Chemical castration for paedophiles.

[eva-dav]

I don't think anyone can deny that the recent rise in convictions of sexual offences is stretching the prison service to the brink.

Most don't believe there is any cure for paedophilia, so is chemical castration the answer for repeat offenders?

I'm not suggesting we go quite as far as Russia, where it can be ordered by a court, although I'm open to persuasion on that.

What surprises me is that while most offenders express deep sorrow for their crimes as mitigation, so few volunteer for the treatment.  I see no better way to demonstrate true contrition than to have the temptation permanently removed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11169677/Raise-funds-to-pay-for-chemical-cas...

[lambsy_uk]

---

@astrologica wrote:
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are acceptable to most people these days because we are more enlightened, and we realise that they are natural states. We know that they are natural because they occur not only in humans, but in the animal kingdom too. I wonder does Paedophilia occur in the animal kingdom? If it does not, then we could say that it is not a natural state, and an aberration or abnormality in the human race.
As for castration, of any type, maybe every convicted Paedophile should be left to the victims mother to deal with! Problem solved, although I do think it would involve castration ...in a very basic manner.

---

Yes it does occur in the animal kingdom!

[d_cor99]

Oh so there are actually crimes lol

So you can tell me which section under the mental health act it would fall?

[lambsy_uk]

---

@d_cor99 wrote:

Is that not a bit harsh? Would you have no sympathy for gay people if homosexuality was still unlawful?

homosexuality, in the same way you mention paedophilia isn't 'unlawful', wasn't 'unlawful' in itself.

Yes, no law is broken unless they actually do something, but the point is someone can't help being a paedophile anymore than the can help being hectro or homosexual! 

I believe for known offenders we need to remove any opportunity.

So everyone removes their children from the world, ergo no problem, wow what a solution

No only YOU have suggested removing all children, that seems a tad silly!

but we accept hetrosexuality and homosexuality but not paedophilia.

Because?? might be they don't involve wanting to have physical relations with children

But all are a state of mind we have little or no control over!!!

Remember paedophilia is not a crime and therefore there are no victims unless an assault takes place!!

These are the facts!

Actually they aren't, because they are wrong!

Then show me where they are wrong!

I too find your comparison confused and insulting and many homosexuals would i suspect.

It is not a comparison it is an illustration; an illustration that a paedophile does not choose to be a paedophile any more the others choose to be gay or straight!

What acts? Paedophilia is not something people do and  nor is it a crime!

There are no victims of paedophilia because paedophilia is not a crime! Sexual assault is the crime!!!

These response are just  too ridiculous for words

We are talking about crimes, & whilst some paedophiles continue on the same line as you,

talking as if no crimes relating to paedophilia exits nor do victims, who you show zero regard for

it is merely diversionary rubbish

Nobody said crimes don't exist that relate to paedophilia, just that paedophilia itself is not a crime! Just like thinking about strangling your wife is not a crime!!!

That is my opinion and I know my integrity remains intact!

lol, well jolly good, glad something is intact

Yep!

We must understand and empathise with them - why? would it stop them offending

current thinking is it's a management problem as no 'cure' exists

seems to me taking the urge away helps in management

Blimey we actually agree on something. Of course it is a management problem but I believe it's right to give proper consideration to how we manage it for the benefit of all!

Summary 'we must sympathise with paedophiles- and there are no crimes or victims because that would be silly to suggest and spoil a poor rant

That is a ridiculous statement for so many reasons; firstly I don't recall mentioning sympathy not emapathy, just understanding which could perhaps lead to a safer society, because the way we handle things now isn't working! There are crimes committed by paedophiles and so victims of those crimes, but paedophilia is NOT a crime in itself!!! If you can't comprehend that then how can you help with the problem!

---

[lambsy_uk]

---

@d_cor99 wrote:

Oh so there are actually crimes lol

So you can tell me which section under the mental health act it would fall?

---

The physical manifestaion (assault) is the crime, paedophilia is not!

I don't know that they do fall under the mental health act, perhaps they should so that they could be detained; but I do know that their mental health has equal status with all health issues; that is the law!!! The law does not discriminate even if you do!

[joe_bloggs*]

A mate of mine says he'd willingly castrate them for free using 2 house bricks,

I said would it not hurt?

He says only if you get your thumbs in the way..........

[saasher2012]

Have you evidence to support that & I don't just mean an odd case?

[d_cor99]

Yes, no law is broken unless they actually do something, but the point is someone can't help being a paedophile anymore than the can help being hectro or homosexual! 

Then don’t compare the two in the way you do, as it’s misleading and looks deliberately so – origins of paedophilia is not universally agreed/accepted

No only YOU have suggested removing all children, that seems a tad silly!

Was a corollary of your advice to remove all opportunity -

Then show me where they are wrong!

Already have if you care to read, clearly you haven’t

IIOC offenses charged under POCA

That is child abuse images none contact

But all are a state of mind we have little or no control over!!!

Err there is state of mind and acting upon that, that’s control. We all have it

Nobody said crimes don't exist that relate to paedophilia, just that paedophilia itself is not a crime! Just like thinking about strangling your wife is not a crime!!!

You are drum banging now on the same one non point – so what, clearly crimes do exist as do victims – your empathy for those is where ?  ….

That is a ridiculous statement for so many reasons; firstly I don't recall mentioning sympathy not emapathy, just understanding which could perhaps lead to a safer society, because the way we handle things now isn't working! There are crimes committed by paedophiles and so victims of those crimes, but paedophilia is NOT a crime in itself!!! If you can't comprehend that then how can you help with the problem!

Semantics, who is ‘understanding’ - safer society how. More drum banging on paedophilia is not a crime in itself – neither was homosexuality , but you forgot to mention that in your comparison

The law does not discriminate even if you do!

I discriminate - how?

let me guess your next reply..paedophilia is not a crime ... lol

[saasher2012]

Sexual interaction as far as I know in the animal kingdom has in fact nothing to do with sex, it is a bonding & dominance act, most animals will drive their offspring away to avoid incest , although in fairness it does occur but usually because of mans interference in their environment & food supply.

[d_cor99]

To lambsy drummer

Your illustration between homosexuality and paedohilia is both confused and insulting

Firstly neither state was a crime in itself, yet you only drum bang on one, and conveniently forget the other

There is an implied assumption that comparison makes in that it may suggest acts of paedphilia might/ought to be non criminal

and 'move on' with more enlightenment time- something many paedophiles themselves would desire

homosexuality in general, apart from paedophilic acts, are between consenting adults - I dont see how anyone could think a 4 year old could consent to such acts

[suzieseaside]

Seems to me there is some confusion or at least a difference in opinion of the definition of paedophilia and paedophile. 

Not all act on their feelings, thank goodness, and I think that lambsy is only trying to point this out - that it is a state of mind and until it is acted upon (and that would include the criminal offence of downloading inappropriate pictures which has increased dramatically in recent years because the internet enables it) no crime has been committed.

In this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/how-can-we-prevent-child-abuse-if-we-dont-understand-pae...

Paedophilia ... is broadly defined as adult sexual attraction to children and young people below the legal age of sexual consent. That means a paedophile is someone who is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to children (although they may also be sexually attracted to adults as well). That much is relatively simple, at least as long as we can agree on what a ‘child’ is and when a child turns into a sexually mature, self-determining adult; a transition we place, in this country, at the age of 16.

What gets a bit more complicated is distinguishing between paedophilia (the sexual attraction) and child sexual abuse (adult sexual contact with children below the legal age of consent). Paedophilia is, strictly speaking, in a separate conceptual category to child sexual abuse, although in everyday life the word ‘paedophile’ is typically taken to mean a person (usually a man) who has sexually offended against a child.

The article in the link then desribes some studies that have attempted to find out the proportion of adult men that can be aroused by children. 8 studies in all and how representative these studies really are I don't know.  I was surprised at what it says.

These lab studies indicate that somewhere between 17 per cent and ? per cent (figure is missing but given following sentence must have been somewhere near 50%)  of a ‘normal’ sample of men (who do not describe themselves as ‘paedophile’) seem to be capable of being sexually aroused by young children, under the age of twelve years old. In other words, roughly one in six to more than one in every two adult men may be capable of being sexually attracted to children.

There are many basic questions about paedophiles to which we do not yet know the answers. We find it hard to pin down how to describe it - is it a sexual orientation? A medical diagnosis or a psychiatric condition, perhaps a paraphilia (a disorder of sexual function) or a fetish? We struggle to figure out where it might come from - is it an individual genetic fault in the ‘wiring’ of the brain? Does it come from trauma? Or is it merely a statistically inevitable part of the continuum of ordinary human sexuality, the tail of a bell curve that will always exist? Once someone has it, what can they do about it – is it in fact something that can be chosen? Or altered?

Perhaps most importantly, we do not know how many people there are out there who feel this attraction. It seems to me that if we want to keep children safe from sexual harm, then surely knowing what we’re dealing with would be a good first step. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees.

[d_cor99]

No confusion, thanks

state of mind applies to all crimes - nothing much different there, and no, I think most understand that, without its endless repeats, but that actually isn't the point, the crimes are, which some seem to want to avoid by continual banging one irrelevant drum

There are actually several clinical definitions and category's, most of little importance to common usage just clinicians 

and actually that definition above isn't really accurate, clinically, though not all clinicians agree or use 

Remember paedophilia is not a crime and therefore there are no victims unless an assault takes place!!!

I pointed out he was wrong, and gave an example of IIOC 

Understanding is fine, as some seem to think such paedophilic related crimes do not exist, or try to pretend they don’t. Paedophiles as shown by some recent arrests, are not someone ‘out there’ but are often professionals, people with positions of trust, authority, not just some obvious deviant.

That’s understanding

[malacandran]

I suppose, looking back to the Stone Age, quite a few men must've had sex with girls under the age of 16.

They did it, because at that time it wasn't against the Law.  There weren't any Laws . At least, not written down.

But they were clearly paedophiles. Even if they didn't know it. 

Should they be charged with historic sex abuse?

[fallen-archie]

There will be an under performing legal practice out there very willing to prosecute historic activities. I wonder how many of us have ancestral deviants?

[margaret*e]

I've seen bits of a few of these programmes, and often wonder if those so determined to defend paedophiles are that way inclined themselves.

Also someone mentioned the abusers of children may have been abused in their childhood.

I've never understood this excuse, surely the last thing you would want in that case would be for your children to suffer the same abuse.

[saasher2012]

Very good points, &I agree with them, the question posed to me because I was in favour of the harshest of punishments, not because ive been abused but because I'm female, no more no less.
Myra Hinley, is a prime example , she was more hated than Ian Brady because I don't think any right minded female could ever comprehend that this woman could Stand by &watch &help this man abuse & torture a child, Rose West another & so the list goes on. There can be no excuses for this sort of thing!!!.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@d_cor99 wrote:

I pointed out he was wrong, and gave an example of IIOC 

---

You don't have to be a paedophile to be guilty of posessing indecent images of children

[lambsy_uk]

---

@saasher2012 wrote:
Have you evidence to support that & I don't just mean an odd case?

---

I recall wildlife programmes showing apes doing it with anything in sight.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@d_cor99 wrote:

That is child abuse images none contact

---

I'd suggest not all paedophiles view/distribute images!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@d_cor99 wrote:

To lambsy drummer

Now you're acting like an idiot! If you wish to address me 'Lambsy' will do!

Your illustration between homosexuality and paedohilia is both confused and insulting

I'd suggest ther's little confusion for most people. I have explained why I chose that illustration!

Firstly neither state was a crime in itself, yet you only drum bang on one, and conveniently forget the other

There is an implied assumption that comparison makes in that it may suggest acts of paedphilia might/ought to be non criminal

The implication is that neither is a choice, end off!

I dont see how anyone could think a 4 year old could consent to such acts

 Same here!

---

[lambsy_uk]

---

@suzieseaside wrote:

Perhaps most importantly, we do not know how many people there are out there who feel this attraction. It seems to me that if we want to keep children safe from sexual harm, then surely knowing what we’re dealing with would be a good first step. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees.

---

I agree; hence my mention of understanding.