cut off for something you didn't do is highly unfair IMO.
  6. My little dog was castrated. It didn't stop him sh@gging anything that was covered in fur, or, even, rubber toys. And he remained ferocious.
  7. It is not clear to me that the solution really works. I couple of years ago I saw an article about a serial rapist who was castrated as a provision of parole. The individual started taking hormones to compensate for the castration so he could return to raping.

    Sorry about no link but it was a couple of years ago and in Europe (perhaps Germany)
  8. They tried chemical castration in the US; a lot of perverts started going to corrupt doctors and paying for testosterone injections to get them back to....'normal'.

    Not all rapists will be stopped by being gelded; they are looking for the power rush and will simply use a blunt object for forced penetration - or find another way to hurt and humiliate their victims. Better to wall them up and shoot them first time round. They are over the line and don't deserve any further consideration.
  9. Physical castration is a step too far, especially with the number of false allegations of rape that are made. The government's stated aim of 're-educating' judges in order to increase the number of rape convictions really precludes the use of castration. They can't stick your nuts back on if you're cleared on appeal after five years.

    I think the 'chemical castration' technique is already used for sex offenders but it depends on them taking the pills voluntarily. There was a documentary a while ago featuring one bloke complaining about the affect this was having on his relationship with his boyfriend. The boyfriend was 16. The bloke had been convicted of raping a six month old baby. The doctor did not fully embrace diversity and pointed out that if laddo didn't dump the under age boyfriend immediately and keep taking the pills, he'd be going straight back to jail where he'd quite possibly be killed.

    I think the £130K per year cost might relate to multi-agency monitoring that goes on after some sex offenders are released. If they're dangerous enough to need that level of monitoring, they should be kept in jail. It 'only' costs £30 k per year for a high security prison place (and the other prisoners will probably carry out a physical castration anyway).
  10. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Punishment for that crime will still initially be a custodial sentence. The procedures occuring in these other countries are carried out when the sentence comes to an end but the offender is still deemed a risk to society. If the castration doesn't happen then he will be transfered to a secure facility for an indeterminate time period, until he is deemed to be no longer a risk.This could be 20+ years.

    Castration isn't the punishment in itself.
  11. Im told when there is a medical castration, it removes 95% of testosterone as the testicles go! (great visual) though the adrenal gland left produces 5% which is enough apparently to still get some sexual function! 8O

    Most rapists for example arent driven by a sexual desire, its power, a lower sex drive won't prevent attacks motivated by power.

    Wasn't there a case in the 90's (USA maybe) of someone castrated (balls removed) who continued with violent sex attacks and a murder when parolled?

    I don't think its effective, just lock them up - surely its better to keep them where they can do no harm, rather than risk a procedure that isn't 100% effective, locking them up IS 100% effective - happy for them to rape each other if thats their thing!

    If they are still a risk - don't let them out! Lets face it, an overhaul of the current legal system would go a long way to helping - you know little things like 'life meaning life' etc.
  12. Chemical castration is used in UK. For the predatory types, generally those who are likely to rape other inmates. But, as you can imagine, only on those who are banged up.

    This sort of thing should be expanded. Get all the nonces and rapists in to a secure prison, and dope ém up.

    Failing a good hanging that is.... whilst I appreciate capital punishment has a low deterrence effect it does have a 0% reoffending rate.
  13. I am told that nine out of ten enjoy a gang bang.
    Last time I started the next argument it got nasty.
    Anyone explain when with all this Gang Rape or individual rape, in Prison NO One has ever Taken the Authorities to court for allowing it ?
  14. It can only be used on patients detained under the Mental Health Act (and even then it's iffy to say the least as it's not treating a mental illness), or on patients who've agreed to take it. It's unlawful to forcibly medicate anyone, prisoners included, in this country unless they are detained under the Mental Health Act. The vast majority of sex offenders do not meet the criteria for this, mainly as they aren't suffering from a treatable mental illness.

    So unless a prisoner has agreed to take it (Androcur is the most common one used) or is sectioned then there shouldn't be anyone on it. It's not used in the way described (or if it is it's illegal).

    The rights and wrongs of this are open to debate but that's the current situation.
  15. Mate, a gang bang is not the same as gang rape, I'd be quite happy to participate in a gang bang, but I would never ever participate in gang rape. Think you need to re-write that joke :wink: