h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes, you're right, it is possible. Even rape is possible. It's all a matter of taking (medically) the right chemicals. I also agree with the fact that power is equally, if not more of a motivator then the act itself. But I do argue that once castrated both the value obtained from power and the act itself will diminish to the point where the crime is not commited. Personally, I've never heard of anyone who has been castrated commiting an act of rape, or sexual assult for that matter. That's not to say none have, but it may indicate that they are rare.

I'm trying to decide how I feel about castration for rapists and child molesters. Perhaps I should be open about where I'm coming from, here. I was raped when I was four years old. For personal reasonsm, I don't want to go into detail about what happened to me. But I will say the man who did it was never tried in a court of law for what he did to me.

I guess I would feel better about castration as an option if I understood how it worked. It seems that we know very little about what causes people to commit violent crimes, and especially sex crimes. Is it genetic? Hormonal? Is the environment to blame? We really don't know, and so I tend to think that we also can't entirely understand how castration works as a preventative measure.

Let's go down a hypothetical road. Let's pretend we know what causes people to be pedophiles and rapists. Chances are that there is more than one cause. Perhaps castration is a solution for some of those causes, but for others it doesn't help at all. Perhaps for some cases, castration actually increases the severity of person's mental problem or causes them to have two problems instead of just the one. Wouldn't it be considered unjust punishment to castrate men in this second category?

Okay. So back to reality. We don't understand what causes people to rape or molest children. But we have some evidence that castration is effective in some percentage of cases. So let's say we castrate all rapists and child molesters. Can't it still be argued that we are giving out unjust punishment somewhere along the line, since we must admit that the castration could be worsening problems or creating secondary problems in a some of these men -- with no benefit whatsoever to society? I mean, do we really think castration works purely as a "punishment"?

I can't say that I would entirely rule out castration. I would make it voluntary and free for rapists and pedophiles, and I would eliminate judicial pressure by making sure that there is no reduced-sentence reward for those men who choose castration. But in my mind, the default sentence for that sort of behavior shouldn't be castration. It should be life in prison without parole.

I have serious doubts about whether a rapist or child molester could ever hope to benefit society once released -- with or without castration. On some very deep level, these are selfish individuals who don't have anyone else's interests at heart but their own. So to me, the question is not whether they should be castrated when they get out of jail or not. The question is what the heck are they doing out of jail in the first place.

boy, i nap for a few days and these subjects just take off, don't they?

what caught my attention while i was catching up on the conversation, was post 115 by neugen amoeba. he(?) says that "imprisonment is pointless", and he is "opposed to punishment". i don't really know what to say, but those of you who are familiar with my postings know i'm going to try anyway.

i am gathering, neugen, that you feel that all crime is committed as a result of an imbalance of some type in the violator. essentially, no one is really a criminal, everyone is just a victim of their environment and the effects that those environments have on their psyches. following this logic, no one is guilty of any crime ever, because criminal actions are merely reactions to circumstances beyond their control. therefore, we shouldn't punish the perpetrators of violent and criminal acts, but rehabilitate them instead, because they are all suffering from some type of illness or imbalance. am i following you so far?

if i am, allow me to jump off here, and bring a few things to your attention. imprisonment is not pointless. the primary function of imprisonment is not to help the imprisoned, but to protect the rest of us from him (or her) on the basis of the crimes that have been committed. and i would certainly hope that you did not literally mean that you were opposed to punishment in the strictest sense. because if you are, i don't ever want to meet your children. ever. punishment (negative reinforcement: i.e. loss of priveleges, etc.) is an integral part of child rearing. it provides the balance necessary for positive reinforcement. everyone must have discipline of some variety. in effect, lack of punishment is, in itself, a punishment.

i tend to agree with everyone else that castration shouldn't be considered an alternative to punishment. rehabilitation is a wonderful idea. it will never work on a grand scale. how do you tell, for instance, if a criminal is truly rehabilitated or just a very good actor? if rehabilitation is the key to freedom, i bet a lot of convicts will learn to act in relatively short order. in order for rehabilitation to truly work, it must be truly desired by the person receiving it. if a person has no desire to be "cured", then the best rehabilitation in the world will fail. you need only look at the number of alcoholics, druggies, and smokers who cannot give up their habits for proof of this.

i stated several posts ago that rehabilitation should be granted to those who desperately desire it. they should be made to prove their intentions, they should be made to suffer for it to prove that truly are repentant and wish to change. when someone this desperate to turn their life around receives rehabilitation, you can produce the results you seek to make. but to think you can do this for every criminal is purely idealistic. it is as idealistic as the notion of having a perfect justice system, perfect jails, and perfect trials.

Chemical castration is hardly more "extreme" than the practice of issuing lithium or lergactyl to mental patients.

I don't know whether it's effective or not- I certainly haven't heard of any trials "in the large" of its effectiveness. That's why I stated "I'd support it if it were effective".

I think the notion of sterilization should be nipped in the bud, so to speak. Should a DUI be sterilized? What about a shoplifter? Someone who didn't or couldn't pay a fine? It's a horrifying proposition. It denies the possibility of rehabilitation. It eradicates anything which might bind a former criminal to society. It is handing the state a right to control the kind of citizens it will have. Should the poor also be sterilized so the state doesn't have to pay for welfare in future? What about those who fail high-school? Who can't run 100m in 15 seconds?

Chemical castration is hardly more "extreme" than the practice of issuing lithium or lergactyl to mental patients.

I don't know whether it's effective or not- I certainly haven't heard of any trials "in the large" of its effectiveness. That's why I stated "I'd support it if it were effective".

I think the notion of sterilization should be nipped in the bud, so to speak. Should a DUI be sterilized? What about a shoplifter? Someone who didn't or couldn't pay a fine? It's a horrifying proposition. It denies the possibility of rehabilitation. It eradicates anything which might bind a former criminal to society. It is handing the state a right to control the kind of citizens it will have. Should the poor also be sterilized so the state doesn't have to pay for welfare in future? What about those who fail high-school? Who can't run 100m in 15 seconds?

Broelan, I would like to address all your objections, but that would imply you have a valid argument, which you don't.

You may want to read earlier posts that already covered the topics you are raising now.

As to summarising on my behalf out of context, I find that INCREDIBLY RUDE! All the arguments I put forward were based on reasoning, observations, etc. If you have a problem with the bases for my conclusions (the reasoning etc) then say so, and you may want to provide your own reasoning etc., to counter. Don't try to imagine how I feel, respond to what I write. And don't quote me out of context.

This is in response to Hal's post. I'm not familiar with lergactyl, but there is at least some understanding about how lithium works and criteria for deciding when its use is appropriate. With castration, we know very little. Doctors have no real criteria for determining whether castration is going to be effective. You spin the wheel and take your chances.

My main concern is that institutionalized castration might lead to a sort of social complacency, where we release some of our worst criminals back into society without any proof that they have been reformed. After all, castration is less expensive and less difficult than any program you'd create to inspire real reform. And the jails are overcrowded.

A castrated criminal doesn't necessarily have any sense of compassion. There's no reason to believe they have gained a new perspective on members of the opposite sex or children. Whatever socialization problems or self-confidence issues might have contributed to their actions remain unresolved. So they might lack the hormones to rape or molest again. But chances are good that they will continue to pose a risk to society in some other capacity. That's just IMO.

Fragilis: When I first ventured castration, my point was to have an alternative to imprisonment which has not proved too effective. This form of treatment will only work on those who are sexually deviant in some extreme, and who wants to remove themselves as a threat to society. It's better than suicide.

Some people rape because of a sense of power. They cannot be treated through castration (except it might remove some of their agression, but these people are usually too selfish to realize the problem they pose to society. Forced castration is out of the question, as it would violate the integrety of the human being)
Some people rape because of a deviant sexual nature/mental disorder. Some of these people can be treated (I am tempted to say aided) through castration. In my mind, a convicted rapist should be subjected to psychological scrutiny, and if he proves to be of the kind who simply is unable to control his sexual notions, he should be offered castration.

The treatment is not a magic solution to the evergrowing problem of sexual crime, but in my mind, it's a tool that can help some. Not a lot, but some.

Another issue; Money. It would probably be very expensive to map out who can be helped and who cannot.

Fragilis-

Firstly, let me reiterate that I said I'd support [chemical] castration were it to be shown effective. That is decidedly qualified support. Nor have I said that this should be the only rehabilitation programme for offenders.

What is clear, however, is that if there is little known about the efficacy of a treatment, we should explore it rather than dismissing it; i.e. it can be trialled.

However, for this type of crime reoffending rates are high, and of course punishments-as-deterrents have no effect. Nor is there any accepted way of rehabilitating such offenders. Unless there is to be an increase in the length of sentencing for these types of offences, or simething similar such as a "two strikes and you're out" policy, it would make sense to at least explore ways to cut re-offending.

Those that cannot or do not respond to rehabilition, in whatever form, can be dealt with in the same way as now; incarceration.

Secondly, relatively little is known about the functioning of the brain, particularly with regard to how it facilitates the -mind-. Particular areas can be shown to be associated with particular functions... but this is a picture painted with a broad brush. There is no standard model of the psyche either, and but a thin theoretical basis for any schools of psychiatry. Treating a person with lithium, for example, is almost as informed as fixing your television by hitting it. That doesn't mean that hitting it won't do the job.

I'll be the first to agree that our understanding of the brain today is sorely lacking. I'm reminded of the four humours of early medical understanding, and the leechings that resulted from a poor understanding. I sometimes wonder how the future will view our psychologists and psychiatrists. But I take some comfort that progress is happening so quickly.

I will start this reply by pointing out that I am a humanist.

I also believe that everyone is capable of rehabilitation, we just have to find the right mechanisms to assist in that rehabilitation.

I do not believe that any one (person or state) has the right to take anothers life, the fact that the taking of the life may be claimed to be retribution for a crime does not make it justifiable or acceptable.

Civilised societies should be above the use of capital punishment; they should also be able to deliver justice in a fair and even handed manner treating all their citizens/peoples the same way irrespective of race, colour, creed, gender, orientation or financial means. Further they should be more interested in establishing the causes of criminal behaviour and attempting to eliminate these (e.g. low incomes, social exclusion, financial exclusion, ghettoisation, poor housing, poor educational standards etc.).

Which of the so called civilised nations can really claim to behave this way? None - certainly niether the UK, Western Europe or the USA can as their penal and judicial systems clearly discriminate against people of colour and the poor.

In conclusion the answer to our current level of criminality is not to perpetrate a further crime (it may not be a crime on your statute books but if you werent the state it would be) by taking someones life it is to rehabilitate or treat, if they are mentally ill, that person.