[HotDolly]

You do have to realize that chemical castration does not work. The sex drive is all in the brain, and pedophiles can still rape with a foreign object. We just need these sick freaks off the street period. Did you know in the state of Washington there is a prision on a man made island in the middle of a lake that houses all the major sex offenders (mainly pedophiles) in the state? There are a total of 5,000 inmates if I remember correctly. Who knew that rounding up a bunch of people and putting them on a island together locked up was actually a good thing!

Doc

[cestsennY]

As always, punishments should be a conditioner, and not anything done out of revulsion, revenge, or hate.

Prison, or in other words, restricted freedoms, shouldn't be meted out as a punishment, but simply with the intent of restricting the freedoms of those who threaten the safety or well-being of others.

But if rape is to intimately show one's dominance over another, and to feel the power of having broke and brought great suffering to another, then castration may only take out the sex drive and the ability to do it with their own sex organ. It is still possible to attack someone intimately without the use of one's sexual organs, or even a sex drive.

Pedophiles I do not understand at all. I've heard it is a disease of the mind, and possibly something that is incurable.

Perhaps a lack of sex drive will take away one of the driving factors behind their actions. If that were the case, then it is possibly one way of rehabilitating them. The other driving factor, the strong need to assert dominance over another would also have to be addressed somehow.

I'm still for imprisonment now, but I don't know a whole lot about this topic, so that opinion is no where near solidified.

[Bwvapays]

But I oppose any forced mutilation, torture or death penalty.

Why is that so ? Isn't it preferrable to be mutilated and free than not mutilated and in prison for 20 years or life, where one's health will deteriorate and other prisoners may harm, mutilate or even kill that person ?

Another way of seeing is : what is worse, psychological torture or physical torture. I think that many of us are subject to (more or less strong) psychological torture from time to time (in relationship, being forced-fed religious dogmas at school, knowing that Bush is president of the USA...), and overtime it can be worse than physical torture. Chemical castration is a surgical operation under anaesthesia, and shouldn't be seen as "torture". Some people decide to get operated because they don't want children anymore. What's all the fuss about doing it to rapists, if it can take away their "incontrollable pulsions" and facilitate their readaptation into society ?

[anenselog]

You do have to realize that chemical castration does not work. The sex drive is all in the brain, and pedophiles can still rape with a foreign object.

Not if you operate them in a way that they cannot have an errection anymore (not sure if it is possible, but otherwise remove the penis too).

What about lobotomising the part of their brain responsible for sex drive ? I also thing that dangerous criminals should get a lobotomy of the frontal lobe to "calm them down" (they will still be able to live normally, think normally, move normally, but with constantly "neutral" emotions). I think such method was practised in the 1930's, but some conservative Christians lobbied against it, as they saw it as immoral (the same that see abortion or cloning as "immoral"). Of course people were much more conservative and religious in the 1930's than now (well, in Europe at least), so I am rather surprised that the idea has not been revived lately.

I have heard people say "what's the point of living without emotional excitemnt ?". Well, I ask them "what's the point of living if you are imprisoned for the rest of your life ?". Again, better free and "emotionless" than "lunatic" (like any serial murderer) and living between 4 walls for the rest of one's life.

[Vedun*]

Prison, or in other words, restricted freedoms, shouldn't be meted out as a punishment, but simply with the intent of restricting the freedoms of those who threaten the safety or well-being of others.

Exactly ! That's why I think that there should be a actual punishment instead (lobotomy, castration...) to prevent dangerous/serial criminals from committing crimes again, then set them free after that. It will cost much less to society, and will enable readaptation of "treated criminals" into society.

But if rape is to intimately show one's dominance over another, and to feel the power of having broke and brought great suffering to another, then castration may only take out the sex drive and the ability to do it with their own sex organ. It is still possible to attack someone intimately without the use of one's sexual organs, or even a sex drive. In that case, a lobotomy is preferrable.

[Ayyfjicg]

Maciamo, I find your arguments quite persuasive. Some posters favour castration because of a desire for revenge or punishment, which I would not support. But it might be an effective means to ensure the rehabilitation of the offender - provided it leaves every other aspect of their mind and body intact.

I still have some misgivings - is our medical knowledge sufficient to carry out lobotomies that remove the violent desires and nothing else? How would we reintroduce them into society? I'm not convinced everyone would understand that they are now physically incapable of committing the same crime. I think everyone has heard the stories about what happens when paedophiles in particular are released.

[ForumMasta]

I still have some misgivings - is our medical knowledge sufficient to carry out lobotomies that remove the violent desires and nothing else? How would we reintroduce them into society? I'm not convinced everyone would understand that they are now physically incapable of committing the same crime. I think everyone has heard the stories about what happens when paedophiles in particular are released.

I am not sure if our medical knowledge is sufficient to "remove" only one's sexual drive, but for criminal behaviour, this has been tried and tested. Have a look at what Wikipedia says about Psychosurgery. Note that I am against lobotomy as a treatment for depressions or light mental illnesses, as it has irreversible effects. Only serious criminals with no change of successful readaptation should be treated this way.

Here is an explanation on what the frontal lobe controls. It is very basic, and it is important to understand that each of the function described below is "managed" by a different part of the frontal lobe. If I remember well my neuropsychology books, emotions and sex drive are in the central part ("between the eyes"). Judgement, reasoning and calculation are on the front-left side, language on the left-rear side, imagination and creativity on the front-right side... Of course, each tiny zone of the brain has a different function. So, the principle is to do a MRI or other brain imaging test on the patient, determine exactly where their sex drive or violent behaviour is located, then remove it.

This was done reasonably sucessfully to treat depression and schizophrenia in the 1930's, so I have no doubt that with all the knowledge acquired and technological progress made since then, such an operation to treat dangerous criminals can only be even more successful.

The frontal lobe of the brain controls a number of advanced cognitive functions, as well as motor control. Motor control is located at the rear of the frontal lobe, and is usually unaffected by psychosurgery. The anterior or prefrontal area is involved in impulse control, judgement, language, memory, motor function, problem solving, sexual behaviour, socialisation and spontaneity. Frontal lobes assist in planning, coordinating, controlling and executing behaviour.
Thus, the efficacy of psychosurgery was often related to changes in personality and reduced spontaneity (this included making the person quieter and lowering their sex drive). Certain processes related to schizophrenia are also believed to occur in the frontal lobe, and may explain some success. However, certain types of inappropriate behaviours increased as a function of reduced impulse control (in some respects they became more childlike). Further, it decreased their ability to function as a member of the community by reducing their problem solving and planning abilities and making them less flexible and adaptive. It usually had no bearing on IQ except with respect to problem solving. I wouldn't worry too much about dangerous criminals having reduced "problem solving and planning abilities and making them less flexible and adaptive". This will be all the easier to control their behaviour.

[PaulRyansew]

Thanks Maciamo. Perhaps my skepticism stems from experiences with the British NHS

[loolitoertego]

I have a hard time to consider life & thought normal with "neutral" emotions.

That's part of the punishment. Personally, I don't want to support a regime that make its citizens pay to "nurse and feed" its worst criminals in prison until they die. I agree with you that dangerous criminals (esp. serial rapists and murderers) should be forced to work for the community. But so should be unemployed people on the dole. We can't place dangerous criminals at the same level as unemployed people ! What's more, nothing but a precise lobotomy can guarantee that these "working criminals" won't escape or cause more problems. I believe that taking their emotions away is a good enough punishment. After all some ordinary people did choose that method to cure their depression (which is far too radical).

I am for rehabilitation of criminals, and for having them pay back society for what they did. The best way I see to have them work in a docile manner, assure that they won't escape and commit more crimes, and punish them all at once, is lobotomy and government work (or any work that could benefit the victims' family if any).

I just don't understand how life in prison is more beneficial to either the criminal in question or society.

[mikelangr]

Worst is a matter of opinion. I see murder still as much worse than rape. The physical & psychological damage of rape usually can be treated/healed (& the victim's still there to be compensated), death can't.

I was talking about (serial) murderers here. Or serial pedophile rapist-murderers like the infamous Dutroux in Belgium 10 years ago, who kidnapped, raped and killed many young girls.

Well, that depends. In Germany we pay unemployment insurance. If you pay for it, I don't see why you should be forced to do a job you don't like in case you need the insurance. If you pay for it... But there are many people here who never managed to find a job after their studies and are on the dole. It does not really motivates them to look for a job...

AFAIK, lobotomy is far from precise.
Lobotomy is mutilation.
A lobotomy is not a guarantee that serials would not cause any more problems (since the underlying problems may not lie in the part of the brain you lobotomise). As medical technologies improve, we will be able to do more precise operations. MRI would probably be able to determine the exact part(s) of the brain where the problem lies.

With government work, you again have the problem that you pay them with tax payers' money. The idea is to make them work for free, and pay their food and accommodation like tax-payers would have in jail. In other words, they are in jail, but go out everyday to do public work to pay for their tax-funded food and accommodation. This in turn reduces the tax-money used in public works, so tax payers end up paying less.

[Indidockobeni]

CP is irreversible & hence a punishment that I simply cannot support if only for the reason that I don't trust the infallibility of justice...It's mutilation, which is worse than torture. If they themselves decide to have it done, no problem. But force it upon them? Nope.

I agree, but I thought about it from another angle. Could we consider these urges as a mental illness? Wouldn't we then want to treat that illness? Of course, there is still the issue of consent. But don't we sometimes say that certain mental illnesses render the patient incapable of giving consent? I'm still undecided.

[JohnMitchel]

My view. To the thoughts, i respond immediately with emotions.
"i want to castrate all rapists of children, without anasthetics". :
Thinking more rationally .. rapists and pedophiles shold go to prison , to keep other people safe from them , and also so they can have a rehabilitattion programme.

It depends if they committed the crime once or many times .. if they committed once , there is perhaps a chance they could "recover" ( not committ again ) .. although it is a risk.

If they committed more than one time , they shold go to prison for a long time , because it's a suitable punishment .. but a lot of the time , sentences are really short , a lot too short , not just for rape/pedophile , but for other serious crimes like murders. A punishment shold be a proper punishment.

What about lobotomising the part of their brain responsible for sex drive ? I also thing that dangerous criminals should get a lobotomy of the frontal lobe to "calm them down"

i can't belive it! There are really people who think this way?!? That's really horrible and nazi. If someone is a dangerous criminal, why not just keep them locked up in prison? ( Dutch Baka said well .. not a luxury hotel .. a place where it's punishment , not priveleges. ) Oh, but i forget .. that costs money, doesn't it?

_______________________

PS

I always ask the fabled question "what is human?"

Malice and misery.

[Jxlacvio]

Could we consider these urges as a mental illness? Wouldn't we then want to treat that illness?

At least in Germany the individual case is reviewed. If a mental illness is diagnosed, the perpetrators will not end up in prison but in special medical institutions.

worst criminals

Worst is a matter of opinion. I see murder still as much worse than rape. The physical & psychological damage of rape usually can be treated/healed (& the victim's still there to be compensated), death can't.
But so should be unemployed people on the dole. Well, that depends. In Germany we pay unemployment insurance. If you pay for it, I don't see why you should be forced to do a job you don't like in case you need the insurance.
What's more, nothing but a precise lobotomy can guarantee that these "working criminals" won't escape or cause more problems. AFAIK, lobotomy is far from precise.
Lobotomy is mutilation.
A lobotomy is not a guarantee that serials would not cause any more problems (since the underlying problems may not lie in the part of the brain you lobotomise).
The best way I see to have them work in a docile manner, assure that they won't escape and commit more crimes, and punish them all at once, is lobotomy and government work With government work, you again have the problem that you pay them with tax payers' money.

[Fededorbprago]

The criminal. I think your idea is great, but it is after all the criminals body. They should have the right to choose whether they get something permenant done to it, or sit in a jail cell for years on end.

[bettingonosports]

Perhaps the solution to this would be an option of either imprisonment or a castration of some sort, which could also include a lobotomy (is it truly reliable?) for some of those with a driving need to dominate another.

I have a different idea for prison, but I'll start a different thread for that.

[SDorothy28]

I was talking about (serial) murderers here. Or serial pedophile rapist-murderers like the infamous Dutroux in Belgium 10 years ago, who kidnapped, raped and killed many young girls.

I see. Dutroux surely doesn't look like being resocialisable (although you never know). But this case is interesting insofar as IIRC not only Dutroux & compagnon were involved, but also some women. How would you go about giving them the snip?

As medical technologies improve, we will be able to do more precise operations. Not for quite some time, I suppose.

MRI would probably be able to determine the exact part(s) of the brain where the problem lies. That implies that there could be one particular region in the brain identifiable with the problem. This I doubt.
Currently we don't know enough about the brain anyway, but what I remember from some articles I read in recent years, brain structure is highly complicated with a lot of interconnections of various kinds. Not only the neuron connections are important, but also how & when they fire, which hormones are distributed, & probably some other stuff.


The idea is to make them work for free, and pay their food and accommodation like tax-payers would have in jail. In other words, they are in jail, but go out everyday to do public work to pay for their tax-funded food and accommodation. This in turn reduces the tax-money used in public works, so tax payers end up paying less. I thought your comment was in response to my compensation suggestion.
What you describe is common practice already, AFAIK (this doesn't really pay for all state expenses, but that would probably go against the prohibition of forced labour, anyway). But I'm no friend of jails, as stated above. I prefer the perpetrators to be able to make a decent living & pay their victims instead of the state.

[Lymnempomma]

The criminal. I think your idea is great, but it is after all the criminals body. They should have the right to choose whether they get something permenant done to it, or sit in a jail cell for years on end.

Since when should the worst criminals get the right to choose what justice they deserve ? In the USA or Japan, criminals condemned to death don't have the right to object to the ruling, because they are opposed to death penalty in principle. Likewise, I don't often see judges changing their ruling because the criminals is afraid about what might become of his/her health/body in a high security prison.

[tramdoctorsss]

Perhaps the solution to this would be an option of either imprisonment or a castration of some sort, which could also include a lobotomy (is it truly reliable?) for some of those with a driving need to dominate another.
I have a different idea for prison, but I'll start a different thread for that.

An option for the judge or for the criminal ? Naturally, I never said that all criminals should get a lobotomy. Never ever for petty crimes, and not even for a one-time rapist or a murder with mitigating circumstances. Lobotomy is only for cases with no chance of readaptation who would normally end their days in prison (thus not making it an exceedingly harsh punishment).

[Alex Photographer]

Well, this is a very emotional issue...

...it's pretty much impossible to avoid offending on this one--so I'll just speak my mind.

What punishment?

I really don't know--in certain circimstances I'm not sure any is justified, in other circumstances I don't think you could be punished cruelly enough.

The biggest issue here is that anyone willing to do something like this in spite of the massive cultural taboos and the fear of horriic legal consequences is really not going to be detered.

These are primarily emotion driven crimes and as such logic usually doesn't figure into the decision.

There's also the issue of how severe a crime it is: With murder you're dead, but I find it hard to believe that rape is better than being killed. Granted I've never experienced either, but a murder victim doesn't have to cope with the experience of being killed, so I'd say rape is worse. As for pedophilles...

...man, that's a tough one--I don't think we have a sufficient understanding of the thing to even start with it. I mean, what qualifies? How do we determine whether a person is mature enought to have sexual relations? Because the whole "one age fits all" thing is bulls**t.

In fact, sex in general is largely misunderstood--it's such an emotional issue, so complex, and has so many fears and taboos and desires involved that we really don't understand it at all.

If you look at it logically, there should be a distinction between sex for procreation, sex for social reasons, and sex for enjoyment.

Of these, I'm not sure all of them should be forbidden to children--but I don't think we're mature enough as a species to know where to draw the line.

And really, if we can't tell at what point something becoemes wrong, what the h*** are we doing punishing it?

This is just one of those things we're going to hqave to blunder though untill we figure out the answer--but I suspect we're a long way off.

[erroxiainsona]

Why is that so ?

Because corporal punishment is so ... well ... medieval.
Worse: CP is irreversible & hence a punishment that I simply cannot support if only for the reason that I don't trust the infallibility of justice.

(they will still be able to live normally, think normally, move normally, but with constantly "neutral" emotions)

I have a hard time to consider life & thought normal with "neutral" emotions.