Somehow I don't feel entirely comfortable with it, for said human rights reasons. Of course, having a child molested makes me even a lot more uncomfortable, so maybe it's a lesser of two evils situation?
Mr Tusk's refusal "to call such individuals – such creatures – human beings" doesn't sound too good either. It's a little more complicated than that and reminds me of calling Hitler a monster, instead of looking at what humans are capable of doing. As hard as it is, people have to stop thinking about such situations from the vigilante point of view of parents, keep a sober and clear head and think it through.
It's mostly this, that sounds a bit off:
"Supporters are reminding those against the move that the effects of chemical castration are not permanent, nor are they a guarantee that a paedophile will not re-offend."
What's the point then? It may lower the risk, okay, but doesn't eliminate it. If this law gets through, one will have to see how it goes in the next few years. Maybe it checks out successfully.
This is the first time I read about the British model, where offenders have to agree to get treated. That I can get behind entirely.
Mr Tusk's refusal "to call such individuals – such creatures – human beings" doesn't sound too good either. It's a little more complicated than that and reminds me of calling Hitler a monster, instead of looking at what humans are capable of doing. As hard as it is, people have to stop thinking about such situations from the vigilante point of view of parents, keep a sober and clear head and think it through.
It's mostly this, that sounds a bit off:
"Supporters are reminding those against the move that the effects of chemical castration are not permanent, nor are they a guarantee that a paedophile will not re-offend."
What's the point then? It may lower the risk, okay, but doesn't eliminate it. If this law gets through, one will have to see how it goes in the next few years. Maybe it checks out successfully.
This is the first time I read about the British model, where offenders have to agree to get treated. That I can get behind entirely.
Both my initial reaction and my more deliberate one. The big thing I'd emphasize is that cavalierly declaring "person x is inhuman so anything we do to them is OK" is in much the same vein as what sexual and other predators do to dehumanize their victims so their conscience will excuse abuse. That doesn't mean castration is automatically off the table for pedophiles (though, as Tim and some in the article note, chemical castration is a very different thing than surgical castration. ) Societies around the world strip violent criminals of many previously enjoyed civil rights (most obviously freedom of movement and the right to most privacy) on the grounds of 1) governments obligation to public safety and 2) that voluntary commission of violent crime constitutes a forfeiture of many rights. As much heat as America gets in the West for our gun laws, if you're a convicted felon you can't legally own a gun, and even the NRA is OK with that; I don't think anyone except convicted felons objects.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Castration of paedophiles
21/04/2010 11:44:03 AM
- 832 Views
Hmm
21/04/2010 12:04:45 PM
- 396 Views
Yeah, you covered it well.
21/04/2010 02:44:53 PM
- 477 Views
More or less agree
21/04/2010 05:20:43 PM
- 458 Views
The chemicals they use in The Netherlands, for example, decrease the sex drive.
21/04/2010 05:26:58 PM
- 332 Views
Calling it "castration" makes it sound a million times worse than it actually is.
21/04/2010 12:44:30 PM
- 425 Views
One quick response: Alan Turing
21/04/2010 03:43:33 PM
- 450 Views
Are they really using the same chemicals as in 1952?
21/04/2010 04:40:30 PM
- 385 Views
You'll have problems finding medicines that don't have any risks associated with them... *NM*
21/04/2010 05:26:11 PM
- 147 Views
If they won't let us just shot them then cutting thier balls off will have to do
21/04/2010 03:24:22 PM
- 460 Views
Yeah... no. *NM*
21/04/2010 04:06:57 PM
- 150 Views
Why are you against this? *NM*
21/04/2010 06:54:20 PM
- 138 Views
First, because I don't knee-jerk to BURN IN HELL FOREVERRRRR whenever I see "pedophile"
21/04/2010 07:28:34 PM
- 372 Views
Although I'm not a psychologist
21/04/2010 11:29:04 PM
- 333 Views
No...just kill them *NM*
22/04/2010 04:44:47 AM
- 151 Views
I'm with you Mook.
22/04/2010 05:08:46 AM
- 368 Views
Well, that's kind of the point, right?
22/04/2010 06:50:11 AM
- 371 Views
I also agree.
22/04/2010 01:15:50 PM
- 335 Views
It will keep them from hurting more children *NM*
22/04/2010 01:53:23 PM
- 127 Views
there are many ways to accomplish that.
22/04/2010 03:10:02 PM
- 419 Views
you can make any argument sound absurd if that is goal
22/04/2010 05:07:56 PM
- 349 Views
You misunderstood my logic.
22/04/2010 05:11:30 PM
- 383 Views